HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1200 Civil
ROBERT E. BINGAMAN, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW
: NO. 05-1200 CIVIL
KELLY M. BINGAMAN, :
Defendant :
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
In this divorce case, the defendant has appealed from our order denying her petition for
marriage counseling. The action in this case was filed on March 8, 2005. In her amended
motion for marriage counseling, the defendant admits that the parties have lived separate and
apart for a period in excess of two years.
Following a hearing in this matter, we determined that the marriage of the parties is
irretrievably broken. While Mrs. Bingaman apparently feels that the parties have a genuine
prospect for reconciliation, Mr. Bingaman clearly feels otherwise. Because the parties have been
separated for more than two years and the marriage is irretrievably broken, Mr. Bingaman is
entitled to the entry of a divorce decree. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. 3301(d)(1)(ii).
Moreover, there is no entitlement to counseling in this situation. 23 Pa.C.S.A. 3302
provides for counseling, upon request of either party, where indignities are alleged or where a
divorce is sought by mutual consent. The Divorce Code also provides for counseling where a
hearing has been held and the court finds that there is a reasonable prospect of reconciliation. 23
Pa.C.S.A. 3301(d)(2). None of the aforementioned prerequisites for counseling are present in
this case.
August 13, 2007 ___________________________
Kevin A. Hess, J.
Joseph D. Caraciolo, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Douglas Goldhaber, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm