Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-6329 civil termPATRICIA METZGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MICHAEL METZGER, DEFENDANT 95-6329 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this "~-~ day of May, 2000, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The petition of Patricia Metzger to move Michelle Julie Metzger to Montgomery County, Maryland, IS GRANTED. (2) Until the move takes place the current custody order for Michelle shall remain in effect except that the father's time with her during the summer school vacation period of 2000 is expanded to six weeks in two three-week continuous segments. The times for each of those segments shall be set by the parties; otherwise, this judge shall be notified by each party in writing by June 5, 2000, as to the weeks sought by that party, with reasons, at which time the court will set the two three-week continuous segments. (3) When Michelle moves to Montgomery County, Maryland: (a) The father shall have periods of temporary physical custody during each school year as follows: (i) Every other weekend from after school on Friday until Sunday evening at 5:00 p.m. If a Monday is a school holiday the period 95-6329 CIVIL TERM shall extend to Monday evening at 5:00 p.m. The father may change any Friday pick up to Saturday morning at 9:30 a.m. by giving the mother at least one week advance notice. (ii) Every year at 10:00 a.m. the day after Thanksgiving until the following Sunday evening at 5:00 p.m. The mother shall have Michelle each Thanksgiving Day. (iii) Every December 25t~ at 1:30 p.m. until January Ist at 3:00 p.m. The mother shall have Michelle each Christmas eve and Christmas morning. (b) The father shall have periods of temporary physical custody during the summer school vacation period each year for six weeks in two three- week continuous segments. The times each year for each of those segments shall be set by the parties not later than June 1st. (4) The parties shall equitably adjust this custody schedule so Michelle can observe the following holidays with her mother: Rosh Hashanah (September), Yom Kippur (September or October), Hanukkah (November or December), Purim (February or March), and Pesach (March or April - first and second days). (5) The father, or his designee, shall pick up Michelle for each period of his temporary physical custody, and the mother, or her designee, shall pick up Michelle at the end of that period. 95-6329 CIVIL TERM Edgar B. BaYlei~, J~ Mark C. Duffle, Esquire For Plaintiff Michael Metzger, Pro se 200 Lewis Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 :saa PATRICIA METZGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MICHAEL METZGER, DEFENDANT 95-6329 CIVIL TERM IN R£: CUSTODY OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., May 25, 2000:-- On March 10, 2000, Patricia Metzger filed a petition to relocate her daughter, Michelle Julie Metzger, age 12, born March 3, 1988, from Cumberland County to Montgomery County, Maryland. The father, Michael Metzger opposes such a move. Hearings were conducted on May 17 and 23, 2000. The mother, age 40, and father, age 45, met when they were students at Penn State University. They married in 1981 and moved to central Pennsylvania. The mother lived in Montgomery County, Maryland when she was in high school. Her mother and three sisters currently live in Montgomery County. The father separated from the marital home in June, 1995, when the parties were living in Cumberland County. The mother has since moved to a rented townhouse in Mechanicsburg. The parties were divorced in September, 1997. The mother is single while the father remarried on October 2, 1999. He lives with his wife Stephanie in Harrisburg, Dauphin County. The mother has worked as a computer trainer for Productivity Point in Camp Hill for a year and a half. She just received a raise to 95-6329 CIVIL TERM $40,000 per year. The father is a computer systems specialist and maintenance technician for Lockheed Martin in Harrisburg where he has been employed four years and earns $47,000 per year. At separation the father saw Michelle and their older child Mary, now age 18 who was born September 22, 1981, extensively under a private arrangement. A custody order was entered for both girls on March 5, 1996. The order was amended on September 16, 1997, and amended again on January 6, 2000. The father now sees Michelle on alternate Saturday mornings at 10:30 a.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m., and on each Thursday evening from 5:45 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. He has Michelle for seven consecutive days each summer. He has seven discretionary single days added to his regular and holiday periods of temporary physical custody. The holidays are Father's Day and periods at Thanksgiving and Christmas. Mary is graduating from high school and will be attending college next fall at Frostburg, which is a state school in western Maryland. The cost as an out-of-state student is $14,000 per year. If the mother becomes a resident of Maryland that cost will be $8,500 a year. Mary has been only a fair student. She wants to attend Frostburg and the mother was relieved when she was accepted. The father was not consulted about Mary attending Frostburg. He believes that it is best for Mary to attend a community college or a two-year campus of Penn State University prior to moving to another campus. He is not going to pay any of the costs at Frostburg. He testified that he will provide Mary some expense money conditioned upon her being a successful -2- 95-6329 CIVIL TERM student. Michelle is completing the sixth grade at the Good Hope School in the Cumberland Valley School District. She had a hard time getting along with other school children, a problem that has abated. She has been receiving language therapy to remediate language/auditory processing difficulties. Currently a teacher reads examinations to her which makes them easier for her to complete. Michelle's condition has been improving and the amount of special support provided to her at school has decreased substantially. She is getting adequate grades. The mother works extensively with her at home and both parents have been actively involved in her school activities. The mother just obtained a master's degree in computer training. She wants to move with Michelle to Montgomery County, Maryland, in order to obtain a better paying job in her field which will have more opportunities for advancement than are available with companies in central Pennsylvania. Montgomery County is in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Technology and Internet companies are expanding rapidly in the greater Washington area. The mother has already received an offer from CGI Graphics as a computer training manager for $55,000. That offer, which is being held open, contains some stock options. The mother has also looked into other employment opportunities and knows of a possible job at the University of Maryland. The schools and other facilities in Montgomery County are as good as those in this area. The mother wants to rent an apartment in either Chevy Chase or Kensington which is about -3- 95-6329 CIVIL TERM a one hour and forty minute drive from Harrisburg. She currently pays $800 a month rent. To rent a similar apartment in Montgomery County will cost $1,100 to $1,400 a month. The mother does not leave Michelle alone for any extended time. A sister in Montgomery County, who is a housewife, is willing to look after Michelle when needed which will relieve the mother of the expense she now has when someone watches her. The mother believes that she will still be better off with an increase in salary despite an increase in living expenses when coupled with greater opportunity for advancement, a decrease in the costs for Mary's college education which she intends to pay, and the added support of her family. The father believes there are many good jobs in the expanding computer industry in this area and that the mother's primary purpose in wanting to move to Montgomery County is to be closer to her family. He acknowledges that the mother is a loving caring parent who is even closer to Michelle than himself. He is upset that the mother has not always gotten the children to him as required by the court orders. He testified that the mother makes last minute changes and then does not notify him. The mother testified that the father is difficult to contact by phone and she often is unable to get him when there are changes. She testified that there have been some difficulties in conjunction with the activities of the children that have conflicted with the father's schedule. She acknowledged that she is not as punctual as the father. The father testified that he has tried to cooperate when the children have had events that conflicted with the custody schedules. The difficulties regarding Mary reached a point -4- 95-6329 CIVIL TERM in July, 1999, when Mary was working at a part-time job, that the father agreed that Mary would not have to follow the custody schedule and that they would work out times that would be convenient for them to be together. He testified that he has stayed in contact with Mary and sees and talks to her enough that their relationship has strengthened. The father testified that Michelle eagerly awaits her periods of temporary physical custody with him, that they have a warm loving relationship, and that they have wonderful times together. The father's mother lives in Levittown, a suburb of Philadelphia, and he and Michelle often visit her. Michelle has a good relationship with the father's wife. The father believes that it is not in the best interest of Michelle to move to Montgomery County. He believes that she should not be put into a new school district as her difficulties in schoolwork have been improving in the Cumberland Valley School District. He believes that the history of difficulties that he has experienced with regard to exercising his periods of temporary physical custody with the children will be exacerbated if the mother moves to Maryland. The mother testified that the father loves Michelle and provides her good care. She has wanted the father to expand his alternate weekends to start on Friday rather than Saturday morning but for some reason the father has resisted. She feels that to move Michelle now at age twelve will not be difficult for her as it would be if she were older and in high school. If she moves to Montgomery County, Maryland, with Michelle she is agreeable to help the father with transportation for his periods of temporary -5- 95-6329 CIVIL TERM physical custody. She suggests eliminating the Thursday evenings, expanding his alternate weekends from Friday evening through Sunday evening, expanding the holiday schedule and ~adding several weeks during the summer. We talked to Michelle in chambers. She is a delightful young girl whose maturity is consistent with her chronological age. She loves both of her parents deeply. She said that her father's new wife is a good friend. She is aware of her mother's desire to move and if it takes place she wants to continue to see her father on a regular basis. ~/In Gruber v. Gruber, 400 Pa. Super. 174 (1990), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania set forth three factors to consider in determining whether a custodial parent should be permitted to relocate children to another state outside the geographical area of the non-custodial parent: 1. the potential advantages of the proposed move and the likelihood that the move would substantially improve the quality of life for the custodial parent and the children and is not the result of a momentary whim on the part of the custodial parent; 2. the integrity of the motives of both the custodial and non-custodial parent in either seeking the move or seeking to prevent it; 3. the availability of realistic, substitute visitation arrangements which will adequately foster an ongoing relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent. In Beers v. Beers, 710 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Super. 