HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-0088NO. !~045~669
IN THE MATTER OF : ~ IN THE COURT OF
THE MARRIAGE OF
DOMESTIC RELATIONS NO. 5
JAMES EDWARD GERLAND and
CARROL ANN GERLAND
AND IN THE INTEREST OF
DAWN EVETTE GERLAND, Child
HARRIS COUNTY, TE~YA$
cause.
DECREE OF DIVORCE
On the llth day of February, 1976, trial on the merits was held in ~hi,s
The Petitioner appeared in person and by attorney and announced ready
for trial. The Respondent's attorney withdrew contest~
The Court, after examining the pleadings and listening to She evidenc~
arg inds that it has jurisdiction over this cause ~nd ~he
parties and that Petitioner's Original Petition for Divorce has been on fi'la in
this Court for at least sixty days.
The Court finds that at the time this suit was filed, Petitioner had
been a domiciliary of this state for the preceding six months and a resident of
this county for the preceding ninety days.
~h~~d by ei ther of the parties, ail matters
controversy,Aincluding all questions of fact and of law, were submitted '~_o the
Court. The Court is of the opinion that the material allegations in Petitioner:s
Original Petition for Divorce are substantially correct and have been proved by
full and satisfactory evidence. The Court finds that a divorce should be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the bonds of matrimony between the Peti-
tioner, JAMES EDWARD GERLAND, and Respondent, CARROL ANN GERLAND, be and are
hereby dissolved, and a decree of divorce is hereby granted to Petitioner.
The Court finds that there were born to or adopted by the parties of
this marriage the following named child now under the age of eighteen years:
DAWN EVETTE GERLAND, female, born 9-23-75.
The Court finds that the best interest of the children will be served
by appointing Respondent, CARROL. ANN GERLAND, as managing conservator, to have
the rights, duties, and responsibilities set forth below.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND DECREED that Respondent be and is hereby
appointed managing conservator of the children.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECREED 'that the managing conservator shall
have all the rights, privileges, duties and powers of a parent, to the exclusion
of the other parent, subject to the rights, privileges, duties and powers of a ~
possessory conservator as named in this order.
The Court further finds that the best interest of the child will be
served by appointing Petitioner, JAMES EDWAP~ GERLA~, as a possessory conservator
of the child.'-
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED A~ DECREED ~hat JAMES EDWARD GERLAND, Pe~i~ioner~
be and is hereby appointed possessory conservator of the child.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECREED that the possessory conservator shall
have the possession of the child as follows: Petitioner shall have visitation
privileges with said minor child as follows:
1. 30 days in June, July or August with 30 days prior written
notice.
2. When the child becomes the age of 5 years Petitioner shall have
visitation rights each December 25 at 6:00 P.M. until January 2
at 6:00 P.M.; 1 week each Easter with~0 days prior notice;~-~
~e .ek_eaqh Th _an/~_g~v~i~g~tO~gays--px~i~r L~oti~e.
3. If Petitioner is in county where child resides, he shall have
rights of visitation at all reasonable times with at least 48
hours prior notice.
No visitation period shall interfere with school.
The Court, having considered the circumstances of the parents, finds
that Petitioner, JAMES EDWARD GERLAND, is obligated to support the child and is
able to make child support payments and that payments of support would be in the best
interest of the child.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner, JAMES EDWARD GERLAND, pay
child support in the amount of FIFTY DOLLARS ($50.00) pe~week with.the first
payment becoming due February 16, 1976 and continuing~until/~aches the
age of 18 or until further orders of the court. Said payments will be made through
the Harris County Probation Department, Child Support Division.
It is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall pay all hospital and
medical bills incurred as a result of the birth of their child.
The Court finds that the ~r'~ies own community property which should
be divided in an equitable manner.
It is therefore ORDERED that the community property owned by the parties
shall be divided as follows:
Petitioner is awarded abe following as ns separate property: His
personal belongings now .tn his possession and the 1972 Toyota automobile, Motor
#RT63019516, which shall be picked up by June !~ 1976.
Respondent is awarded the following described property:
belongings now in her possession.
All personal
All costs of Court expended in ~his caum~ are hereby adjudged againsa
Petitioner.
SIGNED ~ND ENTERED Chis ~he
day of , 1976.
ADAM, ADAM & ANDERSON~ INC.
P. O. Box 40396
H?ust/~n, Texas 77040
rney ~or Petitioner
~to~yR~ Respo~ tnden
STARE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF' HARRIS
f, Ray Hardy, District C/erk of Harris County,
1'eRas, do hereby, certify that the foreaoing ~s a
ttuti and correct copy r,~f the o~'i/ginal record, now
in my lawful custody ~nd POSsesstorl, a
r~ord in V~ i~l ~ i~.' saP~ar~O/
' ' utes of said
eouE On file in my office.
W~ness my official hand and seal of office, this
RAY HARDy, DI~T~IOT CLERK
Harris County, Texas
Fee Paid By
NATURE OF
SETTINGS
JOHN C. HOWETT, .IR.
DONALD T. KISSINGEK
LAW OFFICES OF
JOHN C. HOWETT, JR., P.C.
132 WALNUT STREET
POST OFFICE BOX
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108
TELEPHONE (717) 234-2616
December 17, 1987
The Honorable Kevin A. Hess
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: Gerland v. Shirvinsky
Dear Judge Hess:
As per my brief discussion with you in chambers
after yesterday's hearing in the above-referenced matter, and
in light of the fact that you stated that the order you
dictated onto the record was in rough draft form to be later
revised and refined by you, I request that you consider
adopting the pertinent "cooperation" language approved by the
Superior Court in the Sutliff and Mellott decisions:
It shall be the obligation of the mother
to have the children ready for such visits and to
encourage them to participate in the plan hereby
ordered. ~ile in the presence of the children,
neither of the parents shall make any remarks or do
anything which can in any way be construed as
derogatory or uncomplementary to the other and it
shall be the duty of each parent to uphold the
other parent as one whom the children shall respect
and love. (Sutliff, 522 A. 2d. 80 at 84, quoting
~e!lott, 476 A. 2d. 961 at 962).
In Sutliff, the Superior Court permitte~ a
requirement of encouragement which was definite, clear and
specific, and which left no doubt in the mind of the person to
whom it was addressed of the conduct prohibited. I believe
that given the circumstances of this case, it is especially
appropriate to include such language to encourage proper
development of the relationship between Mr. Gerland and his
daughter which was certainly the intent of your decision.
You also indicated that you did not intend to omit
visitation in Pittsburgh when you dictated your draft order.
I would request your consideration of the following clause:
The Honorable Kevin A. ~ess
Page 2
December 17, 1987
Further, James Gerland shall be per-
mitted to visit in the Pittsburgh area with Dawn on
weekends commencing no earlier than Friday at 5:00
p.m. and ending no later than Sunday at 9:00 p.m.,
actual times to be set by Mr. Gerland to accommodate
his travel plans, which times shall be communicated
to Carrol Shirvinsky along with the notice of Mr.
Gerlan~'s intent to exercise such visitation which
notice shall be g~.ven in writing at least seven ~ays
in advance of the commencement of the visitation
period. Said visitation periods in Pittsburgh shall
be no more frequent than one per calendar month and
shall not com~ence sooner than January, 1988. On
the first such visitation period, Dawn shall be
returned to her home by 9~00 p.m. each evening and
may be picked up again at 9:00 a.m. the next
morning. Thereafter, Mr. Gerland shall arrange
for her overnight accommodations but may,
at his option and with the consent of Mrs.
Shirvinsky, permit Da~n to remain overnight at her
home.
S~ncerely, ~
~~? H~~owett, j~r.
JCH/kdm
cc:
James Gerland.
Bonnie D. Menaker, Esquire
IndividUal &
Family Services
CENTER FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL FITNESS
115 ~u~StJohml)fivc · Camp Hill, PAl,)II · (71~ ~7-3840
CUSTODY EVALUATION
MEETING WITH ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES
FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1987
(tape starts here...) evaluation and I'll give you my input and draw us
then up to conclusions and recommendations. Initially, let me describe
for all of you what I did with.each party so you will all be aware of the
time involved and the extent of the evaluation.
My first meeting was with Dawn for an hour and I did an interview
and some psychological testing, which included a projective test such as
,the Thematic Apperception Test, sentence completion items, as well as a
~'tructure'd interview where I asked some pretty straightforward questions
and then some indirect questions to understand her feelings and her needs
and get to know her as a person. Then I had an hour and a half interview
with CarrOl and had her take an MMPI {Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory). I then had an hour and a half with the Shirvinski family;
all of them in the room here together. During that time, I did a lot of
data collection of developmental history from both Mom and Dad here,'as
well as observing the interaction of the siblings, with the parents and
among themselves.
Then Mr. Gerland came and took an MMPI as well. I spent an hour
and a half with Mr. Gerland on an individual interview. During some of
that time, Tye was in and out of the room so I observed interaction with
just the two of them alone. And then for an hour, Tye and Dawn and Mr.
Gerland and I met here and I got to see the interaction among the three
of them.
And then yesterday, I spent one-half hour on the phone with Dr.
Williams so I did get some input from Dawn's psychologist; he had seen
her four times from December through March on very similar kinds of
issues of what we are dealing with here so I was able to pull together
from his information about Dawn and the family as well.
The reason that we Picked these nine issues is because that they
seem to be the ones that are more essential in making the determinations
about custody and visitation:
(1) Which parent does the child see as the nurturing parent or the
psychological parent? And I would think it's pretty clear, given the
history of this family, that Dawn's sense of who the primary family is or
the primary psychological parent is with the ShirVinskis. She very much
is attb-n~~~cIe-n~'F~h mom as primary role model and when she
-2-
talks about her family, this is the family that she talks about. Now the
history of this family has been mother had the baby...the parents were
split up before the baby was born and the mother has had primary care,
father having visitation basically two weeks a year and Dawn has kind of
viewed her biological father in a sort of "Disneyland Daddy" kind of
fashion, that is the role he has played, it's been very focused on her in
a very entertaining,.all-absorbing kind of way rather than integrated in
the routine family with responsibilities, arguments, and conflicts and
all those normal pressures and discipline and that sort of thing. I
think Mrs Shirvinski has done a lot in developing that relationship
between h~r fathered Dawn and in'"'maintaining i~-{'~ t~me when Dad was
not as vigorous at pursuing that. Yet her father is very committed in
the sense of sending birthday cards and' r-C~-F~mas gifts and Valen~e's
Day roses, flowers, and those sorts of things as well, in a very
nurturing kind of way. It's not saying he's not nurturing but he has
been more circumscribed due to the time limits and distance as'well as
some of the variables in the system here.
(2) Consistency of the Environment/Stability of the Relationships.
What we are mostly-talking about is this child in relationship to the
,.?family. Dawn is very integrated into the Shirvinski family. When you
look at this family, it looks very whole and very complete. ~Her
relationship with Dad, as a father and daughter, there is a lot of
affection there. I would sort of describe this family as the kind that
would, do a Kodak commercial. You know, you would take a picture of them
and this is what you Would put in your family album sort of experience.
And that is lovely, it's really a lovely situation; they have a beautiful
family.
Her relationship with her biological father I think has
been...there's not been problems up until that point...in fact, the
relationship between the two families has been rather remarkable. Your
buying gifts for Tye for birthday and for Christmas and your buying gifts
for these kids...it's been a really remarkable set-up, it's just been
beautiful. I think it started to fall apart when personal growth changed
and you started to want some different things out of the experience.
There was the summer that Dawn did not go down to visit with you because
you were in a very unstable state emotionally and you mentioned that to
Carrol and agreed with her that this would not be an appropriate time for
Dawn to come down which I think is a very responsible, appropriate thing
to do. I think in the course of your recovery from that period, you have
gained strength and now being more assertive at wanting what you want
from her and being more assertive in securing that and, as a result of
that, the balance which had been maintained very comfortably was now
being upset. The relationship that worked before, seemed to work out of
a mutual acceptance of how much time you were willing to commit and how
much energy you were willing to commit to getting more time and to the
amount of contro] that you invested over it. For instance, Carrol, and I
think you would probably even say this about yourself, that you pretty
well know what you want and you go after it and you get it, including
your husband, and that's kind of no family secret that once she sets
-3-
her mind set on something she goes after it and she gets it. That kind
of control is working very well up to this point. It makes it difficult
for other people wanting something different from what she wants to get
it. FoP instance, when we had trouble scheduling appointments here. We
had two weeks to schedule them, that was the only time that I Was in town
before your evaluation was and the original scheduling effort, the times
we gave, Carrol said'no because Dawn was at school. So I gave her times
for the next week and she said no Dawn was at camp; so we had difficulty
setting it up in a way that was agreeable without some fuss. That kind
of thing is what Dad has experienced repeatedly that it always has to be
according to Carrol's sch~dqle or there's no time for it. So I think
things were getting sort of built up in your desire to protect Dawn and
your desire to get more time with your daughter and that reached a head
to the point that I think the things finally broke down when you got Dawn
last summer and you kept her for 30 days without prior arrangement,
without consultation with Dawn, without fair agreement. That is what
kind of blew things to the water and I'm not blaming you and i'm not
blaming you but there was this kind of build-up of forces that just split
on account of the tension that went there and I think things have been in
great disrepair since that point.
(3) I want to talk now about the competence and stability of'the
parents because I think before we can make any further direction about
what to do given the differences that we have here, we have to make
assessments of how capable are the two parental situations for the parent
responsibility, providing a role model and all that sort of thing. So I
guess what I'd like to start w~th on, that is to show you the MMPI
results, I guess I'll do that first because it makes it such a black and
white issue. Here, this is for the two of you to share. Do you each
have one of Jim and one of Carrol? Okay, the reason that I would like to
show you this first is because the things that I have to say are my
observations but they're not concrete objectives, they're not as black
and white as taking a standardized test. What I would like to show you
here, and I'm not going to go into the detailed personality of both of
them, but I just want to show you some basic similarities which I'll then
elaborate on in my observations. The MMPI is divided into distinct
groups. One of the validity scales which are to the left of that solid
line on the profile summary, and the second set are on the right and
those are the clinical scales which you did the personality
interpretation with. The validity scales you look at first of all to
decide whether or not you can make any interpretations on the clinical
scale. Validity scales include things about whether or not the person
was careful in taking the-exam, their attitude about taking the exam, was
it that they were trying to make themselves look worse than they really
are, trying to make themselves look better than they really are, are they
distorting, is their a lot of bias, for instance, not owning up to things
about themselves that are true. The cut off point for the L, F, and K
scales is when they reach over this line, the dark line of the 70. None
of the scales were above that so we're indicating here that there isn't
the kind of distortion that would show that there was an attempt to look
-4-
worse than the person is or any carelessness about.the test, or an
inconsistency in responding. Some of the questions, if you remember,
were in the beginning of the test and the end of the test and if you
answer them differently, they'll say there is a kind of carelessness
about the impression of the test. So the validity indicators are not
over the criterion on the L, F, and K criterion scores but there is a
pattern here which we call "Fate/Good" pattern when you get sort of a
checkmark, a 'V' kind of shape as you can see here where the F scale is
significantly below the L and the K scores. Both patterns have that.
That pattern means that the person that was taking the test was putting
on a facade, they were trying to make themselves look better than they
are. It's not done deliberately. I know that both of you are as honest
as you can be, I mean I really trust that, but there is a style that you
have about yourselves that is~luctant to admit your flaws and, in a
situation like this, that's very understandable, nobody wants to look bad
when you've got something as critical as this child's future and your
relationship with the child on the line. None the less, I do encourage
people to be as honest as they can be and what both of you are indicating
is that stylistically, you need to be holding up you guard. As a result,
we can't make any concrete interpretations of the clinical scales on the
,.other side but I can give you some sort of general. What in essence it
~ays is that the clinical scales have to be interpreted in the light of
the fact that these people are distorting themselves; they're not really
telling you all the bad things about themselves, an honest answer that
they might have answered if there wasn't that kind of denial or
repression going on. There is no gross psychopathology in either scale,
meaning there's no indication of a thought disorder or
obsessive/compulsive traits or skyrocketing anxiety or depression. Both
scales are equivilant in terms of that feature. Both scales also carry a
similar, though opposite end of the continuum, pattern in the MF scale
which has to do with the masculinity/femininity role modeling. You are
kind of at opposite ends on those continuums in terms of being
traditional and atraditional about stereotypical roles. That's not
psychopathology, that's not neurosis, that's a big difference between the
two of you, and it's one that I think will kind of draw out some as I
talk some about the families. Okay, any questions about the MMPI?
Atty. Howett: That last statement you made, I'm not sure I follow
that. Dr. Berger: Masculinity/femininity has to do with how stereotyped
we are in terms of seeing the roles of women and the roles of men. It
has to do with some issues around independence and autonomy versus being
in control and dominant versus submissive, those kinds of things.
There's nothing pathological in either of their patterns. It's just that
they are different. Atty. Nowett: So which is which? If one is more at
the opposite of the scale... Dr. Berger: Okay, Jim... Mr. Gerland: Am
I portraying more masculinity or denying femininity, sort of speak? Is
that what you are saying? Dr. Berger: Well, what I guess I just want to
point out is that your scale was very high and Carrol's was very low and
neither one of those, column five we're talking about, that's right, you
can see the peaks are kind of mirrored of each other. What I'm just
-5-
basically showing is that there's a big difference in that regards here
and I don't want to get into the personality interpretation~about that
because it needs to be interpreted within the whole context of the other
clinical profile scales. Any other questions about the MMPI? Atty.
Howett: Are these are copies? Dr. Berger: If you want to keep the
copies, I need to keep a set here with me. Okay?
Under competence and stability of parents I'd like to deal with
moral issues because I think we certainly want the kind of role models
for this child that are of a sound moral character and evidence of, I
guess, soCial responsibility and sort of upstanding character, that kind
of thing. There were issues about lifestyle brought' up, particularly
Carrol's concern about the lifestyle that the father takes to. Issues
about drug and alcohol involvement, sexual practices, issues around
pre-marital sex and my assessment of that is that I understand the father
now is not using any alcohol or drugs and that, at one point in time,
there was sort of a common experience that you two shared very early in
your relationship, the involvement in marijuana, for instance, premarital
sex, for instance, so that~find that one party comes out cleaner
~.t~h.e. other ~he? you look at~tha:_JLi~d o(..history. I think ~
,p n~ ~ney are Doth in a rather...they have both set very good models for
the children. While...1 think there's a difference in terms of how they
would present themselves to Dawn and I'll clarify that a little bit. For
instance, Dad has been living with another woman, Patty, and dating other
women and Dawn being aware that you are sleeping in the bed with this
woman though you're' not married and you were fairly comfortable with that
being okay. Shirvinskis, on the other hand, advocate a different
presentation to the child, although, when it comes down to what they
actually practice themselves, they also had pre-marital sex, though they
wouldn't want Dawn to know that. When it comes to how they deal with
Dawn around sexuality, I think they are very responsible in their
approach to her saying that if she would be involved sexually, and
they've done an excellent job in giving her a very sound sexual education
and good moral advice, they're position would be 'I would rather have her
on birth control and protected than have an unwanted pregnancy', so it's
a very responsible thi-ng to do but it is also saying, 'acknowledging the
fact that you may choose to have pre-marital sex even though we don't
advocate and even when I would not Want it, I wouldn't deny it either.
would forbid it and I wouldn't cast you out of the family if you did it',
that sort of thing. So there is a permissiveness and a responsibleness
and one image that you want to present to her and another image of what
you actually practiced yourself.
When it coines to the stability of the parents, there is no gross
psychopathology in either one of them. Father did go through, what he
describes as, a nervous breakdown, where there were auditory
hallucinations and psychiatric hospitalization. I think that, in part,
is responsible for his turn around now and recovery in terms of wanting
more time and being mere assertive of going after and getting that time
with his daughter. He was responsible enough during this period of time
-6-
to cancel Dawn's visit and I think that was a very appropriate thing to
do, now seeming to be very sound in terms of his judgement and his
thinking.
(4) Wishes and Motivations Regarding Custody and Visitation. I
believe that both of these families'really want what's best for Dawn. I
truly believe that that's what they are in it for. There is a lot of
emotion in Mom when I talked about my sense that what you really want is
to protect your daughter, when you feel that she's all distraught about
th{s. It was one of the most vivid times when you were emotional and I
truly believe that's in your heart of what you want of her. I also
believe that there is a corolary issue for you and that is that you want
to it. That's real important to you in your particular psychological
make-up. With father, I believe that if I said to him, for you to have
more visitation time with your daughter, it would be destructive to her,
he would really, he would not want to do anything that would be
destructive to her, I really believe that. I think his pushing for more
visitation right now is, in part, due to, I think what Carrol actually
described as, his maybe mid-life crisis, of wanting something that is
meaningful in his life right now and I think that's very true. I think
that's one of the primary reasons why now, at this time, you are willing
~o go after it, where five years ago, you were not doing it. Not to say
that that's a bad thing and not to say that Carrol's issue is a bad thing
but that is why you two have reached loggerheads about this because those
two issues are pitted in a win/lose situation for the two of you. Father
states that he needs more time to develop a relationship with his
daughter and that's the reason he's going after an increased visitation.
.(5} Ability to be Flexible, to Communicate; Willingness to
Cooperate. Well, I think what we have here is, there was a lot of
willingness in the beginning. For instance, you were very willing...I
don't know how you did it. I would have had a hard time doing it.
Taking my baby that far away and leaving her with somebody that I didn't
know and probably didn't have very good feelings about and you encouraged
that and you built that relationship, you really did. Now that do me is
a tremendous amount of cooperation. She flew down, she took her time
going down there, stayed down there, helping him out because he was
concerned about how well this child would do not knowing him very well.
That, to me, is a tremendous amount of cooperation going on there. The
efforts that you have made in getting presents back and forth and sending
pictures back and forth. It's been going on on both sides but it shows
cooperation, it really does.
In terms of flexibility, I guess what I want to focus on a little
bit right now is the flexibility given the issue now, where father wants
more time and you want to protect Dawn's right not to have more time. I
think on that score, f~ather is far more flexible. He says "I just need
to have more time with you to develop a rel~'~ionship. Tell me how I can
do that. I'll split it - two weeks in the beginning,of the summer, two
weeks at the end of the summer. I'll come up here at your convenience
-7-
and see you here in Pennsylvania and you can even sleep overnight at your
regular house so we can have more time. I'll do weekends. Tell me what
you want". He's ver~, very flexible on how to get that, though he's
maintaining his position if it is in Dawn's best interest, that he really
wants the time, per se. I think Shirvinskis have a very flexible
attitude if they felt it was good for Dawn, too. For instance, father
said, when we had our group meeting, "if Dawn wants to go down there and
live for the summer When she's working, we would support that". I truly
believe that if that's what you thought Dawn wanted, that that is what
you would support-. I really believe that. Okay, so the question that
we're all coming up to is how to decide what's best for Dawn. There have
been some real honest differences of opinion in the course of these two
families, going~-b-~c'k to whether or not this was a planned pregnancy, Mom
says yes, Dad says no; going back to whether or not there was a reason
for the divorce, one parent says one thing, the other parent says another
thing; the reason why there wasn't more visitation, mother says 'Dad
didn't want it', father says 'Mom wouldn't give it to me'. Now these are
very honest differences of opinion and nobody is wrong here. I don't
believe it, they're just differences. Okay, let me see what else I
wanted to...oh, this is important in terms of the ability of these
parents to cooperate. They have shown an incredible ability up to this
break last August. When I ask now about evidence of cooperativeness, if
'bawn wants it or they come to believe' that it's best for Dawn because I
believe these parents are responsible enough that they would decide what
was best for Dawn even if Dawn didn't want it, for instance, about doing
her homework, you decide that that's what she needs to do and she's going
to do it, that's a responsible parental decision even if it's 'overriding
the child's wishes. In terms of cooperation, that you would back it up
100%. In terms of respect for each other and your ability to work
together, I asked the father, "Suppose Dawn were down there visiting with
you and she's like 14 now and she's down there getting to know people,
making friends and you begin to find out she's sexually active. How
would you handle this?". His statement to me was "I would call Carrol
right away and find out what she wants to do about this". Do you want me
to quote you for you? Do you not remember what you said? Mr. Gerland:
Not so much as what she would do about it, but what she's instructed her
because of her religious beliefs, what she's taught her, that would be an
influence on her. Dr. Berger: That's right, but you would want to check
and get her input before deciding how_q~_you would handle it. 'Mr. Gerland:
That's true. Dr. Berger: '--That to me is evidence~f re-elect for the fact
that they have a different system perhaps than yours and you would want
to be able to work cooperatively with them. in dealing with Dawn on that.
The issue of religion - these folks are very committed to their church
and their involvement in religion. Father is appreciative of others'
individual beliefs though he's not a practicing church-goer and I believe
there is a difference 6n how you two would approach that but you would
iSuppoKt Dawn's involvement in church, you don't put it down and you would
be willing to maintain that with her out there. That to me is more
evidence of respect, of 'I'm not going to force you to fit into my
-8-
lifestyle and be the kind of person that I am'; it's good evidence of the
ability to cooperate.
In term of the evidence of the mother's respect for the father, she
said even after, what she considered to be a really painful experience in
this marriage, she said no one ever spoke a bad word about Jim. She
never put him down; in fact, she did everything to go out of her way to
build a positive relationship there.
There are some problems which are showing difficulties that I want
to bring up here, too, in terms of where the cooperativeness did break
down and I think bad patterns are beginning to occur. For instance, I
think is was a real mistake for father to hold Dawn down there for 30
days without consulting you, without discussing it with Dawn. I think
that was a monkey wrench thrown into the works, that was not cooperative
and it was not showing respect. I think mother doing things like
listening in on the phone when Dad is trying to call, sending back the
presents that he sent for the two girls for Christmas, father says that
he sent pictures of their vacation time and was told that you didn't
share them with Dawn, that you just put them away. Mrs. Shirvinski: Oh
no, they're in her possession, shehas them. She never shared them.
~ ~They're in her closet, no I didn't have them. Dr. Berger: Okay, thank
'you for correcting that. Those kinds of things said to me that there's
some rigidity, that the flexibility and'Cooperativeness has disintegrated
and I'm concerned that that would need to be changed in order to have a
good working relationship.
(6) Home Environments. I want to talk a little bit about the home
environment with Tye and Mr. Gerland. I think it's pretty obvious in the
way I described the Shirvinskis as a very traditional, kind of
Kodak-picture perfect kind of home and they have a lovely family. I
don't have one criticism to make about their family, it's just a
beautiful family and I think they've done marvelous things. I think the
two families have very different lifestyles. I'd like to talk a little
bit about Mr. Gerland's experience in parenting, in particular, his
relationship with Tye because that's my evidence of his capabilities as a
parent. I would describe their family, Tye and Mr. Gerland, as the kind
that you would see on a Bell Telephone commercial where they sing 'Reach
Out and Touch Someone'. It's got that sort of quality about it. It's
different, it's a different quality than the Kodak commercial. None the
less it's still very genuine and verj~_~ital. When I asked Tye, "what do
you (ike about your dad?", he Said,~He'-~-~-This boy is very
enthusiastic. He said, without my promp~g him at all, "I'm glad he's
having an appointment today", and I said, "Why?", and he said, "So I can
see Dawn". I said, "Well, why do you like to see Dawn?", and this boy
just exudes, "She's so nice", he. just loves this little girl. Tye is
very fun-loving. Ne talks about the time he put a pretend cockroach in
your cereal at breakfast one 'time. He's very gregarious, there were
other children, another 7-year-old, as a matter of fact, who was here for
a custody evaluation in the waiting room when her father was
-9-
here, very gregarious, talking to her, playing with her. When I t°ld him
I wanted him to come back to my office, he said to the little girl, '"Do
you want to come, too?", very out-going that way, very affectionate. He
would hold his dad's hand, come put his head on his chest, hug him. He
was very affectionate with me. He was in our office for just about five
hour~j ver~Qd, caused no problems, we had clients in and out
of here-~-~e had children in and out of the office, typing going on,
phones ringing; this little boy was not disruptive at all, had to
entertain himself most of the time, was not complaining, was not wining,
totally out of his element and yet very well able to manaqe independently
and interactively. Tye was very upbeat. When ! took him back to my
office, he said, "Do I have to take a test, too?", I said, "No, we're
going to do some fun things", he said, "Yep, we sure are" and he got in
there with his crayons and pictures and we were doing things together.
He was very courteous when I challenged him, in a couple of times, in
kind of a harsh way, keep the lid on your cup (we had gone out to get
drinks), put it right back on, gave me no lip at all, asked him to close
the door several times, no problems whatsoever. A very neat little boy.
I have a white couch in my office. He had a pencil and he got a pencil
line on the couch; I didn't say a word about it. He didn't look at me as
though he was going to get punished or something, he just took the eraser
,and started erasing the pencil line off of the couch. For a little boy,
in particular, and I guess I'm sort of partial that way, seeing that
boys, and particularly when you have this image of the bachelor/single
parent household, that there would be more, not that way, not as
fastidious, if you understand. Also the issue of vulgarity, which is
part of the stereotypical thing about bachelorhood and the single parent
being the father, I very provocatively, diliberately used the word.
"that's bullshit", directing that statement to you. Tye says, over here
playing, out of the blue, "Don't use words like that!". So that says to
me that there's a certain level of gentilesse in this household and
orderliness and respect for property and respect for peoPle going on.
Another thing that I would like to mention, which is a difference in the
two households, is how they deal with emotions. And I posit them a
little bit like the cultural difference between Italians and Englishman,
in that your household is more composed, there's more of a kind of
~gether rather than being effusive with emotions. When you
would get upset, you WOuld work real hard at not flooding~nd when you
would get upset, you would be more expressive in just expressing the
feelings. Tye and you show this, that when you were upset and tearful,
here in my office, Tye came over to you and put his arm around you; when
he sensed the tension between you and Dawn, he came in there and stood
between the two of you with his arm on each side and said "I just want
you two to do more of..." X, which is what you were disagreeing about
because he's trying to fix it, wants to get in. When you were upset in
our family situation, the children just kind of went about their
business, nobody reacted in any distressed way about it; it just sort of,
like ripples, it just sort of flows over and _it's passed over that wa~.
Not one is better than the other, there's just a difference and the issue
here is now Dawn has to deal with these differences and it's creating
-10-
some anxiety in her; that is what I wanted to bring out. That's
basically about the two family environments. My position is that, in
essence, both parents are equally capable of providing responsible,
morally-upright, good role modeling, disciplined households for this
child. I have no difficulty with either household.
I want to talk.about Dawn some now. Dawn will be 12 in September,
is that right? She, I think, is a model student. She's socially
popular. She's very attractive. She's physically healthy. She's
out-going. She's confident, assertive with adults, respectful, helpful,
pitched in with her siblings. She feels a part of the family. She feels
she belongs in the family. She's very closely identified with her
mother, there's great rapport there. She feels very positive about her
life, about school, about herself, about her family. I'd like to talk to
you a little bit about her projective work because there's where you
begin to see through the smoke screen_~. I talked about the two of you,
h -
about ow you )lKe TO present yourselves in a favorable light; Dawn likes
to present herself in a favorable light. She does not like to share the
pain and discomfort and anxiety that's going on underneath. For
instance, a good illustration is When Dawn, through the course of all of
this turmoil, she went from being an A-B student to failing_~?
subjects. She'knew that she failed on a Friday. She"sat wl~ti--that
~nx-~-~i~y all weekend. Mother didn't know until Monday. When she was
upset when she was at Dad's house visiting, when he had kept her there,
she would cry in bed at night, upset, but she wouldn't tell Dad 'I'm
lonely, I'm homesick, I'm upset'. So there are emotions going on in Dawn
that she is not verbally presenting so now I'm starting to watch for
these. What are these emotions and what are they about and what can we
do to help this child with these feelings? In her Thematic Apperception
Test stories, there were themes of guilt around having bad grades. She
tells a story...you show a picture to a child and they make up a story
about it and what-they usually do is put into that story conflicts that
they're having, issues or problems that they're working on or feelings
that they can't admit 'I feel about myself'. So this guilt about
disappointing the mother, in this case, around the bad grades but it
worked out okay. There are emotions, particularly, of fear, shock, and
upset which she repeatedly stated. I'll describe to you some of the
stories. One was a story where there was a girl, alone, and she was
hearing this noise and it frightened her and it turned out just to be a
cat's tail knocking against the door but she was really frightened about
that. A story about a child who had a dress for a favorite doll and
somebody else said 'well, that's my dress and I lost one just like that.
Give it back to me', and she reported feeling upset of having to give up
this dress. There was another story about this precious necklace and
this one woman wanted this necklace that another woman had so she went to
somebody who owned a detective agency and told him to get this necklace
from the other woman so he arranged to kill this woman to get the
necklace and it turns out that the man that had the woman killed, ended
up killing his own wife to get this necklace that he wanted for this
other woman. Pretty kind of traumatic stories with a lot of fears of
-11-
loss involved, a lot of fears of unknowns, a lot of anxiety going on in
this child. And she has anxiety around expressing her feelings so all
this is going on and she's not able to verbalized it. I'd like to talk
with you about how it came out for me in watching her interacting with
Tye and Hr. Gerland.
Tye came running up to'Dawn. I mean just about ready to split out
of his skin, face beaming, screaming "Dawn", and she stood there like a
statue. She put her hand up by her face and she wiggled her fingers Hi.
She walked into the room. She never hugged him. She never made any
contact with him. In fact, when we left an hour later, I had to say to
her "would you like to say good-bye to Tye?", he was out on the back
patio at that point crying and she looked out the window, didn't even
open the door, and waved good-bye and left. I watched her with her
father and he said "well, gee, can I have a hug?" and she gave him the
right shoulder and the right arm in just a kind of perpendiCular kind of
hug. He wasn't going to get through to her, it was very clear. So they
sat down here and they had a dialogue and I want.to share with you this
dialogue because it shows more and more about what's going with Dawn and
made it more and more clear to me why I took the particular position I
did in terms of recommendations.
· Father says to Dawn, "Why didn't you tell me you were crying alone
at night? I didn't know you were homesick", and she says, "Why should I
tell you my feelings?", and his response is "because I care about you.and
I want to help you", and her response is, "I don't have to tell you my
feelings"; She just didn't want to let anybody in to what she was
feeling. Then you begin to see the anxiety coming through and the fact
that she's not able to respond to her own feelings, she's starting to
parrot Carrol, saying, iN a very attacking, accusitory way of her father,
"Why did you send gifts to Lauren and Kristen? They're too young to
understand, it's too Confusing for them." This is out of the mouth of a
child who is 11 and a half. Mrs. Shirvtnski: Are you saying that I said
that? That's Dr. Williams' statement. Dr. Berger: There's more things
that come through that say to me that she...these are not things that you
said to me in front of her. These are things that you said to me in
private but she is so closely identified with you that she has really
picked up your feelings without you even having to verbalize them to her
and I'll clarify some of those for you and if I'm off the track, you let
me know.
Then her father says to her, "Why did you stop sending me and Tye
gifts?", and she said, "Mom would do it all. She would buy the gifts and
she would pay for them out of her own money'and she would pick the
cards. ! would just sign them. I'm pretty busy, you know". The message
was 'I don't have time for you' and I began to realize how this child had
not developed the relationship with her father that Mom had worked so
hard to develop and the child had not committed herself to the
relationship at all; in fact, all she was doing-was getting the kind of
entitled feeling of 'I deserve to get from this relationship but I'm not
-12-
responsible to give in this relationship' When he asked why she didn't
want to spend more time, she said, "I don;t want to spend any more time
with you than two weeks because that's the way we've always done it. Our
family is traditionallyand you're not." Father was then trying to
describe how much he has cared for her over the years and done things
beyond what was required in the divorce decree and she came back, in a
way to kind of protect her mom, defending her mom, saying that "my mom
never had to take me to Texas" and I think she felt, in a way, that you
were angry with Carrol and she was going to rush to her defense and I
guess you've got to know that if you have any anger left at Carrol, that
you've got to take it out elsewhere because this little girl is
rightfully protecting her mother and the good job that she's done in
trying to build a relationship there. And then he started saying, "and
I've even sent extra child support beyond what was decreed", and then she
started saying, "that's 6ot enough, you know, I'mgrowing up", which was
exactly what you had said previous to that, exactly what Carrol had said
just previously. Then Dawn, interestingly, sort of took a spin, what I
call self-trance and said, "Let Dr. Berger tell you what I really think
about money", and, in the sentence completion test, one of the sentences
is 'I think money is...' and she answered, "boring". She doesn't really
have the investment in money. She feels that Mom has the investment in
~oney and she's in there to protect Mom's rights because she's Mom's
c'hampion, she and Mom are buddies. You're not asking her to do this but
she~s carrying it on because she loves you so much and she wants whatever
you want and I'm not saying that you are in any way prompting, don't
misunderstand me there. So father says, "What do you want from me? Why
do you even want one week or two weeks?", and then Dawn started to get
emotional and she handles it like you do, rises to the surface and then
diverts it. She said, "I want a friend." "Well, what do you want from
me?" "I want you to call and write more." So he says to her, "Well, how
about these long letters I write you?" And she says, "I want short
letters." And at that point, I just terminated it because what was
happening was that she was getting so frightened and so anxious, so
scared of the possible changes, so scared of making this emotional
commitment to this man that she's not made any emotional commitment to,
so frightened about losing the security that she has with the way things
have always been that she was becoming total]y irrational. There was
nothing he could do to please her. There was no time on God's earth that
she would have for him whether he came here or she went down there and I
think there would be no point in furthering her discussion with that
because it was too anxiety-provoking for her and too threatening for
her. And what she was doing, she wasn't thinking for herself anymore,
she was just parroting what her mother was saying.
(7) Okay, so this takes me to the goals and recommendations. My
feeling about the capability of the parenting and the importance of
having relationships with both parents is that father could comfortably
handle Dawn for an entire summer in terms of a competent parent; I'm not
recommending that. I think we have to be clear about what the goals are
that we want for Dawn at that point and try to best bring the resources
-13-
that both these families offer to make that maximized for Dawn. I think
it's important for a child to have a relationship with both of these
families and for her to have whole relationships with both of her parents
which means that we've got to get out of this 'Disneyland Daddy' routine,
we've got to get out of this 'I give and you take' dynamic system there.
We've got to get out of the sense of your controlling that relationship
that's there. That's got to be~set up in their perimeters and you've got
to instill in Dawn, Carrol the ~ to speak her mind and to identify
her feelings and to deal w~th those feelings even when they are
anxiety-provoking. The issues developmental for a child during these
next couple of years, I'm looking 12-16, the next four to five years at
most here, are individuation from her parents, (Lefininq her identi
espy as a
separate person 'from any of her family, any of her parents, t her
ideas, her values, her lifestyle, incorporating, not because Mom and Dad
say to do it but because I really believe it, I go to church, because I
really believe it, I don't' engage in pre-marital sex, because I really~
believe it, I treat my body in a healthy, respectful way, mas~ra~e-
independence and initiative and this means the feelings of competence
that I can handle myself in that world out there, I can know that I can
speak up for myself, I know that I can ask for what I want in this world,
have my feelings acknowledged, and to be able todevelop good
interpersonal skills, to have continuity in social relationships, to have
a'feeling of ability to overcome conflicts and obstacles in
relationships. I think Dawn has been a victim of the struggle between
mother and father for control of her time on the visitation. I think her
feelings of not wanting more time with father right now has to do with
the fact that she's felt she's had no choice in the matter. I think
choice is very important for kids, particularly at her age. They need to
be respected as having a mind of their own and being able to contribute
to the decisions in their lifetime.
The issue here is that there are no blueprints that say 'if you do
A, B, C, D, you will get this perfectly, well-adjusted, happy child who
is integrated in their life and able to deal with these two parents who
can't deal with each other. There's no guarantee of how to go about it
in terms of getting that particular outcome. I can't guarantee that if
Mr. Gerland gets two more weeks of visitation that he's going to be able
to turn around his relationship with his daughter. I can't guarantee
that because I don't know whether she's going to let you in. I can't
guarantee that if you respect her wishes and her fears right now and
allow 'her, without taking it any further, not to have two weeks, that she
will ever come around that way either. I can't promise you that,
psychology can't promise you that. We don't know enough about the
ability to predict human behavior to be able to say in this situation
where you have this 12-year history and these dynamics in these families,
that Number 1 is the only choice here. All I can do is give you my
opinions. You can ask somebody else and they will give you different
opinions and I won't say that they're wrong and I'm right.
-14
My goal would be to maximize the opportunities that Dawn has for
developing a relationship with her father within a framework that gives
her a sense of freedom of choice, that gives her a sense of safety. I
would like to have her have the exposure to the different lifestyle and
resources and affects that you bring that she doesn't have from this
family. I would like the adults to make choices that they are agreeable
with and present those to the child as saying, 'Dawn, we think A, B, C,
or D is good for you. Which of these things that we think is good for
you do you want?' so in that kind of respectfulness but in the sense that
truly the adults are in the responsible position of making the
responsible decisions here. And I think, at this point, that the
continuity, because she's not been staying all summer with you for all
these years, I think it's important to maintain the continuity that she's
got in her lifespace here as much as possible with the friendships and
activities that she has gotten into. So, what I'm asking for are a lot
of impossible things. How can we best pull together those elements to
get the best possible choice or the least worse possible choice? What do
you want fromme at this point?
Mrs. Shirvinski: I have all these things going through my head as
to what we can come up with that would be good for her and, for most,
.this kind of relationship.
Dr. Berger: Let me share with you one other piece of information
that I would like to kind of add to the record here and that is, as Dawn
was describing it, what she was willing to give was one week out of her
year of 52 weeks to her father, the other one she wanted to have with her
grandparents. When father describes to me what happens when Dawn is down
there, that that is his vacation time, he does take time off from work
and he devotes the entire time to her. I don't get the picture that this
child is left alone, that she, according to father, has not been left to
be responsible for Tye when she is down there, that Tye would go to the
babysitter and, during that 30 days period, there were only five days
that he was involved at the office and they weren't full days. So I
think part of what might have been communicated with Dawn, when I see how
she's sort of regressed in terms of what she's willing to give, I think,
I have the_~_concern that she_will become a very spoiled, entitled child,
kind of dictating to the adults how they're going to run in her life and
I would not want to encourage that. I think she does want involvement
with the other grandparents but I think it was done in a way to be very
controlling, 'I'm going to tell you how I want my schedule run.' More
time needs to be allowed without your influencing it and controlling it,
that it's got to be something that you kind of give to them to work out
and that there has to be free and easy access. If Dawn's down there and
she wants to call you, she's got to have the right to do that. If you
want to call her up here, she's got to be able to receive those calls
without having to lock the door or making sure that you are not on the
phone.
-15-
Mrs. Shirvinski: I want you to be aware that between him
saying... Dr. Berger: We need to wrap up here because I've kind of
allowed an hour for it and I really don't want to get into the
negotiations, that's really up to you. I'm Just kind of setting, there
are some potentially destructive trends going on here. Once you folks
~make an agreement, I'd like you to back up to your previous cooperative,
respectful approacheS. One other thing is that I take a position
· disagreeing with you in terms of the amount of supervision that Dawn
needs but I'm probably overprotective as a mother. I'm not comfortable
leaving a twelve-year-old in a house by herself. That's how I am so if I
would make a recommendation, during the time that you have her, I would
want an adult there with her or supervising her. I wouldn't want her
alone to manage herself in the household. If you want specific time
recommendations, I would give those. My general frame of reference is I
think more time is needed and you folks need to work out how that time is
arranged and give that to Dawn as then a choice that she can recognize
that she has some say in what goes on in her life.
STEPHEN B. COSLETT, Ph.D.
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST
BELVEDERE MEDICAL CENTER
850 WALNUT BOTTOM ROAD
CARLISLE, PA 17013
TELEPHONE 717-243-6717
PROFESSIONAL RESUME
NAME:
DATE OF BIRTH:
ADDRESS:
MARITAL STATUS:
Stephen B. Coslett, Ph.D
March 17, 1931
1OO4 Drayer Court, Carlisle, Pennsylvahia 17013
Married, 1955 - two children, born 1956 and 1958
FORMAL EDUCATION:
1957
1960
1959-60
1966-67
University of Pittsburgh, B.S. in Psychology
University of Denver, MA in Psychology
University of Denver, Ph.D in Clinical Psychology
Predoctoral Internship, Western Penna. Psychiatric
Institute, University of Pittsburgh
Postdoctoral Fellowship in Clinical Psychology
Easter~ Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute,
Philadelphia
EMPLOYMENT:
1960-63
1963-71
1960-71
i961-66
1961-Present
1969
1971-Present
1973-1977
Dickinson College., Assistant Professor - Psychology
Dickinson College, Associate Professor - Psychology
Dickinson College, Director of Counseling
Harrisburg State Hospital, Staff Psychologist
Private Practice in Clinical Psychology
Graduate School Instr.,Shippensburg State College
Dickinson College, Professor of Psychology
Dickinson College, Courses regularly taught;
Abnormal Psychology Physiological Psychology
Personality Internship Supervision
Psychological Testing Introduction to Clinical
Psychology
CONSULTATIONS:
Consultant in Clinical Psychology to the Division of Special
Services,socially and emotionally disturbed classes, of the
Capital Area Intermediate Unit 1967-1973
Consultant id Clinical Psychology, United Cerebral Palsy of
Dauphin, Perry and Cumberland Counties 1962-1980
Consultant in Clinical Psychology, United Methodist Home for
Children, Mechanicsburg, Penna. 1967 - Present
Family Counseling Clinic - United Methodist Home for Children,
Mechanicsburg, Penna. 1975-Present
Consultant in Clinical Psychology, Cumberland County Children and
Youth Services, Carlisle, Penna. 1971 - Present
Consultant - East Pennsboro School District - 1972 - Present
Page 2
PUBLICATIONS AND LECTURES:
"The WAIS Masculinity - Femininity Index in a Paranoid Schizo-
phrenic Population',', Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. XXI,
No. 1, 62, January, 1965.
"Parallel Observations on Avoidance Behavior and Endocrine
Response Under Reserpine", Journal of Genetic Psychology, 94,
217-220,.1959. (In collaboration with Alfred B. Shaklee)
"Semantic Generalization and Manifest Anxiety." (In collabor-
-ation with Bernard Spilka: A paper presented to the Division
of Experimental Psychology ~t the 1961 American Psychological
Association annual Convention in New York City)
"Stress and Adolescents", (Paper presented to the Harrisburg
State Hospital Symposium, held by the Psychology Department,
(1961)
"Psychomimetic Drugs and Their Challenge to Psychotherapy",
(Paper presented to a Colloquim held by Dickinson.College
Psychology Department, t961)
"Family Relationships",
Ministerium Association,
(Paper presented to Harrisburg Methodist
1962 and 196/+)
"The Changing Moral and Social Values of Today's Children and
Youth", (Paper presented at In-Service~ Education Day, Carlisle
Public Schools, 1965)
"The Psychologist as an Expert Witness", (Paper presented to
the Student Bar Association - Medico-Legal Symposium at
Dickinson College School of Law, March, 1963)
"The Role of Psychology in the Juvenile Court", (Paper presented
at the Annual Conference of Juvenile Court Judges of Pennsyl-
vania, 1964 and 1966)
"Psychological DevelOpments of the Adolescent", (Paper pre-
sented at the Conference of the Pennsylvania Guidance Associa-
tion, 1962)
"The Psychological Development of the Crippled Child" (Paper
presented to Public Health Nurses of Pennsylvania at the Annual
Public Health Conference, Penn State University, 1963)
Page 3
PUBLICATIONS AND LECTURES~ CONT.
'-'The Psychologist and the Law,' - Annual Lecture at the Law
and Medicine Course - Dickinson School of Law - 1965 - Present
"My Voices" - A Selection ~f Articles from the Journal VOICES:
The Art and Science of Psychotherapy - ]965-1975
"Suicide" - Lecture presented to Holy Spirit Hospital Medical
Staff, December, 1977
"Biofeedback" - Lecture presented to the Carlisl.e HosPital
Medical Staff - September, 1979
"Interesting Case Histories" - Lecture presented to Biofeed-
back Society of Pennsylvania - 1980 annual meeting
"Psychopharmacology: An Interdisciplinary Team-Taught Course
for Undergraduates" - Richard M. Sheeley and Stephen B, 'Coslet~
Presented at 29th Annual Meeting of the Pennsylvania Association
of College Chemistry Teachers, Widener College, Chester, Pa.
April 12, 1980
"Biofeedback and Pulmonary Medicine" - Biofeedback Society.of
Pennsylvania, 1981 Annual Meeting
"Chronic Pain" - Lecture preSented to the Carlisle Hospital
Medical Staff- September, 1981
"Biofeedback and Emphysema".- Lecture - 5th Annual Meeting
American Association of Biofeedback Clinicians, Kansas City,
November, 1981
"BiofeedbaCk and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorders"
Journal of the Penna. Society of Behavioral Medicine and
Biofeedback, Spring issue, 1982
"Pulmonary BiOfeedback''- Stephen Coslett, Ph.D. & Brian'Tiep,M.D.,
Conversation Table. 6th Annual AABC Convention, Chicago, Illinois,
November 5, 1982
"Transmit in the Language of the Receiver". Journal of the Penn--
.sylvania Association for Supervison and Curriculum Development.
Winter, 1983. Vol. 2. ~
"~ Page 4
PUBLICATIONS AND LECTURES, CONT.
"Biofeedback in the College Counseling Center" - Invited pre-
sentation to the Pennsylvania Association of State College
Counselors, April 8, 1983
"What Makes Children Misbehave?" - Invited presentation -
Pennsylvania School Board 'Association Summer Workshop -
Bucknell University. July 22, 1983
Central Pennsylvania Bankers Association - UA Psychologist
Looks at Banking Trends in Today's Society" - February, 1984
"Learning Disabilities" - Shamokin Area School District -
February, 1984
CIVIC ACTIVITIES
Past President'of ~looreland Parent Teacher Association (2 Years)
Past President of the Carlisle Lions Club
Past member, Board of Trustees, Allison Methodist Church
Past member of Professional Advisory Committee of the United
Cerebral Palsy Association of Pennsylvania
Past board member of the Family and Children's Service of Carlisle
Past President of the Westminster College Parents' Association,
New Wilmington, Penna. 16142
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPSi
American Psychological Association
Division 12 Clinical Psychology
Division 29 - Psychotherapy
--Eastern Psychological Association
Pennsylvania Psychological Association - Fellow
American Association of University Professors
Biofeedback Society of America, National Cgrtification 1982
American Association of Bofeedback Clinicians, Diplomate 1982
Pennsylvania Society of Behavioral Medicine and Biofeedback,
Secretary - Treasurer - 1981 - 1982
Chairman - Ethics Committee - 1982 - 84
Program Chairman and Convention Chairman, Spring 1985
Page 5
LICENSURES:
Pennsylvania State Board of Psychological Examiners License - #000075 - Dated September, 1973
Council for the National Register of Health Service Providers
in Psychology - License #14972 - dated July, 1975
Courtesy Consultation Staff - Carlisle Hospital - in Clinical
Psychology and Biofeedback - July 1, 1979
Consultant - Penn Group Health - June, 1985
TH*
THE RINNESOTA .REPORT
TH
for the Rinnesota Rultiphasic Personality Inventory :
By James N. Butcher, Ph.D.
Page 1
Adult System
Client No. :. 041752 Gender : Female
Setting : flental Health Outpatient Age ·
Re.orr Date : 12-NOV-87 '
PAS Code Number : 00158449 657 0049
~dv~ I~ PLAIN,FF'S ·
PROFILE VALIDITY
..~h~s i? a valid RRPI.prof~le. The client's responses to the RRPI
vall.i~y i~ems suggest that s~e cooperated with the evaluation enoug~ to
provide useful interpretive information. The resulting clinical ~rbfile is
an adequate indication of her present personality functioning. -
SYmPTOmATIC PATTERN
This HHPI profile is within normal limits. The client did not report
psychological conflicts or situational stresses that are producing great
difficulty for her at this time. She appears to be dealing effectively
with her life situation, and seems to be obtaining sufficient satisfaction
out of life at this point.
She appears to be a pleasant, friendly, and ambitious person who feels
generally happy and effective in life. She is willing to take some risks
In .life and may sh.o~ a great deal of initiative. She seems to have a
numoer of plans and is actiVely pursuing them. She has a rather positive
self-image and is optimistic about the future. She seems to be able to
deal effectively with other people and to make favorable impressions upon
others. .
'-i The content of the items she endorsed suggests that she is very
responsible and lives up to her obligations. She is independent, poised,
and feels able to cope well with life.
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
Quite outgoing and sociable, she has a strong need to be around others.
Although she is gregarious and effective at gaining recognition from
others, her personal relationships may be somewhat.suoerficial. She
appears to be rather s~ontaneous and expressive anc~ay
especially to gain social status. She may be impulsive at t~mes and act
without sufficient forethought.
NOTE: This RRPI interpretation can serve as a useful source of hypotheses
about clients. This report is based on objectively derived scale-~ndexes
and scale interpretations that have been developed in diverse groups of
patients, The personality descriptions, inferences and recommendations
contained herein need to be verified by other sources of clinical
information since individual clients may not fully match the prototype.
The information in this report should most appropriately be used by a
trained, qualified test interpreter. The information contained in this
report should be considered confidential.
~INNESOTA ~ULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY
Copyright THE UNIVERSITY_OF ~INNESOTA
194~, Renewed 1970. This Report 19~2. All rights reserved.
ScOred and Distributed EXclusively by NCS PROFESSIONA[ ASSESS~ENT SERVICES
Under License From The University of ~innesota
* "The Rinnesota Report," "/~PI. '~~ · · ~?~:~[~
Inventory" are trademarks o~ned by'~h~n~n~ t~r:~t;~h~;cu t~f
Rinnesota.
THE HINNESOTA REPORT
for the Hinnesota hultiphasic Personality Inventory
By James N. Butcher, Ph.0.
CLINICAL PROFILE
Client No. : 041752
Setting : hental ~eal[h Outpatient
Report Date : 12-NOV-87
Page
: Adult System
Gender : Female
Age : 35
110-
100-
90-
~o--
70-'
60-
50-
40-
30-
?
? L F
L F K
1
K Hs
Hs
1
Clinical Profile Scores:
2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9
D Hy Pd hf Pa Pt Sc ha
Raw 8 7 2 19 7 18
K-Correction IO
T 41 60 48 62 58 47
O Hy Pd hf Pa Pt Sc ha
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g
O
Si
-110
- i00
-90
--80
-70
-~;o
-$0
-~0
-~0
Si
0
23 14 44 11 3 4 17 lg
8 19 lg 4
Percent True : 41
Profile Elevation : 54.3
(Hs,O,Hy,Pd,Pa,Pt,Sc,ha)
F - K (Raw) : -17
Goldberg Index : 68
Nelsh Code :
9-61348/270:5# KL-F?:
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
SUPPLEMENTAL PROFILE
· Client No. : O~1752 Report Date : 12-NOV-87
Page
llO-
100-
90-
80-
70-
$o
~o:
- ~
30
A
A R Es
HEA DEP ORG FAM AUT FEM REL HOS NOR PHO PSY HYP SOC
-110
- 100
-90
-8O
-70
:6o
-50
-i~O
-
-30
R Es I HEA DEP ORG FAM AUT FEM REL HOS MOR PHO PSY HYP SOC
Supplemental Profile Scores:
Raw 2 !~ ~6 1 q 7
3 $ 2~ 11 3 1 1 3 12 3
T 35 ~I 59 37 ~1 50 ~6 ~2 62 6~ 38 32 32 hl ~8 36
Client No.
The Hinnesota Hultiphasic Personality Inventory
EXTENDED SCORE REPORT
: Oh1752 Report Date : 12-NOV-87
Page
Supplementary Scales:
Oependency.(Dy)
Dominance
Responsibility (Re)
Control (Cn)
College Haladjustment£Y ~(Ht)O.H)
Overcontrolled Hostili
Prejudice (Pr) .
Han~fest Anxiety (HAS)
HacAndrew Addiction
Social Status (St)
Depression Subscales (Harris-Lingoes):
Subjective Oepression (01)
Psychomotor Retardation
Physical Halfunc~io~ing
Henta] Dullness (D~)
Brooding (DS)
Hysteria Subscales (Harris-Lingoes):
Denial of Social Anxiety (Hy1)
Need for Affection (Hy2)
Lassitude-Halaise (Hy~)
Somatic Complaints
Inhibition of Aggression
Psychopathic Deviate Subscales
Familial Discord (Pdl) .
Authority Problems (Pd2)
Social Imperturbability (Pd3)
Social Alienation (Pd4a)
Self Alienation (Pd4b)
Hasculinity-Femininity Subscales (Serkownek):
Narcissism-Hypersensitivity (Hf[) .
Stereotypic Feminine Interests (Hf2) .
Denial of Stereo. Hasculine Intere~ts(Hf3)
Heterosexual Discomfort-Passivity
Introspective-Critical (HFS)
Socially Retiring (HFS)
Paranoia Subscales (Harris-Lingoes):
Persecutorx Idpas (Pal)
Poignancx (Pa2)
Naivete (Pa3)
Schizophrenia Subscales (Harris-Lingoes):
Social Alienation (Scla)
Emotional Alienation .(Sclb)
Lack of Ego Hastery, Cognitive (Sc2a)
Lack of Ego Hastery, Conative (Sc2b)
BizarreLack of ~go Hastery, Def. Inhib.. (Sc2c)
;ensory Experiences (Sc3)
Hypomania Subscales (Harris-Lingoes):
Amorality (Hal)
Psychomotor Acceleration (Ha2)
' mper turbab i ' i ~a~a3)
Ego Inflation
Social Introversion Subscales (Serko~nek):
nferiority-Personal Oiscomfort (Si1)
iscomfort with Others (Si2)
Staid-Personal Rigidity (Si3)
Hypersensi. tiv~t [Si4
Distrust (SIS) y ) .
Physical-Somatic Concerns (Si6)
Raw
(Hy$)
(Harris-Lingoes):
Score T Score
6
0
1
46
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
CRITICAL ITEM LISTING
Client No. : O~1752 Report Date : 12-NOV-87
Page
The following Critical Items have been found to have possible
~gnificance in analyzing a client's problem situation. A~though these
~:ems may serve as a source of hypotheses for further investigation,
caution should be taken in interpreting individual items because they ma
have been inadvertently checked. Critical item numbers refer to The Y
Group Fqrm ~est booklet. Corresponding item numbers for Form R (only
items 357-$66 differ) can be found in the MMPI" "
"An ,, . . Manual or Volume I of
~MP[ Hand~oo~. Corresponding ~tem numbers for the Roche Testbook
can De round in The. Clinical Use of the Automated MMPI."
ACUTE ANXIETY STATE (Koss-Butcher Critical Items)
am easily awakened by noise. (T).
work under a great deal of tensio.n. (T)
0EPRESSED SUICIOAL 10EATION (Koss-Butcher Critical Items)
158. I cry easily. (T)
THREATENED ASSAULT (Koss-Butcher Critical Items)
23~. I get mad easily and then get over it soon. (T)
SITUATIONAL STRESS DUE TO ALCOHOLISM (Koss-Butcher Critical Items)
215. I have used alcohol excessively. (T)
CHARACTEROLOGICAL AOJUSTMENT -- ANTISOCIAL ATTITUDE
(Lachar-Wrobel Critical Items)
38. DUring one period when I was a youngster, I engaged'in
petty thievery. (T)
250. I don't blame anyon~ for trying to grab everything he can
get in this world.
2~. / have never been in trouble with the law. (F)
SOMATIC SYMPTOMS (Lachar-Wrobel Critical Items)
62.
68,
11/~.
175.
3~0.
Parts of my body often have feelings like burning, tinalin
~r~wl~gg, or l[ke."going to sleep,n (T) - g'
naraly ever reel pain in the back of the neck. (F)
Often I feel as if there were a tight band about my head. (T)
I seldom or never have dizzy spells. (F)
I have never beqn. paralyzed or had any unusual weakness of any
of my muscles. (F}
NCS Professional AsseSsment Services, P.O. Box 1~16, ~pis, MN 55~O
MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY
Copyright THE UNIVERSITY_OF MINNESOTA
1~, Renewed 1970. This Report 1982. All rights reserved.
Scored and Oistributed Exclusively by NCS PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT SERVICES
Under License From The University of Minnesota ~
*. "The Minnesota Report," "J~qPl," and "Minn ..... "-'-' ........
,, ~au~a nulLIpnaSlC rersonall[y
inventory are trademarks o~ned by the UniVersity Press of the University of
Minnesota.
TO*
THE HINNESOTA REPORT
TO
for the Hinnesota Hultiphasic Personality Inventory :
Page 1
Adult System
By James N. Butcher, Ph.D
Client No, : 090150 Gender : hale
Setting : Hental Heal[h Outpatient Age :
Report Date : 12-N0V-B7
PAS Code Number : 00158~50 657 0050 t~~
PROFILE VALIDITY
..~s i? a valid HHPI.profile. The client's responses to
valla~cy items suggest,that he cooperated with the evaluation enough to
provide Useful interpretiVe information. The resulting cllnical profile is
an adequate indication of his Present personality functioning.
SYHPTOHATIC PATTERN
This ~MPI profile is within normal limits. The client did not report
psychological conflicts or situational stresses that are producing great
difficulty for him at this time. He appears to be dealing effect,rely with
his life situation~ and seems to be obtaining sufficient satisfaction out
of life at this point.
h He is a rather i.~tep~.mtent and s~_~_e_vtbaJ~ag~e person who seems to
ave ~ ~reat eea~ or_energy and ~ h.~g~g~g~g~g~g~g~g~activity level. He tends to be a
.somewhat non-conforming person wno is open to new experience and who is
WillLn_.q. tO take~s-k-~-In life. He may be quite a spontaneous and
expressive"i-n-divldual who is generally effective at influencing
interpersonal relationships. He seems to have a somewhat pJeasure-oriented
approach to life.
? . He may pxperience some conflicts concerning his sex-role identity. He
Seems somewhat insecure in his masculine role, showing a generally feminine
pattern of interests. He may be somewhat uncomfortable in relationships
with women.
His responses include content suggesting that he has a very trusting
a~itu~e tow. ard ~he.world~ ~cts_th..e__Law, is honest, and is sensitive to
others .neeas. ,e ,s rather conservative and~d~.-~S-]71'ltes taking riSks.~T------
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
He has an average interest in being with others and 'is not socially.
isolated or ~ithdrawn. He appears to meet and talk with other people with
relative ease and is not overly anxious when in social gatherings.
NOTE: This MHPI interpretation can serve as a useful source of hypotheses '
about clients. This report is based on objectively derived scale indexes
and scale interpretations that have been developed in diverse groups of
patients. The personality descriptions, inferences and recommendations
contained herein need to be verified by other sources of clinical '
information since individual clients may not fully match the prototype.
The information in this report shoUld most appropriately be 'used by a
trained, qualified test interpreter. The information contained in this
report should be considered confidential.
RINNESOTA HULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY
Copyright THE UNIVERSITY_OF HINNESOTA
19h~ Renewed t~70. This Report 19~2. All rights reserved.
Scored and Distributed Exclusively by NCS PROFESSIONAL ASSESSHENT SERVICES
Under License From The University of Hinnesota
"The ~innesota Report," "H~PI."' and "Hinnesota Hultiphasic PersOnality
Inventory" are trademarks owned by the University Press of the University of
Hinnesota. -
THE HINNESOTA REPORT
for the Hinnesota Hultiphasic Personality Inventory
By James N. Butcher, Ph.D.
CLINICAL PROFILE
Client No. : 0:90150
Setting : Hental Heal[h Outpatient
Report Date : 12-NOV-87
Page
: Adult System
Gender : Hale
'Age : 36
2
? L F K
110-
100-
90-
8o--
?o-
6o--
50-
~o-
~0-
L F K
Clinical Profile Scores:
Hs D Hy Pd Hf Pa Pt Sc Ua
O
Si
-110
- 100
-:90
--8o
-70
Hs O Hy Pd Hf Pa Pt Sc
! 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8
Raw 13 8 4 16 2 20
K-Correction 8
T 44 63 53 57 47 58
:6o
* .... * ...... 50
~ -
-40
-~0
Fta S i
9 0
21 19 33 11 10 6 14 22
6 16 16 3
58 64 74 59 56 50 50 47
Percent True : 36
Profile Elevation : 55.3
(Hs,O,Hy,Pd,Pa,Pt,Sc,Ra)
F - K (Raw) : -12
Goldberg Index : 58
Wetsh Code :
5'4-62~789/ 1....~o: L-KF/?:
The ~innesota ~ultiphasic Personality Inventory
SUPPLEHENTAL PROFILE
Client No. : 090150 Report Date : 12-NOV-87
Page
A R Es
110-
100-
90-
8o-
7o
50 ..... * ....
40-
3o
A R Es
HEA DEP ORG FAM AUT FE~ REL HOS HOR PHO PSY HYP SOC
-110
-100
-90
--8o
-70
:60
* -
* ...... 50
HEA DEP ORG FAH AUT FEH REL HOS HOR PHO PSY HYP SOC
Supplemental Profile Scores:
Raw 7 15 53 3 4 3
T 44 49 64
45 44 45 73 34 61 39 39 42 48 43 50 51
Client No.
The ninnesota nultiphasic Personality Inventory
EXTENDED SCORE REPORT
: 090150 Report Date : 12-NOV-87
Supplementary Scales: Raw
ependency
Responsibility (Re)
Control (Cn)
College naladjustment (nt). ..
Overcontrolled Hostility
Prejudice (Pr)
nan~fest Anxiety (nAS)
nacAndrew Addiction (nAC)
Social Status (St)
Depression Subscales (Harris-Lingoes):
Subjective Depression (D1~2~
Psychomotor Retardation
Physical nalfunc~ioping
nental Dullness (Dh)
Brooding (05)
Hysteria Subscales (Harris-Lingoes):
Oenial of Social Anxiety (Hyl)
Need for AffectiOn (Hy2)
Lassitude-nalaise (Hy~)
Somatic Complaints (Rye)
Inhibition of Aggression
Psychopathic Deviate Subscales
Familial Oiscord (Pdl)
Authority Problems (Pd2)
~ocial Im~erturbab~.lity (Pd3)
bocial Alienation {Pdha)
Self Alienation (Pd~b)
~asculinity-Femininity Subscales (Serkownek):
Narcissism-Hypersensitivity (nfl) .
Stereotypic Feminine Interests (nf2) .
Denial of Stereo. ~asculine Intere~ts(nf~)
Heterosexual Discomfort-Passivity
Introspective-Critical (nfS)
Socially Retiring (nf6)
Paranoia Subscales (Harris-Lingoes):
Persecutorx Ideas (Pal)
Poignancx (Pp2)
Naivete
Schizophrenia Subscales (Harris-Lingoes):
Social Alienation (Scla)
Emotional Alienation (Sclb)
Lack of Ego nastery, Cognitive.(Sc2p)
Lack of Ego nastery, Conative (Scab).
Lack of Ego ~astery, Def. Inhib:, {Sczc)
Bizarre Sensory Experiences (Sc~)
Hypomania Subscales (Harris-Lingoes):
Amorality (~al)
Psychomotor Acceleration (Ha2)
Imperturbabili~a~a~)
Ego Inflation
Social Introversion Subscales (Serko~nek):
nferiority-Personal Discomfort (Si1)
iscomfort with Others (~i2).
Staid-Personal Rigidity (Si~)
Hypersensi. tiv.i,ty
O~strust (SIS)
Physical-Somatic Concerns (Si6)
(HyS)
(Harris-Lingoes):
Score
22
10
18
0
0
2
.1
2
2
1
6
i
2
2
T Score
63
Page
The ~innesota ~ultiphasic Personality Inventory
CRITICAL ITE~ LISTING
Client No. : 090150 Report Date : 12-NOV-87
Page
The following Critical Items have been found to have possible
~gnificance in analyzing a client's problem situation. Although these
i:ems may serve as a source of hypotheses for further investigation,
~uti~n sh~ul~ be_ta~n i? ipt~rpr~ting i~dividual items because they may
nave oeen inaavercen[ly cnecKea, critical item numbers refer to The
Group Form test booklet. Corresponding item numbers for Form R (only
,i,~em~.~7~566 differ) can be found in the ~/~PI "~anual" or Volume I of
an ~F[ Handbook.' Corresponding item numbers fOr the Roche Testbo~
can De ~oune in The. Clinical Use of the Automated I~PI.'
ACUTE ANXIETY STATE (Koss-Butcher Critical Items)
I wake Ul~ fresh and rested most mornings. (F)
I am easily awakened by noise, (T)
1~. I wo.rk under a great deal of tension. (T)
0EPRESSED SUICIDAL IDEATION (Koss-Butcher Critical Items)
hl. I have had periods of days. weeks, or months when I couldn't
10 . of things because I .couldn't '.g.et going". (T)
~1~. I am happy most of the time. (F) . .
At times I think I am no good at a11. (T)
SITUATIONAL STRESS DUE TO ALCOHOLIS/~ (Koss-Butcher Critical Items)
2i~5. I have used alcohol excessively. (T)
t~ENTAL CONFUSION (Koss-Butcher Critical Items)
~. I have had very peculiar and strange experiences. (T)
CHARACTEROLOGICAL ADJUSTI~ENT -- ANTISOCIAL ATT ITUOE
(Lachar-Nrobel Critical Items)
58. Outing one period..~hen I ~as a youngster, I engaged in
petty thievery. (T)
250. I don't blame anyone. .for trying to grab everything he can
get in this ~orld. (T)
CHARACTEROLOGICAL ADJUSTftENT -- FAftlLY CONFLICT
(Lachar-i4robel Critical Items)
2~§:,) .I. have very few quarrels with members of
mY
family.
(F)
ny parent, s. and family find more fault with me than they
should. (T)
take care
NCS Professional Assessment Services, P.O. Box 1~16, ~pls,
~INNESOTA ~ULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY
CopYriaht THE UNIVERSITY OF ~INNESOTA
19~3~ Renewed 1970, This Report 1982. All rights reserved.
Scored and Distributed Exclusive!y by NCS PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT SERVICES
Under License From The University of ~innesota
*. "The ~innesota Report," 'H/~PI," and "Hinnesota Hultiphasic Personality
~nventory" are trademarks o~ned by the University Press of the University of
~innesota.
Individual &
Family Services
CENTER FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL FITNESS
115 South St. Johns Drive * Camp Hill, PA 17011 · (717) 737-3840
SUMMARY OF CUSTODY/VISITATION
EVALUATION REGARDING DAWN GERLAND
I began my evaluation of Dawn Gerland with her father for the
purpose of assessing the appropriateness of increased visitation in June,
1987. I met individually with Dawn and separately with the Gerland and
Shirvinski families. I also interviewed Dawn jointly with each family.
After a feedback session reporting my findings and recommendations to
both parties and their attorneys in June, 1987, I left the parties to
work out a solution acceptable to all sides. They were unable to do so,
and thus I have updated my information with interviews and psychological
testing in November and December, 1987. My findings, conclusions, and
recommendations are as follows:
Visitation arrangements had gone on relatively smoothly for twelve
years'u'h~il'thesummer of-1986 Dawn declared her wishes to severely
restri'ct~hercontact with'herfather after he imPosed an extended stay on
her during her regular visit in the summer of 1986. The families have
not yet'recoVered from this experience and have been unable to reach an
agreement as to how to conduct future visitation. The Shirvinsky's
proposal of "taking it slow", writing regularly, phone calls regularly,
has been seen as ineffective and controlling by Mr. Gerland. He, in
return, is asking for more time with his daughter, without interference
from the Shirvinsky family. Allegations about what actually happened
during this most recent summer visit, which resulted in Dawn's wanting no
contact whatsoever, appear to be refuted by each party.
Mr. Gerland presents himself as sensitive, introspective,
androgenous in his interests, dedicated as a parent, and in general happy
with his life. His MMPI results suggest that he "has a trusting attitude
toward the world, respects the law, is honest and is sensitive to others'
needs." He is described as "independent and somewhat aggressive and to
have a somewhat pleasure-oriented approach to life." Mrs. Shirvinsky
appears sociable, very feminine in her demeanor, and a woman who is
accustomed to seeing herself as effective in her world. She reports she
is happy in her life, optimistic, and has a rather positive self-image.
Her MMPI reports her to be able to deal effectively with other people and
to make favorable impressions upon others, that she "is very responsible
and lives up to her obligations." It further suggests "her personal
relationships may be somewhat superficial and that she may manipulate
other especially to gain social status. She may be impulsive at times
and act without sufficient forethought."
-2-
As parents, both Mr. Gerland and Mrs. Shirvinsky have demonstrated
competence. Mr. Gerland has raised his son, Ty, to be a sensitive,
fun-loving, demonstrative, respectful, expressive, social child. Mrs.
Shirvinsky has raised three daughters to be polite, cooperative, helpful,
family-oriented, and conscientious. They both, in my opinion, demonstrate a
desire to do what is best for Dawn, but have reached a stalemate as to how to
accomplish this given her stated preference not to see her biological father
and to be adopted by John Shirvinsky.
Dawn comes across as a very outspoken child for her age. She is doing
average academic work, is involved in a variety of healthy social and
recreational activities and appears very attentive to her physical appearance
and as well as to her social image. She came across as aloof with her half
brother, Ty, who exuded enthusiasm towards her. She does not appear to value
the emotional relationship with her father. She demonstrated consistent
indifference to his feelings, refusing the gift he brought her, criticizing
him from how much child support he gave to why he had even sent presents to
her half-sisters.
Mr. Gerland was, in my presence, very appropriate with her, asking her
to help him understand her feelings and to work out an acceptable compromise.
None was possible and then she blamed him for taking them to court.
It is my opinion that Dawn desires the uninterrupted harmony of her
immediate existence. She uses the Shirvinsky name in school and doesn't want
her friends to know she has a different father. Even her siblings do not know
John is not her biological father. She is unaccustomed to the degree of
emotional expressiveness of the Gerland household.
Given Mr. Gerland's presentation, his psychological test results, the
evidence of his successful parenting with his son, and reports from his
psychologist, I anticipate that the difficulty with his daughter is a result
of desparities in styles of relating and insufficient time to develop a solid
relationship. I can appreciate the difficulties he may have had in trying to
arrange visitation through Mrs. Shirvinsky as we had similar difficulties in
our office finding appointment times that were acceptable to her.
While Mrs. Shirvinsky admittedly invested considerable energy in
cultivating Dawn's relationship early on, she at present could verbalize no
benefit to Dawn to continue to have any kind of relationship with her father.
In contrast, it is my belief that Mr. Gerland offers opportunities for
exposure to a world-view, a life style, and a relationship that is uniquely
with him and is different from anything she can obtain in her immediate
family. I believe this relationship can only be developed if father and
daughter are given adequate time alone without interference from Dawn's other
-3-
family. Thus, I am recommending Dawn have increased visitation with her
father and that this visitation be done trusting his established capabilities
as an effective parent. The timing of these visits can be arranged to best
accommodate Dawn's scheduled activities at home and to maintain the maximum
continuity possible in her current home situation.
Natalie S. B~rger, Ph.D.
Psychologist
NSB/dlh
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
RESUME
Natalie S. Berger, Ph.D.
502 Woodcrest Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(717) 737-3840
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
B.S. 1971
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Elementary Education/Psychology
M. Ed. 1972
University of Pittsburgh
Special Education and Rehabilitation
Program in Learning and Behavior Disorders
Ph.D. 1975
University of Pittsburgh
Educational, Developmental and School Psychology
1978
University of Pittsburgh
Educational Administration
Post-Graduate
Training
Gestalt Therapy, Reality Therapy, Workshop Institute
in Living Learning, Transactional Analysis, Values
Clarification, Primary Prevention, Human Development
Program, Structural Family Therapy, Bioenergetic
Analysis, Hypnotherapy, Neurolinguistic Programming.
See Addendum for Health Psychology and Forensic
Psychology Training.
AREAS OF CERTIFICATION AND LICENSURE
Elementary Education
Special Education: Emotionally Disturbed, Learning Disabled, Mentally
Retarded, Physically Handicapped
School Psychology
Pennsylvania State License for Private Practice in Psychology
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
Primar~ Emploj~ment
Substitute Teacher, Pittsburgh Board of Education,
Pittsburgh, PA
Learning Disability Resource Teacher, Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit VII, Greensburg, PA
1971-1972
1972-1973
Berger, Natalte S. Page
Primary Employment (continued)
Project Evaluator, Teacher Corps, Office of Research
and Field Services, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA
Instructor (part-time), University of Pittsburgh,
Department of Educational Psychology, Pittsburgh, PA
Instructor (part-time), Pennsylvania State University,
Special Education Department, New Kensington Campus
Psychologist, Allegheny Intermediate Unit III,
Exceptional Children's Program for Learning Disabled,
Emettonally Disturbed and Heartng Impaired,
Pittsburgh, PA
Psychologist, Private Practice, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, PA
Specialization: developmental crises, famtly therapy,
psychosomatic Illnesses, custody and
personal injury evaluations
1973-1974
1975-1976
1975-1976
1976-1980
1975-present
Secondary Employment
Inservice Coordinator, Allegheny Intermediate Unit III
Instructional Support Services Division, Pittsburgh, PA
Psychologist, Westmoreland Intermediate Unit VII
Preschool Program, Greensburg, PA
Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Pittsburgh,
Department of Psychology, Pittsburgh, PA
Psychologist, Association for Children with Learning
Disabilities, Pittsburgh, PA
Consultant, Mtllersvtlle State College
Tttle XX, Mtllersvllle, PA
Adjunct Associate Professor, Behavioral Sciences
Department, Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Adjunct Associate Professor, Counseling Psychology
Temple University, The Consortium, Harrisburg, PA
1975
1976
lg7g
1979-1980
1981
1981-1983
1982-1983
University Teaching Experiences
Graduate and undergraduate courses: Developmental Psychology,
Learning Disabilities, Emotional Disorders in Children, Introductory
Educational Psychology, Advanced Educational Psychology, Learning
and Instruction, Mainstreaming, Preschool Growth and Development,
Marriage and Family Counseling, Parent and Adolescent Relationships,
Adolescent Psychology.
MEMBERSHIPS
American Psychological Association
Pennsylvania Psychological Association
Berger, Natalie S. Page 3
APPOINTMENTS
Polyclinic Medical Center - Allied Health Staff
Holy Spirit Hospital - Medical Staff
SCHOLARSHIPS AND GRANTS
Senatorial Scholarship (1969-1970)
Federal Tuition Scholarship (1971-1972)
Associate Provost Scholarship (1974)
School of Education Research Grant, University of Pittsburgh (lg74-1975)
Frick Educational Commission, Curriculum Development Grant (1979)
PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS
Berger, N. S. and Perfetti, C. A., Reading Skill and Memory for Spoken and
Written Discourse. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1977, IX (1), 7-16.
Berger, N. S., Why Can't John Read? Perhaps he's not a goo~--listener.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1978, X._[I (10), 633-638.
Berger, N. S., Beyond Testing: A Decision Making System for Providing School
Psychological Consultation. Professional Psychology, 1979, X {6), 273-277
Berger, N. S., When All Else Fails, Get Back to Basics. Academi~ Therapy, 1980,
XV (5), 517-521.
Berger, N. S., Understanding and Facilitating Reading Comprehension, New England
Reading Association Journal, 1981, XXVI (1), 21-26.
Berger, N. S., What's Special about Education for the Socially and Emotionally
Disturbed? Multi-media program, Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 1978.
Berger, N. S., (Ed.) Designs on Success: An Elementar~ Art Curriculum for the
Learning and Adjustment Program. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 1979.
PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS
Working within the system: a school-based mental health team.
National Association of School Psychologists, New York, 1978.
Why reading failure requires a thorough language evaluation.
National Association of School Psychologists, New York, 1978.
The due process hearing: information and implications.
Council for Exceptional Children, Kansas City, 1978.
A systems approach for intervention with family and school problems.
Pennsylvania Psychological Association, Pittsburgh, 1978.
The legal rights of parents: the ethical responsibilities of school
psychologists. National Association of School Psychologists, San
Diego, 1979.
What we've learned about reading dysfunctions after 50 years of research.
National Association of School Psychologists, San Diego, 1979.
Ber§er~ Natalie S. Page 4
PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS (continued)
Developing successful working relationships with parents. Pennsylvania
Psychological Association, Harrisburg, 1979.
94-142: mandated reevaluations - problems and perspectives from across
the state. Pennsylvania Psychological Association Annual School
Division Conference, State College, 1979.
Working with parents: responsibilities and opportunities. National
Association of School Psychologists, Washington, D.C., lgSO.
The Psychologist in Custody Evaluations, Pennsylvania Psychological
Association, Lancaster, 1983.
Psychologist as an Expert Witness in Child Custody Litigation, Dauphin
County Bar Association, Harrisburg, November, 1983.
COMMUNITY EDUCATIONAL PUBLICATIONS AND APPEARANCES
Newspaper Articles
Help for Infertile Couples, Patriot News, Wellness Column, 1983.
Your Emotions May Be Affecting Your Health, Patriot News, Wellness Column, 1983 (b).
How To Get Along With Your Mate, Patriot News, Wellness Column, 1984.
It's Important To Find Healthy Ways to Control Your Weight, Patriot News,
Wellness Column, 1984.
Television Appearances
Unemployment - Spotlight Series - WGAL-TV, Lancaster, June, 1983.
Custody and Divorce - Spotlight Series, WGAL-TV, Lancaster, January, 1984.
Sexual Abuse - Channel 27 - TV Documentary, lg85
Parenting - WHP - Tips for Daily Living, 1986
Radio Appearances
Family Life - Information Breaks, WMSP, Harrisburg, 1984.
~er~er, Natalie S. Page 5
SEMINARS
POST GRADUATE TRAINING ADDENDUM
FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
PRESENTOR
Theodore H. Beau, Ph.D.
Stanley L. Brodsky, Ph.D.
Jan Grossman, Ph.D.
Richard Garner, M.D.
Richard Warshak, Ph.D.
Florence Kaslow, Ph.D.
American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law
TITLE
The Mental Health Professional
Expert Witness
Expert Witness
Psychological Testimony in
Custody Disputes
Family Evaluation in Child
Custody Litigation
Custody Consultation with
Divorcing Families
Divorce Mediation
Ottowa
DATE
198O
1981
1983
1983
1983
1984
1987
Training I have conducted:
PRESENTED TO
PA Psychological Assoc.
Dauphin County Bar Assoc.
WGAL-TV, Lancaster
Spotlight Series
TITLE
Custody Evaluation
Using the PsYchologist as
Expert Witnesses in Custody
and Personal Injury
Custody & Divorce Panel
DATE
1984
1984
1984
Berger, Natalie S. Page 6
POST GRADUATE TRAINING ADDENDUM
HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
SYMPOSIA
APA Master lecture Series
Psychology and Health
Institute for the Study of Human Knowledge 1.) Obesity and Health
2.) Stress Management
3.) Pain Control
Elizabeth Kubler-Ross
Symposia on Death and Dying
Berger, Natalte S. Page 7
WORKSHOPS
March 19 & 19, 1983
October 24, 1983
May 19, 1984
July 22, 1983
November 11 & 12, 1983
April 14 & 15, 1984
May 4 & 5, 1984
June 14, 1984
October 19, 1984
October 19 & 20, 1985
Introductory
Hypnosis
Hypnosis
Pain Control
Hypnosis
Hypnosis
Neuroltngutsttc
Programming
Advanced Hypnosis
Habit Disorders
Family Therapy
Neuroltngutsttc
Programming
Mark King, Ph.D.
Charles Citrenbaum, Ph.D.
William Cohen, M.D.
Sheppard Pratt Hospital
Baltimore, MD
ATCH Syosset, New York
Philadelphia, Pa
Mark King, Ph.D.
Charles Citrenbaum, Ph.D.
William Cohen, M.D.
Sheppard Pratt Hospital
Baltimore, MO
Ron Kltne, M.S.W.
Silver Spring, MO
Mark King, Ph.D.
Charles Citrenbaum, Ph.D.
William Cohen, M.D.
Sheppard Pratt Hospital
Baltimore, MO
The Eastern NLP Institute
Philadelphia, PA
Mark King, Ph.D.
Charles Citrenbaum, Ph.O
William Cohen, M.D.
Sheppard Pratt Hospital
Baltimore, MD.
Mark King, Ph.D.
Charles Citrenbaum, Ph.D.
William Cohen, M.D.
Sheppard Pratt Hospital
Towson, MD
Jay Haley, Ph.D.
Allentown, PA
John Grinder, Ph.D.
Eastern NLP Institute
Philadelphia, PA
Berger, Natalie S. Page 8
WORKSHOPS CONTINUED
November 15, 1985
April 11 - 12, 1986
December 3-7, 1986
Therapeutic Hypnosis
and Self-Hypnosis: Basic
and Advanced Procedures
Hypnosis and Pain Control
Third International
Congress in Ericksonian
Hypnosis
T.X. Barber, Ph.D.
Philadelphia, PA
Joseph Barber, Ph.D.
Margolts Associates
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, Arizona
SUPERVISION
1984-1986
1987
Live supervision of
four to eight hypno-
therapy cases per week
Supervision Seminar
Twelve-day group
supervision of
hypnotherapy cases
James L. Knestrick, Ph.D.
Member ASCH
Harrisburg, PA
Stephen Gtlligan, Ph.D.
New York, NY
Date of Service
June 10, 1987
June 15, 1987
June 16, 1987
June 17, 1987
June 18, 1987
June 19, 1987
November 23, 1987
December 7, 1987
December 8, 1987
December 9, 1987
December 10, 1987
Individual &
Family Services
CENTER FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL FITNESS
il5SouthSt~hnsDfive · Cmnp H~, PA 1~11 · (71~ ~7-3840
CHRONOLOGY OF EVALUATION
Service Rendered Time
Individual Interview and Psychological
Testing: Dawn Gerland
Individual Interview: Carrol
Shirvinsky; MMPI testing
Group Interview: Shirvinsky Family
Individual Interview: James Gerland;
MMPI testing; Interview: Mr. Gerland
and Ty
Group Interview: Mr. Gerland,
Dawn, and Ty
Phone Consultation with
Dr. Williams (Dawn's psychologist)
Consultation with both families
and their attorneys
Individual Interview and Psychological
Testing: Dawn Gerland
Joint Interview: Mr. Gerland and
Dawn Gerland
Joint Interview: Mr. and Mrs.
Shirvinsky
Group Interview: Mr. and Mrs.
Shirvinsky and Dawn
Phone Consultation with Dr.
Dempsey (Mr. Gerland's psychologist)
Phone Consultation with Carrol
Shirvinsky reviewing report
Phone Consultation with Mrs. Rosemary
Steele (Guidance counselor at Ingomar
Middle School)
I hour, 15 minutes
I hour, 20 minutes
I hour, 30 minutes
I hour, 30 minutes
1 hour, 0 minutes
0 hour, 30 minutes
I hour, 0 minutes
1 hour, 0 minutes
0 hour, 40 minutes
1 hour, 0 minutes
0 hour, 30 minutes
0 hour, 15 minutes
0 hour, 50 minutes
0 hour, 20 minutes
Individual &
Family Services
CENTER FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL FITNESS
115 South St. Johns Drive · Camp Hill, PA 17011 · (717) 737-3840
December 11, 1987
Judge d. Hess
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Custody/Visitation Evaluation: Dawn Gerland
Dear Judge Hess:
Pursuant to your order of October 30, 1987, I am submitting the
enclosed documents:
1)
2)
Summary of Custody/Visitation Evaluation Regarding Dawn Gerland
Chronology of evaluation
3) Unedited narrative presenting custody evaluation June 19, 1987
4)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - Mrs. Carrol
Shirvinsky
5} Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - Mr. James Gerland
If you are in need of any additional information prior to the
hearing date of December 16, 1987, please inform my office.
Very truly yours,
Natalie S. Berger, Ph.D.
Psychologist
CC:
John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire
Bonnie D. Menaker, Esquire
NSB/dlh
C ~ 0
~ 0
0 ~ ~
0
fl)
f--
f~
IN THE COURT OF CC[~0N PI,RAS
CUMBERLS~'~ COUNTY, PEN/~.SYLV~/q!A
iN RE CUSTODY
NO. 88 CML 19~.7
VS.
Petitioner
CARROL ANN SHIt~INSKY,
P~spond.ent
PETITION TO RESCFJgDUI~ }~AR/NG
LAW OFFICES OF
JO/tN C. I{OWETT, JR., P.C.
132 WALNUT STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 810
HARRISBURO, PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
Vo
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOW this /~ day of ~~. , 1987,
upon consideration of within Petition to Reschedule Hearing,
Respondent is hereby directed to show cause if any she has
why:
1. This Court should not retain jurisdiction of
this matter at least on a temporary basis pending hearing with
respect to this Petition and entry of a temporary order for
partial custody in favor of Petitioner; and,
2. This Court should not enter a temporary order
for partial custody in favor of Petitioner for designated
periods during the 1987 Thanksgiving and Christmas school
vacation periods and on occasional weekends prior thereto;
and,
3. This Court should not enter an order providing
for continuing partial custody in favor of Petitioner on a
long term basis; and,
4. Respondent should not be required to provide
Petitioner with information regarding the school in which Dawn
Evett Gerland is currently enrolled; and,
5. This Court should not direct such further
evaluation by Dr. Natalie Berger as Dr. Berger shall deem
necessary or appropriate, Dr. Berger's fees for which shall be
initially borne by Petitioner without prejudice to an ultimate
determination of responsibility for any such fees.
Any objection to the temporary jurisdiction of this
Court or to further evaluation by Dr. Berger shall be filed
and served within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. If
either such objection is filed, this Court shall conduct
argument thereon at /~ o'clock 7~__.m. in Courtroom ~
on the ~o~ day of ~~ , 1987.
If no objection to jurisdiction is filed within ten
(10) days hereof, this Court shall assume temporary
jurisdiction without prejudice to either party. Continuing
jurisdiction beyond the December 16th hearing date (or any
continuation thereof) shall abide further consideration by
this Court.
If no objection to further evaluation by Dr. Berger
is filed within ten (10) days hereof, such evaluation shall
proceed as expeditiously as possible with Petitioner being
responsible for Dr. Berger's fees without prejudice and until
further order of this Court as to ultimate responsibility for
such fees. Both parties shall cooperate in scheduling such
evaluations as promptly as possible.
Other than as set forth in the preceding three
paragraphs, a response to this Rule shall be filed and served
- 2 -
within twenty (20) days of the date hereof. Hearing on the
issues raised in the Petition and the Response shall be held
at ~(~0 o'clock ~ .m. in Courtroom ~ on the /&~
day of -~~ , 1987, in the Cumberland County
Courthouse.
BY THE COURT:
Dated:
?
/
Je
- 3 -
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
PETITION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING
AND NOW comes James Gerland, Petitioner in the
above-captioned matter, by and through his counsel, John C.
Howett, Jr., who states the following in support of the within
Petition:
1. Petitioner is James F. Gerland who resides at
1108 Pinehollow, Friendswood, TX 77546.
2. Respondent is Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, the former
Carrol Ann Gerland, who resides at 2506 Birchwood Court,
Wexford, Allegheny County, PA 17099, but who resided at 3607
Horsham Drive, Mechanicsburg, in Cumberland County for many
years and continued to so reside at all times pertinent hereto
until approximately September 1987 as set forth more fully
hereinafter.
3. On April 7, 1987, Petitioner herein filed a
Petition to Have Respondent Held in Contempt for Failure to
Comply with visitation Order and to Compel Psychological
Evaluations Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1915.8. Petitioner hereby
incorporates herein the averments contained in said Petition
as if the same were set forth in full herein. Said Petition
was accompanied by one Rule to Show Cause with respect to
Petitioner's request for psychological evaluations which was
signed and certified April 7, 1987, and made returnable twenty
(20) days from service. A separate Rule to Show Cause with
respect to Petitioner's request to have Respondent held in
contempt was also signed and certified April 7, 1987, and made
returnable at hearing scheduled for June 29, 1987 and July 1,
1987, before the Honorable Kevin A. Hess.
4. On May 11, 1987, Respondent, through her
counsel, Bonnie D. Menaker, Esquire, filed an Answer to Order
and Rule to Show Cause in which Respondent agreed to
Petitioner's request for independent psychological
evaluations. Said Answer made reference to a tentative
agreement between counsel for the parties to request that the
Court appoint Elizabeth Hanson Hoffman, Ph.D., as independent
evaluator, to conduct the psychological evaluations. It was
thereafter determined that Dr. Hoffman was unable to perform
the evaluations.
5. By subsequent agreement of the parties
evidenced by letter dated May 26, 1987 from Attorney Menaker
to the undersigned counsel, the parties selected Natalie S.
Berger, Ph.D., as the independent psychologist to conduct said
psychological evaluations.
6. Dr. Berger conducted said evaluations which
culminated with a five-party meeting attended by the
respective parties and counsel. Dr. Berger's evaluation was
supportive of Petitioner's request for continuing and expanded
- 2 -
visitation/partial custody rights with his daughter, Dawn
Evett Gerland.
7. As a result of said five-party meeting, the
parties reached a tentative verbal agreement with respect to
immediate partial custody in Petitioner for a two week period
which in fact occurred at the end of the summer. Counsel
attempted to draft a stipulation to be entered as an Order of
Court in accordance with the terms of said tentative verbal
agreement. Concurrently, the hearing scheduled for June 29
and July 1, 1987 was continued pursuant to the parties' mutual
request in anticipation of the entry of a stipulated order.
8. Pursuant to said tentative verbal agreement,
Petitioner exercised partial custody with his daughter
beginning July 18, 1987 and extending until August 1, 1987. To
date, no formal agreement has been reached nor stipulation
entered with respect to Petitioner's future rights to partial
custody of the child. Respondent has denied all of
Petitioner's requests for further periods of partial custody
since the child's return on August 1, 1987, placing Respondent
in contempt of the visitation order currently in effect which
is filed of record in Cumberland County Court and docketed to
the above-captioned action.
9. Respondent has made serious, unfounded and
untrue allegations that Petitioner violated the terms of said
tentative verbal agreement during the course of the summertime
partial custody period. The factual allegations made by
- 3 -
Respondent are false and, further, no formal agreement had
been reached nor stipulation entered with respect to said
partial custody period which Petitioner could have been deemed
to have violated.
10. Sometime in late August or early September
1987, Respondent moved her place of residence to the current
address in Wexford, Pennsylvania (in the greater Pittsburgh
area). While Respondent had previously indicated that the
family would incur a change of residence in the near future,
Respondent failed at any time during the psychological
evaluations or subsequent negotiations between the parties to
indicate that said change of residence was intended to be
anything other than a local move. In point of fact,
Petitioner, the undersigned counsel, and Dr. Berger each
possessed the understanding that Respondent was intending to
move to another location in the local area.
11. Respondent has heretofore refused to supply
Petitioner with any information regarding the school district
in which the child is currently enrolled. 23 Pa. C.S.A. ~
5309(a) requires that each parent be provided access to
school records of the child. Respondent is clearly in
violation of this section of the statute.
12. The purpose of this Petition is to obtain an
immediate order of partial custody in favor of Petitioner in
order that Petitioner may enjoy partial custody during the
- 4 -
1987 Thanksgiving and Christmas school vacation periods and on
occasional weekends prior thereto.
13. Jurisdiction of this action is properly vested
in the Cumberland County Court. The undersigned has asked
Attorney Menaker if she intends to raise jurisdictional issues
based upon Respondent's move to Allegheny County, and Attorney
Menaker has not yet responded to said inquiry. In
anticipation of Respondent raising jurisdictional issues,
Petitioner hereby requests that this Court enter a rule upon
Respondent to show cause why jurisdiction of this matter is
not properly vested in this Court. It is further requested
that said rule to show cause carry a short return date in
accordance with the priority accorded jurisdictional issues
pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 5366.
14. Due to the brief period of evaluation available
to Dr. Berger prior to the hearing scheduled for June 29,
1987, and due to the subsequent events which have occurred
since said hearing was continued, further independent
evaluation by Dr. Berger is necessary and appropriate to
assist this Court in reaching its determination.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter a rule upon Respondent to show
cause if any she has why:
(1) This Court should not retain jurisdiction of
this matter, at least on a temporary basis, pending hearing
- 5 -
with respect to this Petition and entry of a temporary order
for partial custody in favor of Petitioner;
(2) This Court should not enter a temporary order
for partial custody in favor of Petitioner for designated
periods during the 1987 Thanksgiving and Christmas school
vacation periods and on occasional weekends prior thereto;
(3) This Court should not enter an order providing
for continuing partial custody in favor of Petitioner on a
long term basis;
(4) Respondent should not be required to provide
Petitioner with information regarding the school in which Dawn
Evett Gerland is currently enrolled;
(5) This Court should not direct such further
evaluation by Dr. Natalie Berger as Dr. Berger shall deem
necessary or appropriate, Dr. Berger's fees for which shall be
initially borne by Petitioner without prejudice to an ultimate
determination of responsibility for any such fees.
Dated:
Res~c~ully.s~ed,
~~~tt, Jr., P~~-c-ire
132 Walnut Street
P. O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Counsel for Petitioner
- 6 -
IN THE COURT OF CC~'~ON PLEAS
CUMBERLA~ COUNTY, PEN~'~.SYLV~q!A
iN RE CUSTODY
NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
VS.
Petitioner
CARROL ANN SIIIR~rNSKY,
P~spondent
PETITZON TO ~UI~ t~3kRING
LAW OFFICES OF
JOHN C. HOWETT, JR., P.C.
132 WALNUT STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 810
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108
IN THE COURT OF CCMMON PICAS
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 88 CML 1987
VS.
Plaintiff
CARROL ANN SHIRVI~SKY,
Defendant
PIrLE, TOSHOWCAUSEAND
PETITION
LAW OFFICES OF
JOHN C. YIOWETT. JR., P.C.
118 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 810
HARRISBUKO, PENNSYLVANIA 17108
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
Ve
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 Civil 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION TO HAVE RESPONDENT
HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH VISITATION
ORDER AND REQUESTING I}~DEPENDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS
PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 19~.8 SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
AND NOW, this /~J~ day of _ .~./ , 1987,
upon consideration of the within Petition to Have Respondent
Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply With Visitation Order
~ Rcque~tln~-rn~ep~cn~cnt Ps~l~log~al ~valu~Liu~--pur~~
~.~.P. 1915.~ and on motion of John C. Howett, Jr.,
Esquire, attorney for Petitioner, Respondent is hereby
directed to show cause, if any she has, why the relief
requested in the within Petition should not be grantedl
/ i
BY THE COURT:
Je
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 Civil 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
PETITION TO HAVE RESPONDENT HELD IN CONTEMPT
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH VISITATION ORDER
AND TO COMPEL PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION PURSUANT
TO PA. R.C.P. 1915.-~------
AND NOW, comes James F. Gerland, Petitioner in the
above-captioned matter, by and through his counsel, John C.
Howett, Jr., who states the following:
1. Petitioner is James F. Gerland, who resides at
1108 Pinehollow, Friendswood, Texas.
2. Respondent is Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, the former
Carrol Ann Gerland, who resides at 3607 Horsham Drive,
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. The parties were married in ].973 and divorced
in Harris County, Texas, pursuant to a decree entered May 21,
1976 and docketed to No. 1,045,669 in the Court of Domestic
Relations No. 5, Harris County, Texas, a certified copy of
which is filed in Cumberland County Court (pursuant to the
authority of 42 Pa. C.S.A. 5356(a)) and docketed to the
above-captioned action, a copy of which Decree ~s attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.
4. One child was born of this marriage, namely
Dawn Evett Gerland, born September 23, 1975.
5. The child has resided with Respondent at 3607
Horsham Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
for at least six (6) months prior to the filing of this
petition.
6. The Texas Divorce Decree contains a Child
Custody Order, which provides in pertinent part:
Petitioner shall have visitation
privileges with said minor child as follows:
1. 30 days in June, July or August with
30 days prior written notice.
2. When the child becomes the age of 5
years Petitioner shall have visitation
rights each December 25 at 6:00 p.m.
until January 2 at 6:00 p.m.; ! week
each Easter with 10 days prior notice;
1 week each Thanksgiving with 10 days
prior notice.
7. Consistent with his Christmas visitation rights
as enumerated in the aforementioned Decree and Order,
Petitioner scheduled a New Mexico vacation for the purposes of
which he would pick up the child at Respondent's home on
December 26, 1986 and return the child on January 2, 1986.
Respondent was notified of Petitioner's intent to exercise his
visitation rights by certified letter dated November 13, 1986.
8. On or about December ]8, 1986, Respondent
notified Petitioner of her refusal to permit the child to
accompany Petitioner on the aforementioned vacation. As a
- 2 -
result of Respondent's untimely refusal, Petitioner incurred
significant inconvenience and expense in that he was forced to
cancel and/or change airline reservations and hotel
accommodations.
9. On numerous occasions since January 1, 1987,
Petitioner has informed Respondent of his intention to
exercise his rights'under said Decree and Order with respect
to the upcoming Easter vacation period beginning on or around
April 17, 1987. Petitioner has also informed Respondent that
he fully intends to exercise his summer visitation rights for
a period of thirty days (30) with the exact dates to be
determined at a later time.
10. Respondent has informed Petitioner that his
request to exercise Easter vacation visitation rights will not
be honored. Further, Respondent has asserted that any summer
visitation shall not exceed a period of fourteen (14) days.
11. Given Respondent's willful failure and refusal
to honor the terms of said Divorce Decree and Custody Order
and Respondent's expressed intention to continue to refuse to
honor those terms, Petitioner now files to enforce his rights
under that Decree and Order to ensure that said rights will be
honored with respect to the upcoming summer vacation
visitation period.
12. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that
independent psychological evaluations of the minor child and
- 3 -
the parties hereto are indispensable to an appropriate
disposition of this Petition.
13. Petitioner has retained John C. Howett, Jr.,
Esquire, as counsel of record in the above captioned
proceeding in an effort to enforce the terms of said Decree
and Order. Respondent's willful failure and refusal to abide
by the terms of said Decree and Order have caused Petitioner
to incur unnecessary attorney's fees, costs and expenses to
secure enforcement thereof.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to:
a. Issue upon Respondent a Rule to Show Cause
if any she has why she should not be held in contempt for
violation of said Decree and Order and why independent
psychological evaluations of said minor child and the parties
hereto pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1915.8 should not be ordered.
Petitioner requests that independent psychological evaluations
and a hearing pursuant thereto be held whether or not
Respondent is held in contempt of said Decree and Order;
be
compliance
future
Issue appropriate sanctions to guarantee
with said Decree and Order;
c. Enter an award of reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and expenses in favor of Petitioner in
- 4 -
the amounts that have been incurred in prosecuting the instant
petition.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:
March 24, 1987
~R~-C. Howett, Jr., Esquire
118 Market Street
P. O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Counsel for Petitioner
I, James Gerland, hereby swear and affirm that the
facts contained in the foregoing Petition to Have Respondent
Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Visitation Order
are true and correct and are made subject to the penalties of
18 Pa. C.S.A. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to
authorities.
Dated: March 24, 1987 ~~ ~t~. ~~
~J~es Gerland
- 5 -
T~ ~alu~i~c~. OF
JAMES EDWARD GE~D amd
CARROt. ANN ~~
DA~ ~E G~, ~14
_NO. 1 ~ 0/~5 ~ 66_9
---~ .... I~ THE COUaT OF
~u~s coum~y,
DECREE OF DIVORCE
On the ~th da7 of Feb~, 1976, trial on the merits was
~e Petitioner appeared ~ person ~d By atto~ey ~d ~no~ced ready
for trial. ~e Respondent,s atto~ey ~thdre~ cOn~est~
~ after e~m~g the plead~gs ~d ltsten~ to ~he e~dence
~ ar
of cO.scl, f~ds that it has Jurisdiction over this cause ~d the
parties ~d that Petitioner's Original Petition for DivorCe has been on ft'Ie
th~ Court for at least S~ty days.
~e Court f~ds that' at the t~e this s~t was filed, Petitioner had
be~ a do~cilia~ of this state for the preced~g s~ months ~d a resident of
t~s co~ty for the preceding n~ety days. '"
~~g been deeded by
c~troversy~cl~~~ e~ther of the part~es, all ~tters
questions of fact ~d of law, were s~tted to the
Court. ~e Court is of the option that the ~terial allegati~s ~ Petitioner's
O~ginal Petition for D~vorce are Subst~ally correct ~d have been proved by
f~l ~d sat$sfacto~ e~dence. ~e Court f~ds that a divorce shoed 5e grated.
t$oner, J~S ~W~ G~,'~4 ~spondent, ~OL ~ C~, be ~d are
hereby d~ssolved, ~d a decree of 4~vorce is hereby grated to Petitioner.
~e Court f~nds that there ~ere ~o~ to or adopted by the Part~es of
~s ~rr~age the.foll~ n~ c~l~ n~ ~der the age of e~ghteen years:
~e Court finds that the best interest of the children ~11 be se~ed
.by appo~nt~g ~spondent, ~OL~ ~ G~, as ~naging Conse~ator, to have
~e r~ghts, dut~as, and responsib~l~t~es set forth bel~.
IT IS ~F0~ 0~ ~ DEC~ that Responden~ 5e ~d ~s hereby
aPPointed ~ag~ng conse~ator of the children.
IT IS FUR~ ORDEKED AND DECREED =hat the managing conservator shall
have all the rights, priv~leges, duties and pc~ers of a parent, to the exclusion
of the other parent, subject to the rights, privileges, duties and powers of a
possessory conservator as named in this order.
The Court further finds that the best interest of the child will be
served by appointing Petitioner, JAMES EDWARD G~uND, as a possessory conserve=or
of the child.---
IT IS T~E~EFORE ORDERED AND DECREED =hat JAMES EDWARD GERLAND, Petitioner,
be and is hereby appointed possessory conservator of the child.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECREED that the possessory conservator shall
have the possession of the child as follows: Petitioner shall have visitation.
privileges with said m/nor child as follows:
1. 30 days in June, July or August with 30 days prior written
notice.
2. When the child becomes the age of 5 years Petitioner shall have
visitation rights each December 25 at 6:00 P.M. until January 2
at 6:00 P.M.; 1 week each Easter with 10 days pr/or notice; 1
week each Thanksgiving with 10 days prior notice.
3. If Petitioner is in county where child resides, he shall have
rights of visitation at all reasonable times with at least 48
hours prior notice.
No visitation per/od shall interfere with school.
The Court, having considered the circumstances of the parents, finds
that Petitioner, JAMES EDWARD GERLAND, is obligated to support the child and is
able to m~ke child support payments and that payments of support would be in the best
interest of the child.
IT IS T~REFORE ORDERED that Petitioner, JAMES EDWARD GERLAND, pay
child support in the amount of FIFTY DOLLARS ($50.00) week with the first
payment becom/ng due February 16, 1976 and continu/ng~until laches the
age of 18 or until further orders of the court. Said payments will be made through
the Harris County Probation Department, Child Support Division.
It is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall pay all hospital and
medical bills incurred as a result of the birth of their child.
The Court finds that the ?aru-.'es own ~-ommunity property which should
be divided in an equitable manner.
It is therefore ORDERED that the community property owned by the parties
shall he divided as follows:
Petitioner is awarded the following as ~.~ separate property: His
personal belongings now in his possession and ~he 1972 Toyota automobile, Motor
#RT63019516, which shall be picked up by June 1, 1976.
Respondent is awarded the following described property:
belongings now in her possession.
Ail personal
Ail costs of Court expended in this cause are hereby adjudged against
Petitioner.
SIGNED AND ENTERED this
:he ~/ day of , 1976.
ADAM, ADAM & ANDERSON, INC.
P. '0. Box 40396
.H_o_us~n, Texas 77040
~uey For Petitioner
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
f, Ray Harcly, District Clerk of Harris County.
Texas, do hereby cerlify that the foreBoi,~g ~s a
t~:~,~ =nd correct CODy of the o~,iEi~:aI record.
in my I~lful custody an~ DO ..
Court or~ file in my office~.~c~'' Minutes of
W/tFIOSS m~' official hand and s~l of off,ce, this
RAY HARDY, DISTRICT CLERK
Har~is..,C~. nty, Texas
· ~"
NATORE OF,
SETTINGS
~TATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
..... n,~,-r~t C~,:rl.: ~ Ho'tis CountY.
I, t~ay rr~r,~, ~
Texas, do hereby ce~i~y thz~' th'..': f'~,*C;i,ng i$ ·
true and correct col:~y cf t;:~ or:g~. :3, r~c,'d,now
st~.nd [~5-',~-~si''~n, ~i',,- ~ or,:--------
my off,e.
Witn~5 my oflici~ ~nd ~d s~l cf off;ce, thi~
RAY HARd;STriCT CLERK
Harri~
By
LAW O~FICES
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER
& MoRgaN
1 1 1 NORTH FRONT STREET
P. O. Box 889
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0889
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
Ve
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
: NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
:
: IN RE CUSTODY
:
ANSWER TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
Carroll Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent, by her attorney,
Bonnie D. Menaker, hereby files the following Answer to the Rule
to Show Cause:
1. It is admitted that this Court should retain
jurisdiction, at least on a temporary basis pending hearing on
December 16, 1987 with respect to the Petition filed by James
Gerland to have Respondent held in contempt of a visitation Order
and with respect to Respondent's Answer thereto. It is denied
that this Court should enter a temporary order for partial
custody in favor of Petitioner pending the hearing on December
16, 1987 for the reason that the Court has not had the
opportunity to hear the parties or review the psychological
evaluations relative to custody of Dawn Evett Gerland. Any such
temporary order would be ex parte and without hearing relevant
witnesses.
2. It is denied that this Court should enter any temporary
order for partial custody in favor of Petitioner until the
hearing now scheduled for December 16, 1987 is completed. The
reasons for this denial will be more adequately presented at the
hearing and in response to the Petition to Reschedule Hearing
filed by counsel for Petitioner, which is attached hereto.
3. It is denied that this Court should enter an Order
providing for continuing partial custody in favor of Petitioner
on a long term basis until after it has heard the entire
testimony relative to Respondent's Answer, New Matter and
Counterclaim, all of which have been filed with the Court in
response to Petitioner's Petition to have Respondent held in
contempt of the 1976 Texas Divorce Decree, which incorporated
provisions relative to visitation rights of Petitioner with his
daughter, Dawn.
4. It is denied that Respondent should be provided with
information concerning Dawn's school attendance until after a
full hearing and an opportunity for Dawn to tell the Court why
she does not want her biological father to know where she goes to
school and why she does not want him to harass her at school as
he has at her home. All of this testimony will be presented at
the December 16, 1987 hearing scheduled by the Court.
5. It is denied that the Court should direct any further
evaluation by Dr. Natalie Berger. It is further averred that
Respondent and her daughter agreed to an evaluation by Natalie S.
Berger, Ph.D. as the Court appointed psychologist to evaluate all
-- 2
parties involved and to report her evaluation to both counsel and
the Court. Dr. Berger has to date not supplied a copy of her
report to Respondent's counsel, who also believes that it has not
been supplied to the Court or Respondent's counsel. Dr. Berger
has also refused to continue to counsel with Dawn. Respondent
requested further counseling for her daughter, Dawn, subsequent
to Dawn's most recent visit with her father, Petitioner herein,
because of the trauma caused to Dawn by the visit with her father
from July 18 until August 1, 1987. Until the Court and counsel
for both parties have had an opportunity to review the report and
testimony of Dr. Natalie Berger, it is believed that any further
evaluation is inappropriate. It is assumed that Dr. Berger will
testify at the hearing on December 16, 1987 and that she has
already completed her evaluation in order to testify at that
hearing.
Respondent hereby filed objections to the request of
Petitioner for a further evaluation by Dr. Berger and further to
the entry of any temporary ex parte Order of Court relative to
partial custody of Petitioner with his daughter, Dawn, until a
full hearing before the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER & MORGAN
Bonnie D. Menaker, Attorney for
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent
- 3 -
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
Ve
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
: NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
:
: IN RE CUSTODY
:
ANSWER TO PETITION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent in the above captioned
matter, by her attorney, Bonnie D. Menaker, states the following
in response to the Petition filed by John C. Howett, Jr.,
attorney for James Gerland, Petitioner:
1. Admitted.
2. The addresses set forth in paragraph 2 are admitted.
It is further averred that Carrol Ann Shirvinsky and her husband,
John Shirvinsky and their three daughters moved from their former
address in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania to her present address
in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, on August 20, 1987, because of
a change in employment by John Shirvinsky which was offered to
him on July 15, 1987 and accepted by him on the same day. The
house in Mechanicsburg was listed for sale on July 18, 1987 and
sold within the week in order to accommodate Mr. Shirvinsky's job
transfer.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. It is admitted that Bonnie D. Menaker, attorney for
Respondent herein, sent a letter dated May 26, 1987 to John C.
Howett, Jr., attorney for Petitioner. The letter speaks for
itself and is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". It is
further averred that the parties agreed to a Court appointed
independent psychologist who would report her evaluations to both
counsel and to the Court. It is further averred that Natalie S.
Berger, Ph.D. has never been appointed by the Court and has never
reported her findings to the Court or counsel.
6. It is admitted that Dr. Berger conducted an evaluation
which resulted in a five party meeting attended by the parties
and their respective counsel. It is denied that Dr. Berger's
evaluation was "supportive of Petitioner's request for continuing
and expanded visitation/partial custody rights with his daughter,
Dawn Evett Gerland." It is further averred that Dr. Berger's
evaluation resulted in a recommendation that the parents "make
choices to present to the child for her to choose from", and
further recommended that Petitioner not pressure his daughter
because she may not let him into her life at this late stage.
Dr. Berger's recommendation for continuing contact between
daughter and father was to provide for adult supervision of Dawn
when she was with her father and to require father not to have
adult female companions staying with him during the visits with
his daughter. Both of these requirements were violated by
- 2 -
Petitioner during his visit with his daughter during the July 18
to August 1, 1987 visit and for that reason, Dawn has refused to
visit with her father again.
7. It is admitted that the five party meeting resulted in
a tentative verbal agreement with respect to a two week period of
partial custody in Petitioner, which in fact did occur as stated
above. The hearing originally scheduled for June 29 and July 1,
1987 was continued, however, the parties were unable to enter
into a Stipulated Order because of the Petitioner's violation of
the specific conditions of the summer visit and the resulting
effect that those violations had on his daughter.
8. It is admitted that Petitioner exercised partial
custody with his daughter beginning July 18 and ending August 1,
1987. It is further admitted that no formal agreement has been
reached Detween the parties and therefore no Stipulation has been
entered by them with regard to Petitioner's future rights to
partial custody of his daughter. It is denied that Respondent
has denied Petitioner's request for partial custody since August
1, 1987. It is further averred that Dawn herself has refused to
see her father or to visit with him since August 1, 1987 because
of his treatment of her during their summer visit and because of
his continuous harassment of her subsequently to that visit. It
is further denied that Respondent is in contempt of the Texas
- 3 -
Visitation Order set forth in the 1976 Divorce Decree, and it is
averred that the very issues to be presented at the hearing on
December 16, 1987 hearing are the allegations set forth in the
original Petition to have Respondent held in contempt and
Respondent's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim.
9. It is denied that Petitioner has made untrue
allegations with regard to Respondent's violations of the
tentative verbal agreement during the course of the summer time
partial custody period. It is further averred that Petitioner
violated the agreement as follows:
A. Petitioner violated his agreement not to have any women
staying with him during the two week period when his daughter was
to visit.
B. Petitioner violated the agreement to provide his
daughter, Dawn, with a separate bedroom during her visit with her
father who in fact shared a cabin with a female friend of his
requiring his daughter to sleep on a bed in the kitchen and
subsequently requiring his daughter to sleep in an apartment in
Colorado with his female friend.
C. Petitioner violated the tentative verbal agreement to
spend personal time with his daughter during the two week visit
and in fact constantly had her in the company of his adult male
and female friends.
- 4 -
D. Petitioner made it impossible for his daughter, Dawn,
to have unrestricted telephone calls with her mother by moving
her around the country and by not informing her mother in advance
where she would be, so that it was impossible for Respondent to
call her daughter or know where she was, or with whom she was
staying during the two weeks' summer visit.
E. Petitioner violated the understanding between the
parties to communicate with Respondent and to present mutually
agreed upon choices to their daughter relative to partial custody
rights with her father.
10. It is denied that Respondent intentionally or
unintentionally gave any impression to Petitioner's counsel or to
Dr. Berger that any anticipated move would be "a local move". It
is further averred that the move which the Shirvinsky family
engaged in was specifically the result of a job offer to John
Shirvinsky on July 15, 1987 which was accepted by him on the same
date and which required the parties to list their house for sale
on July 18, 1987 and move to Wexford Pennsylvania on August 20,
1987. It is further averred that Petitioner was immediately
supplied with the information concerning the move as well as the
address and, since that date, has used this information to harass
his daughter to the point of placing her in fear that her father
will either harm her or her mother.
- 5 -
11. It is denied that Respondent is in violation of 23
Pa.C.S.A. Section 5309(a). It is further denied that the Court
has ever determined that such records should be supplied to
Petitioner or that such disclosure is "necessary" as set forth in
the statute.
12. It is denied that Petitioner is entitled to an ex
parte Order of partial or temporary custody during the
Thanksgiving and Christmas school vacation period or on
occasional weekends prior to the Court hearing to determine any
partial custody rights especially in view of Petitioner's
behavior as set forth in this Answer as well as Respondent's
Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim filed on October 13, 1987.
13. Respondent's counsel was unable to respond to
Petitioner's counsel's inquiry relative to the jurisdictional
issues which he anticipated being raised as a defense because she
was unaware of whether or not Petitioner would desire to raise
such a jurisdictional defense. It is conceded that the child who
is the subject matter of the hearing did reside for the most
recent six (6) months in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania but has
now moved to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. It is further
conceded that until a new jurisdiction has more significant
contacts which would be determinative of venue that Cumberland
- 6 -
County, Pennsylvania does have jurisdiction over this matter.
14. It is denied that any further independent evaluation
by Dr. Berger is necessary or appropriate in this matter. It is
further averred that Dr. Berger had a great period of time to
evaluate all parties involved and expressed her verbal
recommendations to the parties at the five party conference on
June 19, 1987. It is further averred that Dr. Berger declined to
re-interview Dawn as recently as October 1987 when she was
presentea with the opportunity to do so because of Dawn's
concerns over her father's treatment of her during her summer
visit with him. It is therefore averred that no further
evaluation should be requested by Dr. Berger and that the Court
should require her to file her report and send copies to both
parties and to present her testimony to the Court on December 16,
1987. It is further averred that Dr. Berger, while she had the
opportunity to obtain detailed information on Petitioner's
previous psychological breakdown, apparently did not do so or at
least did not discuss that with the parties. Respondent believes
that Petitioner's past history of mental illness is a relevant
factor for the Court to consider, especially because it has once
again caused him to exhibit very bizarre behavior in response to
his daughter's reluctance to visit with him in the future, and
has consequently caused his daughter to be fearful of him.
- 7 -
WHEREFORE, the Court is requested to refrain from entering
any temporary order of partial custody until a full hearing of
all parties concerned, psychological testimony of all experts
involved and a judicial examination of Dawn Evett Gerland who is
now 12 years of age.
Respectfully submitted,
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER & MORGAN
Bonnie D. Menaker, Attorney for
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent
- 8 -
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
: ss.
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN :
Bonnie D. Menaker, being duly sworn according to law,
deposes and says that she is the Attorney of Respondent,
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky; that said Respondent~ cannot make the
verification to the within Answers because she is outside
the court's jurisdiction and her verification cannot be
obtained within the time allowed for filing the Answers;
and that the facts set forth in the within Answers are
believed to be true and. correct based upon information
received from Respondent.
Bonnie D. Menaker
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this ~day
of October, 1987.
Notary Public
PAULINE PATTI mOMAS, NOTAI~Y PUBLIC
HARRISBUJ{G, DAUPHIN COUNTY
.MY COM&;ISS~ON EXPII~ES API~IL 15. 1991
I"~ember, Pennsylvania Associatiol) of Nota~iqs
H. UOSEPH HEI~FORD~
LEE C. SWARTZ
mONNIE D. IVlENAKER
JANES G. I~IORGAN, UR.
CHRISTOPHER HI. ClCCONI
SANDRA L. MEILTON
STEPHEN M. GREECHER~
RICHARD P. 1~41SLITSKY
DENNIS R. SHEAFFER
THO~IAS P. GACKI
t4ARK S. I~ILLER
LAW OFFICES
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, IV[ENAI~ER & ~IORGAN
Iii NORTH FRONT STREET
P. O. BOX 889
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0889
May 26, 1987
TELEPHONE
(?17) 234-4121
FIL£ 0P¥
John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire
134 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
Re:
James E. Gerland v. Carrol Ann Shirvinsky
No. 88 Civil 1987 - In Re Custody
Dear Jack:
This is to confirm my agreement with you by telephone
to have the Court appoint Natalie S. Berger, Ph.D. as the Court
appointed psychologist to evaluate James Gerland, Carrol Ann
Shirvinsky and their daughter Dawn and to report her evaluation
to us both and the Court. We agree that she replace Elizabeth
Hanson Hoffman, Ph.D. previously mentioned in my Answer to your
Order and Rule to Show Cause. Please proceed to have Judge
Hess sign a Court Order appointing Dr. Berger. I will advise
Carrol to schedule an appointment for herself and Dawn.
Respectfully,
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER & MORGAN
Bonnie D. Menaker
BDM/mc
cc: Carroll Ann Shirvinsky
EXHIBIT "A"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~day of October 1987, I, Bonnie
D. Menaker, for the firm of HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER &
MORGAN, attorney for the Respondent, hereby certify that I
have this day served a. copy of the foregoing Answer to
Rule to Show Cause by depositing a. copy of the same in
the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, addressed to:
John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire
132 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~ day of October, 1987, I, Bonnie
D. Menaker, for the firm of Hepford, Swartz, Menaker &
Morgan, attorney for the Respondent, hereby certify that I
have this day served a copy of the foregoing Answer to
Petition to Reschedule Hearing by depositing a copy of the
same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire
132 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
Bonnie D. Menaker, Attorney ~or
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent
H. ~IOSEPH HEPFORD~ R C.
LEE C. SWARTZ
BONNIE D. MENAKER
JAMES G. MORGAN~ 'JR.
CHRISTOPHER M, CICCONI
SANDRA L, MEILTON
STEPHEN M. GREECHER~ JR.
RICHARD p. MISLITSKY
DENNIS R. SHEAFFER
THOMAS P. GAC~I
MARK S. MILLER
LAW OFFICES
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER & MORGAN
IIINORTH FRONT STREET
P. O.BOX 889
HARRISBUR(3t PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0889
October 26, 1987
HAND DELIVERED
TELEPHONE
(717) 234-4121
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Court House
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Re:
James Gerland v. Carrol Ann Shirvinsky
No. 88 Civil 1987
Enclosed is an Answer to Rule to Show Cause together
with an Answer to Petition to Reschedule Hearing to be filed
in the above captioned case. Please docket the original and
then deliver the entire file to Judge Hess for his review
inasmuch as he has scheduled oral argument on the Rule for
October 30, 1987 at 1:15 p.m.
Respectfully,
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER & MORGAN
Bonnie D. Menaker
BDM/mc
Enclosures
cc:
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky
Judge Kevin A. Hess
John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire
JA~S GERLAND,
Petitioner
Ve
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of ,
1987, upon Petition and Response thereto and after oral
argument by counsel for both parties conducted on October 30,
1987, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that Dr. Natalie
Berger is appointed as the independent psychological evaluator
in this matter and that her participation in these proceedings
to day in that capacity are ratified; that James Gerland shall
continue to remain responsible for Dr. Berger's fees
without prejudice and until further order of this court; that
the parties hereto shall cooperate in such arrangements as may
be deemed necessary by Dr. Berger for further evaluation as
Dr. Berger deems necessary and appropriate; and that Dr.
Berger shall prepare a report and recommendation and transmit
the same to this Court and counsel for the parties as soon as
she is able to do so, but not later than Monday, December 14,
1987, so as to permit this Court to review same prior to the
hearing on this matter set by prior Order for December 16,
1987, at 9:30 a.m.
BY THE COURT:
}lESS, J.
IN THE COURT OF C(I~DN PLEAS
CUMBERLA~,~D COLqk~fY, PFATNSYI.%~kNIA
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 88 cI%r!L 1987
JAMES GERIA}~D,
vs.
Plaintiff
CARROLANNS~RV!~S~,
~f~d~t
CAUSE
LAW OFFICES OF
JOIiN C. YfOWETT. JR., P.C.
118 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 810
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
Ve
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
ORDER AND RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
TO:
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY
3607 Horsham Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
tIE~RY INGRIM, ESQUIRE
Buchanan Ingersoll
57th Floor
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
AND NOW, this ~ 'day of ~,'/ ,
1987, Respondent is directed to show cause if any she has why
an independent psychological evaluation pursuant to Pa. R.C.P.
§1915.8 should not be performed in accordance with Petition
requesting said relief filed by James Gerland, Petitioner
herein; said evaluator to be selected by the Court and costs
of said evaluation to be borne initially by Petitioner without
prejudice to an ultimate determination of responsibility for
such costs.
RULE RETURNABLE:
/
Dated: ~,? ~/m /~
BY THE COURT:
Je
IN Tt{E COURT OF CC~)N PLEAS
CUMBERLA~ COUlg~Y, PENNSYLVAN/_A
CIV., ACTION
NO. 88 CML 1987
vs.
Plaintiff
CAI~i%OL ANN SHIRV/NSKY,
DefendAnt
CERTIFICATE OF SER?ICE
LAW OFFICES OF
JOtIN C. }{OWETT. JR., P. (~.
118 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 810
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA I7108
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COF/~ON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, pENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, JOHN C. HOWETT, JR., Esquire, counsel for
Petitioner, James Gerland in the above-captioned action for
Custody, hereby certify that a true and correct time-stamped
copy of the Petition and Rule to Show Cause Why Petition to
Have Respondent Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply with
visitation Order and Requesting independent Psychological
Evaluations Pursuant to Pa-. R.C.P. 1915.8 Should Not Be
Granted and additional Order and Rule to Show Cause filed
April 7, 1987, was served upon Carrol Ann shirvinsky by
deposited the same in the United States mai]., first class,
certified mail No. P-517-004 667 return receipt requested, on
April 8, 1987. As indicated by the green Return Receipt Card
attached hereto, the Petition and Rule was received by said
Respondent on April 13, 1987.
~ ~hn C. Howett, Jr., Esq,&re
118 Market Street
P. O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0810
P-517 994 667
?0
Individual &
Family Services
CENTER FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL FITNESS
115 South St, John Drive · Camp H~, PA 17011 · (71~ ~7-3840
CUSTODY EVALUATION
MEETING WITH ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES
~RIDAY~ dUNE 19, 1987
(tape starts here...) evalu ,
then up to conclusions aha mmenaat - and draw
ions. Initially, let us
all of you what I did with each party so you will all be aware of the
time involved and the extent of the evaluation, me describe
My first meeting was with Oawn for an hour and I did an interview
and some psychological testing, which included a projective test such as
the Thematic ApPerception Test, sentence completion items, as well as a
structured interview Where I asked some pretty Straightforward questions
and then some indirect questions to Understand her feelings and her needs
and get to know her as a person. Then I had an
with Carrol and had her take an MHPI (Minnesota hour and a half interview
Inventory). I then had an hour and a half with the Shtrv]nski family,
all of them in the room here together. Durin Multiphasic Personality
data collection of developmental history ~---gLt~t time, I did a lot n~
well as observing the interaction of th~ -~um oot~ Mom and Dad here,-a~'
among themselves, siblings, with the parents and
Then Mr. gerland came and took an MMPI as well. I spent an hour
and a half with Mr. gerland on an tnd~v
that time, Tye was in and ou ^ - tdual interview. Outing some of
t ~f the room so I observed interaction with
Just the two of them alone. And then for an hour, Tye and Dawn and Mr.
Gerland and I met here and I got to see the interaction among the three
of them.
And then yesterday, I spent one-half hour on the phone with Or.
Williams so I did get some Input from Dawn
issues of what we are dealing w~th here so's psychologist; he had seen
her four times from Oecember through March on very similar kinds of
from h~s information about Dawn and the family as well.
I was able to pull together
The reason that we Picked these nine issues is because that they
seem to be the ones that are more essential in making the determinations
about custody and visitation:
(1) ~htch parent does
psychological parent? And Ithe child see as the nurturing parent or the
history of this family, that Dawn's the wOuld think ~t's pretty clear, given
the primary psychological ar sense of who the primary family is or
is attune to ~ ~ ...... P e~t is with the Shirvtnskts. She very much
Ho..., ,ue,~r~es wlth mom as primary role model and when she
-2-
talks about her famtly, thts ts the lam11 t
htstory of thts fa?l~ has been moth Y hit she talks about.
split up before the baov w~ ~--- ~r had the babY.. +~ ..... Now the
father havtng visitation basically two weeks a year and Dawn has ktnd
~ uo uurn and the moth~- ~:: ~e p~rents were
viewed her biological father tn a sort of "0t ~' ,as naa primary care,
fashton, that ts the role he . sneyland Daddy,, ktnd
~h~e~u~?~at~ng, all-abso~[~l~,_?'s been very focused of
va~''e r "~ ~,.u OT on her
alt those no~i~.~_respo~s,bllltfes, a~.~er ?an Integrated
~-easures and dfscfn ~.~ .-~"~'Ya' a,d conflfcts and
thfnk Hrs. Shtrv/nsk~ has done a lot~1'''; °'" chat sort of th~ng.
fn developing that relatfonshtp
between her father and Dawn and tn maintaining tt at a t~me when Dad was
not as vigorous at pursuing that. Yet her father ts very committed
the sense of sending btrthday cards and Christmas gifts and Yalenttne s
Day roses, flowers, and those sorts of
nurturing k~nd of way. ?t's not saytnn a~s_~ weT!, ~n a vet
been more circumscribed aue to tho +~ ...... rturlna but ~
some of the variables tn the - ~,,,e ~mlts and dtstan~e a~ ~;1has
system here. 1 as
(~) Consfstency of the Envfronment/Stabtltty of the Relationships.
~hat we are mostly talktng about ts thts chtld tn reTa
famlTy. Dawn Is very trite
look at this lam1 grated fnto the Sh tf~shtp to the
relattonshfp wtthl~ tt lo?s ~?Ywhole andtrvlnskt fa?ly.. ~hen ou
O.d, as a lathe a,~ ~ ...... very complete. He
affection there. ! would sort of thts famtTy as the kfnd that
r ...~ uaugnter, there ts a lotto
fdescr~be
would do a Kodak commercial. You know, you would take a Ptcture of them
and thts ts what you wOUld put tn
And that Is lovely, It' your family album sort of experience.
family, s realty a lovely Sltuatfon; they have a beautiful
Her relationship wtth her biological father !thtnk has
been...there,s not been problems up unttT that potnt...~n fact the
relationship between the two families has been rather remarkab;e. Your
buytng gtfts for Tye for birthday and for Christmas and your buyfng gtfts
for these kfds...tt,s been a really remarkable set-up, It's Just been
beautiful. ! think ~t started to fall apart when personal growth changed
and You started to want some d~fferent thtngs out of the experfence.
There was the summer that Dawn did not go down to vfsft with you because
you were tn a very unstable state emotfonally and you mentfoned that to
Carrol and agreed wfth her that thts would not be an
Dawn to come down which ! t
to do. !thtnk _ h~nk ts a vet apPropriate t~
tn the course o ~,,~ ~ ~espo~s~ble, a rD . me for
f ~-- recovery from +~--P? ~r~ate th~ng
gafned strength and now betng more assertive at wanttng what you want
... ~-ac perloa, You have
from her and being more assertfve tn securfng that and, as a result of
that, the balance Whtch had been maintained very comfortably was now
being upset. The relationship that worked befOre, seemed to Work out of
a mutual acceptance of how much t~me you were wtlTtng to commit and how
much energy you were willing to commit to getttng more ttme and to the
amount of control that you tnvested over ~t. For ~nstance, Carrol, and !
th~nk you would probably even say th~s about Yourself, that you prett~
weT1 know what You want and You go after ~t and you get ~t, Including
Your husband, and that's ktnd of no fam11~ secret that once she sets
-3-
her mind set on something she goes after it and she gets it. That kind
of control Is working very wel
for other peonle w...=_ 1.up to this point. It makes it difficult
it. . -o,u~ng something d~fferent from what she wants to get
For Instance, when we had trouble schedult
had two weeks to schedule them, that was the onng appointments here ~e
ly ,1me that I was t~ town
before your evaluation was and the Ortgtnal scheduling effort,
we gave, Carrol said no beca
for the next weo~ --~ _L ~e Dawn was at s . ~he times
se,tin -~_o.u 5ne said no Da chool. Su I ave
g It u wn was at cam · g
P tn a way that was agreeable wtthoutP;o :~d ~t~YOad
of thing ,s what ~ r~s
has experienced repeatedly that It always has to be
accordlng to Carrol's schedule or there's no ttme for lt. So !thtnk
things were getting sort of but1, up in your desire to protect Dawn and
your destre to get mere ti
to the Potnt that I th me wtth.~ur daughter and t
tnk the tht.g~ ftnally bro ^h~.at._.[~ched a head
last summer and You kept her for 30 days without prior arrangement,
ke d~.,, w,en you got Oawn
without consultation with Dawn, without fair agreement. That is what
kind of blew thtngs to the water and I'm not blaming you and !'m not
blamtng you but there was thts ktnd of butld. Up of forces that ~ust spltt
on account of the tension that went there and Ithtnk things have been in
great disrepair stnce that Potnt.
(3) ! want to talk now about the competence and stability of the
parents because Ithtnk before we can make any further direction about
what to do given the differences that we have here, we have to make
assessments of how capable are the two parental situations for the parent
responstbtltty,.provtdtng a role model and all that sort of thtng. So !
guess what I'd 11k- to start wtth on, that fs to show you the
results. ! guess ~"11 do that ftrst because tt makes tt such a black and
whtte tSsue. Here, thts ts for the two of you to share. Do you each
have one of ~tm and
Show you thts ftrst one of Carrol? Okay, the reason that I would like to
ts because the thtngs that ! have to say are my
observations but they're not concrete objectives, they're not as black
and whtte as taktng a standa
here, and ' rdtzed test. ~hat ! would like to show you
I m not gotng to go tnto the detatled personality of both of
them, but ! ~ust want to show you some basic similarities
elaborate on tn my observations. The ~PI t Whtch I 11 the~
roups. One of the valtdtty scales whtch ar
1ne on the prof~ ~ dtvtded tnto dtstlnct
to the left of that soltd
le summary, and the second set are on the rtght and
those are the cltnfcal scales whtch you did the personality
Interpretation wtth. The valtdtty scales you look at ftrst of all to
decide whether or not you can make any Interpretations on the c11ntcal
scale. Yaltdtty scales tnclude thtngs about whether or not the person
was careful in taking the e
It that the w xam, their attt
are, try Y e? tr~ng to make th tude_about taktn th .
_ .lng ~o make them _ emseTves look w ~ e exam, was
d~stortln , ls ~elves lOuk bet, Orse ,ha, they
aoout the~.~.._?~r,a lot of btas, f^- ~_?an they reaTTy are-
~.,=a cna ama +...~ .. ~' instance, nn+ ~..-~_ ,.are one
scales ~s when they reach over this 11ne, the dark line of the 70. None
·ne cut off point for h~ ? u~ to ~htngs
t__., r, and
of the scales were above that so we're indicating here that there isn't
the kind of distortion that would show that there was an attempt to look
-4-
worse than the person is or any carelessness about the test, or an
inconsistency in responding. Some of the questions, if you remember,
were in the beginning of the test and the end of the test and if you
answer them differently, they'll say there is a kind of carelessness
about the impression of the test. So the valtdlty indicators are not
over the criterion on the L, F, and K criterion scores but there is a
pattern here which we call "Fate/Good. pattern when you get sort of a
checkmark, a '¥' kind of shape as you can see here where t
significantly below the L and t h
That pattern mean +~...L he K scores. Both at
on a s ~.o~ ~ne person that was +~--P-Lte~ns.have that.
facade, they were t~ ~-~,.g ~ne test was putting
are. It's not ~ ....... ytng to make themselves look better than '
~u.e ~ellberately. ! know that both of you are as they
as you can be, ! mean ! really trust that, but there is a style that you
have about yourselves tha~ is reluctant to admit honest
sttuatlo~ like this, that s very understandable, your flaws and, in a
nobody wants to look bad
when you ye got something as critical as this chtld's future and your
relationship with the chtld on the line. None the less, ! do encourage
People to be as honest as they can be and what both of
is that styTlsttcall ,
we can't m Y, you need to be h you are indicating
ake any concrete oldtng up you uard
Other side but ! .~ -~- interpretations of h g ~- · A? a result,
says is +~-- -~- ~? ~.ve you some sn.+ ^- -- t e. cltnt~aT scale~ nn
-.o~ ~ne cllnlcal .~=~-- ~_ v.y u! general.
-~,=a nave to b ~a. ...... ~r ,. essence It
the fact that these people are e -,,~rprecea In the ltght of
distorting themselves; they're not
telling you all the bad things about themselves, an honest answer really
they mtght have answered if there wasn't that
repression gOing on. There t that kind of dental or
meaning there's no Indication of a thought dtsorder or
s no gross psychopathology in etther scale,
°bsesstve/compulstve traits or skyrocketing anxiety or d
scales are equtvllant in terms of that feature epresston. Both
stmtlar, though opposite end · Both s
which has to do with ? the continuum c~les also carry a
kind of at the mascultntty/femtntnt(.p~r_n_~.~he M~scale
tradtttonal°Ppostte ends on those continuums in terms of being
and atradttlonal about stereotyptcJl'~'~ mooe~lng. You are
roles. That's not
psychopathology, that's not neurosis, that's a big difference between the
two of you, and it's one that I think will kind of draw out some as I
talk some about the families. Okay, any questions about the MMPI?
Atty. Howett: That last statement you made, I'm not Sure I follow
that. Dr. Berger: Masculinity/femininity has to do with how s::.ereotyped
we are in terms of seeing the roles of women and the roles of men.
has to do with some issues around independence and autonomy versus
It
in control and dominant versus submissive those kinds of things.
· being
~he opposite of the sca~ u~cc. ~o which ls whl-~ :. !t s ~ust that
~h~rtra~lng more mascu;~.. ~.~Ber~er: Okay, Jt~. ~r°n~ t? m~re at
__.~_wnat you are saying7 O~ u~ aenylng femininity· sot- -~ uerlan~: Am
point out ~* ~-* ~ _ r. uerger: Wall ~. b UT speak? Is
neither one of those, column five we're talkin ab
· o ~.ac your scale was very htg~'j~d"~:~.~,~?ss I Just. want to
-.u~ $ was very low and
can see the peaks are ,
kind of mirrored o~ ~..~g_~.out that's right, you
- ~-~- uther. What I'm Just
-5-
basically showtng ts that there's a big difference tn that regards here
and ! don't want to get into the personality interpretation about that
because tt needs to be interpreted within the whole context of the other
clinical profile scales. Any other questions about the I~IP!? Atty.
Howett: Are these are copies? Or. Berger: !f You want to keep the
copies, ! need to keep a set here with ne. Okay?
Under competence and stability of parents !'d like to deal with
moral issues because ! think we certainly want the kind of role models
for this child that are of a sound moral character and evidence of, !
guess, social responsibility and sort of upstanding character, that kind
of thing. There were issues about lifestyle brought up, particularly
C~rrol's concern about the lifestyle that the father takes to. ~ssues
aoout drug and alcohol involvement, sexual practices, issues around
pre-marital sex and my assessment of that ts that ! understand the father
now Is not using any alcohol or drugs
there was sort of a common experience and that, at one point In time,
that you two shared very early
your relationship, the involvement In marijuana, for instance, premarital
sex, for instance, so that ! don't find that one party cones out cleaner
than the other when you look at that kind of history. ! think at this
point they are both tn a rather...they have both set very good models for
the children. While...! think there's a difference tn terms of how they
would Present themselves to Dawn and I'll clarify
instance, Oad has been living with another woman, that a little bit. For
Patty, and dating other
women and Dawn being aware that you are sleeping tn the bed with this
woman though you're not married and you were fairly comfortable with that
being okay. Shtrvtnskts, on the other hand, advocate a different
presentation to the child, although, when tt cones down to what they
actually practice themselves, they also had r -
wouldn't want Oawn to know p e marital sex, thou
that. When ~t cones t g~ they
o how they deal wlth
Dawn around sexuality, ! think they are very responsible tn thetr
approach to her saying that tf she would be involved sexually, and
they've done an excellent job tn giving her a very sound sexual education
and good moral advice, they're position would be '! would rather have her
on birth control and protected than have an unwanted P~egnancy', so it's
a very responsible thing to do but tt Is also saying, 'acknowledging the
fact that you may choose to have Pre-marital sex even though we don't
advocate and even when ! would not want it, ! wouldn't deny tt either. !
wou]d forbid tt and ! wouldn't cast you out of the family If you did
that sort of thing. $o there is a Permissiveness
and one image that you want to present to her and and a responsibleness
you actually practiced Yourself.' another image of what
When it cones to the stability of the parents, there is no gross
psychopathology in either one of thee. Father did go through, what he
describes as, a nervous breakdown, where there were auditory
hallucinations and psychiatric hospitalization. ! think that, in part,
is responsible for his turn around now and recovery in terms of wanting
more tine and being more assertive of going after and ,e
with his daughter. He was res ons .... ~.tting that tine
P tble enough during t~ls period of tine
-6-
to cancel Dawn's visit and I think that was a very apPropriate thing to
do, now seeming to be very sound in terms of his Judgement and his
thinking.
(4) Wishes and Motivations Regarding Custody and Visitation
believe that both of these famtltes really want what's best for Da'
truly believe that that's what the
emotion in Mom when I talked abn.,Y-~r~_~n l~.for. There isa lot~; I
to protect your daughter, when vu~ ,,,~ ~ense that what you really wan~ is
you feel that she's all distraught.about
this. It was one of the most vivid times when YOu were emotional and I
truly believe that's in your heart of what you want of her. I also
belteve that there is a corolary issue for you and that is that you want
to it. That's real important to you in your particular psychological
make-up. With father, !belteve that if I said to him, for you to have
more visitation time with your daughter, it would be destructive to her,
he would really, he would not want to do anything that would be
destructive to her, I really believe that. I think his pushing for more
visitation right now is, in part, due to, I think what Carrol actually
described as, his maybe mtd-llfe crisis, of wanting something that is
meaningful in his life right now and ! think that's very
that's one of the Primary reasons why now, at this time, true. I think
to go after it, where five years ago, you were are willing
that that's a bad thing and not t e. no~.do~ng ~ Not to say
o oBy that Carrol's issue is a bad thing
but that is why you two have reached loggerheads about this because those
two issues are pitted in a wtn/lose situation for the two of
states that he needs mere' time t
daughter and th-*, .... o develop a r~-*~ ...... YOU. Father
,,-~ = ~ne rea . ham. __:_~ __ --~,unsnl W
SO .... ~ ~ gu]n a~t ? lth.h~s
g er an increased visitation.
($) Ability to be Flexible, to Communicate; Willingness to
Cooperate. Well, I think what we have here is, there was a lot of
willingness in the beginning. For instance, you were very wllling...I
don't know how you did it. I would have had a hard time doing it.
Taking my baby that far away and leaving her with somebody that I didn't
know and ~?b~b)~.dtdn~t have very good fe
that and ~uu ou~it that re~--~ ..... eltngs about and you encouraged
· ~unsn~p, you really did. Now that do me is
a tremendous amount of cooperatio She flew down, she took her time
going down there, stayed down the
concerned ~J, helping him out because he was
about how well this child would do not knowing him very well.
That, to me, is a tremendous amount of coo era
efforts that you have made in gettin, ,r~'~-.-tJ°n.g°ing on there. The
pictures back and forth. It's been going on on both sides but it shows
cooperation, it really does. = ~ =aeub$ PaCK and forth and sending
In terms of flexibility, I guess what I want to focus on a little
bit right now is the flexibility given the issue now, where father wants
more time and you want to protect Oawn's right not
think on that score, father is far more flexible, to have more time. I
He says "I Just need
to have more time with you to develop a relationship. Tell me how I can
do that. I'll split it - two weeks in the beginning of the summer, two
weeks at the end of the summer. I'll comeup here at your convenience
-7-
and see you here tn Pennsylvania and you can even sleep overnight at your
regular house so we can have mere ttme.. Z'11 do weekends. Tell me what
you want". He's very, very flextble on now to get that, though he's
maintaining hts pos~t~on ~f tt Js tn Dawn's best Interest, that he really
wants the t~me, per se. ! think Shlrvlnsk~s have a very flextble
attttude tf they felt tt was OD
satd, when we g d for Oawn, to
1~= ~ .... had our group meettn- ,,= ~_ o..For ~nstance f
-~ -ur one sun, er when she's wo~ng: 'w~awW~ou~n~.~_~o.~o~ 'thin'eL
believe that If that's what you thought Dawn 1_ -uppurc =nat . ! trul~
you would support. ! really belJeve that. wanted, that that Is what
we're all comtng up to ts h Okay, so the ue
been some ow to dectde what's q stton that
real honest differences of optnJon best fo~.O~wn: .~here have
famJlles, goJng back to whether or not this was a planned pregnancy, Hom
~n the COurse of these two
says Yes, Dad says no; gOlng back to whether or not there was a reason
for the d~vorce, one parent says one thJng, the' other parent sa s
th~ng; the reason why there wasn't mere vls~tat~o, --.~-. Y. another
.,, ,,~ner says 'Dad
didn't want ~', father says :Mom wouldn't-,
very honest fferences Of Onln4 ...... ~ve it to me'.
belteve It, thev'ea ;,..~ ~,.C ...u, an~ nogo~v ~, ...... ,,ua Lnese are
^~ ~.L~ u?b o~zTerence< n~.., a,~ -ru,g here. ! don'
wanted to... - .... a~, ~ec me t
~-, cn~s ls tm see what el
parents to portant In terms of the ability of th~:e!
cooperate. They have shown an tn
break last august. ~hen ! as~ -^~ -~--- ~redtble ablltty up to thts
Dawn wants It or they co-~ *-~ =uu~ evt~ence of cooperativeness,
believe these parents are responsible enough that they would dectde what
- ..~ ~u ue~eve that tt's best for Dawn because !
was best for Dawn even If Oawn dtdn't want ft, for Instance, about dotn
her homework, you decide that that's what she needs to do and she's got~g
to do It, that's a responsible parental dectston even tf tt's overriding
the chtld's wtshes. !n terms of cooperation, that you would back It up
]00~. !n terms of respect for each other and your abtllty to work
together, ! asked the father, "Suppose Dawn were dow
you and she's like ~4 now and she's down t ? t~er? vtstttn wtth
maktng frtends and you be tn t here getttng to know people
would You hand1 , g o ftnd out she'
rtght away and ·thts? .. H~s ~tatement to mes sex~al.l~ acttve. ~ow
ftnd out what sn - - ?s. ! would ca1
e w~nts tu do aoout th~# ~_ 1Carrol
to quote you for you? Do you not remember what you said? .Hr. Serland:
.... uo you want me
Not so much as what she would do about ~t, but what she's ~nstructed her
because of her religious beliefs,* wh~t she's taught her, that would be an
Influence on her. Dr. Berger. That s right, but you would want to check
and get her tnput before dectdtng how
That's true. Dr. Berger: That to me you would handle tr. Hr. Gerland:
that they have a different system perhaps than yours and you w
to be able to work cooperative1, ts evtdence of respect for the faCt
The tssue of tel1 _ _ Y wtth them tn deal _. ould want
gton these folks are very ~..~?~th Dawn on that.
and their Involvement In religion. ~ .....,,,~ea co their church
Father Is appreciative of other '
Individual beliefs though he's not a practtctn ch s
there ts a difference on how you two would approach that but you would
g urch-goer and ! believe
support Dawn's Involvement Jn church, you don't put tt down and you would
be wllltng to malntatn that with her out there. That to me Is mere
evtdence of respect, of 'Z'm not gotng to force you to ftt tnto RY
-8-
lifestyle and be the kind of person that ! am'; it's good evidence of the
ability to cooperate.
!n term of the evidence of the mother's respect for the father, she
said even after, what she considered to be a realty painful experience
this marriage, she Said no one ever spoke a bad word about Jim. She
never Put him down; in fact, s everything to go out of her way to
build a Positive relationship
There are some Problems Which are showfng difficulties that ! want
to bring up here, too, in terms of where the COOperativeness did break
down and !. think bad Patterns are beginning to
think is was a real mistake for father to hold Occur. For instance, !
days w~thout consulting you, wt Oa~ do~ there for 30
that was a ~nkey Wrench thrownth°ut discussing It with Dawn. ~ think
and it was not showfng respect. ~ think ~ther
l~sten~ng ~n on the phon into the works, that was not cooperative
Presents th _ . e When Oad _ . do~ng things
. at he ~ent for the +~ _~.tr~ing to ca1], sending back the
he sent PtctUres of their vacation tt~ and was told that you d~dn't
~.u ~r~s rot Christ. s, father says that
share them with Oa~
no, the 'r , that you us
They'reY~.e~ ~? POSsession h.L t.?em away.
~ '~f correcttnn t~-+ o &dtdn. t have the- ~ n~Ver shared th . Oh
~u~ rigidity_ ,~:. L'~" _~nose kind- ~ .~T' ur. uerqer: n~.,. ?: .
Z m COncernee that th.~x~ty a~e coope t : L that there's
good Working relationship:' -~uae need to be cha~~ ~ d~stn~egrated
a~- ,. uroer to have a
(6) Ho~ Env~ron~nts. Z want to talk
envirOnment w~th Tye an
way ~ descrfbed the Sh L ::,.ferland. ~ thtnka,~?~e b~t about the
r'~"~lS as a -~ a Prett
Kodak-picture er very traditional, k~L°~lOus ,n the
~on't have n..P~.~ft,kind of ho --- .~ .
beautiful ~:~;,X~',c~clsm to make~::~ ~e~ ~ve a love
two fam~l~'"Z~ ane ~ th~nk the.2~"~ cnelr famfly, lt~ [~ly. ~
b o -ave vet ~ .e aone mar ~ uu~c a
parent
Z would describe :hetr -- .,~ capabilities as a
that Y~u u_..,,.L s my evidence .~ ~t~cular,
wou]d see on a Bell Te~?y' Tye and Hr.
~,cp.une CO~erc al ~h~2L':['~' as the kind
1 ...... ~.e cney sing 'Reach
Ou: and Touch SO,one,. Zt's got that sort o
d~fferent, ~t's a d~ff
less, ~t's st erent quaT~t f quality abou
you l~ke tll_ver~ genuine an y tha~ ~h~ Kodak co t ~t., Zt's
enthusf .~ut ~eur dad?", he..Lve ~hen ,~a~. None the
havfn. ~:~' .re Sa~d, W~th.,,;":~· ,e's fun". T~4: ~e~ Jye, "what do
-~ ~- "L' aPPOlntmnt t.....,""' ~ promptin .,a ooy ~ vet
aust exudes_ ,~_~ -~,~, why do VD,, ~,:- r"~* , and he Sa~a U~u ~e S
Very fun.]n:~.:'e ~ So nlce", he ~::: ~,~e co see Dawn?,,_ ~::,.~o ~ can
.... -u. ,e talk .~.,. ~ra~.foves th~s 1 t+~- ' ..~ ~s boy
Your cereal at s ....~ one t~ he Put af-:~ g~rl. Yye ts
breakfast one tl~. He's Pretend cockroach ~n
other Children, another 7-Year-old, ~e~y gregarious, there were
as a matter of fact, who was here for
a custody evaluation In the watt~ng room when her father was
-g-
here, very gregarious, talktng to her,
! wanted btm to come back to my office,playtng wtth her. Hhen ! tol~
he said to the lfttle gfrl, Oo
you want to come, too?", very out- ofn that
was ~ hf~ way, very affectfonate. He
would hold hfs dad's hand, come pu head on hfs chest, hug hfm. He
very affectfonate wfth me. He was tn our offfce for Just about
hours, very well-behaved, caused no problems, we had clfents fn and out
of here, we had chtldren fn and out
phones rfngfng; thfs lfttle boy was of the offfce, typtng gofng on,
entertafn hfmselfmost of the tfme, not dfsruPtfve at a11, had to
was not complafnfng, was not
totally out of hfs element and yet very well able to manage fndependently
and fnteractfvely. Tye was very upbeat. Hhen ! took hfm back to my
offfce, he satd, "0o ! have to take a test, too?", ! safd, "No, we're
gofng to do some fun thfngs", he safd, "Yep, we sure are" and he got
there wfth hfs crayons and Pfctures and we were dotng thfngs together.
He was very courteous when ! challenged hfm, fna couple of tfmes, fn
kfnd of a harsh way, keep the 1rd on your cup (we had gone out to get
dr~nks), put ft rfght back on, gave me no lfp at a11, asked hfm to close
the door several tfmes, no problems wh
~l~v~_a.~?te c~uc~ fn my offfce. Hea~S~ever' A ve~ neat !fttle boy.
.. ~ ~, ~ne couch; ! dfdn't say a w~.- -~-.-~ pencfl and.h? got a encfl
· nough he was ~ofn- -- - ~ ~ . ~-~ ,uuu~ ft. He dfd-,+ ~--~ ~
~ ~ ~u ge: punlsned or somethtnn_ he ~..-~ ~_~u~a~ me as
a. duo~ ~uUR ~ne eraser
and started eraslng the penc~l lfne off of the couch. For a lfttle boy,
In partfcular, and ! guess ! m sort of partial
boys, and particularly when you have thts tmagethat way, seefng that
parent household, that there would be more, not of the bachelor/sfngle
that way, not as
fastfdtous, ff you understand. Also the fssue of vulgarity, whfch fs
part of the stereotypfcal thtng about bachelorhood and the Stngle parent
betng the father, ! very provocatfvely,
II I
~hat s bullshtt',, dfrec*~ ......... dtllberately used the word
~,~ ~ac statement to you. Tye says, over he
P~ayfng, out of the blue, Don t u
me that there's a oe+~4. , ..... se words like thatl" ~ .~_. _ ~e
C~-.~,. ,evel Ot gentflesse fn th~, ~^..:~,[~~ s~ys to
Another thfng that Z would 11ke to mentfon, whfch'~° -~aenola and
orderliness and respect for Property and respect for people gofng on.
a difference fn the
two households fs how they deal wfth emotions. And ! posft them a
11ttle btt 11k~ the cultural dffference between Ztalfans and Englishman,
fn that your household fs more composed, there's more of a kind of
holdfng It together rather than betng effustve wtth emotfons. Hhen you
would get upset, you would work real hard at not floodfng and when you
would get upset, you would be more expressfve fn Just expressfng the
feelfngs. Tye and you show this, that when you were upset and tearful,
here fn my offfce, Tye came over to you and put his arm around you; when
he sensed the tenston between you and Dawn, he came fn there and stood
between the two of you wfth hts arm on each side and satd "Z Just want
you two to do more of..." X, whfch ts what you were dtsagreefng about
because he's tryfng to ffx tt, wants t
our famtly sftuatfon, the chfldren Jus~ get fn. Hhen you were upset
kfnd of went about theft
busfness, nobody reacted fn any dfstressed wa~ about ft; tt just sort of,
11ke rfpples, tt just sort of flows over and tt's passed over that way.
Hot one Is better than the other, there's Just a dffference and the fssue
here fs now Oawn has to deal wfth these dffferences and ft's creattng
-10-
some anxtety tn her; that ts what ! wanted to brtng out. That's
basically about the two famtly environments. My position ts that,
essence, both parents are equally capable of providing responsible,
morally-upright, good role modeling, dt.sctpltned households
child. ! have no difficulty wtth etther household, for thts
! want to talk about Oawn some now. Dawn wtll b~ 12 In September,
ts that rtght? She, !thtnk, ~s a model student. Sh ,
pop~lar. She's very attractive. , __ . e_s soctally
o~t gotng. She's She s Physically health
pltched In with he~°:[~ as~?t~ve, wtth adults, respef fu[ eh lpfu .
she belongs tn the famtly. She's very Closely Identified wtth her
~,gs. ~ne reels a part of the famlly. She feels
_mother,. there's great rapport there. She feels very posfttve about her
life, about school, about herself, about her famtly. !'d like to talk to
you a 11ttle blt about her projective work because there's where you
begtn to see through the smoke screens. ! talked about the two of you,
about how you like to present yourselves tn a favorable 11ght; Dawn 11kes
to present herself tn a favorable 11ght. She does not 11k
path and discomfort and anxtety that's gotng on underneath~ to share the
fnstance, a good Illustration ts whe For
thts turmotl, she went ~.A_ L_._ ri_Dawn, through the
-.um ue~ng an A-B student to course of all of
fatllng two
subjects. She knew that she fatled on a Frtday. She sat wtth that
anxtety all weekend. Mother didn't know unttl Monday. ~hen she was
upset when she was at Oad's house visiting, when he had kept her there,
she would cry tn bed at ntght, upset, but she wouldn't tell Dad '!'m
lonely, !~ homesick, !'m upset'. So there are emottons gotng on In Dawn
that she ts not verbally presenting
these. ~hat are these emotions and so now !'m starttng to watch for
what are they about and what can we
do to help this chtld wJth these feelings? Zn her Themattc ApPerception
Test stortes, there were themes of guilt around havtng bad grades. She
tells a story...you show a Ptcture to a chtld and they make up a story
about tt and what the
the 're Y usually do ts put tnto that story conflicts that
Y havtng, fssues or problems that they're worktng on or feeltngs
that they can't admtt '! feel about myself'. So t
disappointing the mother, tn thts case, around theh~
worked out okay. dg b
There are emottons particularly, of fear
upset whtch she e
repeatedly stated. ~, , shock, and
11 descrtbe to you some of the
stortes. One was a story where there was a gtrl, alone, and she was
heartng thJs noJse and tt frightened her and tt turned out Just to be a
cat's tat1 knocktng agaJnst the door but she was really frightened about
that. A story about a chtld who had a dress for a favortte doll and
somebody else satd 'well, that,s my dress and ! lost one just like that.
Gtve tt back to me', and she reported feeling upset of having to gtve up
this dress. There was another story about thts prectous necklace and
this one woman wanted thts necklace that another woman had so she went to
somebody who owned a detective agency'and told htm to get thts necklace
from the other woman so he arranged to ktll thts woman to get the
necklace and tt turns out that the man that had the woman ktlled, ended
up ktlltng hts own wtfe to get this necklace that he wanted for thts
other woman. Pretty ktnd of traumatic storfes wtth a lot of fears of
-11-
loss Involved, a lot of fears of unknowns, a lot of anxiety going on in
this child. And she has anxiety around expressing her feelings so all
this is going on and she's not able to verbalized it. Z'd ltke to talk
with you about how it came out for me in watching her Interacting with
Tye and Mr. Serland.
Tye came running up to Oawn. ! mean Just about read t
of his skin, face beaming, screaming "Dawn" an Y o split out
She walked tnto the room. She never hugged'· d she stood there 11ke a
statue. She put her hand up by her face and she wtggled her fingers Hi.
contact with htm. !n fact, when we left an him. She never made any
hour later, ! had to say to
her "would You like to say good-bye to Tye?", he was out on the back
patio at that point crying and she looked out the window, didn't even
open the door, and waved good-bye and left. ! watched her with her
father and he said "well, gee, can ! have a hug?" and she gave him the
right shoulder and the right arm in Just a kind of perpendicular kind of
hug. He wasn't going to get through to her, tt was very clear. So they
sat down here and they had a dtalogue and ! want to share with you this
dtalogue because it shows more and more about what's going with Dawn and
made it more and more clear to me why I took the particular position I
did in terms of recommendations.
Father says to Dawn, "Why didn't you tell me you were crying alone
at night? I didn't know you were homesick',, and she says, "Why should I
tell you my feelings?,,, and his response is "because I care about you and
I want to help you", and her response is, "I don't have to tell you my
feelings"; she Just didn't want to let anybody in to what she was
feeling. Then you begin to see the anxiety coming through and the fact
that she's not able to respond to her own feelings, she's starting to
parrot Carrol, saying, in a very attacking, accusttoryway of her father,
"W~y did you send gifts to Lauren and . ,
~nde~stand, it's too confu A?~ste~ They re too oun
that come through that say' h .... .o~,. ~re.you say~ng that ! said
-,~, ~na; s or. ~tlltams statement. Dr. Berger. There s more things
to me that she...these are not things that you
said to me in front of her. These are things that you said to me in
private but she ts so closely Identified with you that she has really
picked up your feelings without you even having to verbalize them to her
and !'11 clarify some of those for you and tf I'm Off the track, you let
me know.
~ Then her father says to her, "Nhy did you stop sending me and Tye
ts?"~ and she said, "Mom would'do it a11. She would buy the gifts and
would pay for them out of her own money and she would pick the
cards. I would Just sign them. I'm pretty busy, you know". The message
was '! don't have time for you' and ! began to reallze how this child had
not developed the relationship with her'father that Mom had worked so
hard to develop and the child had not committed herself to the
relationship at a11; in fact, all she was doing was getting the kind of
entitled feeling of 'I deserve to get from this relationship but I'm not
responsible to gtve tn thts relationship, When he asked why she dtdn't
want to spend more ttme, she said, #! d~n;t want to spend anymore ttme
wJth you than two weeks because that's the way we've always done tr. Our
famtly ts traditionally and you're
describe how much he has cared for ~°t" Father was then trytng to
beyond what was requtred In the d net over the Years and done thtngs
way to kind of nro.=~. ~ .... t~orce decree and e
- ~ .er mom d sh came back
never had to take _., ~T~ndJng her mom _ , tn a
me to Texas and !thtnk She fe~+Sa~?g that "my mom
were angry wJth Carrol and she was gotng to rush to her defense and !
, -.~, ~n a way, that you
guess you ye got to know that tf you have any anger left at Carrol, that
you've got to take tt out elsewhere because thts 11ttle gtrl Is
rightfully protecting her mother and the good Job that she's done tn
trytng to butld a relationship there. And
!'ye even sent extra chtld sun~^~ ~ ..... ~h~n he started saying, ~and
~-~ ue~eno what was decreed", and then she
started saying, ~that's not enough, you know, !'m growtng up#, whtch was
exactly what ~ou had satd prevtous to that, exactly
what Carrol had said
Just previously. Then Oawn, Interestingly, sort
call self-trance and satd, #Let Or. Berger tell y~ took a spin, what !
, , what ! really thtnk
about money', and, fn the sentence completfon test, one of the sentences
Is !thtnk money ts...' and she answered, "borfng,,. She doesn't really
have the Investment In money. She feels that Mom has the Investment In
mone~ and she's tn there to Protect Mom's rtghts because she's Mom's
champion, she and Mom are buddies. YOU're not asktng her to do thts but
she's carrytng It on because she loves you so much and she wants whatever
y~u want and !'m not saytng that you are tn any way Prom tfn ,
msunderstand me there. So father says~ a P g, don t
~t_~o Y~u want from me? Why
do you even want one week or two weeks? , ano cnen gawn started to get
emotional and she handles It like you do, rises to the surface and then
dtverts lt. She satd, ~! want a frlend.~ "Well, what do you w
me?~ "! want you to call and wrtte more.# So he Sa ~nt from
about these long letters ! w ~ ys to h
letters.. ~ ...~ ..... rlteyou? And a ~.... . e~, .Well, how
happening An. ~. ~nac point, ! Just termt--~ ~?~' ! want snort
,,.~=u ~ oecause what was
was that she was getting so frightened and so anxtous, so
scared of the possible changes, so scared of mak~n ,
commitment to thts man that she's g th~s emotional
have always been that she was be not made any emotional contentment to,
so frightened about lostng the security that she has w~th the way
~?~ng.~e_could do to please h~°m~_~tally Irrational. Ther th~ngs
ane wOUld have fn~ k~ .... ~ .... ~'° ~nere was no t~.~ ^. ~_~, e was
.... · ,,, w.e~ner he came hera ~. ~:':'~ ¥.?ua s earth that
think there would be no p°lnt ~n furthering her dtscussfon w~th that
~ v. a.e went down there and !
because tt was too anxiety-provoking for her and too threatening for
her. And what she was doing, she.wasn't th~nktng for herself anymore,
she was Just parrotfng what her mother was saying.
handle a
Dawn for an entire summer ~n terms of a competent parent; !'m not
recommending b
that. !thtnk we have to be clear about what the goals are
that we want for Dawn at that potnt and tr~ to best brtng the resources
that both these families offer to make that maximized for Dawn. I think
it's important for a child to have a relationship with both of these
families and for her to have whole relationships with both of her parents
which means that we've got to get out of this 'Dtsneyland Daddy' routine,
we've got to get out of this 'I give and you take' dynamic system there.
We've got to get out of the sense of your controlling that relationship
that's there. That's got to be set up in their perimeters and you've got
to instill in Dawn, Carrol, the ability to.speak her mind and to identify
her feelings and to deal with those feelings even when they are
anxiety-provoking. The issues developmental for a child during these
next couple of years, I'm looking 12-16, the next four to five years at
most here, are tndtvtduation from her parents, defining her identity as a
separate person from any of her family, any of her parents, testing her
ideas, her values, her lifestyle, incorporating, not because Mom and Dad
say to do it but because I really believe it, I go to church, because I
really believe it, I don't' engage in pre-marital sex, because I really
believe it, I treat my body in a healthy, respectful way, mastrate
independence and initiative and this means the feelings of competence
that I can handle myself in that world out there, I can know that I can
speak up for myself, I know that I can ask for what I want in this world,
have my feelings acknowledged, and to be able to develop good
interpersonal skills, to have continuity in social relationships, to have
a feeling of ability to overcome Conflicts and obstacles in
relationships. I think Dawn has been a victim of'the struggle between
mother and father for control of her time on the visitation. I think her
feelings of not wanting more time with father right now has to do with
the fact that she's felt she's had no choice in the matter. I think
choice is very important for kids, particularly at her age. They need to
be respected as having a mind of their own and being able to contribute
to the decisions in their lifetime.
The issue here is that there are no blueprints that say 'if you do
A, B, C, O, you will get this perfectly, well-adjusted, happy child who
is integrated in their life and able to deal with these two parents who
can't deal with each other. There's no guarantee of how to go about it
in terms of getting that particular outcome. I can't guarantee that if
Mr. Serland gets two more weeks of visitation that he's going to be able
to turn around his relationship with his daughter. I can't guarantee
that because I don't know whether she's going to let you in. I can't
guarantee that if you respect her wishes and her fears right now and
allow her, without taking it any further, not to have two weeks, that she
will ever come around that way either. I can't promise you that,
psychology can't promise you that. We don't know enough about the
ability to predict human behavior to be able to say in this situation
where you have this 12-year history and these dynamics in these families,
that Number 1 is the only choice here. All I can do is give you my
opinions. You can ask somebody else and they will give you different
opinions and I won't say that they're wrong and I'm right.
My goal would be to maximize the opportunities that Dawn has for
developing a relationship wtth her father wtthin a framework that gives
her a sense of freedom of chotce, that gtves her a sense of safety. !
would 11ke to have her have the exposure to the different lifestyle and
resources and affects that you brtng that she doesn't have from this
famtly. ! weuld 11ke the adults to make choices that they are agreeable
wtth and present those to the chtld as sayt~g, 'Dawn, we think A, B, C,
qr O ts good for you. Whtch of these thtngs that we thtnk ts good for
you do you want?' so tn that ktnd of respectfulness but tn the sense that
truly the adults are In the responsible posltton of maktng the
responsible decisions here. And ! think, at thts potnt, that the
continuity, because she's not been staytng all summer wtth you for all
these years, ! think tt's Important to eatntaln the continuity that she's
got tn her 11fespace here as much as posstble with the friendships and
activities that she has gotten tnto. $o, what !'masktng for are a lot
of Impossible things. How can we best pull together those elements to
get the best possible choice or the least worse posstble cholce? What do
you want from me at thts potnt?
Mrs. Shtrvtnskt: ! have all these thtngs gotng through my head as
to what we can come up wtth that would be good for her and, for most,
thts kind of relationship.
Dr. Berger: Let me share wtth you one other piece of Information
that ! would like to ktnd of'add to the record here and that ts, as Dawn
was describing tt, what she was w1111ng to gtve was one week out of her
year of 52 weeks to her father, the other one she wanted to have wtth her
grandparents. When father describes to me what happens when Oawn ts down
there, that that ts hts vacatton ttme, he does take ttme off from work
and he devotes the enttre ttme to her. ! don't get the ptcture that this
child ts left alone, that she, according to father, has not been left to
be responsible for Tye when she ts down there, that Tye would go to the
babysitter and, durtng that 30 days perJod, there were only ftve days
that he was tnvolved at the offtce and they weren't full days. So !
thtnk part of what mtght have been communicated wtth Dawn, when ! see how
she's sort of regressed In terms of what she's w1111ng to give, !thtnk,
! have the concern that she wtll become a very spotled, entttled child,
ktnd of dictating to the adults how they're gotng to run tn her life and
! would not want to encourage that. !thtnk she does want Involvement
wtth the other grandparents but ! thlnk tt was done In a way to be very
controlling, '!~m gotng to tell you how ! want my schedule run.' More
ttme needs to be allowed without your Influencing tt and controlling It,
that tt's got to be something that you ktnd of gtve to them to work out
and that there has to be free and easy access. If Oawn's down there and
she wants to call you, she's got to have the rtght to do that. If you
want to call her up here, she's got to be able to receive those calls
wtthout having to lock the door or maktng sure that you are not on the
phone.
-15-
Hrs. Shtrvtnskt: ! want you to be aware that between htm
saying... Dr. Berger: We need to wrap up here because ['ye kind of
allowed an hour for tt and ! really don't want to get tnto the
negotiations, that's real]y up to you. !'m Just kind of setting, there
are some potentially destructive trends gotng on here. Once you folks
make an agreement, !'d ]tke you to back up to your prevtous cooperative,
respectful approaches. One other thtng ts that ! take a posttton
disagreeing wtth you tn terms of the amount..of supervision that Dawn
needs but !'m probably overprotective as a mother. I'm not comfortable
leavlng a t~elve-year-old tn a house by herself. That's how I am so tf I
wou]d make a recoflwnendatlon, durtng the time that you have her, I would
want an adult there with her or supervising her. I ~ou]dn't want her
alone to manage herself tn the household. If you want speclftc ttme
recommendations, I would give those. My general frame of reference is I
think more time is needed and you folks need to work out how that time is
arranged and give that to Dawn as then a choice that she can recognize
that she has some say in what goes on in her life.
LAW OFFICES
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER
& MORGAN
111 NORTH FRONT STREET
P. O. Box 889
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0889
JAMES E. GERLAND,
Petitioner
v.
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 Civil 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
ANSWER TO ORDER AND RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent in the above captioned
case, by her attorney, Bonnie D. Menaker, files the following.
Answer to the Order and Rule entered in the above captioned case
on April 7, 1987, as follows:
1. Carrol Ann Shirvinsky does not believe that the mental
or physical condition of her child, Dawn Evette Gerland, age 11,
is in controversy, however, because her father, James Edward
Gerland has voluntarily offered through his attorney, John C.
Howett, Jr., to submit himself also to an examination by a Court
appointed psychologist, Carrol Ann Shirvinsky agrees to have the
same Court appointed psychologist examine herself and her
daughter, Dawn, to aid the Court in its determination of the
Custody Petition filed by James Gerland to the above captioned
case.
2. John C. Howett, Jr., Attorney for Petitioner, has
proposed to Bonnie D. Menaker, Attorney for Respondent, that the
Court appoint Elizabeth Hanson Hoffman, Ph.D., Clinical
Psychologist, whose office is at 2801 North Front Street,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to conduct a psychological examination
of James Gerland, Carrol Ann Shirvinsky and Dawn Evette Gerland
and to deliver to the Court and both attorneys of record, copies
of her detailed written report setting out the findings, results
of all tests made, diagnosis and conclusions in accordance with
Pa. R.C.P. 1915.8. The costs of said psychological evaluation is
to be borne initially by Petitioner without prejudice to an
ultimate determination of responsibility for such costs in
accordance with the Order and Rule entered April 7, 1987.
3. Carrol Ann Shirvinsky agrees to the psychological
evaluation requested by Petitioner's counsel on the condition
that the evaluation include also James Gerland and that he be
required to pay the costs initially.
Respectfully submitted,
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER & MORGAN
Dated:
Bonnie D. Menaker, Attorney fo~
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent
I verify that the statements made in this Answer to
Rule are true and correct. I understand that false statements
herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Car ro/Ann Shirvinsky
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~day of May, 1987, I, Bonnie D. Menaker,
attorney for the firm of Hepford, Swartz, Menaker & Morgan,
attorney for the Respondent, hereby certify that I have this day
served a copy of the foregoing Answer to Rule by d~..~g a
copy of the same in the United States Mail, ~,~tage prepaid, at
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: ~(~~ ~~%-~
John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire
134 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
Bonnie D. Menaker, Attorney for
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent
LAW OFFICES
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER
& Morgan
111 NORTH FRONT STRE~ET
P. O. ~OX ~g
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-O889
JAMES E. GERLAND,
Petitioner
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 Civil 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this /~ day of /99~/ , 1987, upon the
Motion of Bonnie D. Menaker, Attorney for Carrol Ann Shirvisky,
Respondent in the above captioned case, the hearing scheduled for
June 29, 1987 at 9:30 a.m. is hereby scheduled to recess at 12:30
p.m. June 29, 1987 and resume on the / ~ day of _~/ , 1987
at 9'30 o'clock ~.m.
BY THE COURT,
l~evi~ A. Hess
JAMES E. GERLAND,
Petitioner
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 Civil 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
AND NOW, comes Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent in the
above captioned case, by her attorney, Bonnie D. Menaker, who
files the following Motion:
1. Bonnie D. Menaker has just been retained by Carrol Ann
Shirvinsky to represent her in the above captioned custody matter
pursuant to the Petition filed by James Gerland to have Carrol
Ann Shirvinsky held in contempt for failure to comply with
visitation order and to compel psychological evaluations.
2. The Rule issued by Judge Kevin A. Hess dated April 1,
1987 is returnable June 29, 1987 at 9:30 a.m.
3. Bonnie D. Menaker is available to be in Court at
9:30 a.m. on June 29, 1987, however, she has been previously
scheduled to be in York County Court at 1:30 p.m. on the same
date before Judge John T. Miller in an interstate adoption
hearing in which Bonnie D. Menaker was the intermediary and is
therefore a necessary witness to said hearing.
4. It is impossible to reschedule the interstate adoption
hearing scheduled for Monday, June 29, 1987 at 1:30 p.m. before
Judge Miller in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
Pennsylvania, which will perhaps last the balance of the
afternoon.
5. Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner
requests the Court to grant a continuance of the hearing
scheduled for June 29, 1987 from 12:30 on Monday, June 29 until
the following morning or a subsequent date thereafter and to
conclude and testimony presented at 9:30 Monday, June 29, 1987 to
the following date or a subsequent date thereafter.
Respectfully submitted,
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER & MORGAN
Bonnie D. Menaker, Attorney for
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~'~day of May, 1987, I, Bonnie D. Menaker,
attorney for the firm of Hepford, Swartz, Menaker & Morgan,
attorney for the Respondent, hereby certify that I have this day
served a copy of the foregoing Motion by depositin, g.~.a"C~f the
same in the United States Mail, postage p,~[d, at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, addressed to:
John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire
134 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
Bonnie D. Menaker, Attorney for
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent
LAW OF'FICE$
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER
& Morgan
1 I 1 NORTH FRONT STREET
P. O. Box 889
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0889
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 Civil 1987
In Re: Custody
RESPONDENT'S ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
Carroll Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent in the above captioned
case, through her attorney, Bonnie D. Menaker, states as follows:
ANSWER
1. Admitted.
2. Denied. Respondent's address is 2506 Birchwood
Court, Wexford, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
3. Admitted. It is further averred that the parties
hereto were married on June 2, 1973 and separated in April 1975,
prior to the birth of their daughter, Dawn on September 23, 1975.
Petitioner filed the Texas divorce on October 2, 1975 and the
Decree of Divorce was entered May 21, 1976 after Petitioner
appeared in open court with his counsel on February 11, 1976 and
stated an ex-parte agreement which Respondent never knew about
until she was served with the final divorce papers sometime after
May 21, 1976.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted, however, they moved on August 20, 1987 to
their present address in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
6. Admitted in part, denied in part. Respondent admits
that the Texas Divorce Decree contains the language quoted in
paragraph 6 of the Petition. Respondent denies that the quoted
language is the only pertinent provision.
