Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-6790 II Wilmer L. Bowman II, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~ NO. 06- &; 71{) CIVIL TERM v. Renae J. Fink, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. Plaintiff is Wilmer L. Bowman, an adult individual whose residence is at 162 Victoria Avenue NW, Canton, Ohio. 2. Defendant is Renae J. Fink, an adult individual whose residence is at 95 Franklin Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff seeks shared legal and physical custody of his children: Chastity M. Bowman, born January 14,1996 and Tyrell L. Bowman, born September 29,1997. 4. The children are presently in the custody primarily of defendant and partially of plaintiff. 5. The children have lived at the following addresses: Name Address Dates Chastity M. Bowman 95 South Franklin St. August 2006 - Present Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 676 Cumberland Point Circle Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 1998- August 2006 Tyrell L. Bowman Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17109 95 South Franklin St. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 August 2006 - Present 1996-1998 676 Cumberland Point Circle Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 1998 - August 2006 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 1997-1998 II 6. The relationship of the plaintiff to the children is that of natural father. 7. The relationship of the defendant to the children is that of natural mother. 8. The plaintiff has not participated as a party or in any other capacity in other litigation concerning the custody of the children in this or any other Court. 9. Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in a Court of this Commonwealth. 10. No other persons are known to have or claim to have any right to custody or visitation of the children other than the parties to this action. 11. Mother was incarcerated at Cumberland County Prison from June 19, 2000 until July 17, 2000 due to a conviction relating to the distribution of an illegal substance. 12. While mother was incarcerated father was the primary care giver of the children. 13. Mother smokes tobacco and drinks while in the presence of the children. 14. During the summer months, the children are with the father. 15. The father will be enrolling the children at the North Canton YMCA Child Care Center in Canton, Ohio. 16. The best interest and permanent welfare of the children will be served by granting the relief requested. 17. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the child have been named as parties to this action. II WHEREFORE, Wherefore, plaintiff requests your Honorable Court schedule a conciliation conference and sUbsequently grant the plaintiff's requests for shared legal custody and shared physical custody of the children between plaintiff and defendant. Defendant will have physical custody of the children during the school year and Plaintiff will have physical custody of the children during the summer months when school is not in session. Parties will alternate weekends throughout the year. Respectfully Submitted TURO LAW OFFICES Jlbf:!{ /0 , Date en R. Waltz, Esqu' 28 South Pitt Str Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff/Father II VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Custody Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. /7...1'A//~t:, Date ~~ t?/l!i1mer . 0 an II II . I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Galen R. Waltz, Esquire hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Custody Complaint, by certified return receipt reques~.f. and depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on th~aay of, ;Y \vQ..-~, - 2006, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Renae J. Fink 9 South Franklin Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 TURO LAW OFFICES Galen R. Waltz, Esquire 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688; FAX 717.245.2165 0 ,....., = ~ c ~ s: c::r- ;it."'t}lT! :z: ~h~ ~ f' -fTlrf' <=> ~ _ ~-r; -< ~ __ . t'::' N ~.~ ~ Cf:!. t'"~)o P <~" CD - ,<~, U', ' !;=U :I!~ - C> ~ c) -0 ~ l'\ D ~ ('l :x O-r1 ;:p-' Z~ -t... ~ c: r:-:> o' ~ ~ ~ -.J ~ 0 ~ ~ \D D ~ -...... ~ "'l ~ . WILMER L. BOWMAN, II PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. 06-6790 CIVIL ACTION LAW RENAE J. FINK DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Thursday, December 07, 2006 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Thursday, December 21, 2006 , the conciliator, at 10:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearine:. FOR THE COURT. By: /s/ Hubert X Gilrov, Esq. 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 infonnation 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 HA VE 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 (~~~ ~ ~~} ~~#~~~ ~'(-,e/ ~ ~p ~~ ~-(.e/ ~~~~?