HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-04977
, ,
'I
II
,
1
I
"
. ,
I
I'
"
','
I,
I,
i I
~ I'
J . ,
I, I
"
" ,
~ , '
' ,
j II
I
1
~
1
I
~ , ,
~ . ,
,
,
il
'I
"
I'.
~
~
I,
, ,
r
r
~
4
','
"
/
, ,
, I
,')fP2 7 ;lOOt
,
,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 94-4977 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
TERRY L. ROOF.NEYHART,
Plaintiff
v,
E, JEFFREY ROOF,
Defendant
BAYLEY, J, ...
INTERIM ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this )0 day of ~( JI,..ll~ , 2002. upon consideration
of the allached Custody Conciliation Summary'Report. It Is hereby ordered and directed as
follows:
1, Legal Custo.21" The parties, Terry L. Roof-Neyhart and E, Jeffrey Roof, shall
have shared legal custody of the minor child. Bryson Jeffrey Roof, born June 15, 1988,
Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make
all major non-emergency decisions affecting the children's general well-being Including, but
not limited to, all decisions regarding their health. education and religion, Pursuant to the
tl:lrms of Pa,C,S, ~5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and Information
pertaining to the children Including. but not limited to, medical. dental. religious or school
records. the residence address of the children and of the other parent, To the extent one
parent has possession of any such records or Information, that parent shall be required to
share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to
make the records and information of reasonable lIse to the other parent. Both parents shall
be entitled to full participation In all educational and medical/treatment planning meetings
and evaluations with regard to the minor child, Each parent shall be entitled to full and
complete information from any physician, dentist, teacher or authority and caples of any
reports given to them as parents including. but not limited to: medical records, birth
certificates, school or educational records. allendance records or report cards, Additionally.
each parent shall be entitled to receive caples of any notices which come from school with
regard to schGol pictures, extracurricular activities, children's parties, musical presentations,
back-to-school night, and the like,
2, Ph~ical Custod~. Physical custody shall be shared by the parties as follows:
A. On alternate weekends to commence October 4, 2002, from
Friday after school until Monday when the child is returned to school. if
Monday is a school day, If Monday is not a school day, then Father's custodial
weekend shall be extended until he returns the child to school on Tuesday
morning.
"
NO, 94.4977 CIVIL TERM
F. Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor D~. Mother shall
have Memorfal Day weekend each year. Father shail have custody on
Independence Day each year with the option to Include Independence within
his extended vacation time, The parties shall alternate Labor Day weekend
with Mothor having Labor Day weekend In 2003 and subsequent odd
numbered years. Father shall have Labor Day weekend In 2004 and
subsequent even numbered years,
G, Columbus Day, Veteran's Day, Martin Luther King Day, and
President's Day. In the event that one of these holidays falls adjacent to
Father's custodial weekend, Father's custodial weekend shall be extended to
Tuesday morning when he shall return the child to school. In the event that
these holidays do not fall adjacent to Father's custodial weekend, Father shall
have custody from 9:00 a.m. of the holiday until the child 15 returned to school
the following Tuesday morning,
4, Vacation. HolidayS shall take precedence over regular custodial time and
Vacation shall take precedence over regular custodial time, Neither parent shall schedule
vacation time on the other parentis custodial time without their express approval. Each
parent shall be entitled to up to twenty-one (21) days vacation per year, up to fourteen (14)
days of which may be taken continuously In the summer. The parties shall provide each
other with thirty (30) days written notice of their intended vacation time. In the event that the
parties have scheduled conflicting vacations. the party first providing wrlt\en notice shall
have choice of vacation,
5, The Custody Conciliation Conference shall reconvene on November 12,
2002 at 8:30 a.m. at the office of the Custody Conciliator, Melissa Peel Greevy,
Esquire, 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043. It is contemplated at the time the
Custody Conciliation Conference reconvenes that the child's first marking period report card
will be available and that the chlld's adjustment to the modified schedule will be reviewed,
,I
BY THE COURT:
i
;'
/ '
di j ,
Edgar B, '~ayley, .iJ~../I
Olsl:
LeRoy Smigel. Esquire. 4431 N. Front Streel, Harrisburg, PA 17110.1709
Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire. 3464 Trlndle Road, Camp HIli. PA 17011
~u....J /)1...., (t. I~.(
q.'3() OL.
C)~.
"
',- '" ~
fr- ,..;
,-
I," .cr :;-i..r.
" I , i_...
I ) '1_
" -, I~
I
I J.' . -
1-=' ':"!)
.....' (,,; . _,.1 :~~
r... c.. ;"Ijtl
U/ ,)!~ ,'.l...
/ (I" "',
,. '''' d
l';: I.:)
v,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 94-4977 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
TERRY L. ROOF-NEYHART,
Plaintiff
E, JEFFREY ROOF,
Defendant
CUSTODY CONCILIATION SU~M~.B-"'J~~!,Q.RI
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915,3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1 , The pertinent Information concerning the child who Is the subject of this
litigation is as follows:
NAME
DATE OF BIRTH
-~---.-
CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF
Bryson Jeffrey Roof
June 15, 1988
Mother
2, A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on September 23. 2002 in
response to Father's Petition to Modify Custody filed on or about August 19, 2002, This Is
the parties' first Custody Conciliation Conference, Present for the conference were: the
Mother, Terry L. Roof-Neyhart, and her counsel. LeRoy Smigel, Esquire; the Father, E,
Jeffrey Roof, and his counsel, Linda A, Clotfelter, Esquire,
3, The parties reached an agreement for shared legal custody. most holidays,
vacation, and some additional custodial lime for Father,
4, Issues upon which the parties did not agree: (a) Father is seeking additional
custodial time to equate a shared physical custody schedule which would include periodic
overnights with the child during the school week; (b) the sharing of Memorial Day, Labor
Day and independence Day; and (c) the "banker's holidays" (Columbus Day, Veteran's Day,
Martin Luther King Day, and President's Day),
5, Father's position on custody: Father reports that the child wants more time
with him and alleges that Mother has put pressure on the child after this allegation was set
forth in his pleadings for this Conciliation Conference, Father coaches the child's soccer
team and has stayed consistently involved in the child's life, He would like to have
additional time during the child's adoles.:ence to provide guidance and parenting to him
before the child graduates from high school. It is Father's opinion that Mother views time
with Father as disruptive, He points out that the summer schedule that the child has
, ,
NO, 94-4977 CIVIL TERM
followed with various camps and activities to which he did not have Input could also be
viewed as disruptive, Father Is self-employed and describes himself as "pretty available" to
spend time with the child,
6, Mother's position on custody: It Is Mother's position that she Is very much
focused on her perception of the disruption It would cause for the child to spend mC'"e time
with Father, The child has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Is presently being
treated during the school year pharmaceutically by a family practice physician, However, he
is not In any type of counseling or therapy, He Is presently In eighth grade at
Mechanicsburg Area Intermediate School and fully malnstreamed for all academics. He has
been on the Honor Roll and Distinguished Honor Roll during his middle school years,
Mother fears that If they do not continue on the schedule which they are presently following
that he will either not continue to develop as a healthy child and will live with them until he Is
30 years old or that he will rebel. Mother acknowledges that Father has been very creative
in finding ways to get more time with Bryson, She claims that Father feels threatened by the
child's positive relationship with his stepfather. Mother presently works part time but does
not work on Tuesdays or Fridays, Mother acknowledged that she had asked the child If he
wanted more time with his Father and that he confirmed that he did. However, she points
out that he did not come to her specifically asking for more time, that It was only upon her
inquiry that he let her know he would like more time with Father, Mother points out that the
schedule that has been followed was In place for eleven (11) years,
7, After a rather lengthy Conciliation, the parties had reached a number of
agreements which are memorialized In the Order attached, The Conciliator provides an
Order encompassing the partles' agreements plus ret-ommendations on banker's holidays,
Memorial Oay, Independence Day and Labor Day and a return to the Custody Conciliation
process after the child has received the first marking period report card, Because of
Mother's Intense concern that changes to the schedule will be so disruptive as to Impair the
child's functioning, it Is the Conciliator's opinion that an external and verifiable measure ',f
his functioning will assist the parents in determining how the child Is adjusting to having
additional custodial time with Father,
1!~ff 10 Z-.
Date
l_ It(;k t~ )
Melissa Peel Greevy. Esquire
Custody Conciliator
163184
.
for Custody seeking an award of shared legal custody and primary phys leal
custody,
5. Pldlnt.l ff Intends to n!IOcdte with her husbdnd dnd son to KdrlSdS
City, Kdnsds, winch move IS illlllinent, rhe specifIc fdetS pertlllnlng to sdid
relocdtion dre dS follows:
A, On .July 1. 1994, Plainti ff's husband was informed of the opening
of a position In Kdnsas City, Kansas, and effective .July 13, 1994, was
chosen to act as Interim Controller, which entai led travel to and from
Kansas Ci ty .
B, At that time, although Mr, Neyhart surmised that his interim
position could become permdnent, his employer initiated a process of
I nterv I ewlng pot.ent i al c,lIlel i e1at.<!s for Ulilt. pos it lOn.
C. At the end of ,July, 1994, Mr', Neyhart was informed that he was
one of two fi na 1 cdndi dates for the pes it ion.
D, On Augus t 10, 1994, Mr. Neyha rt wa s verba I 1 y offered the
position of Controller, which woulel require his relocation to Kdnsas City.
Kansas,
E, On August 14, 1994, Mr, Neyhart infot'med Defendant that the
pas iti on of Cantrall er hael been offereel and that if accepted, he woul d be
requi red t.o rei ocat.e to Kansas Ci t.y, Kansas.
F, On August 11,1994, Mr, Neytlclrt was officially offered Ule
posit.ion of Controller,
G. During the week of August 21. 1994" Plaintiff and Mr, Neyhart.
2
t"dvelled to Kdnsds City, Kdnsds for the pUI'I)o~e of locdtlng potentidl
hOlJS I ng, I nves ti gdti nIl schoo I sys tems ilnd deter'lIli n I ng whether P I a I nt 1f f
wi shed to IJIdke the! 1Il0Vl!,
H, On AU\lust 26, J 99", MI', Neyhart dnd Defendant lIlet for
appl'Qxlmately two hours to diSCUSS the Impending move: however, at that
poi nt, MI', Neyhdrt had ne I thel' accepted nor rejected the offer of
employment. which would be d SIWllflcdnt promotion,
I. On August 29, 199", Defendant and Mr. Neyhart lJIet again, with
MI', Neyhdrt's IlIIpl'esslon bpln\l that ttlPY tlact WOl'k(lct out a (letailed
dgl'eement wtllctl would necessdl'lly Include Bryson's relocation With his
mother and stepfather to Kansas City, Kansas, However, Defendant informed
Mr, Neyhart that same evening that he had a change of mind and would not
agree to the relocation if it meant Bryson would be residing primari ly in
Kansas City, Kansas.
J, As of this time, the parties have been unable to reach agreement
on the issue of relocation, however, Mr, Neyhart has accepted the position
conditioned upon the reso lut i on of the cus todyi ssue,
6. Pldlnt.lff feels ttldt theintendecj movp will serve Bryson's best
interests for the followlng reasons and oUlers which wi 11 be developed at a
hearing in this matter, if necessal'Y:
A, Plaintiff tlas been the primary caretaker and nurturing parent of
Bryson since his birth and will continue to serve in that capacity, In
fact, t.his move will allow Plaintiff to terminate her part-time employment
3
so she can remain in the household,
13, Pltlintiff's ClpCl~lon t.o rc!locdt(! Is motivated solely by the
dl ctat.es of hpr hu~lldnd' ~ emp I oyment, She I s not seek i ng to deny
Defendant meantn~Jful dccess to his son or to interfere with his
relationship with his son,
e, Plaintiff has investigated the vtlt'ious school districts in the
area of Kansas City, Kansas, and by virtue of her research, she has
reached the conclusion that dny one of three districts would offer Bryson
excellent educational opportunities.
D, Plaintiff has located dpprOpt'late housing,
/, Plaintiff reCOgnlLeS that as d result of the move, a modified
partial physical custody schedule is necessary and is prepared to provide
extended periods of partial custody to Defendant, including a majority of the
summer and school vacations,
8, The best Interests and welfare of Bryson wi II be set'ved by
allowing Plaintiff to t'elocate to Kansas City, Kansas, itllnediately inasmuch as
Mr, Neyhart must make a decision with respect. to tlis employment. and Plaintiff
wi shes t.o have her' son enroll ed in schoo I WI thout further del ay .
WHEREfORE, Plaintl ff respectfully t'cquest.s Ulat U1IS Honorable Court,
enter an Immediate OrcJet' granting ~ler per!lllSSlOn to remove Bryson Jefft'ey Roof
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the Kansas City, Kansas area until such
time as Utere can be a tlearing, if necessary, to determine wtlethcr such a move
4
~Ep.29~e4 TIm 11149
VSRH f ; REH~d
FAX NO. 963440
P,03 '
ExtBnded family would Include Bryson'. grandparents. Bunts and uncles,
and cousins. Until Vlry rGC$ntly, Bryson also had frequllnt Visits with hill
grelt1lrandrnolher, Whom hI called 'aa', With hor doothln March, Bryson
sustained I Illgnlficant loss and sIll1 continues to talk about hllr frequently.
The proposal to movo Bryson out 01 slate etllllee Inother altuatlon for
Bryson to e)tperlence another 51gnlftcant loss within an eltlremely short
period 01 time. This IoBIl would be tho rlBult of 8 sudden cease 01 the close
InUmlllG contact that he hll.'l with his !atller end "mommy Susan' as well as
hIs two sels of gfandparents, aunts, uncles, and couelns with whom he has
es1a.bUshld extremely CIOSll relat/on$hipll, .
Clearlv. thl ability for I child Bryson's Ige to comprehlnd and understand
thlel lanes Is Ita Inveltho.s Is slgnlflcanUy different thin that of adults,
Children are very ego-centrlc. Simply stalBd, children havl a strong bellof
that what happens In their world Is lor them, Cllusad by them, or about them.
It Is Impossiblllor the mind of a 6 year old 10 undeT5land thl complexltles
that &1'8 Involved In decision-making over custody... It Is dll1lcult eV8I1 lor
adults to flY and understand and ~ltptlhealt decisions. If moved, BJ mllY
likely Interpret theSEI aelions as caus9d by him, whether by eome 'bad'
behavior that ho had exhibited for which he Is being punished or because
he had done something that put him oul 01 lavor and lass loved by his
father,
Given B/a dlilvelopmental stage he lacks the capacity lor hlgher.order
thlnJdng and problem solving, Verbal expression of emodons. Inductlvll and
deductive thinking skills, Judgement, and reasoning lire not yet tully
developed, As such, his ability to cope wllh these loss8s through talking
and understanding are clearly compromised, Children who faoe these
typel of losses are confronted with dealing with these changes with a
minimal repetolre of coping skills and behaviors. IV, such, Bryson would
likely resort to mol'8 overt behavioral means to express hfsloss, AcUng out,
opposillonal behavloJ$, school conduct problems. regressive behaviors
(e,g.. bed wettIng), wltlldrawal, eating difficulties. and other behavioral
manifestations are all within the possiblllles of the manner through whiCh BJ
may .xhlblthls sense of loea, .
My lirst recollection of my interactions with Bry80n, dallls back to July 4,
1988. I had just returned lrom visiting II good Irtend In Latrob.. PA and
stopped to visit my parents at their home, Bryson was less than threlil
weeks old attha! lime and as he and I laid In I hammock In my parents'
yard I wu slnlck by the complolO dependence that tills chfl'.l had upon the
adullS In charge of his care, The Mure of BJ was, B11d sliD I., In the handS
of the grown-ups who provide him. with a loving home, nurturing
environment, and support and encouragement to continue to grow to his
f\Jllest potenUa/,
SEP-29-94 THU 11:48
VSRH PEDS REH~.l!
FAX ~O, 9634405
P,02
~
.
Vandubill SWlWOlth Rtn.bUit.1oon Hospir~
September 29, J 1194
S~r!~--
Mr, LeRoy Smigel
SmUt!, Andel'8On, & Sacha
2917 North Front Street
Hl11Tisburg, PA 17110.1223
...~,;"-"..l
~
OOB/' Mr, Smigel,
I 1m writing this 'etter to you on bohalf of my neph.w, Bryson Jeffrey Root,
Whereas Bryvon, whom I may reler to Q4 BJ, did not directly ask me to write
to you, when I became aware 01 a request madll by Bryson'. mother to
move him out of Pennsylvania Ilolt compelled to provide to an opinion to
you on this prcpcslll, Clearly, as Bryson's uncia I bring certaln personal
biases InlO my opinion. However. and perhaps more Importanlly, my levei
of educadon, professional training, and more \hll/1 10 years of export once In
\he field 01 child psychology and padllllllo neuropsychology havo oUowed
m. to galn Ilxperlence$ \hat provide me with \he knowledge.ballo and
prolesslonallsm 10 render an opinion based upon my experience II In
working with children and Ihelr families while keeping my personal feelings,
oplnlonl, and blase. In check. .
As BJ's uncle, I hove seen him In many activities which have includlld
lamtly holidays, sailing, playing with his cousins, and many other fun
activiles. His overall development, especially in the cognitive area, has
Il~~eared to be atles!! high average or better. What I find especially
remarkable, even considering his bright cognlUve abllltles. Is his socla/.
emolfonal development. Bryson has always been 'In tuno' with \he
emotional needs ot olhers in his Ilnvlronment, He Is a very sweet.
afleollonate, oompasslonste IItl1e bo)' who appears to be genulely
concerned with Olllers around him, Sharing his lDys. offering 10 let othef3
lake a tum, hugs thal he gives freely and without prompllng are just a few
examples of behaviors that BJ exhibits to demonstrate his love and concern
ler O1tlers. Of the thouSl:ll1ds of children with whom I have had contact In the
course of my professional career, BJ stands out as being a very bright,
happy, well-adjusted child,
Bryson's early developmental years provide \he foundation for his
.:onlfnuad growth and development. He Is cJear1y at an ImprlSslonabl. age
and highly malleable, Research has demonstraled that ltTe extended family
Jllays an Important role In the moral and character development of chUdren,
2201 eaplIfI AwnDI
N.IIlYiIlt. TN 37212
(615) J2G.7600
Fu 1615l32lJ.~
A.iOIII_1/ VAHD/7JIU tDIMltII1't ,\/fDIGlL O'Nl?l...HVLlIf!OUllI
SEP-29~S4 THU 11149
VSRH r i REHAB
FAX NO, 963440
P.03
.
Extended family would Include Bryson's grandparents, aunts and uncles,
and cousins. Until ve", recently, Brvson also had freQuent vlsllS with his
greaf1lrandmo!her, whom he called 'aO'. WIth hor doath In March, Bryson
$Ostaln'd a algnlfjcantlo~s and still continues to talk about her Irequent/y.