1998), the Court stated that it has consistently held that Gruber "refines upon, but does not alter the basic and determinative inquiry as to the direction in which the best interests of the child lie." As to the first Gruber factor, the Superior Court stated in Anderson v. McVay, 743 A.2d 472 (Pa. Super. 1999): -6- 95-6329 CIVIL TERM A court need not consider only economic benefits when determining whether relocation substantially improves the quality of life of the parent .... Rather, 'when the move will significantly improve the general quality of life for the custodial parent, indirect benefits flow to the children with whom they reside.' This is because 'the best interests of the child are more closely aligned with the interest and quality of life of the custodial parent .... ' [T]here is no need.., to show an independent benefit, apart from that of [the moving party], flowing to the children because of the relocation. See Zalenko v. White, 701 A.2d 227, 229 (Pa. Super. 1997). (Other citations omitted.) -~ The credible evidence supports the mother that the potential advantages of a move to Montgomery County, Maryland, create a likelihood of substantial improvement to her quality of life, and that of Michelle, and that it is not a result of a momentary whim on her part. The move will immediately provide her substantially increased earnings. With the competitive job market in the Washington area it will also provide her with greater opportunity for advancement that is complemented by her having just earned her master's degree in computer training. Increased financial benefits are particularly important to the mother in light of the father's unwillingness, even with an income that is larger than hers, to pay any of the direct cost of Mary's undergraduate education at Frostburg. Furthermore, the mother's residency in Maryland will substantially reduce the costs for Mary to attend Frostburg. Living in the area where her family lives also is an advantage that will improve the quality of life for the mother and Michelle. The father has remarried while the mother is single and now remains isolated from daily contact with her supportive family. The mother started looking for a job this spring, an endeavor which has proved fruitful. If she accepts a job other than the one at CGI Graphics it -7- 95-6329 CIVIL TERM obviously will be a position that she feels is better than that one. These factors satisfy us that the integrity of the mother's motives are sound in seeking permission to move Michelle to Montgomery County, Maryland. That is not to say that we do not feel that the motives of the father in seeking to prevent the move are not honestly felt. He has a close loving relationship with Michelle which is recognized by the mother. It will not be as easy for him to see her as it is now although we are satisfied that there are available realistic, substituted visitation arrangements which will adequately foster his ongoing relationship with his daughter. The mother recognizes that she will have to comply with those arrangements that we set in this order. Overall, based on all of the evidence, we find that it is in the best interest of Michelle to allow her mother to move her to Montgomery County, Maryland. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this "~)'"{~ day of May, 2000, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The petition of Patricia Metzger to move Michelle Julie Metzger to Montgomery County, Maryland, IS GRANTED. (2) Until the move takes place the current custody order for Michelle shall remain in effect except that the father's time with her during the summer school vacation period of 2000 is expanded to six weeks in two three-week continuous segments. The times for each of those segments shall be set by the parties; otherwise, this judge shall be notified by each party in writing by June 5, 2000, as to the weeks sought by that party, with reasons, at which time the court will set the two three-week -8- 95-6329 CIVIL TERM continuous segments. (3) When Michelle moves to Montgomery County, Maryland: (a) The father shall have periods of temporary physical custody during each school year as follows: (i) Every other weekend from after school on Friday until Sunday evening at 5:00 p.m. If a Monday is a school holiday the period shall extend to Monday evening at 5:0Q p.m. The father may change any Friday pick up to Saturday morning at 9:30 a.m. by giving the mother at least one week advance notice. (ii) Every year at 10:00 a.m. the day after Thanksgiving until the following Sunday evening at 5:00 p.m. The mother shall have Michelle each Thanksgiving Day. (iii) Every December 25th at 1:30 p.m. until January 1st at 3:00 p.m. The mother shall have Michelle each Christmas eve and Christmas morning. (b) The father shall have periods of temporary physical custody during the summer school vacation period each year for six weeks in two three- week continuous segments. The times each year for each of those segments shall be set by the parties not later than June 1st. (4) The parties shall equitably adjust this custody schedule so Michelle can observe the following holidays with her mother: Rosh Hashanah (September), Yom -9- 95-6329 CIVIL TERM Kippur (September or October), Hanukkah (November or December), Purim (February or March), and Pesach (March or April - first and second days). (5) The father, or his designee, shall pick up Michelle for each period of his temporary physical custody, and the mother, or her designee, shall pick up Michelle at the end of that period. By t~.. Mark C. Duffle, Esquire ~ For Plaintiff Michael Metzger, Pro se 200 Lewis Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 :saa -10-