Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-3161SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vi. LUZ MARTIR & JASON HEISEY Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY NO. 06- 3141 COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY The plaintiff, Selina Cooper, by her attorneys, the Family following cause of action in custody. 1. The plaintiff is Selina Cooper, residing at 324 Market County, Pennsylvania, 17043. 2. The defendants are Luz Martir, residing at 321 West Main Hummelstown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 17036 and 5266 West Ridge Road, Elizabethtown, Lancaster County, 3. Plaintiff seeks partial custody of. Name Present Residence Lucian Martir 321 West Main Street The child was born out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody of Luz Martir, who Street, Hummelstown, Dauphin County, PA, 17036. During the past five years the child has resided with the following addresses: Persons Luz Martir Address 321 West Main Street, Selina Cooper & Luz Martir 324 Market Street, Lemoyne Selina Cooper & Luz Martir 6358 Bayshore Road, Luz Martir 814 Green Acre, Selina Cooper & Luz Martir 11 East Simpson Street TERM Clinic, sets forth the Lemoyne, Cumberland Apartment 3, Heisey, residing at 17022. Age 2 at 321 West Main ig persons at the Dates )wn 2/06- Present 10/05- 2/06 urg 7/05-10/05 4/05-7/05 1/05-4/05 Selina Cooper & Luz Martir Nanrock Street, The mother of the child is Luz Martir. She is single. The father of the child is Jason Heisey He is single. 4. The relationship of plaintiff to the child is that of in loco currently resides alone. 5. The relationship of Defendant, Luz Martir, to the child is resides with the following persons: Name Lucian Martir Relationship Son The relationship of Defendant Jason Heisey is that who may be residing with Mr. Heisey. 6. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding a court of this Commonwealth, or any other state. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the custody of the child or claims to have custody or visi child. 7. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will relief requested because: a. Plaintiff acted as the child's primary caretaker for b. Plaintiff will provide the child with a stable home adequate moral, emotional, and physical surround. child's needs; c. Plaintiff is willing to accept periods of custody of d. Plaintiff agreed to raise the child with Defendant 1 e. Plaintiff and biological mother agreed to share da, responsibilities; f. Plaintiff has acted as the child's parent for his enti g. Plaintiff is regarded as the child's parent by friend 1/04-1/05 The plaintiff of Mother. She currently Petitioner does not know • capacity, in other court. the children pending in .dings who has physical rights with respect to the served by granting the )rity of the child's life; environment with as required to meet the child; Martir; -day child rearing life; family, and physicians. h. The biological Father has never been involved in 8. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not person who has physical custody to the child have been na WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests the court to grant shared physical custody of the child with the Mother. Respectfully Date: G 1& 1 0(2p Gillian V Certified ROBERT E. I LUCY JOHN ANNE MACI Supervising ,A. THE FAMIU 45 North Pitt Carlisle, PA 1 (717) 243-29f Fax: (717) 24 child's life. terminated and the as parties to this action. shared legal custody and Intern TON-WALSH JNALD-FOX orneys LAW CLINIC reet 013 -3639 I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalti of 18 ra.C.S. § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. ?-'7c? r ` C` ; ' , i. i > r„? ,c. ? .. t:y ?n 1 = ; -? N ;? ? ? .{ ._ t? SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND CC V. : CIVIL ACTION - : IN CUSTODY LUZ MARTIR & JASON HEISEY DefendantS NO. 06- PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA P TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly allow Selina Cooper, Plaintiff, to proceed in forma AON PLEAS OF ,PENNSYLVANIA TERM The Family Law Clinic, attorneys for the party proceeding i forma pauperis, certifies that we believe the party is unable to pay the costs and that we are p oviding free legal service to the party. Date ? 'l Lac' Gillian V Certified ROBERT-E THOMAS P ANNE MAi LUCY JOH Supervising FAMILY LA' 45 North Pitt Carlisle, PA 1 717-243-2968 cF?lii,c.F?_ .INS LACE INALD-FOX ON-WALSH )meys CLINIC 7eet 13 r? P ?-> "n ??? ? ?' "Li 1:?? Yi?t t. ? .R n ? ?l Tf Y? 1 ` m ' n? ' 7 _ A O p ter({ '? (Jy3 SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff/ Petitioner : OF CUMBERL ND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVAN A V. LUZ MART R & JASON HEISEY, Defendants/ Respondents CIVIL ACTIG IN CUSTODY LAW CIVIL TERM ENCY CUSTODY X31 ? No. 06- X1'2 PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF SEEKING E'. PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. 19 _ , 2006, pursuant to AND NOW, this day of, I Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, comes the Petitioner, attorneys, the Family Law Clinic, seeking emergency custody Martir, born December 27, 2003. In support of her Petition for Petitioner avers the following: 1. The petitioner is Plaintiff Selina Cooper, an adult individ Market Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvs 2. The respondents are Defendant Luz Martir, an adult indi, West Main Street, Apartment 3, Hummelstown, Dauphin 17036 and Defendant Jason Heisey, an adult individual r Elizabethtown, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 17022. 3. The petitioner stands in loco parentis to the two-year-old Martir, born December 27, 2003 (the child). 4. Respondent Luz Martir is the biological mother (Mother' Respondent Jason Heisey is the biological father (Father) 5. The child was born out of wedlock. tole 1915.13 of the na Cooper, by her the minor child, Lucian mergency Relief, tal residing at 324 nia, 17043. idual residing at 321 County, Pennsylvania, siding at 5266 Ridge Rd minor child, Lucian of the child. othe child. 6. The child has resided with the following persons in the following residences: Persons Luz Martir Address 321 West Main Street, Selina Cooper & Luz Martir 324 Market Street, Lemoyne Selina Cooper & Luz Martir 6358 Bayshore Road, Luz Martir 814 Green Acre, Mechanicsburg Selina Cooper & Luz Martir 11 East Simpson Street Selina Cooper & Luz Martir Nanrock Street, Mechanicsburg 7. Petitioner was the primary caretaker of the child from 8. Petitioner and Mother resided together with the child 9. Following their separation in February 2006, Mother away to Puerto Rico permanently. Dates vn 2/06- Present 10/05- 2/06 rg 7/05-10/05 4/05-7/05 1/05-4/05 1/04-1/05 x until February 2006. February 2006. tened to take the child 10. Mother has not permitted Petitioner to see the child on a r gular basis since February 2006. 11. Petitioner last saw the child on May 15, 2006 for a period f custodial time. 12. Father has never been involved in the child's life. 13. Mother has changed her phone number, and until recently address to Petitioner. 14. Petitioner recently learned that Mother has purchased a Rico for herself and the child. 15. Petitioner is filing a Complaint for Custody for Special Relief. 16. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that it is in the best not give her ticket to Puerto with this Petition ofthe minor child that Mother and Petitioner be granted shared legal an4 shared physical custody of the child. WHEREFORE, the petitioner, Selina Cooper, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order preventing Respondent Luz M4rtir from removing the child from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pending the Pre Hearing Custody Conference and further Order in this matter. Respectfully (2, 17- 0 Q Da e Certified Legal LUCY J014NST0 -WXESF ROBERT E. RAIN THOMAS M. PLA E ANNE MACDON LD-FOX Supervising Attome s FAMILY LAW CL IC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013- (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-363 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I false statement would subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: le. a • 66 Complaint are true and making any relating to , Petitioner N G") ? `l ? (Y T' J-?('? - ? " mr , , - i -., r? N `:- e<, ?L. ^ ri -K7 1 :111 ? N - cD =J? ? :.c ..l SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMA 1ON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNT PENNSYLVANIA V. LUZ MARTIR & JASON HEISEY, Defendants CIVIL ACTION-LAW CUSTODY NO. 06 - 3161 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gillian Woodward, Certified Legal Intern, Family Law personally served a true and correct copy of the Complaint for Ci TERM hereby certify that I and Order of Court regarding the Petition for Special Relief on Luz Martir, at her reside ce at 321 West Main Street, Apartment 3, Hummelstown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 17036 Service was complete upon receipt by Luz Martir, on the 50' day of June, 2006 at Gillian WoodA Certified Legal Anne'M "c( Supervising FAMILY LAVE 45 North Pitt S Carlisle, PA 1' (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243 11 o'clock a.m. CLINIC ? 1 ell SELINA COOPER, Plaintiff/ Petitioner JUN 0 9 2006 IN THE COURT OF COi1t[ OF CUMBE'RI_AIII COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAM IN CUSTODY LUZ MARTIR & JASON HEISEY, Defendants/ Respondents No. 06- ?, t CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this,5T?-day of , 2006, upon consideration of the attached Petition for Special Relief, it is hereby Ordered as follows: 1. The Respondent/Defendant Luz Martir shall not remove the child from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pending further Order of Court in this matter. 2. A hearing regarding this Petition for Special Relief is hereby scheduled for the 1y day of , 2006 at 'q, R D o'clock A M in Courtroom Number S , Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, at which time the parties along with their legal counsel shall appear in person. BY THE COURT, J J. 01? 1'110 :0111 V S- '` ' ? ij? SELINA COOPER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. LUZ MARTIR AND JASON HEISEY DEFENDANT 06-3161 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, June 05, 2006 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. , the conciliator, at MDJ Manlove, 1901 State St., Camp Hill, PA 17011 on Thursday, July 06, 2006 at 8:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT. By: /s/ Melissa P. Gree Es q. Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 40ypq ?v -9? Av? 4p 00 ,9a''/' -f :C t?j 9" t, ?r 90oz lo- f -.7 '9o. ?-p ?,?Iv'?k,,a'vHl 30 SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants/Respondent: 06-3161 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF - CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6th day of June, 2006, after hearing on the Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief seeking emergency custody, the petition is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Respondent, Luz Martir, having been advised that a custody conciliation hearing is scheduled for July the 6th at 8:30 a.m. in Cumberland County, appear for the stated hearing, and to make the child available in this jurisdiction. The Court further advises the Respondent that failure to comply would subject her to the contempt power of this court. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Gillian Woodward, Certified Legal Intern Anne MacDonald-Fox, Esquire Family Law Clinic For the Petitioner Luz Martir, Respondent Pro Se :mtf °[' 'J { HI ,,0 0 SELINA COOPER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO: 06-3161 CIVIL TERM LUZ MARTIR and CIVIL ACTION - LAW JASON HEISEY, IN CUSTODY Defendant ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IN CUSTODY AND NEW MATTER The Defendant, Luz Martir, by and through her attorneys MidPenn Legal Services, hereby sets forth as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted as to information pertaining to Luz Martin It is unknown whether the information pertaining to Jason Heisey is accurate. 3. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff is seeking partial custody of the child, Lucian Martin It is admitted that Lucian Martir is in the custody of his mother, Luz Martin It is further admitted that Lucian was born out of wedlock during a relationship between Luz Martir and Jason Heisey. Lucian was not planned by agreement of Plaintiff and Luz Martin It is further denied that the timeline regarding Lucian's places of residence is accurate. The correct timeline is as follows: Persons Address Dates Luz Martir Nanrock Street birth - 1/04 Selina Cooper Mechanicsburg, PA Luz Martir 814 Green Acre Street 1 /04 - 4/04 Selina Cooper Mechanicsburg, PA Angela Pearl Luz Martir 11 E. Simpson Street 4/04 - 2/05 Mechanicsburg, PA Luz Martir 814 Green Acre Street 2/05 - 8/05 Selina Cooper Mechanicsburg, PA Angela Pearl Luz Martir 6358 Bayshore Road 8/05 - 11/05 Selina Cooper Mechanicsburg, PA (Selina Cooper was absent for one month while incarcerated) Luz Martir 324 Market Street 11/05 - 2/06 Selina Martir Lemoyne, PA Luz Martir 321 W. Main Street 2/06 - present Hummelstown, PA The remaining allegations are admitted. 4. Denied. At no time has Plaintiff acted in loco parentis to Lucian Martin 5. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the information pertaining to Luz Martir is correct. It is admitted that Jason Heisey is Lucian's biological father. It is unknown whether the remaining information pertaining to Jason Heisey is correct. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. a. Denied. Luz Martir is, and always has been, the primary caretaker for Lucian Martir. b. Denied. Luz Martir has always provided Lucian with a home and has been the primary provider for his daily needs. c. Denied. Plaintiff is not Lucian Martir's parent and has no standing to request any form of custody. d. Denied. Luz Martir and Plaintiff never discussed having children or establishing a family unit. In addition, Plaintiff never represented herself to friends, family or anyone in the public as Lucian's parent. e. Denied. Plaintiff provided limited babysitting services to Luz Martir and was compensated for these services. f. Denied. Plaintiff has never acted as Lucian's parent during the course of the past two years. g. Denied. Plaintiff is not known as Lucian's parent or as a parental figure to friends, family members, medical or social service providers. Plaintiff has never been in the position to give consent for any service or treatment of Lucian. Plaintiff has never attempted to consent to any such services or treatment. h. Denied. Lucian's father has not had his parental rights terminated and continues to pay child support for Lucian. 8. Admitted. NEW MATTER 9. Defendant incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 8 as if more fully set forth herein. 10. At no time has Plaintiff assumed parental status in regard to Lucian Martir nor has Plaintiff discharged any parental duties. Gradwell v. Strausser. 610 A.2d 999 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1992). 11. Luz Martir has never consented to Plaintiff assuming in loco parentis status or represented that Plaintiff has in loco parentis status. 12. The biological father, Jason Heisey, has not terminated his parental rights in regard to Lucian and has not consented to Plaintiff assuming in loco parentis status in regard to Lucian. 13. Plaintiff and Luz Martir were not in a committed relationship at the time Lucian was conceived and had not planned or discussed having children as part of their relationship either prior to or subsequent to Lucian's conception and/or birth. 14. Plaintiff is neither a step-parent nor a biological family member in relation to Lucian Martin In fact, Plaintiff repeatedly and forcefully expressed to Luz Martir that Plaintiff did not want children and was not interested in assuming any parental duties with respect to Lucian. 15. Plaintiff provided limited child care services for Lucian while Luz Martir worked. Plaintiff provided these services sporadically, grudgingly, and only in exchange for specific financial support for Plaintiff's personal and recreational activities. This child care arrangement was not part of any larger agreement between the parties that Luz Martir would be the financial provider for a family unit while Plaintiff acted as a stay-at-home parent. 16. Because Plaintiff does not have in loco parentis status, she does not have standing to pursue a custody action regarding Lucian Martin WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Plaintiff s Complaint for Custody be dismissed and primary physical custody be awarded to Defendant Martin Date: 6- 30 * 0u MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES Jessicl Namondstone, Esquire 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 Sup. Ct. ID# 82214 VERIFICATION The above-named DEFENDANT, LUZ MARTIR, verifies that the statements made in the above ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY AND NEW MATTER are true and correct. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: b-30-D& Luz Martir SELINA COOPER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO: 06-3161 CIVIL TERM LUZ MARTIR and CIVIL ACTION - LAW JASON HEISEY, IN CUSTODY Defendant Affidavit of Service I, Jessica Holst, Esquire, hereby state that I served the enclosed Answer to Complaint in Custody and New Matter by depositing ss e in the first class , U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows on ! 1X11 .? 0200 Gillian Woodward, Certified Legal Intern Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Jason Heisey 5266 Ridge Road Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania 17022 Jason Heisey 333 Derry Road Hershey, PA 17033 Jessica f lolst, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 ?1 ?1 ? ti C' f . ? -• 0 SELINA COOPER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO: 06-3161 CIVIL TERM LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendant To the Prothonotary: CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Kindly allow, Luz Martir, to proceed in forma ap uperis. I, Jessica Holst, attorney for the party proceeding in forma an uperis, certify that I believe the party is unable to pay the costs and that I am providing free legal services to the party. Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 MidPenn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street -? ?=; SELINA COOPER, Plaintiff V. LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-3161 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY MOTION FOR HEARING Defendant, Luz Martir, by and through her counsel, MidPenn states the following: 1. The above-captioned matter was initiated by the filing of a Relief and Complaint in Custody. Services, for Special 2. A hearing on the Petition for Special Relief was held on June 6, 2006, before The Honorable Judge Elbert and the Petition for Special Relief seeking emergency custody was'denied. 3. This matter was schedulled for a custody conciliation on July, 6, 2006. 4. Defendant Martir filed an Answer to Complaint in Custody and New Matter alleging that Plaintiff did not have standing to pursue custody of the minor child, Lucian Martin 5. The conciliator relinquished jurisdiction to the Court to determine the issue of standing. 6. At this time, Defendant Martir requests that this matter be scheduled for a hearing to determine whether Plaintiff has standing to pursue a custody case regarding the minor child. i WHEREFORE, Defendant Martir respectfully requests that this Court schedule this matter for a hearing on the issue of standing. Jess' a Holst, Esquire Mid enn Legal Ser vices 401 East L uther Street Carlisle, P 17013 (717) 243-?400 I t SELINA COOPER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 06-3161 CIVIL TERM LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, ; Defendants IN CUSTODY CERTI'F'ICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessica Holst, Esquire, of MidPenn Legal Services, attorney for Defendant, Luz Martir, i hereby certify that I have served a copy of the forgoing Motion for Healing on the following date and in the manner indicated below: U.S. First Class Mail Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Jason Heisey 5266 Ridge Road Elizabethtown, PA 17022 Jason Heisey 333 Derry Road Hershey, PA 17033 ®?A Date: q{ ? ?g Jess4 Hdlst, Esquire MidP nn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-9400 i r -ri ?„ -_-ri ?_, i:,r ., -, 1 :? c: _- ??.; , ;? ??. ?`? i __ j-:?:. _._ _.:.: i ~--, ? r _. ?„ , ?? _ _. ?, -_, .. r .) `i:; ---- -?: SELENA COOPER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-3161 CIVIL V. LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, DEFENDANTS IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2006, upon consideration of Defendant Luz Martir's Motion for a Hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. The transcript of the hearing on the Petition for Special Relief which was held on June 6, 2006 shall be provided to all parties. 2. The parties shall review the transcript to determine what additional testimony, if any, will be required in order to determine the issue of Selena Cooper's standing to pursue custody of the minor child, Lucian Martir, born December 27, 2003. 3. A conference with counsel only will be held in chambers on Friday, October 20, 2006 at 8:15 a.m. to discuss the necessity for further hearing and scheduling matters. By the Court, ,,(%& N's IlJ Jessica Hoist, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Martir ,/f "* 'Lam i Ilan oodward Anne MacDonald-Fox, Esquire For Plaintiff /,,da?son Heisey Defendant bas M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. yll?~ W a.o jt f 4 ,.. +,.. 0 0 SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V CIVIL ACTION - LAW LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants/Respondent: 06-3161 CIVIL TERM IN RE: SPECIAL RELIEF - CUSTODY Proceedings held before the HONORABLE M. L. EBERT, JR., J., Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on June 6, 2006, in Courtroom Number 5. APPEARANCES: Gillian Woodward, Certified Legal Intern Anne MacDonald-Fox, Esquire Family Law Clinic For the Petitioner Luz Martir, Respondent Pro Se 0 WITNESS Selina Cooper 11, INDEX TO WITNESSES PAGE Direct examination by Ms. Woodward 3 Cross-examination by Ms. Martir 15 Redirect examination by Ms. Woodward 21 Recross-examination by Ms. Martir 23 Angela Pearl Direct examination by Ms. Woodward 27 Luz Zeneida Martir Examination by the Court 31 Examination by Ms. Woodward 34 INDEX TO EXHIBITS FOR THE PLAINTIFF IDENTIFIED ADMITTED 1 - Ms. Woodward's certification 3 3 2 - Ms. Woodward's consent to appear 3 3 2 • s 1 Tuesday, June 6, 2006 2 9:35 a.m. 3 (Whereupon, 4 Plai ntiff Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 5 were marked for identification.) 6 MS. WOODWARD: Your Honor, before we begin, I 7 would like to give you Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 and 2, my 8 certification and c onsent to appear as a legal intern. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Plaintiff's 1 and 2 will 10 be admitted to this record. 11 MS. WOODWARD: We are here today on an issue 12 of special relief. I believe you would like to hear some of 13 the facts in eviden ce from my client, and then if you would 14 like, we can also g o into the issue of standing. 15 THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed. 16 MS. WOODWARD: All right. I would like to 17 call Selina Cooper to the witness stand. 18 Whereupon, 19 SELINA COOPER 20 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 21 DIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MS. WOODWARD: 23 Q Hi, Selina. Could you state your name for 24 me? 25 A Selina Cooper. 3 s ? 1 Q How long have you known the respondent, Luz 2 Martir? 3 A Approximately eight years. 4 Q And where do you live, your address? 5 A 324 Market Street, Lemoyne. 6 Q Okay. And you and Luz Martir, you were in a 7 relationship together? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And how long was that relationship? 10 A A little over seven years. 11 Q Seven years. Did you live together during 12 this relatio nship? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Do you know why we are at this hearing today? 15 A Yes. She threatened to take Lucian off to 16 Puerto Rico and never stated whether he was going to be 17 returned. S he stated the possibility she wouldn't be 18 returning. 19 Q Now, Lucian is the child you consider your 20 son? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Has Luz Martir made threats like this before 23 to go to Pue rto Rico? 24 A Constantly. 25 Q What made this time different, in your 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opinion? A She recently told me that she had been laid off from work so I kind of took it more seriously that she might actually leave this time. Q Okay. Do you know if she had bought a plane ticket? A Yeah, she had actually called, called me to ask me to just kind of check flight rates and whatnot. There was -- it was a departure time for actually today, but no return date. Q So she was not looking at returning, et cetera? A No. Q I am going to move on to some more things about when you guys lived together. When you were living together and it came to household bills and supplies that needed to be bought, how was that dealt with? A We usually just shared responsibility on those. Q Did the same thing go for baby supplies? A Yes. Q At one point were you and Luz, were you planing on buying a house together? A Yeah. That was -- yeah. Q When Luz became pregnant with the baby 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lucian, was your relationship intact? A We were working out some of the issues that we were having with each other, so yes and no. Q Were you present when she gave birth to the baby? A Q A a half. Q was delivered? Yes. How old is Lucian now? He turned two in December. So almost two and What did the doctor say or do after the baby A Oh, said he was going to come hand him over to dad. They cleaned him up after she give birth. She had a C-section, so they were handling that, and the doctor came over and handed him to me after he was cleaned up. Q So you were present at the birth and then the doctor gave you, the dad, the baby? A Yeah, he called me dad. So it was something I was used to. Q You held the baby first? A Yeah. Q After Lucian was born, how are things going at home? What was happening? A Just pretty much simple things. Getting used to the baby. She had a C-section so she didn't get back on 6 1 her feet for awhile, didn't go back to work for a couple of 2 months. 3 Q But when she went back to work, was she 4 working full-time? 5 A Yeah, she worked during the day, then she 6 started school in the evening. Most of the responsibility 7 as far as just usual day-to-day stuff with the baby, he came 8 to work with me and, you know -- 9 Q So you were taking care of the baby 10 full-time? 11 A Yeah. 12 Q Now, was that because you were a baby sitter 13 or because you were the parent? 14 A I was his other parent. 15 Q So how long were you the baby's primary 16 caretaker? 17 A She stayed in school for several months, and 18 then because she was missing out on some of the initial 19 stuff like, you know, walking and so on and so forth, she 20 quit school so she could actually spend more time with him. 21 But I kept him during the day every day up until actually 22 like maybe two months ago. 23 Q what does Lucian call you? 24 A Diddy. 25 Q What does Diddy stand for? 7 • 1 A Well, we kind of didn't really know what to 2 call me since daddy wasn't really an appropriate nickname 3 for me. So we kind of just modified that a little bit. 4 Q Is Diddy Spanish for daddy? 5 A No. I don't know actually where she kind of 6 came up with it. 7 Q Who? 8 A Luz kind of came up with that. 9 Q So Luz assigned the name Diddy for you? 10 A Yeah. 11 Q When Lucian had to go to the doctor's, how 12 was that arranged, the visit to the doctor's office? 13 A She handled -- like she had medical coverage 14 through her work, so she usually handled setting up the 15 appointment. If she didn't take him, I took him. So it was 16 kind of shared. 17 Q Did the doctors ever wonder how or why you 18 were bringing Lucian to the office when you are not his 19 biological mother? 20 A No, they kind of give him a heads up of who I 21 am before I went in there. So it was okay for me to sign 22 off on whatever needed to be done and so on and so forth. 23 Q So Luz would tell the doctor that the other 24 parent was coming in? 25 A Yeah. 8 • 1 Q Okay. So the doctors regarded you as 2 Lucian's parent. Did Luz also regard you as Lucian's 3 parent? 4 A Yes. 5 Q What made you think that? 6 A Just we discussed adoption, kind of on and 7 off throughout the course of the relationship. Sometimes it 8 was going to be something set in motion, but sometimes it 9 wasn't. But -- 10 Q What about the natural father, Jason Heisey? 11 A He hasn't been around since, you know, he was 12 pretty much n otified about Lucian's existence. 13 Q Okay. Had you ever discussed terminating his 14 parental righ ts? 15 A Yeah. He actually owed back child support 16 and whatnot, and when we discussed me adopting him, she had 17 mentioned abo ut having him sign off all his rights and not 18 having to pay the child support. So she thought if he got 19 out of child support, he would be more than willing to sign 20 him off. 21 Q Why did she file for child support? 22 A I wasn't bringing enough money in. 23 Q For the family, there wasn't enough money? 24 A Yeah, I wasn't making much. 25 Q Did you guys celebrate Father's Day during 9 • 0 1 your relationship? 2 A Yeah. I take her out for Mother's Day and 3 whatnot. I usually got like cologne or something for 4 Father's Day. 5 Q Have you been to Lucian's school? 6 A Just a couple times. She just -- when she 7 moved out, you know, she set that up, and I have only been 8 over there a couple times. 9 Q Yeah. It is a pre-school or day care, 10 correct? 11 A Yeah. 12 Q Did Luz ever ask you to go to Lucian's 13 school? 14 A Yeah. There was -- I don't know if it was 15 just because of Mother's Day, but there was some kind of 16 parents day function over there. She works during the day 17 and I have pretty much an open schedule. And I can meet 18 whenever needed, so she wanted to make sure I was over there 19 on time and whatnot so he wasn't the only one there without 20 his parents. 21 Q So what did she say to you? 22 A She just wanted me to make sure I was on time 23 because she wanted to make sure one of his parents were 24 present and that he didn't kind of feel like left out with 25 all the other kids having their parents there. 10 1 Q So she wanted you to go so Lucian would have 2 one of hi s parents there? 3 A Yeah. 4 THE COURT: What is the name of this school? 5 THE WITNESS: You know, I never really 6 noticed t he name of it. It is a day care. 7 THE COURT: Let me start with where is it 8 located? 9 THE WITNESS: It is in Mechanicsburg. 10 THE COURT: Is it called a school or is it a 11 day care? 12 THE WITNESS: It is day care. It's actually 13 run by a church. 14 THE COURT: Do you know which church? 15 THE WITNESS: No, but it is all one name. I 16 have only been over there twice. 17 BY MS. WO ODWARD: 18 Q Do you know when Lucian began going to day 19 care? 20 A When her and I -- when she moved out. So 21 that was -- 22 Q Okay. 23 A -- February. 24 Q Yeah. So when you and Luz were living 25 together, you were taking care of the baby? 11 1 A Yeah. 2 Q Then when she moved out, he started day care? 3 A Yeah. 4 Q Okay. I understand that you and Luz have 5 gone to family counseling? 6 A Yeah. We tried the family counselor shortly 7 after she moved out to try to come to some kind of 8 reconciliation. g Q Whose idea was that? 10 A Hers. And I consented to go too. 11 Q What does Lucian call your mother? 12 A Grandma. 13 Q Did Luz do anything ever to indicate that she 14 thought your mother was Lucian's grandma? 15 A I mean she almost calls -- you know, like 16 when we talk to him or whatever, she always refers to my mom 17 as grandma. Got her a nice little necklace that says number 18 one grandma or something on it. 19 Q Who are Lucian's godparents? 20 A We never established it because we hadn't had 21 him baptized yet. But it was actually my cousin Terry and 22 her husband Gene that we decided for that. 23 Q Just a moment. How does Lucian regard you, 24 how does he think of you? 25 A Pretty much the same as he thinks of Luz, you 12 0 0 1 know. I'm -- I don't know. 2 Q Do you feel like you have a parent-child 3 relationship? 4 A Yes, yes. It has always been that way. We 5 have always been close. 6 Q When you and Luz were together, did you guys 7 share the every day responsibilities of having a child? 8 A Yeah. Pretty much, like I said, she worked 9 during kind of like nine to five hours and he came with me. 10 So I would handle most of the stuff up until she would get 11 off work, and then she would take over so I could get my 12 work done. 13 Q How is it that you could take him to work? 14 A I own my own business. So I can pretty much 15 make the rules. 16 Q Just a moment. 17 MS. WOODWARD: No further questions for this 18 witness. 19 THE COURT: Ma'am, with regard to your 20 relationship, you have indicated that Ms. Martir left in 21 February. Why was that? What happened? 22 THE WITNESS: We just pretty much ended the 23 relationship. 24 THE COURT: So you consider that relationship 25 ended? 13 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. I mean we tried to, you 2 know, tried counseling afterwards, but we couldn't really 3 come to -- we pretty much just couldn't reconcile and come 4 to some kind of agreement where we could get along. 5 THE COURT: Ms. Martir, do you have anything 6 you would like to ask her? 7 MS. MARTIR: I just wanted to know, cause 8 this was short notice, if I can be represented by an 9 attorney in a further -- 10 THE COURT: It is my understanding that you 11 have a custody conciliation conference set for July the 6th 12 at 8:30? 13 MS. WOODWARD: We haven't yet received notice 14 of it. You have gotten it before us. 15 THE COURT: I checked in beforehand. So, 16 yes, you are entitled to counsel. I am not absolutely sure 17 in this scenario whether or not it is provided free. But 18 what you might want to do is -- you are with the Dickinson 19 School of Law -- so you might want to check with Legal 20 Services -- and the Court Administrator can probably get you 21 where they are located -- and discuss this with them. 22 Do you know, offhand, do they handle those? 23 MS. MacDONALD-FOX: They will handle a 24 custody if someone is being sued. 25 THE COURT: Yeah, if you meet the criteria, 14 0 • 1 you might want to go there. You are obviously entitled to 2 handle your own also. 3 The issue that we are just talking about here 4 today, we are not making any awards or anything like that, 5 it is just whether or not you are going to move this child 6 to Puerto Rico. That is kind of the big issue right now. 7 So knowing that, do you have any questions that you would 8 like to ask her? 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION 10 BY MS. MARTIR: 11 Q Do I have family here? 12 A No. 13 Q Why is it that I want to go to Puerto Rico? 14 A Your family is there. 15 Q What do I have here? What do I have here to 16 stay? What is the reason for me to stay here? 17 A According to you, you have no reason to stay 18 here. 19 Q So you think that Lucian shouldn't have his 20 family with him? 21 A Lucian has been raised around my family as 22 well so, yeah, I think he should have his family around him. 23 Q But is he biologically, anything biologically 24 to your family? 25 A No. 15 • 1 Q So -- 2 A That doesn't matter. He has been raised 3 around my fami ly since he was born. And he doesn't know 4 your family. He has met them once. 5 Q But they are still his family? 6 A Correct, they are still his family. 7 Q He has every right to be around his family. 8 A Of course. But, once again, it is not 9 something he w ould necessarily regard as family. He doesn't 10 know them. 11 Q Have I ever said that Jason can be in 12 Lucian's life? 13 A You wanted him to sign off on his custody 14 rights. 15 Q Did I ever say -- 16 A You said you didn't want him to have anything 17 to do with Luc ian. 18 Q Did I ever refer you to the fact that Lucian 19 didn't know hi s dad and when he was, he was going to be old 20 enough to know who his father is, did I have an issue about 21 that? 22 A I'm not sure. Yes, maybe. 23 Q What was the -- what was my issue? 24 A That Jason doesn't want anything to do with 25 Lucian. 16 • 0 1 Q And didn't I say that I wanted him to have 2 some type of relationship with his dad? 3 A That all depends on how well you and I were 4 getting along at the time. 5 MS. WOODWARD: Your Honor, objection, the 6 respondent is testifying. 7 THE COURT: Well, I will give her some 8 leeway. I think we have covered that part. You can ask 9 more questions. I will overrule it right now. 10 BY MS. MARTIR: 11 Q Have you ever provided insurance or any 12 financial means for Lucian? 13 A Not insurance. 14 Q How many times have we got evicted because 15 you couldn't provide for him? 16 A Once. 17 Q And how old was Lucian? 18 A A few months old. 19 Q And why did we get evicted? What was the 20 main purpose? 21 A Because I wasn't making enough money. You 22 weren't working, I was the one supporting us. I wasn't 23 making enough money to be able to pay all the bills. 24 Q And there is another issue about you going to 25 jail. How many times have you been to jail? 17 0 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Once. Q Are you sure? A No, twice, for the dog. Q And periods of how many times, how many times have you gotten citations? MS. WOODWARD: Objection, this is beyond the scope of the hearing. THE COURT: I believe it is. Those things will probably come up, ma'am, at the custody hearing. Again, we are just kind of focued on the very narrow issue of whether you are going to be allowed to move the child to Puerto Rico pending that hearing in July. I mean we are a month away from that right now. So we have to just concentrate on that, okay. BY MS. MARTIR: Q So you feel that Lucian shouldn't be around my family? A I didn't say that. Q So why -- A I feel that it is inappropriate for you to just up and take him. We have shared responsibility with him up until recently. So taking him and moving him to Puerto Rico I don't think is beneficial to him as well. Q But Lucian is not your biological child at all? 18 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I have raised him. What difference is there? Q Doesn't he have a father, regardless of if he is in his life or not? A Okay, once again, I -- an absentee parent there does nothing for him. He doesn't know Jason. He has been raised around me. He regards me as his other parent. So taking him away from me, how beneficial is that for him? I don't understand why that is not clear here. Q How many times have you ever called me because you couldn't handle him anymore? A What do you mean? Q How many times have you called me at work telling me to come and pick up Lucian cause you can't deal with him right now? A A few. You know, he is young. I am trying to run a business as well as handle day care. You have done that as well. Like -- Q You think that if I, if I move to Puerto Rico he wouldn't have anything better? Like you think that it is not in his best interests to be near his family? A Yes, but we are the other half of his family. So you are taking him to Puerto Rico, you are taking part of his family away from him. You are taking him into unfamiliar territory. He doesn't know your family. Q They are still his family. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A They are still his family, correct. He knows me. He knows my family. He has always regarded us as his family. I am not saying, no, don't take him there, I am just asking don't take him permanently. Q So basically you are saying I should stay here just because you want to be in his life, but that to me is -- A I think you should do what is in his best interests so Q Don't you think I am doing what is in his best interests if I am not working and I am seeking help from my family to be able to afford and pay for everything that a child should need? A I don't see where going to Puerto Rico has anything to do with that. You have held well-paying jobs here. You have been able to support yourself here. I have always helped you out when you needed it. Q I am here by myself, aren't I? A Yes. Q And since I have been here, how many times have you even given me a cent from the time that -- A I just gave you money for day care how long ago. Q I hold all the responsibilities for Lucian. A No, you don't. 20 0 0 1 MS. MARTIR: I have nothing else to say. 2 THE COURT: Redirect. 3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MS. WOODWARD: 5 Q Once you and Ms. Martir finished your 6 relationship, did you continue to see Lucian? 7 A Yes. It was on a limited basis. After she 8 moved out, she didn't like the relationship I was in so I 9 wasn't allowed to see him for a month. 10 Q Do you consider yourself to be Lucian's 11 family? 12 A Yes. And I get insulted and it is very 13 painful for it to be referred to as otherwise. 14 Q Do you consider yourself as Lucian's parent? 15 A Yes, I always have. 16 Q Just a moment. Ms. Matir has mentioned that 17 she has take n on all of the responsibility for the child, 18 Lucian. Do you agree with that? 19 A No, I don't. It was not all a hundred 20 percent her responsibilities from day one. 21 Q I understand where the responsibility has 22 been more on her since your relationship ended. Have you 23 continued to make an effort to see the child? 24 A Yes, but recently she changed her telephone 25 number. But I have no way of contacting her to try to make 21 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 arrangements to spend time with him. Q Was there a period of time after your break up where she would not tell you where she lived? A She didn't tell me where she lived. This was just recently I learned where she had been living after like the counseling, the family counseling. Q How long after your break up were you without an address or phone number for Ms. Martir and/or Lucian? A A little over a month. Q Now, when Ms. Martir asked you to go to the parents day at Lucian's school, was this after your break up? A Yes. Q And when was this? A I believe it was around Mother's Day. I am not sure, right before Mother's Day. Q So it was in May probably. And you broke up in February? A (Witness nodded affirmatively.) Q Okay, just a moment. You have stated that you did not provide insurance for Lucian. Is it true you have provided other things for the child? A Yeah. They were both living with me, you know what I mean. I provided what I could financially. I am not a very wealthy person. I have got my own business so 22 0 0 1 diapers and everything else that I could provide were taken 2 care of. 3 Q Isn't it true that for a good deal of time 4 you were the s ole breadwinner of the family? 5 A Yeah, until she started going back to work. 6 MS. WOODWARD: No further questions. 7 THE COURT: What is your business? 8 THE WITNESS: I run a motorcycle shop in 9 Lemoyne. 10 MS. MARTIR: Could I have another question? 11 THE COURT: You may. 12 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 13 BY MS. MARTIR: 14 Q When we lived at Nanrock, all utilities were 15 disconnected. Why was that if you provided for us? 16 A Because I couldn't afford to pay them. I was 17 one person trying to provide enough money for three people. 18 Q So you couldn't provide utilities, you 19 couldn't provide for the rent. That is why we got evicted. 20 Right? 21 A Right. 22 Q So you were providing for him financially. 23 How was that? 24 A He was taken care of otherwise. 25 Q Wasn't I collecting public assistance for 23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that time? A For the groceries, yeah. Q And what else? A His insurance. Q And what else? A I'm not sure. Q I was -- wasn't I getting cash assistance for that time period? A I don't remember. I don't recall that, no, but I could be wrong. Q Okay. So how were you providing for him financially if I was getting cash assistance if you say you are not sure -- A Because I was the only one actually bringing in any other money that was earned. Q So how did you use your money if you were providing for Lucian if we got evicted? A I paid what bills I could afford to pay. Q So you think that having a roof over Lucian's head is not for his well-being or his -- A Of course. Q So why wasn't that important, to pay for the rent? A I never said paying the rent wasn't important. Where are you going with this? 24 • 1 MS. WOODWARD: Your Honor, this is 2 argumentative. 3 THE WITNESS: Yeah, you are not making -- 4 THE COURT: I think you have established your 5 point. Again, it is not particularly material to the idea 6 of whether we are going to allow the child to go to Puerto 7 Rico or not. That is very important, however, in the 8 custody matter. Can you raise that -- 9 MS. MARTIR: My point was that she wants me 10 to stay here, but she couldn't afford paying the rent, or 11 helping me at that point paying for the -- 12 THE COURT: I think you have clearly made 13 that. Now it is going to become important when it's your 14 turn to say, gee, I am going to go to Puerto Rico because I 15 have a great job there and those type of things. So you 16 can't go any further with this. 17 BY MS. MARTIR: 18 Q Haven't I ever told you I had my own house in 19 Puerto Rico? 20 A Yes. 21 Q So Lucian -- 22 THE COURT: Well, the question, did she ever 23 say that to you, that is yes or no. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 THE COURT: Okay. 25 • • 1 BY MS. MARTIR: 2 Q So w ouldn't you think or wouldn't you feel 3 that because I have my own house in Puerto Rico, and I have 4 my family in Puerto Rico, that Lucian wouldn't be well taken 5 care of over there? 6 A He i s also well taken care of here. 7 Q That was not my question. 8 A Poss ibly. I can't say for sure what -- 9 THE COURT: That is a fair answer. Next 10 question. 11 MS. MARTIR: That is all. 12 MS. WOODWARD: No more questions. 13 THE COURT: Ma'am, you may step down. 14 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 15 MS. WOODWARD: Your Honor, we did actually 16 try to serve the bi ological father. However, we were unable 17 to locate him. We tried several addresses in Lancaster 18 County, but we did put an effort in to find him. 19 THE COURT: Just from the testimony it 20 doesn't appear he i s particularly interested. So I believe 21 this is really -- 22 MS. MARTIR: He will be involved in the 23 hearing. I spoke to him and he will be involved. 24 THE COURT: In the custody hearing. 25 MS. MARTIR: Yes. 26 • • 1 THE COURT: I mean the key is, I don't think 2 he is going to prevent the child from going to Puerto Rico 3 or even care w hether he did or didn't, at this point. So I 4 understand if you tried to serve him and he is not here, 5 that probably speaks volumes in and of itself. But do you 6 have anything further? 7 MS. WOODWARD: I have one more witness. I 8 would like to call Angela Pearl to the witness stand. 9 Whereupon, 10 ANGELA PEARL 11 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MS. WOODWARD: 14 Q Hello, Ms. Pearl. 15 A Hello. 16 Q Can you state your name for me? 17 A Angela Pearl. 18 Q And where do you live? 19 A I live at 814 Green Acre Street, 20 Mechanicsburg. 21 Q And what is your relationship to Selina? 22 A She is my daughter. 23 Q Have you had the opportunity to observe 24 Selina with Lucian? 25 A Oh, yes. 27 • 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q What is their relationship like? A They had their ups and downs. Usually their downs were really down. Q With Lucian or with Luz? A With Luz. Lucian, he was glued to her most of the time. Q So would you say that the relationship between Selina and Lucian, the child, was that like a parent-child? A Yes, very much. Q How many opportunities did you have to see Selina with the child, Lucian? A Oh, a lot. Cause Luz, when they didn't have heat and she was staying in the house with the baby with no heat, I took them in. Q What kinds of things does Selina do for Lucian? A She pretty much provided all his clothing, his food, diapers. Q Okay. What does Lucian call Selina? A Diddy. Q Do you know what that means? A I was under the impression that it meant daddy in Spanish. Q Who assigned the name Diddy? 28 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Luz did. Q Luz did. Are there any other nicknames for people in the f amily? A Yeah. Tee-tee for my daughter, Ashley, for aunt. And mine would go from grandma to Meme depending. Q Does Luz regard you as the child's grandmother? A She did. Q She did. Why do you think that? A Oh, she asked me to go into his school with this thing they were having for parents and grandparents. Q Did Luz ever buy you a necklace? A Yes. Q What was that necklace? A Number one grandma. Q Do you have it on today? A Yes, I do. Q I see it. It it very nice. One moment. I would just like to confirm one last time that the relationship between your daughter and the child Lucian is that of a parent, it is more than a baby sitter and a caretaker? A Yeah. It's just like his daddy. Q And does Lucian have a family here in the United States? 29 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No. Q Do you consider yourself Lucian's family? A Well, us, yes. Q So he does not have biological family? A Right. Q But he has people he considers family? A Correct. Q Okay. A Yeah, cause they lived with us more than once. Q Have you heard of threats made by Ms. Martir to take the child to Puerto Rico? A Numerously. Q Numerously. So this has gone on for quite some time? A Right. Q Has she threatened to not come back with the child? A Yes. Q To stay permanently? A Yes. MS. WOODWARD: No further questions. THE COURT: Ms. Martir? MS. MARTIR: I have no questions. THE COURT: Ma'am, you may step down. 30 1 THE WITNESS: Okay. 2 MS. WOODWARD: That is our case, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Would you like to testify, ma'am, 4 or do you have any witnesses? 5 MS. MARTIR: No. 6 THE COURT: Okay. I am going to have to ask 7 you to just come forward and let me ask you a few questions. 8 Whereupon, 9 LUZ ZENEIDA MARTIR 10 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 11 EXAMINATION 12 BY THE COURT: 13 Q Would you just state your full name and spell 14 your last name for the record? 15 A It's Luz Zeneida, Z-e-n-e-i-d-a, Martir. 16 Q How old are you, ma'am? 17 A I am 28. 18 Q And you have obviously talked about your 19 family in Puer to Rico. Who lives there that -- who is there 20 for you in Pue rto Rico? 21 A All my family. 22 Q And -- 23 A Mother, father, sisters. 24 Q You indicated that you had a house in Puerto 25 Rico that was your house. Are you talking about your 31 0 0 1 family's house or your own house? 2 A No, my dad built me a house. 3 Q Okay. How many bedrooms, where is it 4 located? 5 A It's located in Lajas, Puerto Rico, and it 6 has three bedrooms. 7 Q Now, during the conversation here you had 8 indicated that at sometime while you were here with Ms. 9 Cooper that you were working. What type of work do you do? 10 A Clerical. 11 Q And you were going to school for that? 12 A No. I was going for medical, but basically 13 insurance. 14 Q Do you have any employment prospects in 15 Puerto Rico? 16 A Yes, I do. 17 Q What would that be? 18 A Insurance. 19 Q Now, understanding that, I mean what we are 20 about here today are these indications that you would like 21 to leave the mainland United States and go to Puerto Rico. 22 Are you willing to bring the child back here for these 23 custody hearings? 24 A Oh, yes. 25 Q If you return to Puerto Rico -- do you have a 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CJ 0 ticket to leave for Puerto Rico in your possession at this time? A Yes, I do. The reason I got the one way ticket was because I wasn't sure if I was going to come back, okay. Not saying that I wasn't going to come back later on. And I was just going to purchase another ticket to come back, if that would be the case, if I would choose to come back. Q Where are you staying right now? A At my own house. Q Where is that? Just the town. A In Hummelstown. Q And what is the -- what is the lease, or what do you have there? Is it month to month? A It is a year. Q A year. A I made arrangements for somebody to stay at my apartment until the lease is up. And so if I chose to come back, then I would still have my apartment. Q Now, again, I have just indicated -- and you may not be aware of this -- but the custody hearing with the Master -- that is an attorney that would just kind of review the situation first -- is scheduled for July 6th. Are you willing to keep the child and stay here until July 6th? A If I have no choice, then that would be the 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 0 case. But I would come back for the hearing. Q Can you describe any particular hardship that not staying here for that now less than thirty days could cause you? A Staying here? Q Yes, ma'am? A I have no job. Q How are you supporting yourself and the child, ma'am? A I am getting unemployment, but that is not enough to pay my bills or to support us. THE COURT: I have nothing further. Do you have anything? MS. WOODWARD: I have a couple questions. EXAMINATION BY MS. WOODWARD: Q How long has it been since you lived in Puerto Rico? A Ten years. Q So how old were you when you came to the mainland United States? A 18. Q You have indicated that you received public assistance in the past. Is that an option for you at this point in time? 34 9 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No. Q No. Why? A Because it is not enough. Q Okay. A I can't raise my son with $300.00 a month. Can you? THE COURT: You have to answer. She gets to ask the questions now. You only answer them. BY MS. WOODWARD: Q But I understand that you are getting unemployment compensation at the moment? A Yes. Q How long does that last? A Six months I guess. Q And you were working up until recently? A Yes. Q You could probably get food stamps if you needed them? A Yes. Q You could probably find another job if you needed to? A Yes. Q You mentioned that you had spoken to Jason Heisey about the custody matter. Did you discuss the hearing today with him? 35 9 0 1 A No. 2 Q So, what, you spoke to him about the -- 3 A I spoke to him about our son and, you know, 4 with the custody issue, and he said he would be here 5 whenever there was an issue with custody. 6 Q When did you speak with him? 7 A A couple of days ago. 8 Q Okay. 9 A Yesterday. 10 Q So you have a phone number to contact him 11 with? 12 A No, I get ahold of his mom and she gets ahold 13 of him. 14 Q Earlier you mentioned that you had talked to 15 him yesterday. Is that -- maybe it was a couple days ago 16 and not yester day? 17 A It was yesterday. 18 Q So if you spoke to him yesterday, why didn't 19 you mention this hearing to him? 20 A Cause I just didn't. 21 MS. WOODWARD: No further questions. 22 THE COURT: Anything else you would like to 23 say? 24 THE WITNESS: I just feel like to me it would 25 be better for me to go to Puerto Rico with like a strong 36 • s 1 family basis, you know, that would support me. It is not 2 easy to have and raise a child by myself. And I prefer 3 being with people that support me and is there for me and my 4 son. 5 THE COURT: All right. You may step down. 6 MS. WOODWARD: I would like to make a brief 7 closing. 8 THE COURT: I think I certainly understand 9 your position. Here is the dilemma that is facing us, if 10 she is not employed right now and has a home and family 11 support, what is your position in regard to utilizing the 12 contempt powers of this court to say that she return on July 13 the 6th? The only thing that is before me right now is 14 whether or not the child is going to Puerto Rico. 15 I think, you know, and, again, I haven't made 16 an official ruling on this, but your position at this point 17 is that your client has at least established the in loco 18 parentis status that gives her standing to try and contest 19 custody in this case. 20 Now, you know as well as I do that, you know, 21 the prima facie and the rights are on the side of the 22 natural mother, and you have an incredibly high burden of 23 proof in the custody hearing and the scenario like this to 24 say that there is going to be custody granted. 25 Now, we have this, you know, if Ms. Martir is 37 • 1 correct in regard to having a house in Puerto Rico and large 2 family support, when we start considering the best interests 3 of the child, those things are going to weigh heavily in 4 this particular matter. 5 I mean I know your position and, you know, 6 but, again, the natural mother has a lot to say in this 7 regard, especially if I can say you will come back for that 8 hearing and, you know, if you don't, you know, there is 9 going to be warrants for contempt of court that will be 10 present here. So I mean I am trying to cut a compromise in 11 this regard. 12 There is additional costs with regard to 13 traveling back and forth. But, you know, to look at her and 14 say, mom, gee, you don't have a job and you can't really 15 support the child, and you are paying for a lease that, you 16 know, you could be living in a home in Puerto Rico. Puerto 17 Rico isn't as far away as it used to be, you know, thirty 18 years ago. 19 So I have asked you a lot of questions. But 20 why don't you respond to that, counsel? 21 MS. WOODWARD: It is our position that Ms. 22 Martir has not lived in Puerto Rico for the past ten years. 23 She only threatens to go to Puerto Rico when Ms. Cooper is 24 not pleasing her or not making her happy. 25 At this point in time, Ms. Cooper is in 38 • • 1 another relationship which has thoroughly aggravated Ms. 2 Martir. And even if she were permitted to go to Puerto 3 Rico, we strongly feel that she would leave the child there 4 and come back for the custody hearing and go back once 5 again. 6 If she is on public assistance right now and 7 she is on welfare, how does she afford a plane ticket and 8 how will she afford one back? If her financial situation is 9 so difficult, we don't understand why she hasn't looked for 10 work. 11 We do feel her ultimate goal is to keep the 12 child from Ms. Cooper as she has been trying to do since 13 February. And although the burden for in loco parentis is 14 very high, we strongly feel we can meet it. 15 Her treatment toward Ms. Cooper as someone 16 who the child regards as a parent and family, and keeping 17 the child away from her is -- it is inappropriate, and it is 18 not kind or fair to her. And to allow her to go to Puerto 19 Rico and hide the child down there just flies in the face of 20 justice. 21 MS. MARTIR: Can I say something? 22 THE COURT: You may. 23 MS. MARTIR: I am not on public assistance 24 right now. I am getting severance pay for a month, and that 25 is how I am supporting myself at the moment. My family is 39 • • 1 the one sending my flight, you know, paying for my flight. 2 That's one of the reasons I am so -- I want to go back. 3 Like I haven't been there for ten years. 4 That is where I was born. That is where I lived my entire 5 life until this ten years. I want my son to have family and 6 I want him to have good family that are going to show him 7 certain things in his life that are going to make him a 8 better man in the future. And that is what I want for my 9 son. And I don't feel that I am going to get that here. 10 THE COURT: Well, I think, you know, you made 11 that perfectly clear. That is definitely what is going to 12 happen at that custody conciliation hearing. Now, it is 13 very important that you get counsel to help you prepare for 14 that because that is going to be a major decision for both 15 of you. 16 And the conciliator is going to have -- that 17 is going to be a tough scenario in this given the distances 18 and what your income potentials are. And, you know, there 19 everything switches from whatever you want to the best 20 interests of this child. And that is going to be the hard 21 part that will eventually come before this court to approve. 22 You just mentioned something that you got one 23 month's severance pay. When did you leave your employment? 24 MS. MARTIR: I was laid off on the 19th. 25 THE COURT: Of this month. 40 • • 1 MS. MARTIR: Of May. 2 THE COURT: May. 3 I am going to ask you directly, as I 4 indicated earlier, this hearing is set for July the 6th at 5 8:30 a.m., here in Cumberland County. If I allow you to 6 travel to Puerto Rico, will you return and bring the child 7 with you? 8 MS. MARTIR: Yes. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Now you are under oath 10 when you said that, and I assure you that I would take 11 serious umbrage if you violated that. And, you know, Puerto 12 Rico is just like another -- you know, it is a Commonwealth 13 of the United States and it is not like you have to 14 extradite anybody from far away. You understand that. 15 MS. MARTIR: I understand. 16 THE COURT: I am going to enter this order. 17 AND NOW, this 6th day of June, 2006, after 18 hearing on the Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief 19 seeking emergency custody, the petition is DENIED. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the 21 Respondent, Luz Martir, having been advised that a custody 22 conciliation hearing is scheduled for July the 6th at 8:30 23 a.m., in Cumberland County, appear for the stated hearing, 24 and to make the child available in this jurisdiction. The 25 Court further advises the Respondent that failure to comply 41 0 0 1 would subject her to the contempt power of this court. 2 By the Court, 3 /s/ M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. 4 THE COURT: Do you understand? 5 MS. MARTIR: Yes. 6 THE COURT: Okay. I am going to stand in 7 recess. Again, you must come back and make the child 8 available. And I would suggest before you, if you are going 9 to leave any time within the next month -- and I am not 10 encouraging you to do that, it is only thirty days, it seems 11 to be almost a waste of the transportation -- but I know you 12 probably want to see your family also. But definitely get 13 an appointment with Legal Services before you leave so that 14 you get counsel for that hearing. That is going to be one 15 of most important things that you are going to ever do to 16 see that your rights are protected in the future. You 17 understand? 18 MS. MARTIR: Yes. 19 THE COURT: Counsel, your case was well 20 presented. Unfortunately, I mean this is just a very 21 difficult scenario. So we will stand in recess. 22 (Whereupon, the proceeding was 23 concluded at 10:25 a.m.) 24 25 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 0 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause, and that this is a correct transcript of same. Mari T. Farley, Official Court Repot rr The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. It'l Olo Date ?l M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Ninth Judicial Distr 43 SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants :NO. 06 - 3161 CIVIL TERM REPLY TO NEW MATTER The Plaintiff, Selina Cooper, by and through her attorneys, the Family Law Clinic, hereby responds to New Matter raised by Defendant Luz Martir and avers as follows: 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. Plaintiff assumed parental status with regard to the child, Lucian Martir, born December 27, 2003, from the time of his birth until February, 2006. Plaintiff has established a strong psychological bond with the child, lived with the child for approximately two years, provided care, nurturing, and affection to the child, and assumed in the child's eye a stature like that of a parent. Defendant Martir encouraged the child to call Plaintiff "Diddy," a version of "Daddy," and Plaintiff and Defendant Martir shared parental duties while raising the child. 11. Denied. Defendant Martir consented to and even urged Plaintiff to act as a parent to Lucian Martin Defendant Martir encouraged Plaintiff to attend parent days at school, permitted her to be present as "dad" at the child's birth, referred to Plaintiffs mother as Lucian's grandmother, advised doctors that Plaintiff is the child's other parent and even modified the child's birth certificate to indicate that Plaintiff is Lucien's parent. (See attached "exhibit A.") 12. Admitted in part. The natural father has not terminated his parental rights, although he has not been substantially involved in the child's life. Plaintiff is" without sufficient information to determine whether the natural father consented to Plaintiff's assumption of in loco parentis status. 13. Denied. Plaintiff and Defendant Martir were in a committed relationship for eight years beginning February 1998. The parties discussed having children prior to Lucian's conception; however, Defendant Martir did not inform Plaintiff of her decision to start a family until after she had become pregnant. Upon learning of the pregnancy, Plaintiff arranged a residence for them to share, where they lived throughout the pregnancy and after Lucien's birth. 14. Admitted in part. Plaintiff is neither a step-parent nor biological family member in relation to Lucian Martin Plaintiff is the child's non-biological parent. Jones v. Jones, 884 A.2d 915 (Pa.Super. 