The proposal to movo Bryson OUI of SrQre createa another situation for
Bryson to exPerience another slgnlnennt loss within an extremely short
period at time, This Iosa would be tho result of 0 sudden cealle of the close
Intimatu contact that he has With his rattler end "mommy Susan' &$ well as
his two sels or grandparents, aunts, uncles, Il/1d cousins with whom he has
estabUshed elCfremety close relationships, .
Clearly, thll ability for Q child Bryson's age to comprehend and understand
!helSe 101SIlIlS Is at It lovel thai Is slgnlllcBnUy different than thar 01 ddults.
Children ere very ego-centrlc:. Simply slated, children have a strong belief
that what happens In their world Is tor them, tlIusad by them, or about them,
It Is ImpoSSible tor the mind of a 6 year old to undllrstand the complexlrles
that ant Involved In decision-making over custody .., It Is dIfficult even for
adults to try and understand QI'ld aecept lhulle decillion!!. If moved, BJ ml1Y
likely Interpret these actions as caused by him, whether by some 'bad'
behavior that he had exhibited tor whlch he Is being punished or because
he had done somethIng that put him oul ot faver and less loved by his
father,
Given BJ'8 dllvlllopmanta.1 stage he lacks the capacity for higher-order
thlnldng and problam solving, Verballlxpresslon of emodons, Inductfve and
deducltve thlnkJng skJlIs, Judgement, and reesonlng are not yet tully
developed, As lIuch, hili ability to cope with these losses through lalking
and understanding are clearly compromised, Children who tace these
typel ot losses ilfe confronted with dealing with these changes with a
minimal repetolra of coping skills and behaviors. As such, Bryson would
likely resort to more overt behavioral means to express his loss, Acting out,
oppositional behaviors, school conduct problems, regresslv., behaviors
(e,;.. bed wetting), Withdrawal. eating difficulties, QI'ld other behavioral
manlfest'ltions are all within the possibllltes of the manner through whiCh BJ
may exhlbfthll sense of loss, .
My nrst recollection of my Interactions with Bryson, dams back to July 4,
1988. I had jU$t retumed from visiting a goOd trfend In Latrobe. PA and
Slopped to visit my parents at their home, Bryson was IllSS than Ihrell
weeka old at that lime and as ha and I laid In a hammock In my parents'
yard I was struck by the complete dllPendenca that this child had upOn the
adults In charge of his care, The future at BJ was, and sUO Is. In the hands
0' the grown-ups who provide him. with a loving home. nurturing
envlo"lnment, and support and encourage,"ent to continue to 9row to his
flInest potenUaJ,
11l~1""/l1lA1IIH0 Ml!MOaAHlJlIWIBlJ/plOlllNll.ll94 11: Ilpol
v.
I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
I
I NO. 94-4977 CIVIL
I
I
I CUSTODY/VISITATION
TERRY L. ROOF-NEYHART,
PLAINTIFF
E. JEFFREY ROOF,
DEFENDANT
HEARING MEMORANDUM
I. 'ACTUAL BACKGROUND.
Plaintiff, Tarry L. Roof-Neyhart, and Defendant, E. Jeffrey
Roof, were married on August 21, 1976. The parties' child, Bryson
Jeffrey Roof (date of birth June 15, 1986) was adopted by the parties
shortly after his birth. The parties were divorced on March 21, 1991.
On February 28, 1991, the parties entered into a Property Settlement
Agreement in which they agreed to share legal cus~ody of Bryson. The
property Settlement Agreement provided Mrs. ROOf-Neyhart with primary
physical custody of Bryson, SUbject to Mr. Roof's right of visitation
consisting of every other weekend plus one overnight period each week.
Visitation is shared on major holidays. The parties have amicably
followed the above visitation schedule since the execution of the
Property Settlement Agreement. The parties have both since remarried.
Mr. Roof enjoyed a rewarding career with Commonwealth
National Bank. When Commonwealth National Bank merged with Mellon
Bank, Mr. Roof had several opportunitiea to advance his career. He
has had significant offers for both increased salary and higher
status. However, Mr. Roof's upwardly mobile career track required
that he move to pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Mr. Roof declined to move,
and declined a significant employment opportunity solely for the
purpose of maintaining Bryson's access to him, participating in
parenting decisions, school activities and extra curricular
activities. In fact, Mr. Roof has refused to move his home closer to
his present job in Lancaster, Pennsylvania solely to maintain the
present visitation schedule with Bryson, and to avoid disrupting
Bryson's life. As such, Mr. Roof commutes daily over one hour between
his home and work.
Mrs. Roof-Neyhart now seeks to move Bryson to Kansas City,
Kansas. Her Petition for Emergency Relief states that her sole basis
for removing Bryson from Pennsylvania is to accommodate her husband's
desire to accept a new position as a Controller. The Neyharts do not
have any family or friends in Kansas city. More importantly, Bryson
has no family or friends in Kansas.
In Pennsylvania, Bryson enjoys the active participation of
an involved and loving extended family of his mother, father, step-
mother and step-father.
For example, each of the fOllowing family members are
actively involved in Bryson's life:
Grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Erdman Roof, l,ewisberry, PA
Uncle and Aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Roof, Lewisberry, PA.
Cousin, Jaclyn (4 years old), Lewisberry, PA.
Uncle and Aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Eric Roof, Elizabethtown, PA.
Cousins, Emily (5 1/2 years old) and Nathan (2 years old),
Elizabethtown, PA.
- 2 -
Uncle and Aunt, Dr. and Mrs. Kreig Roof, Nashville, TN.
Grandparents by marriage, Mr, and Mrs. George Sallitt,
Mechanicsburg, PA.
Great Grandparents by marriage, Mr. and Mrs. Jack Wootten,
Ashley, PA.
Maternal Grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Sheaffer.
Mat,ernal Uncle and Aunt, Mr, and Mrs. Rodney Sheaffer, with
daughters Nicole and Jennifer,
Bryson enjoys interacting with the entire family during all
holidays, family birthdays and family events. Also, the majority of
Bryson's extended family attend his soccer and T-ball games, as well
as participate in sailing, attending sports events, visiting the
petting zoo, camping, picnics, and reading to Bryson, among various
other activities.
II. DISCUSSION.
A. The Burden of Proof.
When a custodial parent seeks to relocate at a geographical
distance and the non-custodial parent challenges the move, the
custodial parent has the burden of showing that the move is likely to
significantly improve the quality of life for that parent and ~
child. Gruber v. Gruber, 400 Pa. Super, 174, 563 A.2d 434, 440
(1990) .
In addition, each parent has the burden of establishing the
integrity of his or her motives in either desiring to move or seeking
to prevent it. ~.
- 3 -
B. Tbe Gruber ..ctor..
In determining whether a custodial parent and ohild shall be
permitted to relocate at a geographical distance from the non-
custodial parent a Trial Court must consider three factors. Kaneski
v. Kaneski, 413 Pa. Super. 173, 604 A.2d 1075 (1992)j Gruber v.
GrUber, 400 Pa. Super. 174, 583 A.2d 434 (1990).
First, "the Court must assess the potential advantages of
the proposed move and the likelihood that the move would SUbstantially
improve the quality of life for the custodial parent and the child[J."
Gruber, 563 A.2d at 439.
The only advantage proposed by Mrs. Roof-Neyhart is that her
husband will have a new employment position. As such, the sole basis
for the move is to accommodate her husband's desire to accept the
position of Controller. Given the circumstances of the move, it
certainly cannot be said that the move will "substantially improve the
quality of the life" for Mrs. ROOf-Neyhart or Bryson. In fact, tho
move to Kansas serves only as a disadvantage to Bryson.
The Gruber Court stated that, in determining the prospective
advantages of a move, the Trial Court should assess such benefits as a
"desire to return to a network of family or friends, or to pursue
educational opportunities, or seek an improved physical environment in
which to live and raise children." ~. In the instant case, Mrs.
Roof-Neyhart seeks to move ~ from an involved network of family and
friends to a location offering no family and no support outside the
parents. Such a move would virtually isolate Bryson from the
- 4 -
attentive and loving extended family that he has known for his entire
life.
The second Gruber factor requires the Trial Court to
establish the integrity of the motives of both the custodial and non-
custodial parent in either seeking the move or seeking to prevent it.
Gruber, 583, A.2d at 439. The Court must assure itself that the move
is not motivated by a desire to frustrate the visitation rights of the
non-custodial parent. Likewise, the Court m~st assure itself that the
non-custodial parent is motivated only by a legitimate desire to
continue and deepen the parent-child relationship, ~.
Mr. Roof does n2t believe that Mrs. Roof-Neyhart seeks
relocation tor the purpose of frustrating visitation. Rather, it is
the positive relationship between the Neyharts, the Roofs and Bryson
that Mr. Roof seeks to preserve. Mr. Roof's motivation for opposing
the move is two-fold. First, he seeks to maintain Bryson's access to
him to participate in parenting and continue to strengthen their
relationship. Second, Mr. Roof sincerely believes that the proposed
move would be significantly detrimental to Bryson, who is in his
critical and developmental years of life. A move away from the
familiar support and love of Bryson's family and extended family,
during his formative and impressionable years, will serve only to
hinder his positive emotional and intellectual growth. This is
especially poignant where the move is not designed with Bryson's best
interests in mind. Rather, the move is designed solely to accommodate
Mr. Neyhart's desire to accept a new jOb. The move to Kansas, for the
- 5 -
purpose of obtaining a different job position, is at the exeense of
Bryson's healthy development.