~ tJt7oc.-e/ 'rl! 1'\1\1/\ t)\S\[ \'~3 (1 UJ' ,,,,.. r '''''''''^'no t l\d " 'J ' ; ," )-fHl , l .~j '-', ..... ~ ., '.' . " . 00 :8 Wd L - ::I30900Z AL!\..ol('\,W1:..: : f",:...j,' 3Hi :10 QV v' ,\,..1. L\./",Q , 3~)ij:tO'{J3ll:l WILMER L. BOWMAN, II, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 06 - 6790 CIVIL TERM RENAE J. FINK, DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION CUSTODY ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY To: Wilmer L. Bowman, II c/o Galen R. Waltz, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, P A 17013 1. ADMITTED. 2. DENIED. Defendant's residential address is 9 South Frederick Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 and not 95 Franklin Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 3. ADMITTED. 4. DENIED AS STATED. The Plaintiff has only seen the children occasionally over the last few years as outlined in the New Matter. If a response were required, Defendant incorporates by reference her New Matter as though fully set forth. 5. DENIED AS STATED. The children have lived at the following addresses for the periods of time indicated: Dates July 2006 - Present 2000 - July 2006 1997 - 2000 Location 9 South Frederick Street, Mechanicsburg, P A 676 Cumberland Pointe, Mechanicsburg, P A 6280 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, P A 6. ADMITTED. 7. ADMITTED. 8. ADMITTED. 9. ADMITTED. 10. ADMITTED. 11. DENIED AS STATED. The Defendant was not incarcerated for any "distribution of an illegal substance". The Defendant was an inmate at the Cumberland County Prison for one month commencing 6/19/00 for a non-violent offense which had nothing to do with the "distribution of an illegal substance". During this period of time - which is more than 6 Yz years ago - the children resided with their paternal grandfather and not the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had no role in providing any care for the children during this period of time even though he lived in Harrisburg, Pennsy I vania. 12. DENIED. The Plaintiff has never been the primary caregiver ofthe children at any point in their lives. 13. DENIED IN PART; ADMITTED IN PART. The Defendant does smoke tobacco. The Defendant does not inappropriately consume alcohol in front of the children. 14. DENIED. 15. DENIED. The custodial arrangements for the summer of2007 have not been established and it is premature for the Plaintiff to enroll the children anywhere. 16. DENIED. Defendant incorporates by reference her New Matter as though fully set forth. 17. ADMITTED. WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests entry of an Order confirming the status quo which has been that the Defendant has enjoyed sole and exclusive legal and physical custody of both children since the parties separated in July 1998. NEW MATTER Plaintiff s Lack of Contact with the Children: 18. In the summer of 2006 the Plaintiff enjoyed physical custody of both children for five (5) days in Ohio. 19. In the summer of2006 the Plaintiffs father (paternal grandfather) came to Mechanicsburg and picked up both children and then returned to his home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Paternal grandfather enjoyed physical custody for a week until the Plaintiff asked to have the children for 5 days. At the conclusion of those 5 days Plaintiff returned them to paternal grandfather who then enjoyed the children for another ten (10) days. 2 20. In the summer of 2005 the paternal grandfather enjoyed both children for four (4) weeks. The Plaintiff had no other contact with the children at any time in 2005. 21. In the summer of 2004 the paternal grandfather enjoyed both children for four (4) weeks. The Plaintiff had no other contact with the children at any time in 2004 22. In the summer of 2003 the Plaintiff spent one (1) weekend with the children at paternal grandfather's home in Pittsburgh. The Plaintiffs only other contact was for one (1) day when he picked the children up in Mechanicsburg for a day visit. 23. In 2002 and earlier the Plaintiff spent even less time with the children than outlined above between 2003 - present. 24. Plaintiffs failure to have contact with the children prior to 2003 is entirely voluntary. Plaintiffs Request for Alternating Weekends is Impractical Given the Distance Involved: 25. The Plaintiff lives near Youngstown, Ohio which is three hundred twenty three (323) miles from the Defendant's home in Mechanicsburg. It takes at least 5 Y2 hours of driving to travel one way between the parties' homes. 