contentsnorthampton county reporter vol. 59 no. 79 7/6/2017 7 attorney: gregory r. reed, esquire,...

(USPS 395-280)VOL. LIX EASTON, PA July 6, 2017 NO. 79

CONTENTS

INSERT: Pink: 1. Norfolk Tides vs. Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs 2. 2017 Summer Outing 3. 2017 Calendar

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or any other means without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

NOTICE TO THE BAR...Northampton County Motions CourtPlease be advised that on July 27 and 28, 2017, the ONLY

motions being heard in Northampton County Motions Court will be PFA matters.

If you have any questions, please call the Office of Court Administration at 610-829-6700.

* * * * * * * *Annual Summer Outing – July 20, 2017Registration form inside.

Audit – Orphans ’ Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10BALC Lunch Seminar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Bar News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Estate and Trust Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Judicial Clerkship—1 Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Legal Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Limited Liability Company Notices . . . . . . . . . 10

Jason Veres, Plaintiff v. Qing Zhao Veres, Defendant

2

Northampton County ReporterAttorney Referral & Information Service

155 South Ninth Street, P.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18042

Phone (610) 258-6333 Fax (610) 258-8715E-mail: [email protected]

PBA (800) 932-0311—PBI (800) 932-4637

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION2017 BAR ASSOCIATION OFFICERS

Michael Shay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PresidentDaniel O’Donnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President-ElectLisa Spitale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice PresidentRobert Eyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TreasurerMaura Zajac McGuire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SecretaryAlyssa Lopiano-Reilly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Past President

BOARD OF GOVERNORSDavid M. Backenstoe

Paul J. HarakRebecca Kulik

Jacqueline K. HolmesSteven B. Molder

Michael A. Santanasto Scott M. Wilhelm

ZONE II DELEGATESMichael C. Deschler Jonathan M. Huerta

Michael P. ShayRichard P. Kovacs

Joel M. Scheer

BAR ASSOCIATION STAFFMary Beth Leeson . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Executive DirectorPatti A. Gober . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AccountingHeather Rizzotto-Stefanik . . . . . . . . . . . . Legal JournalChristen T. Borso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attorney ReferralDeborah J. Flanagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attorney Referral

The Northampton County Reporter will be published every Thursday by the Northampton County Bar Association, 155 South Ninth St., Easton, PA 18042-4399. All legal notices relating to the business of the county, are required by rule of Court, to be published in this Journal. All legal notices must be submitted in typewritten form and are published exactly as submitted by the advertiser. Neither the Law Reporter nor the printer will assume any responsibility to edit, make spelling corrections, eliminate errors in grammar or make any changes to content.

Subscription Price—$75.00 per year.Periodical Postage Paid at Easton, PA and additional office.Postmaster: Send all communications and address changes to:

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY REPORTER155 South Ninth St., Easton, PA 18042-4399

Telephone (610) 258-6333 FAX (610) 258-8715Ralph J. Bellafatto, Esquire

Editor

3

To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funny bone. ~ Reba McEntire

NOTICE TO NCBA MEMBERS – BAR NEWS

Annual Summer Outing – Thursday, July 20, 2017Clear your calendar and attend the Summer Outing.Enjoy great fun at the Summer Outing including softball, mini-golf, quoits,

5K run and delicious food. Sign up now!Registration form inside.

NCBA at the Iron Pigs – Tuesday, August 8, 2017Registration form inside.

Committee ChairsIf you have not scheduled your committee meeting yet then now is the

time. Contact the NCBA Office to schedule the meeting.

Barristers BoastHave you received an honor or award for community work? Do you have

a new grandchild? Have you heard good news about one of your NCBA colleagues that should be shared?

Good news items about fellow members should be sent to: [email protected].

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY REPORTER Vol. 59 No. 79 7/6/2017

4

ESTATE AND TRUST NOTICESNotice is hereby given that, in the

estates of the decedents set forth below, the Register of Wills has granted letters testamentary or of administration to the persons named. Notice is also hereby given of the existence of the trusts of the deceased settlors set forth below for whom no personal representatives have been appointed within 90 days of death. All persons having claims or demands against said estates or trusts are requested to make known the same, and all persons indebted to said estates or trusts are requested to make payment, without delay, to the executors or administrators or trustees or to their attorneys named below.

FIRST PUBLICATIONCAMPANARO, SAMUEL A., dec’d.

Late of the Township of Wash-ington, Northampton County, PACo-Executrices: Samantha A. Novotny and Jocelyn Ann Pidoux c/o Theodore R. Lewis, Esquire, Lewis and Walters, 56 S. 4th Street, P.O. Box A, Easton, PA 18044-2099Attorneys: Theodore R. Lewis, Esquire, Lewis and Walters, 56 S. 4th Street, P.O. Box A, Easton, PA 18044-2099

DUNSTAN, NETTIE E., dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Margaret Anne Gallucci c/o William W. Matz, Jr., Esquire, 211 W. Broad Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018-5517Attorney: William W. Matz, Jr., Esquire, 211 W. Broad Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018-5517

FALCONE, MARY, dec’d.Late of the Borough of Bangor, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Mary Ann Falcone c/o David J. Ceraul, Esquire, 22 Market Street, P.O. Box 19, Bangor, PA 18013-0019Attorney: David J. Ceraul, Esquire, 22 Market Street, P.O. Box 19, Bangor, PA 18013-0019

FORTNER, TIMOTHY L., dec’d.Late of Lower Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, PAAdministratrix: Jean Fortner, 144 Ridge Dr., Tannersville, PA 18372Attorneys: Elizabeth Bensinger Weekes, Esquire, Bensinger and Weekes, LLC, 529 Sarah Street, Stroudsburg, PA 18360

FRISCH, RUTH M., dec’d.Late of Nazareth, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Rustin Frisch, 306 Gilliam Ave., Langhorne, PA 19047Attorneys: Keith R. Pavlack, Esquire, Pavlack Law Offices, P.C., 1415 Blakeslee Blvd. Dr. E., Lehighton, PA 18235

FULPER, JOHN R., dec’d.Late of the Township of Upper Nazareth, Northampton County, PAAdministratrix: Ginger L. Zehnbauer c/o Dionysios C. Pappas, Esquire, Vasiliadis & Associates, 2551 Baglyos Circle, Suite A-14, Bethlehem, PA 18020Attorneys: Dionysios C. Pappas, Esquire, Vasiliadis & Associates, 2551 Baglyos Circle, Suite A-14, Bethlehem, PA 18020


5

North Fifth Street, Allentown, PA 18102

RODRIGUES, RAQUEL, dec’d.Late of the City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Antonio F. Rodrigues c/o Brian M. Monahan, Esquire, 701 Washington Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorney: Brian M. Monahan, Esquire, 701 Washington Street, Easton, PA 18042