The final Gruber factor requires this Court to consider the
"availability of realistic, substitute visitation arrangements which
will adequately foster an ongoing relationship between the child and
the non-custodial parent." M.
The distanc~ between Pennsylvania and Kansas dictates a
seriously restricted visitation schedule. A move to Kansas will
permit Bryson to see his father and famil~' only during a few major
holidays and during the summer. Bryson's ongoing relationship with
his family and his father's active involvement in every aspect of
Bryson's life will be seriously impaired.
In Gruber, the Court determined that the father's right to
visitation was outweighed by the mother's desire to move away from an
isolated and confrontational environment, so that she could move to
Illinois where she would be "surrounded and supported by family and
friends." Gruber, 583 A.2d at 440.
The facts of the instant case are the polar opposite of
Gruber. In the instant case, Mrs. Roof-Neyhart seeks to remove Bryson
from his home where he is surrounded and supported by family and
friends only to relocate to an area where the Neyhart's and Bryson
will be isolated.
Mr. Roof respectfully submits that his right to visitation,
his desire to maintain a relationship with his son, and the best
interests of Bryson far outweigh Mr. Neyhart's choice to advance his
own career.
- 6 -
8. On February 28. 1991. the parties entered Into a Property Settlement
Agreement which provided, in pertinent part, for the custody ancl visitation of
Bryson .Jeffrey l~ooF, rhis proviSIon, which tlils never been ent(l/'(ld as an Order
of Cout't or Fot'llhllly ltIodiFJ(~d by till' partil's, r(lads dS follows:
14, CUSIOOY AND VISI rATION: Husband and Wi Fe stlall share
legal custody of Bryson J, Roof. born .June 15.1988, Wife shall
retain primary physical custody of said child subjl'ct to Husband's
right of visitation wtllch shall consist of every other weekend, In
add it i on, Husband sha 11 llilve vis i tatJ on each Wl'dnesday foil owi ng II i s
weekend visitat ion and eactl Monday following weekends wtlen he does
not have vis i tat ion, The p,JI II l'S stla 11 share vis i tat i on on major
holidays wittl ttle exception of WiFe's I'Ight to physicdl custody
overnight each Christmas tve. Each pdrty shall havl' the right to
three non-consecutive weeks of visltatlOn per year, Husband shall
have additIOnal visitation ri()hts from time to timl' as agreed upon
by the parties,
9, PldlntJff has no infonllatlOn of a custody proceeding concerning the
ch i I d pend i n~j In d COlwt u F ttll s COlllllunweal ttl.
Plaintl ff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has
physical custody of the chi ld or' claims to have custody or visltatJon rights with
respect to the ch i I d,
10. The best interests and permanent welfare of the child will be served
by the re li ef reques ted,
11, PlaintiFf has not participated as a party. witness or in another
capdc I ty or in ottler lit i ga t i on concenli ng the cus tody 0 F the ch i 1 din th is or
another Court,
12. Each parent whose parental nghts to the child have not been
terminated and the person who has ptlysical cust.ody of the chi ld have been named
3
I
\'~
t', .l ':)..
\'
l"- I.';
~ ...
-
- J.
~
I, ,~
I
"
'i
I: \4
I
I
," n f>
\' ~
'" " "
. Ii ,
~ ~ a; ~~
~ ..
.. .. .
"/C , .,
., ,( '.1,',
In '.' :'1'
I ~ ,." "
I, ,.
.-
/"11 ,
~ t.,n '"
TERRY L, ROOF.NEYHART,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION.LAW
V,
E, JEFFREY ROOF,
DEFENDANT
94-4977 CIVIL TERM
CUSTODY
OPINIQN AND ORDER OF COURY
BAYLEY, J" October 13, 1884:-
A hearing was held on October 5, 1994, on the petition of Terry L. Roof.
Neyhart seeking court permission to move her six-year-old son, Bryson Jeffrey Roof,
to Kansas City, Kansas. Terry L. Roof-Neyhart, age 39, and E, Jeffrey Roof, age 39,
are the parents of Bryson Jeffrey Roof, born June 15, 1988. They were married In
August 1976, separated In September 1989, and divorced In March 1991, The
mother married Joseph Neyhart, now age 39, In December 1991. It Is his second
marriage, He has no children. The father married Susan Roof, now age 29, In
October 1992, She was not previously married,
The mother lives In Mechanlcsburg and the father in Hampden Township, The
motheT has worked as an office manager In a doctor's office since separation. She
works each Monday, Wednesday and Thursday approximately six hours each day
starting around 9:00 a,m. Before separation the mother did not work outside of the
home. The father, a former high school science teacher, heads the Trust and
Investment Division of Fulton Bank in Lancaster. He commutes one hour each way
94-4977 CIVIL TERM
to Lancaster on weekdays, leaving at 6:30 a,m" and arriving home between 6:30 and
7:00 p,m.. although he sees Bryson one overnight weekday each week and arrives
home that afternoon between 6:00 and 6:30 p,m,
When the parents were together they lived In New Cumberland, The mother
was Bryson's primary caretaker and has remained his primary caretaker since
separation, There has never been a custody order entered by a court, In their
marital settlement agreement, the parents provided for the mother to have primary
physical custody of Bryson, and for the father to have temporary physical custody
every other weekend from Friday until Sunday, one evening each week, on alternate
holidays and for three weeks each summer, In June 1991, by agreement, the one
evening each week became an overnight period with the father, The father has
always exercised his periOdS of temporary physical custody, He and the mother have
shared legal custody and have consulted each other In making major decisions
regarding Bryson, They have been able to effectively communicate with each other
in the best Interest of Bryson, The parents agree that for the most part, their custody
arrangement has worked well. Both parents are Intelligent, sensitive and caring,
Bryson attends kindergarten each weekday, He leaves by bus at noon and is
home at 3:30 p,m, Bryson Is in day care the three mornings each week his mother
works, He Is doing well In day care and kindergarten, Bryson Is a healthy, happy
and well-adjusted child, He has a strong loving bond with both his parents, He has
a good relationship with both his step-parents, Bryson's paternal and maternal
-2-
94-4977 CIVIL TERM
grandparents and other members of his family live In this Immediate area, Bryson
has had a lot of contact with them, especially his grandparents, The father Is an avid
sallor, and Bryson already enjoys that activity with him. Bryson plays soccer and tee-
ball. The father has been able to attend many of those games and Bryson's other
activities, The mother goes to virtually all such events,
Joseph Neyhart has been a cost accountant for three years with McCoy
Electronics in Mt. Holly Springs, He has nineteen years experience In the accounting
business, In 1994, he was offered an Interim comptroller's position with the parent
company of McCoy Electronics In Kansas City, Kansas, Since July he has been
commuting to Kansas City each week, He was offered the permanent comptroller's
position In mid-August. He wants to accept that promotion and move with the
mother and Bryson to Kansas City, The father was Informed on August 14 of the
mother's desire to move. He and the mother have discussed the situation
extensively, but he Is unwilling to agree to the move by Bryson.
If the Neyharts move they will live In Johnson County, Kansas, The mother
recently made a trip to that area, She located suitable homes avallable for purchase
In good neighborhoods with good schools. Because of the Increased financial
benefit her husband will receive If he accepts the comptroller's position In Kansas
City, the mother will no longer work outside of the home. The mother testified of her
willingness for the father to have Bryson during each Christmas school vacation, for
each summer vacation except for the first week and the last week, and for a third
-3-
94-4977 CIVIL TERM
period each year when she would bring Bryson to Pennsylvania, The mother Is
willing to arrange and pay for all transportation, She Is willing for Bryson to see his
father or any member of the father's family at any time they would visit In Kansas,
She testified she Is also open to any reasonable suggestions that would further
facilitate continued contact by Bryson with his father, She Is not, however, willing to
agree to move to Kansas with the father having primary physical custody of Bryson,
and with her having the same temporary physiCal custody arrangements she has
offered to him, Susan Roof testified, as did the father, that she would terminate her
employment as a supervisor at Pennsylvania Blue Shield If the mother moves to
Kansas City and Bryson were to live with them,
The father previously worked for Commonwealth National Bank In Harrisburg,
After that bank merged with Mellon Bank, the father was off8red several promotions,
all with an Increaso In salary, that would have required that he move to Pittsburgh,
He turned down each promotion because he would not move away from Bryson,
Because those decisions hindered him from further promotion at Mellon Bank In
Harrisburg, the father changed jobs for a better position with Fulton Bank. Even
though he has to commute one hour each way, he has not moved to Lancaster
because he will not move that far away from Bryson,
The legal principles applicable to a custody proceeding are well-established,
The test Is what Is in the best Interest and welfare of the child, Beers v, Beers, 342
Pa, Super, 465 (1965), In order for a custodial parent to Justify a relocation of a child,
.4.
