Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-00114 J ';:t . '" '7 ~ ~ " , I I. ./J',.f' ",ofF' /'~ i' , , [i ~ f ! 1 ! , l I , I I " I' i j. ~ J ::r - - I cfl . , ~l TED A. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-114 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY v. . . . . ROBIN H. HOFFMAN, Defendant . . . . REPLY TO PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Robin H. HOffman, by and through her counsel, Cunningham & Chernicoff, P.c., and files her Reply to the Petition for Immediate Relief filed by the Plaintiff, Ted A. Hoffman, in regard to the above captioned matter and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part. It is admitted that during the course of the marriage that a child, Alexis Nicole Hoffman, was born on February 10, 1995. It is further admitted that the parties were married at the time that this child was conceived. It is denied that the child was born to the parties during their marriage on February 10, 1995 as the child was conceived through artificial insemination due to Plaintiff's biological inability to father a child. 5. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the parties coparented the child up until December, 1995. In December of 1995, the Plaintiff took little or no interest in the sUbject child, and since the parties' separation has not attempted to have any contact with the child apart from a single phone call made by his counsel to Defendant's counsel in regard to this matter. By way of further response, Plaintiff has offered no financial support for the child since November, 1995. 6. Denied. It is specifically denied that the parties separated on December 18, 1995. By way of further response, the Plaintiff left the marital residence on December 17, 1995, despite the sworn statement made in Paragraph 7a of his Complaint for custody filed at the above referenced docket number in this matter. " 7. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Custody seeking shared legal and VERIFICATION I, Robin M. Hoffman, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to Petition for Immediate Relief 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.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: !J-t-~ -~'... TED A, HOFFMAN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, qG. I It.! (I t'U-: ( .....Jet H"- CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY v, ROBIN M, HOFFMAN, Defendant ORDER OF COURT You, are ORDERED to appear in person in the Custody C:onciliation Office, '"3 v:J, 5, I~ S~ , (o.mp H/I , Pennsylvania on rtbr....."', t.!~l.at --J-J- o'clock g./p,m, for a Custody Conciliation 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. All children age five or older may, at the request of either attorney or party, be present at the Conference, Failure to appear at the Conference may provide grounds for the entry of a temporary or permanent Order. If you fail to appear as provided by this Order, an Order for custody may be entered against you or the Court m~ issue a warrant for your arrest. 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. Lawyer Referral Service Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (71 7) 240-6200 FOR THE COURT: Date \ - \ 0 .'\ " . M~~lli ~t; '-2~ t:~.t . 1 Custody Conc~liator~~' of father, 5. The father of the child is Ted A, residing at 29 Laurel Drive, ME>chanicsburg, Pennsylvania, He is married, 4, The relationship of Plaintiff to the child is that The Plaintiff currently resides alone. The relationship of defendant to the child is that The defendant currently resides with the following Hoffman, currently Cumberland County, of mother. persons: Name Relationship Tyler Jordan Miller Son Alexis Nicole Hoffman Daughter 6, 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. 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, 7. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested because: a, Defendant left the marital residence on December 18, 1995 without prior notice to Plaintiff and has not permitted Plaintiff to see Alexis since leaving the marital residence in December, 1995; "- ,. C-I.....'ondICl2'..__-... , . C~ Iteme 3. Ind .. . b. _ . PrInt ~ou, Nme and Iddr... on Ihe r'W1rt. 0' Ihl. 'orm 10 lhat lIf. C.., rerum thAI C:afd to you. . Ahtteh IN, 'onn 10 the 'ront 0' the m.n,.c,. Dr on lhe b.ck U .~c. ... not permit. -I . W'rI1. "",tum ",elIPt ......fM.. on the~. bRJ. the article numb.r . The """m "tcelp! wilthew to whom thl8rtk1t WI' dlli~ and the dll, I -...... f 3. Artlel. Add,..oed to: Mrs. Robin M. Hoffman 627 Hummel Avenue Lema ne, PA 17043 .I,.. 1: 2. 0 R..'rlet.d o.Uverv I.' Conlult altm.ltar for IH. 4.. Artlel. Number 4b. S.rvlco TVpo " o R.gl.'.red 0 In.ur.d I1a C.rtlfled 0 COO -', . o bp,... M.n 0 R.,urn R.e.'pI '0' J 7. O".7~?~/ ,; : B. Addr.._'. Addr... (OnIV I' roqu..'ed 'I.' .nd ," I. poldl ~ ' I .,.. wi"" I. roc.,v. lhe following ..,vjc.. ftar 11\ ..tre '"1: 1. [J Addr....... Addr... II. Slgnatur. fAlMIltl ips F"";'" . O_ber 111111 .. ""..._~". DOMESTIC RETUIIN RECIIPT ~ ':''';f:J.D..\=n Z1t\" 5LJ3 511 Receipt for Certified Mall No Insuranco Covurauo ProVided 00 nol use 'or hllornlltlonol Mlil 150u AO\loraul i ''''''llu r 11 ~ 8 :3 Ii of Ul Q. 'Ii:! 7 , Hunune1 Avenue f' U ~!.Ih' ,,'>oj :If' 1 ,>.I., ,o,-'''.Q'' . (:''''''-.11.... S,'"(q,tl"''''''II,,, "'~I'., 1",1 I i...,....,. I..,. II..,,), n H. , ,. '1' t ~..",.... ""1 '''~'lt'''''' [J"",!;,.,,,,,,,.,, 1<..,." II .' ,. L '''I' I ~..""., ''''1 10 \\ '" "" 0,1l... oj"" ;'.",,,...,.,., Jo".h." rUfAII''',I..I<J'' & f..r, $ PU'lm,,,. HI n,l't' 1/16/96 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that there were two (2) unsuccessful attempts at artificial insemination and that a third attempt was successful. It is also admitted that Petitioner did not advise Respondent of her third attempt at in vitro fertilization until after it had been confirmed that the procedure was Buccessful. Petitioner explained to Respondent that she had not advised him in advance of the third attempt at in vitro fertilization since the failure of the first two attempts had been emotionally very difficult for both parties and she did not want to see Respondent hurt by a third failure. Consequently, Petitioner advised Respondent that she waited until after it was confirmed that she was pregnant before telling him of the third attempt at in vitro fertilization. B, Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a responsive pleading to the allegations set forth in paragraph 10, To the extent that these allegations are relevantr proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further reply, it is averred that despite Respondent's request to see Alexis' birth certificate, Petitioner refused to show him the document. Petitioner finally admitted to having made the "unknown" indication on the certificate. As soon as Respondent learned of this designation, steps were taken to correct the certificate to reflect that he was the child's father. Petitioner was fully aware that Respondent was correcting the document and Petitioner signed documents to enable the designation of "unknown" to be changed to list Ted A. Hoffman as the natural father of Alexis. 11. Denied, Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a responsive pleading to the allegations set forth in paragraph 11, To the extent that these allegations are relevant, proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. Denied. It is denied that petitioner was unaware that Alexis' birth certificate was amended to place Respondent's name on the certificate as the child's father. To the contrary, it is averred that, by agreement of the parties, the birth certificate was amended to read Ted Hoffman. The reference made in the allegations in paragraph 12 to the fact that the initial birth certificate indicated "Red Hoffman" is admitted. By way of further reply, it is averred that "Red" was a typographical error in that it should have read "Ted". A second correction was made to the birth certificate so that it would read Ted Hoffman and this request for correction was signed by both Petitioner and Respondent. 13. The allegations set forth in paragraph 13 require no responsive pleading. To the extent that any responsive pleading is required, it is averred that Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to answer allegations regarding Petitioner's "desires" and to the extent that those "desires" are relevant, proof thereof is demanded at trial, 14. Admitted. 15. Denied. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a responsive pleading to the allegations set forth in paragraph 15. To the extent that these allegations are relevantr proof thereof is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a responsive pleading to the allegations set forth in paragraph 16. To the extent that these allegations are relevant, proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17, Denied. To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 17 imply that Alexis views Petitioner as her sole source of love and stability and that Petitioner solely has emotionally and financially supported Alexis, the allegations are specifically denied. To the contrary, both Respondent and Petitioner have been a source of love and stability to Alexis throughout her life and have both provided emotionally and financially for Alexis. 18. Denied, It is denied that it would be extremely detrimental to Alexis to allow Respondent visitation and shared legal custody of Alexis, To the contrary, it is averred that it would be detrimental not to allow Respondent to continue the father/daughter relationship with Alexis which has been established since her birth through the parties' date of separation. By way of further reply, it is averred that Alexis was born during Respondent's marriage to Petitioner; that Respondent has assumed the role of Alexis' father; and, that significant bonding has occurred between Alexis and her father. Any allegations with regard to Alexis' "natural" father are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 19. Denied. It is denied that it is in Alexis' best interest to sever all ties with ~espondent. To the contrary, it is averred that the relationship between Respondent and Alexis should continue in that it is in the best interest of Alexis to continue the relationship with Respondent since she was conceived during the parties' marriage and since Respondent is the father of Alexis, By way of further reply, it is denied that Alexis has not as yet formed a familial bond with Respondent. To the contrary, Respondent played an active role in Alexis' life prior to the parties' separation and has only ceased in that role due to Petitioner's leaving the marital residence and refusing him access to Alexis. Respondent and Alexis have bonded and it will be extremely detrimental to Alexis to sever that bond at this time and it is extremely detrimental to Alexis to deny her contact with her father, 20. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 20 are difficult to answer in that Respondent is not certain as to Petitioner's meaning in alleging that Respondent's intentions are not "pure" in that he stated that he would "never take Alexis from Petitioner". It is averred that Respondent's request for shared physical custody is motivated by his belief that it is in Alexis' best interest to be raised by both of her parents and to have a good relationship with both her father and her mother. By way of further reply, it is averred that Respondent is not trying to take Alexis away from her mother but rather is attempting to share parenting responsibilities. It is denied that Respondent left the marital residence prior to the petitioner and to the contrary, it is averred that the parties had agreed to remain in the marital residence until after the Christmas holiday. Prior to that time, and without Respondent's knowledge, Petitioner left the marital residence on December 18, 1995, taking Alexis with her, It is further denied that Respondent has not contacted Petitioner to inquire as to Alexis' health, welfare or well-being and that he has offered no financial support for Alexis. To the contrary, Respondent has repeatedly contacted Petitioner asking about the welfare of not only Alexis but of Tyler, a child born to petitioner and her first husband. Respondent's efforts to assist Petitioner in raising Alexis and his requests to see Alexis have been repeatedly denied by Petitioner. 21. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 21 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, it is denied that the best interests of Alexis would be served by court ordered blood testing to make a determination regarding the parentage of Alexis. To the contrary, it is averred that Alexis was conceived during the parties' marriage, and that Respondent was held out to be Alexis' father and willingly served in that capacity until Petitioner removed Alexis from the marital residence and denied Respondent access to the child. By way of further reply, it is averred that it is in the best interest of Alexis to have a continuing meaningful relationship with both of her parents. 22. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 22 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, NEW MATTER 23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 24, The parties were married on February 13, 1993 and were, therefore, married at the time of Alexis' conception. 25. At the time of conception, the parties were living together and engaging in sexual relations in hopes of conceiving a child. 26. Following Alexis' birth, Respondent's name was placed on Alexis' birth certificate as Alexis' father. 27. Following her birth, Respondent supported Alexis financially and emotionally and acted in all respects as her father. 28. Respondent continued to support Alexis financially and emotionally and continued to act in all respects as Alexisr father until December 18, 1995, when Petitioner removed Alexis from the home where the parties and Alexis resided refusing to grant Respondent access to Alexis since that time. 29, Prior to December 18, 1995/ both Petitioner and Respondent held Respondent out to the community as Alexis' father. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Declaratory Judgment should not be granted by this Honorable Court for the following reasons: a. A child born to a married couple is presumed to be the issue of the husband and the Petitioner has not alleged facts sufficient to overcome this presumption; . not able to father a child. Because the parties knew and understood that the Plaintiff, Ted Hoffman, could not father a child, the parties determined to participate in a program of artificial insemination. 26. Denied. It is denied that following Alexis' birth, Respondent's name was placed on Alexis' Birth Certificate as Alexis I father. By way of further response, immediately following .\lexis' birth, the Defendant, Robin M. Hoffman, specifically listed the name of Alexis' father on the child's Birth Certificate as "Unknown". 27. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that following her birth, Respondent supported Alexis financially. By way of further response, Respondent's contribution to Alexist financial well-being was by way of contributing to the marital residence which in turn supported Alexis. It is denied that following her birth Respondent supported Alexis emotionally and acted in all respects as her father. By way of further response, Respondent never independently provided care to Alexis. By way of further response, Respondent made it know to his family and to others in the community, that Alexis was not his biological child. 2 '.. t.r; _1' r; f- '~ C...) "J ... UJ~.1 , J,.t " { ',..- ..- .' , I:~ ~;. : I,!.~ i t.:_ , .., lj::_ I I :.>~ [;,; , .-, , , ii ;j t.L ..., . i:.J.. I c' :i H. , " l.J U " TED A. HOFFMAN, . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . Plaintiff . . v. : NO. 96-114 CIVIL TERM ROBIN H. HOFFMAN, . . Defendant . CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY . AND NOW, RULE TO SHOW CAUSE t' this Lll1 day of January, 1996, a Rule is hereby issued upon Ted A. Hoffman to show cause, if any he had, why the Petition for Declaratory Judgment should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE '2 . c' DAYS FROM SERVICE. BY THE COURT: !klF J/ J. ~-~,,' f7 r r~ .(',;:~;t,r: C';' ..,. " . ....,:.....r-" , , , ' . L." 'P . .3 '~ tr' '" - n .1 ~ J Ii c;: t'; 'oO:-':' ...'.; I,'lll)I" r '.'.1 I.. V III . (;.0 l.i"ll.\::~\ -. ;,'. , ~'II' .., _"".,,:. ,f _" j ,1 ,1,'\ .: ... - . ...-...-1'; IJ~_:i\::~;J'd ':\!,:l.,\ frozen semen which lowered the success rate of conception. Petitioner made a later attempt at in vitro fertilization without Respondent's knowledge, participation or mutual consent, utilizing a freshly donated semen sample. This last attempt at in vitro fertilization was successful. 8. On or about June, 1994, Petitioner was able to conceive a child via in vitro fertilization. 9. On February 10, 1995, the petitioner gave birth to a daughter known as Alexis Hoffman. 10. On or about February 10, 1995, the Petitioner was requested by Polyclinic Hospital to provide the name of the child's father on the child's Birth certificate. The Petitioner did not name a father on the child's Birth certificate as petitioner knew that her husband was not the child's father and Petitioner did not wish her husband's name to be placed on the child's Birth Certificate as the child's father. Petitioner answered on the form presented to her for completion by Polyclinic Hospital that the child's father was "unknown", and Petitioner's attending physician, Dr. Byrne, signed the form as Petitioner had completed it. 3 11. Petitioner knows who the childts natural rather is by virtue or the fact that he volunteered to donate the semen which led to the conception of the subject minor child. Petitioner has been requested by the donor, however, to keep his identity in confidence in exchange for his donation. 12. Unbeknownst to Petitioner, Respondent's name was placed on the child's Birth Certificate as the child's father, however, the name placed on the Birth Certificate was not the actual name of Respondent. Specifically, the name that initially appeared on the child's Birth certificate as the child's father was "Red Hoffman". The Respondent apparently unilaterally had his name placed on the chi1dts Birth Certificate and unilaterally had his name corrected on the child's Birth Certificate. 13. Petitioner desires to sever all ties and relationship with Respondent, and desires to have a legal determination made that the Respondent is not the child's natural or legal father. 14. On or about January 10, 1996, the Respondent filed a Complaint for custody in this Court in a matter captioned as 4 visitation and shared legal custody of Alexis when it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent is not the natural father of Alexis and when it is the natural father's intent to pursue a custodial parental role in the child's life. 19. The Petitioner believes that it is in the best interest of Alexis to sever all ties with the Respondent now, when she is of the age of eleven (11) months and has not yet formed a familial bond with Respondent rather than waiting until she is older and will be able to form such a familial bond with Respondent. 20. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Respondent I s motives in seeking a shared custodial arrangement with Alexis are not pure in that Respondent has told Petitioner that he acknowledged that Alexis was not his and that he would never try to "take her" from Petition if the parties separated in August of 1994. By way of further response, the Respondent has attempted to misconstrue the events of the parties physical separation in his Complaint for Custody by asserting, under penalties of false sworn statements, that it was Petitioner who left him and the 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Declaratory JUdgment was placed in the United States Mail, First Class delivery in Harrisburgr Pennsylvania on January 12, 1996 on the following: Sandra L. Mei1ton, Esquire Hepford, Swartz , Morgan 111 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Attorneys for Respondent) Michael L. Bangs, Esquire Andes, Vaughn , Bangs 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (Custody conciliator) Respectfully submitted, CUNNINGHAM' CHERNICOFF, P.C. Date: Januarv 12. 1996 ~ I By: ~\ iUq."n'ln"rJ"II" i'.... /11ttllf,,-? Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire 1.0. *66266 2320 North Second street P.O. Box 60457 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457 (717) 238-6570 (Attorneys for Petitioner) 9 5, Both parties have coparented the child since her birth, 6. The parties separated on December 18, 1995. 7, Father filed a Complaint for Custody seeking shared legal and physical custody of Alexis Nicole Hoffman on January 5, 1996, to the above term and number, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and has attempted to make an interim arrangement with Mother to afford Father partial custody of his daughter between now and the time of a custody conciliation. 8, Father's counsel has been advised by Paige Macdonald-Mathes, counsel for Mother, that Mother will not afford Father any opportunity to visit with Alexis. It is Mother's position that since the child was conceived through artificial insemination, Father does not have any rights to visit with the child. 9, Because of the issue involved, it appears that this matter will not resolve amicably at a custody conciliation conference and it may be some time before the matter is resolved. 10. It will be extremely detrimental to the relationship between Father and Alexis if he is not afforded an opportunity to have partial custody of her on a regular basis. This is especially TED A. HOFFMAN, Plaintif f IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. v. ROBIN M. HOFFMAN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. The plajntiff is 'fflr.l A. Hoffman, residing at 2~ Laurel Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The defendant is Robin M. Hoffman, residing at 627 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff seeks custody of the following child: Name Present Residence Age 11 months 02-10-95 (DOn) Alexis Nicole 627 Hummel Avenue Hoffman Lemoyne, PA The child was not born out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody of Defendant r Robin M. Hoffman, who resides at 627 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. During the past five years, the child has resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: Ted and Robin 30 Maplewood Drive Hoffman Ettersr PA Birth to December, 1995 Robin Hoffman 627 Hummel Avenue Lemoyne, PA December, 1995 to present The mother of the child '- 627 Hummel Avenuer is Robin M. Hoffman, currently Lemoyne, Cumberland County, residing at Pennsylvania, She is married. . The father of the child is Ted A. Hoffman, currently residing at 29 Laurel Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. He is married. 4, The relationship of Plaintiff to the child is that of father. The Plaintiff currently resides alone. 5. The relationship of def~ndant to the child is that of mother, The defend<lnl: ,:::ul:reCltly retliues wi Lh the following persons: Name Relationship Tyler Jordan Miller Alexis Nicole Hoffman Son Daughter 6. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in ether 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. 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. 7. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested because: a. Defendant left the marital residence on December 18, 1995 without prior notice to Plaintiff and has not ~rmitted Plaintiff to see Alexis since leaVing the marital residence in December, 1995; ....t..!.. !;/ .::..) J'.. ,':"} iI, Tit;..... . ',,, -< h.~.i~.. , '1 I."; .~~~: ~ ,: , ,.,'. ~ . f.~.- .-=-- ~_~. ,~ } ~ , n ."J~h " ~ 1 9l " 0$ ~ ~, ~ ~ 9. 2 :Ii I i ~ ... . 'r '" o F:! r-l ,...te III ... ~n @~~ !t ~. ~ ~~~ ~ '" 5. Both parties have coparented the child since her birth, 6. The parties separated on December 18, 1995. 7. Father filed a Complaint for Custody seeking shared legal and physical custody of Alexis Nicole Hoffman Oil January 5r l!i9G, to the above l:f:l:1lI and T1uml:.oul' , 1l copy at which iH attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and has attempted to make an interim arrangement with Mother to afford Father partial oustody of his daughter between now and the time of a custody conciliation. 8. Father's counsel has been advised by Paige Macdonald-Mathes, counsel for Mother, that ~Iother will not afford Father any opportunity to visit with Alexis. It is Mother's position that since the child was conceived through artificial insemination, Father does not have any rights to visit with the child. 9. Because of the issue involved, it appears that this matter will not resolve amicably at a custody conciliation conference and it may be some time before the matter is resolved. 10. It will be extremely detrimental to the relationship between Father and Alexis if he is not afforded an opportunity to have partial custody of her on a regular basis. This is especially true given the fact that she is only 11 months old and needs frequent contact with both parents, 11. Inasmuch as the separation of the parties has only recently occurred, a strong relationship b'3tween Father and Alexio had existed prior to thio Lime and no harm will b'3 done to Alp-xis if the relationship is allowed to continue pending resolution of this matter. 12. Father proposes that the parties share legal and physical custody of their daughter, Alexis. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order granting him shared legal and shared physical custody of his daughter, Alexis, on an alternating weekly basis. L<<-tU~;(~ -Sandra L. Meilton Esquire No. 32551 HEPFORD, SWARTZ & MORGAN 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ... residing at 29 Laurel Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, . The father of the child ia Ted A, Hoffman, currently Pennsylvania. He is married. Qf tat:hp.l. The P] aintlf [ currently resides <<lone. 4. The relationship of Plaintiff to thp. child is that of l!lathe:::-. 5, The relutionship o[ def~ndant to the child is th~t persons: Th" uC'fcr.dclm: cUl.'l't:ntly l;et>iueE. with tne fOllowing Name Relationship Tyler Jordan Miller Alexis Nicole Hoffman Son Daughter l'Iitness, or in ar.,)ther capacity, in other licigation concerning 6. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or 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. 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. 7. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested because: a. Defendant left the marital residence on December 18, 1995 without prior notice to Plaintiff and has not ~itted Plaintiff to see Alexis since leaVing the marital residence in December, 1995; TED A. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 96-114 CIVIL TERM ROBIN M. HOFFMAN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Ted A. Hoffman, by his attorneys, Hepford, Swartz & Morgan, and petitions your Honorable Court as follows: 1. The Plaintiff is Ted A. Hoffman, residing at 29 Laurel Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to "Father". 2. The Defendant is Robin M. HOffman, residing at 627 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne, County, o ''"', 0 Pennsy;I.van~ai\'1 tJi.li ~. :-J (.}u_: :.-: i:i:n ;:;i;' ...,bi (J', ".,0 ..' "-'6 r~ I.; -n : r:l ~IJ ,J.;C) :::: ti=' ~~~:.~.' - fj~ -, :::j ~~ .., -.. C) "'" Cumberland hereinafter referred to as "Mother". 3. The parties are husband and wife. 4. One child, Alexis Nicole Hoffman, was born to the parties during their marriage on February 10, 1995. The parties were married at the time this child was conceived. .... 5, Uoth partieD have coparented the child since her birth, 6. The partieD separated on December 18, 1995. 7. l~itthnr l'ilud a Complaint for Custody seeking shared legal nnd physical cUlltorly of lllexis Nicole Hoffman on January 5, .1.:196, to tlltl abov<.! term ,lnd lIumuer, " copy of which it> attached hereto .11I gxhibit "A"; and has attempted to make an interim arrangement with Mother to afford Father partial custody of his daughter betwee/l /lOW and the time of a custody conciliation. O. I;'nthor' 0 counsel has been advised by Paige Mac:do/lllld'Mathtlu, counoel for Mother, that t-Iother will not afford Fathor any opportunity to visit with Alexis. It is Mother's pooit10/l that oince the child was conceived through artificial inoem1nation, Father does not have any rights to visit with the child. 9. Because of the issue involved, it appears that this matt01' will not reoolve amicably at a custody conciliation confe1'ence and it may be some time before the matter is resolved. 10, It will be extremely detrimental to the relationship between Father and Alexis if he is not afforded an opportunity to have partial custody of her on a regular basis. This is especially VERIFICATION I, Ted A. Hoffman, acknowledge that the facts stated in the within document are true and correct to the best of my knowledg~, information and b~lie[. I understand that any false etiltC'IfI:?nt>.l hereill art: made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~ DATED: 1- s-:,~ .... TED A. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff v. IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. ROBIN M. HOFFMAN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY COMl'LhINT FOR CUSTOm,' 1. Thn pIa i ntitt io TF.d A, Hof.[man, IesidJ,ng at 2~ Laurel Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The defendant is Robin M. Hoffman, residing at 627 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff seeks custody of the following child: Name Present Residence Age 11 montha 02-10-95 (DOn) Alexis Nicole 627 Hummel Avenue Hoffman I,cmoyne, PI\ The child was not born out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody of Defendant, Robin M. Hoffman, who resides at 627 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. During the past five years, the child has resided with the fallowing persons and at the following addresses: Ted and Robin Hoffman 30 Maplewood Drive Etters, PA Birth to December, 1995 Robin Hoffman 627 Hummel Avenue Lemoyne, PA December, 1995 to present The mother of the child is Robin M. Hoffman. currently residing at 627 ~mel Avenue, Lemoyne, Cumberland County. Pennsylvania. She is married. ,'. VERrprCATrON I, the undersigned, Ted A. Hoffman , acknowledge that the facts stated in thp. foregoing document are t....ue and correGt to th.) best of ml' kllcwledgp., information and balief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. .. Dated: }- 3- 9? ~ d' A. of n 7 - 5, The Plaintiff's position on custody 15 as follows: Plaintiff desires primary physical custody of the child or expansive custody and visitation with the child. 6, The Defendant's position on custody is as follows: Defendant maintains that Plaintiff should not have any rights or custody or visitation in that he is not the father of the child. 7. Need for separate counsel to represent child: None requested. 8. Need for independent psychological evaluation or counseling: None requested and the Conciliator does not believe any is necessary. 9. A hearing in this matter is expected to take one day. 10. Other matters and comments: The case presents a novel issue for the court to resolve. Currently there is a pending Petition and Rule to Show Cause filed by the Defendant requesting that the court enter an order indicating that the Plaintiff does not have any rights of custody or visitation with the child. The child was conceived through the use of in-vitro fertilization. The sperm donor is not the Plaintiff. However, after the birth of the child, the parties resided together for a period of approximately six months and essentially conducted themselves as a family although there Is some dispute as to the extent of how they conducted themselves as a famllv. The court needs to make the decision on the declaratory judgment action first, If the court determines that the Plaintiff has rights in the child, then a 2 custody hearing will have to be held. In the event that the court determines that the Plaintiff does not have rights in the child, then a custody hearing does not have to be held. In the interim, Defendant did agree to permit Plaintiff to have access to the child one time every week. The Defendant, through counsel, entered into this agreement with Plaintiff and his counsel under the understanding that providing access to the child during the Interim will not be prejudicial to her position regarding whether or not the Plaintiff has any rights at all to visit the child. Both counsel agreed and the court should not permit any testimony concerning the visitation as established in this order as in any way helping to establish Plaintiff's rights to have custody snd visitation with the child. Date: 1 6 February 1996 1 ichael L. Bangs Custody Conciliator 3 TED A. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-114 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ROBIN M. HOFFMAN, Defendant STIPULATION AND NOW, this ____ day of r 1996, the Plaintiff, Ted A. Hoffman (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), together with his attorney, Sandra L, Meilton, Esquire, and the Defendant, Robin M. Hoffman (hereinafter referred to as "Mother"), together with her attorney, Paige F. Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, hereby inform your Honorable Court that they have amicably resolved to their mutual satisfaction the issues of custody and visitation regarding their child, Alexis Nicole Hoffman, born February la, 1995, and do hereby stipulate that the following is the substance of their agreement respectfully requesting that your Honorable Court issue an appropriate Order of custody and visitation in accordance with their agreement and stipulation. The parents and their respective counsel stipulate as follows: 1. The parents shall share legal custody of Alexis and each parent shall consult with the other concerning all major decisions affecting Alexis, including but not limited to, health, education and religion, 2. Primary physical custody of Alexis shall be with Mother. .. r-- i - ,. ,I; (;J ~ . " " L;' , . , ., 'j J , 1 1: , , .. .J