Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-00482 '" rI ,j.... <' 'i"a " <, ,,~\'_'i',\:"" f' " i~;~:?? ,; , Ie",;:;:..:; , ~;~:};:~~;\,\'. ..ft,~....W""IJ" ~t~<~~ t~\/', ~"",.,' " ~~~(':,;;;:' , t'~'~' L~" ,.,', <\ '.... ,\";f.:r <~,,-:, , ,', , ' ,c_ , rl:',' , ,.,.,.:~..; ,> ,... ., 'r;,'t~p "/-: /, /;\::f :: I'::' ,-",;':-r~'".", 9 ~d co.. Co '"::t' '\ l(.) CJ'" i i J \ >- r" r: -, t~ j:.~ ~'/ r--" )4.... Illl;,,' (.'.- . ,),,~ ~\: ~'. I _1 :'~. -' ,i ., .~ {.-. :_!;J ..'i .t. C':':J " ,- ,.'- 'if) ~Il ,-.,; 1--/ ~ -.. ;1- ~;; (C'" _! ' :"i[(j i' :..,:..; p -l ~qr.L. II. n\ :-5 (.) .J' U ",,-: RICHARD A. WELLS, Plaintiff/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 95-0482 CIVIL TERM LINDA H. WELLS, a.k.a LINDA H. WELLS HAMILTON Defendant/Respondent CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of , 1999, upon consideration of the attached complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before , the conciliator, at on the day of , 1999, at _.M., 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 accOl;nplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court and to enter in to a temporary order. Either party may bring the child/children who is/are the subject of the custody action to the conference, but the child's/children's attendance is not mandatory. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. For the Court, By: Custody Conciliator YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE, FOURTH FLOOR CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (717) 240-6200 RICHARD A. WELLS, Plaintiff/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 95-0482 CIVIL TERM LINDA H. WELLS, a.k.a LINDA H. WELLS HAMILTON Defendant/Respondent Ii I CIVIL ACTION - LAW PETITION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF AND NOW, this 28T11 day of July 1999, the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Richard A. Wells, by and through his attorney, Austin F. Grogan, Esq., avers the Following: 1. PlaintiFF/Petitioner, Richard A. Wells, resides at 638 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne, PA 17043; 2. The DeFendant/Respondent, Linda H. Wells-Hamilton, lives at 406 W. Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 along with 11t:r current husband, Randy Hamilton, and the minor children, Preston D. Wells, Philip Wells, and Cameron Wells; 3. The Defendant/Respondent is currently pregnant with her fourth child with a due date of August 1999; 4. The parties have shared legal custody of the minor children and the Plaintiff/Father has shared physical custody liS outlined in a Court Order dated January 31, 1996 (copy attached); 5. The PlaintiFf/Petitioner has exerciscd regular IInd Frequent partial custody as outlined in the Order and lit other times mutually agreed upon; . . vacation. These weeks may be together or separated. Each year the father shall notify the mother of which weeks he will be having the children not later than June 1 st; (d) during any weekend under paragraph 3(a) that the father has the children during the summer when they are not In school, his weekend shall extend to 9:00 a.m. Monday morning. On such weekends the mother shall pick up the children at the father's residence on Monday at 9:00 a.m. (e) each Christmas from noon Christmas day through 6:00 p.m. on January 1 sl. (4) The parents shall alternate the holidays of Thanksgiving and Fourth of July. The Thanksgiving holiday will be from Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. (5) All other federal holidays that occur on a Friday or Monday shall attach to the weekend schedule. (6) The mother shall have the children at all other times, and she shall always have them on December 24th through noon on December 25th. (7) The father shall pick up and deliver the children except as set forth In paragraph 3(d). (8) Both parents shall have reasonable telephone access with the children. (9) These periods of custody are meant for the benefit of each parent and they should endeavor to make sure that they are spending the time with the children If at all possible. . , . ~ . ':";1, ~ ,_ -" ~ . ", \....~.._"c)r..-.- _ __ .. ~ - . t'.~ '~ " ",,",.. .......', " '" " :~ . By the Court, /' / Edgar B. Bayley, J. / ... ~~~,F:"Grogan, Esquire 7"l"'lalntlff Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire For'Defendant :saa TRUE COpy FROM RECORD In Testimony '."11 r: of, I here unto set my hand Gnd the seal of said Court at Carlisle, Pa. This q..~y of...Q1l(."".'~'''' 19..9.f? ..............................o,...Q..\.~~!...._.. lSfl:o" Prothonotary >- \.II i':: (r; "-. '- ~:~~ ~:~ ,.. ~ ~2 UJ~) Cl:". :.:; ':)~.;~ \E~:; .'.,," :,.,.,~.:j 1'{'('.1 ."~ (() "il) (,I . C-./ 1 :;.- U:lt. '-.~ ...,. ."1" , :;-;('1 u..;' ~~ ~: I 'l... [- , ::.; 1.'- r" 0 0' <..l III < Iol ...:l . ~ ~ p. , :c .... :2:.., :2: p:; .... '0 I:l ~ 0< Iol ..... ~ Eo< /0 Iol ~p. Eo< .., ....:l'tl p:; H I:l ,\o!H I:l 0 ...:l '5~lgll! o . ...:l ~ ..... . :c QJ " ~ Iol u>< H :3 '/0 ~<.... p:; ~~~g;i:l .'!' Eo< ::- lIl.... . tr:QJ Z [ji5 H o-lp. > , I=l 0 >< o ~... U I o-l lIllll H U 0 ~ o-lo-l Eo< z ,~~!g , ,~ Eo<U :2: o-lo-:l H Iol I", p:; N 0 ~~ Eo< t!l 15~ co H . Iol p:; '<I' Eo< < P. Iol u< 0 U . . :c o-:l I < I=l tr:tr: Iol loll>: ltl p:; tr:1ol ell ...:l < << Eo< III H tr: ~~ :2:~ . ::- U 0 H H HH HU Z U p:; o-:l...:l . . . ~..(II,j'li/l g: ,t;rrtyll/I/ . ./lit ;, /j FJ'HIP" . 3. The parties will alternate the following holidays: Thanksgiving, New Years Day, and Fourth of July. The Thanksgiving holiday will be from Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. Father will start this schedule with Thanksgiving of 1996 and it will alternate thereafter. 4. All other federal holidays that occur on a Friday or a Monday should attach to the regular weekend visitation schedule. 6. The Christmas holiday of 1996 will be handled as follows: A. Mother will have the children from December 23 at 9:00 a.m. until December 24 at 9:00 a.m. She Is to pick up and deliver the child ran for this period of visitation. Mother will have Christmas Day at noon until December 26 at 9:00 a.m. Father will have the children from December 26 at 9:00 a.m. until December 27 at 7:00 p.m. 8. Both parties shall have reasonable telephone access with the children. 7. Both parties understand that these periods of custody with the children are meant for the benefit of each parent and they should endeavor to make sure that they are spending the time with the children If at all possible. Oell, 53 (11'95 , ,~" " I ~ 'r RICHARD A. WELLS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. LINDA H. WELLS, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 95-4B2 CIVIL TERM IN DIVORCE JUDGE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED: The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-B(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertlmmt Information concerning the child who is the subject of this litigation Is as follows: NAME BIRTHDA TE CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Preston D. Wells Phillip R. Wells Cameron S. Wells 4 February 1989 1 February 1986 8 October 1 984 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on 19 October 1995, and the following individuals were present: the Plaintiff and his attorney, Austin F. Grogan, Esquire. The Defendant appeared with her attorney, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire. 3. Items resolved by agreement: see Order attached. 1 '. 4. Issues yet to be resoived: see Order attached. 5. The Plaintiff's position on custody is as follows: see Order attached. 6. The Defendant's position on custody is as follows: see Order attached. 7. Need for separate counsel to represent child: none. 8. Need for independent psychological evaluation or counseling: none. 9. Other matters and comments: see Order attached. 10. A hearing In this matter is expected to take two hours. Date: 24 October 1995 ~kbkL:;;jI1 Custody Conciliator 2 U) ~ ~ - ~lq (Q .. ~ :,; ...l < ~ ~ >liH ~~::l o < g = .~ ~ " . : .', .' .. .' . ". . :,/-/ .""" . I ( -',/<:' -<;.5 . .. 'I I I' II " i v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION ... LAW 95-CIVIL..!l5 -4-g2. ~ I~ RICHARD A. WELLS, plaintiff LINDA H. WELLS, Defendant CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, upon consideration of the attached complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before Sc.f>\u.-I L 1111('1~ tSq , the conciliator, at J ~oJIW S;;~- f\l.::...-'d t-h c;l. /.tft'~n the I L(tl.. day of M~rc./, 1995, at 3 p_ .m., 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 ~~'L order. All children age five or older also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. By the Court, YOU SHOULD TAKE 'THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. COURT ADMINISTRATOR, 4th FLOOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (717) 240-6200 I [[I I ,I i.1 ;';; '95 cY' I ' '/!,- 9- ,::J ,/. 5 .;)"75 Ctlfa 1>1~(( .~ a1~ Xt~a-", , t!"fa p,~ ~ .5', {l"P(u P c!Ofl;j I'VI .;.....4.1 t:. dtfl, '- v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 95-CIVIL i,' II RICHARD A. WELLS, Plaintiff LINDA H. WELLS, Defendant COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY t,; 'I COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. The plaintiff is Richard A. Wells, residing at 555 Pearl Street, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania 19602. 2. The defendant is Linda H. Wells, residing at 832 Hummel , " Avenue, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17043. i 3. Plaintiff seeks custody of the following children: Name Present Residence Age Preston D. Wells 832 Hummel Avenue 5 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Phillip Wells 832 Hummel Avenue 8 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Cameron Wells 832 Hummel Avenue 10 Lemoyne, PA 17043 The children was not born out of wedlock. The children are presently in the custody of Linda H. Wells, who resides at 832 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania. During the children's lifetime, they have resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: Name Address Date Linda H. Wells Preston D. Wells Phillip Wells Cameron Wells 832 Hummel Avenue Lemoyne, PA 17043 Present - June 1994 Linda H. Wells Cameron Wells 230 Cumberland Drive Lexington, South Carolina June 1994 - May 1992 Preston D. Wells Phillip Wells Richard A. Wells Linda H. Wells Cameron Wells Preston D. Wells Philip Wells 230 Cumberland Drive Lexington, South Carolina May 1992 - June 1990 The mother of the child is Linda H. Wells, currently residing at 832 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne, pennsylvania. She is divorced. The father of the child is Richard A. Wells, currently residing at 555 Pearl Street, Reading, Pennsylvania. He is divorced. 4. The relationship of plaintiff to the child is that of father. 5. The relationship of defendant to the child is that of mother. The defendant currently resides with the following persons: Name Relationship N/A 6. Plaintiff has participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the children in this or another court. (Attached) 7. Plaintiff has information of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in a court outside of this Commonwealth. 8. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 9. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested because: A. The mother has unilaterally limited the Defendant's partial custody to supervised visitation. B. The mother has coached the children to make false allegations of sexual abuse and/or physical abuse by the father. C. Father is best fit to care for the children's physical and emotional needs. D. Father is willing to accept custody of the children. 10. 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. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests this Court to grant primary physical custody of the child to the plaintiff with partial custody in the defendant every other weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m., and any other times that my be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Respectfully submitt~d, "_ r) (i u.tiiJ.) Jt<t., Austin F.Gr99 n Attorney/forp aintiff 24 North 32p Street Camp Hill, P 17011 (717) 737-1956 '. . _00 ; ~ r-" ~ '. . '" (' ..-. , r' - .., .." - ',. " u . - - ..' .. STATE OF SOUTH CAROUNAJ I AN .J COUNTY OF LEXINGTON ,) J ,.IN THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE .j C~ ~'ELeVENTH JUDICIAL cmculT ) )) '~jiT~T NO: 93-DR-32-0420 , ~n "" ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Linda H. Wells, ;,:OJ. " Plaintiff, vs. ORDER OF SEPARATE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE Richard A. Wells, Defendant. Date of Hearing: Presiding Judge: Attorney for Plaintiff: Attomey for Defendant: Court Reporter: November 16, 1993 Frank W. Rogers, Jr. W. Lisa Brink Leigh Ballenger Sellers Julie A. Corbett THE ACTION This matter comes before me on merits hearing on Plaintifrs complaint. Thi:i... action was commenced in February 1993, upon the filing of the Summons and Complaint by the Plaintiff, seeking an order of Separate Support and Maintenance. Prior to taking any testimony, counsel Informed the Court that the parties had reached an agreement which was evidenced by an unexecuted settlement agreement. The sworn Financial Affidavits of both parties were In the file and before the Court. Plaintiff WlIS present and represented by counsel. DeFendant was unable to travel from Pennsylvania for the hearing as scheduled, but was represented by counsel and authorized said counsel, by letter, to enter Into the agreement on his behalf. Defendant's counsel also Informed the Court that Defendant was available by telephone should any questions arise. Both counsel A TRUE COPy , '. ./1. " . i .1 ~. , I I j .... -'. ..... .,. ," '~.' ,. ." , n..., _ .. - ' . -. ~~. ,...._..4----.........-... ... "\ . . ~ ~"~--T~ _ l-' .-:-- . ." '~" " " ' ",. '1(" t , ',' -', .-, I ' . for Plaintiff and Defendant attested to the fact that the settlement had been negotiated over many months and both paries had been involved at each stage of the negotiations and authored much of the agreement. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the filed pleading, the parties' sworn Financial Declarations, the representations of the respective counsel, and testimony of the witnesses, all which were heard and carefully considered by me, I make the following findings of salient facts, along with the appropriate conclusions of law. A. Jurisdiction and Venue commencement of this action. Defendant is now residing in the State of Pennsylvania. The parties last lived together as husband and wife in Lexington County, South Carolina. The residency requirement of S.C. Code Ann. ~20-3-30 (Sup. 1990), has been fully satisfied. _'" 2. The parties were lawfully married to each other on March 3, 1984, and of this marriage three (3) children have been born, to wit: Cameron Wells, 008: 10-8-84, Phillip Wells, D08: 2-1-86, and Preston Wells, DOB: 2-4-89. 3. Plaintiff asks for an Order of Separate Support and Maintenance. Thus, this matter affects the marital status of the parties and is properly before the Family Court. S.C. Code Ann. ~20-3-130. 2 . . 4. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and has subject matter of this action. Rule 16, SCRFC; Arial v. Arial, 295 S.C. 46, 369 S.E.2d 146 (Ct. App. 1988); and Brown v. Brown, 295 S.C. 354, 368 S.E.2d 475 (Ct. App. 1988). 5. Since the parties last resided together as husband and wife in Lexington, South Carolina, the proper venue for the hearing of this matter is in the Family Court, presiding in Lexington County. S.C. Code Ann. fi20-3-60(c) (Sup. 1990). B. Al!reement Between the Parties 6: I find that the panics are aware of the financial condition of each other; that both parties have had the benefit of counsel and are satisfied with such representation; that both parties believe the agreement to be fair and equitable under the circumstances; and that both parties wish the Court to approve the agreement and make it an order of the Court. 7. I fmd that Defendant participated fully in the negotiation of the agreement and reviewed the same with his altomey prior to deciding to enter into the agreement. 8. I find that Defendant desired to be bound by the terms of the unexecuteq... agreement and authorized his attomey to inform the Court as to his wishes. 9. I find that each party understands the agreement as exhibited in the attached document; both parties entered into the agreement voluntarily and without force, coercion, or duress; and that neither party was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of consenting to the agreement. 10. I fmd that based on the Financial Declarations and the pleadings that the un-executed agreement reached by the parties and attached and incorporated by reference herein is fair and equitable under the circumstances and is in the best interest of the parties. 3 ,. 11. Therefore, the agreement between the parties as evidenced by the attached unexecuted copy is hereby approved and incorporated into the Order of the Court. 12. I find that the Defendant was ordered to deposit a retainer of $1,500.00 with the Guardian ill! ~ to cover fees and costs of the Guardian's investigation. The Guardian made a determination that the work to be performed would not require such a sum and billed defendant for the time spent. Defendant has paid $202.25 towards the fee of $307.78 13. I fmd that Defendant shall tender to the Guardian ad!i!!m1 Paula McDonald $105.53 within 30 days from the date of this order. DISPOSITION Based upon the findings of salient facts and conclusions of law, as were made and set forth hereinabove, it is hereby ordered: 1. That the attached Settlement and Property Agreement is hereby accepted and incorporated into the Order of this Court. 2. That the parties are ordered to live separate and apart. IT IS SO ORDERED. r , r. Judge of Family Cou Lexington County D"" ....;'f/L d., Of_~__~ Nf.lbs. wells. order ,19~ 4 I I i. I I I I I . " ... . ~- I '; . .. I ." ~ ... ..r .... _ ""',., ...\....._. ...... ~ .-c:J STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) COUNTY OF LEXINGTON ) Linda H. Wells, Plaintiff, .... ~. ,. .,0 IN THE FAMILY COURT (',1 ) ) , , , ) ) ) ....j ". . PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AND SEPARATION AGREEMENT 93-DR-32-420 .... f',,;;',. c~ ~(;I ~ vs. Richard A. Wells, Defendant. WHEREAS, this Agreement is made and entered into by and Linda H. Wells, hereinafter referred to as "Wife" and Richard A. Wells, hereinafter referred to as "Husband"; and WHEREAS, the parties above-named are now or formerly residents of Lexington County, South Carolina; and WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge there is an action presently pending between the parties in the Family Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit; and WHEREAS, the parties were lawfully married on March 3, 1984; and WHEREAS, three (3) children were born as a result of this marriage, namely, Cameron, Wells, DOB: 10-8-84, Phillip Wells, DOB: 2-1-86 and Preston Wells, DOB: 2-4-89; and WHEREAS, the parties have experienced certain domestic difficulties, in consequence of which the parties desire and are in the process of living separate and apart; and have lived separate and apart with no cohabitation since the 31st day of January, 1993; and , WHEREAS, each of the parties in anticipation of their . reconciliation or divorce, now desire to fix and determine the custody, child support, equitable distribution and' alimony; and "\ .'" .... 1,.." ~ -r::' 0;:.- , ...(.:. ,. ." :::.? >- CL o () LU ::> CC l- e::( . 8 j . , ,- WHEREAS, each of the parties has represented to the other and to their respective attorneys that they ara of sound mind and that they desire to enter into this Agreement of their own free . will and accord, and that neither has coerced or exercised undue influence on the other; and WHEREAS, the Wife has delivered this Agreement to her legal advisor, W. Lisa Brink, attorney-at-law, with her office in Lexington, South Carolina, who is engaged in the practice of law, and she has consulted with legal advisor concerning this Agreement and has been advised as to what ~er legal rights and interest in the estate of the Husband might and would be in the case of reconciliation between the parties without first having entered into ~hia Agreement, and her legal rights and interests if she should become the widow of the Husband, and as to her obligations for support in the event that subsequent to the reconciliation, the parties become legally separated or the marriage should be " -- .' -.:, -n-' ...................".__ ... 10 WHEREAS, the Husband has delivered this Agreement to his legal advisor, David M. Ratchford, attorney-at-law, with his office in Columbia, South Carolina, who is engaged in the practice of law and he has consulted with said legal advisor .qoncerning this Agreement and has been advised as to what his legal rights and interest in the estate of the Wife might and would be in the case of reconciliation between the parties without first having entered into this Agreement, and his legal rights and interest if he should become the widower of the Wife, and . . as to h~s obligations for support in the event that subsequent to the reco~ciliation, the . . .' parties become legally separated or the marriage should be dissolved; and WHEREAS, both parties have chosen their own legal counsel . concerning the matter of this Agreement without suggestion on the part of either party as to which counseL to retain; and WHEREAS, the terms and provisions of this Agreement as set forth below have been negotiated by the parties and each represents to the other that they understand the Agreement and know the ramification of their actions and that each considers the provision of the Agreement to b; fair, reasonable and equitable, and the parties have represented to each other that they desire to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement and in binding themselves, they bind also their respeotive estates, their heirs and assigns to the enforcement of these provisions; and WHEREAS, the parties further represent that they have made a full and adequate disclosure to each other of their respective property interests and financial considerations and that this Agreement is being entered into by the parties with full knowledge on the part of each as to the extent and probable value of the estate of the other, and the parties further represent that they have not willfully withheld or concealed any a~sets, source of income, or liabilities not represented in their respective financial declarations attached to this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises . and conditions herein contained, and in considerabion of the sum of , Ten and 0/100 ($10.00) Dollars each to the other in hand paid, the receipt and sufficiently of which is hereby acknowledged, and for .' the other reasons hereinabove set forth, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: CHILD CUSTODY . 1. The parties agree that at this time it is in the best interest of the children to remain together in the care, custody and control of the Wife. 2. Notwithstanding" her general custody of the children, the Wife shall confer with the Husband from time to time with respect to the welfare of the children, and particularly, as to educational, health, and discip"1inary matters of a substantial nature, such as, by way of example, during the serious illness or prior to scheduled operations or psychological counseling or in connection with the selection of a college or trade school for higher education, but the Wife shall make the final decision with respect to such matters. 3. The parties agree to each notify the other respective party of any move of their residence and provide the other respective party with their new address and telephone number. Both parties shall inform the other of the address and telephone number where the children will be when their are with that ...... respective party. , .. 4. It shall at all timeR he thn nhjective of both parties to decide all questions affecting the children in such a manner as to promote the welfare, happiness and well-being of each said child. , V!5ITA'IIOi. S. The Husband shall be entitled tQ off-premises " .' visitation with the parties' minor children. 6. ~he Husband shall have reasonable visitation privileges with the minor children, upon giving the Wife ten (10) . days advance notice of his intention to exercise such rights. In the event that the parties are unable to agree on reasonable visitation, either party shall be at liberty to apply to any Court of competent jurisdiction for a definition .of reasonable visitation. 7. Should the parties corne to an impasse and be unable to agree as to visitationtim-es, the Husband shall have the following rights with the minor children, subject to the conditions set out in Paragraph 5 above: ~hanksgiving: In the odd years, the Wife shall have the minor children for ~hanksgiving Day and in the even years, the Husband shall have the minor children for Thanksgiving Day. Christmas: Christmas h~lidays shall be split -... equally, with the Wife having the children from their last day of school until December 25th at 6:00 p.m. in odds years and the Husband shall have the children in the even years from their last day of school until December 25th at 6:00 p.m. The Husband shall have the children from December 25th at 6:00 p.m. ~ntil 6:00 p.m. . , on the day before the children commence school in odd years and the Wife shall have the children in the even years from December 25th at 6:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. on the day before the children commence school. , ' Summer Visitation: Husband shall have the children for three (3) weeks during the Bummer, provided, however that out "I" .' of the three weeks, only two weeks shall be consecutive. The Husband shall provide the Wife with at least oixty (60) days written notice of what two weeks he wishes to exercise his . visitation with the children during the summer. special Days: The Husband shall have Father'S Day with the children and the Wife shall have Mother's Day with the children. 8. Husband shall be notified of and allowed to attend school functions, athletic events or church specials involving the children, subject to the conditions set out in Paragraph 5 above. 9. Coordination of Visitation: Holiday, special events, and summertime scheduling provided hereinabove shall temporarily interrupt and supersede the normal visitation provided herein provided, further, at the conclusion of such holiday, special event, or summertime visitation, the normal visitation, shall be continued as if such normal scheduling had not been interrupted. No make-up days shall be required, unless agreed to by the Husband and Wife. .10. Transportation: It shall be the responsibility of the parent who is to receive visitation to pick up and return the children from and to the other parent's home, e~cept as other specifically provided hereinabove. 11. Telephone Access: The Husband and Wife shall each have reasonable telephone access to the children while they are in . ..... the physical control of the other parent. Spel::ifically, the , Husband shall be entitled to telephone the children two times a week at 6:30 p.m. and the Wife shall be entitled to telephone the children two times a week at 6130 p.m. when they are in the physical posses~ion of the Husband. The children shall also have reasonable telephone access to both parents at all reasonable . times. Neither parent shall abuse this privilege or allow the children to abuse this telephone privilege. 12. Other visitation: The visitation set forth hereinabove shall not preclude "other and further visitation, or an alteration of modification thereof, so long as the parties mutually agree thereto. 13. The rights of visItation expressed in this section shall not be exercised by Husband at any time or in such a manner as to interfere with the education and normal social and school activities of the children. Neither Husband or Wife will expose of the children to an overnight companion of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage. 14. 'J.'h~ Pllrties may treely agree to any different arrangements for exercise of the visitation rights of Husband, from time to time, as future circumstances and the welfare of the children may require, but no such substitute or additional privilege shall be deemed to amend this Agreement unless expressed in writing, duly signed by the parties. CHILD SUPPORT PENDING DIVORCE 15. The Husband shall pay to the Wife the sum of One Thousand Two Uundred and not 100 ($1,200.00) on the first of the month after signing this said agreement and continuing on the first of each month thereafter as and for child support for the care, maintenance and support for the parties' three (3 )..!"inor children. Upon the occurrence of one or more of the following contingencies, the obligation of Husband to pay child support shall be subject to review: . Upon the death ot a child, Upon the marriage of a child, the then existing monthly support payments shall be reduced by that child's proportionate share. Upon the event a child enters the military service, the then existing monthly support payments shall be reduced by that child's proportionate share. Upon a child becoming self-supporting or otherwise being emancipated under the law of the Sl:aLe uf South Carolina. Upon a child obtaining the age of eighteen (18) years, or graduating from high school, whichever occurs later; provided, further, in the event said child is then enrolled in high school and actively pursuing a high school degree, said child support shall continue to be paid by Husband to Wife until said child receives a high school degree. Upon Wife ceasing to have full legal custody of one of the minor children, the then existing monthly support payments shall be reduced by that child's proportionate share. . , 16. Child support payments by the Husband may be increased annually if and as mutually agreed by the parties in writing. The parties further agree to recalculate the Husband's child support obligation annually, with the Husban~' s child support obligation based upon the South Carolina Child Support Guidelines. ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT PENDING DIVORCE .... ..... 17. until such time as a Decree of Divorce has been issued between the parties, the Husband agrees to pay to the Wife a net monthly amount of alimony and child support in the total . amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty ($1,950.00) Dollars on the first day of each month. This amount is determined based on the Husband's income of approximately $60,000.00 and the wife's income to be determined once she has obtained employment. 18. The Husband shall pay this set monthly sum of One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty ($1,950.00) Dollars per month, through automatic deposit, so long as the parties remain married during the year 1993. CHILD SUPPORT AFTER DIVORCE 19. Upon an issuance of a Decree of Divorce by a Court of competent jurisdiction and commencing on the first of that month immediately following the Court's date of issuance of said Decree, and continuing on the same date of each consecutive month thereafter, Husband shall pay directly to the Wife the child support for the maintenance, support and education of their minor children, with the said amount of child support to be calculated by a Court of competent jurisdiction, based on the Child support Guidelines in use in this jurisdiction. , . , REHABILITATIVE ALIMONY AFTER DIVORCE 20. Should the parties become divorced, Husband agrees to pay to Wife the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty and no/100 ($750.00) . " Dollars per month AR ..1 i.J11ony for 11 period of ,forty-eight (48) consecutive months, so long as the Wife does not remarry nor cohabit ate with any adult member of the opposite sex or until the ~. " death of the Wife. For the purposes of this Agreement, "remarriage" shall be defined to include marriage as defined under the statutory laws (marriage which follows all statutory . requirements of licensing, waiting period and which has been solemnized before an official, religious or civil, capable of presiding at the marriage) of any state as recognized by the state of South Carolina, and common law of the state of South Carolina or other state where entered which shall include but is not limited to common-law marriage or cohabitation as defined by the appropriate State. 21. The Husband also agrees to pay for the Wife's college tuition and expenses in order for Wife to obtain a two year degree,at any reasonable institution. MEDICAL/HEALTH/DENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE 22. Husband and Wife agree that Husband shall provide and maintain, through Husband's employment, comprehensive health and hospitalization insurance, with a major medical rider, insuring all of the children of the parties through the children's minority and until they become emancipated or complete their college education, whichever is later; provided, further, Husband and Wife agree to cooperate with one another in exchanging, the necessary , , insurance cards, insurance information, and claim forms, and in the claim process, as may be necessary from tims to time. 23. Husband and Wife agree that each shall pay one-half of the minor children's reasonably, necessary unpovered medical, dental, orthodontic, ophthalmologist, psychological, hospitalization, drug and other health related ~~penses for the minor children throu~h ~Anh of the minor children's minority. The parent who is obligated hereby with respect to uninsured expenses shall be consulted and his or her consent be obtained before any . unnecessary or elective health care costs, such as orthodontic care, cosmetic surgery, or the like shall be incurred. This consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Should health care costs incurred for the minor children be advanced by the parent not obligated to pay such health care costs, then and under such circumstances, the parent so obligated to pay such health care costs shall reimburse the parent:: who advanced such cost upon receipt of proper documentation by making immediate reimbursement. 24. The Wife shall file all necessary insurance claim forms herself and the Wife will provide the Husband will copies of the Explanation of Benefits from his insurance company, verifying what the Husband's one-half share of the uncovered expenses for the children will be. The Husband shall provide the Wife with any and all documents and/or claim forms necessary in order to file the claim forms with the Husband's insurance carrier. The Husband shall pay the Wife his one-half share of the uncovered health care expenses relating to the children within ten (10 I days of the receipt of the Explanation of Benefits from the Wife. . . 2S. The Husband agrees to maintain medical insurance for the Wife until the filing of a Final Decree of Divorce. The Husband and Wife further agree that the Husband's obligation to provide medical insurance for the Wife shall 0 cease upon the parties' divorce, should they become divorced. J,IFE INSURANCE oiI,-., 26. The Husband shall maintain his life insurance in the minimum amount of $350,000.00 with as trustee for the minor children as beneficiary and shall provide the Wife . with annual verification of this insurance coverage. MARITAL RESIDENCE 27. The Husband agrees to pay one-half (1/2) of the monthly mortgage payment directly to the Wife, so that the Wife may be able to pay the monthly mortgage payments on the house at 230 Cumberland Drive, Lexington, South Carolina, 'until the said residence has been sold. The Wife agrees to provide the Husband with verification of the amount of the monthly payment concerning the mortgage. Further, the parties agree that the said residence shall be sold after the completion of the 1993-1994 school year and after the payment of the necessary closing costs, payment in full of any existing mortgages, the net profits will be given to the Wife. '. ...... 28. The Wife shall be responsible for the monthly payments and expenses relating to the former marital residence, including monthly mortgage payments and utility expenses. WIFE'S PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENCE AND EXPENSES 29. Husband agrees to pay the moving e~penses of Wife , and children to Pennsylvania through his employment, including closing costs of the new house, van rental, moving expenses, and storage expenses. HOME COMPUTER , 30. Husband agrees to purchase a home personal computer o~ the Wife's choice for Wife at a cost not to excqed One Thousand Five Hundred and nol100 $1,500.00) Dollars'if the Wife does not receive the net equity of $13,000.00 concerning the sale of the former marital residence. . COLLEGE EDUCATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN 11. The parties agree that each party should be responsible f~r one-half of the minor children's college tuition and expenses. TAX CONSIDERATIONS 32. Husband and Wife agree that the Husband shall be entitled to claim,' for State and "Federal income tax purposes, the minor children as his dependents and exemptions in all tax years in which the parties file separate Federal and State Income Tax Returns. 33. Husband shall be entitled to claim the child care expenses which he or she pays on behalf of the children. 34. The parties agree to sign and file tax rsturns consistent with the above terms and conditions, and in the event that either or both of them breaches the tax terms hereof, the party so breaching this Agreement shall indemnify and reimburse the other party for any and all tax losses, penalties, interest and all assessments with respect to such non-breaching party's tax filing. . . 35. The child support, family support and equitable distribution provided hereinabove shall be non-deductible to the Husband and non-taxable to the Wife for State and Federal Income Tax Purposes. DIVISION OF PROPERTY , 36. with the exception of the matters ...~ere.inbelow set .. ." ,. forth, the parties have heretofore made a division of property (real, personal, and mixed), acquired during their marriage which properties each of the parties does now retain in his or her . exclusive possession. The parties hereby acknowledge that they are . . each in exclusive possession of the separate and marital properties to which they are entitled, with the exception of the hereinbelow listed in the attached schedulo "A", and hereby release and relinquish any and all right, title and interest, including but not limited to all title, special equity, trust" and equitable interest, in and to the personal, .real and mixed property of the other. Further, the parties each release and relinquish any and all right, title and interest, including but not limited to all title, special equity, trust, and equitable interest, which each I may have in any and all other property (real, personal or mixed), monies, checking and savings accounts, stock, bonds, certificates of deposit, money market funds, investment, interest in business ventures of any nature, retlrement funds and annuities, educational degrees, businesses and occupations, and any and all properties owned by or in the name of the other, and the remaining marital and separate property shall be equitably divided and their respective legal and equitable vested rights partitioned as follows. . .. DEBTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS 37. The parties agree that they will not hereafter incur any bill or obligation for services, property, of any other matter , in the name of the other except upon prior written, agreement of the . other party. Except as is otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Husband, and Wife shall be responsible, respectively, for his or . r.. ...." . her own living expenses, and other debts incurred subsequent to the date of this Agreement. 39. Husband and wife hereby agree that Wife shall pay . and be solely responsible for personal debts and expenses incurred by her from . 39. Husband and Wife hereby agree that Husband shall pay and be solely responsible for personal debts and expenses incurred bY nJ.m from . 40. Husband and Wife shall, upon the execution of this Agreement, return each to the otUer, any and all credit cards in the name of the other party, and shall make no new charges thereon as of the date of this Agreement. 41. Husband agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Wife from any liability she might incur, including reasonable attorney's fees, due to any business transaction of the Husband's, which was entered into p.tior to the date of I:hlu AgLeeJllent, including, but not limited to, tax liability related to any banking institutions. 42. Wife will not hereafter incur any liability whatsoever upon the credit of the Husband. 43. Husband will not hereafter incur any liability whatsoever upon the credit of Wife. . . . ATTORNEY'S FEES 44. Each party shall be responsible for their own attorney's fees and costs in connection with this pending action in the Lexington County Family Court. , ' EXECUTION OF NECESSARY INSTRUMENTS . 4? The parties, and each of them, ehall hereafter .', . ~ . ' execute all instruments necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. BINDING EFFECT OF AGREEMENT . 46." This Agreement shall be binding upon signing, on the parties and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and shall in all events be construed under the laws of the state of South Carolina. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT 47. The provisions of this Agreement. and subsequent Court Order shall not be modif:i:'ed or changed except by mutual consent and agreement of the parties in writing. 48. A modification of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective only if made in writing and executed in the same I formality of this Agreement. The failure of either party to insist upon strict enforcement of any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a modification of any subsequent default of any similar nature. 49. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties, and no oral statement or piior . , written matter shall have any force or effect upon this Agreement. The parties confirm that there are no representative, warranties, covenants or undertakings other than those expressly set forth herein. .. ,., .:: . . . . " WITNESSES: . LINDA H. WELLS RICHARD A. WELLS .. . -.. . . , :.. ..." f ~ ~ jf .~ '" ;J. ~ t- Ir, \~ '-J) 0") ~ -..9 .._- - 1....._. r; Q 0 'j- ~ ','I !n ,'I ~ ,",J l.0 , ~ ~ Cl 10/') '-";, .:r j- ~~ ~ .. ~ ~. '"" '\el. ~ ",' -"') H .J! ~~. Z III < ~. <> ~.. 1ol04 .... E-< 04>< .jJ :<: ~~~~~ P<U1 >= H :<: .... < zz IU 04 :z:!!~ Ol>l ... p.. j .~ ~!S ~'" P< - - 0 o . . CJ ~. CJ>< III t-< :3 III :''f r..z 04 Q CD I>l , .., 0 0 ,~ ::- ru t-< E-oCJ .- ~ 1Il ~Q . D < . CJ oz lJ: CJ< A 04 ~ < I>lIlO < t:l lI:l>l p:: Z F.-<ffi CJ H H ,.J ;:;c; p:: - , , ...1 .... -~ - ~-- -- ...-r ,;,:.J 'I v{lI.rllil ,':/; ,1//'(/5/(// " -.. .. .. RICHARD A. WELLS, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 95-482 CIVIL TERM LINDA H. WELLS, Defendant : IN DIVORCE TO THE HONORABLE EDGAR B. BAILEY: WITN ESS LIST AND NOW, the Plaintiff, Richard A. Wells, by and through his Attorney, submit the following witness list: 1. Preston D. Wells 2. Phillip R. Wells 3. Cameron S. Wells Statement of their expected testimony will address the mother's ability to provide transportation from her house to the father's house, as well as, their position regarding the summer vacation. 4. Richard A. Wells Statement of his expected testimony regarding transportation as well as his position on visitation and the Christmas Holiday. Respectfully submitt , 2t, ci';1 l Austin F. Grogan Attorney for Plaintiff '- 24 North 32m! Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-1956 w\v.I,II\.wit vs. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION- LAW : NO. 95-482 CIVIL TERM RICHARD A. WELLS, Plaintiff LINDA H. WELLS, Defendant : IN DIVORCE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND I, Austin F. Grogan, hereby certiiy that I did mail a true and correct copy of . the Witness List in the above maller, by first class mail to Attorney Carol J. Lindsey, Esquire, Defendant's attorney, atll East High Streel, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. I understand that false statements are made herein are made subjeclto the penalties of Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: \~~-qs ~ ~ '- f:; ~ 4'.. 0 CO B." ..~;;~ '. :c: ()~: n..~ ~ :~; O.J ~~) ':", ;;.. !C; In :::-1'(/) I .J""' fC~~ ( -ev L' ttJril r- L,' (flu... CI -. -'. l.J.. in ::> 0 cn (,) 1II < r<I .... .., ..:! .... t: ~ - p.. .... III .., '0 :2: t: t: o , :I: .... (II ~~ I>: III .... I<l r-l (II f< 'll~ !~ll! 8E5 ~E-< p.. t:l I:'l ~..:! , i~~~~ 0 1II , tol ~.tJ H ..:! III - 0 I> ..:! > 1II tIl j~ ~ J@ t:l H ~ ..:! ~ E-<Z..: :2:tJ ..:! l>:<H 0 I<l t:l..:!:2: HN . ~ 01>:": E-<cc < ~ tJl<l> tJ~ . r<I~~ <I A :z: III I>: tI: 1Il HC7l < " E-<tJ~ H :z: > . tJ ,. ... :2:~1<l HO H H HOIl. tJ:2: I>: ..:! i ", ~ l'MliN .9: /;;'(}(/(1I1 . .7 . . .- , , >" vs. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APR 28 1995 ):,.-' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RICHARD A. WELLS, Plaintiff LINDA II. WELLS, Defendant NO. 95-482 CIVIL TERM CUSTODY I at AND NOW, this ORDER day of ~/)i'af ' 1995, upon receipt of the appearing that the parties have agreed to the terms and conciliator's report, it provisions of this order which was dictated in their presence and approved by them and their counsel, we hereby order as follows: 1. The parties and their children shall consult with a psychologist for purposes of an evaluation of the reports of the father's alleged sexual abuse of the child, Preston, and to evaluate generally the relationship between each of the parties and the children and the fitness of each of the parents for primary physical custody or shared or partial custody of the children. With regard to that evaluation, we specifically order as follows: A. The evaluation shall be done by a psychologist selccted by counsel for the parties from either Guidance Associates of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, or Riegler & Sheinvold of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Counsel for the parties will consult with Guidance Associates, where at least onc of the parties' children is now engaged in a program of counseling, for advice and recommendations regarding the performance of such an evaluation by Guidance Associates. Counsel arc directed to select a pSYChologist to do the evaluation as promptly as possible hereafter. B. In the event thc parties, through thoir counsel, can agree on the division of costs, those costs shall be divided between the parties in . 'i'r . accordance with that agreement. If the parties cannot so agree, we will address the issue of payment of the costs of such an evaluation at the hearing provided for hereinbelow. 2. We make no disposition of the parties' custody claims at this time. All of those matters, as well as t~~~~~~~~ordance ::~:M:~~"'~::~~~:aU~rt Room N(). nt-tbe-GufllbcFland COIIRt}' COllrt 110110" ill C"dbile, 1"""1bIlvollu, ~UllIllIelUang at o'rln",\t _om., en day af ~ , tlla 1 t the hearing even if th" "v~ ln~H on i& not ElaAlplete by ttre Hille af th" h,,~ri~lthnllgh U^ all,,~~tCounsel for the parties to report the status of that eValUation-tgrlor ~~J~~t:, .'lbmiLanY-Iequests-fo~ment or cont.inll<l~f-the_hearing ..at.least twenty (20) days prior to- tl:'_ heidng. 3. Th&-pat'Me5-5hitl-l-elWhange...J;!lf_OUglLcQunsel-,-UfitfHlf-wHnesses~ and eX~Lt,_ at least--twentY..("20 )-daYS-Pl'-ioMo-t-he-hearing, .. Suchlist-sha-l-l-identify the wi tness--by-name, "-address, and-daytime telephune numbel' and shall provid" a -brief, descnptlon or the evid~~be Ihuduced bI ouch witness. It nithAr DWL inteD~. to--ca-l-l-an-elijJ~nQs;Jl.,.