94-4977 CIVIL TERM
the Superior Court of Pennsylvania In Gruber v, Gruber, 400 Pa, Super, 174 (1990)
has held that, (1) the move must be likely to significantly Improve the quality of life for
the parent and the child; (2) the move must not bEl motivated simply by a desire to
frustTate the temporary custodial rights of the non-custodial parent or to Impede the
development of a healthy relationship between the child and the non-custodial
parent; and (3) there must be a feasible substitute temporary physical custody
arrangement to insure a continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the
non-custodial parent. in Plowman v, Plowman, 409 Pa, Super, 143 (1992), the
Superior Court stated:
While the best Interests of the child are more closely allied with
the Interest and quality of life of the custodial parent, Gruber v, Gruber,
400 Pa.Super, 174, 183, 583 A,2d 434, 438 (1990), this factor must be
balanced against an appreciation of and sensitivity to the mutual Interest
of the child and the non-custodial parent In maintaining as healthy and
loving a relationship as possible, Id, As Judge Beck stated In Gruber:
The task of this court Is to sacrifice the non-custodial parent's
Interest as little as possible In the face of the competing and often
compelling Interest of a custodial parent who seeks a better life In
another geographical location,
Id, In this conteX1, we note that while the custodial parent has the right
to make decisions concerning his or her welfare and the welfare of the
minor children, that parent has a responsibility towards the non-
custodial parent to maintain the relationship between the minor children
and the non-custodial parent. This may only be accomplished where
the court Is permitted to decide custody before the minor child Is moved
from the Jurisdiction, In Gruber we developed a three part test to
facilitate the trial court's determination of whether the best Interests of a
minor child are served by moving outside of the jurisdiction with the
custodial parent or remaining In the Jurisdiction with the non-custodial
parent. We now decide when those Interests must be balanced, We
find that the same competing Interests found In Gruber mandate that the
-5-
94-4977 CIVIL TERM
balancing must be made before the child Is permitted to move from the
Jurisdiction . , .
In the present case, the mother's request to move with Bryson to Kansas City
Is not out of the desire to frustrate the temporary custodial rights of the father or to
Impede the development of a healthy relationship between Bryson and his father,
The move Is prompted solely by the promotional opportunity offered to her husband.
However, If we approve the mother moving Bryson to Kansas City, the father's
interest will be sacrificed to the employment advancement of the mother's husband.
The continuity of Bryson's strong, loving relationship with his father will be
diminished, Given the time periods that could be realistically provided for the father
to see Bryson, he will become only a vacation father, That Is feasible but hardly
Ideal. Certainly, It Is not In the best Interest of Bryson, Not only will a move by
Bryson to Kansas City adversely terminate the regular contact he has with his father,
It will not otherwise make a significant Improvement in his life. Bryson Is doing very
well in the homes of his mother and father under the current circumstances of both
families, There Is no evidence that the Increased financial benefit his step-father will
secure in Kansas City will make any significant difference to Bryson. Although his
mother will no longer work part-time, that benefit will not nearly offset the detriment to
Bryson of not having a father who Is an Integral, regular part of his life as he grows
up. Besides, next year Bryson will be In first grade and attending school all day,
Taking these factors in balance, and further taking Into consideration the fact
that a move to Kansas City would Interrupt Bryson's regular contact with all of his
-6-
94-4977 CIVIL TERM
grandparents, satisfies us that the permission sought by the mother for the move
should be denied,' Ironically, when promotional opportunities were offered to the
father outside of this area he turned them down, That was In the best Interest of
Bryson as Is the following order,R
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this I ~~ '" day of October, 1994, the petition of Terry L Roof.
Neyhart for permission to move Bryson Jeffrey Roof to Kansas City, Kansas, IS
DENIED.
By~'C~1 / ///';
(~'t\;,,,. i I"~"~ /~
Edgar B, Bayley, J.
/
1, We allowed a mother to move her slx-year-old son to Tennessee In Murrav v,
Menottl, 34 Cumberland L,J, 113 (1984), aff'd 337 Pa, Super, 636 (1984), and for a
mother to move hdr three-year-old son to Wisconsin In Lipham v, MQlldrem, (No.
1408 Civil 1991, May 6, 1992), and for a mother to move her six and elght.year.old
sons to Ohio In Priebe v, Priebe, (No. 1663 Civil 1990, March 26, 1993), Unlike the
facts in the present case, however, we found In each of these cases that the moves
would make a significant Improvement In the lives of the children,
2, The father has sought an order awarding him primary physical custody of
Bryson If the mother moves to Kansas City, If the mother does move, and either the
father or mother petition for the entry of an order, we will without a further hearing
award the father primary physical custody and set forth the mother's periods of
temporary physical custody. If the mother does not move, there Is no need for the
entry of a custody order in light of the parents' ability to resolve those arrangaments
amicably, Given the civil manner In which this difficult dispute has been approached
by them, we would be surprised If either parent develops a recriminatory attitude that
sometimes, unfortunately, follows custody litigation.
.7-
,-,
l'li
I .I-J..
".
I', , .'.1
, , , , 'J
ll.
..l Q
.
- "
Ii
~ . <:
~ " z
-: "
. <:
11) <: '"
..J oJ) ~
ill I- '" >- ~I
l': <: z IJ)
0 7- "
~ IJ) i:: z '.
>- W "
W r "
Z ,. n. ,
a: . ,
t:l 0 Cl
0 2 a:
l': I- ~
"1 I- " OJ
<( ~ IJ)
~ ~ ii
a:
~ <:
.. I
"
rJ)
.
14M "110' ~O."Ull' 't1n'ILI' .'nltO ON 1'111IO'
:)Nj.lYNOl.I.....UM .UYU'l'IY M) NOIlWO'" 'nrnn It'll181lY
... II
"
I
E. With rcglll'd to holidays, the parties shall share or alternate having custody
of Bryson on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day.
Presidents' Duy, Easter. Memorial Day. Lahor Day, Columbus Day, Veteruns Day, IInd
Thunksgiving, Mother shall continuc to have custody of Bryson on Christmas Eve of
each year und Fathcr shllll continue to have custody of Bryson on Christmas Day of each
year,
F, Mother shllll have custody of Bryson on Mother's Day of each year with
Father having custody on Father's DllY of euch year.
G. The schcdule shall provide each party with three (3) weeks of vacation
with Bryson, of which two (2) weeks may be consccutivc and Fathcr shall havc custody
of Bryson during the wcck of July 40. each year for vacation purposes,
H, Each party shall be pcrmitted reasonable telephone contact with Bryson
during the times whcn he is in the custody of the other parent.
I. Father may have custody of Bryson at any additional times as arranged by
agreement of the parties,
J, Each party shall provide the other party with at least thirty (30) days of
advunce notice of vacation requests,
3. The parties shall cooperate in scheduling makeup periods of custody as permitted by hoth
parties' schedules on limited occasions when either party rcquires an adjustment to the custody schedule
due to exigent circumstunces,
4. Neither party shall do or say anything that may estrange Bryson from the other parent,
injure the opinion of Bryson as to the other parent. or hanlpcr the free and natural development of
Bryson's love and respect for the other parent. Both parties shall ensure that third parties having contact
with Bryson comply with this provision,
5, This Order of Court supersedes any prior Agreement of the parties or Order enterc.t in
this matter.
BY THE COURT:
J,
TERRY L. ROOF.NEYHART.
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: NO, 94.4977 CIVIL TERM
E. JEFFREY ROOF.
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT
: CIVIL ACTlON- CUSTODY
PF.TITION TO MODIFY nrSTOOV
AND NOW. comes Petitioner/Defcndant. E. Jeffrey Roof, by and through his counsel. Smigel,
Anderson & Sacks. and files the following Petition to Modify Custody:
1, Petitioner/Defendant is E. Jeffrey Roof. who currently resides at 324 Lamp Post Lane.
Camp Hill. Pennsylvania,
2. RespondentlPlaintiffis Terry L. Roof.Neyhart, who currently resides at 1119 Granada
Lane. Mechanicsburg. Pennsylvania.
3. The parties are the parents of Bryson Jeffrey Root: whose date of birth is June IS, 1988,
4, Petitioner and Respondent were divorced on March 21, 1991,
5. On February 28, 1991, the parties entered into a Property Settlement Agreement which
provided. in pertinelll part. for the custody and visitation of BRYSON JEFFREY ROOF. This provision
reads as follows:
14. ClISTonv ANn VISITATION. Hushand and Wife shall share
legal custody of Bryson J. Roof, born June 15, 1983, Wifc shall retain primary
physical custody of said child subjcct to Husband's right of visitation which shall
consist of every other wcekend, In addition. Husband shall have visitation each
Wednesday following his weekend visitation and each Monday following
weekends when he does not have visitation. Thl: parties shall share visitation on
major holidays with the exception of Wife's right to physical custody \Jvemight
each ChristmllS Eve, Each party shall have the right to three non-consecutive
weeks of visitation per year, Husband shall have additional visitation rights from
time to time IlS agreed upon by the parties,
6. On or about September 6, 1994, Respondent/Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Custody, along
with a Petition lor Emergency Relief seeking to relocate to the State of KansllS with the child.
7. A hearing Wlls held on October 5, 1994, before Judge Bayley regarding the Petition for
Emergency Relief.
8. On October 13, 1994, Wl Order WIlS issued by the Court denying Respondent/Plaintiffs
Petition for Emergency Relief to relocate the child to KansllS.
9. No disposition WIlS made of the Complaint for Custody.
10. The parties have been operating under the visitation and custody arrangementllS set forth in
their Property Settlement Agreement dated February 28, 1991,IlS referenced in paragraph 5 above.
II, PetitionerlDefendant seeks to have the custody arrWlgement modified to allow him
additional periods of visitation with Ilis son, The child hIlS also expressed Wl interest in spending extra time
with his father,
12, Petitioner/Defendant Wld his son have a very positive and nurturing relationship.
13. Petitioner/Defendant believes that the best interests and welfare of the child would be
served by modifying the visitation schedule,
14. Petitioncr/Defendant wishes to modify the custody arrangementllS follows:
A. The parties shall continue to have shared legal custody of their son,
BRYSON JEFFREY ROOF,
B. Father shall have custody of Bryson on an alternating week schedule.
C, The first week. Father shall have custody of Bryson fro/ll 8:30 a,m on
TU\lsday to 8:30 a,/ll, on Thursday and in that sa/lle week fro/ll 8:30 a,/ll, on Friday to
8:30 a,m, on Monday.
