HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-2335 Civil
SALVATORE ONEGLIA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW
: NO. 07-2335 CIVIL
ROBERTA ONEGLIA, :
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE HESS, J.
This case involves the custody of an eleven-year-old son of the parties, Andrew, born
April 19, 1997. The physical custody of Andrew is currently shared. We will maintain the
current order and, for today, explain our reasons in summary form.
Witnesses on behalf of the mother included Andrew’s siblings. They are estranged from
their father and testified at length concerning his abusive personality. Mr. Oneglia’s relationship
with Andrew, however, appears to be entirely different. Mr. Oneglia has great affection for
Andrew and vice versa.
Andrew has told us that he likes the current arrangement, loves both of his parent, and
would rather not spend more time with one or the other. He has adapted well despite the friction
between his parents and, in fact, appears to be thriving.
The custody evaluator in this case, Deborah Salem, has recommended that the mother
have primary custody. We agree with her that there may storm clouds on the horizons in this
case. That is because the parents appear to be on a collision course which has much of its origins
in the father’s religious practices. He is a Jehovah’s Witness. According to the tenets of the
religion, Andrew would be expected during his teens to make some election with regard to
membership in the faith. In turn, another tenet provides that members should not associate freely
with nonbelievers. This could potentially impact Andrew’s relationship with his mother. The
fact remains that Andrew is involved at the Kingdom Hall. He has a core group of friends there.
Even if we were to curtail the father’s custody, we do not sense that Andrew’s religious practices
would change nor is that, in any event, a proper consideration in the entry of a custody order.
Our concern is for the best interests of Andrew in the here and now. His situation is that
he has two good parents and he wishes to spend equal time with them. He is doing well and any
change in custody would do nothing but run the risk of “upsetting the apple cart.” Concerning
the future course of this case, Ms. Salem is “stymied.” Nonetheless, she recommends a change
in the current custody order in order to address the possibility of problems in the future. We do
not share her view that a change in custody in this case will necessarily do more good than harm.
ORDER
th
AND NOW, this 4 day of October, 2008, the court declines to modify the custody order
currently in effect.
BY THE COURT,
_______________________________
Kevin A. Hess, J.
Pamela Purdy, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Andrea Duffy, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm