Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-05190 ~ f ..-..:.~~~" } ,', o (j' - to . BETSY K, TAYLOR, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF WlMOO PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND OOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA va. NO. 95-5190 CIVIL TERM BRADLEY L. GRIFFIE, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CJUlIlR OF caJRT AND tol, this ~~li.. upon consideration of the atl:ached is ordered and directed as follows: 1, A Hearing is scheduled in Court Room nurrt>er J.L in I:he CUmberland County Court House on the 'f..u.. day of +...vLH.... ~~ ' 1996, at O.,'t<;; .Q...m., at which time l:eetilOOny in I:his case will be ~ken. At the Hearing, the Mother, Bel:sy K. Taylor, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testilOOny, Counsel for the parties shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a memorandum setting forth their position on custody and also setting forth a list of wil:nesses who will testify al: the Hearing along wil:h the anticipated testilOOny of each witness, This melOOrandum shall be filed at least I:en (10) days prior to the Hearing dal:e. day of ~~ Custody Conciliation Summary , 1995, Report ,-rt 2, In the event eil:her party retains an expert for purposes of further evaluation of the cusl:ody situal:ion, the other party shall cooperate with that expert for purposes of evaluation. Any expert who is rel:ained or any supplemental reporl: that is presented must be provided to opposing counsel at least five (5) days prior 1:0 I:he Hearing date. An expert will not be permitted to testify at the Hearing unless a written report is provided to opposing counsel within I:he foregoing time frame, In the evenl: the parties are satisfied with I:he written report, the parties may stipu1al:e to I:he admission of a prOfessional's wril:ten report inl:o the record in lieu of that professional's testilOOny, /.1 1;1 BY THE COURT,/ , /.' . . I J, , 7 1::1.11"1 (qs-. JD' \' . cc: John J. Connelly, Jr.. Esquire Wayne F, Shade. Esquire c..r.,; ~<L BETSY K. TAYLOR, PlaintiH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 95-5190 CIVIL TERM BRAOLEY L, GRIFFIE, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW : CUSTODY CUSTOOY exfiCILIATIOO SlJ9IARY REPCRl' IN AexnIDANCE WITH cumERLAND CXUll'Y RULE OF CIVIL ~ 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the fo1lvwing report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the Children who are I:hs subjects of this litigation is as follows: NAME BIRTHDATE CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Malachi I. Griffie Austin T, Griffie October 25, 1983 December 2, 1986 Defendant/Father Defendant/Father 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on December 12, 1995, with the following individuals in atl:endance: The Mother, Betsy K, Taylor, with her counsel, John J, Connelly, Jr" Esquire, and the Father, Bradley L, Griffie, with his counsel, Wayne Shade, Esquire. 3. The Mother filed this Petition seeking to substantially increase her periods of partial custody of the Children. The parties agreed I:hat for approximately two and a half years, the parties have operated under a schedule whereby the Mother had partial custody of the Children on alternating Monday evenings from 5:15 p.m. until 9:00 p,m., on alternating weekends from Friday after school until Sunday evening at 7:00 p.m, and every Wednesday evening overnight. 4. The Mother's position on custody is as follows: The Mother stated that when the parties separated, the parties had divided periods of custody with the Children equally, However, the Mother stated thaI: over the years, the Father has exercised his greal:er power in the parties' re1al:ionship to dictate the terms of custody to the Mother, As a result, the Mother's periods of custody with the Children have been reduced. The Mol:her sought 1:0 modify the existing schedule to increase her time wil:h the Children and indicated that the Children requested that I:hey spend more time with the Mother. The Mother's counsel stated that the Father had previously agreed to obtain a cusl:ody evaluation from Dr. Shienvo1d and to share the cost of an evaluation with the Mother, However, the Father did nol: follow I:hrough in obl:aining the evaluation. The Mother denied that I:he pending child support proceedings have any relationship to the Custody pel:ition. 5. The Father's position on custody is as follows: The Fal:her stated that he believes the current schedule is working well for the Children and they are both flourishing and doing very well in school. Therefore, the Father was not receptive to any change in the existing custody arrangements, According to the Father, he paid all costs related to raising the Children until June 1995 when he filed a Child Supporl: Petition. The Father believes that I:he Mother's Petition for increased custody was filed in response 1:0 the Child Support proceedings. Finally, t.he Father, through counsel, indicated that he did not believe a custody evaluation is necessary in that the Children are doing well under the current schedule. Thg Father agreed to cooperal:e and submit himself to a custody evaluation if the Mother chooses to obtain one at her sole expense. 6. In an effort to resolve this matter without Hearing, the Conciliator proposed a revised partial custody schedule whereby the Mol:her would have an overnight period of custody on I:he a1ternal:ing Monday evenings when she currently has custody only until 8:00 p.m, that evening and the Mother would also have an addil:ional overnighl: on the alternating Sunday evening when she currently has the Children until 7:00 p,m. The Mother stated that she would agree to I:he proposed compromise. However, I:he Father rejected I:his and any proposal to increase the Mother's periods of partial custody, It should be noted I:hal: the Mother inil:ially sought to increase I:he partial custody schedule by adding an overnight period of custody on all:ernating Sunday evenings and on every Monday evening, 7, As the parties were unable to agree on a modification to the existing informal custody schedule, a Hearing will be necessary in this case, It is estimated that Hearing of this matter will take one-half day or less, 8. The parties agreed that a Temporary CUsl:ody Order is not necessary pending Hearing as the parl:ies intend to follow the informal arrangements, 9. Although the Defendant is a member of the Cumberland County Bar, neither party felt it was necessary to request that an out-of-county Judge preside over the Hearing. Lk~ If.