0, During the following week, Father shall have ellstody of Bryson fro/ll
8:30 a.lI1. on Wednesday to 8:30 a,lI1. on Friday,
E, This sehcdule shall rcpeat on an cvery other week basis,
F, With regard to holidays, the parties shall share or altenlate having custody
of Bryson on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day,
Presidents' Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, and
Thanksgiving, Mother shall continue to have custody of Bryson on Christmas Eve of
each year and Father shall continue to have custody of Brison on Christmas Day of each
year,
G, Mother shall have custody of Bryson on Mother's Day of each year with
Father having custody on Father's Day of each year.
H, The schedule shall provide each party with three (3) weeks of vacation
with Bryson, of which two (2) weeks may be consecutive and Father shall have custody
of Bryson during the week of July 4'h each year for vacation purposes,
I. Each party shall be penllilted reasonable telephone contact with Bryson
during the times when he is in the custody of the other parent.
J. Father may have custody of Bryson at any additional times as arranged by
agreement of the parties,
K, Each party shall provide the other party with at least thirty (30) days of
i
',~ "(I ~ "W
.~
~. : 1- (l: ::r ,....
, . ,
.. ~ \of'
0 <>'>
0 ~ '"
"
'j ...,; ~, ~
t
11.'1 ' '
" ~ d
.'
lJ
Disorder (ADUD) Ibr which he is presently taking medication. he hus a strong need
Ibr eunsisteney in his sehedule. Furthermore, the child has done exceptionally well
in sehuol and in his extracurricular activities und any significant changes to the status
quu may likely damage the child and detrimentally eflcct his scholastic und social
develupment.
14, Admiued in purt and denied in part, Mother will continue to agree to the terms us
prupused in the fbllowing subparagraphs: A, I, J. K. und L. The remaining
subllaragraphs und the contents thereof are denied to the extent that Father indicates
thuta custody urrungement including same would be in the best interest of the child,
See response to Paragraph 13. above, Mother further denies that subpuragraphs G
is in the best interest of the child as the parties have traditionally followed thcir regular
custody schedule lelr Mother's Day und Father's Day. In addition. subparagraph H
is denied to the extent that it should speci(y that Father's week of vacation on or
about July 4th shull be included in his three (3) total weeks of vacation und Mother
shall be elllitled to the school vacation week for Christmas us one of her designated
weeks for vacation custody. In further answer hereof: Mother is in agreement with
increasing Father's time. and will essentially agree with some of the tenus of
Subparagraph F regarding holidays. yet Mother will not agree to the specific custody
schedule as posed by Father due to the disruptive nature of same and further disputes
the holidays as addressed herein.
2
" 'f' ~..
'. ,.
0 .
,,, ,
,
q , I;
,
(I. .
(, 1/;,
" '-'.. fil.
e , ..I
,.)
I'
.
. .
rnudlty child support.
4, ^ complaint filr custody was tiled by Mother in 1994. .11 which time a relocation
hearing was held belilre the Ilonorable Judge Edgar B. Buyley.
5, The current status lJuo betwcenthe parlies has been in place lilr approximutely eleven
(11) y,'ars.
6, ^ conciliation confercnce lilr Futher's Petition to Modify Custody wus held belbrc
Conciliator Melissa p, Greevy on September 23, 2002.
7, The parties were unable to reach an ugreemcnt rcsolving the issues in Father's Petition
to Modily Custody at the time of the conciliation conference, although the parties
were able to agrce on some provisions regarding some, but not all holidays and
vacation periods,
8, The conciliator explained to the parties at the time of the conference that she would
make a recommendation to the Court to permit Father's alternating weekends to be
extended through Monday morning at which time Father would take the child to
school. She also indicated that she would include the holiday and vacation provisions
that the parties had agreed upon during the conference,
9, The conciliator specifically stated that shc would not include the "banker's holidays"
(Columbus Day, Veteran's Day, Martin Luther Kind Day and President"s Day)
provision because Father had rejected Mother's proposal on that issue, She was also
clear that the only increase in Father's time per tile recommendation would be the
additional two (2) Sunday evenings per month that was proposed by Mother,
2
.
. .
10, In the interest of resolving all issues at the conference and without litigation. Mothcr
had proposed that Fathcr's weekends be cxtended to include Sunday evening through
Monday morning WId that Falher be grunted custody on the "hunker's holidays" lilr
a period of custody ';uring the day without an overnight period. Father rejected that
oller and denUlnded that the "banker's holidays" be extended overnight.
II, During the conference the Pllrtles hud extensive conversations regarding the Memorial
Day, Fourth of July und Labor Duy holiduys, yet they were unable to agree on specific
terms lilr those custody periods, The custom between the parties designuted custody
for the holiday to the parent whose day it was under the regular custody schedule.
12. Despite the parties' disagreements IInd the conciliator's statements that the disputed
items would not be included in the recommendation to the Court, the Conciliator's
Report and recommended Interim Order included the mailers not agreed upon by the
parties. ^ true and correct copy of the Custody Conciliation Summary Report is
alluched hereto as Exhibit "e" and is incorporuted herein as if lully set lorth.
13, The Custody Coneiliation Summary Report is dated September 26, 2002. and it was
received by counsel tor Mother on October J, 2002,
14. The Interim Order executed by the Honorable Judge Edgar B, Bayley. was dated
September 30, 2002. and was received by counsellor Mother on October I. 2002.
^ true und correct copy of the Interim Order is allached hereto as Exhibit "I)" und is
incorporated herein as if lully sct l()rth.
IS, The provisions tor custody in the Interim Order include terms that were disputed by
the parties at the time of the conciliation.
3
.
16, The conciliator's report does not accurately rellectlhe diseusslons. the agreements,
and Ihe disputcs of the parties.
17, Mother wishes to preserve her objections to the conciliator's report und the Interim
Order as entered, She also seeks to havc the Interim Order moditkd such that it
rellects only those terms agrecd upon hy the parties utthe time of the conciliation
conference.
18, Mother's exceptions to the Custody Conciliution Summary Report ure as tilllows:
A. Mother objects to l'urugruph 7 to the extent that the conciliutor infilrmed
those present at that conciliation thut she would not include banker's holidays
and disputed holidays in her recommendution to the ('ourt. She clearly stated
she would keep the stutus quo, include holidays as agreed, and givc Father
alternating Sunday ovcrnights on atemporury busis,
19, Mothers exceptions to the Interim Order ure as IiI \lows:
A. l'arugraph 2(A), 2(B), and 2(C} should specify the stutus quo of5:()() p.m. lor
the beginning of Father's periods described therein.
B. l'urugraph 2(A) wherein it grunts Father Monday nightovcrnights should be
omil\ed, It was disputed by the parties utthe eoneiliution.
C. l'urugruphs 2(F) and 2(0) should be omilled. These provisions were disputed
by the purties at the conciliution. Furthermore, the parties' discussion was
limited to day-time custody periods "lr the holiday while the conciliator
recommended that the holiduy include the entire weekend udjacent to the
holiday. The custom between the parties designated custody lor the holiday
to the parent whose day it wus under the regular custody schedule,
2(). Mother proposes thm this Honorable Court ml'dily the Interim Order to reinstute the
status quo between the parties with the additionul inclusion of those mailers agreed
upon by the parties at the time of the conciliation conference, as per the terms orthe
proposed Amended Interim Order al\ached hereto.
4
71773113712
MILKEALTAKER
PAGE 135
'tERRY 1.. RooF.NEYHART
PLAINTIFF
IN 1liE COURT OF COMMON PLeAS OF
CUMBERLAND COt}l'rfY, PENNSYL V A!\'1A
v,
114-4977 CIVIL ACTION LAW
E JEFFREY ROOF
DEFENDANT
IS CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Wadneeday, ",UIIUIl21, 2002 _, upon consideration Ilfthe allached Cumplaint,
it is hereby directflu thot parties and their respective coun~el appear before M.llSla p, GneY}'. E.q, , the conciliator,
at 301 M.rket Sln.I, L.meyne, PA 17043 on Monday, S.pt.mber 23, 2002 at 8:30 AM
for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort willue made to resolve the issues in dispute; or
.fthis cannot be accomplished, 10 de tine and narrow the issues to be heard by the COLLrt, and to enter into II temporary
order. All children aile five or older may also be present at the conference Failure to appear at the conference may
provide grounds for entry of a tempornry or pennnnent order.
The court bereby dIrect. the partie. to furnish any and all exlstinll Protection from Abuse orders,
Special Relief orders. and CUllod.v orders to Ibe conciliator 48 bours prior to .cheduled bcarlna,
FOR TIfE COURT. ~ ~ ~
By, I.; Melissa p, Gm'li1 F..q. ",\"I./ f~ ~ m~
Custody Concihator ~l:~ )> ~~\];)
~(" ::Jr .&;.fj
~"' - !)~
The Court of Common Pleu ofCumbcrland COllnty is reqUIred by law to comply the::- ~'
Americans with Disabihtes Act of 1990, For infonnahon about accessible facilities and reaso ble i~ ~
accommodations available to disabled indivlduals haVing business before the court, please contact our offiCe,
All arrangements must be made at J east 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the coun, You must
attend the scheduled conference or hearing,
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOIJR A TTORl'."EY AT ONCE IF YOU DO NOT
HA \'1; AN A TIORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONf., GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP,
Cumberland C ounry Bar Associauon
2 libcrty Avenue
Carlisle, Pcnnsylvania 17013
Telephone (717) 249.3166
EXHIBIT "A"
, .