2005). Plaintiff denies that she "repeatedly" and "forcefully" expressed to Defendant Martir that she did not want children and that she was not interested in assuming parental duties with respect to Lucien. Initially, Plaintiff was unsure about becoming a parent, but when informed of the pregnancy, she arranged for an apartment for the couple to share. Plaintiff attended pre-natal doctor appointments, was supportive of Defendant Martir throughout the pregnancy, and was present for Lucien's birth. After the birth, Plaintiff was the primary caretaker of Lucian while Defendant Martir attended work and school. 15. Denied. Plaintiff provided nearly all of the child's care while Defendant Martir worked and attended class. Plaintiff was neither sporadic nor begrudging when she undertook care of Lucian. Plaintiff was never financially compensated, nor did she expect compensation for caring for the child, whom she regarded as her son. Plaintiff continued to provide care for the child, such as feeding him, playing with him, and helping with his bath time when Defendant Martir returned home after her work day. 16. Denied. Plaintiff lived with the child for two years of his life, assuming the status of a parent and discharging the duties of a parent. She readily participated in the parental bonding that occurred during that time, visited the child post-separation, expressed a constant sincere interest in the child, was recognized as a significant person in the child's life, and created her relationship with the child in conformity with Defendant Martir's rights and wishes. Therefore, Plaintiff has standing in loco parentis to bring a custody action regarding the child, Lucian Martir. 17. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Selina Cooper, respectfully requests that this Court grant her standing to pursue custody of the child and award shared custody of Lucian Martir to Plaintiff. Date: 10114--40 Respectfully submitted, Verti amm ill fied Legal Intern r A NAL THOMAS M. PLACE ROBERT E. RAINS LUCY JOHNSTON-WALSH MEGAN RIESMEYER Supervising Attorneys THE FAMILY LAW CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Reply to New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants :NO. 06 - 3161 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jill Hammill, Certified Legal Intern, Family Law Clinic, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Reply to New Matter on Jessica Holst, Esq. at MidPenn Legal Services via facsimile and Jason Heisey, at 5266 Ridge Road, Elizabethtown, PA 17022 via first class mail. Date *ertified mmill Legal Intern ? l - I , " /). , 46? - A ONALD Supervis ng Attorney FAMILY LAW CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 " ?ii:s of t Z - 2 7 - 2 Q G ', nin 14 4,3 310 200 3. o?n 0 2 -1.Y -.Z 0,04 CDUW Pf CUMBEk?A..??N;' 0 5 ;. , + A; 1?? ?n ?y y 6! ?SE2L;' , MArLp4iw, :LUC:IAN OR1uD' ?,:itp 'IR '; FATHER 1 INFORMATION NOT RSG OR';D D. 3' ' . •II *; sar'?, MOTISER'S MAIAZN ri AKE SELINA ANNE • Yh?n +s !w ?:.•n?r: ?! ••.?• rnxKa wltrr 1?. c•r' ;an n mn tbnrcryi ix!ka 4>19flMmem et l1ca1L?. :. ?: ? r ' +F y ? ?.V?`h! Irl!M17 4 tgJ n 4 ? ' M G ' . .. ;y?m r t:v , M111SM! , If. r \ ?. .. . r , ? y AI HMr + ' ?' ?? ?' ? ,ti0Ml9 IS. ,h•!•,. , .. ? ? •'1Gro sti0 7+rr, 04?'il4 Crnrlrs NBrdcitor ? ' i o ' t"l r s c- F r. ` ?? ? rn C 1*?' SELENA COOPER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 06-3161 CIVIL LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, DEFENDANTS IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2006, after a conference with the Attorneys, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that a hearing will be held on Monday, November 6, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The hearing will address both the standing issue regarding Selena Cooper and the best interest of the child. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Plaintiff, Selena Cooper, shall be considered the moving party. Pre-trial memorandums shall be submitted to this court by the close of business November 1, 2006. The pre-trial memorandums will specifically outline the position of the parties, the witnesses to be called to include a summary of the testimony of each witness, the anticipated length of the hearing, and any case citations the party wishes the court to consider. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. AND C :01 WV OZ 130 90OZ AUVIO ¢Uudd 31HI j4 9 r',: iJ,0-T3ll+ Jessica Hoist, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services Attorney for Defendant Martir Jill Hammill Anne MacDonald-Fox, Esquire Family Law Clinic For Plaintiff Jason Heisey Defendant bas SELINA COOPER, Plaintiff V LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 06-3161 CIVIL TERM IN RE: REQUEST FOR VISITATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6th day of November, 2006, after hearing in the above-captioned matter, a transcript of the proceedings is ordered to be transcribed. Final briefs will be ordered 15 days after the filing of the transcript. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr. J. Jill Hamill, Certified Legal Intern Anne MacDonald-Fox, Esquire Dickinson Family Law Clinic For the Plaintiff Jessica Holst, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services, Inc. For Defendant Martir mtf 90 :11144 6- A0I 900Z ,bti?;;;; _...k--gj^?:Hi JQ ljV 'r ? A .r 1 Selina Cooper, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 06 - 3161 Luz Martir & Jason Heisey, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant Custody CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jill Hammill, Certified Legal Intern, Family Law Clinic, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Jessica Holst, Esq., by hand delivery on February 26, 2007 at her office address, 401 East Louther Street, Carlisle, PA 17013, and on Defendant Jason Heisey, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States mail on March 8, 2007, addressed as follows: Jason Heisey 5266 Ridge Road Elizabethtown, PA 17022 Jason Heisey 333 Derry Road Hershey, PA 17033 Ji ammill C ified Legal Intern Anne a d-Fox Supervising Attorney FAMILY LAW CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 C'1 rv P, .Wr'= C J SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION -LAW LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants/Respondent 06-3161 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 2007, having considered the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, this Court holds that Plaintiff Selina Cooper's petition for partial custody of Lucian Orion Martir shall be DENIED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that full custody shall be awarded to the biological mother of the child, Defendant Luz Martin By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr. J. Jill Hammill Anne Macdonald-Fox, Esquire Counsels for the Plaintiff Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Jessica Holst, Esquire Counsel for the Defendant MidPenn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 L0.8!I ?!ti'rLDDI 3HI J0 SELINA COOPER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION -LAW LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants/Respondent 06-3161 CIVIL TERM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Ebert, J., June 13, 2007 - In this custody issue, Plaintiff Selina Cooper seeks partial custody of Lucian Orion Martir, son of Plaintiff s former girlfriend, Defendant Luz Martin Plaintiff contends both that: (1) she has sufficient in loco parentis standing to petition for partial custody as a third-party and, (2) it is in the best interest of the child that she be allotted partial custody. Having considered the relevant facts and testimony, Plaintiff s request for partial custody is denied for the reasons set forth within. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Selina "Shawn" Cooper of 427 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania,) and Defendant Luz Martir of 321 West Main Street, Hummelstown, Pennsylvania,2 met while both were serving sentences in Cambridge Springs State Correctional Institution3 and became involved in an on-and-off romantic relationship which lasted for roughly eight years.4 During a period of separation, Martir began to see Co-Defendant Jason Heisey and became pregnant with 1 Notes of Transcript held Nov. 6, p. 7 (hereinafter "N.T. 2 N.T. 76 3 N.T. 225 4 N.T. 8 his child. During this pregnancy, Cooper attempted to reconcile with Martir - even proposing to her - but Martir declined the invitation.5 Martir would later suffer a miscarriage and for a time maintained no relationship with either Heisey or Cooper.6 Martir eventually reunited with Heisey and conceived once more, but broke off the relationship before the birth in December 20037 and reconciled with Cooper.8 Cooper and Martir continued to see each other on-and-off for the next three years but broke off the relationship permanently in February 2006.9 Cooper now seeks partial custody of Martir's son, claiming that she has sufficient standing to support such a request and that such an action would be in the best interests of the child. 10 Although Martir asked Cooper to help raise her child," their relationship remained tumultuous. Cooper assisted in prenatal care and was present for the birth 12 but was clear in her disapproval of the pregnancy.13 Martir testified that Cooper treated her badly during her pregnancy and made no attempts to hide the fact that she did not want the baby - going so far as to tell Martir that she hoped the child died in her stomach. Martir further alleges that Cooper abused her physically at that time and would strike her on all areas of her body but her stomach, which Martir protected with her arms. 14 Supporting testimony reveals that Cooper admitted to others that she verbally and physically abused Martir.15 Cooper is self-employed as an airbrush artist and is currently involved in two business ventures. She owns 2505 Design, where she custom designs motorcycle helmets and other cycle-related gear, and co-owns Lethal InjeXion, where she is responsible for sales and web 5 N.T. 79 6 N.T. 80 Def. Ex. 3 s N.T. 81 9 N.T. 35 10 See Pl. Comp. for Custody, 114 & 7. 11 N.T. 9 12 N.T. 11-12 13 N.T. 83,139 14 N.T. 83 15 N.T. 134 3 design. 16 She also sells business items on eBay, though testimony suggests that she often receives payments but never delivers the sold items. 17 Cooper operates two websites for her businesses, both containing explicit content and derogatory language. On her Myspace page, Cooper describes herself as gangster, cocky, arrogant, and a heavy partier. The reciprocated graphic language provided by her friends and family on the site offers vivid examples of the type of people with whom Cooper commonly associates.18 On the 2505 Design website, Cooper is shown jello wrestling with women, kissing women, 19 and engaging in alcoholic activities. 20 Other pictures from the two sites depict Cooper's seventeen-year-old brother partying with Cooper and her friends, 21 a man holding a small puppy in his left hand while pointing a large assault rifle at its head,22 Cooper modeling a shirt which says, "I don't want the bitch unless she's yours,"23 and a picture of Cooper with newspaper captions superimposed over her face relating to a criminal shooting incident in which she was previously involved.24 Several of the gallery captions over these photographs include: "Radford Bitches"25 and "Woosta Muthaf iggas."26 The 2505 Design website also contains a caption stating, "2505 Design in no way, shape, or form supports violence against children, but will whoop your grown ass for talking shit."27 Cooper claims that these websites are meant solely for entertainment purposes, 28 but other testimony shows that the photographs and 16 N.T. 7 17 N.T. 212; 140 18 See Def. Ex. 1. 19 Def. Ex. 7, 8 & 11. 20 Def. Ex. 61 9. 2' Def. Ex. 6; N.T. 165. 22 Def. Ex. 15. 2s Def Ex. 16. " Def. Ex. 17 2s Def. Ex. 9-10. 26 Def. Ex. 11-12 27 Def. Ex. 17. 28 N.T. 179 4 comments made on the websites are unexaggerated, accurate depictions of Cooper's lifestyle.29 In fact, Cooper has a significant criminal record which includes multiple charges and convictions including: assisting in a drive-by shooting at a high school, fleeing and eluding police officers, failure to contain a canine, and contempt of court.30 In addition to working in a bike shop, engaging in wild parties, and attending biker functions, Cooper is president of the Ruff Ryders, a local biker organization known for maintaining a hard and controversial lifestyle. 31 Cooper is an active and participating member of the biker club but holds neither a motorcycle license nor a general driver's license.32 The Ruff Ryders are gang rivals of the Harrisburg Street Kings. Cooper has previously had arguments with members of this rival biker group while out clubbing. Martir actually left Cooper because she feared that the rival biker group would be retaliating against the Ruff Ryders, and against Cooper as their president, and did not want her son to be in such a dangerous environment. 33 Although Cooper owns or co-owns two businesses, she receives very little net income from the ventures and provided minimal support for the threesome during the period of cohabitation. 34 The group was evicted several times and apartment utilities were often turned off.35 Martir, already on welfare, was forced to return to work four months after Lucian was born because Cooper provided insufficient support. 36 After Martir returned to work and school, Cooper, whose self-employment provided her some flexibility in regard to hours and schedule, would watch Lucian at her shop. 37 Martir 29 N.T. 227 30 The Court takes Judicial Notice sua sponte of Cooper's criminal record, which was referred to in the record but not formally admitted into evidence. 3` N.T. 211 32 N.T. 216 33 N.T. 211-12 14 N.T. 87 " N.T. 53 36 N.T. 95 17 N.T. 13, 16 would repay Cooper for the babysitting time by buying motorcycle parts or providing bail money to secure her release from jail.38 Although Cooper would watch Lucian most of the time, she was easily frustrated by the child. On multiple occasions she called Martir at work and requested that she come and pick Lucian up because she could not manage him. 39 On one occasion, Cooper called Martir to retrieve Lucian because the sheriffs were at the door to arrest her.ao Cooper did participate in multiple parenting activities, such as bathing, feeding, and laundry,41 but was never given independent authority over the welfare of the child. Martir maintains that Cooper would not abide by her expressed wishes in regard to discipline, education, and religion, and would often simply defy her wishes. Perhaps it is for this reason that Martir never permitted Cooper to spend a night alone with Lucian, to make medical decisions for the child, or help choose Lucian's daycare facilities.az During her relationship with Cooper, Martir did make an effort to include Cooper in Lucian's life as her significant other. Martir forged Lucian's birth certificate to include Cooper's name in order that she and her son might both enter the York County prison to visit Cooper.43 Martir referred to Cooper as "Diddy" when talking to Lucian, and gave Cooper a "Happy Diddy Day" card on Father's Day signed by both Martir and her son.aa At the request of Martir, the three posed for a family portrait and offered the pictures to other family members. 4' The threesome spent holidays together, often with Cooper's family.46 Martir befriended Cooper's family and commonly referred to Cooper's mother as "Grandma," and Cooper's sister as "Tee M N.T. 96 39 N.T. 97 40 N.T. 98 4' N.T. 16 42 N.T. 89-90,102,105, 107 43 Pl. Ex. 2; Def. Ex. 2; N.T. 94; Martir contends that she did not make the forgery for Cooper to see Lucian, but only because no one else was available to care for her child at the time. 44 Pl. Ex. 4; N.T. 22 41 Pl. Ex. 3; N.T. 33 46 N.T. 21 6 Tee," when talking to her son. 47 When the relationship between the two parties was not going well, it was Martir who suggested that the family attend couple's counseling.48 While her actions suggest that Martir encouraged and approved of developing a parent- child relationship between Cooper and Lucian, Martir claims that she specifically told Cooper not to refer to herself as Lucian's parent49 and that she never introduced Cooper as Lucian's parent.50 Martir has expressed concerns that Cooper does not have a sense of family and cares little about the example she sets for her siblings who hold her in high esteem.sl Martir does not approve of Cooper's lifestyle and she does not believe Cooper is a good role model for her son. 52 Martir has created a new life for herself and son since her separation from Cooper. She is currently engaged and expecting a new child with her fiancee. She plans to move to Puerto Rico with her fiancee and children following the birth of the new child. The family has decided to stay on the mainland for the birth so that the father may be in the delivery room, which is not allowed in Puerto Rico. The couple will then be married in Puerto Rico where Martir's family lives. Her father has built her a home in Puerto Rico where she and her family may reside upon her return. She plans to work as an English teacher and hopes to begin teaching English upon her return home.53 DISCUSSION Selina Cooper, a third party, non-biological parent, has petitioned this Court for partial custody of Lucian Orion Martir, son of Defendant Luz Martin In order for Cooper to be successful in this petition she must establish both that she possesses sufficient standing to bring 47 N.T. 111-12; Martir claims that these names were more terms of endearment than recognition. 48 N.T. 35 49 N.T. 127 so N.T. 63, 137 51 N.T. 227; Martir attempted to convey to Cooper that her siblings admired her and that she should try to have a positive impact on their lives. In response, Cooper said that her siblings were not her responsibility and if her mother could not handle them then, "why the hell do I have to do that?" 52 N.T. 90 13 N.T. 202-04 7 this suit as a non-related third party and that the awarding of custody would be in the best interest of the child. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that while Cooper has sufficient standing to bring this case before the Court, she fails to establish that it is in the best interests of the child to award her partial custody. In Loco Parentis Standing It is well settled that Pennsylvania law considers persons other than a child's biological or natural parents as "third parties" for purposes of custody disputes. J.F. v. D.B., 897 A.2d 1261, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2006). Pennsylvania courts remain strict in reviewing standing in third-party suits for visitation or partial custody due to the respect for the traditionally strong right of natural parents to raise their children in the manner in which they see fit. Accordingly, a third party may only maintain an action where that party stands in loco parentis. Gradwell v. Strausser, 610 A.2d 999, 1002 (Pa. Super. 1992). The phrase "in loco parentis" literally means "in the place of a parent," Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed. 1999), 791, and refers to one who puts herself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations inherent to the parental relationship without going through the formality of a legal adoption. J.F. v. D.B., 897 A.2d at 1274. In order for a person to possess in loco parentis standing, that individual must demonstrate both the assumption of a parental status and the discharge of parental duties. Peters v. Costello, 891 A.2d 705, 710 (Pa. 2005). Our Superior Court has suggested that where a petitioner who is not biologically related to the child but has established a parent-like relationship with the child seeks not to supplant the natural parent, but only to maintain his relationship with the child through reasonable visitation or partial custody, his burden to establish standing is easier to meet. T.B. v. L.R.M., 753 A.2d 873, 884 (Pa. Super. 2000). 8 As each situation is unique, the showing necessary to establish in loco parentis status must be flexible and dependent upon the particular facts of each case. J.A.L. v. E.P.P., 682 A.2d 1314, 1320 (Pa. Super. 1996). Certain factors previously found to be significant to the determination of in loco parentis standing are co-residency, duration of relationship, whether the biological parent agrees that the third party should play a parenting role, id at 1320-21, and the extent of custody sought by the third party, T.B. v. L.R.M., 753 A.2d at 884 ("...where limited custody rights are sought, the limited nature of the intrusion into the biological family must be considered in deciding whether standing has been made out.") Notwithstanding the above stated law, it should be well noted that in loco parentis status cannot be established absent the approval of the child's biological parent. J.F. v. D.B., 897 A.2d at 1273; see also McDonel v. Sohn, 762 A.2d 1101, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that a third party cannot place himself in loco parentis in defiance of the parents' wishes and the parent/child relationship.) In J.A.L. v. E.P.P., a factually similar case to that at bar, the Court found that J.A.L. established in loco parentis standing. The parties were former lesbian partners. J.A.L was present through all of the pre-natal and birthing events and maintained a relationship with the child following the birth. After the dissolution of the relationship, J.A.L. sought partial custody of the child the pair had raised together. See J.A.L. supra. The Court found that J.A.L. had sufficient standing to bring the suit because the evidence revealed that, in both E.P.P.'s and J.A.L.'s minds, the child was to be a member of their nontraditional family. The Court further stated that the parties' conduct after the child's birth and before their separation further supported their intent to create a parent-like relationship between J.A.L. The fact that E.P.P. was the child's primary caregiver did not diminish the fact that J.A.L. 9 lived with the child for the first ten months of its life, acting as a parenting partner to the child's mother and creating the opportunity for bonding to occur. Id. The instant case has much in common with J.A.L. The former couple maintained an on and off relationship for a period of six-and-a-half to eight years, living together for at least one year of the child's life. The daily conduct by both the mother and Cooper supports the conclusion that both parties encouraged and fostered a special relationship between Cooper and the child, i.e. spending holidays with Cooper's family, referring to Cooper as "Diddy," living in the same residence together as a family for a significant amount of time, and allowing Cooper to provide daily care for Lucian while Martir was working and at school. We acknowledge that Cooper did not provide the same financial support as Martir; however this is not an essential factor to the establishment of in loco parentis standing under JA L. Cooper establishes a prima facie case for in loco parentis, but it must be remembered that a third party cannot maintain such a standing absent the biological parent's approval. T.B. v. L.R.M., 786 A.2d at 918. Martir has testified that she never intended that Cooper play a parental role in the life of her son. Martir's actions, however, suggest that she did indeed approve of Cooper's parental assertions in Lucian's life. Martir asked Cooper to raise her child with her. She created the special name "Diddy" as a substitute for "Daddy" and provided a "Happy Diddy's Day" card for Cooper on Father's Day. She referred to Cooper's mother and sister as "Grandma" and "Tee Tee.s54 It was upon Martir's request that the three posed for a family portrait and attended couple's counseling. These facts cannot be discredited in the determination of standing, despite the biological mother's claim that she did not wish her former partner to possess a parental role. sa The Spanish word for "aunt" is "tia" (pronounced tee-ah). 10 The fact that Martir now, after a seemingly tumultuous break-up, no longer wishes that Cooper have interaction with Lucian does not negate the parental bond which may have formed between Cooper and the child - a bond which Martir previously approved. See Bupp v. Bupp, 718 A.2d 1278, 1282 (Pa. Super. 1998) ("If Mother chooses to cultivate and encourage a third party to assume parental obligations and discharge parental duties toward her daughter, simply because Mother and the third party have differences which result in separation, Mother cannot eradicate the relationship which had developed between the third party and the child.") While this Court does not wish to act against the wishes of the biological parent in this case, we cannot ignore Defendant's prior actions. In making the decision on standing, we are not determining Plaintiff's capacity as a parent: such a determination is left for the best interest analysis. In determining standing we are only concerned with Plaintiff's capacity to bring forth this petition due to her relationship and interaction with the child and mother. Accordingly, we hold that Cooper has sufficient in loco parentis standing to bring this action before the Court. Best Interest o the Child Standing alone is insufficient to justify an award of custody to a third party. The biological parent possesses a prima facie right to custody which can only be forfeited by clear and convincing evidence that the transfer of custody would be in the best interest of the child. "[E]ven before the proceedings start, the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the [biological] parents' side." Jones v. Jones, 884 A.2d 915, 917 (Pa. Super. 2005); Com. ex rel. Patricia L. F. v. Malbert J. F., 420 A.2d 572, 573 (1980). In other words, the establishment of in loco parentis standing merely permits the third-party to bring her petition to the Court; she then has the burden of proving that the best interests of the child will be served by awarding her custody. 11 The best interest analysis is based upon a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the child's physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being. Jones, 884 A.2d at 918; K.B. v. C.B.F., 833 A.2d 767, 776 (Pa. Super. 2003). In order to conduct this analysis, the Court must hear all evidence relevant to the child's best interest and then decide whether the evidence on behalf of the third party is weighty enough to bring the scale up to even and down on the third party's side. Jones, 884 A.2d at 918. Having considered all of the evidence presented in this case, we hold that the awarding of partial custody to Selina Cooper would not be in the best interest of Lucian Martin Exposure to Cooper's character will do little to improve and nurture the child's physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being. Cooper clearly maintains a hard and dangerous lifestyle and has a history of incarceration and violent conduct. In fact, she seems to be proud of her criminal past, as is evidenced by her photographic choices on her company website.55 She is the president of a biker organization which is known for hard partying and rough living. She has held herself out both professionally and personally as a tough woman with little regard for the law or the well-being of others - including other members of her family. She candidly admits that she enjoys being heavily intoxicated and testimony shows that she engages in such behavior on a consistent basis. Photographs and language placed on her professional and personal websites provide convincing evidence that Cooper enjoys controversy and takes pleasure in maintaining a risky and unstable lifestyle. Her own reckless life choices will undoubtedly influence an impressionable child left in her care. Beyond the fact that exposure to Cooper's lifestyle may negatively influence the child, Cooper's chosen lifestyle is clearly not conducive to providing a safe and stable environment for a child. Cooper works at her bike shop - a location which Cooper admits caters to rough, biker ss See Def. Ex. 17. 12 types of whom the child's mother clearly disapproves. Cooper's website, which is filled with derogatory language and explicit content, provides vivid insight into the customer base she typically accommodates and with whom she commonly interacts. The information regarding the conflict between the rival biker groups is particularly concerning. Without doubt, if Cooper is awarded custody, Lucian will be exposed to rowdy, risk-taking people participating in questionable and inappropriate behavior. We are also concerned that Cooper has not proven herself capable of caring for Lucian in the past. Multiple times she had to contact the mother for help because she could not properly care for the child. She has shown herself to be financially unstable in both her personal and business accounts and has been evicted on multiple occasions or has not been able to make regular utility payments. This Court finds little support to believe any of Cooper's business ventures will succeed financially. Providing a safe and stable environment is paramount to a child's successful development, and Cooper has failed to convince us that she can provide either safety or stability. Martir, on the other hand, acknowledges her difficult past and has attempted to make a better life for herself and her son. She is currently engaged and expecting a new child with her fiancee. She plans to move to Puerto Rico where her family lives. Her vigor in attempting to provide a safe and secure situation for her son is admirable and she has succeeded in showing that she is a fit mother who is willing to care for her child to the best of her ability. To summarize, in light of Cooper's destructive lifestyle, poor financial history, and inconsistent ability to care for the child, we are not convinced that awarding even limited custody to Cooper would be in the best interest of the child's physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being. Considering that the child has a secure position with his mother and her family, we 13 are convinced that it is in his best interest to remain with his mother. We therefore deny Cooper's request for partial custody and award full custody to the biological mother, Luz Martir. CONCLUSION Because Plaintiff Selina Cooper has demonstrated both the assumption of a parental status and the discharge of parental duties, she has sufficient in loco parentis standing to request partial custody of Lucian Martin Having considered all testimony and pertinent evidence, this Court is unconvinced that the awarding of custody to Plaintiff would be in the best interest of the child and therefore Plaintiff's request for partial custody is denied. Full custody is thereby awarded to the child's biological mother, Defendant Luz Martin Accordingly, the following order will be entered: 14 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 2007, having considered the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, this Court holds that Plaintiff Selina Cooper's petition for partial custody of Lucian Orion Martir shall be DENIED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that full custody shall be awarded to the biological mother of the child, Defendant Luz Martin By the Court, 11,?, _? ?a V M. L. Ebert, Jr. 0. Jill Hammill Anne Macdonald-Fox, Esquire Counsels for the Plaintiff Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Jessica Holst, Esquire Counsel for the Defendant MidPenn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 15 to SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants : NO. 06 - 3161 CIVIL TERM NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Selina Cooper, Plaintiff, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the order entered in this matter on the 13`h of June 2007. This order has been entered into the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry. REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT A Notice of Appeal having been filed in this matter and transcripts of both hearings already having been produced and certified, the official court reporter is hereby requested to file both transcripts in this matter in connection with Rule 1922 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Respectfully submitted, Date: " k3, 2001 ,4,4ju, Holly O. Vaughn Certified Legal Intern A6 -- Anne ald-Fox Supervising Attorney FAMILY LAW CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 11562707112007 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 1 PjYS51Q Civil Case Print 2006-03161 COOPER SELINA (vs) MARTIR LUZ ET AL Reference No. Filed......... 6/02/2006 Case Type...... COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time.......... 2:03 Judgment...... .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info COOPER SELINA PLAINTIFF FAMILY LAW CLINIC 324 MARKET STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 MARTIR LUZ DEFENDANT 321 WEST MAIN STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 1IEI'SEY JASON DEFENDANT 5266 WEST ELIZABETHTOWNE(RLAN DCO) PA 17022 ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries ******************************************************************************** - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6/02/2006 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/02/2006 PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/02/2006 PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/05/2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CUSTODY COMPLAINT AND FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/05/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 06-05-06 - IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDERED: 1. RESPONDENT DEFT LUZ MARTIR SHALL NOT REMOVE THE CHILD FROM THE COMM OF PA PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF COURT 2. HEARING SCHEDULED 06-06-06 AT 9:30 AM IN CR 5 OF CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 06-05-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- `-6/06/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 06-05-06 - IN RE: PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE 07-06-06 AT 8:30 AM AT MDJ MANLOVE 1901 STATE ST CAMP HILL - FOR THE COURT BY MELISSA P GREEVY ATTY CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 06-06-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/06/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 06-06-06 - IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF-CUSTODY - DENIED - CUSTODY CONCILIATION HEARING 07-06-06 AT 8:30 AM - MAKE CHILD AVAILABLE IN THIS JURISDICTION - RESPONDENT MUST COMPLY OR BE SUBJECT TO CONTEMPT POWER OF COURT - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 06-07-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/30/2006 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IN CUSTODY AND NEW MATTER - BY JESSICA HOLST ATTY ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/05/2006 MOTION FOR HEARING - BY JESSICA HOLST ATTY FOR DEFT-LUZ MARTIR ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/14/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 09-13-06 - IN RE: CUSTODY HEARING 10-20-06 AT 8:15 AM IN CHAMBERS - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 09-14-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/16/2006 PROCEEDINGS - 06-06-06 - IN RE SPECIAL RELIEF-CUSTODY - BY ML EBERT JR J ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.,.0;/19/2006 REPLY TO NEW MATTER - BY ANNE MACDONALD-FOX / FAMILY LAW CLINIC ------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/23/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 10-20-06 - IN RE: HEARING 11-06-06 AT 10:30 AM CR 5 CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - BY ML EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 10-23-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/09/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 11-06-06 - IN RE: REQUEST FOR VISITIATION - AFTER HEARING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS ORDERED TO BE TRANSCRIBED - FINAL BRIEFS WILL BE ORDERED 15 DAYS AFTER THE 11.562707112007 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 2 E)fS5U Civil Case Print 2006-03161 COOPER SELINA (vs) MARTIR LUZ ET AL Reference No... Filed......... 6/02/2006 Case Type...... COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time.......... 2:03 Judgment...... .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Jury Trial.... ;pisposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ----------- Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: FILING OF THE TRANSCRIPT - BY ML EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 11-09-06 -------------------------------------------------------------------INGS OF FACT AND 3/08/2007 OOFRL WIC- SERVHAMMIICE & ANNE MACDONALD-FOONS SUPERVISING ATTY ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/14/2007 ORDER OF COURT - 06-13-07 - IN RE: PLFF'S PETITION FOR PARTIAL CUSTODY SHALL BE DENIED - ORDERED THAT FULL CUSTODY SHALL BE AWARDED TO BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF CHILD - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 06-14-07 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information ******************************************************************************** M CX. FROM RE} ,m ywokwoftw, I MM we ad MY low f ! acid ccu $t tom, P ? "'*?4?wggt 1?1_ __ 7Cr SELINA COOPER, Plaintiff V. LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY : NO. 06 - 3161 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing document has been duly served upon the following persons by personal service or by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage paid on July 13, 2007, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: The Honorable M. L. Ebert, Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6292 Jessica Holst, Esquire Counsel for the Defendant MidPenn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 Date: 3 O-1 Official Court Reporter Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 Jason Heisey 5266 Ridge Road Elizabethtown, PA 17022 and 333 Derry Road Hershey, PA 17033 fA4 Holly O. V ughn Certified egal Intern Anne onald-Fo Supervising Attorney FAMILY LAW CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 , 41 C" W A 1') S r? C SELENA COOPER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 06-3161 CIVIL V. LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, DEFENDANTS IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 16th day of July 2007, the Court being in receipt of a Notice of Appeal in the above captioned matter, the Appellant is ordered to file with this Court a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal no later than July 30, 2007. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. nne MacDonald-Fox, Esquire Holly O. Vaughn, Certified Legal Intern Attorney for Plaintiff Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 'A's ca Hoist, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant bas AIM' 4 99:i !,11J 9I 1(i", L00 Z y \ 3' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ?lo r 3,1 ? M e Superior Court of Pennsylvania Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Prothonotary James D. McCullough, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary Middle District July 18, 2007 100 Pine Street. Suite 400 Harrisbure. PA 17101 717-772-1294 www. superior.court. state.pa.us Mr. Curtis R. Long Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: 1206 MDA 2007 Selina Cooper, Appellant V. Luz Martir and Jason Heisey Dear Mr. Long: Enclosed please find a copy of the docket for the above appeal that was recently filed in the Superior Court. Kindly review the information on this docket and notify this office in writing if you believe any corrections are required. Appellant's counsel is also being sent a Docketing Statement, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 3517, for completion and filing. Please note that Superior Court Dockets are available on the Internet at the Web site address printed at the top of this page. Thank you. Very truly yours, Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Prothonotary KRC 9:05 A.M. Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 1206 MDA 2007 Page 1 of 3 July 18, 2007 Superior Court of Pennsylvania AAL Selina Cooper, Appellant V. Luz Martir and Jason Heisey Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal Case Status: Active Case Processing Status: July 13, 2007 Awaiting Original Record Journal Number: Case Category: Domestic Relations CaseType: CustodyNisitation Consolidated Docket Nos.: Related Docket Nos.: SCHEDULED EVENT Next Event Type: Receive Docketing Statement Next Event Due Date: August 1, 2007 Next Event Type: Original Record Received Next Event Due Date: September 11, 2007 7/18/2007 3023 9:05 AA Appeal Docket Sheet Superior Court of Pennsylvania Docket Number: 1206 MDA 2007 Paqe 2 of 3 Ad& July 18, 2007 COUNSEL INFORMATION Appellant Cooper, Selina Pro Se: Appoint Counsel Status: IFP Status: No Appellant Attorney Information: Attorney: MacDonald-Fox, Anne Bar No.: 87727 Law Firm: Dickinson College Address: Community Law Clinics 45 N Pitt St Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone No.: (717)243-2968 Fax No.: (717)243-3639 Receive Mail: Yes E-Mail Address: Receive E-Mail: No Appellee Pro Se: IFP Status: Martir, Luz Appoint Counsel Status: Appellee Attorney Information: Attorney: Holst, Jessica C. D. Bar No.: 82214 Address: 401 E Louther Street Carlise, PA 17013 Phone No.: (717)243-9400 Receive Mail: Yes E-Mail Address: jhoist@midpenn.org Receive E-Mail: No Law Firm: MidPenn Legal Services Fax No.: (717)243-8026 Appellee Pro Se: IFP Status: Heisey, Jason Receive Mail: Yes E-Mail Address: Receive E-Mail: No Appoint Counsel Status: Appellee Attorney Information: Attorney: Heisey, Jason Bar No.: Law Firm: Address: 5266 Ridge Road Elizabethtown, PA 17022 Phone No.: Fax No.: FEE INFORMATION Paid Fee Date Fee Name Fee Amt Amount Receipt Number 7/17/07 Notice of Appeal 60.00 60.00 2007SPRMD000658 7/18/2007 3023 9:05 A.M. Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: Paqe 3 of 3 July 18, 2007 1206 MDA 2007 Aft TRIAL COURT/AGENCY INFORMATION Court Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas County: Cumberland Division: Civil Date of Order Appealed From: June 13, 2007 Judicial District: 9 Date Documents Received: July 17, 2007 Date Notice of Appeal Filed: July 13, 2007 Order Type: Order Entered OTN: Judge: Ebert, Jr., Merle L. Lower Court Docket No.: 06-3161 Judge ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS Original Record Item Filed Date Content/Description Date of Remand of Record: BRIEFS DOCKET ENTRIES Filed Date Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type Filed By July 13, 2007 Notice of Appeal Filed Appellant Cooper, Selina July 18, 2007 Docketing Statement Exited (Domestic Relations) Middle District Filing Office Superior Court of Pennsylvania 7118/2007 3023 t-a o - n C?--? C'1l )i?" -Y;n IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-3161 CIVIL SELENA COOPER, PLAINTIFF V. LUZ MARTIR AND JASON HEISEY, DEFENDANTS CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P. 1925(b) AND NOW comes the Family Law Clinic, counsel for Plaintiff Selena Cooper, and respectfully states that: 1. On June 13, 2007, the Trial Court entered an Order in the above-captioned matter, holding that Plaintiff stood in loco parentis to Lucian Orion Martir, but denying Plaintiff's petition for partial custody of the child. 2. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law by applying the "clear and convincing" evidence standard appropriate to determinations of in loco parentis status and transfer of primary custody to assess whether granting Plaintiff's request for limited partial custody was in the child's best interest. 3. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law by not sufficiently considering a lesser partial custody or visitation schedule than requested by the Plaintiff, despite the Court's determination that Plaintiff had in loco parentis standing and therefore, rights and liabilities exactly the same as between parent and child. 4. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law by considering Plaintiff's financial situation a significant factor in the Trial Court's analysis of the child's best interests when Plaintiff was seeking only partial custody of the child. 5. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law by admitting into evidence information from Plaintiff's MySpace web page, which was unreliable hearsay. 6. The Trial Court abused its discretion by basing its deductions and inferences on facts not supported by competent evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Court's conclusions regarding biker organizations and conflicts between rival biker groups when there was insufficient information in the record to support those conclusions. 7. The Trial Court abused its discretion by taking Judicial Notice sua sponte of Plaintiff's criminal record which included a crime that occurred over ten years prior the commencement of these proceedings. Respectfully submitted, ,71,g6 0 ? Date i Holly O. aughn Certified Legal Intern 1 Anne -Fox Supervising Attorney Family Law Clinic Attorney for Plaintiff 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 cc: The Honorable M. L. Ebert, Jr. Jessica Holst, Esquire Selena Cooper Q "CJ?, t: ????? W ? ?? r Selina Cooper, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW CUSTODY Luz Martir and Jason Heisey, Defendants NO. 06-3161 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the Concise Statement of Matters Complained of Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) has been duly served upon the following persons by personal service or by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage paid on July 30, 2007 from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: The Honorable M. L. Ebert, Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6292 Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 Jessica Holst, Esquire Counsel for the Defedant Luz Martir MidPenn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 Jason Heisey 5266 Ridge Road Elizabethtown, PA 17022 and 333 Derry Road Hershey, PA 17033 Holly Vau hn Certified Legal Intern Anne eltl-Fox, Esq. Supervising Attorney FAMILY LAW CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 C. ? -n t= om ril e ; - NO ' t ct o cn ? SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Appellant CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION -LAW LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants/Appellees : 06-3161 CIVIL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Appellant Selina Cooper has filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania following an order denying her petition for partial custody of Lucian Orion Martin' Appellant's bases of appeal are as follows:2 1.) On July 13, 2007, the Trial Court entered an order in the above-captioned matter, holding that Plaintiff stood in loco parentis to Lucian Orion Martir, but denying Plaintiff's petition for partial custody of the child. 2.) The Trial Court erred as a matter of law by applying the "clear and convincing" evidence standard appropriate to determinations of in loco parentis status and transfer of primary custody to assess whether granting Plaintiff's request for limited partial custody was in the child's best interest. 3.) The Trial Court erred as a matter of law by not sufficiently considering a lesser partial custody or visitation schedule than requested by the Plaintiff, despite the Court's determination that Plaintiff had in loco parentis standing and, therefore, rights and liabilities exactly the same as between parent and child. 4.) The Trial Court erred as a matter of law by considering Plaintiff's financial situation a significant factor in the Trial Court's analysis of the child's best interests when Plaintiff was seeking only partial custody of the child. 5.) The Trial Court erred as a matter of law by admitting into evidence information from Plaintiff's MySpace web page, which was unreliable hearsay. 'See Order of Court, June 13, 2007, denying Cooper's petition for partial custody and awarding full custody to the child's biological mother, Appellee Luz Martir. 2 See Concise Statement of Matter's Complained of Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), filed July 30, 2007. F C W'd ° 1 1st V L00I Xa?fiCsi 1 ?Nl KG 6.) The Trial Court abused its discretion by basing its deductions and inferences on facts not supported by competent evidence in the record including, but not limited to, the Court's conclusions regarding biker organizations and conflicts between rival biker groups when there was insufficient information in the record to support those conclusions. 7.) The Trial Court abused its discretion by taking Judicial Notice sua sponte of Plaintiff's criminal record which included a crime that occurred over ten years prior to the commencement of these proceedings. This Court previously filed a 15 page opinion on June 13, 2007, which deals with the legal issues presented in this case at length. This opinion is filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 (a) to supplement the prior opinion and more specifically address those issues raised in the Plaintiff's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS A detailed explanation of the facts of this case can be found in the primary opinion filed of record on June 13, 2007, and published in the Cumberland Law Journal on July 13, 2007. DISCUSSION 1. This Court Did Not Err in Employing a "Clear and Convincing Evidence" Standard nor Did It Fail to Consider a Lesser Partial Custody Schedule than Suggested As was clear in our primary opinion of this case, Pennsylvania case law dictates that a biological parent possesses a prima facie right to the custody of his or her child. That right cannot be forfeited absent clear and convincing evidence that the transfer of custody is in the best interest of the child. See Jones v. Jones, 884 A.2d 915, 917 (Pa. Super. 2005)("Once it is established that someone who is not the biological parent is in loco parentis, that person does not need to establish that the biological parent is unfit, but instead must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interests of the children to maintain that relationship or be with that person. ")(emphasis added in original); See also Ellerbe v. Hooks, 416 A.2d 512, 514 (Pa. 1980)("The parties do not start out even; the parents have a `prima facie right to custody,' 2 which will be forfeited only if `convincing reasons' appear that the child's best interest will be served by an award to the third party. Thus, even before the proceedings start, the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the parents' side. What the judge must do, therefore, is first, hear all evidence relevant to the child's best interest, and then, decide whether the evidence on behalf of the third party is weighty enough to bring the scale up to even, and down on the third party's side ...Clearly these principles do not preclude an award of custody to the non-parent. Rather they simply instruct the hearing judge that the non-parent bears the burden of production and the burden of persuasion and that the non-parent's burden is heavy.") Appellant suggests that we erred in applying a high standard to the best interest analysis in light of the request for mere partial custody. However, we are convinced, and the law supports our decision, that the best interest of the child is of primary importance in the determination of any form of custody. See Lawrence v. Bordner, 907 A.2d 1109, 1113 (Pa. Super. 2006)("Nevertheless, it is well settled, that in any instance in which child custody is determined, the overriding concern of the court must be the best interest and welfare of the child, including the child's physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual well-being.") We have found no case law which supports the assertion that the "best interests" evaluation should be held to a lower standard when the petitioner is only requesting partial custody. In fact, we find such an assertion to be counter-intuitive, as it suggests that the best interests of the child are of lesser value merely because the child will be with the petitioner for a lesser period of time. Regardless of this point, after having considered the evidence, we are of the persuasion that we would reach the same conclusion even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence. We therefore remain of the opinion that it is not in the best interest of the child to be in the custody - whether partial or full - of Appellant. 3 Accordingly, because we are convinced that it is harmful to the child's well-being to be in Appellant's custody, and because the best interest standard is of paramount importance in our evaluation, we are unapologetic for our conclusion to completely reject Appellant's request for partial custody in lieu of considering a lesser partial custody or visitation schedule than that requested by Appellant. II. This Court Did Not Err in Its Consideration o Plaintifs Financial Situation and Biker Lifestyle After a third party has been deemed to hold in loco parentis status, the presiding judge must hear all evidence relevant to the child's best interest and decide whether the evidence on behalf of the third party is sufficient to award custody. Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, 923 A.2d 473, 477-78 (Pa. Super. 2007). It should be remembered that the evidentiary scale is clearly tipped in the favor of the biological parent. See Ellerbe supra. Clearly, a person's financial abilities are relevant in a custody determination. Cooper has a history of poor financial management which has previously resulted in evictions and termination of utilities. Appellant essentially argues that these facts are of minor importance as to whether the child's physical and emotional well-being will be benefited by awarding her partial custody. We do not hesitate in rejecting this argument. Children are expensive commodities; anyone who has the privilege of a having a child will attest to this fact. The care of their person for any period of time requires financial backing. Cooper has not demonstrated that she is capable of providing a safe, functional living environment for the child and accordingly we see no lack of judgment in considering her poor financial history. Beyond Cooper's financial status, this Court considered in its determination of custody the rough lifestyle and company with whom she chooses to associate. Appellant argues now that we made wrongful assumptions and unfounded deductions on facts not entered into the record - 4 mainly those regarding biker organizations and conflicts associated with rival biker groups. Such an argument is without merit as there is a plethora of evidence on the record which attests to the dangerousness of Cooper's associations, including, but not limited to, Luz Martir's testimony and Cooper's personal and business websites. See Statement of Facts in Original Opinion. While we do not mean to stereotype biker organizations, it was Appellant's own website that reveled in promoting her own notorious reputation for hard living. Considering the corresponding evidence, we find no abuse of discretion in concluding that the groups with which Cooper associated preferred a dangerous, rough lifestyle. III. This Court Did Not Err by Admitting into Evidence Information from Appellant's MySpace Web Page Appellant contends that this Court erred in its admittance into evidence of Appellant's personal MySpace page, as it was unreliable hearsay. We disagree. As is well known, "hearsay" is defined in Pennsylvania as, "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Pa. R. E. 801(c). Generally, hearsay is inadmissible into evidence due to its inherent unreliability. Pa. R. E. 802. On the basis of this definition alone, we concede that the documentation may be inadmissible hearsay; however, the rules also provide multiple exceptions to the general rule of inadmissibility and one applies to this case with perfect clarity. We find that Appellant's personal MySpace page constitutes a party-opponent admission within the definition provided by Pa. R. E. 803. Rule 803(25) permits admission of hearsay into evidence if, "[t]he statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity, or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth." Pa. R. E. 803(25). Selina Cooper has held herself out on her own websites as a rough woman who enjoys living a hard lifestyle. She was clear 5 during testimony that she was in control of the website and that most of the remarks made on it were her own. While she did state that the website was heavily played-up, corresponding testimony and photographic evidence suggest that the images and statements made on the website are exemplary of Appellant's preferred manner of living. Even if the statements were exaggerated, we reject the argument that the website is inadmissible as the statements made on it (and in the business website) were clearly those created by Appellant herself and she must be held responsible in a custody determination for what she herself has said and how she represents herself to those around her. IV. This Court Did Not Err by Taking Judicial Notice of Appellant's Prior Criminal Record The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence permit the finding of judicial notice of adjudicative facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. Pa. R. E. 201(a)-(b). In this particular case, we chose to take judicial notice sua sponte of Cooper's criminal record after finding evidence of her prior history within the pages of Cooper's websites. Our decision to take judicial notice arose from our concern that Appellant was apparently proud of her past criminal record. Our interest was peaked after seeing a photograph on one of Cooper's websites of her with newspaper captions superimposed over her face relating to a criminal shooting incident in Cumberland County for which she was convicted. In this community, this crime was considered very serious and caused great public concern. Her very relationship with the natural mother began in a State Correctional Institution while serving her sentence for this crime. We found her flagrant indifference and apparent pride over the incident 6 particularly troublesome. Certainly in a determination of a child's best interest, we should take into consideration that the third-party seeking partial custody is bragging about her involvement in a drive-by shooting at a high school and posting it proudly for all to see. As Cooper herself boasted publicly about her prior record from this very county, we see no abuse of discretion in considering its reliable, factual significance. CONCLUSION This Court did not abuse its discretion in its consideration of the evidence presented in this case, in its deductions and inferences based upon that evidence, nor in its application of the law to the facts. In light of all the evidence, Selina Cooper has not persuaded this Court that it is in the best interest of the child to be within her partial custody. Accordingly, we denied her petition for partial custody of Lucian Orion Martir and awarded full custody to the biological mother, Luz Martir. ,/amily Law Clinic Counsels for Appellant 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ,,/essica Holst, Esquire Counsel for Appellee MidPenn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 J By the Court, M.L. Ebert Jr., J. 7 SELINA COOPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Appellant CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION -LAW LUZ MARTIR and JASON HEISEY, Defendants/Appellees 06-3161 CIVIL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 AMENDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2007, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the above mentioned Opinion recently filed with the Prothonotary's Office in this matter is hereby amended to be dated August 16, 2007. The remainder of the Opinion shall be in full force and effect. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. /amily Law Clinic Counsels for Appellant 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 essica Holst, Esquire Counsel for Appellee MidPenn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 bas G V t11?Z CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931(C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: Selina Cooper vs. Luz Martir and Jason Heisey 06-3161 Civil Term 1206 MDA 2007 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.1 to 119, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 08/3W2007. Curtis &. Long, Pro otary Regina K. Lebo; -Deputy An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. Date Signature & Title Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto this 30 1, Curtis R. Long , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the case therein stated, wherein Selina Cooper Plaintiff, and Defendant , as the same remains of record before the said Court at No. 2006-3161 of Civil Term, A. D. 19 . set my hand and affixed the seal of said CQ rt day of Au t 09 A. D., 1 1807 Prothonotary President Judge of the Ninth Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that Oiytis R. Lonq , by whom the annexed record, certificate and attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said C?ounty , was, at the time of so doing, and now is Prothonotary in and for said County of CxYnber]?rtd in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and rujaselsew to all f whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judic e, a e said record, certificate and attestation are in due form of law ao r officer I S ?G President Ju e Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: 1, Curtis R. Long , ProthonotLary bf the ourf of Common Pleas in and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable Edgar B. EW-Ley by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this 30? ;y of -AUCUSIn A. D. X007, Prothonotary Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the county of inharland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1206 MDA 2007 to No. 2006-3161 Civil Term, 19 is contained the following: COPY OF Appearance DOCKET ENTRY Selina Cooper vs. Luz Martir and Jason Heisey **SEE CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET ENTRIES** ,o s 0 3 ^ ? a O -n :A ? d O d n 0 0 0 o? ?c 0 Z 0 3 .o 14224408302007 PYS510 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Print 2006-03161 COOPER SELINA (vs) MARTIR LUZ ET AL Reference No..: Case Type.....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Judgment...... .00 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Disposed Desc.: ------------ Case Comments ------------- Page Filed..... .. 6/02/2006 Time.......... 2:03 • Execution Date 0/00/0000 Jury Trial.... Disposed Date.. 0/00/0000 Higher Crt 1.: 1206MD 2007 Higher Crt 2.: ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info COOPER SELINA 324 MARKET STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 PLAINTIFF FAMILY LAW CLINIC MARTIR LUZ DEFENDANT 321 WEST MAIN STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 HEISEY JASON DEFENDANT RIGE (RLANDCO) PA 17022 * Date Entries a -7 6/02/2006 6/02/2006 1,o-13 6/02/2006 //V 6/05/2006 q 6/05/2006 6/06/2006 6/06/2006 6/30/2006 a3 9/30/2006 dS- ?y' 9/05/2006 1/ 9/14/2006 30- 7-2, 10/16/2006 73-7f 10/19/2006 10/23/2006 11/09/2006 FIRST ENTRY COMPLAINT - CUSTODY ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CUSTODY COMPLAINT AND FOR SPECIAL RELIEF -------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - 06-05-06 - IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDERED: 1. RESPONDENT_/DEFT LUZ MARTIR SHALL NOT REMOVE THE CHILD FROM THE COMM OF PA PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF COURT 2. HEARING SCHEDULED 06-06-06 AT 9:30 AM IN CR 5 OF CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 06-05-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - 06-05-06 - IN RE:'PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE 07-06-06 AT 8:30 AM AT MDJ MANLOVE 1901 STATE ST CAMP HILL - FOR THE COURT BY MELISSA P GREEVY ATTY CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 06-06-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - 06-06-06 - IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF-CUSTODY - DENIED - CUSTODY CONCILIATION HEARING 07-06-06 AT 8:30 AM - MAKE CHILD AVAILABLE IN THIS JURISDICTION - RESPONDENT MUST COMPLY OR BE SUBJECT TO CONTEMPT POWER OF COURT - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 06-07-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IN CUSTODY AND NEW MATTER - BY JESSICA HOLST ATTY ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BY JESSICA HOLST ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTION FOR HEARING - BY JESSICA HOLST ATTY FOR DEFT-LUZ MARTIR ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - 09-13-06 - IN RE: CUSTODY HEARING 10-20-06 AT 8:15 AM IN CHAMBERS - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 09-14-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIPT FILED - BY-M L EBERT JR J ------------------------------------------------------------------- REPLY TO NEW MATTER - BY ANNE MACDONALD-FOX / FAMILY LAW CLINIC ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - 10-20-06 - IN RE: HEARING 11-06-06 AT 10:30 AM CR 5 CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - BY ML EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 10-23-06 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - 11-06-06 - IN RE: REQUEST FOR VISITIATION - AFTER HEARING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS ORDERED TO BE 14224408302007 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 2 PYS510 Civil Case Print 2006-03161 COOPER SELINA (vs) MARTIR LUZ ET AL Reference No..: Filed......... 6/02/2006 Case Type...... COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time.......... 2:03 Judgment...... .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 1206MD 2007 Higher Crt 2.: TRANSCRIBED - FINAL BRIEFS WILL BE ORDERED 15 DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF THE TRANSCRIPT - BY ML EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 11-09-06 -------------------------------------------------------------------T AND ?a 3/08/2007 OFRTLI?W - BYOJILLRVHAMMILL/CERTSLEGAL?INTERU .& ANNE MACDONALD-FOXNS SUPERVISING ATTY ------------------------------------RD --------I---------------- g3-?17 6/14/2007 PARTIAL-CUS-TODYESHALLCBE DENIEDT- O ER fib DRECTEDETTHAT - FULLR- - - - ION CUSTODY SHALL BE AWARDED TO THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF THE CHILD BY M L EBERT JR J COPIES MAILED 6/14/07 49-,140 7/13/2007 NOTICE OF'APPEAL - TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PA FROM ORDER ENTERED IN THIS MATTER ON 06-13-07 - BY FAMILY LAW CLINIC ANNE MACDONALD- FOX SUPERVISING ATTY ----- ------ --------- ----------- -------- --------- /0.3 7/16/2007 ORDER-OF-COURT---DATED-07-16-07--IN-RE:-NOTICE-OF-APPEAL---THE APPELLANT IS ORDERED TO FILE WITH THIS COURT A CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL NO LATER THAN JULY 30 2007 - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 07-16-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------- /Dy -/p'7 7/19/2007 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO #1206 MDA 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/30/2007 1925(8) STBYEFFAAMMIILYFLAWTCLINICOATTYSNFOROPLFFRSUANT TO PA R A P ------------------------------------------------------------------- ?Jb 8/02/2007 COMPLAINEDEOFFPURSUANT TOTPA RAP1925(B) - BYSTATEMENT FAMILYALAWRCLINIC ATTYS FOR PLFF ------------------------------------- 7----------------------------- 8/16/2007 COPIES MAILEOPINION 8/1U1?2007T TO PA R A P 1925 BY M L EBERT JR J - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/22/2007 AMENDED ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/22/07 - IN RE OPINION PURSUANT TO PA RAP 1925 ORDERED AND DIRECTED,THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED OPINION RECENTLY FILED WITH THE PROTHO1?jOT Y'S OFFICE IN THIS MATTER IS HEREBY AMENDED TO BE DATED V7 07 - THE REMAINDER OF THE OPINION SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EF ECT - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 8/22/07 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/30/2007 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO JESSICA HOLST ESQ -MID PENN LEGAL SERVICES AND JILL HAMMIL ANNE MACDONALD-FOX ESQ - FAMILY LAW CLINIC - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ilq ************** m****************************************************** * Escrow Info ation * Fees & Debits Beq*Bal***Pymts7Ad * End Bal ******************************** **** ****** ****************************** APPEAL HIGH CT 48.00 48.00 .00 ------------------------ ------------ 48.00 48.00 .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information ******************************************************************************** TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, 1 here unto set my hand and the seal of said Court at Carlisle, Pa. This 3...... day of.. ......,a7 ?... Prothonotary CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: Selina Cooper VS. Luz Martir and Jason Heisey 1206 MDA 2007 2006-3161 Civil The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.120 to 371, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 09-25-2007. Curtis A. Long, Prothonotary Regina K. Lebo, Deputy An additional cony of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. Date Signature & Title Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: 1, Curtis R. Long , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the case therein stated, wherein Selina Cooper Plaintiff, and Luz Msrtir and Hason Hein Defendant , as the same remains of record before the said Court at No. 2006-3161 of civil- Term, A. D. 19 In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, l have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this 25 d of S=t A. .,2007, Prothonotary 1, Edclar B Bayley President Judge of the Nin Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that n pia R rang. , by whom the annexed record, certificate and attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, at the time of so doing, and now is Prothonotary in and for said County of n _rl and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and qualified to all of whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judicatu else here, and that the said record, certificate and attestation are in due form of law and made the prop fic . ;op -7 Pr . ident .1 gc Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: I, Curtis R. Long , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable Edgar . Bayley by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this day o _ D. =2041. S Prothonotary Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the county of Cumberland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1206 MA 2007 to No. 2006-3161 Civil Term, 19 is contained the following: COPY OF mearance DOCKET ENTRY Selina Cooper VS. % Luz Martir and Jason Heisey **Supplemental Record ** **See Certified Copy of the Docket Entries** 1 1 o' 0 N' a 0 o Z. Y T O O U A O w ? w w y C4 L3- O O V T W c s O Q. + +v.+i.? ?.ullwCtlallu VVUllI..Y rt%JL.111J11VL.CLly 0 V.L L_L rdyC 1 • Civil Case Print 2006-03161 COOPER SELINA (vs) MARTIR LUZ ET AL Reference No. Filed......... 6/02/2006 Case Type...... COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time. ... 2.03 Judgment..... : .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 1206MDA2007 Higher Crt 2.: ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info COOPER SELINA PLAINTIFF FAMILY LAW CLINIC 324 MARKET STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 MARTIR LUZ DEFENDANT 321 WEST MAIN STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 HEISEY JASON DEFENDANT 5266 WEST RIGE ROAD ELIZABETHTOWN (LAN CO) PA 17022 * Date Entries - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - cl- °7 6/02/2006 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/02/2006 PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 10-13 6/02/2006 PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ------------------------------------------------------------------- Iq 6/05/2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CUSTODY COMPLAINT AND FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ------------------------------------------------------------------- g 6/05/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 06-05-06 - IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDERED: 1. RESPONDENT/DEFT LUZ MARTIR SHALL NOT REMOVE THE CHILD FROM THE COMM OF PA PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF COURT 2. HEARING SCHEDULED 06-06-06 AT 9:30 AM IN CR 5 OF CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 06-05-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- / 6/06/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 06-05-06 - IN RE: PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE 07-06-06 AT 8:30 AM AT MDJ MANLOVE 1901 STATE ST CAMP HILL -'FOR THE COURT BY MELISSA P GREEVY ATTY CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 06-06-06 ------------------------------------------------------- /•S 6/06/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 06-06-06 - IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF-CUSTODY - DENIED - CUSTODY CONCILIATION HEARING 07-06-106 AT 8:30 AM - MAKE CHILD AVAILABLE IN THIS JURISDICTION - RESP6ib9 T MUST COMPLY OR BE SUBJECT TO CONTEMPT POWER OF COURT - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 06-07-06 ---------------------------------------------- 6/30/2006 A SWER TO COMPLAINT IN CUSTODY AND NEW MATTER - BY JESSICA HOIST ------------------------------------------------------------------- a3 9/30/2006 PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BY JESSICA HOLST ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- as-a 9 9/05/2006 MOTION FOR HEARING - BY JESSICA HOLST ATTY FOR DEFT-LUZ MARTIR -------------------------------------------------------------w----- a y 9/14/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 09-13-06 -.IN RE: CUSTODY HEARING 10-20-06 AT 8:15 AM IN CHAMBERS - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 09-14-06 30.7.i 10/16/2006 TRANSCRIPT -FILED -_-BY-M-L-EBERT-JR-J-------------------------- ---- 10/19/2006 REPLY TO NEW MATTER - BY ANNE MACDONALD-FOX / FAMILY LAW CLINIC 10/23/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 10-20-06 - IN RE: HEARING 11-06-06 AT 10:30 FM CR 5 CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - BY ML EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 10-23,06 11/09/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 11-06-06-- IN RE: REQUEST FOR VISITIATION - ?FTER HEARING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS ORDERED TO BE TRANSCRIBED - FINAL BRIEFS WILL BE ORDERED 15 DAYS AFTER THE Civil Case Print 2006-03161 COOPER SELINA (vs) MARTIR LUZ ET AL Reference No... Filed......... 6/02/2006 Case Type...... COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time. ... . 2.03 Judgment .... .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Jude Assigned: EBERT M L JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Dispoosed Date. U00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- High Crt 1.: 12MDA2007 Higher Crt 2.: FILING OF THE TRANSCRIPT - BY ML EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED' 11-09-06 _ _ _ ---------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF ----------------------------------------------------------- FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BY JILL HAMMILL/CERT LEGAL INTERN & ANNE MACDONALD-FOX SUPERVISING ATTY -----------------------------------------------------------t ------- OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - DATED JUNE 13 2007 - PETITIONiFOR PARTIAL CUSTODY SHALL BE DENIED - ORDER A96 DIRECTED THAT FULL CUSTODY SHALL BE AWARDED TO THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF THE CHILD BY M L EBERT JR J COPIES MAILED 6/.,14/07 --------------- I -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NOTICE OF APPEAL - TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PA FROM ORDER ENTERID IN THIS MATTER ON 06-13-07 - BY FAMILY LAW CLINIC ANNE MACDONA D- FOX SUPERVISING ATTY ------------------------------------------------------------,------- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 07-16-07- IN RE: NOTICE OF APPEAL - HE APPELLANT IS ORDERED TO FILE WITH THIS COURT A CONCISE STAT MENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL NO LATER THAN JULY 30 200 ,7 - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 07-16-07 ------------------------------------------------------------ ------- SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO #1206 MDA2007 CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF PURSUANT TO PA R A P 1925(B) - BY FAMILY LAW CLINIC ATTYS FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - THE CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF PURSUANT TO PA RAP1925(B) - BY FAMILY LAW CLINIC ATTYS FOR PLFF F2 3/08/2007 g3- q7 6/14/2007 glg `1W 7/13/2007 ?a3 7/16/2007 10q_ X07 7/19/2007 106 _ 1pR 7/30/2007 p o 8/02/2007 I/K 119 !RD-370 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/16/2007 CDPIE: MOPINIO8/1Ug2007T TO PA R A P 1925 BY M L EBERT JR J 8/22/2007 AMENDED ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/22/07 - IN RE OPINION PURSUANT TO PA RAP 1925 - ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED - OPINION RECENTLY FILED WITH THE PROTHONOT Y'S OFFICE IN THIS MATTER IS HEREBY AMENDED TO BE DATED 8//16 07 - THE REMAINDER OF THE OPINION SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EF ECT - BY M L EBERTJR J IeF?e?r?'I?+KOf COPIES MAILED 8/22/07 ----- ------------------------------------------------------------ - 8/30/2007 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO JESSICA HOLST ESQ -MID PWILY LEGAL SERVICES AND JILL HAMMIL ANNE MACDONALD-FOX ESQ - F LAW CLINIC ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/24/2007 TRANSCRIPT FILED BY M L EBERT JR J ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/25/2007 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO JESSICA HOLST ESQ - MID PENN LEGAL SERVICES AND JILL HAMMIL ANNE MACDONALD-FOX - FAMILY'LAW CLINIC ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/25/2007 SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD MAILED UPS TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA - - - - - - - - = LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3'71 PA - 6; * Escrow Information * Fees & Debits Beq Bal Pmts/Add End Bal APPEAL HIGH CT 48.00 48.00 .00 ------------------------ ------------ 48.00 48.00 .00 * End of Case Information TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whcreo , r h,, re unto set my hand and the seal of said Court at Carlisle, Pa. This ....?.... day of. ......., ;J. ,0................... ... .. ...... ,•....... i Prothonotary , e Superior Court of Pennsylvania Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Middle District Prothonotary James D. McCullough, Esq. July 2, 2008 Deputy Prothonotary Certificate of Remittal/Remand of Record TO: Mr. Curtis R. Long Prothonotary RE: Cooper, S. v. Martir, L. et al No. 1206 MDA 2007 Trial Court/Agency Dkt. Number: 06-3161 Trial Court/Agency Name: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Intermediate Appellate Court Number: 100 Pine Street. Suite 400 Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-772-1294 www.superior.court.state.pa.us Annexed hereto pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 2571 and 2572 is the entire record for the above matter. Contents of Original Record: Original Record Item Part Supplemental Part Date of Remand of Record: Filed Date Description August 31, 2007 1 September 26, 200' 1 AM 11 2008 ORIGINAL RECIPIENT ONLY - Please acknowledge receipt by signing, dating, and returning the enclosed copy of this certificate to our office. Copy recipients (noted below) need not acknowledge receipt. Jame . McCul ough, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary Signature Date Printed Name ° ?' ? ? ? ...- ? CJ'? -`' W ?t?. .,.a =3 ?" " t' ' ? L w?. ;- . ? ? t W 3. A06003/08 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 SELINA COOPER, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA V. . No. 1206 Middle District Appeal 2007 LUZ MARTIR AND JASON HEISEY Appeal from the Order Entered June 14, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at No. 06-3161 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., DONOHUE AND POPOVICH, JJ. MEMORANDUM: FILED: July 2, 2008 Appellant, Selina Cooper ("Cooper") appeals from the order entered June 14, 2007, denying her petition for partial custody of Lucian Orian Martir ("Lucian"), son of Cooper's former girlfriend, appellee Luz Martir ("Mother").1 The-trial court summarized the extensive factual evidence of the case as follows: Plaintiff Selina 'Shawn' Cooper of 427 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, and [Mother] of 321 West Main Street, Hummelstown, Pennsylvania, met while both were serving sentences in Cambridge Springs State Correctional Institution and became involved in an on-and-off romantic relationship which lasted for roughly eight years. During a period of separation, [Mother] began to see Co-Defendant Jason Heisey and became pregnant with his child. During this pregnancy, Cooper attempted to 1 Jason Heisey was also named as a defendant in this case as he is the natural father of Lucian. However, Mr. Heisey has not participated in any hearings and has not filed a brief on appeal. I A06003/08 reconcile with [Mother] -- even proposing to her -- but [Mother] declined the invitation. [Mother] would later suffer a miscarriage and for a time maintained no relationship with either Heisey or Cooper. [Mother] eventually reunited with Heisey and conceived once more, but broke off the relationship before the birth in December 2003 and reconciled with Cooper. Cooper and [Mother] continued to see each other on-and-off for the next three years but broke off the relationship permanently in February 2006. Cooper now seeks partial custody of [Mother]'s son, claiming that she has sufficient standing to support such a request and that such an action would be in the best interests of the child. Although [Mother] asked Cooper to help raise her child, their relationship remained tumultuous. Cooper assisted in prenatal care and was present for the birth but was clear in her disapproval of the pregnancy. [Mother] testified that Cooper treated her badly during her pregnancy and made no attempts to hide the fact that she did not want the baby -- going so far as to tell [Mother] that she hoped the child died in her stomach. [Mother] further alleges that Cooper abused her physically at that time and would strike her on all areas of her body but her stomach, which [Mother] protected with her arms. Supporting testimony reveals that Cooper admitted to others that she verbally and physically abused [Mother]. Cooper is self-employed as an airbrush artist and is currently involved in two business ventures. She owns 2505 Design, where she custom designs motorcycle helmets and other cycle-related gear, and co-owns Lethal InjeXion, where she is responsible for sales and web design. She also sells business items on eBay, though testimony suggests that she often receives payments but never delivers the sold items. Cooper operates two websites for her businesses, both containing explicit content and derogatory language. On her Myspace page, Cooper -2- J. A06003/08 describes herself as gangster, cocky, arrogant, and a heavy partier. The reciprocated graphic language provided by her friends and family on the site offers vivid examples of the type of people with whom Cooper commonly associates. On the 2505 Design website, Cooper is shown jello wrestling with women, kissing women, and engaging in alcoholic activities. Other pictures from the two sites depict Cooper's seventeen-year-old brother partying with Cooper and her friends, a man holding a small puppy in his left hand while pointing a large assault rifle at its head, Cooper modeling a shirt which says, 'I don't want the bitch unless she's yours,' and a picture of Cooper with newspaper captions superimposed over her face relating to a criminal shooting incident in which she was previously involved. Several of the gallery captions over these photographs include: 'Radford Bitches' and 'Woosta Muthafuggas.' The 2505 Design website also contains a caption stating, '2505 Design in no way, shape, or form supports violence against children, but will whoop your grown ass for talking shit.' Cooper claims that these websites are meant solely for entertainment purposes, but other testimony shows that the photographs and comments made on the websites are unexaggerated, accurate depictions of Cooper's lifestyle. In fact, Cooper has a significant criminal record which includes multiple charges and convictions including: assisting in a drive-by shooting at a high school, fleeing and eluding police officers, failure to contain a canine, and contempt of court. In addition to working in a bike shop, engaging in wild parties, and attending biker functions, Cooper is president of the Ruff Ryders, a local biker organization known for maintaining a hard and controversial lifestyle. Cooper is an active and participating member of the biker club but holds neither a motorcycle license nor a general driver's license. The Ruff Ryders are gang rivals of the Harrisburg Street Kings. Cooper has previously had arguments with members of this rival biker group while out clubbing. [Mother] actually left Cooper -3- I A06003/08 because she feared that the rival biker group would be retaliating against the Ruff Ryders, and against Cooper as their president, and did not want her son to be in such a dangerous environment. Although Cooper owns or co-owns two businesses, she receives very little net income from the ventures and provided minimal support for the threesome during the period of cohabitation. The group was evicted several times and apartment utilities were often turned off. [Mother], already on welfare, was forced to return to work four months after Lucian was born because Cooper provided insufficient support. After [Mother] returned to work and school, Cooper, whose self-employment provided her some flexibility in regard to hours and schedule, would watch Lucian at her shop. [Mother] would repay Cooper for the babysitting time by buying motorcycle parts or providing bail money to secure her release from jail. Although Cooper would watch Lucian most of the time, she was easily frustrated by the child. On multiple occasions she called [Mother] at work and requested that she come and pick Lucian up because she could not manage him. On one occasion, Cooper called [Mother] to retrieve Lucian because the sheriffs were at the door to arrest her. Cooper did participate in