{, /9'iJ Date' . fJ.':'~ Dawn S. Sunday, Esqu r Custody Conciliator NAME PRESENT RESIDENCE D.O,B. 10/25/83 12/02/86 BETSY K. TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. CIVIL ACTION. LAW IN CUSTODY BRADLEY L. GRIFFIE, DEFENDANT COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. The Plaintiff Is Betsy K. Taylor, residing at 188 Faith Circle, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. The Defendant Is Bradley L. Griffie. residing at 158 A Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. Plaintiff seeks shared legal and physical custody of the following children: Malachi I. Griffie Shared Custody Austin T. Griffie Shared Custody 188 Faith Circle Carlisle, Pennsylvania and 158 A Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania The children were not born out of wedlock, The children are presently In the shared custody of both the Plaintiff and Defendant whose respective addresses are referenced above. , From 1990 to the present, the children have resided with both the Plaintiff and Defendant et their respective addresses In varying degrees of shered custody. Wlfe's former address for the period 1990 to August, 1993, at which time she relocated to her present address, was 522 Highland Court, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The mother of the children Is Betsy K. Taylor, currently residing at 188 Faith Circle, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Sha Is single, The father of the children Is Bradley L. Griffie, currently residing at 158 A Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. He Is married, 4. The ralatlonshlp of Plaintiff to the children is that of mother. The Plaintiff currently resides with the following person/persons: NAME RELATIONSHIP Malachi I. Griffie (Shared Custody) Son Austin T. Griffie (Shared Custody) Son 5. The relationship of Defendant to the children Is that of father. The Defendant currently resides with the following person/persons: NAME RELATIONSHIP Malachi I, Griffie (Shared Custody) Austin T. Griffie (Shared Custody) Julie Griffie Son Son Wife I verify that the statements made In this Pleading are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Sactlon 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: CJ-,~/-q~) BETSY K. TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. BRADLEY L, GRIFFIE, DEFENDANT 95-5190 CIVIL TERM 9RDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 1995. the hearing scheduled for February 8, 1996, IS CANCELLED, and rescheduled for Wednesday, February 28, 1996, at 8:45 a,m" In Courtroom Number 2. By th~,Cou John J. Connelly, Jr., Esquire For Plaintiff _ ~.... ,.,...;....e<~ J ;;..J.;.. f /'1S; ..0 f'. Wayne F, Shade, Esquire For Defendant :888 o :1 ...' 1 5'c1n~~?fwl~;~; . ~ '.It \ . BE~SY K, TAYLOR, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRADLEY L. GRIFFIE, Defendant NO. 95-5190 CIVIL TERM IN CUS'l'ODY ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted, J. Denied. Statements set forth in paragraph J of the Plaintiff's Complaint are denied in that they refer to a "shared" custody arrangement for the children at issue. Since the parties' separation on March 1, 1990, the children have been in the primary physical custody of the Defendant. Since the time of separation, as indicated, the Plaintiff has had reasonable periods of temporary or partial physical custody with the children, which have never exceeded more than two overnight visits per week, For approximately the past two years and four months, the temporary physical custody arrangement for the Plaintiff has been to have the children every other Friday evening from the end of her workday until Sunday evening at 7:00 p.m.; every Wednesday evening from the end of the Plaintiff's workday until she delivers the children to school or the child- care provided on Thursday mornings; and every other Monday evening from the end of the Plaintiff's workday until 8:00 p.m. With the exception of the references to the "shared custody" arrangements claimed by the plaintiff, the remaining portions of paragraph 3 are admitted. 4. Denied. It 1s denied that Plaintiff resides with the children as indicated in paragraph 4 of her Complaint, The Plaintiff has never had more than approximately two overnight visits per week with the children, which situation has remained since the parties' separation on March 1, 1990, The temporary or partial physical custody arrangement that has been in existence for approximately two years and four months provides for the Plaintiff to have every other weekend, one overnight per week and one evening every other week of physical custody of the children as described in the answer to paragraph J as set forth above. 5. Denied as stated, It is denied that the children are in the Defendant's shared physical custody, The children have been in the Defendant's primary physical custody since the parties separated on March 1, 1990. At present, the Plaintiff has reasonable periods of temporary or partial physical custody of the children as outlined in the answer to paragraph J set forth above. Further, Defendant's household also includes his son to his present marriage, Caleb L. Griffie. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied, The Plaintiff's prayer for relief requesting primary legal and physical custody of the children would not be in the children's best interest. The best interest of the children has been already served through the present arrangement that provides for the children to be in the Defendant's primary physical custody. The children are excelling in every facet of their life since they have been in the Defendant's primary physical custody as of March 1, 1990. There would be no benefit in any nature whatsoever to the children to modify the present arrangement which has allowed them to excel in every facet of their life. 8. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests your Honorable Court to enter an Order confirming primary physical custody in the Defendant as has existed for more than five and one-half years since the parties' original separation. Respectfully submitted, GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES orth Hanover street r1isle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5551 (800) 347-5552 I verify the statements made in the aforesaid document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa,C.S. section 4904/ relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE I 11 J7/9f , .