Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-01577 CECELIA HAMANN-VESNESKY, Plaintiff . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 95-1577 vs. . . PHILIP J. RIZZO, Defendant . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this .'1.1 "~ay of 4l/lLt!~l~/t./ 1995, upon presentation and consideration of the within Motion, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the hearing scheduled for December 11, 199~ at 1:30 p.m. shall be continued until the ,r"'dayof ::i~~'1,(.(a-.,/ ' 199t. at fi:3t) otclock;Pz:m. in Courtroom No. ~, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Both parties, through counsel, will provide each other with a list of witnesses ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing along with a statement as to their expected testimony. Additionally, both parties will submit their proposal for a resolution of this matter. ,.; ~l " t '":. ~ \, ~ .~ .. ... ~ 1. *,: '." ,';'l'"YI t\j,;". ;, 'l J.: ~I > .~..)I.f1t} .'J} \1 " 56. UJ (11 C' 27 ^O,ll CECELIA HAMANN-VESNESKY, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 95-1577 PHILIP J. RIZZO, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND NOW comes the Defendant, Philip J. Rizzo, by his attorney, Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire, and respectfully states as follows: 1. On March 27, 1995, Plaintiff herein filed a Com- plaint for custody. 2. On October 5, 1995, a conciliation conference was held before Michael L. Bangs, Esquire. 3. As no agreement was reached at the conciliation conference, a hearing has been scheduled in Your Honorable Court on December 11, 1995 at 1:30 p.m. 4. Defendant, who resides in Albany, California, is unable to attend the December 11 hearing, as his employment requires him to be traveling at that time and for much of December. 5. This is the first request for continuance filed in this matter. 6. Plaintiff, who is not represented by counsel, has physical custody of the child, and therefore will not be prejudiced in any way as a result of a continuance in this proceeding. .." en - ~,.. .l;- to- :c L;. ~ c .. :':"",l -<t = --:C".J;c l&,.C'(..) < ..... :~L':)> ot-.r.. .. I t-:'..,;- l..:!n:....J'~ Wl,',,-,'1:.z: =~ "-lld;C ..._.::..n~ ,..:.1. ;;:, ~ic..:. .~ ~ . -'1 ..,. ~ .... .... :c Q.. o o C'-.l :> ~ = 1 ~ p <i) < Z 1Il< <:> .... ~ f,l..J .... C t.:! .:1>- ..... III C.1Il .~ '0 U Z ~ Z >-c c Z ~ ZZ lG..... Ql < 0 .., Ot.:! III III .... ~ :Ec. t.:!.... Ql Z ;:J :E zc. t:l H Q 0 .~ III E-o < u>-< t.:! Z ~ o(l [jl :z E-o.:l :> . 0 IE :t: < U )( l<.Z I 0 g ~ 001 Z t<I l>: o !: 0 Z t<I ~~ 0 E-<UZ < 1II H 0 Z r.. z f'o. l>: 0 :E > l>: ..: III f'o. Ot:lH < Z "" U1 OZE-o :c . fi ~ .... u<u "J 0 I .:1<>- < H ::E = U1 f,ll>: t:l H C. E-o ::! '" :ct.:!..J0 ..J H 0 <( III E-otllHE-o t.:! ..J :E ..., :c . :E:>1Il U H 0 ZOHO t.:! :c Z HUUU U C. . . . ~. L", 'c d5 &~ CECILIA HAMANN-VESNESKY. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. Cij"- Ij-77 CIVIL TERM vs. PHILIP 1. RIZZO, Defendant CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2l21- day of f\llCArc.h 1995, upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before Esquire, the Conciliator, at '-as- h. I- 0- nt' Pennsylvania, on the 1 b t h day of I'^~ 1 .y , 19~:- at -I e.. o'clock .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 Order. Either party may bring the child who is the subject of this custody action to the conference, but the children's attendance is not mandatory. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for the entry of a temporary or permanent Order. For the Court: Dated: :? - .3/-"IS' By: ~~ueU AJ~ f::q Custody Conciliator - ~/j 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 COURTHOUSE, 4TH FLOOR CARLISLE, PA 17013 (7 I 7) 240-6200 a) From his birth until April, 1991 with the Plaintiff and the Defendant in San Francisco, Califomia; b) From May, 1991 until July 1991 with the Plaintiff in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; c) From August, 1991 until July, 1994 with the Plaintiff and the Plaintift's husband, Michael VesnesJ..-y in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and d) From July, 1994 until the present with the Plaintiff and the Plaintift's husband, Michael Vesnesky in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. The Plaintiff is the mother of the minor child. She is married and lives with the child and her husband, Michael VesnesJ..-y. 8. The Defendant is the father of the child. He is unmarried and resides with a paramour, Barbara. 9. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or another court. Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending in a court of this Commonwealth or in another state or commonwealth. 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. 10. The best interest and pennanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested because Plaintiff has always been the child's primary caretaker. 11. 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 3 4. Issues yet to be resolved: the proper visitation schedule with Defendant. 