SHUPP, MIRIAM G., dec’d.Late of Lower Nazareth Township, Northampton County, PAExecutors: Daniel C. Shupp, 695 Johnson Road, Nazareth, PA 18064-8829, Judith Ann Parsons, 502 Walnut Street, Catasauqua, PA 18032-1736 and Barbara J. Messinger, 501 Nazareth Pike, Nazareth, PA 18064-9085Attorneys: Peters, Moritz, Peischl, Zulick, Landes & Brienza, LLP, 1 South Main Street, Nazareth, PA 18064-2083

SMITH, PATRICIA D. a/k/a PATRICIA DOROTHY SMITH, dec’d.Late of the Township of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Kathleen S. O’Brien c/o Gail Weiner Shearer, Esquire, 70 E. Broad Street, P.O. Box 1426, Bethlehem, PA 18016-1426Attorney: Gail Weiner Shearer, Esquire, 70 E. Broad Street, P.O. Box 1426, Bethlehem, PA 18016-1426

ULLMAN, PAULINE E., dec’d.Late of Plainfield Township, Northampton County, PAPauline E. Ullman Trust dated May 2, 2005Settlor: Pauline E. Ullman

KEISER, ESTHER J., dec’d.Late of Hanover Township, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Scott J. Keiser c/o Timothy J. Duckworth, Esquire, Mosebach, Funt, Dayton & Duckworth, P.C., 2045 Westgate Drive, Suite 404, Bethlehem, PA 18017At to rneys : T imo thy J . Duckworth, Esquire, Mosebach, Funt, Dayton & Duckworth, P.C., 2045 Westgate Drive, Suite 404, Bethlehem, PA 18017

KRISTOFIK, JEAN A., dec’d.Late of Hanover Township, Northampton County, PAExecutrices: Linda Wasko and Kathleen Jean Snyder c/o Vaughn A. Terrinoni, Esquire, 3976 Township Line Road, Bethlehem, PA 18020Attorney: Vaughn A. Terrinoni, Esquire, 3976 Township Line Road, Bethlehem, PA 18020

MALITSCH, ANNAMARIE, dec’d.Late of the Borough of Nazareth, Northampton County, PAAdministratrix: Anna Z. Malitsch c/o Gregory R. Reed, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 141 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 299, Nazareth, PA 18064-0299Attorney: Gregory R. Reed, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 141 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 299, Nazareth, PA 18064-0299

PRENDES, ELIDA S., dec’d.Late of Nazareth, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Jacqueline F. Foti c/o Robert Van Horn, Esquire, The Roth Law Firm, 123 North Fifth Street, Allentown, PA 18102Attorneys: Robert Van Horn, Esquire, The Roth Law Firm, 123


6

Thomas L. Walters, Esquire, Lewis and Walters, 46 S. 4th Street, P.O. Box A, Easton, PA 18044-2099Attorneys: Thomas L. Walters, Esquire, Lewis and Walters, 46 South Fourth Street, P.O. Box A, Easton, PA 18044-2099

GETTINGS, PATRICIA JOAN, dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutors: Thomas Luke Gettings and Elizabeth Ann Gettings c/o Paul A. Florenz, Esquire, Kolb, Vasiliadis and Florenz, LLC, 60 West Broad Street, Ste. 303, Bethlehem, PA 18018-5721Attorneys: Paul A. Florenz, Esquire, Kolb, Vasiliadis and Florenz, LLC, 60 W. Broad St., Ste. 303, Bethlehem, PA 18018-5721

GETTINGS, PETER J., dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutors: Thomas Luke Gettings and Elizabeth Ann Gettings c/o Paul A. Florenz, Esquire, Kolb, Vasiliadis and Florenz, LLC, 60 West Broad Street, Ste. 303, Bethlehem, PA 18018-5721Attorneys: Paul A. Florenz, Esquire, Kolb, Vasiliadis and Florenz, LLC, 60 W. Broad St., Ste. 303, Bethlehem, PA 18018-5721

HUGO, CLARENCE T., dec’d.Late of the Township of Lehigh, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Nancy J. Dinger c/o Gregory R. Reed, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 141 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 299, Nazareth, PA 18064-0299

Trustee: Henry L. Faust, 514 Batts Switch Rd., Nazareth, PA 18064

WATSON, FLORENCE B., dec’d.Late of Williams Township, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Sarah R. Watson c/o Ralph J. Bellafatto, Esquire, 4480 William Penn Highway, Easton, PA 18045Attorney: Ralph J. Bellafatto, Esquire, 4480 William Penn Highway, Easton, PA 18045

WINARCHICK, ROSALIE a/k/a ROSALIE M. WINARCHICK, dec’d.Late of Northampton Borough, Northampton County, PAExecutor: John Michael Winarchick c/o Timothy J. Duckworth, Esquire, Mosebach, Funt, Dayton & Duckworth, P.C., 2045 Westgate Drive, Suite 404, Bethlehem, PA 18017Attorneys: Timothy J. Duckworth, Esquire, Mosebach, Funt, Dayton & Duckworth, P.C., 2045 Westgate Drive, Suite 404, Bethlehem, PA 18017

SECOND PUBLICATIONBRESCANCINE, DOLORES A.,

dec’d.Late of the Township of Plainfield, North ampton County, PAExecutor: Barry P. Brescancine c/o David J. Ceraul, Esquire, 22 Market Street, P.O. Box 19, Bangor, PA 18013-0019Attorney: David J. Ceraul, Esquire, 22 Market Street, P.O. Box 19, Bangor, PA 18013-0019

FLAD, KYLE A., dec’d.Late of Forks Township, North-ampton County, PAExecutors: Kurt Stephen Flad and Kerry Ann Flad Castro c/o


7

Attorney: Gregory R. Reed, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 141 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 299, Nazareth, PA 18064-0299

JONES, ALICE, dec’d.Late of the City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAAdministrator: Christopher Jones c/o Judith Harris, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 West Hamilton Street, Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101Attorneys: Judith Harris, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 West Hamilton Street, Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101

RICCIO, BETTY C., dec’d.Late of the Township of Wash-ington, Northampton County, PAAdmin is t ra tor : Kar l F . Longenbach, Esquire, 425 W. Broad Street, P.O. Box 1920, Bethlehem, PA 18016-1920Attorney: Karl F. Longenbach, Esquire, 425 W. Broad Street, P.O. Box 1920, Bethlehem, PA 18016-1920

ROMAN, DONNA R., dec’d.Late of the Borough of Northamp-ton, Northampton County, PAAdministrator: Brandyn S. Moyer c/o Brian M. Monahan, Esquire, 701 Washington Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorney: Brian M. Monahan, Esquire, 701 Washington Street, Easton, PA 18042

ROSEBERRY, TY R., dec’d.Late of Nazareth, Northampton County, PAAdministrator: Jay H. Roseberry c/o Constantine M. Vasiliadis, Esquire, Kolb, Vasiliadis and Florenz, LLC, 60 W. Broad Street,

Suite 303, Bethlehem, PA 18018-5721Attorneys: Constantine M. Vasiliadis, Esquire, Kolb, Vasiliadis and Florenz, LLC, 60 W. Broad Street, Suite 303, Bethlehem, PA 18018-5721

SERMAN, RICHARD A., dec’d.Late of Bath, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Dawn M. Bacon c/o Rebecca M. Young, Esquire and Lia K. Snyder, Esquire, Young & Young, 119 E. Main Street, Macungie, PA 18062Attorneys: Rebecca M. Young, Esquire and Lia K. Snyder, Esquire, Young & Young, 119 E. Main Street, Macungie, PA 18062

VAZQUEZ, BLAS, dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Joseph A. Vazquez c/o Vaughn A. Terrinoni, Esquire, 3976 Township Line Road, Bethlehem, PA 18020Attorney: Vaughn A. Terrinoni, Esquire, 3976 Township Line Road, Bethlehem, PA 18020

VENNEL, ARTHUR R., dec’d.Late of Washington Township, Northampton County, PATrustees: Cherilyn Vennel and Yvonne Roberts c/o William S. Ravenell, Esquire, 8033 Old York Road, Suite 210B, Elkins Park, PA 19027Attorney: William S. Ravenell, Esquire, 8033 Old York Road, Suite 210B, Elkins Park, PA 19027

WACHS, JUDITH C., dec’d.Late of the City of Easton, Northampton County, PA


8

The Judith C. Wachs Family Trust, dated February 5, 1999Co-Trustees: Jeanette Wachs and Nichole Wachs c/o R. Nicholas Nanovic, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 W. Hamilton Street, Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101Attorneys: R. Nicholas Nanovic, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 W. Hamilton Street, Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101

WALKER, HARRY DOUGLAS, dec’d.Late of Lower Nazareth Township, Northampton County, PAExecutrices: Elizabeth L. Walker, 216 Lefevre Rd., Stockertown, PA 18083 and Barbara J. Crase, 5563 W. 500 N., Fairland, IN 46126Attorneys: Peters, Moritz, Peischl, Zulick, Landes & Brienza, LLP, 1 South Main Street, Nazareth, PA 18064-2083

WOZNIAK, NANCY a/k/a NANCY R. WOZNIAK, dec’d.Late of Easton City, Northamp-ton County, PAExecutrix: Mary Jane Ford c/o Richard W. Shaffer, Jr., Esquire, 4461 Kohler Drive, Allentown, PA 18103Attorney: Richard W. Shaffer, Jr., Esquire, 4461 Kohler Drive, Allentown, PA 18103

THIRD PUBLICATIONCHECK, LOUISA A. a/k/a LOUISA

ANN P. CHECK a/k/a LOUISA ANN CHECK, dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutor: John Check c/o Michael Santanasto, Esquire, 210 E. Broad Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018

Attorney: Michael A. Santanasto, Esquire, 210 E. Broad Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018

D’ARGENIO, ALBERT, dec’d.Late of the Borough of Northamp-ton, Northampton County, PAExecutors: Karen L. Stoisits and Ronald Anthony D’Argenio c/o Karl F. Longenbach, Esquire, 425 W. Broad Street, P.O. Box 1920, Bethlehem, PA 18016-1920Attorney: Karl F. Longenbach, Esquire, 425 W. Broad Street, P.O. Box 1920, Bethlehem, PA 18016-1920

DUNGAN, ELEANOR G., dec’d.Late of Palmer Township, North-ampton County, PAExecutrix: Karen L. Joyal c/o Ralph J. Bellafatto, Esquire, 4480 William Penn Highway, Easton, PA 18045Attorney: Ralph J. Bellafatto, Esquire, 4480 William Penn Highway, Easton, PA 18045

KALAMAR, GWYNETH E. a/k/a GWYNETH KALAMAR, dec’d.Late of Bethlehem Township, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Stephen C. Kalamar, III c/o Eric R. Strauss, Esquire, Worth, Magee & Fisher, P.C., 2610 Walbert Avenue, Allentown, PA 18104Attorneys: Eric R. Strauss, Esquire, Worth, Magee & Fisher, P.C., 2610 Walbert Avenue, Allentown, PA 18104

KONEK, JOSEPHINE C., dec’d.Late of the Borough of Walnut-port, Northampton County, PAAdministrator: Peter F. Konek, 1520 Fernwood Road, Slating-ton, PA 18080Attorneys: James A. Wimmer, Esquire, Philip & Wimmer, 419


9

Delaware Avenue, P.O. Box 157, Palmerton, PA 18071

LEONARD-ELLISON, KERRI SUE, dec’d.Late of Easton, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Thomas Barry Ellison c/o Peter E. Iorio, Esquire, Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C., 4001 Schoolhouse Lane, P.O. Box 219, Center Valley, PA 18034-0219Attorneys: Peter E. Iorio, Esquire, Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C., 4001 Schoolhouse Lane, P.O. Box 219, Center Valley, PA 18034-0219

MARTINO, RUBYANN C., dec’d.Late of the City of Easton, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Mildred M. Konders c/o Leonard M. Mellon, Esquire, 151 South 7th Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorney: Leonard M. Mellon, Esquire, 151 South 7th Street, Easton, PA 18042

MILLER, GLORIA J., dec’d.Late of the Township of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Jody R. Miller c/o McFall, Layman & Jordan, P.C., Attorneys at Law, 134 Broadway, Bangor, PA 18013Attorneys: McFall, Layman & Jordan, P.C., Attorneys at Law, 134 Broadway, Bangor, PA 18013

OTTERVIK, BARBARA SPATNY, dec’d.Late of the City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Eric Vantine Ottervik c/o Robert H. Littner, Esquire, Littner, Deschler & Littner, 512

North New Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorneys: Robert H. Littner, Esquire, Littner, Deschler & Littner, 512 North New Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018

PAULUS, ELWOOD R., dec’d.Late of 363 McKinley St., Free-mansburg, Northampton County, PAExecutor: William G. Malkames, Esquire, 509 W. Linden Street, Allentown, PA 18101Attorney: William G. Malkames, Esquire, 509 W. Linden Street, Allentown, PA 18101

STEFFENS, IRENE, dec’d.Late of Penn Argyl, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Bernard P. Steffens c/o David M. Roth, Esquire, 123 North Fifth Street, Allentown, PA 18102Attorney: David M. Roth, Esquire, 123 North Fifth Street, Allentown, PA 18102

STEWARD, JULIE F., dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAAdministratrix: Sylvia L. Hand c/o Robert A. Weinert, Esquire, 512 Hamilton St., Suite 405, Allentown, PA 18101Attorney: Robert A. Weinert, Esquire, 512 Hamilton St., Suite 405, Allentown, PA 18101

ZADOL, OLGA, dec’d.Late of Bath, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Julianne Sypert c/o Eric R. Strauss, Esquire, Worth, Magee & Fisher, P.C., 2610 Walbert Avenue, Allentown, PA 18104Attorneys: Eric R. Strauss, Esquire, Worth, Magee & Fisher, P.C., 2610 Walbert Avenue, Allentown, PA 18104


10

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOTICES

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 15, 2017, Certificate of Orga-nization was filed in the Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for:

COPLAY CAR WASH, LLCin accordance with the provisions of the Limited Liability Act of 1994.

JAMES L. BROUGHAL, ESQUIREBROUGHAL & DeVITO, L.L.P.

38 West Market StreetBethlehem, PA 18018

July 6NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

a Certificate of Organization—Domestic Limited Liability Company has been filed with the Department of State for the Commonwealth of Penn sylvania at Harrisburg, Penn-sylvania, for the purpose of obtaining a Certificate of Organization under the provisions of Title 15, Corporations and Unincorporated Associations at 15 Pa. C.S.A. 8901 et seq., approved December 7, 1994, P.L. 703, No. 106(4).

The name of the domestic limited liability company is:

S. NEW ST. PARTNERS, LLCThe Certificate of Organization was

filed on June 14, 2017.GARY A. BRIENZA, ESQUIREPETERS, MORITZ, PEISCHL,

ZULICK, LANDES & BRIENZA, LLP1 South Main StreetNazareth, PA 18064

July 6IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISIONThe following Executors, Admin-

istrators, Guardians & Trustees have filed Accounts in the Office of the Orphans’ Court:

ESTATE; AccountantLOUIS PALMER; Michele Asch,

Executrix

WILLIAM B. HUTCHENS; Nazareth National Bank and Trust a/k/a National Penn Investors Trust Co. a/k/a Branch Banking and Trust Co., Executor

HERBERT D. FOLLWEILER; Shelly L. Oplinger, Executrix

AUDIT NOTICEAll parties interested are notified

that an audit list will be made up of all Accounts and the said list will be called for audit at the Northampton County Government Center, Easton, PA on: FRIDAY, JULY 21, 2017 AT 9:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM #1.

Gina X. GibbsClerk of Orphans’ Court

July 6, 13NOTICE FOR CHANGE OF NAME

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 26, 2017, the Petition of Hashem and Kimberly Omar Abdul-Karim was filed in Northampton County Court of Common Pleas at No. C-48-CV2017-5666 seeking to change the name of Petitioner from Hashem and Kimberly Omar Abdul-Karim to Hashem and Kimberly Omar.

The Court has fixed Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom #4 at the Northampton County Courthouse as the date for the hearing of the Petition. All persons interested in the proposed change of name may appear and show cause, if any they have, why the prayer of the Petitioner should not be granted.

July 6NOTICE FOR CHANGE OF NAME

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 21, 2017, the Petition of Delia Esther Barbosa-Rivera was filed in Northampton County Court of Common Pleas at No. C-48-CV-2017-5541, seeking to change the name of Petitioner from Delia Esther Barbosa-


11

Rivera to Delia Esther Martinez. The Court has fixed Friday, August 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 at the Northampton County Courthouse as the date for hearing of the Petition. All persons interested in the proposed change of name may appear and show cause, if any the have, why the prayer of the Petitioner should not be granted.

July 6NOTICE FOR CHANGE OF NAME

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 29, 2017, the Petition of Maria Graciela Ocampo was filed in Northampton County Court of Common Pleas at No. C-48-CV-2017-5840 seeking to change her name from Maria Graciela Ocampo to Graciela M. Ocampo. The Court has fixed Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:00 A.M. in Motions Court at the Northampton County Courthouse, 669 Washington St., Easton, Penn-sylvania as the date and place for hearing of the Petition. All persons interested in the proposed change of name may appear and show cause, if any they have why the prayer of the Petitioner should not be granted.

July 6 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY CIVIL ACTION—LAW

NBT BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffv.

TROY ERICK CRAFT,Defendant

C48.CV.2016-10202NATURE OF THE ACTION

This action involves a breach of contract claim brought by NBT Bank, National Association against Troy Erick Craft to collect the debt owed

under a Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Installment Sale Contract.

NOTICEIf you wish to defend, you must

enter a written appearance person-ally or by attorney and file your defenses or objections in writing with the court. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you without further notice for the relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.

IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.

The Lawyer Referral ServiceP.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733telephone (610) 258-6333

July 6NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

COURT OF COMMON PLEASNOTICE OF ACTION IN

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURECIT Bank, N.A.,

Plaintiffv.

Jackie Van Norman, Mortgagor and in Her Capacity as Known Surviving Heir of Earl Van Norman, Jr., Doris

Lynch, Known Surviving Heir of Earl Van Norman, Jr., Denise

Stephan, Known Surviving Heir of Earl Van Norman, Jr., Diane

Scheirer, Known Surviving Heir of


12

Earl Van Norman, Jr., Donna Kleintop, Known Surviving Heir of

Earl Van Norman, Jr. and Unknown Surviving Heirs of

Earl Van Norman, Jr., Defendants

NUMBER: C-48-CV-2017-4502TO: Unknown Surviving Heirs of Earl

Van Norman, Jr.Premises subject to foreclosure:

1465 Sullivan Trail, Easton, Pennsyl-vania 18040.

NOTICEIf you wish to defend, you must

enter a written appearance person-ally or by attorney and file your defenses or objections in writing with the court. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you without further notice for the relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. You should take this notice to your lawyer at once. If you do not have a lawyer, go to or telephone the office set forth below. This office can provide you with information about hiring a lawyer. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, this office may be able to provide you with information about agencies that may offer legal services to eligible persons at a reduced fee or no fee.

Lawyer Referral ServiceP.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733(610) 258-6333

McCABE, WEISBERG &CONWAY, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff123 S. Broad St.Ste. 1400Philadelphia, PA 19109(215) 790-1010

July 6

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

City of Eastonvs.