-th~ha-l-hubnrit-ttn:: or a written-repOf't-ohm:lrexpelt d~ least LwelltI (Z1l1-mryS pdUl "", ./ ! J ..,1 :y t1~e :J' :// '-~~ ('-.11<<..>> .-r>.~t.,A r;/I /~) <U ..,s iT. Lv Lh~ hg~ri'q9 J. Austin F. Grogan, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire Attorney for Defendant sla RICHARD A. WELLS, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND ) COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. l ) NO. 95-482 CIVIL TERM LINDA H. WELLS, ) Defendant ) CUSTODY JUDGE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED: None CONCILIATOR CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the children who are the SUbject of this litigation is as follows: NAME BIRTIIDATE CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Preston Wells Phillip Wells Cameron Hells 4 February 1989 1 February 1986 8 October 1984 llefendant/Mother Defendant/Mother Defendant/Mother , 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on 14 March 1995 and the following individuals were present: the Plaintiff and his attorney, Austin Grogan, Esquire; the Defendant and her attorney, Carol J. Lindsay. Esquire. 3. This is a wild case. The father wants primary physical custody of the children because he claims the mother has a drug abuse problem and has fabricated stories of his sexual abuse of the children to deny him his custody rights. lie has not seen the children for a long time and wants some access to them as soon as possible. The mother denies she has a drug problem, claims the father has sexually abused the oldest child (by forcin9 a plastic toy into his anus), has sexually abused other young children, and has physicallY abused her. The case abounds with serious accusations 1 which someone will have to sort out before making any rational solution to these problems. 4. The parties did agree to have a cUBtody evaluation performed by a psychologist. Hopefully that evaluation will shed some light on the accusations by each of the parties and give the court some guidance in resolving the case. 5. A hearing will be necessary. The differences between the parties is 50 great that I think a compromise or settlement, even a partial settlement, is extremely unlikely. I expect the hearing to take at least one full day and I recommend that it be held sometime in late June or early July, if possible. That will give the psychologiBt an opportunity to complete the evaluation without delaying any more than necessary the father's opportunity to see the children. I have prepared an order directing the evaluation and scheduling the hearing. 25 April 1995 ~:,~ Custody Conciliator 2 'I :1 II ,I !: Ii Ii RICHARD A. WELLS, II Plaintiff I ,- " ;1 vs. I'II LINDA H. WELLS, Defendant II II iI !l ;1 AND NOW, ii I' II conciliator I s II : I provisions of ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 95-482 CIVIL TERM CUSTODY ORDBR this day of , 1995, upon receipt of the report, it appearing that the parties have agreed to the terms and this order which was dictated in their presence and approved by them and [,their counsel, we hereby order as follows: 1. The parties and their children shall consult with a psychologist for purposes " ;!of an evaluation of the reports of the father's alleged sexual abuse of the child, :ipreston, and to evaluate generally the relationship between each of the parties and the children and the f~tness of each of the parents for primary physical custody or shared or partial custody of the children. With regard to that evaluation, we specifically order as follows: A. The evaluation shall be done by a psychologist selected by counsel for the parties from either Guidance Associates of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, or Riegler & Sheinvold of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Counsel for the parties will consult with Guidance Associates, where at least one of the parties' children is now engaged in a program of counseling, for advice and recommendations regarding the performance of such an evaluation by Guidance Associates. Counsel are directed to select a psychologist to do the evaluation as promptly as possible hereafter. B. In the event the parties, through their counsel, can agree on the division of costs, thone costs shall be divided between the parties in ii , ' accordance with that agreement. If the parties cannot 50 agree, we will address the issue of payment of the costs of such an evaluation at the hearing provided for hereinbelow. 2. We make no disposition of the parties' custody claims at this time. All of those matters, as well as the matters developed by the evaluation done in accordance i!with the preceding paragraph, if such evaluation is complete by the date of the , I: " I I I' !'hearing, will be addressed at a hearing to be held before the undersigned in Court Room :'No. of the Cumberland County Court House in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, commencing at o'clock _.m., on , the day of 1995. We propose to conduct the hearing even if the evaluation is not complete by the time of the hearing although we expect counsel for the parties to report the status of that evaluation prior to the hearing and to submit any requests for a postponement or continuance of the hearing at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing. 3. The parties shall exchange, through counsel, lists of witnesses, both fact and expert, at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing. Such list shall identify the witness by name, address, and daytime telephone number and shall provide a brief description of the evidence expected to be produced by such witness. If either party intends to call an expert witness, they shall submit to counsel for the other party a written report of such expert at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing. By the Court, J. Austin F. Grogan, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire Attorney for Defendant sla Ul ~ ~ ~iL ~ ~ ~ j ~ Z f< E ~ :< '" < ~ ~ ~ :x: '" ~ ~ III o ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ d ~ > ~ t .. ~ iii ~ ~ ~ fil ., ~ A " 0 X .., :r. -< ~ . . I f APR 2 B 199~ /1-' ; ~ ... vacation. These weeks may be together or separated. Each year the father shall notify the mother of which weeks he will be having the children not later than June 1 st; (d) during any weekend under paragraph 3(a) that the father has the children during the summer when they are not In school, his weekend shall extend to 9:00 a.m. Monday momlng. On such weekends the mother shall pick up the children at the father's residence on Monday at 9:00 a.m. (e) each Christmas from noon Christmas day through 6:00 p.m. on January 1 st. (4) The parents shall alternate the holidays of Thanksgiving and Fourth of July. The Thanksgiving holiday will be from Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. (5) All other federal holidays that occur on a Friday or Monday shall attach to the weekend schedule. (6) The mother shall have the children at all other times, and she shall always have them on December 24th through noon on December 25th. (7) The father shall pick up and deliver the children except as set forth In paragraph 3(d). (8) Both parents shall have reasonable telephone access with the children. (9) These periods of custody are meant for the benefit of each parent and they should endeavor to make sure that they are spending the time with the children If at all possible. .,J .... /7 /1 // -, By the Court, 1<' / , '-- Edgar B. Bayley, J. ' I Austln'F. Grogan, Esquire For Plaintiff Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire For Defendant ~ ~""'t'fIUl-~((,I//31/96. a .~Jfl :saa ,,- .... Ln '- Lr; - 1-- ~1. \- .. ..1.'. l"' - ,.....' ~--- "- :':: ,-) ::'~ f-c..1 \.-. LJ- ,.,"':.j ~r . .- :'4 n ~ 1: .. ("- - . to\,. I . ~! r-; ro t ;P1i";) '. c:1', >. LoJ r ~~.l.. F-= lI_ "- ,n :-:-i 0 C' D RLEO.OFFICE or- THS F::,ClTl'iC~:mN\Y 950Ee 12 Pi\ 3: 03 CIU1 n,;I:;:j P) (')! '\11'( ,\1.....1... ... ..' ..H t r-EN:';S'y~!;\l ~[.'\ .1 " ,'. ~ , C:\WJ'lI\ WcllJ,MfQ\.mr " Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 95.482 CIVIL TERM RICHARD A. WELLS, v. LINDA H. WELLS, Defendant CUSTODY B AND NOW, comes Unda H. Wells, Defendant above, by and through her attorneys, Flower, Morgenthal, Flower & Undsay and moves This Honorable Court as follows: 1. The parties are parents of three (3) children, Cameron Wells, born October 8, 1984; Phillip Wells, born February 1, 1986; and Preston Wells, born February 4, 1989. 2. Respondent Richard A. Wells, the father of said children, filed a petition for custody. On May 1, 1995, after the custody conciliation, the parties agreed to undergo a custody evaluation by Guidance Associates. That evaluation was completed on August 7, 1995 and Involved interviews with all three children. Guidance Associates was selected to perform the evaluation In part because psychologists at Guidance Associates had been the treating psychologists for the parties' three children. A copy of the custody evaluation Is attached hereto as exhibit "A.' 3. A second conciliation conference was scheduled in October 1995 resulting In the Court Order of October 26, 1995, attached hereto as exhibit "B." The Order Incorporated an agreement that Movant would have primary physical custody of the children and that Respondent would have partial custody at certain times set out. Two issues were reserved for a hearing before the court which has been scheduled for Friday, December 15,1995 at 8:45 a.m. Those issues are c:\wp51\W,IIJ.MrO\.mr J the summer vacation, the Christmas holidays for years subsequent to 1995 and the Issue of transportation. 4. On or about December 5, 1995, Respondent subpoenaed Movant to bring with her to the December 15 hearing the three children. The witness list provided by the Respondent notes 'statement of their expected testimony will address the mother's ability to provide transportation from her house to the father's house, as well as, their position regarding the summer vacation. 5. Respondent announced to the children his Intention to subpoena them to court. As a result, the children have suffered considerable upset and stress. In particular, Cameron, age 11, states that he will run away and not talk. His demeanor Is angry. Preston, age 6, cries when faced with the possibility that he may have to testify in court. Phillip, age 9, asserts that he does not want to go to court. 6. Movant, the mother of the children subpoenaed, believes that It will not be In the children's best Interest to be put through the ordeal of court testimony. She Is Joined In that position by Guidance Associates In the person of Dr. Stanley E. Schneider. Dr. Schneider's letter In opposition to the required testimony of the children Is attached hereto as exhibit "C." 7. Movant believes and therefore avers that with regard to the Issues before the court, the children's testimony would be Irrelevant or, If relevant In some respect, that the value of their testimony to the court would be far outweighed by the Injury to the children occasioned by the necessity of them appearing before This Honorable Court. 2 <:\"JISI\ WcIILMTO\.mr , ", WHEREFORE, Movant prays This Honorable Court to quash the subpoena of Preston O. Wells, Phillip R. Wells, and Cameron S. Wells to appear at the hearing on Oecember 15, 1995. FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys for Oefendant By: Y., Carol J:'Li dsay, Esqul e 10# 11 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5513 3 .' .....k I.,UII : 24::J6S18 12/11/1999 16:27 7~J'nlA Il'11'9G I&'~i p.: 6 ru)~ ~)llmm<llL l'L PM. M Vf!AIFlCAnON I, LINDA H. WELLS, hereby verily lhalthe statements made In this Mollnn to OUlllIn .8J.IbQQll1llllfe true Rnd correct to the beDt 01 my knoWledge. Inlormallon and bellel. I understand that false stll1ements herein are mlldll ~ublect to Ihe penaltlee of 1B Po.C.B. Sectlon 4004. relllllng to unsworn lelslflcetlon to lluthorlll08. ) Date: I ~). - } I '-'1S- I :8d lE:91 S&lII/ZI ~U(-.u SJU3S33D SA3SDNI' '" EXHIBIT "A" MAIN OFFICE 412 Erford Road Camp Hili, PA 17011 Stanley E. Schneider, Ed,D. Director ~GUIDANCE ASSOCIATES OF ~ PENNSYLVANIA Camp Hili: (717) 732.2917 Hershey: (717) 533.4312 Carlisle: (717) 245.2209 Chambersburg: (717) 263.9392 FAX: (717) 732.5375 August 7, 1 995 Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire Flower, Morgenthal, Flower & Lindsay 11 East Higti Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Austin F. Grogan, Esquire 24 North 32nd Street Camp Hili, PA 17011 Re: Wells v. Wells No. 95-482 Civil Term . . Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Dear Attorneys: As a result of the conciliation process, Linda and Richard (Rick) Wolls agread to a custody evaluation. The conciliation was held by Sam L. Andes, Esquire on March 14, 1995. Our office received the Initial referral by phone on March 16, 1995. Richard Wells flied for custody averring the following: 1. Linda has unilaterally limited Richard to supervised visits; 2. Linda has coached the boys to make false allegations of soxual and/or physical abuse; 3. Richard Is better suited to care for the children's physical and emotional needs; 4. Richard Is wliling to be the primary parent. The parties invoived were seen on the following dates: Linda Wells 04/11/95 Initial Interview Parent Sentence Completion Test 04/25/95 Second Interview Child Management Questlonnalro Life History Questionnaire Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Invontory-2 IMMPI-2) OS/25/95 Third Interview 06/12/95 Fourth interview Comprehensive Psychological Services Drull and Alcohol Trentment . WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1996 Page 2 03/21/96 Initial Interview 04/10/96 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) 06/01/96 Third Interview Life History Questionnaire Child Management Questionnaire Parent Sentence Completion Test 06/07/96 Fourth Interview Patricia Henry (maternal grandmother) 06/12/96 Interview Richard Wells Cameron Wells 04/29/96 05/13/96 Phillip Wells 04/29/96 06/13/96 Preston Wells 04/29/95 06/13/96 Parent Child Observation (accompanied by father) Brlcklln Perceptual Scales Child Custody Questionnaire Kinetic Family Drawing Parent Child Observation (accompanied by mother) Sentence Completion Test . Perception of Relationships Test (PORT) Parent Report Cards Parent Child Observation (accompanied by father) Brlcklln Perceptual Scales Child Custody Questionnaire Kinetic Family Drawing Parent Child Observation (accompanied by mother) Sentence Completion Test Parent Report Cards Perception of Relationships Test (PORT) Parent Child Observatlon(accompanled by father) Parent Report Cards Sentence Completion Test Perception of Relationships Test (PORT) Parent Child Observation (accompanied by mother) Bricklln Perceptual Scales Child Custody Questionnaire Kinetic Family Drawing Roberts Apperception Test 'WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1 996 Page 3 ". In addition to meeting with and collecting data the following documents were reviewed. Rick's complaint for custody (undated) Court Order establishing conciliation dated 3/14/95 South Carolina order of separation, support and maintenance dated 11/1 6193 South Carolina property settlement and separation agreement South Carolina final decree of divorce dated 2/9195 South Carolina Department of Social Services - Worker activity and contact sheets from 5/17/94 through 10/26/94 . Safety plan Cumberland County Children & Youth family service plan writtllrl 12/12/94 Cumberland County Children & Youth court order dated 511/96 ordering custody evaluation . Letter from Jamie Wells, Jated 2/5/96 (Rick's older brother) , Initial letter from Carol.. L1ndsay,Esqulre dated 3/22/95 Office notes of Dan Schoultz, M.Dlv. Ph.D. dated 2/93 Patricia Fowler 2/11/93 affidavit of Brian B. Mink 2/1 6/93 affidavit of Michael Tulloss Affidavit of Jeffrey L. Batts, Jr. Private Detective, notarized 11/22/94 