5. The Plaintiff's position on custody is as follows: Plaintiff initially suggested that the Defendant should not have any contact with the child. Plaintiff submitted that the Father has had four contacts total over the last four years and recently was negotiating with Plaintiff to allow her current husband to adopt the child. During the course of the conciliation, however, she changed her position and agreed to permitting the Father to have three weeks during the summer provided that he adheres to her request that he use no illegal substances; that no guns are present; and that he does not take the child on the motorcycle. She also requested that Father pay for the cost of transportation. 6. The Defendant's position on custody is as follows: Defendant, through his counsel, requested one month in the summer. Defendant's counsel was not able to get a hold of Defendant during the conciliation to ascertain his response to Plaintiff's offer of three weeks during the summer. 7. Need for separate counsel to represent child: none. 8. Need for independent psychological evaluation or counseling: none. 9. Other matters and comments: Plaintiff, Mother, in this case was adamant at the beginning of the conciliation that the Father not be given any contact with the child because of his sporadic contact in the past and because, 2 rFUI IA HAMANN..VES,"fSiCY. PIOllltl ff IN TriE (OURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF (UMBERLArvD COUNTY. PENNSYL VAN I A CIVIL ACTION - LAW 95-1577 CIVIL TERM V. PHILIP J, RIZZO. Defendant ItLRL-.Cu.5TJ1!1Y ORD.E.lLOf---LO.U.RI AND NOW, February 5, 1996, 11:20 a.m., after hearing and consideration of the testimony presented, we do direct that the parties shore legal custodY of their child. Michael W. Rizzo, DOB December 14. 1990. The court directs that primary physical custodY be with the mother and that the father's visitation is os hereafter stated, The record reflects that the mother resides in the central PennSYlvania area with her new husband, who is a long time resident of the area. Mother and father were married in California and resided there until mother separated from father apprOXimately six months after the child was born. Father continues to reside in California working at the University of California in their lobs. The mother and her new husband work in the central Pennsylvania area, with the mother working at the Blue Cross facility as a customer service representative. Because of the disparity in dIstances in the residences, extended visitation is only possible with the father over 0 summer period. However. the father's work occasionally brings him to the East Coast. at which time he sholl hove reasonable visitation with the child. out.side the child's resHience, for the reasonable period of time thot the father is here on bUSIness. in regcr-r1 tel tl1P r~'lr l(",~!Jlr:::. "fll.~,!"""~, l'iP Clrt"rt thot. , 95-1577 Clvil Term Poge 2 the father shall hove custody of his child, Micllae!. from 8 :00 a.m. on December 26 to noontime on January 2, every year. or for such ~horter period of time os the father is in the central Pennsylvania area. It is the court's understanding that the father has family relatives in the New York area. and it is the intention that the child shall be able to travel with the father at that time. In regard to the summer vacation. we direct that the father shall have six weeks of visitation with his child over the summer months. The father shall give the mother not less than thirty days notice of his intended visitation time with the child over the summer, and hi~ vacation schedule shall take preference over the mother's summer vacation schedule, for purposes of the visitation. The court has heard testimony that the father resides on a medium size sailboat, with his new wife, at the Richmond Marino Boy facility in Richmond; that the father also has access to an apartment in the immediate area, should he not be on the boat. If it is the intention of the father to have the child on the boat, it is the court's direction that either the father or his new wife be in constant attention to the child while they ore on the boat. If either the father or his new wife are working. we direct the child to reside in the apartment under proper suoervision. During at lenst tile first yent' of this vISitaUon arrangement on the West ConsL \~e o)'-ect tnnt the father shall f-pturn to ~p.:'disyl vnn~ (1 for r;<'ti 1 rf}!"1spllr tot lOr. of trlP C~1.i 1 r~, (11"1(1 95-1577 Civil Term Poge , accompany the child to California. If deSlred by the mother to accompany the child on the return trio. we direct that she pay her own transportation to the West Coast for accompanYing the child bock to the East Coast. If on airplane is used for the transportation of the child. the father shall pay complete costs on the child's transportation. While the child resides with the father on the West Coast, we direct that the father maintain no firearms in any residence in which the child resides, including the boat, and. until further Order of Court, we direct that the child cannot participate in motorcycle rides wlth the father. We direct each parent to provide the other telephone numbers and mailing addresses. By the Court. Cecelia Hamann-VesneskY, Plaintiff 407-A Beaver Avenue Enola. Po. 17025 Max J. Smith. J r" ESQui re 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown. Po. 17036 For the Defendant :mtf ~~.L ;,1 ,/q~. (', ~ (') '..' . ) c;; 0 I I - -- - ..l -", ;-:--J ['C, 7"'? ~-q , : . I (n , . -; . y - ':-J --~1 ::.j , , , - - () .......~ ~ C,,) ; r.1 c '.'~ , , '. 3. ,f:' :-.] -.