John Young, Jr.DOCKET NO. C48CV-2013-9799

Notice is given that the above was named as defendant in a civil action by plaintiff to recover 2012-2015 real estate taxes for property located at 111 S. 9th Street, Easton, PA, Tax Parcel No. L9SE1C 1 5. A Writ of Scire Facias for $4,205.53 was filed. You are notified to plead to the Writ on or before 20 days from the date of this publication or a judgment may be entered.

If you wish to defend, you must enter a written appearance person-ally or by attorney and file your defenses or objections in writing with the court. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you without further notice for the relief requested by Plaintiff. You may lose money, property or other rights important to you.

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.

Northampton CountyLawyer Referral ServiceP.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733(610) 258-6333

PORTNOFF LAWASSOCIATES, LTD.

P.O. Box 391Norristown, PA 19404-0391(866) 211-9466

June 29; July 6, 13


13

NorthamptoN CouNty Courthouse—eastoN, pa

CommoN pleas CourtJudiCial Clerkship—1 year

August 7, 2017 Start DateNorthampton County offers a superior clerkship

experience at the Common Pleas level. Our clerks spend a great deal of time in the courtroom observing proceedings in addition to participating with their assigned judges in the resolution of pretrial and post-trial motions; researching evidentiary issues that arise during the course of court proceedings, preparing jury charges and drafting opinions.

Job requirements—JD Degree Required. Candidates must have a B+ average or above in legal research and writing.

please submit: Cover Letter, Resume, Transcript and Writing Sample to Jacquelyn Guthrie, [email protected]. All inquiries can be directed to (610) 829-6945.

June 29; July 6, 13


14

BalC luNCh semiNar“Be prepared: the ‘New’ public access policy

Governing Filings With the appellate and trial Courts”

Presented by: Andrea Tuominen, Esq. and David Price, Esq.

monday, July 17, 2017The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted a new

Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of Appellate and Trial Courts, which will impact how attorneys file legal documents in the trial and appellate courts, beginning January 6, 2018. During this presentation, participants will receive an overview of the new policy and practical tips to prepare for the policy’s implementation.

The new Policy:• Specifies the types of information to be safeguarded

from public view• Requires lawyers to redact confidential and sensitive

information in court-filed documents• Creates uniform standards specifying how trial and

appellate courts respond to requests from the public for case records.

Attorney Andrea B. Tuominen is the Assistant Court Administrator of Pennsylvania. She received her appointment in 2001, after having served as special assistant to the Court Administrator and other positions in the AOPC since 1992. As the Assistant Court Administrator, she is actively involved in nearly every aspect of the AOPC’s work related to the Unified Judicial System and fulfills the Court Administrator’s responsibilities in his absence. She oversees the AOPC’s judicial district security and judicial services offices, as well as the administration of public records and language access policies.

Attorney David Price is a Senior Legal Counsel with the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC). He, along with other attorneys, supervises and assists the


15

Information Technology staff with the creation and maintenance of various statewide case management systems. In addition, he was the Chair of AOPC’s Public Access Ad Hoc Committee which crafted a policy concerning public access to electronic case records of the Unified Judicial System which was adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania effective January 1, 2007.

BalC lunch seminarregistration & lunch: 12:30 p.m.;

1 substantive Creditseminar: 1:00 p.m.—2:00 p.m.

tuition: members $40.00 With lunch; $25.00 No lunch

must register: Call [email protected] ext: 16e-mail: [email protected]

June 29; July 6, 13

Veres v. Veres662 Vol. 59

Veres v. Veres

Jason Veres, Plaintiff v. Qing Zhao Veres, Defendant

Custody—Standing—In Loco Parentis—Stepparent—Artificial Insemina-tion—Legal Parent—Child Custody Act.

The parties were married and living together when Defendant-Mother (“Mother”) conceived twins through the process of artificial insemination using an anonymous sperm donor. The parties discussed Mother’s use of artificial insemination prior to conception. Mother gave birth to twin girls (the “Children”). After the parties separated, Mother and the Children moved with Mother’s parents, but Plaintiff-Father (“Father”) continued to see the Children with frequency and to financially support the Children, without a custody or domes-tic relations order in place.

In December 2015, Mother began to prohibit Father from seeing the Children. An interim order in February 2016 reinstated custody, and Father was allotted two hours of partial custody each week. On May 11, 2016, at a non-jury trial on Father’s Complaint in Custody, Mother argued that Father should have no partial custody with the Children. Mother’s argument was based on two grounds: that Father lacked standing because he was merely the Children’s stepfather and that in an isolated incident when the Children were one month old, Father injured one of the Children. The act of alleged abuse was never raised at any prior hearing or custody conference, and in regard to this incident, the Court resolved credibility in favor of Father, who denied that the act of abuse occurred.

In resolving Mother’s standing argument, the Court evaluated Father’s standing under numerous theories. Respectively, the Court considered whether Father had standing as a legal parent, even though he was not biologically related to the Children, as a stepfather, and in loco parentis. This discussion required consideration of Father’s role in the Children’s lives. Significantly, the Court found that Father helped raise and financially support the Children, saw them with regularity since their birth, and held the Children out as his own children. Further, the Children called him “Daddy.” The Court concluded that Father had standing under each of these theories before it considered the custody factors codified in the Child Custody Act. After balancing the custody factors, the Court granted Father additional periods of partial custody.

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division—No. CV-2015-11868.

Catherine L. KoLLet, esquire, for Plaintiff.

niKoLaus a. BaiKow, esquire, for Defendant.

Order of the Court entered on June 20, 2016 by Murray, J.

OPINION

AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2016, after a Non-Jury hearing, which was held on May 11, 2016, and upon consideration of Plaintiff’s, Jason Veres’s (“Father”),1 Complaint in Custody and Defendant’s, Qing Zhao Veres’s (“Mother”), Answer to the same, it is hereby ORDERED that ———

1 As discussed below, Mother contests Father’s standing as a legal parent. Our reference to Jason Veres as “Father” does not disregard Mother’s argument but reflects our conclusion rendered below in Part I of our Discussion.

16

663Veres v. Veres

Father’s Complaint in Custody is GRANTED, as specified in the Custody Order issued by the undersigned on this same day.2, 3

We enter the following findings of fact:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The parties first met in 2008 while Mother resided in China and Father resided at 397 West Saint Joseph Street, Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania 18042, a house owned by Father’s family and rented by Father.

2. Mother moved to Easton and lived with Father beginning in late 2008 or during 2009.

3. The parties were married on September 10, 2011.4. The parties discussed the plausibility of artificial insemination, and

Father agreed to Mother’s desire to be artificially inseminated by donor sperm.