Palmetto Counseling Associates, Columbia, South Carolina Rebecca K. Griffith, M.A. 6/2/95 letter Daniel Schoultz, M,Div.,Ph.D. 5/10/95 letter . Marie Lilly, M.D. (Psychiatrist) treatment notes on Linda's care from 11/29/89 through 6/7190 James Verser, M.Dlv.,M.S.,Ed.S., letter dated 4/26/95 Karin Bleecker, M.S. Psychologist letter dated 4/19/95 Linda Wells affidavit dated 2/18/93 Terry Wells letter to Lisa Brink, Esquire, dated 2/17/93 James Wells letter to Lisa Brink, Esquire, dated 2/17/93 Brenda Arthon letter to Dr. Schneider dated 6/05/95 Hazel Whitacre letter to Dr. Schneider dated 6/05/95 Hazel Whitacre letter (to whom it may concern) dated 1 2/05/94 Undated letter (1 page) from Hazel Whitacre to Jamie Wells Terry Wells letter (to whom It may concern) dated 2/05/96 Jena Wells letter dated 11/28/94 Tamara Arthun letter dated 11/28/94 Sworn affidavit of Cheryl Gast dated 02/18193 Sworn affidavit of Kelley Gast dated 02/16/93 E-mail letters from Cameron and Preston Wells to Rick Rick's letters to his three sons BACKGROUND: Linda and Rick met In college and married on March 3, 1984. Their first child, Cameron, was born In October of the same year. The marriage was filled with difficulties. Rick described Cameron as a difficult child and because of his work WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1995 Page 4 demands and other stressors, Rick's behaviors toward Cameron were questioned by Linda. She described Rick as losing his temper and engaging in physically abusive behavior toward Cameron on at least a couple of occasions. These were presented as rather serious Incidents. Both Linda and Rick acknowledged that their marriage was In difficulty almost from the beginning. Linda made multiple references to Rick being sexually demanding as well as emotionally and physically abusive toward her for many years. The couple separated in late January, 1993. All three boys remained In the custody of the mother, They had temporary visitation with Rick. "Reasonable visitation privileges" were Identified in the court document reviewed. PRIOR CUSTODY: The custody agreed to by the parents and established by the court at that time Identified Thanksgiving Day In the odd years with Linda and in the even years vllth Rick. They agreed to split Chrlstrnas equally. Rick had three weeks In the summer, only two of which could be consecutive. Father's Day the boys were with Rick and Mother's Day with Linda. It was identified that the receiving parent would pick up and return the boys. Reasonable telephone access was also Identified. It was noted that both parents can call two times a week, In February, 1993, Rick relocated to Reading, Pennsylvania from South Carolina. After he moved, the next four or five months he had regular contact with the boys until an allegation of sexual abuse was made by Preston to Linda. Prior to that allegation however it was noted that Rick took the kids to Florida to visit his parents. He also spent a week with them and Linda noted that she was willing to support his having the boys for a month. After the allegation and Investigation, supervised visitations were established between Rick and the boys from September, 1994 through February, 1995. At that time, Rick could no longer tolerate having supervised visits believing that the alleged abuse was overblown and that the Investigating agency In South Carolina engaged In a 'witch hunt'. IDENTIFIED GOALS: Rick was under the assumption that Linda does not want to support his regular contact with the boys. In my contact with her, she Identified the following goals: to be primary custodian; to have an amicable (civil) relationship with Rick (regarding the boys); for the tension to be gone; to have the hoys have a relationship with their dad. Throughout all of my contacts with Linda, she stated her belief that the boys should have a continuing relationship with Rick. She expressed concern about his behavior and did not want the boys to experience any future problems In their relationship with their father. Rick would like primary custody. He also wants to be vindicated of any sexual abuse and expressed concern about Linda "killing the kids". There was nothing Identified at this time to suggest that Linda has any homicidal Ideation or intention. In researching the background, It appears that Rick's concern has some basis In history during the time that Linda was experiencing an adjustment reaction to the demise of the marital relationship and breakup of the family In 1993. WELLS v. WELLS , August 7, 1996 Page 6 ", DOCUMENTS: In an effort to Identify an appropriate parenting schedule between Rick, Linda and the three boys, the documents noted above were reviewed in detail. It appears that Linda received therapy for herself prior to any of the events leading to their separation in 1993. She consulted with Dr. Marie Lilly, Psychiatrist, who saw Linda for 26 sessions from November 29, 1989 through May 7, 1990. Dr. Lilly's handwritten notes reflect her belief that Linda was depressed and In need of anti-depressant medication. However, this was not prescribed because it appears that Linda was breast feeding and medication at that time was contraindicated. Her notes further reflect marital dysfunction. Linda received assistance from James Verser who also consulted with Rick. Mr. Verser's letter of April 26 Indicated that Rick consulted with him In August of 1991 as part of the Johnson & Johnson employee assistance program, Apparently Rick presented himself as having "a bad temper and he wanted to work on _ controlling it. He said he did OK at work, but at home he fumed, stormed, yelled and stomped around. He acknowledged punching holes In walls but not having hit his wife or son ... ". Linda was Included in the. third visit. She described Rick as "a violent, battering man. Within a year of their marriage 'not be there' emotionally, She described him as showing his anger excessively and that he had bruised their sons...". She also related to Mr, Verser that Rick forced sex on her in the middle of the night and then claimed not to have remembered It. Mr. Verser then states "Rick's guilt seemed to have Intensified, but had he also begun to acknowledge that these events were true (sic)". Mr. Verser met with both Rick and Linda but after a couple of months Rick transferred to South Carolina. His last visit with Rick was In November of 1991. Mr. Verser further notes in his letter of April 26, "Rick revealed himself In the therapy to be a perfectionist, Impatient, a workaholic, and a violent man. His strong religious background prompted him to experience a lot of guilt and to use denial as a defense mechanism. However, once he began to acknowledge the extent of his problems, he appeared quite motivated to work on them". Mr, Verser relates that Rick saw him on March 11, 1993, Indicated that he had been transferred to Reading, PA, realized that he needed to continue therapy and wanted to see Mr. Verser again. However, he did not follow through. Linda was seen from February 23, 1993 through May 25, 1993 (11 sessions) and then for three sessions in August of 1993 by Ms. Rebecca K. Griffith, M.A. a counselor with Palmetto Counseling Associates In Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Griffith presented Linda as "quite fragile and depressed during this period. She had frequent suicidal thoughts and I was called by neighbors and a lay support group leader on two occasions to Intervene when she was in crisis and they feared she would take her life. Hospitalization was discussed but she feared It would be used against her In the divorce and we were able to avoid It through a strong support system". Once again, Ms. Griffith reports Linda relating a history of verbal, physical and sexual abuse by Rick and concerns for the boys because of Rick's tendency toward explosive anger. In the summer of 1993, Linda returned WELLS v. WELLS , August 7, 1996 Page 6 " . to therapy but the letter notes that she had adopted a "I don't care attitude and (was) gattlng Involved In several unhealthy, sexual relationships. She recognized she neaded to work on what was behind her self.destructlve choices but was unable financIally to continue In therapy until the divorce was fInalized". Linda admitted In one of my contacts that she "reverted back to college behavior". It Is not uncommon for people to engage In thIs kind of behavior as a result of an adjustment reaction to divorce. There is no evidence of her seeking additional psychological or psychiatrIc help after the summer of 1993. Review of correspondence from Rick's primary therapist, DanIel E. Schoultz, Indicates that he saw RIck from August 6, 1992 to March 14, 1993 (16 sessIons). Mr. Schoultz saw Rick as "a rational and concerned Individual". "His chief complaints were concerning his problem with anger and marital difficultIes. I diagnosed Rick with an Intermittent Explosive Disorder and a Personality Disorder NOS with anti-social, borderline and passive-aggressive features", Mr. Schoultz attributes his diagnostic Impression to "the mental and physical abuse he suffered as a child. He reported no nurturing In the home environment.. He reported his mother and father to both be angry Individuals and to have marital conflict". In his letter dated May 1 0, 1995, Mr. Scho'ultz says, "While I believe that RIck stili has psychological work to do In order to better manage the problems he Is facing, I do believe that his motivation and love for his children Is sufficient to encourage hIm to continuo In his process of recovery". Rick has been In therapy with Karin Bleecker who began treatment with him In May of 1993. She saw him for the following reasons: "support through adjustment separations from wife, and loss of children; help to clarify for himself the validity of accusations his wlfo was makIng about hIm; and to continue the work begun In therapy In South Carolina". Ms Bleecker reports that Rick Is "consistently open and willing to work In treatment". She sees his primary difficulty centering around his "dependency, Impulsivity and low frustration tolerance". She further states that they "ruled out any sexual addiction, battering and pedophilia. His Impulsiveness seems to be more associated with high levels of energy, lack of problem solving skills and mood swings than to any ,pervasive patterns associated with perpetrators. I have discussed my suspicions that he may be ADHD and/or Cyclothymia (sic)". Finally, Ms, Bleecker Indicates that the areas they are focussing on In treatment include but are not limited to Issues around sexuality as well as anger and frustration management plus parenting skills, boundary setting and assertiveness, grief work and related areas. She reports that Rick has made significant progress and has been consistent In applying what he has learned especially when it comes to his parenting, She states "there Is certainly more work to be done, especially In the area of conflict-resolution skills". Rick Is aware of this and continues to follow through. As noted above, Rick Is desirous of wanting to be vindicated of any sexual abuse of his children. He requested as part of this evaluation that the boys be relntervlewed a final time in an effort to clear his name. Rick was advised that the focus of this evaluation was not related to whether he did or did not engage In any sexual abuse but to make a recommendation regarding a parenting schedule that would be In the boys best Interest. In an effort to gain additional more current Information, personality Inventories were administered to both Linda and Rick. WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1995 Page 7 MMPI-2 FINDINGS (RICK) Rick's profile Indicates that he produced a valid profile. His particular configuration Is consistent with people who tend to be defensive and reluctant to admit some problems. Emotionally, the findings suggest a pattern indicating a reaction to situational pressures. His scores Indicate a verbally expressive Individual who may under-control certain emotions. Personality/behavior characteristics noted Include naivete, optimism and self-centeredness. There Is notable drive and energy suggested. His scores are consistent with a person who Is competitive, flighty, Immature, opportunistic and verbally fluent. Difficulty delaying gratification and Impulse control problems are areas that must be considered. Interpersonally, his scores Indicate extroversion and superficiality. Typically Individuals with Rick's profile are gregarious, outgoing social Individuals who have good social techniques. Although they may need to be with other people, relationships are apt to be superficial and Insincere. They may provoke resentment and hostility in others. Specific answers In his profile denote a trusting attitude, naive optimism, denial of negative feelings about others, and Imply a need for affection. Cognltively, such Individuals with his profile are ' predisposed to avoid unpleasant Issues. Lack of Insight, over-use of denial, and an overly positive self-perception may be further descriptive. Needs Include social approval, power, status and recognition. There is suggestion In his current MMPI-2 profile that he should continue In his current counseling. However, the level of anger management and Impulse control problems suggested In my review of the documents from former counselors Indicates them to be at a lesser degree and hopefully less problematic once this parenting Issue is resolved. MMPI.2 FINDINGS (LINDA) Linda's MMPI-2 Indicates that she produced a valid profile. She responded frankly to Items dealing with common human frailties. This Indicates a willingness to admit minor faults and shortcomings. Her validity pattern also suggests self-dissatisfaction, a lack of self-Improvement, notable openness, a questionable self-concept and an overly critical attitude. Emotionally, resentment and hostility are likely. Difficulty appropriately expressing such negative emotions can be expected. Emotional instability may be characteristic. Some distress Is Indicated and this may be due to appropriate situational dissatisfaction or an adjustment to chronic depression, Worrying is a possibility. These scores Indicate the possibility of resentment and hostility. Her personality and behavior, patterns strongly Indicate egocentricity, a low frustration tolerance as well as Impulsiveness. Her profile Is consistent with individuals who tend to disregard the potential or actual consequences of their act!ons and may not learn from prior experiences. Patients with her profile are also sometimes seen as childish, energetic, Immature, shallow, and talkative. Women with her profile have a strong Identification with the female role and many traditional feminine Interests. They have a strong tendency to be constricted, fault-finding, passive, submissive, yielding, self-pitying, and demure, Interpersonally, her profile Is consistent with Individuals who create a good first WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1995 Page 8 " impression. However, they have many Interpersonal problems. Conflict with authority figures Is typical. These interpersonal problems appear to have their origin In a long history of Inadequate family and social relationships. Cognitively, her profile is further consistent with Individuals who externalize blame, Insight Is often times lacking. pessimism may exist. However, these people tend to be clear thinking. At times beliefs may be moralistic and self-confidence may be low. Item content paints a picture of projection of blame for problems and negative feelings. Linda's results strongly suggest she would benefit from therapy. FINDINGS (CHILDREN) In an effort to obtain the boys perceptions, they were seen on different occasions when accompanied by each of their parents separately. CAMERON The Brlcklln Perceptual Scales (BPS) were utilized to sample Cameron's perceptions of his parents. Briefly, the BPS Involves 32 pairs of Items sampling Cameron's perceptions of his parents in the areas of competence, supportlveness, consistency, and character. One Item of each pair pertains to the father, while the second addresses the mother. Cameron Is asked to rate each parent along a continuum from "not so well" to "very well". In general, the results of the BPS suggest that Cameron perceives his mother somewhat more favorably than his father. Specifically, he rated his mother as superior to his father on 19 of the 32 pairs of Items. There were two Items on which Cameron rated both parents equally. On the remaining 11 Items, Cameron viewed his father more favorably than his mother. Additionally, Cameron awarded a total of 1,728 points to his mother and 1,675 points to his father, a difference of 53 points in favor of his mother. Nevertheless, according to the Bricklln manual, both point totals are relatively high, and suggest that, In general, Cameron perceives both parents rather favorably in terms of parenting abilities. In fact, there were no items on which Cameron rated either parent negatively. Of the 11 items addressing competence, Cameron rated his father as superior to his mother on six of them. These Included offering religious information, action In an emergency, speaking up over unfairness, removing a splinter, helping to deal with a bUIlYr and leading a Boy SCOUt meeting. There were four items which Cameron vewed his mother more favorably. These Included solving disagreements fairly, communicating clearly, staying calm In an argument, and helping with school subjects. There was one item which Cameron rated both parents equally; that being, offering Information about sex. With regard to those items addressing supportlveness, Cameron responded much more favorably towards his mother. Specifically, of the eleven Itoms, Cameron rated his mother as superior to his father on nine of them. These included patiently helping to memorize a poem, making him feel loved, helping Cameron to calm down when angry, recognizing when he is upset, helping him to WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1996 Page 9 feei comfortable when going to the doctor, helping him deal with a nightmare, helping when going out on a first date, helping Cameron to feel confident and listening to him patiently. There was another Item for which Cameron rated both parents equally, that being helping him to feel comfortable In new situations. Thus, there was only one Item In this area on which Cameron viewed his father more favorably than his mother. Specifically, he characterized his father as slightly better able to help him deal with an embarrassing fear. Cameron awarded two of the three Items pertaining to consistency to his mother. He described her as more likely to Insist that Cameron complete his homework and go to bed at an appropriate time. He characterized his father as more likely to Insure he did his chores. . Finally, with regard to those items addressing parental character, Cameron rated his mother more favorably than his father on four of the seven items. These including keeping promises, being trusted with money, helping a neighbor and being in a good mood. He awarded his Jather three Items including taking care of - a pet, enjoying time spent with others, and accepting criticism. Again, overall, the results of the 8PS sug'gest that Cameron perceives both parents rather positively in terms of their parenting abilities. In general, he seems to view his mother somewhat more favorably, particularly In terms of supportive ness, and thus, somewhat better able to care for his vital needs. Somewhat different results were noted, however, on the Parent Report Cards. These were administered during Cameron's second evaluation session, on May 13, 1996. Here, Cameron rated his father as superior to his mother on eight of the Items. These Included allowing Cameron to act his age, keeping his secrets, spandlng time alone with him, letting him make his own decisions, helping to make his room a special place, helping him get up when he oversleeps, and helping him to buy the things he wants. Conversely, there were only two Items on which Cameron viewed his mother more favorably than his father. These Included listening to his problems and not screaming at him when she is angry. On the remaining 16 Items Cameron viewed both parents equally. Cameron did continue to characterize both parents positively however. Specifically, he awarded his father a total of 17 "A" grades, seven "8" grades, and only one "C" grade. In other words, there were no items on which Cameron rated his father as below average. He awarded his mother 16 "A" grades, five "8" grades, and four "cor grades. There was one item on which Cameron awarded his mother a "0", or below average IiIrade. Specifically, he characterized his mother somewhat negatively on the Item "makes me laugh alot". Cameron continued to characterize both parents positively on the Child Custody Questionnaire. For Instance when asked to list three things about his mother that he likes, Cameron replied, "She's nice; she teaches me how to bake and cook; (and) she teaches me new things". When given the same question about his father, Cameron replied, "He teaches me baseball; he's nice; he's fun to play with". When asked to list three things about his parents that he didn't like, Cameron replied "nothing". He did report that, of all the people in his family, he got along best with his grandparents and his mother. Further, Cameron reported WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1995 Page 10 that he believed he was his mother's favorite child, while he believed his brother, Preston was the favorite child of his father. Similarly, on the Sentence Completion Test, Cameron continued to respond positively towards both parents. For example, when given the sentence stem "the thing I like least about mom Is...", Cameron answered "nothing". When given the same stem about his father, he also answered "nothing". He reported there would be "nothing " he would change about either parent, and stated that both parents treat him as If he were "normal". The Kinetic Family Drawing Test (KFD) and the Perceptions of Relationships Test (PORT) were also utilized as projective measures of Cameron's perceptions of his parents and family Interactions. On the KFD, Cameron was quite reluctant to comply with the direction to draw his family. He emitted several noticeable sighs, and pushed the drawing materials towards the examiner. Eventually, he refused to complete the task, "stormed" out of the room, and slammed the door. Prior to withdrawing, Cameron divided his drawing page Into five parts and drew a table - and computer in the lower, right-hand section. On the PORT, when given a page with a figure representing his mother; placed .at the left edge of the page, and asked to draw himself somewhere on the page, Cameron drew himself along the far right edge. He indicated his mother was watching him play baseball. When given a page with a figure representing his father, Cameron drew himself considerably closer to his figure. He Indicated his father was presenting him with a baseball bat for his birthday. When given a page with figures representing both parents place at opposite edges of the drawing, Cameron drew himself about equally distant from each figure. On the remaining two tasks of the PORT, Cameron did not express a preference for one parent over the other, again characterizing both equally. The results of the KFD and the PORT might suggest that Cameron may tend to perceive somewhat limited Interactions between himself and his parents, as well as other family members. However, his behavior during the administration of the KFD certainly suggested considerable anger, perhaps hostility. PHILLIP The Bricklln Perceptual Scales were administered to examine Phillip's perceptions of his parents and their parenting abilities. Briefly, the Brlcklln Perceptual Scales Involves 32 pairs of Items addressing his perceptions of his parents in the areas of competence, supportiveness, consistency and character. One Item of each pair addresses the mother while the second Item pertains to the father. Phillip is asked to rate his parents on a continuum from not so well to very well. In general, the results of the BPS suggest that Phillip perceives his mother somewhat more favorably than his father. Specifically, he rated his mother as superior to his father on 16 Items. There were 6 Items of which Phillip rated both parents equally. On the remaining 10 Items, Phillip viewed his father more favorably than his mother. Further, Phillip awarded a total of 1,675 points to his WEL1.S v. WELLS , August 7, 1995 Page 11 mother and 1,765 points to his father, a difference of approximately 100 points In favor of his father. Nevertheless, according to the Brlcklin manual, both total point values Bre considered relatively high and suggest that Phillip perceives both parents rather favorably In terms of their parenting abilities. There were no Items on the entire BPS on which Phlillp rated his father rather negatively. Simliarly, there was only one item on which Phillip viewed his mother quite negatively, that being her ability to keep her promises. Of the 11 Items addressing competence, Phillip rated his father as superior to his mother on five of them. These Included offering religious Information, communicating clearly, speaking up over unfairness, helping to remove a splinter, and leading a Boy Scout meeting, There were four items on which Phillip viewed his mother more favorably than his father. These Included solving arguments fairly, offering information about sex, reacting In an emergency, and staying calm In an argument. There were two additional Items on which Phillip rated both parents equally. With regard to the 11 items addressing supportlveness, Phlilip responded somewhat more favorably toward his mother. Specifically, he rated his mother as superior to his father on six of the Items, these Included, helping Phillip to feel loved, recognizing when he Is upset, helping him feel comfortable when going to the doctor, helping him to feel comfortable when going to play with a new friend for the first time, helping him to feel confident when entering a contest, and listening with patience. There were two Items on which Phillip viewed his father as superior to his mother. These Included helping him to memorize a poem and helping him to calm down. The remaining three Items Phillip rated both parents equally. On the three items addressing consistency, Phillip again responded much more favorably towards his mother. Specifically, he awarded all three Items to his mother and these Included her ability to ensure that he completes homework, goes to bed at an appropriate time, and completes his household chores. Finally, with regard to those Items addressing character, Phillip appeared to perceive both parents relatively equally. Specifically, he awarded three Items to his father, these Included keeping his promises, being trusted with money, and being In a good mood. There are also three Items on which Phillip responded more favorably towards his mother. These Included helping a neighbor, enjoying time with others and accepting criticism. Finally, there was one Item on which Phillip characterized both parents relatively equally. As noted however, Phillip did 'characterize his mother quite negatively on the Item keeping her promises. Overall, however, results of the BPS suggest that Phillip viewed his mother somewhat more favorably than his father, particularly In the area of sUPfortlveness. He seems to perceive her as somewhat better able to care for his vita needs. However, again as noted, he seemed to perceive both parents quite positively In terms of their parenting abilities and there was only one Item on the entire BPS on which characterized either parent negatively. WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1995 Page 12 In general, sImilar results were noted on the Parent Report Cards. Phillip characterized his father somewhat more favorably on four of the Items. These Included telling Phillip that he loves him, ailowlng Phillip to act his age, not screaming when he Is angry, and spending time with Phillip alone. There were two items on which Phillip viewed his mother as superior to hIs father. These included helping him to get up when he oversleeps and answering his questions about sex, On the remaining 19 Items, Phillip characterized both parents equally, Further, as noted, he also characterized both parents rather positively In terms of their parenting abilities. Specifically, he awarded his father a total of 23 "A" grades, one "B" grade and one "C" grade. In other words there were no Items on which Phillip characterized his father as below average. Similarly, he awarded his mother a total of 21 "A" grades and four "8" grades. In all areas he characterized her as above average. . PhillIp again continued to characterize both parents positively on the Child Custody Questionnaire. For Instance, when asked to list three things about his mother that he did not like, Phillip replied, "nothlnp". When. given the same question about his father he also answered "nothing'. When asked to list three things about his mother that he liked Phillip repiled, "She makes cookies; she Is very nice; and she makes me feel free". When asked to list three things about his father that he liked he replied, "He Is fun; he buys me toys; he plays with us when he comes over". He was not able to Identify whether either parent had a favorite child among the children and Indicated that if he had to choose only one parent to live with he would prefer to live with "both". He did Indicate however that of all the people In his family he got along best with his father and his grandparents. . Phllilp continued to respond positively about both parents on the Sentence Completion Test. Again, for Instance, when given the sentence stem "The thing I like least about my mom", Phillip replied, "nothing". He gave the same answer when given the same stem pertaining to his father. He reported that the thing he likes best about his mother Is "she takes care of me" and stated that the thing he likes best about his father Is "he is fun". He reported that both parents treat him as If he were "special". Further, he reported that both parents care most about "all of us" and stated that both parents are unhappy about "us doing mean things to our little brother". The Kinetic Family DrawIng Test and the Perceptions of Relationships Test were also utilized as projective measures of Phillip's perceptions of his parents and family Interactions. On the former, Phillip was asked to draw his family and to draw each member doing something. Phlilip drew from the left to the right of the drawing page his brother Preston, himself, his brother Cameron. his father. and his mother, He Indicated that they were all "standing and getting ready to go outside and play". On the PORT when given a drawing page with a figure depicting his mother placed at the left edge of the page and asked to draw himself on the page, Phillip drew himself at approximately the center of the page. When given a drawing page with a figure depicting his father, Phillip drew hlmseif somewhat closer to the figure depicting his father. He also drew himself standing on a stool. When given a page with figures depicting both parents, placed at opposite edges of the page. Phillip drew himself at approximately equal distance from each figure. Further on the PORT, when shown a picture of a dog sitting between two WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1996 Patle 13 ," doghouses, one labeled mom and the other labeled dad, and asked to indicate which house the dog would go Into, Phillip drew a line to the house label mom. However, when given a page with two dogs asleep and dreaming, one of a mother and the other of a father, Phillip Indicated that the dream about the father was the more pleasant dream. In general the results of the Kinetic Family Drawing Test and