HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-07098
.~
--
'1
<.!)
-j
.r
]J
~
f
J
()O
cr
o
r
'" ~','11"''t'~' ,^t,..:tit1t1"(R.tN.~c/Ji:::,~'~~,;, <, r;
. .
,.;.:' :i.'~c:~ik~' __:~';~'~'!~."~'f"~'~Y-':;~',~/'d::,t,I! --"~,,,,,,,,..,ft ."','i.}...V,l....,f,,,..,., .................... "_~~", _
ROBERT E. GOODLING,
Plaintiff
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
I
)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 95- 7C>9P CIVIL TERM
IN CUSTODY
ORDBR OF COURT
AND NOW, DfC 13, 19~ upon consideration of the
attached complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their
respective counsel appear before \-\,...I)C..{~ 't.b~~, Esquire, the
conciliator, at l-fjh t'10<x (....o'Y\b. (0. (v..dlno"
Pennsylvania, on _F",A"'I the 3:h" ( day of D(,-c('".~rr, 199.T',
at '!r:;Uo'clock fl,.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
Iheard 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 entry of a temporary or
permanent order.
vs.
JUDY S. GOODLING,
Defendant
FOR THE COURT,
By
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
CARLI8LE, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
1),- ILl- Ii)'- It I,f,,1 t L.. l' (I'7'U //I.'-H
( d.....
JJfr
"
.. ,
(1 N
In ~!
N
'I ::t:
,;(;
0.. ~Fn
~ -= s~
iE u ~fp
L..1
Q _,,0.
~ IJ') 5
en (.)
;; ,
,1:1,':/';,"\
; ~
"
,rl
Ql;~I;'I'.:":.'\ T .'i~'ljj'iO',
ROBERT E. GOODLING, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON
Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
) PENNSYLVANIA
)
vs. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW
) 95- 70fJ>
) NO. CIVIL TERM
JUDY S. GOODLING, )
Defendant I IN CUSTODY
COMPIJAINT FOR CUSTODY
AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Robert E. Goodling, by his attorney,
Samuel L. Andes. and makes the following Complaint for Custody:
1. The Plaintiff is Robert E. Goodling, an adult individual who
resides at 258 West Baltimore Street. Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendant is Judy S. Goodling, an adult individual who
(lb(l "qc::..
resides at 505 South~~.ll~ Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
3. The Plaintiff and Defendant are husband and wife, having been
married on 11 May 1973 and separated in late spring. 1994.
4. The Plaintiff and Defendant are the natural parents of one minor
child, Morgan M. Goodling, born 13 June 1993.
5. Plaintiff seeks custody of the minor child, Morgan M. Goodling.
6. The child was not born out of wedlock and is presently in the
joint custody of the Plaintiff and Defendant.
7. During the past five years. the minor child, Morgan M. Goodling,
has resided with the following persons at the following addresses:
1990 through
Spring, 1994
227 Conway Street
Car lisle, PA
Plaintiff and
Defendant
From late 8pring. 1994 to the present, the child spent 50 percent of her
time with each parent on two week cycles.
1
~~,~
8. The father of the child is the Plaintiff who resides at the
address set out above. He is married to the Defendant.
9. The mother of the child is the Defendant who resides at the
address set out above. She is married to the Plaintiff.
IO. The Plaintiff is the natural father of the child. Plaintiff
currently resides with Miriam E. Marino, his girlfriend, and with the
child, Morgan.
II. The Defendant is the natural mother of the child. Defendant
currently resides with the child, Morgan, and, on an occasional basis at
least, her boyfriend, Timothy Williams.
12. The Plaintiff has not participated as a party or in any other
way in any litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or any
other court.
The Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning
Ithe child pending in a court of this or any other jurisdiction.
Plaintiff knows of no other person not a party to this action
already who has physical custody of or claims to have custody or
visitation rights with the said child.
13. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be
served by granting the relief requested by Plaintiff for the following
reasons:
A. The mother suffers from various disorders which
prevent her from providing proper and adequate care and a
stable environment for the child.
2
.. .,"",.-"'"'.'~'~,.........l-It!-oII..,,...~r.:4'~..,~'.,>'~,r ....~ ..,'.~,
B. The Plaintiff/father has been the source of the
child's stability for most of her life.
C. The shared custody arrangement enjoyed by the parties
up to now has worked for the benefit of the child and. if
Plaintif/father is not awarded primary physical custody, should
continue.
D. The mother has recently attempted to change the
custodial arrangements and persuade the child to live with her
in an effort to gain an advantage in the divorce litigation now
pending between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Defendant has
acted in bad faith, and contrary to the best interests of the
minor child, in an effort to cause financial harm to
Plaintiff/father.
14. 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, Robert E. Goodling requests this Court to grant him
custody of the child. Morgan M. Goodling.
B~~<~
. uel L. Andes
Attorney for Plaintiff
Supreme Court ID 17225
525 North 12th Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
3
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
( SS.:
COUN'.Y OF CUMBERLAND )
ROBERT E. GOODLING, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and
says that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint for Custody are
true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.
AwlZ~M~ 7'
ROBERT E. GO LING
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this II"" day
of;)~ , 1995.
/.,--~
Nota~ Public
-
-
l ,NctVbl'%11
l i'T'nK;''''''''.I' ,
("roC' f';-"[', '";'''.' .~~~rff\t~
,. I - -<."'C'f":"-"
;~lj C'~':';I" .',.'''' .......!'''>;lj~,...:n:v
,.-..'-.I......~).,.>JA,;.1 t ";' f~""-
_"~'I ..':''!j
4
, ~""""""""",,-""""~"'~'.,,.'o;i#!~'''''1h',-,,,,, ''''-''',''' "
,.
,,'; ~"::--:~,'" f ~,;t,~'~'~~#N~*~ ,~
"
,
ROBBRT B. GOODLING,
Plaintiff
v.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JUDY S. GOODLING,
Defendant
NO. 95-7098 CIVIL TBRM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this I,rtday of December, 1995, upon consideration
of the attached Petition for Psychological Evaluation of Parties
and Child filed on behalf of Plaintiff, the matter is referred to
the custody conciliator for consideration at the custody
conciliation conference already scheduled in this case.
BY THE COURT,
Samuel L. Andes, Esq.
525 North 12th street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorney for Plaintiff
Robert R. Black, Esq.
36 South Hanover street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Defendant
Hubert x. Gilroy, Esq.
Custody Conciliator
Irc
~ (),~.,<l
1il..11'l/r,~.
~~.
AlEfX)FFICE
OF THS rnOn-tONOTf.JW
95 OEe I 9 MIll: 51
CUMUERlN'lD COUNtY
PENNSYlVN'l1A
".'-' "'''''.''''''-
'.
VS.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 95- '709f CiVIL TERM
ROBERT E. GOODLING,
Plaintiff
JUDY S. GOODLING,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this
day of
, 1995, upon consideration
of the attached Petition, a Rule is hereby issued upon the Defendant to
show cause, if any she has, why the relief requested therein should not
be granted.
Rule returnable
days from service by mail upon Defendant's
counsel of record.
BY 'l'HE COURT,
J.
'.
ROBERT E. GOODLING, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON
Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
) PENNSYLVANIA
)
vs. I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I 95- 'lOYl~
) NO. CIVIL TERM
JUDY S. GOODLING, )
Defendant ) IN CUSTODY
ORnRR OF CnnRT
AND NOW this
day of
, 1995, upon consideration
of the attached petition, we hereby order as follows:
1. A psychological evaluation of the Plaintiff and Defendant and
other adult members of their households on a full or part-time basis, and
of the minor child, Morgan Goodling, shall be conducted by
(hereinafter "Evaluator"l.
2. Evaluator shall administer such tests and conduct such meetings
and interviews as Evaluator deems necessary to form a full opinion as to
the issues raised in this custody litigation. Both parties shall fully
cooperate with Evaluator in the testing of all such parties and in the
production and assembly of such information as Evaluator requests.
3. Evaluator shall deliver to this Court and to the attorneys
representing the parties in this matter a detailed written report setting
out the Evaluator's findings, the results of all tests administered, the
Evaluator's diagnosis of any condition experienced by any of the parties
who are the SUbject of this evaluation. and the Evaluator's conclusions
with regard to the issues raised in this custody litigation.
I 4.
I services
i date any
i
i
,
The parties shall share equally the cost of the Evaluator's
and shall pay for such services within twenty (201 days of the
bill or invoice is submitted to them by the Evaluator.
J.
" t,
5. All information provided to the Evaluator by any person pursuant
to this Order shall not be sUbject to any privilege and the Evaluator is
hereby authorized to release and disclose that information, in his or her
report or in his or her testimony, to the extent the Evaluator deems
necessary and prudent.
BY THE COURT,
,". "',.".......~"f".~"."'''''.;.,.",\....~;~
ROBERT E. GOODLING,
Plaintiff
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
vs.
JUDY S. GOODLING,
Defendant
"',""''f',- .,.;t,')'
"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 95- 769f CIVIL TERM
IN CUSTODY
PRTTTTOU FOR PSYCHOf.oGTCAf. RVAf.1JATTON OF PARTIES AND CHTf.D
AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff, by his attorney, Samuel L.
Andes, and, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1915.8, petitions this Court for an
evaluation by a psychologist of both parties, the child, and all other
parties pertinent to the custody determination in this matter, all based
upon the following:
1. The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff, Robert E. GOOdling. The
Respondent herein is the Defendant, Judy S. Goodling. The parties are
the parents of one minor child. Morgan M. GOOdling, born 13 June 1993.
2. Since the separation of the parties in the spring of 1994, their
child has resided in the equally shared physical custody of the parties,
spending two weeks alternately with each parent.
3. The Plaintiff and Defendant are currently engaged in divorce
litigation, involving claims for equitable distribution, alimony, alimony
pendente lite, counsel fees and expenses. That matter is scheduled for a
hearing before the master in early February, 1996, and there has been
recent activity in the divorce litigation.
4. Defendant recently advised Plaintiff that the child would live
IWith
I
her, contrary to Plaintiff's wishes.
Plaintiff believes this action
o. "
by Defendant was motivated by her frustration with the divorce
proceedings and was intended by Defendant to obtain an advantage in the
divorce settlement negotiations.
5. Defendant. by her own admission. suffers from significant
psychiatric. psychological, and emotional disorders which Defendant
claims prevent her from living a normal life, holding any employment, or
otherwise properly managing her affairs without help from others.
6. Plaintiff believes that Defendant is not capable of providing a
suitable and stable home for the parties' minor child. Plaintiff
believes that Defendant's recent conduct with regard to the child is
motivated by bad faith and has been taken without real regard for the
best interests of the child.
7. The Court which will ultimately be called upon to decide the
custody issues in this case will not be able to adequately assess the
claims of the parties without the guidance and assistance of
I
ilpSYChOIOgiCal evaluations of the parties, the other members of their
households, and the child herself.
8. Defendant claims that the child has stated a preference to
reside with her. Plaintiff believes that. if the child has stated such a
preference, that decision has been motivated either by the child's desire
Ito protect and care for the Defendant, an impaired parent, or is the
iresult of the Defendant misleading the child about the divorce litigation
I
ibetween the Plaintiff and Defendant.
9. For this Court to determine the genuineness and sincerity of any
preference stated by the child. the child needs to speak to a neutral
.. "
evaluator who can accurately assess and determine if the child has a
clear preference and what that preference may be.
WHBRBPORB, Plaintiff petitions this Court to appoint a neutral
expert to perform a psychological evaluation of both parties, other
members of their households, and the child and to submit his report to
the Court in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1915.B.
\) .~(}O- ~
~~
Attorney for Plaintiff
Supreme Court ID 17225
525 North 12th Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(7171 761-5361
.. e.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I
( BB.:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND I
ROBERT E. GOODLING, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and
says that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and
correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.
&J{.~7~
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this /ld. day
of f)~ , 1995.
,.,......~
Notafy Public
u:;:.::ur.".\ ,
r ,. I' ~,~,,'r\..lj.c
Ivr.:"lI\~-:..,1, '''''-'I~ ,,' (,..........l,'
'I' M__ C"Tt;).;-'i>) ....."'"..
lc"':C"Jf"',:)-",J .~, ,.,..g 17 1('~
":j C.{ll'il\'i~"'-i';':\ 8;:.;:",\."';. , . ....-
,....
',';
'.::J('t':.;;:~',
~' ,~.:~'~~.'.):'~
.
~
.,. """_"--",,,,,'.',~:i;.-.,,-,.;>'>.',~
,,.......,.tr..,-!
JAN 1 1 iSi'G ff
ROBJ'lR7' E. GOODLING,
Plaintiff
:IN THB COUR7' OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
v
.
.
:NO. 7098 - CIVIL - 1995
.
.
JUDY S. GOODLING,
Defendant
~
AND NOW, this ~ day of
the attached Custody Con
directed as follows:
1.
2.
3.
.
.
:CIVIL ACTION - CUS'l'ODY
OURT ORDER
, 19~ upon consideration of
Report, it is ordered and
The Father, Robert B. Goodling, and the Mother, Judy S.
Goodling, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Morgan M.
Goodling, born June 13, 1982.
Physical custody of the minor child shall be alternated on
a week to week basis with the parties exchanging physical
custody every Monday. Legal counsel for the parties are
directed to advise the Custody Conciliator in writing by
January 12, 1996, of each party's position on obtaining
a custody evaluation of the minor child and the parties.
The Conciliator will then address the issue of the
Father's request for a custody evaluation. Counsel's
letter to the Conciliator should include a proposal with
respect to custody evaluators who would be preferred or
not acceptable to either party and also a proposal with
respect to the cost and method of payment. The Conciliator
may convene a telephone conference with legal counsel for
the parties to address this issue further.
This Order is a temporary Order and
custody arrangement provided for in
prejudice either party in the event
the Court for a Hearing.
BY THB COURT,
n
",'
::'
';;~
- \,.)0
:~:H
1, .l('"}
-;':=)rn
:;'1
~
the week on/weekJo~
this Order sha11~not,_
the case comes~~fo~~
..,
::~
1".0_"
. -
~.:()
;~.;.I,:,,!
- , .
?
~
cc: Samuel L. Andes, Esquire
Robert R. Black, Esquire
./11/%.
Al".
w
.,
-
\.0
.--'.----,.~..
;;-"',~.~,~,~,.- .,.-
"
ROBBRT B. GOODLING,
PlaintiU
:IN THB COURT OF CONNON PLEAS OF
:CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
:
:NO. 7098 - CIVIL - 1995
:
:
:CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
v
JUDY S. GOODLING,
Defendant
CONCILIATION CONFERENc:E SUMMARY RmPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE
1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the
following report:
1. The information pertaining to the child who is the subject
of this litigation is as follows:
Morgan M. Goodling, born June 13, 1982.
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on December 20, 1995, with
the following individuals in attendance:
The Father, Robert E. Goodling, with his attorney, Samuel
Andes, Esquire, and the Mother, Judy S. Goodling, with her
attorney, Robert Black, Esquire.
3. The parties reached an agreement as set forth in the
attached proposed Order.
( L~l 'f (a
re
""",.,t'
" ':"!~l:.ryi";~ti;llQ.fc'~1~'4i~""'~i~':o'r"r:" ",,'
- -:.'-'!,'C'."
~ -.. '
.....'.1 :;,i,>__
"'.'"'
..
'.'
/i'j/!'
ROBBRT B. GOODLING,
Plaintiff
I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
I CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
I
I NO. 7098 CIVIL 1995
I
I
I CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
v
JUDY.S. GOODLING,
Defendant
h COUR~
AND NOW, this ~ day of , 1996, it is
directed that the parties unde g a custody evaluation with the
offices of Rogers and Sheinvoldt. This shall be an independent
evaluation. Upon the conclusion of the evaluation, the evaluator
shall furnish counsel for both parties with a copy of a written
report. Upon conclusion of said evaluation and in the event the
parties are not at that time able to reach a permanent decision,
counsel for the parties may contact the Conciliator to conduct a
telephone conference in order to have the case acheduled for a
hearing with the Court.
Cost of the evaluation will be paid from marital assets in the
control of Mr. Goodling. The parties reserve the right to litigate
in the equitable distribution of the divorce case in this matter
the allocation of these costs between the parties.
J.
er, Judge
CCI Samuel L. Andes, Bsquire
Robert R. Black, Bsquire
~ .....~,t. ~113Itt(",
~ P.
\ .' _ I" ,..,,!
. ,'I"
. ~"
'II LJ
.1.:',-'
., ,,\ . ..j (,G
L-:':(~." ~~"
,. ,." . :.i'. ,::.:J
"~';"""'''',' <~ ;'," ,j
,," -'oJ'
;J",,'~"".J -
.
. ..
v
. IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
.
. NO. 7098 CIVIL 1995
.
. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
.
ROBERT B. GOODLING,
Plaintiff
JUDY S. GOODLING,
Defendant
CONCILIATION CONFBRENCB SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCB WITH CUMBBRLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE
19l5.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the
following report.
1. The prior Order of Court in this case allowed the parties to
contact the Conciliator to work out arrangements with respect
to having a custody evaluation performed. The Mother is of
the opinion that an evaluation is not necessary. The Father
is of the opinion that an evaluation is necessary. The Mother
agrees to cooperate but suggests that she should not be
assessed any costs for the evaluation. It was reported to the
Conciliator by the attorneys for the parties that there are
marital assets which will be distributed pursuant to the
divorce.
2. After conducting a telephone conference with the attorney for
the parties, the Conciliator is of the opinion that the
parties should proceed with the evaluation with the final
allocation of costs on the evaluation to be determined at a
later date.
3.
The Conciliator recommends
in the form as attached.
~/J.I '1(,
DATE