5. In 2012, Mother underwent artificial insemination, and Mother became pregnant.

6. Mother testified that she paid for the artificial insemination process.7. On April 12, 2013, Mother gave birth to twins, J.N.V. and J.T.V.

(collectively the “Children”).8. Father is listed as a parent on each of the Children’s birth certifi-

cates.9. After the birth of the Children, both parties helped change diapers

and feed the Children. The parties had different sleep schedules to enable them to take turns caring for the Children.

10. Mother did not work and stayed at home with the Children.11. Father provided the sole financial support for the family and has

continued to work for the same employer since March of 2013.12. Mother testified that when the Children were one month old,

Father threw J.N.V. onto the bed, causing a bruise on her head, and said “bad baby.” Mother’s mother (“Maternal Grandmother”) testified that she discovered a bruise and blood on J.N.V.’s head directly after this alleged incident.

13. Father vehemently denies that this incident ever occurred and testified that he knew of no injury to the Children when they were one month old and that Mother never mentioned this allegation in any previous custody conference or hearing. As it pertains to this incident, we resolve credibility in favor of Father.———

2 This Opinion sets forth the statement of reasons for the Order of Court entered on June 20, 2016.

3 Following the trial, the Court directed the parties to submit a letter brief, summariz-ing each party’s position in regard to Father’s standing as a legal parent. Father’s counsel submitted such a letter brief, dated May 12, 2016. Mother’s counsel did not submit a letter brief.

17


14. By March 2014, both Maternal Grandmother and Mother’s father (“Maternal Grandfather”) moved from China to 395 West Saint Joseph Street, Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania 18042.

15. The properties at 397 West Saint Joseph Street and 395 West Saint Joseph Street are both owned by Father’s family and are attached as a half double home.

16. Prior to Maternal Grandmother’s arrival to 395 West Saint Joseph Street, Mother e-mailed Father, telling him that Maternal Grandmother wanted to move to Easton and wished to rent 395 West Saint Joseph Street.4

17. The parties disagree as to the date of separation:a. Mother maintains that the parties separated in July of

2013, but continued to reside together at 397 West Saint Joseph Street. Mother lived out of the first-floor living room until she moved to 395 West Saint Joseph Street in March 2014.

b. Father maintains that the parties only began to sleep in separate rooms beginning in the summer of 2014 and did not separate until September of 2014, when Mother, her parents, and the Children moved to 230 West Madison Street, Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania 18042.18. Whether the Mother moved in March 2014 or September 2014,

it is clear Father continued to have regular and significant contact with the Children.

19. In September 2014, Mother, her parents, and the Children moved to 230 West Madison Street.

20. After Mother and the Children moved to 230 West Madison Street, Father continued to see the Children four or five times each week, includ-ing weeknights and weekends.

21. During this period, Father also took the Children to his home but did not keep them for overnight visits.

22. Without a domestic relations order, Father began paying Mother child support from November 2014 through December 2015.

23. Beginning in December 2015, Mother did not allow Father to see the Children.

24. On December 24, 2015, Father filed his Complaint in Custody and Divorce.

25. On February 5, 2016, Father filed his Emergency Petition for Special Relief, which averred that Father had not seen the Children since approximately two weeks before Christmas 2015.

26. The Honorable Stephen G. Baratta entered an Interim Order of Court on February 12, 2016 (“Interim Order”), granting Father partial custody with the Children every Sunday from 12:00 p.m. until 2:00 p.m.———

4 At the Non-Jury Trial, Mother testified that Father put a gun to her head and forced her to write the e-mail. This Court does not find Mother’s testimony credible.

18

665Veres v. Veres

27. Since the entry of the Interim Order, Father has exercised his partial custody every Sunday.

28. On one Sunday visit, Father took the Children to New Jersey, something that is prohibited by the Interim Order. Father returned the Children on time.

29. Father takes the Children to see his mother (“Paternal Grand-mother”) and father (“Paternal Grandfather”) during his periods of partial custody.

30. Father lives within fifteen minutes from his parents, stepparents, aunts, and uncles.

31. At the Non-Jury Trial, Father presented many pictures that showed Father interacting with the Children. The pictures depicted Father with the Children from the time of infancy to the present, with some pictures having been taken weeks before the Non-Jury Trial.

32. The Children refer to Father as “Daddy.”33. Mother testified that when Father returns the Children after his

partial custody, the Children seem fine.34. Mother’s sole reasons to oppose Father’s Complaint in Custody

is based on Father’s alleged act of abuse toward J.N.V., discussed above, and because she believes Father is the Children’s “stepfather.”

35. Mother testified that the parties agreed that Father would be the Children’s stepfather and not the Children’s father.

36. Maternal Grandmother shares Mother’s belief that Father is merely a stepfather to the Children and should not have custody of the Children.

DISCUSSION

I. Standing

Mother argues that Father is merely the Children’s stepfather, and accordingly, he lacks the standing to obtain custody of the Children. Section 5324 of the Child Custody Act specifies those individuals who have stand-ing for “any form of physical custody or legal custody:” (1) a parent of a child; (2) a person who stands in loco parentis to the child; and (3) a grand-parent of the child who is not in loco parentis to the child. 23 Pa. C.S. §5324 (2016).

Over the past decade, Pennsylvania courts have considered the rights of the parties in cases of non-sexual clinical options for conception, such as artificial insemination. In these cases, one or both of the child’s parents share no biological connection with the child. In In re Baby S., a married couple used a surrogate to carry their child, who was conceived using an anonymous egg donor and the husband’s sperm. 128 A.3d 296, 306 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 132 A.3d 456 (Pa. 2016). When the wife’s parentage was challenged, our Superior Court reasoned, “the Adoption Act

19


is not the exclusive means by which an individual with no genetic connec-tion to a child can become the child’s legal parent.” Id. Similarly, in Fer-guson v. McKiernan, a case where the mother was artificially inseminated and sought child support from the sperm donor, our Supreme Court dis-cussed the legal challenges inherent to this relatively new type of concep-tion. See generally, Ferguson v. McKiernan, 596 Pa. 78, 940 A.2d 1236 (2007). The court cautioned that analogizing the scenario where a married couple conceives a child and then divorces to that where a child is conceived using technology such as artificial insemination with an anonymous donor “is unsustainable in the face of the evolving role played by alternative re-productive technologies in contemporary American society.” Id. at 93, 940 A.2d at 1245. Our court continued:

It derives no authority from apposite Pennsylvania law, and it violates the commonsense distinction between reproduc-tion via sexual intercourse and the non-sexual clinical options for conception that are increasingly common in the modern reproductive environment. The inescapable reality is that all manner of arrangements involving the donation of sperm or eggs abound in contemporary society, many of them couched in contracts or agreements of varying degrees of formality.

Id.In light of cases like In re Baby S. and Ferguson, it is clear that

Pennsylvania courts do not limit legal parentage to the biological relations of the child, especially where the child is conceived using a clinical proce-dure such as artificial insemination. Still, in both cases, the courts considered the relationship between the child and the sperm donor, and in both cases, the donor’s contact with the children was minimal or nonexistent.

Here, the Children were indisputably conceived through the use of an anonymous sperm donor, who has no part in the Children’s lives, and Father is not biologically related to the Children. However, since their birth, Father has had a constant role as the Children’s father. The parties were married and lived together when Mother became pregnant, and they previ-ously discussed artificial insemination. Father attended the birth of the Children, is listed on the Children’s birth certificates, helped care for them since infancy, financially supported them, and continues to see them. After Mother moved out of Father’s home, Father began making monthly child support payments to Mother before any domestic relations order was en-tered. The Children call Father “Daddy.” It would be an injustice to con-sider Father as anything less than the Children’s legal parent.

We also consider Mother’s contention that Father should not have partial custody of the Children as he is their stepfather. Generally, a step-parent has no legal duty to support a stepchild following the dissolution of marriage with the child’s biological parent, see Garman v. Garman, 435 Pa. Super. 590, 593, 646 A.2d 1251, 1252 (1994), but Pennsylvania courts

20

667Veres v. Veres

have imposed a duty upon stepparents in certain scenarios. Our Superior Court has held that “[w]here a step-father holds the child out as his own, he nonetheless may be estopped from denying paternity.” Hamilton v. Hamilton, 795 A.2d 403, 406 (Pa. Super. 2002). Even if we accept Mother’s assertion that Father is the Children’s stepfather, Father has surely held the Children out as his own and in fact, would be estopped from denying pa-ternity.5 Accordingly, whether a legal parent or a stepparent, Father has standing.

The legal landscape regarding parentage in cases involving artificial insemination is limited. Hence, we also consider whether Father stands in loco parentis to the Children. The term in loco parentis literally means “in the place of a parent.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th Ed. 2014).

The phrase ‘in loco parentis’ refers to a person who puts oneself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relationship without going through the formality of a legal adoption. The status of in loco parentis embodies two ideas; first, the assumption of a parental status, and, second, the discharge of parental duties. ... The rights and liabilities arising out of an in loco parentis relation-ship are, as the words imply, exactly the same as between parent and child. ... The third party in this type of relationship, however, can not place himself in loco parentis in defiance of the parents’ wishes and the parent/child relationship. ...

T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222, 228-29, 786 A.2d 913, 916-17 (2001) (citations omitted).

Father fulfills the two requirements needed to establish himself in loco parentis. First, Father has clearly assumed parental status. The Children call Father “Daddy,” he is listed on their birth certificates, and Father con-siders the Children his own children. Second, Father has discharged paren-tal duties. Father testified to changing diapers, feeding the Children, play-ing with the Children, and financially supporting the Children. Mother’s own testimony supports the fact that Father helped raise the Children and continues to exercise his partial visitation. Accordingly, in addition to our finding that Father is a legal parent under the current, but evolving caselaw, and that Father would have custody even if we consider him a stepfather to the Children, we also find that Father stands in loco parentis.

———5 Mother’s argument regarding Father’s standing and parentage appears to be based

on a fundamental misunderstanding of Pennsylvania law. She insists that Father is the Chil-dren’s stepfather, that the parties agreed to such, and that this alleged status alone is enough to deny Father any partial custody arrangement. However, the testimony refutes this allegation. Mother testified that Father has had a role in the Children’s lives since birth. Father testified to the same. Maternal Grandmother mirrored Mother’s apparent misconception, testifying that although Father shared custody of the Children in the past, custody “is not necessary now.”

21


Father also contends that Mother is estopped from challenging Fa-ther’s standing because of the Interim Order, which Mother did not appeal. Section 5323 of the Child Custody Act states, “[t]he court may issue an interim award of custody to a party who has standing.” 23 Pa. C. S. §5323 (2016). Notwithstanding Father’s primary argument that he is the Children’s legal parent and alternatively, stands in loco parentis, Father argues that the Interim Order confers standing upon Father. Because we find that Father has standing, as discussed above, we do not consider this argument in furtherance and move to our analysis of the custody factors codified in the Child Custody Act.

II. Child Custody Act

Having established Father’s standing to seek custody of the Children, we turn to the sixteen factors set forth in the Child Custody Act. We must consider in determining the best interests of the child when awarding any form of custody:

(a) Factors.—In ordering any form of custody, the court shall determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect the safety of the child, including the following:(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party.(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or mem-ber of the party’s household, whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party and which party can better provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of the child.(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child.(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life.(5) The availability of extended family.(6) The child’s sibling relationships.(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child’s maturity and judgment.(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child from harm.(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the child’s emotional needs.(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child.

22

669Veres v. Veres

(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements.(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the willing-ness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another. A party’s effort to protect a child from abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party’s household.(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party’s household.(16) Any other relevant factor.

See 23 Pa. C.S.A. §5328. In order to award shared physical custody, the court must find that there is a minimal degree of cooperation between the parties. See B.C.S. v. J.A.S., 994 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 2010). The statute further provides that “[t]he court shall delineate the reasons for its decision on the record in open court or in a written opinion or order.” 23 Pa. C.S. §5328(d); accord, M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058, 1062 (Pa. Super. 2014).

The Court must now evaluate the parties’ claims, giving consideration to the custody factors set forth in the Child Custody Act.

III. Analysis of the Factors

A. Custody Factors

(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and con-tinuing contact between the child and another party.

For more than a year after Mother moved to 230 West Madison Street, Father exercised frequent periods of partial custody with the Children, but in December 2015, Mother inexplicably denied Father any visitation with the Children. The Interim Order reinstated Father’s partial custody but limited Father to two hours of partial custody each week.

Although we appreciate Mother for allowing Father to see the Chil-dren with such frequency even after she moved to 230 West Madison Street, Mother’s decision to unexpectedly prohibit Father from seeing the Children is alarming. Father wants the parties to work together so that both parties have regular contact with the Children and suggests a new custody sched-ule that would ease the Children into longer periods of partial custody with Father. Father’s testimony and proposed custodial schedule illustrate a willingness to co-parent with Mother and a reasonable desire to see the Children more often. For example, at first, Father proposed to take the Children during the day on weekends, and after a few weeks, the Children could stay overnight at his house. Therefore, we find that this factor weighs in favor of Father.

23


(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party’s household, whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party and which party can better provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of the child.