multiple parenting activities, such as bathing, feeding, and laundry, but was never given independent authority over the welfare of the child. [Mother] maintains that Cooper would not abide by her expressed wishes in regard to discipline, education, and religion, and would often simply defy her wishes. Perhaps it is for this reason that [Mother] never permitted Cooper to spend a night alone with Lucian, to make medical decisions for the child, or help choose Lucian's daycare facilities. During her relationship with Cooper, [Mother] did make an effort to include Cooper in Lucian's life as her significant other. [Mother] forged Lucian's -4- I A06003/08 birth certificate to include Cooper's name in order that she and her son might both enter the York County prison to visit Cooper. [Footnote 43] [Mother] referred to Cooper as 'biddy' when talking to Lucian, and gave Cooper a 'Happy Diddy Day' card on Father's Day signed by both [Mother] and her son. At the request of [Mother], the three posed for a family portrait and offered the pictures to other family members. The threesome spent holidays together, often with Cooper's family. [Mother] befriended Cooper's family and commonly referred to Cooper's mother as 'Grandma,' and Cooper's sister as 'Tee Tee,' when talking to her son. When the relationship between the two parties was not going well, it was [Mother] who suggested that the family attend couple's counseling. While her actions suggest that [Mother] encouraged and approved of developing a parent- child relationship between Cooper and Lucian, [Mother] claims that she specifically told Cooper not to refer to herself as Lucian's parent and that she never introduced Cooper as Lucian's parent. [Mother] has expressed concerns that Cooper does not have a sense of family and cares little about the example she sets for her siblings who hold her in high esteem. [Footnote 51] [Mother] does not approve of Cooper's lifestyle and she does not believe Cooper is a good role model for her son. [Mother] has created a new life for herself and son since her separation from Cooper. She is currently engaged and expecting a new child with her fianc6e. She plans to move to Puerto Rico with her fianc6e and children following the birth of the new child. The family has decided to stay on the mainland for the birth so that the father may be in the delivery room, which is not allowed in Puerto Rico. The couple will then be married in Puerto Rico where [Mother]'s family lives. Her father has built her a home in Puerto Rico where she and her family may reside upon her return. She plans to work as an English teacher and hopes to begin teaching English upon her return home. -5- J. A06003/08 [Footnote 431 .... [Mother] contends that she did not make the forgery for Cooper to see Lucian, but only because no one else was available to care for her child at the time. [Footnote 51] ... [Mother] attempted to convey to Cooper that her siblings admired her and that she should try to have a positive impact on their lives. In response, Cooper said that her siblings were not her responsibility and if her mother could not handle them then, "why the hell do I have to do that?' Trial court opinion, 6/14/07 at 2-7 (other footnotes omitted). On June 2, 2006, Cooper filed a complaint for custody and a petition for special relief seeking emergency custody pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1915.13. On June 6, 2006, the trial court held a hearing on the petition for special relief, which was denied. The court then scheduled a custody conciliation hearing for July 6, 2006, wherein the court required Mother and Lucian to be available. On June 30, 2006, Mother filed an answer and new matter alleging that Cooper lacked standing to pursue custody of Lucian. The custody conciliator relinquished jurisdiction; and on September 5, 2006, Mother filed a motion for a hearing on the issue of standing. A combined hearing on the issues of standing and the best interests of the child was held on November 6, 2006. Subsequently, the trial court ordered the parties to submit briefs. On June 14, 2007, the trial court issued an order and opinion holding that Cooper had in loco parentis standing to bring a custody action in this -6- J. A06003/08 matter. However, the court denied Cooper's request for partial custody of Lucian based upon an evaluation of his best interests. Mother was given full custody. Cooper now appeals the trial court's decision. On July 16, 2007, the trial court ordered Cooper to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Cooper timely complied and now raises the following five issues in her brief for our review.2 1. Did the Trial Court err as a matter of law by applying the 'clear and convincing' evidence standard used for primary custody cases to determine whether granting Plaintiff's request for limited partial custody was in the child's best interest? 2. Did the Trial Court err as a matter of law by not sufficiently considering a lesser partial custody or visitation schedule than requested by the Plaintiff, despite the Court's determination that Plaintiff had in loco parentis standing and, therefore, rights and liabilities exactly the same as between parent and child? 3. Did the Trial Court err as a matter of law by considering Plaintiff's financial situation a significant factor in the Trial Court's analysis of the child's best interests when Plaintiff was seeking only limited partial custody of the child? 4. Did the Trial Court err as a matter of law by admitting into evidence information from Plaintiff's MySpace web page, which was unreliable hearsay? z On appeal, Cooper abandons one of the six issues she raised in her concise statement regarding the trial court sua sponte taking judicial notice of her criminal record. -7- 3. A06003/08 5. Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion by basing its decision on facts not supported by competent evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Court's conclusions regarding biker organizations and conflicts between rival biker groups when there was insufficient information in the record to support those conclusions? Cooper's brief at 8. Our standard of review of a child custody order is as follows: We are not bound by deductions and inferences drawn by the trial court from the facts found, nor are we required to accept findings which are wholly without support in the record. On the other hand, our broad scope of review does not authorize us to nullify the fact-finding function of the trial court in order to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Rather, we are bound by findings supported by the record, and may reject conclusions drawn by the trial court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court. Ferdinand v. Ferdinand, 763 A.2d 820, 822 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 682, 784 A.2d 118 (2001), quoting Thomas v. Thomas, 739 A.2d 206 (Pa.Super. 1999) (en banc). The paramount consideration in child custody cases is the best interests and welfare of the child. McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198, 602 A.2d 845 (1992). First, Cooper argues that the trial court erred by applying a clear and convincing standard in assessing her petition for partial custody. Cooper specifically argues that a clear and convincing standard should only be applied when a third party is seeking primary custody of the child at issue. -8- J. A06003/08 Cooper alleges that when a party is seeking only partial custody, as is the case in the instant petition, then a lesser burden should be placed upon the third party. Cooper claims that she should have been required to meet the lesser burden of proving that it is in the best interests of Lucian to maintain a relationship with her. Instantly, the trial court found that Cooper stood in loco parentis to Lucian. As such, she possesses a prima facie right sufficient to grant standing to litigate the question of custody. However, it is important to remember that this "prima facie right to custody" means only that Cooper has standing to seek custody of Lucian; this finding does not affect her evidentiary burden. T.B. v. L.R.M., 753 A.2d 873, 883 (Pa.Super. 2000), order affirmed, 567 Pa. 222, 786 A.2d 913 (2001). In order to be granted either primary or partial custody, Cooper must still establish that it would be in the best interest of the child under the standards applicable to third parties. Id. [W]here the custody dispute is between a biological parent and a third party, the burden of proof is not evenly balanced. In such instances, the parents have a prima facie right to custody, which will be forfeited only if `convincing reasons' appear that the child's best interest will be served by an award to the third party. Thus, even before the proceedings start, the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the [biological] parents' side. The prima facie right to custody of the biological parent, our Supreme Court has explained, required the third party to bear a heavy burden of production and persuasion. Once evidence relevant to the child's best interest is presented, the court must decide whether the -9- J. A06003/08 evidence on behalf of the third party is weighty enough to bring the scale up to even and then down on the side of the third party. Id. at 889 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Cooper claims that this heavy burden should be lessened when a third party is seeking only partial custody. We have held that it is imperative that the courts evaluate the quantity and quality of evidence in determining the best interest of a child. Additionally, this court has stated that "[t]he burden on a third party in a visitation case is not as heavy as it is in a custody case, because an order granting visitation is a lesser intrusion on the parent's right to continuous custody." Id., citing Bucci v. Bucci, 506 A.2d 438 (Pa.Super. 1986). As the amount of time requested moves the visit further from a visit and closer to custody, either partial or primary, the reasons offered in support of such a request must become correspondingly more convincing as the intrusion on a biological parent's rights increases. Id. Based upon the fact that Cooper petitioned for partial custody of Lucian, we find that the trial court did not err in determining that Cooper was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of the child that she be granted partial custody. If Cooper, as a third party, had been granted partial custody of the child, thus effectively intruding upon Mother's right to custody, she would be required to support her request by correspondingly convincing evidence. -10- J. A06003/08 In her second issue, Cooper claims that the trial court erred by failing to grant her either partial custody or visitation. Specifically, Cooper argues that once the trial court determined that her original request of partial custody was not in the best interests of Lucian, then the court should have considered a lesser partial custody arrangement or visitation schedule. Cooper claims that the trial court did not sufficiently consider either of these above options. In her brief, Cooper cites to cases where the courts have granted partial custody and visitation to parents with a history of drug abuse, homelessness, psychiatric and personality deficits. (Cooper's brief at 26.) Cooper states that she does not suffer from any of these deficiencies and, as such, should have been granted partial custody. As previously stated, the courts must consider the best interest of the child when assessing custody. T.B., supra at 883. "The 'best interest of the child' standard considers all factors that legitimately have an influence upon the child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well being on a case-by-case basis." Id. at 888, citing Lee v. Fontine, 594 A.2d 724 (1991). Pennsylvania law makes clear that the best interest analysis in a custody dispute should include several important factors, such as parenthood; the length of time the child has been separated from the party seeking custody; the adverse effect on the child caused by disruption of an established relationship; and the fitness of the party seeking custody. Id. at 889. - 11 - J. A06003/08 After considering all of the evidence presented and analyzing the factors which should be considered in determining custody, the trial court held that it would not be in the best interest of Lucian to award Cooper partial custody or visitation. (Trial court opinion, 6/14/07 at 12; 8/16/07 at 4.) The trial court summarized the best interest analysis as follows: Exposure to Cooper's character will do little to improve and nurture the child's physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being. Cooper clearly maintains a hard and dangerous lifestyle and has a history of incarceration and violent conduct. In fact, she seems to be proud of her criminal past, as is evidenced by her photographic choices on her company website. She is the president of a biker organization which is known for hard partying and rough living. She has held herself out both professionally and personally as a tough woman with little regard for the law or the well-being of others -- including other members of her family. She candidly admits that she enjoys being heavily intoxicated and testimony shows that she engages in such behavior on a consistent basis. Photographs and language placed on her professional and personal websites provide convincing evidence that Cooper enjoys controversy and takes pleasure in maintaining a risky and unstable lifestyle. Her own reckless life choices will undoubtedly influence an impressionable child left in her care. We are also concerned that Cooper has not proven herself capable of caring for Lucian in the past. Multiple times she had to contact [Mother] for help because she could not properly care for the child. She has shown herself to be financially unstable in both her personal and business accounts and has been evicted on multiple occasions or has not been able to make regular utility payments. This Court finds little support to believe any of Cooper's -12- 3. A06003/08 business ventures will succeed financially. Providing a safe and stable environment is paramount to a child's successful development, and Cooper has failed to convince us that she can provide either safety or stability. Trial court opinion, 6/14/07 at 12-13 (footnote omitted). Additionally, the testimony at the custody hearing established that Cooper has not visited Lucian since May of 2006. (Notes of testimony, 11/6/06 at 205.) Since that time, Cooper has spoken only once to Lucian on the telephone. (Id. at 110.) Mother testified that Lucian did not recognize Cooper's voice and only spoke to her briefly. Furthermore, after reviewing the cases cited by Cooper in which she maintains that partial custody and/or visitation was granted to parents with a history of drug abuse, homelessness, psychiatric and personality deficits, we find those cases inapposite to the case at bar. In each of the cases, the court was assessing the ability of the children's biological parents to maintain custody. In the instant case, Cooper, as a third party, had a heavier burden of proving that it was in Lucian's best interest to grant her partial custody. Based upon the above evidence, we find that the trial court did not err in determining that it was not in Lucian's best interest to award Cooper partial custody. Furthermore, it does not appear that Lucian and Cooper have maintained a relationship which would be negatively affected by granting Mother sole custody. -13- J. A06003/08 In her third issue, Cooper claims that the trial court erred by considering her financial situation when determining the best interests of the child. As we have previously stated, when determining the best interests of Lucian, the trial court must consider all factors that legitimately have an influence upon his physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well being. T.B., supra. In its opinion, the trial court stated that Cooper had demonstrated that she is not capable of providing a safe, functional living environment for Lucian and has shown a lack of judgment evidenced by her poor financial history. (Trial court opinion, 8/16/07 at 4.) Cooper's fiscal irresponsibility has led to evictions, utility shut-offs, and disgruntled customers. (Notes of testimony, 11/6/06 at 53, 140.) This evidence directly relates to Cooper's ability to care for Lucian. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err by considering this as one factor in its analysis. In her fourth issue, Cooper argues that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence information regarding her MySpace webpage. Cooper claims that the information contained on her MySpace webpage was inadmissible hearsay evidence. Cooper argues that the information contained on her web page was exaggerated and should have only been used for entertainment purposes. As is well established, hearsay is an oral or written statement, other than one made by a declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, that is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Pa.R.E. 801. -14- J. A06003/08 As a general rule, hearsay is inadmissible into evidence due to its inherent unreliability. Pa.R.E. 802; Commonwealth v. Brady, 741 A.2d 758, 764 (Pa.Super. 1999). Thus, hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls into one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. W. Instantly, we find that the admission of the information contained on Cooper's webpage falls into one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Rule 803(25) does not exclude evidence as hearsay if "[t]he statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement in either an individual or representative capacity, or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth." Pa.R.E. 803(25) (admission by a party-opponent). The information contained on Cooper's personal webpage was written by her regarding her lifestyle. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in admitting it into evidence. Furthermore, once the information on the web page was admitted, Cooper was free to testify that it was an exaggeration as was the trial court free to determine Cooper's credibility. In her last issue on appeal, Cooper claims that the trial court based its decision upon facts which were not supported by competent evidence of record. Specifically, Cooper cites to the trial court's statement in its June 14, 2007 opinion that it found the information regarding the conflict between the rival biker groups particularly concerning. (Cooper's brief at 31.) Cooper argues that no evidence was presented which would support a -15- 3. A06003/08 finding that there was conflict between Cooper's biker group and another rival group. ""[W]e are bound by findings supported by the record, and may reject conclusions drawn by the trial court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court." Ferdinand, supra. Mother testified at trial regarding Cooper's biker group and the rival group. Mother stated that Cooper is the president of her biker organization, Ruff Ryders. Mother testified that Cooper has had some problems with members of the rival biker group, Street Kings. Mother stated that Cooper had been in an altercation with members of the rival group while she was out clubbing. Mother claimed that Cooper was scared that members of the Street Kings were going to come to Cooper's shop. (Notes of testimony, 11/6/06 at 211.) The trial court, as the finder-of-fact, was entitled to weigh the evidence presented and assess the credibility of witnesses. B.S. v. T.M., 782 A.2d 1031, 1037 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal denied, 569 Pa. 678, 800 A.2d 930 (2002), citing Gill v. Gill, 677 A.2d 1214, 1216 (Pa.Super. 1996). "The finder-of-fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence, and this court will not disturb the trial court's credibility determinations." Id. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in relying upon Mother's testimony regarding the rival biker groups. Order affirmed. -16- J. A06003/08 Judgment Entered: c -.11" eu Prothonotary July 2, 2008 Date: - 17- -- vy s " ' ; ' VIA . CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: Selina Cooper vs. Luz Martir and Jason Heisey 06-3161 Civil Term 1206 MDA 200 i • The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.l to 119, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable defmiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 08/30/2007 . Goy: Curtis R. Long,-Prothonotary Regina K. Lebo, Deputy An additional cony of this certificate is enclosed Please sign and date copy thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. Received in Super±~t court Date Signature & Title AUG 3 i 2007 MIDDLE c: • CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: Selina Cooper vs. Luz Martir and Jason Heisey 06-3161 Civil Term 1206 MDA 2007 • The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.l to 119, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 08/30!2007 . --- / C is R. Low of onotary Regina K. Lebo, Deputy An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy. thereby aclmowledging receipt of this record. Date Signa~~~f~~elN SUPERIOR COURT AUG 31 ?~07 • MIDDLE • CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER • PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the Jacket entries ire the fallowing matter: Selina Cooper vs. Luz Martir and Jason Heisey 1206 MDA 2007 2006-3161 Civil • The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.120 to 371, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 09-25-2007 . Curt' R. Long, Prothonotar Regina K. Lebo, Deputy An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. Date Signature & Title RECORD FILED IN SUPERIOR COURT ~ ~L ~ 2007 ~~pDL~