the Perceptions of Relationships Test suggest that Phillip may perceive somewhat limited spontaneous InteractIon among various family members. His KFD test does suggest a quality of anger as a predominant emotion. In particular this seemed to be evident with the figure representing Phillip and the figure representing his mother. Additionally, the figure representing his younger tlrother, Preston, was placed somewhat apart from the rest of the family. This might suggest a perception that Preston Is somewhat Isolated and withdrawn from family Interaction or a desire by Phillip to Isolate him from the other family members. Finally, the results of the PORT suggest that Phillip perceives a somewhat closer relationship to his mother than his father. In fact, he may view his father as somewhat less accessible. Whether this Is a result of the' present family circumstances or an enduring trait Is not able to be determined. PRESTON The Brlcklin Perceptual Scales were administered to sample Preston's perceptions of his parents and their parenting abilities. Briefly the BPS Involves 32 pairs of Items sampling Preston's perceptions of his parents In the areas of competence, supportlveness, consistency, and character. One Item of each pair pertains to the father while the second Item pertains to the mother. Preston Is asked to rate each parent along a continuum from not so well to very well. In general, the results of the BPS might suggest that Preston perceives his father somewhat more favorably than his mother. Specifically, he rated his father as superior to his mother on 16 of the 32 pairs of Items. There were nine Items on which Preston rated both parents equally. On the remaining eight Items Preston viewed his mother more favorably than his father. However, Preston awarded a total of 1,321 points to his mother and 1,669 points to his father, a difference of, 338 points In favor of his father. There were also ten Items on which Preston rated his mother quite negative I',.. Conversely there were only four such Items for his father. Thus, In general, Preston seems to perceive his father more favorably than his mother In terms of parenting abilities and his ability to care for his vital needs. On the 11 Items addressing parental competence, Preston rated his father as superior to his mother on 5 of them. These included solving arguments fairly, speaking up over unfairness, helping with school subjects, helping to remove a splinter, and helping to deal with a bully. There were 3 Items on which Preston viewed each parent equally. On the remaining 3 Items, Preston rated his mother more favorably than his father. These Included communicating clearly, responding In an emergency, and staying calm In arguments. In this area there were 3 Items on which Preston viewed his mother quite negatively. These Included speaking up over unfairness, helping with school subjects, and helping to deal with a bully. There were 2 such Items for his father. Specifically, Preston characterized his WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1996 Page 14 father quite negatively In terms of his ability to communicate clearly and to stay calm In an argument. With regard to the 11 items addressing supportive ness, Preston continued to characterize his father more favorably. Specifically, he rated his father as superior to his mother on 7 of the Items. These Included patiently helping him to memorize a poem, helping Preston to calm down when he Is angry, recognizing when Preston Is upset, helping him to feel comfortable when going to the doctor, helping him to deal with an embarrassing fear, helping him to feel comfortable when going out to play with a new friend, and listening with patience. There was only 1 item on which Preston viewed his mother more favorably, This being her ability to help him calm down when having a nightmare. On the remaining 3 Items, Preston rated each parent equally. Further, In this area there were 6 Items In which Preston rated his mother quite negatively. These included patiently helping him to memorize a poem, recognizing when he Is upset, helping him to deal with an embarrassing fear, and helping him to feel comfortable when going out to play with a new friend for the first time. There Is only one Item In which Preston characterized his father negatively and that was helping him to calm down when having a nightmare. Preston perceived his mother somewhat more positively on those Items addressing consistency. Specifically, he viewed his mother as superior to his father on 2 of the 3 items. On the remaining Items, Preston viewed parents equally. On one of the Items Preston characterized his father quite negatively. Specifically, he viewed his father's ability to ensure that Preston completes ,his household chores quite negatively. Finally, on those items addressing character, Preston again responded somewhat more favorably towards his father. SpecificallY, he awarded 3 of the 7 Items to his father. These Included his father's ability to keep promises, accept criticism, and be In a good mood. There were 2 Items on which Preston viewed his mother more favorably than his father and these Included being trusted with money and enfoying the time she spends with others. On the remaining 2 items Preston rated both parents equally. However, there were 2 items in this area on which Preston characterized his mother quite negatively. These inCluded keeping her promises and being In a good mood. In general, on the Parent Report Cards Preston continued to characterize his father somewhat more favorably. Specifically he rated his father as superior to his mother on 8 of the 25 Items. These included his father's ability to understand Preston's moods, to be nice to his friends, to cook good meals, to listen to his problema, to allow Preston to make his own decisions, to help him get up when he oversleeps, to treat all the children in the family fairly, and to answer Preston's questions about sex. There were 7 items on which Preston viewed his mother more favorably than his father. These Included helping Preston with his homework when he asks, allowing him to act his age, keeping his secrets, keeping the house nice, making the holidays special, helping to make his room a special place, and understanding when he gets bad grades at school. On the remaining 10 Items, Preston viewed both parents equally. However, there were several Items on which Preston characterized his parents somewhat negatively. Overall, Preston awarded WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1995 Page 1 6 a total of 11 "A" grades to his father, 8 "8" graJes, 3 "C" grades, 1 "D" grade, and 2 "F" grades. Thus there were 3 Items on which Preston characterized his father as below average, These Included giving Preston enough hugs, allowing him to act his age, and helping to make his room a special place. With regard to his mother, Preston awarded her a total of 8 "A" grades, 8 "B" grades, 7 "C" grades, 1 "0" grade, and 1 "F" grade. In other words there were 2 Items on which Preston characterized his mother as below average. These Included giving his enough hugs and being nice to his friends. Preston continued to response somewhat more positively towards his father on the Child Custody Questionnaire. For Instance, when asked "who do you get along best with In your family?", Preston replied, "Dad, because he Is nice to me". He reported that when he Is upset and needs help he would go to ~my dad". Further he Indicated that he felt that he was his father's favorite child In the family while he believed that his mother preferred his older brother Cameron. Finally, Preston did Indlcata that If he had to choose only one parent to live with he would choose his father because "he is more nicer to me". . On the Sentence Completion Test, Preston again responded sll~htlr more positively towards his father. For exam~le, when given the stem If could change one thing about mom It would be , Preston replied, "to be more nicer to me". Conversely when given the same stem about his father he answered, "come to my soccer games". Nevertheless he did indicate that his favorite time with his mother Is when "she plays with me", and Indicated that his favorite time with his 'father Is when "he wrestles with me". He did Indicate that he believes his mother cares most about "Cam", referring to his older brother Cameron. However, when given the stem "Dad cares most about", Preston replied "me". He also Indicated that he believes his mother feels that his father Is "bad". The Kinetic Family Drawing Test and the Perceptions of Relationships Test were also administered as projective measures of Preston's perceptions of his parents and family Interactions. On the former, when asked to draw a picture of his family, Preston Included his mother, himself, and his older brother Cameron along with his pet cat. He indicated that this picture depicted himself receiving the cat for a Christmas present. Excluded from the picture was Preston's father and his older brother Phillip. On the Perceptions of Relationships Test, Preston did Indicate some preference for his mother over his father on two of the tasks. For Instance, when given a drawing page with a picture depicting his father placed at the left edge of the page and asked to draw a figure representing himself, Preston placed his figure approximately In the center of the drawing page. Conversely when given a page with a figure representing his mother placed at the left edge of the paper and asked to draw himself somewhere on the paper, Preston drew himself so that his figure representing his mother and himself were holding hands. Secondly, when shown a page with two dogs pictured asleep and dreaming, one of a mother and another of a father, Preston Indicated that the dream about the mother was the nicer dream. He reported that this dream Involved the mother playing with the dog. He stated that the dream about the father Involved him wrestling with the dog. WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1995 Page 16 Further, several selected cards from the Roberts Apperception Test were also utilized as additional projective measures. Here themes suggestive of manipulation and Influencing along with some violence were evident. For Instance, when shown a picture of a boy apparently working on homework, Preston provided a story about "I was at my homework one night; I had to go to bed; I said OK; I got my jammles on; I didn't want to go to bed; I was stili with my homework; mom came In (and) I jumped In bed; I pretended to be asleep; she went out (and) I went back to my homework; my dad came In and helped me and then I went to bed; I couldn't go to bed too good because I stayed up too long". Secondly, when shown a picture of a boy apparently finger painting a wall, Preston related a story of "when I colored on the wall; mom came over and she got mad at me so I got time out, six minutes It was really long; I was really sad; I got out and went to Hersheypark; I was tired and I went to bed; I took a little nap; then I got up (and) mom said to clean my room so I did; I brought In my bike and watched some TV". A final example, when shown a picture of a man and woman with a child looking over the edge of a chair at them, Preston related a story about "my mom and dad got divorced; they were yelling (and) dad hit mom and she got hurt". Finally, when shown a picture of three boys. preston related a story about "when I was with my brother Cameron; he had a friend over (and) we were playing in the pool; his friend drowned; we called the ambulance (and) he had to be In the hospital for ten days; when he got out he was In a wheelchair". Generally, the results of the projective assessments suggest that Preston may have witnessed some Incidents of violence during his parent's marriage. His responses on two of the Roberts Apperception Test cards might also suggest a perception of family Interactions characterized by manipulation and influencing. . Two Parent-Child Observations were also conducted. The first, on April 29, 1995, Included Cameron, Phillip, Preston and their father, Cameron was observed to Interact with his father alone or with one of his brothers about 56% of the time. Preston, similarly, engaged in interaction with his father, alone or with one of his brothers, about 54% of the time. Conversely, Phillip was observed engaging In some type of activity with his father only about 26% of the time. Rather, 59% of the time, he played alone. Nevertheless, as noted, the majority of the observation included much Interaction between Mr. Wells and one or more of his sons. Activities Included tossing a foam baseball and playing with various games and toys. Additionally, they talked frequently about various topics. None of the boys exhibited any behavioral or discipline problems, and there was much physical contact between father and sons. Mr, Wells spent nearly the entire observation on the floor of the observation room, but at times, the physical contact between him and his sons bordered on unusual. There were several occasions when Mr. Wells was lying prone and Preston sat upon his back, Also, Preston was observed to sit between Mr. Wells' legs, facing him. Although this certainly would not be considered harmful, In and of Itself, considering the past history of the family, Mr. Wells may need to be more aware of how he physically Interacts with his sons. " WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1995 Page 17 A particular strength which Mr. Wells exhibited was his communication with the boys. He was well able to converse with them on various topics. He seemed skilled at explaining and demonstrating such things as how to throw a "curve ball" with Cameron. A second Parent-Child Observation occurred on May 13, 1995 and Included Mrs. Wells and her sons. Somewhat less parent-child Interaction was evident. Specifically, Cameron was observed Interacting with his mother only 16% of the time. Phillip engaoed In some activity with his mother only 8% of the time and Preston, about 31"~ of the time. AI three boys spent much more time playing alone during this observation. Further, there were several negative behaviors exhibited, particularly by Cameron. These Included loudly banging on a toy xylophone after his mother had asked him not to do this on three occasions, He also remarked, apparently to his mother, "You don't know how to throw a screwball, do you, stupid . Mrs, Wells primarily dealt with such behavior through negative verbal feedback, which, In general, did not seem to significantly Influence the children to refrain from this behavior., . ,.. The results of this evaluation suggest that all three boys perceive their mother somewhat more favorably In terms of parenting abilities and better able to meet their vital needs. However, all three boys also seemed to perceive somewhat limited Interaction among family members, and this was evident, to some degree during both Parent-Child Observations, particularly with Philip. He spent the vast malorlty of both observations playing alone. Preston also reported a perception of vio ence within the family and behaviorally, Cameron exhibited considerable anger and hostility during both evaluation sessions. All three boys appear to have a . strong attachment to and bond with their father In spite of the prolonged absence from him. This must be respected. Based on all of the Information reviewed, it Is our recommendation that Cameron, Phillip and Preston remain In the primary physical custody of the natural mother, Linda Wells. The parents can make Joint legal custody work, so long as they focus on Issues related to their children. . Beginning with the 1995-96 school year, we are recommending that the boys enloy unsupervised visitation consistent with the original custody schedule. In an effort to monitor their adjustment, we are further recommending they be seen by a counselor once a month. We are concerned because neither Linda nor Rick seems to have sufficiently 'healed' enough to the point where they can successfully place their own Issues aside and focus in an unencumbered manner on their children. Finally, we are recommending Rick remain in counseling with his therapist and that Linda seek counseling. The counselor seeing the boys and Rick's therapist should consult with each other regarding the boys' continuing adjustment. . I am very sensitive to Linda's belief that Rick engaged In Inappropriate sexual behavior with the boys. A review of the documents Indicated that the Department of Social Services In South Carolina Indicated this abuse to be at a "medium" (vs. severe) level and whatever occurred regarding the "alligator game" has not recurred since it has become known. To Rick's continuing benefit, I believe that he acknowledges that he has issues to work on. He has benefited from WELLS v. WELLS August 7, 1996 Page 1 8 ." I I I' I Informetlon regarding his parenting relationship with his boys. He does not want to have history recur and does not want his children to experience the same kind of experiences he did In his own family of origin. I believe he Is sincere In his desire to want to be Involved with the boys. To that end, a review of the summer 1996 schedule might result In additional time. It Is hoped that he can spend a substantial amount of time with them during that summer and subsequent school vacation periods. Respectfully submitted, 'i),{;. . ~ R.fU>> . Stanley . Schneider, Ed.D., R.C.E. Psychologist Reglsterec Custody Evaluator - . ~: SES/ksm cc: Sam Andes, Esquire, Conciliator , ~ .' RICHARD A. WELLS, Plaintiff vs. LINDA H. WELLS, Defendant AND NOW, this tlfc-;tlv day of '. l, , I I I ~ I " ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 95-482 CIVIL TERM IN DIVORCE I I i ! i. , ORDER ~,v , 1996, upon receipt of the Conclllator's, it appearing that the parties have agreed to the terms and provisions of this Order which was dictated in their presence and approved by them and their counsel, It Is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. The parties will share legal custody of the minor children, Preston D. Wells, d.o.b. 4 February 1989, Phillip R. Wells, d.o.b. 1 February 1986, and Camaron S. Wells, d.o.b. 8 October 1984. 