We do not overlook Mother and Maternal Grandmother’s recitation of Father’s alleged act of abuse toward J.N.V. However, in regard to this incident, we resolve credibility in favor of Father. Never before—at a custody conference or at the hearing before the Interim Order was entered—did Mother allege abuse by Father, and Mother confirmed that Father never abused the Children before or after this alleged incident. We do not find that either party is a continuing risk of harm and find both parties can adequately provide for and supervise the Children.

(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child.

Both parties have shared in the parental duties. While Mother and Maternal Grandmother testified that Father did little housework and did not tend to the Children, Father also testified that he was the sole financial provider for Mother and the Children. Father worked during the day, and at night, Father played with the Children, ate dinner with the Children, and cared for them when they were home. Although the parties provided dif-ferent parental roles in the household, both parties performed important parental duties.

Presently, Father sees the Children for two hours each week and continues to provide financial support for the Children. While Father does not have the Children for long periods of time, Father testified that when he exercises his partial custody, he feeds the Children, plays with them, and takes them to the bathroom. Thus, we resolve this factor in favor of both parties.

(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life.

The Children are three years old and not yet in school, but it is in the Children’s best interest to have stable and continuing relationships with both parents. Until December 2015, the Children saw their Father with regularity, and restoring this practice will benefit the Children. We find this factor favors both parents, in that it is essential that the Children spend quality time with both Mother and Father.

(5) The availability of extended family.

Father’s family, including his parents, aunts, uncles, and stepparents, all live within fifteen minutes from Father’s home. While Mother’s parents also reside in the area, Father surely has more relatives living in close proximity to the Children, and this factor favors Father.

24

671Veres v. Veres

(6) The child’s sibling relationships.

The Children are twins, having spent their entire lives together. There is no evidence to suggest anything other than a healthy sibling relationship between the Children.

(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child’s matu-rity and judgment.

This factor is inapplicable for a variety of reasons, namely: the Chil-dren are three years old, they did not testify at trial, and no evidence was presented at trial to suggest that the Children have a mature preference.

(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable safety measures are neces-sary to protect the child from harm.

Due to the Children’s young age, it is not clear whether either parent has attempted to turn the Children against the other parent. However, Mother’s sudden and relatively recent refusal to allow Father to see the Children and her insistence that he is merely a stepfather to the Children is troublesome. We cannot definitively conclude that Mother makes these comments to the Children, but we recognize Mother’s strong opinion re-garding Father’s parentage. Still, at this time, we must treat this factor as neutral.

(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the child’s emotional needs.

Both parents undoubtedly love the Children and can provide for the Children’s emotional needs. This factor favors both parties equally.

(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child.

The parties are both apt to care for the Children’s needs. In fact, at three years old, the Children have adopted both parents’ native languages: English and Mandarin. Further, as discussed in the previous factor, the parties love the Children, and there is no evidence to suggest that either parent cannot tend to the Children’s needs.

(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.

Father resides in Phillipsburg, New Jersey, and Mother lives in Easton, Pennsylvania. Thus, the parties live within close proximity, making regular custodial exchanges possible. This factor is neutral in our analysis.

(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or ability to make ap-propriate childcare arrangements.

Father’s proposal for increased partial custody involves periods of time that do not conflict with his work schedule. Still, Father testified to a

25


strong bond between his extended family and the Children. Further, when or if Mother was unable to care for the Children, Maternal Grandmother has historically cared for the Children. Given the breadth of childcare op-tions and the availability of the parties, we find this factor favors both parties.

(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and abil-ity of the parties to cooperate with one another. A party’s effort to protect a child from abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.

The conflict between the parties is significant, and Mother has shown an unwillingness to cooperate with Father. From December 2015 until the Interim Order was entered, Mother would not allow Father to see the Chil-dren. Although Mother has not interfered with Father’s periods of partial custody since the Interim Order was issued, Mother testified that Father deserved no partial custody because he is not the Children’s biological father. This thinking is not only flawed, as analyzed in our standing discus-sion above, but it is also evidence of Mother’s unwillingness to cooperate with Father.

To the contrary, Father testified that he tries to work with and cooper-ate with Mother and proposed a reasonable partial custody schedule. Thus, we find this factor favors Father.

(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party’s household.

There was no testimony as to drug or alcohol abuse by either party, and thus, we find this factor inapplicable.

(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party’s household.

We did not find evidence that either party has any physical or mental condition that would have any impact on the custody determination. Thus, this factor is inapplicable.

(16) Any other relevant factor.

We rely on our discussion of the custody factors above.

IV. Balancing the Factors

Our consideration of the custody factors led this Court to the conclu-sion that Father’s Complaint in Custody must be granted, and as a result, Father is entitled to more periods of partial custody. The Interim Order awarded Father two hours of partial custody each week, but after consider-ing each custody factor above, it is clear that Father should have more significant partial custody. In fact, for most of the Children’s lives, Father

26

673Veres v. Veres

had frequent periods of partial custody with the Children before any cus-tody order was entered.

Many of the above-listed factors favor Father, which is due to Mother’s resistance to accept Father as the Children’s parent and to allow him reasonable periods of partial custody with the Children. However, we recognize that many of the factors favor both parents equally, which is a testament to the parents’ consistent roles as loving parents in the Children’s lives. Thus, we enter our accompanying Order of Court filed on the same day as this Order.

27


28


29

You have rights. Lawyers protect them.Pennsylvania Bar Association

Northampton County Bar Association

The couple was told they couldn’t have a child.

A lawyer suggests they adopt.

The counselor tells them five years.

A lawyer tells them one.

Social Services approves them for adoption.

A lawyer puts it in writing.

The judge signs the order.

A lawyer’s work finalizes it.

They thought they couldn’t have a child.

A lawyer helped make it possible.


30

Northampton County Bar Association

Notification of Change Form

In order to maintain up-to-date information on all members and subscribers of the Reporter, complete the form below and return it to the NCBA Office whenever you have a change and/or addition to your address, telephone number, fax number or e-mail address. Return to: Northampton County Bar Association, 155 South Ninth Street, Easton, PA 18042-4399, FAX: (610) 258-8715.

Previous information:

NAME _____________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

TELEPHONE ______________________________ FAX _____________________________

E-MAIL ____________________________________________________________________

New information:

NAME _____________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

TELEPHONE ______________________________ FAX _____________________________

E-MAIL ____________________________________________________________________


31

DELI TO: VER

PERIODICAL PUBLICATION* Dated Material. Do Not Delay. Please Deliver Before Monday, July 10, 2017

contentsnorthampton county reporter vol. 59 no. 79 7/6/2017 7 attorney: gregory r. reed, esquire,...

Documents