Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout203-04028 LECRONE V ANDERSON MARY LECRONE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : NO. 2013-4028 : JOHN ANDERSON, IV, : CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendant : IN CUSTODY HYAMS, J., APRIL 16, 2021 I.PREAMBLE th Modern day parenting philosophy has thankfully come a long way from the 15Century proverb,The importance of actively listening to children will not be downplayed even though the outcome of this case turns on the failure to instill accountability when a child is not being candid. Aesop but not necessarily because of the traditional moral of the story. While in the instant matter, multiple caused enforce consequences for the behavior that resulted in the unfavorable outcome for her. If in fact the boy who cried wolf would have faced age appropriate consequences the first time for his behavior, there likely would not have been a second or unfortunate third time, which resulted in the loss of his flock. Ultimately, the unchecked by the Mother, solidified the best interest factors weighing in favor of the Father (See attached best interest factors chart). II.BACKGROUND The parties to this long, extensive custody litigation were never married. The subject child, J.A.,is the sole child of the parties,although they both have other children from other relationships. The more recent procedural history began when Mother filed a Modification Petition on March 27, 2019 following an unfounded child abuse investigation conducted by CYS related to a physical discipline incident on January 11, 2019. The incident involved Father using a belt on the subject child. Although CYS did not deem this incident to be child abuse and lifted the safety plan that had been placed during the investigation, Mother filed a Modification Petition and alleged the following: that the child was fearful of having unsupervised visitation with the Father, ised and held at ABC House, that Father and the child participate in family counseling and that Father complete a parenting class. Father, who was pro se at the time, subsequently filed his own Modification Petition and a Petition for Contempt. The custody conciliation was held on May 7, 2019 on the dueling Modification Petitions, and the parties agreed to an Order that slightly modified the prior Orders of January 19, 2016, October 12, 2016 and March 17, 2017. A second conciliation was scheduled and held on May partie daughter or his mother. Following a follow up conciliation held on June 12, 2019, the parties did not reach an agreement and requested a custody trial. Mother continued to indicate that the child was fearful to attend visits with Father and that the visits should be supervised while Father and the child participate in family counseling. Father did not feel that visits needed to be supervised, and he believed th counseling with the child. The parties came to an agreement during the July 9, 2019 pretrial conference that included cancelling the August 2019 trial date and postponing the ultimate resolution of the case pending On February 28, 2020, Mother filed another Modification Petition and again alleged physical abuse, specifically averring that on February 16, 2020 during a visit that was supervised by further alleged that the incident happened in the presence of the supervising daughter and the child reported the incident to his counselor. Mother also alleged that the Father was transporting the child without a supervisor,and,as a result of the alleged hitting incident and alleged unsupervised transportation,he was in contempt of prior Orders. Mother requested counsel fees supervised. A telephone custody conciliation conference was held and Father was represented by his current counsel during this conciliation. The parties could not come to an agreement,and the matter was assigned to undersigned for the purposes of scheduling a pretrial conference and custody trial. Various conferences were held with counsel, the GAL and/or counsel, the GAL and the parties in an attempt to resolve the pending issues related to the February 28, 2020 Modification Petition. During those conferences, the GAL (who had interviewed the child, the pa) statements concerning the alleged February 16, 2020 hitting incident could not be substantiated act that the child had changed the allegations more than once. The counselor, who is a mandated reporter,did not report the 1 incident to CYS so that it could be investigated. It was also discussed at these conferences that 1 It is noted that licensed professional counselors are mandated to rewhen they have reasonable cause to suspecton the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming 2 additional allegations,which the Mother was pushing to have heard at an evidentiary hearing, also originated with the child and ultimately were watered down by subsequent inconsistent statements or third party investigations. As the parties were unable to reach a resolution,custody 3 hearings were held on October 8, 2020; January 4, 2021 and February 25, 2021. The relevant testimony is summarized below in the following section. III.FINDINGS If there is one thing everyone can agree upon, it is that the parties have fundamental differences when it comes to parenting styles. The parties have historically and continue to be inept at bridging the gap between their different parenting styles or at the very least respecting is has prevented any form of an effective co-parenting relationship. Unfortunately, their tortured co-parenting relationship has had lasting and negative 4 consequences for J.A.As J.A. ages, if his current pattern of behavior continues; he will be met with some harsh and unwanted consequences from third parties outside of his family circle (school officials, future employers, etc.). One can only hope that this decision will serve as a actively listen to him, but also enforce age appropriate consequences for dishonest behaviors related to storytelling to gain a certain desirable result. The October 8, 2020 hearing consisted of testimony from the Guardian ad litem, Adam before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. added). 2 Some of the allegations were th agreement entered into at a pretrial conference. 3 If testimony from a witness is not discussed the weight of that testimony was deemed not relevant as it pertains to the best interest custodial factors. 4 Judicial notice is taken of the fact that when J.A. was just four (4) years old in April of 2015, the teachers in his classroom setting observed the following behaviors: J.A. was looking for attention; making up stories/not telling the truth and he was looking to avoid/escape/postpone consequences. This was documented by way of Exhibit to a prior round of litigation. Now, almost six (6) years later, we have a ten (10) year old child who continues to display attention seeking behavior by making up stories and he is still avoiding consequences for this undesirable behavior. Mother refuses to enforce consequences or at least refuses to acknowledge the behavior so that she does not believe in the need for consequences. Father and/or his household is/are more often than not the target of the made up stories and therefore, rendering effective consequences is constrained by the need to defend from the story telling. R.Deluca, Esquire and a child interview that was performed in chambers following the parties and counsel waiving their right to be present. The interview was done on the record. GAL He began working on the case as the appointed GAL for the subject child in April 2019 and first met with J.A. on May 8, 2019. J.A. was eight (8) years old at the time and was in second grade. This followed the incident where Father had physically disciplined J.A. with a belt as a result of behavioral incidents at school. J.A. informed the GAL that he did not want to spend the only the Carlisle school reported to the GAL that J.A. had multiple behavioral incidents in the last three months for a total of 15 behavioral incidents: February 2019 (4 incidents), March 2019 (9 incidents) April 2019 (2 incidents). J.A. described preferring his as she only makes him stand in the corner for punishment while his Father had his own rules and would spank him. He reiterated he did not want overnight visitation with his Father because his Father would likely not let him play with his toys. J.A. also strongly disagreed with the way his Father forced him to have his haircut. The GAL had a second visit with J.A. on July 9, 2019 and J.A. was again reporting he did not exoring and He did at various points in the conversation say he was okay with the chunks of time he was currently spending with his Father, but he did not want more time or overnight visitation and could not cite to any examples as to why he felt this way. He explained that his Mother said he does not have to go to visits with his Father if he does not want to go. On April 28, 2020, the GAL met with the J.A., which followed a new Modification Petition filed by the Mother. The child reported visits were not going well and he felt as if he was treated as if he was nothing while visiting his Father. J.A. had failed to discuss these feelings about visitation with his counselor. J.A. did not want to go see his Father anymore and described visits with his Father as more bad than good. He indicated that his Father hit him in the face during a recent visit, but then he changed the story to say Father hit his hand and his own hand hit his face. No Childline (child abuse report) was report made even though J.A. reported this incident to his counselor. J.A. said visits with his Mother are great as she treats him the right way and treat a child. He explained after this most recent visit, he had no trust in his Father, he does not know how to treat women,and his Mother does know how to treat men and she shows kindness while his Father does notduring this conversation despite the GAL asking J.A. to go to a private location. J.A. said he felt he was a bad son because he is caring and generous and this was because of how he was treated by his Father. J.A. , but tells me not to lie so what is the point. At the end of the conversation while on speaker he said he did not even though he previously stated that he could continue . On July 29, 2020, the GAL held another conversation with the child. He continued to as goodandhe enjoyed playing with his brothers and playing sports. He described as boring where he would eat,watch TV and play pool. The child said visits are bad because his Father does not treat him right. He gave an example of not being treated right when he got yelled at when he called for his brother to come to dinner because no one asked him to do that. He said his visits would be better if he had been allowed to go out and yell for his brother to come in for dinner. J.A. still wanted his visits with Father to be Saturday and Sunday. Attorney Deluca described a large number of times where J.A. flip flopped his position not wanting to go and Sun house; but also giving examples of things he did do on visits with his Father. J.A. was very open with the GAL. The child did speak openly with very little prompting. J.A. displayed a lack of consistency and completely contradicted himself in many instances. Attorney Deluca sShe began seeing J.A. on April 27, 2020 as a trauma therapist. She was initially seeing J.A. one time per week and then the sessions moved to bi-weekly. J.A. met the trauma criteria because CYS was initially open with the family, but could continue with her despite that there was no finding of abuse once CYS completed the investigation. She completed the trauma component and continued with general counseling as she was helping Mother with behavioral issues in school and helping J.A. with general anxiety. Her goal for the Mother was to get her to reach out to other agencies for assistance with J.A. (school behavioral issues). She expressed that she had no issues with J.A. having visits with his Father and this included after J.A. had reported the face slapping incident. She explained that J.A. contradicted himself, changed the details and was inconsistent when talking about this alleged incident. She spoke to her supervisors about his disclosure and it was deemed not a reportable event to CYS. J.A. would say visits with Father were good and then when Mother entered the session he would say how bad the visits with his Father had been. Overall, visits with Father are reported as positive. No concerns at all with Father and his visitation . Ms. Riden recommended in home services for J.A., but Mother refused them. While Father had not participated in family therapy with J.A., the GAL indicated that Ms. Riden did not make this recommendation and in fact recommended Mother follow through with in-home services. She felt that trauma therapy in a counseling setting was not needed. J.A. was not bringing up anything about his Father including anything negative about visits. She believed J.A. could be discharged, but because COVID caused a slowdown she had not been discharging patients. J.A. was ultimately discharged on October 2, 2020. Despite that Ms. Riden felt there was no need for outpatient therapy, Mother was requesting it and Ms. Riden did not think it was a bad thing, just that J.A. did not need it. Ms. Riden had no concerns his discharge. The GAL follows: there was no visits to be supervised and he could be eventually moved back to the schedule of having visits every Friday to Monday morning. The GAL did not focus on the alleged domestic violence incident between Father and an ex- girlfriend that allegedly took place in July 2019, because after interviewing multiple people and informing J.A. that he had talked with witnesses and the police about the incident, J.A. changed his story and admitted he did not see his Father hit his girlfriend, but maybe he pushed her simply because her shirt was pulled down. The GAL pressed him further as to how would J.A. know that his Father pushed the ex-girlfriend and he admitted that he did not know. The GAL explained why he could not simply recommend what the child was stating about visits with his Father and the reason was that every rendition the child provided him on topics such as visits with Father was so in ex-girlfriend, it turned out to be a blatant lie. Thus, when the child says no overnights, yet ery difficult to allow the child to determine when he should be visiting. follows: ever since the belt incident, J.A. has learned that he can use his words to get his own way. He has ways of using his words so he can be where he prefers to be because there are fewer consequences at that home. If he uses certain words he gets what he wants and can please his Mother and enjoy a certain level of control. The Court conducted a child interview on October 8, 2020. Although J.A. was talkative and appeared open, he was less than credible. When discussing his relationship with the GAL he explained he does not like to talk to the GAL because previously the GAL tried to bribe him. J.A. stated that the GAL informed if he told everyone that this was all a lie he would buy J.A. all the candy and soda he would want in exchange for saying he made it all up. The re-occurring theme from the interview was J.A. wants to make the decisions about his clothes, shoes, hair and prefers to be because he can pick and choose what he does and how he does it. In addition, J.A. felt he should also be able to decide when and if he visits his Father and if he could not decide that issue then his Mother could make the decision on the visitation schedule. While J.A. was emphatic about what he should be able to decide, he was not credible, persuasive and did not present a well-reasoned preference, only that his preference should control. Following the hearing, an interim order was entered as a result of the testimony and recommendation of the GAL and the child interview that resulted in providing the Father supervised, overnight visitation. wife. works at a private autism school and lives with J.A. and two of her other children. Mother testified that she has been working with abused children for fifteen years, but clarified that she has worked with children with learning disabilities, other disabilities, mental health issues and some who have been abused. She described her relationship with J.A. as an open relationship. Mother explained that J.A. began seeing another counselor a couple of months ago despite the discharge from Ms. Riden with no specific recommendation for additional counseling she felt he needed continued outpatient). It is noted that Mother did not subpoena any of the therapists/counselors to appear and testify at any of the three hearing dates. By way of history, on or around January 2019, Mother had reported an incident to Childline after J.A. reported to her that his Father had hit him with a belt and she observed bruising on his result of the CYS investigation, Father was only permitted to have visitation with J.A. through CYS as per their safety plan. She explained that during the time period of the CYS investigation, Father never initiated contact or visitation through CYS. Following the investigation, it was agreed upon tDuring this timeframe, J.A. continued to express a fear of having to visit his Father and he did not want to have overnight visitations. J.A. also reported that at times there was not a supervisor when he would be picked up or dropped off and the Mother noted on occasion that she believed the only person in the vehicle during exchanges was Father, but, admitted that his vehicle had tinted windows. The parties exchanged a series of emails about the alleged lack of supervision during communication from Father indicating that he had to delay visitation pick up times so that a supervisor could be present. The Mother reported that the child complained about being called a was upset following a visit with Father because he had attended a bible study and adultery, fornication and child rape were discussed. In February 2020, J.A. came home and said his Father smacked him in J.A. said they were not playing around or joking with each other. J.A. said that his older sister was the supervisor who was present at the time this happened. This was the same incident that the GAL and child therapist deemed incredible and not worthy of a report (as mandated reporters) to CYS. Mother reviewed a series of journal entries she had made over the 2019-2020 timeframe and reiterated the majority of her earlier testimony as well as her self-serving opinions about visits with Father based on statements J.A. made to her about visits. When asked about how J.A. has been since the visits were increased to include overnight visits with his Father she simply said that J.A. was still reporting name calling. She said J.A. expressed that he wanted to decide when he visits his Father and some weekends he says he wants to Mother could not imagine her child coming home and telling her things that had not happened. In addition, she said that while others have found him inconsistent, she finds him very consistent. ount over the GAL when J.A. informed that the GAL attempted to bribe him with candy and soda if he agreed to say that he had made things up about the custody case. Mother clearly is blinded by her love for her child and her opinions and beliefs about the contact with his Father. As a result, her testimony is on balance, not credible. This does not suggest that the Mother does not want what is best for her child, but she is unable to paint an accurate picture of the custodial dynamics. relevant testimony consisted of him informing that he is a former Marine with an honorable discharge. Father is a no nonsense parent. He explained that since the recent incidents of alleged abuse, the visits with J.A. have become antagonistic. J.A. will tell siblings and Father, you cannot touch me, nobody can touch me and if you do, mom will go back to court. Father explained that he tries to talk to J.A., but after there is total disrespect for an adult disciplines all of his children the same way. Weekends are family time and he expects that everyone pulls together and he believes that J.A. is pulling in the opposite direction. He explained that J.A. will throw a tantrum if he does not get his own way and this has become disruptive when he is playing with siblings within the household. Father addresses this behavior by removing all privileges and taking things away from J.A. He acknowledges that if he was not restricted by court order he would use physical discipline on all of his children and he finds this to be an effective form of discipline based on how it has worked with his other children. Father does not see his form of discipline as abuse and professed his love of all of his children. While both parents presented additional character witnesses, for the purposes of the custodial Following careful analysis of all the best interest custodial factors in relation to the pending petitions and the relevant evidence presented, the request for counsel fees in relation to any counsel fees. Insomuch as Father has requested 50/50 custody in his Modification Petition, that request is granted. In addition, there was make up time order following the February 2020 allegation, which was clearly an unsubstantiated allegation and did not rise to the level of any non-party mandated reporter making a report of child abuse to a local child welfare agency. Therefore, this request is granted and the parties are directed to identify the specific amount of time that Father is owed for make-up time and Father is to be provided that amount of time for visitation with J.A. in accordance with the foregoing custody schedule. IV.DISCUSSION The evidence has demonstrated that the best interests of the child are better served whenboth of his parents have a substantial role in his life. As reiterated by the GAL in this case, the evidence and best interest factors clearly indicate that the prior custody schedule as outlined in the October 14, 2016 and January 19, 2016 Orders of Court should be reinstated. It is further ordered that the Father be provided make up time for the equal time periods that the Mother denied as lacking convincing evidence. The partiesshould be cognizant of the following commentaryofRandy Flood, MA LLP: childrenraising their parentsto be seen, yet not heard. Andsome parents are stressed in trying to function in the shadow of this unbalanced pendulum swing.Rather than argue about the dangers of authoritarian versus permissive parenting, and get stuck in an unnecessary binary, we need to evolve in our parenting so both children and parents can be seen, heard and respected. BY THE COURT, _________________ Carrie E. Hyams, J. Stacy Wolf, Esquire 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Plaintiff Thomas J. Williams, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Defendant Adam DeLuca, Esquire 61 West Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 GAL Attachment A CUSTODY CHECKLIST FACTOR MOTHER FATHER FACTOR OUTCOME Which party is more likely to Mother demonstrates a Mother demonstrates a This factor weighs encourage & permit frequent clear desire to preserve clear desire to preserve in favor of the & continuing contact between and prolong Father. the child & another party reluctance and reluctance and uncomfortable feelings uncomfortable feelings She does not promote an She does not promote an environment that environment that encourages the child to encourages the child to want to have continuing want to have continuing contact with his Father. contact with his Father. feelings even when they feelings even when they are based upon false are based upon false allegations. This Factor allegations. This factor weighs in favor of the weighs in favor of the Father. Father. The present & past abuse There have been multiple There have been This factor weighs committed by either party or unsubstantiated multiple unsubstantiated in favor of the m allegations of child abuse allegations of child abuse Father. household, whether there is a as to Father and Child. as to Father and Child. continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party & statements regarding statements regarding which party can better these allegations have these allegations have provide adequate physical resulted in the child resulted in the child safeguards & supervision of lacking credibility. lacking credibility. the child. Mother does not question Mother does not anything the child says question anything the and testified that she child says and testified believes the child that she believes the essentially in all child essentially in all circumstances including circumstances including when he told her the when he told her the GAL attempted to bribe GAL attempted to bribe him with candy and soda him with candy and soda to get him to say a to get him to say a previous reported previous reported allegation did not allegation did not happen. This factor happen. This factor weighs in favor of the weighs in favor of the Father because the Father because the appropriately address appropriately address these false allegations has these false allegations led to irreparable has led to irreparable damage to the father and damage to the father and child relationship. child relationship. Based on the evidence Based on the evidence Equal The parental duties presented this factor is presented this factor is performed by each party on equal. equal. behalf of the child. The need for stability & Based on the evidence Based on the evidence Equal continuity in the presented this factor is presented this factor is education, family life & equal. equal. community life. The availability of extended Based on the evidence Based on the evidence Equal family presented this factor is presented this factor is equal. equal. Based on the evidence Based on the evidence Equal relationships presented this factor is presented this factor is equal. equal. The well-reasoned preference The child was The child was N/A of the child, based on the interviewed on the record interviewed on the and aspects of his record and aspects of his interview and answers interview and answers appear to have been appear to have been coached. In addition, he coached. In addition, he offered inconsistent offered inconsistent statements when statements when compared to those he compared to those he provided to other adults provided to other adults in his life (counselor, in his life (counselor, GAL). Finally, he GAL). Finally, he suggested that his GAL suggested that his GAL attempted to bribe him attempted to bribe him with candy and soda to with candy and soda to get him to change his get him to change his story. The child clearly story. The child clearly has more control when has more control when household and prefers household and prefers the freedom to make the freedom to make decisions about what he decisions about what he eats and wears, etc. He eats and wears, etc. He believes that he should believes thathe should also be able to decide also be able to decide how much time he spends how much time he with each parent. His spends with each parent. preferences were neither His preferences were well-reasoned nor neither well-reasoned credible. Therefore, this nor credible. Therefore, factor is not included in this factor is not the analysis. included in the analysis. The attempts of a parent to This factor weighs turn the child against the in favor of the other parent, except in cases inconsistent statements inconsistent statements Father. of domestic violence where about inappropriate about inappropriate reasonable safety measures discipline and continue to discipline and continue are necessary to protect the pursue adverse litigation to pursue adverse child from harm. despite lacking credible litigation despite lacking evidence in her favor credible evidence in her pushes this custody favor pushes this custody factor in favor of the factor in favor of the Father. Father. Equal but both parents Equal but both parents Equal Which party is more likely to can improve on their can improve on their maintain a loving, stable, parental/child parental/child consistent & nurturing relationship. relationship. relationship with the child adequate for the child's emotional needs Which party is more likely to Equal based upon the Equal based upon the Equal attend to the daily physical, evidence presented. evidence presented. emotional, developmental, educational & special needs of the child The proximity of the Equal based upon the Equal based upon the Equal residences of the parties evidence presented. evidence presented. Each party's availability to Equal based upon the Equal based upon the Equal care for the child or ability to evidence presented. evidence presented. make appropriate child-care arrangements The level of conflict between The parties are clearly at The parties are clearly at Equal the parties & the willingness odds with each other and odds with each other and & ability of the parties to display very different display very different cooperate with one another. parenting styles. As a parenting styles. As a A party's effort to protect a result of their differences result of their differences child from abuse by another regarding parenting regarding parenting party is not evidence of styles they are not able to styles they are not able unwillingness or inability to effectively co-parent and to effectively co-parent cooperate with that party are often in conflict. This and are often in conflict. factor is equal. This factor is equal. N/A N/A N/A The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party's household The mental & physical N/A N/A N/A condition of a party or member of a party's household Any other relevant factor The Mother is illogical in The Mother is illogical in This factor weighs her reasoning when she her reasoning when she in favor of the believes every word the believes every word the Father. child tells her despite that child tells her despite he changes his stories that he changes his frequently and any stories frequently and allegation of abuse has any allegation of abuse been deemed unfounded has been deemed by child welfare unfounded by child professionals and other welfare professionals professionals who have and other professionals worked with the child. who have worked with Mother stated that she the child. Mother stated believes her child when that she believes her he told her that the GAL child when he told her attempted to bribe him that the GAL attempted with candy, etc. in order to bribe him with candy, to get him to change his etc. in order to get him position, which the GAL to change his position, clearly and unequivocally which the GAL clearly contradicted. Father and unequivocally recognizes that the child contradicted. Father is not always truthful and recognizes that the child addresses the issue is not always truthful accordingly. Mother and addresses the issue chooses to feed into and accordingly. Mother encourage this behavior chooses to feed into and by providing the child his encourage this behavior desired result instead of by providing the child providing consequences his desired result instead when he is clearly being of providing dishonest. This factor consequences when he is weighs in favor of Father. clearly being dishonest. This factor weighs in favor of Father.