2. Father will enjoy periods of physical custody with the children as follows: A. Every other weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.; and B. Each Tuesday evening from 6:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. In the event that Father Is unable to exercise this period of visitation, he shall provide Mother with 24 hours' notice. 3. The parties will alternate the following holidays: Thanksgiving, New Years Day, and Fourth of July. The Thanksgiving holiday will be from Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. Father will start this schedule with Thanksgiving of 1995 and it will alternate thereafter. 4. All other federal holidays that occur on a Friday or a Monday should attach to the regular weekend visitation schedule. 5. The Christmas holiday of 1995 will be handled as follows: A. Mother wlll have the children from December 23 at 9:00 a.m. until December 24 at 9:00 a.m. She Is to pick up and deliver the children for this period of visitation. Mother wlll have Christmas Day at noon until December 26 at 9:00 a.m. Father will have the children from December 26 at 9:00 a.m. until December 27 at 7:00 p.m. 6. Both parties shall have reasonable telephone access with the children. 7. Both parties understand that these periods of custody with the children are meant for the benefit of each parent and they should endeavor to make sure that they are spending the time with the children If at all possible. RICHARD A. WELLS, Plaintiff ) I ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 95-482 CIVIL TERM IN DIVORCE vs. LINDA H. WELLS, Defendant JUDGE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED: The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), 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 BIRTHDATE CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Preston D. Wells Phillip R. Wells Cameron S. Wells 4 February 1989 1 February 1986 8 October 1984 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on 19 October 1996, and the following Individuals were present: the Plaintiff and his attorney, Austin F. Grogan, Esquire. The Defendant appearfld with her attorney, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire. 3. Items resolved by agreement: see Order attached. 1 , .'~' '1""..1~.'1"""~' , ,ft......' . '.-.... "~.." '..":' ''''''''',' '." " ".. . '. i.~'':;'':'''='P. ~-" 'r" "" ~-_. ' , , ' . . 4. Issues yet to be resolved: see Order attached. 6. The Plaintiff's position on custody is as follows: see Order attached. 6. The Defendant's position on custody is as follows: see Order attached. 7. Need for separate counsel to represent child: none. 8. Need for Independent psychological evaluation or counseling: none. 9. Other matters and comments: sea Ordar attached. 10. A hearing in this matter Is expacted to take two hours. Date: 24 October 1996 tJi.rY2teJu:u.R. .:/ .d::z~ /'Mlchael L. ~angs -..-,- Custody Concllletor 2 12/11/1S~5 17:44 7177325375 PAGE 02 GUIO.\H::E ASSO::IATES MAIN OFFICE 4U &ford Ro.ad Camp Hili. PA 17011 Stanley E. Schn.ldll. ld,D. Director Camp Hili: (717) 732.2917 Hershey: (717) 533.4312 Carib", (717) 245.2289 ChlmMllburSI(717) 263.9392 FAX, (717) 732.5375 CiUIDAl'kE ASSOCIA YES OF PENNSYlVANIA December 11. 199B Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire Flower, Morgenthal, Flower & Lindsay 11 East Hlgll Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Wells children Dear Ms, Lindsey: I am strongly recommending that Cameron, Phillip a Id Preston do not testily at the hearing, The boys l1ave ceen exposod to multiple questions by l1ealth care professionals as a result of the abusa allegations which ~egan In South Carolina. This has rasulted In the boys being confused, some actin out bahavlor. regressive behaviors end lovalty conflicts. ~~ Stenloy E. Schnelde , Ed,D.. R.C.E, Psychologist Reglsterea Custody Evaluator SES/ams Comprehensive P.ychologlcal Services Dru I and Alcohol Trutmenl . o::\wpSl\Wcll..MTQ\.mr , . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this I 2-/ day of .~! f III IFfV' , 1995, I, James O. Flower, Jr., Esquire, of the law firm of FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & L1NOSA Y, Attorneys, hereby certify that I served the within Motion to Quash Subooena this day by depositing same In the United States Mall, First Class, Postage Prepaid, In Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Austin F. Grogan, Esquire 24 North 32nd Streat Camp Hili, PA 17011 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF FLOWER, MORGENTHAl, FLOWER & UNDSAY Attorneys for Defendant By " /4 CaroLJ. 10 Ht.4 3 11 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5513 . ~ / ".:;}- say, Esqulr 6 fr. C'\I "- In L- "'" .~: 1- .. '") .' I~ - () ;;: .'- U" ~ :?;. J:'= G~~ f2 N ;'ti; " ._~ ;C) ,:, c..., dniJ F= IJJ (~L1_ <.:l u. If) ::5 0 '" U . RICHARD A, WELLS, PLAiNTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. LINDA H. WELLS, DEFENDANT 95-0482 CIVIL TERM ./ -----..----.. LINDA H. WELLS, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V, RICHARD A. WELLS, DEFENDANT 95-5084 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 1995, a continuation of the custody Issue and alimony enforcement Issue shall be heard In Courtroom Number 2 at 3:00 p,m., Tuesday, January 2, 1996, ~y the C,.. ~l J I ( /./ "V^/( Austin F. Grogan, Esquire For Richard H, Wells Edgar B. Bayl ,J. / O.o-{,:...... n>l-ld,J /;;,/, s.{9.5-. ".,.1". Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire For Linda H, Wells :saa FILEO-Gr-I-\CE or i1 \1: r-r.on'lOi,:OTt',R'( I , 95 DEe IS pn 31511 CUMBI;r-.u~~;) CGUNTY r...'I' ,,,.. I" '""( r'Ci\t\.,' L;,\''1: \ rn.ED-OFFlCF. ^,: T~ ": (""'fl !'i'.!(lT."l:'j" I..', "._ ...J I.."..} 1\1'1, (\. ['l':r. ?,~ (:" 3' /9 J.l _!.. J t:..;J II . {'U' ".'::/'1 "::, C"" I\/";/Y J "''''.. l'.f~ ...; ~VLI. FE:N:':S','LVNIA <( ~-il ~ '1 ~ '1 4 s;; ~ " , j' 1"'"'\ ~ I-IARRY N. LUKENS PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONSTABLE 13 FERRY ST. WORMLEYSBURG. PA.17043 OFF. 717-761-0583 PAGER 717-760-2136 FAX. 717-761-2233 RETURN OF SERVICE ON JULY 28. 1999 12:211P.M. I. HARRY N. LUKENS. PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONSTABLE SERVE: PETITION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF CIVIL ACTION LAW NO. 95-()~82 ~.... SERVED ON: LINDA H. WELLS HAMILTON -- ~1l6 W. L1SBURN RD. MECHANICSBURG. PA. 171155 BILL FOR SERVICE SJll.llll PAID IN FULL I VERJFY THAT THE STATEMENTS IN THIS RETURN OF SERVICE ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18PAC.S.A.49114 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES. SlGNATU.a,e;{ d -- ~7: ,-- III ( ) ~ .. :.# ',i;.. I::' U:'. ~.(.t I lO ,~ ~ ?: " I (.~) _..J ..:.:.. ;~-' ; ~).... ., l ~::~ iJ) !_,; .. "'~l Lt.. 1-.'- .. C; 0' G> "i tJ -.../ u " RICHARD A. WELLS, Plaintiff/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 95.0482 CIVIL TERM LINDA H. WELLS, a.k.a LINDA H. WELLS HAMILTON Defendant/Respondent CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this \\ day of ~'3f:..,\ , 1999, upon consideration of the attached complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before\A\( \'1t\e\ L.~s)fN!e conciliator, at W'd. S. \~\'\~. Pmp \-\\\ \ on the ---, day of ~Q~C\ , 1999, at ~.M., for a Pre-hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort. will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court and to enter in to a temporary order. Either party may bring the child/children who is/are the subject of the custody action to the conference, but the child's/children's attendance is not mandatory. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. For the Court, By:j1l~~'~~l~ . Custody Conciliator 1\).) YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE, FOURTH FLOOR CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (717) 240-6200 ,"' . , . ; / :'J rr: Ii !.. , . !: .-,: L I; ,....r. ....L;,,' . i" . "i:,';l',uI';.' . ,'.', ';'; Y '?/I.tJt {}J. (t~/ /I!a:.J(7' .At c;/~ 5d~.I'^- <<'/1' ff (../tt-t?e.i- vJlfr.-:.tt~/ ~. p~. -('II'# C'~)' 'J'lt;ci'd":'" 7'.1/. A:h7~ ~ . RICHARD A. WELLS, Plaintiff/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 95.0482 CIVIL TERM LINDA H. WELLS, a.k.a LINDA H. WELLS HAMILTON Defendant/Respondent CIVIL ACTION - LAW PETITION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF AND NOW, this 28T11 day of July 1999, the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Richard A. Wells, by and through his attorney, Austin F. Grogan, Esq., avers the following: 1. Plaintiff/Petitioner, Richard A. Wells, resides at 638 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne, PA 17043; 2. The Defendant/Respondent, Linda H. Wells-Hamilton. lives at 406 W. Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 along with her current husband, Randy Hamilton, and the minor children, Preston D. Wells, Philip Wells, and Cameron Wells; 3. The Defendant/Respondent is currently pregnant with her fourth child with a due date of August 1999; 4. The parties have shared legal custody of the minor children and the Plaintiff/Father has shared physieal custody as outlined in a Court Order dated January 31, 1996 (copy attached); 5. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has exercised regular and frequent partial custody as outlined in the Order and at other times mutually agreed upon; 6. The Plaintiff/Petitioner was notified on Monday, July 26, 1999 that the . Defendant/Respondent, her husband, and the parties' minor children will be vacatin& their home at 406 W. Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 no later than Sunday, August I, 1999; 7. The Defendant/Respondent further advised the Plaintiff that they have purchased. a Winnebago type home and will be traveling the area with no permanent address; 8. The Defendant/Respondent has made no aecommodations for the Plaintiff/Petitioner's partial custody or the needs of the children in light of the pending birth of her fourth child; 9. The Defendant/Respondent indicated that she did not have a telephone nor did she have anyway for the Plaintiff to reach the children in times of an emergency situation. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to prohibit the Defendant/Respondent from removing the minor ehildren from the jurisdiction of Cumberland County and furthermore, direet the parties to attend a custody conference to resolve the changed circumstances. Respeetfully submitted, Date9dl-/ :21, I'N'9 Austin F. Grogan, Esgu re 24 North 32nd Stre Camp Hill, PA 1701 (717) 737-1956 Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner lD 1/59020 vacation. These weeks may be together or separated. Each year the father shall notify the mother of which weeks he will be having the children not later than June 1st; (d) during any weekend under paragraph 3(a) that the father has the children during the summer when they are not In school, his weekend shall extend to 9:00 a.m. Monday momlng. On such weekends the mother shail pick up the children at the father's residence on Monday at 9:00 a.m. (e) each Christmas from noon Christmas day through 6:00 p.m. on January 1 sl. (4) The parents shall alternate the holidays of Thanksgiving and Fourth of July. The Thanksgiving holiday will be from Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. (5) All other federal holidays that occur on a Friday or Monday shall attach to the weekend schedule. (6) The mother shall have the children at all other times, and she shall always have them on December 24th through noon on December 25th. (7) The father shall pick up and deliver the children except as set forth In paragraph 3(d). (8) Both parents shall have reasonable telephone access with the children. (9) These periods of custody are meant for the benefit of each parent and they should endeavor to make sure that they are spending the time with the children If at ail possible. . By the Court, /' / Edgar B. Bayley, J. I " Austln,F:-'Grogan, Esquire FTPraintiff Carol J. Undsay, Esquire For'Defendant :saa TRUE COpy FROM RECORD In Tcstimon'...h r:of, I here unto set my hand and the seal of said Court at Carlisle, Pa. ThIS..,,3.1;~t day of "..Q1l{.~,',.... 193.~ .."...U.,."'................ ...Q..~.~~~........... J:SAr. Prothonotary VERIFICATION I, RICHARD A. WELLS, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Petition are trUe and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date ~1-1 (~ \1.~ CHARD A. WELLS .. r r- ... :-' .{.'..... ~<. ~ .\~./. .....,.... ,";'-:0 .,.-.\ ,--..' \ .. ~.~", .....\'1 ," .'"1 \ ',\>,~..(\ l:) ",.,{'Y ,,; ...', . . -;... ?) "\" ...... ,,- '0' l) to ~ ... ~ ~ ~~ ~ \l'1Il IO~" ~~ ~ \~ _IIl.o \~ ..... IO~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 1Il~t.l ,:1 ~ ~ c-\ ~\ ~~ ~~p cJ> ~~ <r 0 , t<'O ,"" , ~~ \ ~\ ;to\l' '7 '" C' ~ ;to~ , U~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~\ ~ ,:1 ~ l>'o \~' ~~ \>:r.\ \~\~% ~ ~ ~\;... .4 [jto!Jotv pistilli '0' AUG 2 4 199~ RICHARD A. WELLS Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION vs. NO. 95-0482 CIVIL TERM LINDA H. WELLS, nlkla LINDA H. WELLS HAMILTON Defendunt ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this .J3,..l? duy of 4t'JlPf , 1999, it being represented to the undersigned Coneiliator that the Plaintiff will withdraw his Motion in the ubove maller, the undersigned Conciliator hereby relinquishes jurisdiction of this mailer. If either of the parties wishes further proceedings in this uction, they should petition the Court anew. FOR THE COURT, ;; Austin F. Grogan, Esquire Linda H. Wells Hamilton 406 W. Lisbum Road Meehanicsburg, PA 17055 ">- N E; ir;; c: ~~: ,'- .. '1 ..-, j") ~-r. IJ.I.~. - ':.-, ?; U'~ :r.: r-< , ..~ L.... < ."')-j 1._.- ,;:.' .-:; ( .'-. ..~~rn ' , In Qt., N );>: .T,t "'Z ~~-~. ' t_~ , 'lw ,'- ::> (!.In... j' ..... . I ~_ en :5 () CJ\ (J