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
'[
TERRY L, ROOF.NEYHART,
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
: NO, 94.4977 CIVIL TERM
E, JEFFREY ROOF,
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT
(') \:'1
C I ,
-. ',.
-i'-I, )
'-,II ,
;", ,I
;.'(
l "
, - "
: CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
. .
"
PF.TITION TO MODIFY ('JISTOny
. '.'
'I
I,
:1
II
II
:1
I.
,I
I
I
:1
I
.', .
AND NOW, comes PetitioncrlDefendant, E, Jeffrey Roof, by and through his counsel, Shligel,
','1 .
Anderson & Sacks, and files the following Petition to Modify Custody:
1. PetitionerlDefendant is E. Jeffrey Roof, who currently resides at 324 Lamp Post Lane,
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania,
2. Respondent/Plaintiff is Terry L. Roof.Neyhart, who currently resides at 1119 Granada
Lane, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania,
3. The parties arc the parents of Bryson Jeffrey Roof, whose date of birth is June 15, 1<)8~,
4, Petitioner and Respondent were divorced on March 21, 1991,
5, On February 28, 1991, the parties entered into a Property Settlement Agreement which
provided, in pertinent part, for the custody and visitation ofBR'{SON JEFFREY ROOF. This provision
reads as follows:
14. CI rSTOOV A NO VISIT A TION, Husband and Wife shall share
legal custody of Bryson J. Roof, born June 1 S. 1988. Wife shall retain primary
physical custody of said child subject to Husband's right of visitation which shall
consist of every other weekend. In addition, Husband shall have visitation each
Wednesday following his weekend visitation and each Monday following
. .
Disorder (ADHD) for which he is presently taking medication, he has a strong need
lor consistency in his schedule. Furthermore. the child has done exceptionally well
in school and in his eXlracurricular activities and any signilicant changcs 10 the status
quo may likely damage the child and dell'imel1tally ellcct his scholastic and social
development:
14. Admitted in part and denied in part. Mother will continue to agree to the terms as
proposed in the lilllowing subparagraphs: A, I, J, K, and 1.. The remaining
subparagraphs and the contents thereof are denied to the extent that Futher indicates
that a custody arrangement ineluding same would be in the best interest of the child.
See response to Paragraph 13, above. Mother further denies that subparagraphs G
is in the best interest oflhe child as the parties havc traditionally followed their regular
custody schedule for Mother's Day and Father's Day. In addition, subparagraph H
is denied to the extent that it should specify that Father's week of vucation on or
about July 4'h shall be included in his three (3) total weeks ofvucation and Mother
shall be entitled to the school vacution weck for Christmas as one of her designated
weeks lor vacation custody. In further answer hereof. Mother is in agreement with
increasing Father's time, and will essentially ugree with some of the terms of
Subparagraph F regurding holidays. yet Mother will not agree to the specilic custody
schedule us posed by Father due to the disruptive nature ofsame and further disputes
the holidays as addressed herein.
2
. ,
I S. Denied. Mother speclticully denies uny implication In this paragraph that she has been
obstinate with regard to adjusting the custody schedule to meet Futher's demands.
Mother hus continuully met Futher's requests filr ptlSt chunges in lhe schedule to
accommodate his personul preferences. In uddition, the parties huvc discllssed this
specitie matter und huvc exchanged correspondence with proposals which included
Mother designating additiollul time I,ll' the child with Father. It is Iloted that Father
acknowledged that the parties agree 011 some issues raised in his prior proposal, yet
he luiled to disdose those isslles to Mother and opted to file his Petition lor
Modificution with this Court: Therelore, strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
J 6. Admitted.
17. Admitted.
WHEREFORE, Respolldent/PlaintilfMother respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
deny I)etitioner/Defendunt Father's Petition 10 Modify Custody, order Ihalthc slatus quo shall remain
in ellect, and grant such other relief as this Court deems just und proper.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Dated: 1/1 to /0.:4-_
, I
[; da A. Clotfelter, EsqUire
S preme Courtl.D. No. 72963 /
64 Trindle Road
(:amp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
3
, . ,
, ,
TERRY L. ROOF.NEYHART,
Plaintiff
v,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 94-4977 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
E, JEFFREY ROOF,
Defendant
CUSTODY CONCILI~TION SUMMAR.Y_BEPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-a, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1 , The pertinent Information concerning the child who Is the subject of this
litigation Is as follows:
NAME
DATE OF BIRTH
CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF
Bryson Jeffrey Roof
June 16, 1988
Mother
2, A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on September 23, 2002 In
response to Father's Petition to Modify Custody fiied on or about August 19, 2002. This Is
the parties' first Custody Conciliation Conference, Present for the conference were: the
Mother, Terry L, Roof-Neyhart, and her counsel, LeRoy Smigel, Esquire; the Father. E,
Jeffrey Roof. and his counsel, Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire,
3, The parties reached an agreement for shared legal custody, most holidays,
vacation, and some additional custodial time for Father,
4, issues upon which the parties did not agree: (a) Father is seeking additional
custodial time to equate a shared physical custody schedule which would include periodic
overnights with the child during the school week; (b) the sharing of Memorial Day, Labor
Day and Independence Day; and (c) the "banker's holidays" (Columbus Day, Veteran's Day,
Martin Luther King Day. and President's Day),
6, Father's position on custody: Father reports that the child wants more time
with him and alleges that Mother has put pressure on the child after this allegation was set
forth in his pleadings for this Conciliation Conference, Father coaches the child's soccer
team and has stayed consistentiy involved in the child's life. He would like to have
additional time during the child's adolescence to provide guidance and parenting to him
before the child graduates from high school. It is Father's opinion that Mother views time
with Father as disruptive. He points out that the summer schedule that the child has
EXHIBIT "c"
. ,
NO, 94.4977 CIVIL TERM
followed with various camps and activities to which he did 110t have Input could also be
viewed as disruptive, Father Is self-employed and describes himself as "pretty available" to
spend time with the child,
6, Mother's position on custody: It Is Mother's position that she Is very much
focused on her perception of the disruption It would cause for tho child to spend more time
with Falher, The child has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and is presently being
treated during the school year pharmaceutically uy a f<:mlly practice physician, However, he
15 not in any type of counseling or therapy, He Is presently In eighth grade at
Mechanicsburg Area Intermediate School and fully main streamed for all academics, He has
been on the Honor Roll and Distinguished Honor Roll during his middle school years.
Mother fears that If they do not continue on the schedule which they are presently following
that he will either not continue to develop as a healthy child and will live with them until he 15
30 years old or that he will rebel. Mother acknowledges that Father has been very creative
in finding ways to get more time with Bryson, She claims that Father feels threatened by the
child's positive relationship with his stepfather. Mother presently works part time but does
not work on Tuesdays or Fridays, Mother acknowledged that she had asked the child If he
wanted more time with his Father and that he confirmed that he did. However, she points
out that he did not come to her specifically asking for more time, that It was only upon her
inquiry that he let her know he would like more time with Father. Mother points out that the
schedule that has been followed was In place for eleven (11) years,
7, After a rather lengthy Conciliation, the parties had reached a number of
agreements which are memorialized in the Order attached, The Conciliator provides an
Order encompassing the parties' agreements plus recommendations on banker's holidays,
Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day and a return to the Custody Conciliation
process after the child has received the first marking period report card, Because of
Mother's intense concern that changes to the schedule will be so disruptive as to impair the
child's functioning, it is the Conciliator's opinion that an external and verifiable milasure of
his functioning will assist the parents In determining how the child Is adjusting to having
additional custodial time with Father.
1/~rll~ "V
Date
L.. ~.t.~~ ~/l
Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire
Custody Conciliator
: 163184
. . .
.1 /'...1 ~ ,'11(11
v,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 94-4977 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
TERRY L. ROOF-NEYHART,
Plaintiff
E, JEFFREY ROOF,
Defendant
BAYLEY, J, ---
INTERIM ORDER OF COURT
,
AND NOW, this j(" I;' day of JI't[""t.,,_ . 2002, upon consideration
of the attached Custody Conciliation Summafy Report, it Is hereby ordered and directed as
follows:
1, Legal Custody, The parties, Terry L, Roof-Neyhart and E, Jeffrey Roof, shall
have shared legal custody of the minor child, Bryson Jeffrey Roof, born June 15, 1988,
Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make
all major non-emergency decisions affecting the children's general well-being Including. but
not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion, Pursuant to the
terms of Pa,C,S. ~5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information
pertaining to the children including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school
records, the residence address of the children and of the other parent. To the extent one
parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to
share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to
make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent. Both parents shall
be entitled to full participation in all educational and medical/treatment planning meetings
and evaluations with regard to the minor child. Each parent shall be entitled to full and
complete information from any phyr.ician, dentist. teacher or authority and copies of any
reports given to them as parents Including, but not limited to: medical records, birth
certificates, school or educational records, attendance records or report cards. Additionally,
each parent shall be entitled to receive copies of any notices which come from school with
regard to school pictures. extracurricular activities. children's parties, musical presentations,
back-to-school night, and the like,
2, Physical Custody, Physical custody shall be shared by the parties as follows:
A. On alternate weekends to commence October 4, 2002. from
Friday after school until Monday when the child is returned to school. if
Monday is a school day. If Monday is not a sdlOol day, then Father's custodial
weekend shall be extended until he returns the child to school on Tuesday
morning,
EXHIBIT "D"
. . .
. .