7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that
Petitioner notified Respondent that he had scheduled a New Mexico
vacation with the parties' daughter. It is denied that the
proposed vacation was consistent with Petitioner's Christmas
visitation rights. To the contrary, Respondent formed a good
~aith belief that the vacation proposed was inconsistent with the
reasonaDle visitation, contrary to the best interests and welfare
of their daughter and against their daughter's wishes. Prior to
NovemDer 13, 1986, Respondent's daughter informed her that she
did not wish to go on the New Mexico ski trip with Petitioner
Decause of her concerns about sleeping arrangements made by her
~ather and the planned presence of her ~ather's female companion
which had occurred on previous visits. Respondent communicated
her daughter's wishes and concerns to Petitioner and sought to
convince him to make adjustments in the plans ~or the visit in
order to assuage his daughter's fears and concerns. Petitioner
failed to do so and the visit did not occur as requested by
Petitioner. Instead of accommodating his daughter's concerns,
Petitioner terminated all good ~aith communications with
Respondent and threatened legal action which was followed by the
NovemDer 13, 1986 letter through Petitioner's Houston counsel.
- 2 -
Later, on or about December 18, 1986, Petitioner telephoned
Respondent to say that he would not force the Christmas
vis~tation.
8. The averments contained in paragraph 8 are denied.
To the contrary, Respondent avers that after discussions with
Respondent and their daughter, Petitioner notified Respondent
that he would not exercise his Christmas visitation privileges.
9. The allegations in paragraph 9 are admitted in part
and denied in part. It is admitted that since January 1, 1987
Petitioner notified Repsondent that he intended to exercise
visitation privileges. To the extent that the allegations
suggest or imply that Petitioner made frequent contacts and/or
that Respondent failed or refused to discuss Petitioner's request
for visitation, the same are denied. When Petitioner sought to
exercise visitation rights over the Easter holiday, Respondent
informed him that their daughter had only two days off school
(Friday and Monday) and, thereafter, Petitioner notified
Respondent and his daughter that he would not exercise his
visitation rights at Easter. The Divorce Decree provided that,
"No visitation period shall interfere with school."
10. The allegations in paragraph 10 are denied. To the
contrary, Respondent avers that she merely conveyed her
daughter's feelings and concerns about Petitioner's efforts to
compel her daughter to acquiesce in his exercise of visitation
- 3 -
rights established in the 1976 Divorce Decree. Until recently,
Petitioner has not sought to exercise visitation rights in
accordance with the 1976 Divorce Decree and has made only
infrequent contacts with his daughter, Dawn.
11. To the extent that the allegations of paragraph 11
are conclusions of law, no answer is required. The reamining
allegations are denied. To the contrary, Respondent avers that
she did not express an intention to continue to refuse to honor
Petitioner's request to exercise visitation rights or to refuse
to honor the reasonable exercise of such visitation rights.
Petitioner has never requested the visitation rights set forth in
the 1976 Divorce Decree and in fact, has frequently modified the
visitation schedule not only by agreement but also Dy his
conduct.
12. Respondent has acquiesced in Petitioner's request for
independent psychological evaluations and has scheduled a series
of meetings with Natalie Berger, Ph.D., selected by Petitioner's
attorney and paid Dy Petitioner. Respondent believes that
Petitioner should bear the entire cost of said psychological
evaluation because he refused to continue to deal with
Respondent's psychologist, Dr. Richard Williams concerning the
visitation with Dawn and also refused to pay for Dr. Williams'
expenses necessitated by Petitioner.
13. Admitted in part, denied in part. Respondent admits
- 4 -
that Petitioner has retained John C. Howett, Jr. It is denied
that Respondent willfully failed or refused to abide by the terms
of the Divorce Decree and Order or that she caused Petitioner to
incur unnecessary fees, costs and expenses. To the contrary,
Respondent has encouraged and aided her daughter's visits with
Petitioner even when Petitioner did not initiate the exercise of
his visitation rights and in spite of their daughter's
reluctance.
Since the Divorce Decree was entered, Respondent has
consistently encouraged and nurtured her daughter's relationship
with Petitioner, including seeing that her daughter made
telephone contacts, sent birthday cards and letters and
facilitated her daughter's visits with Petitioner when he was
willing and able to exercise his visitation rights. Petitioner
himself has failed to request the visitation rights set forth in
the Decree in Divorce on most occasions. Petitioner has declined
to exercise visitation rights in the past and specifically
requested that his daughter not visit him at Christmas 1985
because he was experiencing severe mental problems.
When Respondent arranged for her daughter to visit
Petitioner during the summer of 1987 he once again violated his
daughter's considerations for the visit and cohabited with his
newest girlfried in Denver, Colorado for most of the vacation.
When they returned to Houston, Texas, Petitioner left his
daughter with his parents while he went out on dates.
- 5 -
NEW MATTER
14. Respondent married John C. Shirvinsky on May 12, 1982
and resided with him at 3607 Horsham Drive, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania until August 20, 1987 when the
entire family moved to Wexford, Pennsylvania because of Mr.
Shirvinsky's employment.
15. Respondent and her husband have two children, Lauren
Beth, age 4 and Cristin, age 2, who live with them and
Petitioner's daughter, Dawn.
16. Dawn, age 12, attended Good Hope Middle School in the
Cumberland Valley School District. She completed grade 6 where
she participated in all normal social activities, extra-
curricular and athletic events and played on the ~ield hockey
team. S~e has recently transferred to a school in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania.
17. Respondent and her family attend the Christian Life
Assembly weekly and participate in its activities including Women
Ministries and Bible Study.
18. Dawn has always had close friendships with her
classmates and neighborhood children and is well adjusted and
happy in her family environment. She does not want her
biological father interfering in her family life in Pennsylvania
and has told him of her feelings.
19. Dawn has expressed a desire to her mother to maximize
- 6 -
her summer vacation time with her family and friends and to
attend field hockey camp in Pennsylvania. Dawn told Petitioner
that she wished to limit her summer visitation with him and his
parents in Texas to two weeks total.
20. Petitioner's efforts to now force himself on Dawn has
caused her great stress, mental anguish and discomfort manifested
Dy tension, edginess, etc. As a result of the stress and tension
which Dawn is suffering over Petitioner's assertion of visitation
rights, Respondent consulted Richard Williams, a psychologist,
concerning her daughter's reactions and emotional state. Dr.
Williams has confirmed to Respondent that the controversy over
visitation and ~ear of being uprooted from her normal home and
~amily li~e routine has caused emotional and psychological trauma
to Dawn.
21. Respondent's daughter has repeatedly stated that she
does not wish to visit Petitioner ~or the length of time and in
the circumstances he proposes. She continues to express concerns
to Respondent over the quality of visitation time with
Petitioner. She also expressed such concerns directly to
Petitioner. Petitioner ignores their concerns and continues in
his efforts to attempt to ~orce his "lifestyle" on his daughter.
This includes staying awake until two or three o'clock in the
morning and being left alone with his illegitimate son while
Petitioner goes to work.
22. Petitioner has displayed shocking disregard for the
emotional well-being of his daughter. He has taken no time to
acquaint himself with his daughter's desires or needs through
telephone conversations or other correspondence until recently by
starting to harass her by phone to visit with him this summer.
He is attempting to force himself on his daughter through threats
and legal action, all of which is causing her great emotional
stress.
23. Petitioner's first visit with his daughter, after
birth, occurred when he came to Pennsylvania with his then
girlfriend, Patty, when Dawn was between three and six months
old. He never saw Dawn again until the summer of 1978 when her
mother flew her to Houston for a week to visit. Respondent then
began going to Houston every summer in order to take Dawn to
visit her father but never for the thirty (30) day period set
forth in the Divorce Decree, since that had never been requested
Dy Petitioner. The only Christmas time that Dawn visited with
her father was 1981. In 1985 he cancelled the planned visit due
to his mental problems and expressed fears that he would harm his
child.
24. Dawn has expressed to her mother concerns over the
sleeping arrangements when she visits with her father in Texas.
Dawn is routinely ordered to sleep with her half brother, Tye,
and/or children of friends of her father who are unknown to her.
- 8 -
Her father usually has various female companions during vacations
with his daughter and as overnight guests in his home. The
planned trip to New Mexico in December 1986 included a female
companion, which was one of the reasons why Dawn did not want to
go with her father. When Dawn's concerns were expressed to her
father by her mother, he indicated an unwillingness to alter his
lifestyle even for a short period of time when his daughter was
visiting in order to make her feel comfortable.
COUNTERCLAIM
25. The visitation schedule set forth in the 1976 Divorce
Decree has never been requested or complied with by either party
and should therefore be modified to serve the best interests of
the child involved.
26. Respondent has retained Bonnie D. Menaker as counsel
to represent her in the above captioned matter. She has incurred
attorney's fees, costs and expenses to defend the unreasonable
action brought by Petitioner to enforce terms of a 1976 Texas
Divorce Decree which was drastically modified by agreement of
Petitioner himself over the years.
27. Respondent has participated in the psychological
evaluation requested by Petitioner with Natalie Berger and
believes that the entire cost for the same should be paid by
Petitioner.
- 9 -
WHEREFORE, the Court is requested to Order as follows:
1. Respondent is adjudged not in contempt of any Order
of Court.
2. The requested sanctions are dismissed.
3. The request for attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses is denied.
4. Enter an award of reasonable counsel fees,
costs and expenses in favor of Respondent against
Petitioner.
5. Direct Petitioner to pay all of the expenses
of the psychological evaluation requested by
Petitioner and performed by Natalie Berger, Ph.D.
6. A visitation order is accordance with the best
interests of the child is to be entered.
Respectfully submitted,
HEPFORD, SWARTZ, MENAKER & MORGAN
Bonnie D. Menaker, Attorney for
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent
- 10 -
I verify that the statements made in this Answer and
Counterclaim are true and correct. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
C~rrol ,A~n S~irvins~y, Respon~en/
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~ day of October, 1987, I,
Bonnie
D. Menaker, Attorney, for the firm of Hepford, Swartz,
Menaker & Morgan, attorney for the Respondent, hereby
certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing
Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim by depositing a copy of
the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire
132 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
Bonnie D. Menaker, Attorney for
Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, Respondent
!~ THE COLrRT OF C(/~Y~)N PICAS
CUM~~ CO~,~fY, PENNSYI,~.IA
IN RE CUSTODY
NO. 88 C1VIL 1987
JA~S GE~!2~D,
Petitioner
vs.
CARROL AA~N SHIRVi%ISEY,
Respondent
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
LAW OFFICES OF
JO/IN C. I-IOWETT, .JR., P.
132 'gVALNUT STREET
POST OFFICE BOX Si0
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
vs.
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Pespondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 88 CIVIL 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, DONALD T. KISSINGER, ESQUIRE, attorney for
James Gerland, Petitioner in the above-captioned action for
custody, hereby certify that a signed and certified copy of
the Rule to Show Cause and Petition to Reschedule Hearing was
served upon counsel for Respondent Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, by
depositing the same in the United States mail on October 16,
1987, addressed as follows:
Bonnie D. Menaker, Esquire
111 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
_/Donald T.'K~sing~,Esquire
John C. Howett, ~r., P.C.
132 Walnut Street
P. O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0810
Counsel for Respondent
THE COURT OF CC~K/q PLF~q
CUMBERLA~H3 CO%~EY, pEk~SYLVANIA
IN RE CUSTODY
NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
J~S CLKRLAND,
Petitioner
VS.
CARROL AIR~ SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
ORDER
LAW OFFICES OF
JOHN C. HOWETT, JR., P.C.
13Z WALNUT STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 810
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANL~ 17108
JAM~S GERLAND,
Petitioner
Vo
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this 3~~ day of O~A~.
1987, upon Petition and Response thereto and after oral
argument by counsel for both parties conducted on October 30,
1987, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that Dr. Natalie
Berger is appointed as the independent psychological evaluator
in this matter and that her participation in these proceedings
to dakin that capacity are ratified; that James Gerland shall
continue to remain responsible for Dr. Berger's fees
without prejudice and until further order of this court; that
the parties hereto shall cooperate in such arrangements as may
be deemed necessary by Dr. Berger for further evaluation as
Dr. Berger deems necessary and appropriate; and that Dr.
Berger shall prepare a report and recommendation and transmit
the same to this Court and counsel for the parties as soon as
she is able to do so, but not later than Monday, December 14,
1987, so as to permit this Court to review same prior to the
hearing on this matter set by prior Order for December 16,
1987, at 9:30 a.m.
BY THE COURT:
HESS
Oc~ 30 3 os PI~
IN THE COURT OF CCblWON PI,FAS
CU~.~ERLAND COU~..~Y, PENS;SYLVANIA
IN RE CUSTODY
NO. 88 CI%~IL 1987
~-~.S GERLA~,
Petitioner
VS.
CARROL AS~N SHIRV~SEY,
Respondent
PBTITIO~EP,' S RESPC~SE TO
RESPONDE~F2' S NEW MATTER
AND COU~iIERCLAIM
LAW OFFICES OF
JOHN C. PIOWETT, JR., P.C.
132 WALNUT STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 810
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
Ve
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
IN RE: CUSTODY
PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S
NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
AND NOW comes Petitioner James Gerland, by and
through his counsel, John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire, who states
the following:
RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER
14. Admitted.
15. Admitted.
16. It is admitted that Dawn attended Good Hope
Middle School in the Cumberland Valley School District and
that she completed grade six where she participated in normal
social activities, extracurricular and athletic events and
played on the field hockey team. It is admitted that the
child has recently transferred to a school in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. However, it is averred that as
Respondent has refused to provide Petitioner with the name of
the school in which Dawn is currently enrolled.
17. It is admitted that Respondent and her family
attend the Christian Life Assembly and participate in its
activities. Petitioner lacks the requisite knowledge to
respond to any allegation regarding the frequency of such
participation.
18. It is admitted that Dawn had been able to
develop close friendships with her classmates and neighborhood
children while living in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It
is denied that the child is well adjusted and happy in her
family environment inasmuch as that "family environment" has
attempted to influence Dawn to minimize contacts with
Petitioner. It is denied that Dawn has informed Petitioner
that he would be interfering in her family life in
Pennsylvania.
19. Petitioner lacks the requisite knowledge to
respond to any allegations concerning statements Dawn has made
to Respondent. It is admitted that the child informed
Petitioner that she wished to limit her summer visitation with
him and his parents in Texas to a total of two weeks. It is
averred that Dawn is merely repeating Respon~ent's expressed
desire that the child limit summer visitation with Petitioner
to a total of two weeks.
20. It is denied that Petitioner has made any
attempt to "force himself" on Dawn. It is further denied that
Petitioner's attempts to maintain communication with his
daughter by letter and by telephone have caused her great
stress, mental anguish and discomfort. It is admitted that
Respondent consulted psychologist Richard Williams although
Petitioner has not been informed of the reasons given for such
- 2 -
consultation. Petitioner lacks the requisite knowledge to
respond to any allegations concerning statements made by
Williams to Respondent.
21. It is admitted that Dawn has informed
Petitioner that she only wishes to participate in two weeks of
visitation during the summer of 1988. It is denied that Dawn
has expressed concerns regarding the "quality of visitation
time" with Petitioner to Petitioner. It is denied that
Petitioner ignores any expressed concerns of the child and it
is further denied that Petitioner has made any attempt to
force his "lifestyle" on her in any manner. During summer
visitation in 1987, Petitioner and the child remained awake
until late hours only on infrequent occasions, and in the
event that Dawn remained awake until late hours, she was
permitted to and did sleep late into the next morning. It is
averred that Dawn was not left alone with Petitioner's
six-year old son Tye while Petitioner went to work on any
occasion during the summertime visitation in 1987.
22. It is specifically denied that Petitioner has
exhibited any type of disregard for the emotional well being
of his daughter. Petitioner has repeatedly expressed his
concerns to Dawn regarding her emotional welfare during the
course of frequent telephone conversations and in letters sent
by Petitioner to the child. It is again denied that
Petitioner has attempted to "force himself" on Dawn in any
fashion or in any manner.
- 3 -
23. It is admitted that Petitioner's first visit
with his daughter occurred when Petitioner came to
Pennsylvania when Dawn was between three and six months of
age, said visitation being pursuant to a previously negotiated
agreement with Respondent that Petitioner would come to
Pennsylvania for a period of five days and see his daughter
daily during said period. It is further averred that after
the first day's visit Respondent arbitrarily terminated any
further visitation and refused to permit Petitioner to see his
daughter during the remainder of the agreed upon period.
It is admitted that Petitioner did not see Dawn
again until the summer of 1978. However, it is averred that
the reason therefore is because Respondent continued to deny
Petitioner's frequent requests for visitation. In the summer
of 1978, Respondent finally agreed that Petitioner could
exercise visitation with Dawn but only in the event that
Petitioner arranged for transportation for Respondent and the
child to Houston, that Petitioner pay for said transportation,
and that Petitioner provide for room and board during that
stay and that she would only remain for a period of one week.
Petitioner accepted Respondent's terms so that he could at
least see his daughter for a limited period of time and
because he remained reluctant to utilize the legal process to
enforce the Texas decree. Prior to that point, Petitioner
feared that any trips to Pennsylvania in an effort to exercise
visitation would result in a denial of such visitation by
- 4 -
Respondent based on the previous denial during his trip in
1975. After the summer 1978 visitation, Petitioner made
several trips to Pennsylvania to visit with Dawn and on other
occasions made transportation arrangements for the child,
Respondent and a friend of Respondent to come to Houston and
paid for all such transportation and paid all room and board
during the respective stays. Petitioner exercised Christmas
visitation with the child as per the Texas divorce decree in
1981 and 1982 and requested such visitation in the years 1983
through 1986 but Respondent refused to permit such visitation.
It is admitted that in April 1985, Petitioner
informed Respondent that as a result of his emotional
condition at that time, he believed the best interests of the
child would be most fully served by cancelling the visitation
plans for that summer. It is specifically denied that
Petitioner at any time expressed any fears that he would harm
the child in any fashion.
24. Petitioner lacks the requisite knowledge to
respond to any allegations concerning statements made by the
child to Respondent regarding sleeping arrangements during
visitation periods in Texas. It is averred that the child has
never expressed any complaints concerning visitation sleeping
arrangements to Petitioner. It is denied that Petitioner has
ordered Dawn to sleep with anyone at any time. It is averred
that on one occasion Petitioner's son Tye asked Dawn whether
he could sleep with her and she agreed, and on one other
- 5 -
occasion, Dawn shared a bunk with a nine-year old girl during
a camping trip without objection. It is admitted that upon
occasion during visitation periods, Petitioner has been in the
presence of female companions. During these visitation
periods, Dawn has been introduced to many of Petitioner's
acquaintances, both male and female, and Dawn has always
enjoyed a warm friendly relationship with those individuals.
It is admitted that the planned New Mexico ski trip in
December 1986 included a female companion. It is averred that
in advance of that trip, Respondent requested that Dawn be
provided a private room and that no female companions be
present. In an effort to alleviate any concerns on the part
of Respondent, Petitioner agreed to provide a private room for
the child and to provide a separate room for Petitioner and a
separate room for his companion. The companion agreed to
serve as a babysitter for Petitioner's son Tye in order that
Petitioner could spend more time alone with Dawn. All of said
plans were communicated to Respondent. At no time did Dawn
express concerns regarding sleeping arrangements to
Petitioner. Respondent then unilaterally refused to permit
the planned visitation to occur, forcing Petitioner to cancel
Dawn's plane reservations and eliminating any visitation
during Christmas of 1986.
RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIM
25. It is denied that the visitation schedule set
forth in the 1976 divorce decree has never been requested by
- 6 -
either party. It is averred that Petitioner has made repeated
attempts to exercise the visitation granted unto him pursuant
to said divorce decree but said visitation has been denied by
Respondent. It is admitted that the divorce decree should be
modified to serve the best interests of the child, and it is
further averred that such modification should increase
Petitioner's visitation rights with respect to his daughter.
26. It is admitted that Respondent has retained
Bonnie D. Menaker as counsel to represent her in this matter.
It is specifically denied that Petitioner's action to enforce
the terms of the Texas divorce decree is unreasonable and it
is averred that Respondent's unreasonable conduct in denying
Petitioner visitation with Dawn after repeated requests by
Petitioner has necessitated the instant action and caused
Petitioner to incur unnecessary counsel fees, costs and
expenses.
27. It is denied that Petitioner should bear the
entire cost for the psychological evaluations conducted by Dr.
Natalie Berger. It is averred that the costs of said
evaluation should be split equally between the parties.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:
~a~-C. Howett, Jr., Esquire
132 Walnut Street
P. O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Counsel for Petitioner
- 7 -
JAMES GERLAND,
Petitioner
vs.
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 88 CIVIL 1987
IN RE CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, JOHN C. HOWETT, JR., ESQUIRE, attorney for
James Gerland, Petitioner, in the above-captioned action for
custody, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of
Petitioner's Response to Respondent's New Matter and
Counterclaim was served upon counsel for Respondent, Bonnie
D. Menaker, Esquire, by depositing the same in the United
States mail on November 5, 1987, addressed as follows:
Bonnie D. Menaker, Esquire
!11 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
~n C. Howett, Jr~,~Esq~ire
John C. Howett, Jr., P.C.
132 Walnut Street
P. O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0810
Counsel for Petitioner
JAMES GERLAND,
Pet it ioner
vs.
CARROL ANN SHIRVINSKY,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 88 CIVIL 1987
CUSTODY
FINDINGS AND ORDER OF COURT
This is a case in which the mother, pursuant to a decree of
divorce entered in Harris County, Texas, dated February 11, 1976, was
awarded primary custody of the child, Dawn Evette Gerland, born
September 23, 1975, subject to rights of visitation in the petitioner
herein and natural father, James Gerland. These rights of visitation
include thirty days in the summertime and a period of visitation at
Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving.
Over the years the parties settled upon a two week period of
summer visitation, feeling that more time would be disruptive to a
very young child. During the summer of 1986 the father, without the
consent of the natural mother, kept the child, Dawn, beyond the normal
two week period, attempting to cement a relationship with his
daughter. Following that episode not only did that effort fail but
the relationship of the parties has dramatically deteriorated to the
point where the child, Dawn, has decided that she wishes to sever her
relationship with her natural father. It is apparent that without
court intervention the rights of visitation in the father will be
denied, as the natural mother, in response to these developments, has
not made the effort which is now required to assure visitation.
The child has indicated that she would rather be adopted by her
mother's current husband and have no contact whatsoever with her
natural father. She has directed the return, to her father, of gifts
and greeting cards, sending them back unopened. We do not necessarily
believe that this child has been reinforced in her feelings by her
natural mother. On the other hand, there have been no affirmative
steps taken to address the denial of visitation.
Our review of the testimony, and, indeed, extensive expert
testimony, in particular, reveals that the enforcement of the father's
visitation rights is in the best interest of the child, and the court
finds that that step may indeed represent the last opportunity the
father may have to salvage a relationship with his daughter, and vice
versa. We realize that the enforcement of visitation rights carries
with it a potential alienation between father and daughter which could
be permanent.
This matter has been called for hearing on a rule for Contempt.
The parties have not, however, abided in the past by the Texas court
order and a finding of contempt is premature. Nor is it clear that
the mother was heretofore aware that she is obliged to take
affirmative steps to insure visitation pursuant to the court order.
We will, therefore, not make a contempt finding.
We will instead take this opportunity to redefine the custody
arrangement and order compliance with the father's right of
visitation, a breach of which we shall treat and punish as contempt.
Accordingly, we enter the following:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 1987, it is ordered and
directed that legal custody of Dawn Evette Gerland, born September 23,
1975, shall be shared by the parties. Primary physical custody of
said child is awarded to her mother, subject to the following rights
of visitation in the natural father, the petitioner herein:
1. Thirty days during the summer months of June, July or August,
exercisable in and as the month of July unless the parties shall
otherwise agree, without prejudice to the petitioner to request
expanded visitation in the year 1989 and thereafter.
2. At Christmastime from each and every December 26th at 12:00
noon until the last day of the Christmas school vacation at 12:00
noon, except that in the calendar year 1987 visitation shall commence
so as to insure that the child is available for a flight which leaves
Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, at or about 9:30 a.m. on
the 26t}! of D~-~!~-.
3. The father shall be permitted to visit in the Pittsburgh area
with Dawn on weekends commencing no earlier than Friday at 5:00 p.m.
and ending no later than Sunday at 6:00 p.m., actual times to be set
by Mr. Gerland to accommodate his travel plans, which times shall be
communicated to Carroll Shirvinsky along with the notice of Mr.
Gerland's intent to exercise his visitation, which notice shall be
given in writing at least fourteen days in advance of the commencement
of the visitation. Said visitation periods in Pittsburgh shall be no
more frequent than six per calendar year and shall not commence sooner
than January of 1988. During such visitations, unless the parties
shall otherwise agree, Dawn shall be returned to her home by 9:00 p.m.
each evening and may be picked up again at 9:00 a.m. the next morning.
John~. Howett, Esquire
For the Petitioner
The mother, Carrol Ann Shirvinsky, is ordered and directed to
assure compliance with this order and is expressly directed to take
all such affirmative measures as may be necessary to effectuate the
terms hereof. It shall be the obligation of the mother to have the
child ready for such visits and to encourage her to participate in the
plan hereby ordered. While in the presence of the child, neither
parent shall make any remark or do anything which can in any way be
construed as derogatory to the other and it shall be the duty of each
parent to uphold the other parent as one whom the child shall respect
and love.
Unless either party shall prior thereto submit to the proper
jurisdiction of another court or this case is listed for further
hearing before this court within six months of this date, jurisdiction
hereof shall be deemed relinquished to the County of Allegheny,
provided the child continues to be a resident of that county.
BY THE COURT,
Bonnie D. Menaker, Esquire
For t~e Respondent
: rlm ..