26. The Plaintiffs request to alternate weekends throughout the school year will mean the children (ages 11 and 9) will travel 13,566 miles (646 miles x 21 alternating weekends) and spend the equivalent of nearly 10 days in a car (231 hours of driving; 11 hours x 21 alternating weekends) for 42 weeks a year (excluding 10 weeks in the summer). 27. During the school year, the children will spend nearly ten (10) days in a car so they can spend twenty (21) days in Ohio. 28. This driving schedule is not only impractical given the distance and time involved but it would mean the children spend little quality time with the Plaintiff. For example, assuming the children need to return to Mechanicsburg by 8:00 PM on a Sunday evening, they would have to leave Ohio around 2:30 PM on Sunday. A Friday evening exchange is impractical because of the Defendant's work schedule at a dialysis clinic which remains open until 8:00 PM on Fridays. This would necessitate a Saturday exchange at approximately 11 :00 AM (each side driving 2 % hours and 161.5 miles each way). 29. It is simply impractical to have the children driving halfway round the globe each year so they can spend twenty four (24) hours in Ohio. This assumes an exchange time of 11 :00 AM on Saturday arriving in Ohio 2 % hours later at 1 :45 PM only to leave on Sunday at 2:30 PM so the children can return to Mechanicsburg by 8:00 PM. 3 30. Not only is this schedule impractical, it will cost hundreds of dollars in gasoline (323 miles each weekend for 21 weekends a year equals 6783 miles; at 20 MPG it will take 340 gallons at $2.50 per gallon or $847.00) not to mention hundreds of dollars in tolls for the Pennsylvania Turnpike. 31. Defendant does not have sufficient funds for this especially in light of the Plaintiffs large child support arrears of$3,246.87 as of January 25,2007. The Plaintiff is scheduled for contempt court on February 22, 2007 due to his failure to timely pay child support in this matter. 32. Plaintiff filed this custody action on November 28, 2006 following a large increase in child support on October 12,2006 by Cumberland County Domestic Relations. 33. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiffs actions in filing this action are not motivated by the best interest of the children but rather an effort to harass the Defendant. Pennsylvania Discourages the Separation of Step Siblings in an Intact Home: 34. Chastity and Tyrell should not be removed from his present home which includes their little sister Jalyn Young (DOB 3/14/2004, Age 2). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court states the standard as: It has always been a strong policy in our law that in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, siblings should be raised together whenever possible. [citations omitted]. This principle is in no way diluted by the fact that the third child in this case is a half brother. [emphasis added]. See Albright v. Albright, 491 Pa. 320, 421 A.2d 157 at 160-161 (1980). See also Beers v. Beers, 342 Pa. Super. 465, 493 A.2d 116 (1985), Haag v, Haag, 336 Pa. Super. 491, 499-500, 485 A.2d 1189, 1193 (1984) and Mahoney v. Mahoney, 354 Pa. Super. 585, 512 A.2d 694 at 697 at Note 1 (1986) expressly discussing step siblings. 35. The phrase "compelling reasons ... might appear synonymous with the iclear necessity' requirement of the Juvenile Act." Pilon v. Pilon, 342 Pa. Super. 52, 492 A.2d 59 at 60 (1985). 36. This strong public policy was - once again - endorsed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Speck v. Spadafore, 2006 Pa. 57, 895 A.2d 606 (2006). 37. In this case, there are no compelling reasons to separate the children for the entire summer when they have never been separated for such a lengthy period of time. 4 Defendant's Proposed Settlement: 38. A far more practical solution is for the Plaintiff to enjoy the children on the weekends which accompany "in service" school days on Mondays or Fridays. In this way the children will more time with their Father while lessening the burdensome driving. 39. In addition to these weekends, the parties could alternate the school breaks for Thanksgiving and Easter (Spring Break). 40. The children enjoy their summer visitation with their paternal grandfather in Pittsburgh so it would appear that three (3) weeks with the paternal grandfather and one (1) week with the Plaintiff in 2007 would be appropriate since he has never enjoyed the responsibility of caring for the children for more than five (5) days in a row. 41. Assuming the summer visitation went well, in 2008 Plaintiff could enjoy two (2) weeks and paternal grandfather could enjoy two (2) weeks. Respectfully submitted, BY: ven H well, Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, P A 17070 (717) 770-1277 Supreme Court ID 62063 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: January 25, 2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing documents was