NO. 94-4977 CIVIL TERM
B. Effective October 10, 2002, on alternating Thursdays from after
school until the child Is returned to school Friday morning,
C, Effective October 1, 2002, on alternating Tuesdays from
Tuesday after school until Wednesday morning when the child is returned to
school.
D, At all other times when Father does not have custody, Mother
shall have custody,
3, Holl<!~,
A. Mother's Day / Father's Day. The child shall be with Mother on
Mother's Day and Father on Father's Day.
B. Easter, Easter shall be divided Into two segments, Segment A
and Segment B, Segment A shall be from 9:00 a,m, to 3:00 p,m. and
Segment B shall be from 3:00 p,m. to 9:00 p,m, In odd numbered years,
Father shall have Segment A and Mother shall have Segment B. In even
numbered years. Mother shall have Segment A and Father shall have
Segment B,
C, Thanksglvl~, Each year. Father shall have custody for
Thanksgiving from the evening before Thanksgiving until 4:30 p,m, on
Thanksgiving Day,
D, New Year's. Father shall have custody each New Year's Eve
from 10:00 a,m, until New Year's Day at 10:00 a,m, Mother shall have custody
for each New Year's Day to commence at 10:00 a,m,
E, Christmas, Mother shall have Christmas Eve Day each year until
11 :00 a.m, Christmas Day, Father shall have Christmas Day at 11 :00 a,m.
each year until December 26th at 11 :00 a,m. The parties shall share the
remaining days of the Christmas school recess as equally as possible,
However, Father shall have custody for 2002 Christmas school break for the
period from December 26th at 11 :00 a,m, until January 1. 2003 at ,11 :00 a,m.
... . .
.. .
NO. 94-4977 CIVIL TERM
F. Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day. Mother shall
have Memorial Day weekend each year, Father shall have custody on
Independence Day each year with the option to Include Independence within
his extended vacation time, The parties shall alternate Labor Day weekend
with Mother having Labor Day weekend In 2003 and subsequent odd
numbered years, Father shall have Labor Day weekend In 2004 and
subsequent even numbered years.
G, golumbus Day. Veteran's Day. Martin Luther King Day, and
Eresident's Day-. In the event that one of Ihese holidays falls adjacent to
Father's custodial weekend, Father's custodial weekend shall be extended to
Tuesday morning when he shall return the child to school. In the event that
these holidays do not fall adjacent to Father's custodial weekend. Father shall
have custody from 9:00 a,m, of the holiday until the child Is returned to school
the following Tuesday morning,
4, Vacation, Holidays shall take precedence over regular custodial time and
Vacation shalltake precedence over regular custodial time, Neither parent shall schedule
vacation time on the other parent's custodial time without their express approval. Each
parent shall be entitled to up to twenty-one (21) days vacation per year, up to fourteen (14)
days of which may be tak&n continuously In the summer. The parties shall provide each
other with thirty (30) days written notice of their intended vacation time, In the event that the
parties have scheduled conflicting vacations, the party first providing written notice shall
have choice of vacation,
5, The Custody Conciliation Conference shall reconvene on November 12,
2002 at 8:30 a.m, at the office of the Custody Conciliator, Melissa Pael Greevy,
Esquire, 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043. It is contemplated at the time the
Custody Conciliation Conference reconvenes that the child's first marking period report card
will be available and that the child's adjustment to the modified schedule will be reviewed.
BY THE COURT:
L" J)
hI (!~ P lJ'fl~'f
'! 611Jgar B, Bayley, (j,
Dls!:
LeRoy Smigel. Esquire, 4431 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110.1709
Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire, 3464 Trlndle Road, Camp HIli, PA 17011
. rr" ,,- .
,', ,'t.
: ~ f , . :1 '.; I . .~. J "",' ','
.Jr '{ r' j' ':' . I' "....."".. .....,)
.. " '"', :_' .. ""..r,..
, ,. , ,:,' ~~ ',' '...; ..;!
":' '.~'('-,1!'-~" "1'1'" . :J"~'~ :"'.',I'~-'" ~,'~'
t,<tJ,.-:.--.."1...,....~ ~ ,.~It.. f.'(~t..... ..J((...L,
i, /].:' .-;' .. . C.,.;: ..----
-.r.~.l.4- ......!."'...-riL,...;..._.
. . ~
.,. '. .
v.
IN 'I'm: COURT ()Io' COMMON PI,US ()Io'
CUMIU:RI.ANn (:OUN'J'Y, I)ENNSYI.Y ANIA
NO, 94-4977 CIVIl. l'F.RM
TERRY I.. RO()I<'.NEYIIART,
RespondenllPllllntlfT
E, JEFFREY ROOF,
Petition er/l>erendll n t
CIVIl. ACTION - CUST()I)Y
CER1U'I(:AH (W S.:RVIO:
AND NOW, this ISlh day of September, 2002, the undersigned hereby ecrtifies thul II true
III1dcorr~'Ctcopyofthc foregoing RESPONSE TO PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY wlISserved
upon interested purties by way oflJnited Stutes first c1uss mail, postage prepaid,lIddrcsscd lIS follows:
LeRoy Smigel. Esquire
SMIGEL. ANDERSON & SACKS
4431 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 17110-1709
(Counsellor Petitioner/Futher)
Melissa P. Greevy, Esquire
30 I Market Street
Lemoyne, P A 17043
(Assigned Conciliutor)
LA W OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Dated:-1.!2.h to.J..
.
da A. Clotfelter, Esquire
3 64 Trindle Road
amp Bill, PA 17011
7
I,
,
,
, ,
>- _1' ~-
~. ~ ~ ,';
I; , ..
. (
L, , .,7 " ,I
,
\
I. (". : :'j
I", ,
J, ,.., ",1
[, I , ,
(, f I
, I~.. ,",
I ..:,; I~")
I' I
l ! '. '. U
"
. ,
.
I
I
I
"
.
NOVI Ii lUU~ \l-
TERRY L, ROOF-NEYHART,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 94-4977 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
v.
E. JEFFREY ROOF,
Defendant
BAYLEY, J. ---
3n:DER OF COURT
AND NOW, this I C\ day of November, 2002, upon consideration of the
attached Cuslody Conciliation Summary Report, it Is hereby ordered and directed as
follows:
1, Legal Cl,lstody, The parties, Terry L. Roof-Neyhart and E. Jeffrey Roof, shall
have shared legal custody of the minor child, Bryson Jeffrey Roof, born June 15, 1988.
Each parent "hall have an equal right, to be exercised Jointly with the other parent, to make
all major non-emergency decisions affecting the child's general well-being including, but not
limited to, all decisions regarding his health. education and religion, Pursuant to the terms
of Pa,C,S, ~5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and Information pertaining to
the child Including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the
residence address of the child and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has
possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the
same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the
records and Information of reasonable use to the other parent. Both parents shall be
entitled to full participation In all educational and medical/treatment planning meetings and
evaluations with regard to the minor child, Each parent shall be entitled to full and complete
Information from any physician, dentist. teacher or authority and copies of any reports given
to them as parents Including. but not limited to: medical records. birth certificates, school or
educational records, attendance records or report cards, Additionally, each parent shall be
entitled to receive copies of any notices which come from school with regard to school
pictures. extracurricular activities, chlld's parties. musical presentations, back-to-school
night, and the like,
2, School Ye.ar.Ehyslcal Custody, Physical custody during the school year shall
be arranged as follows:
A. To commence November 15. 2002. Father shall have custody on
alternate weekends from Friday at 5:00 p,m, until Monday when the child Is
returned to school. Father may pick up the child at school dismissal time upon
NO. 94-4977 CIVIL TERM
holidays shall be from 9:00 a,m. on the holiday unlll 9:00 a.m. on the Monday
following the holiday.
B, Easter. Easter shall be divided Into two segmenls, Segment A
and Segment B. Segment A shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and
Segment B shall be from 3:00 p,m. Easter until 9:00 a,m, the day following
Easter. In odd numbered years, Father shall have Segment A and Mother
shall have Segment B, In even numbered years, Mother shall have Segment
A and Father shall have Segment B,
C, Thanksgl'i.lml. Each year, Father shall have custody for
Thanksgiving from the evening before Thanksgiving until 4:30 p,m. on
Thanksgiving Day,
D, New Year's. Father shall have custody each New Year's Eve
from 10:00 a,m, until New Year's Day at 10:00 a.m, Mother shall have custody
for each New Year's Day to commence at 10:00 a,m,
E. Chrislmas. Mother shall have Christmas Eve Day each year until
11 :00 a,m, Christmas Day, Father shall have Christmas Day at 11 :00 a,m.
each year until December 26th at 11 :00 a,m, The parties shall share the
remaining days of the Christmas school recess as equally as possible.
However, Father shall have custody for 2002 Christmas school break for the
period from December 26th at 11 :00 a,m, until January 1, 2003 at11 :00 a.m.
F. Memorial Day. Independence Day and Labor ['la)!. The custodial
period for Memorial Day and Labor Day shall be from 9:00 a,m, until 5:00 p.m,
However, In Ihe event that the parent having the holiday also has the
Immediately prer;edlng custodial weekend. that parent may add the holiday to
their custodial weekend by the use of a vacation day from the vacation day's
provided pursuant to Paragraph 5 below, upon thirty (30) days notice to the
other party, In that event, the custodial parent may extend their weekend until
Tuesday morning, Mother shall have Memorial Day each year. Father shall
have custody on Independence Day each year with the option to include
Independence Day within his extended vacation time. The parties shall
alternate Labor Day with Mother having Labor Day In 2003 and subsequent
odd numbered years. Father shall have Labor Day In 2004 and subsequent
even numbered years,