served by postage prepaid, first class United States Mail on all interested parties or counsel of record at the addresses set forth below. Galen R. Waltz, Esquire Turo Law Office 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: January 25, 2007 5 el/~5/2e07 07:69 71777el127B HO\.oEl..L LAW FIRM PAGE: 1!l7/13 VERlFICA nON IJwe verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I/we understand that false statements herein are ,made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relatini to UD5wom falsification to authorities. BY: ~cu~~ Renae J. Fink Date; t:. () ~~ Cf: r""~ \""", e:::> t,;;;;J --J (- ?: ...il_ o ., --l :::r:.." rn,""': "'nIT1 -c)ll 1~~l:S <~;;~ tj l'n c;::;! ",.0 -< r--) (J\ ~ -,-.. '-0 en w ". FEe ot ZOO7 p? yI ~ ; WILMER L. BOWMAN, II, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW RENAE J. FINK, Defendant NO. 06-6790 IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER .\~ AND NOW, this 5 day of ~~~ , 2007, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The father, Wilmer L. Bowman, II, and the mother, Renae J. Fink, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Chastity M. Bowman, born January 14, 1996 and Tyrell L. Bowman, born September 29, 1997. 2. The mother shall enjoy primary physical custody of the minor children. 3. The father shall enjoy periods of temporary physical custody of the minor children as follows: A. For a period of four weeks during the summer months. These weeks shall be arranged between the parties with the understanding that they shall not interfere with the children's sporting practices later in the summer. Additionally, it is understood that father shall afford the paternal grandfather a period of time with the minor children during these four weeks consistent with the prior practice of the parties. Exchange of custody for the four week visitation in the summer shall be in Pittsburgh at the paternal grandfather's home. The parties shall work out the four weeks of father's temporary custody in the summer on or before May 1 st of each year. B. When father is in the Cumberland County area and will be available to exercise visitation with the minor children, father may notify mother in advance and mother shall be reasonably accommodating with father to facilitate father's visitation. It is specifically noted that father will be in Pennsylvania at Berwick Power Plant starting in late Febraury and going through March of 2007. On those weekends, father shall enjoy custody with the minor children from Saturday at 7:00 p.m. until Sunday at 9:00 p.m. Other times that father is in the Cumberland County area and wants to exercise visitation shall be arranged between the parties, with the understanding that mother will be reasonable to afford such visitation and with father's understanding that he must provide reasonable notice in advance as to when he will be in Cumberland County. 4. Mother shall also facilitate the paternal grandmother exercising visitation with the minor children consistent with the schedule the parties have employed in the past, with the maternal grandmother's scheduled visitation to be approximately once per month on a Saturday or Sunday at least from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., or at such other times as mutually agreed between the - I ~ parties. The paternal grandmother shall pick the children up at the start of visitation and the mother shall pick the children up at the end of visitation. 5. In the event father or mother becomes dissatisfied with the custody schedule as set forth above, either partymay petition the Court to have the case again scheduled with the Custody Conciliator for a conference. If an agreement cannot be reached at this conference, the Court will schedule a hearing to take testimony on any custody issues in this case. 6. Neither parent shall disparage the other parent in front ofthe children or allow other individuals to do so in front of the children. BY THE COURT, JU~~~~ F:\FILESIDA T AFILE\Genera1\CUlTent\12321IBowman v Fink Report and Order ~.. 6 I :8 ~ld S- EJl:J LOOl AHvlo;'~O:'JLOt!d 3Hl :jO jOHKJ.031Ij - , . ~ WILMER L. BOWMAN, II, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW RENAE J. FINK, Defendant NO. 06-6790 IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Chastity M.Bowman, born January 14, 1996 and Tyrell L. Bowman, born September 29, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on January 26,2007, with the following individuals in attendance: The mother~.Renae J. Fink, with her counsel, Steven Howell, Esquire, and the father, Wilmer L. Bowman, II, who appeared over the telephone with his counsel who was personally present, Galen R. Waltz, Esquire. 3. The parties agree to the entry of an Order in the form as attached. )-l- D'7 DATE