After the second part of the hearing, each lawyer submitted their proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” These were essentially draft orders that each side would have liked the judge to sign without modification. Requiring these was effectively a way for Judge Ruest to get the lawyers to do her job. Her final order copied portions from the two documents depending on how she felt. Her final opinion seemed to lift much more from Rose’s submission than Tonia’s, and she denied Rita’s petition to relocate.<\/p>\r\n
The following is the opinion and order that Judge Ruest filed on August 21, 2013. As I said, it cherry-picked portions from the documents Rose and Tonia submitted. Again, most of the material came from Rose’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law since Tonia’s was, as usual, very much over-the-top and upset me a lot when I first read it. As usual, I will comment throughout, although I don’t strongly disagree with anything Judge Ruest wrote.<\/p>\r\n
After some preliminary statements summarizing the issue…<\/p>\r\n
\r\nOPINION AND ORDER<\/p>\r\n
Presently before the Court is a Complaint for Custody and Notice of Proposed Relocation filed by Plaintiff Rita Mockensturm (Mother) on January 3, 2013. Mother seeks shared legal custody and primary physical custody of the minor children, Caleb James Mockensturm (D.O.B. 09\/18\/1998), Amanda Paige Mockensturm (D.O.B. 10\/30\/2001), and Amelia Mae Mockensturm (D.O.B. 04\/22\/2008). On January 18, 2013, Defendant Eric Mockensturm (Father) filed a Counter-Affidavit objecting to Mother\u2019s proposed relocation. Mother and Father shared legal and physical custody until a Protection From Abuse (PFA) Order was entered on January 7, 2013, at which time Mother was awarded temporary custody of the children.<\/p>\r\n
A hearing on this matter was held on June 11, 2013 and continued on July 10, 2013, and both parties have submitted briefs. The Court is now ready to render its decision.<\/p>\r\n
The start is basically an overview of the relevant laws and standards established by the state for cases like this.<\/p>\r\n
Discussion<\/p>\r\n
\u201cIn ordering any form of custody, the court shall determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant factors, giving weighted consideration lo those factors which affect the safety of the child …. \u201c 23 Pa.C.S.A. \u00a7 5328(a). \u201cIn determining whether to grant a proposed relocation, the court shall consider the following factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect the safety of the child.\u201d 23 Pa.C.S.A. \u00a7 5337. The party proposing relocation has the burden of establishing that the relocation will serve the best interest of the children as shown under the factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A \u00a7 5337(h).<\/p>\r\n
The Court will address each of the factors outlined in 23 Pa.C.S.A \u00a7 532B(a) and 23 Pa.C.S.A \u00a7 5337(h) in turn. Each party has the burden of establishing the integrity of his or her motives in either seeking the relocation or seeking to prevent the relocation.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
…Judge Ruest now goes through each of the 15 categories she should consider when making her decision.<\/p>\r\n
\r\nI. Custody-23 Pa.C.S.A \u00a7 5328(a)<\/p>\r\n
1. Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party.<\/p>\r\n
Mother and Father have significant difficulty communicating with one another, which affects their ability to encourage frequent and continuing contact between the children and the other party. Last summer, Mother took the children to Michigan for 6 weeks with less than 24-hours notice to Father, and remained reticent regarding her intentions to return the children to Pennsylvania after Father repeatedly inquired. More recently, Mother refused to let the children have cell phones in order to allow for more free access to Father, and told the children to lie to Father regarding their whereabouts.<\/p>\r\n
Since proposing to relocate, Mother has not encouraged or permitted frequent and continuing contact between Father and the children. The day after filing her Proposed Relocation Notice, Mother filed a Protection From Abuse action against Father. Father then violated the PFA Order by texting Amanda. After being jailed for violating the PFA, the Court ordered a period of supervised visitation at the Child Access Center pending a court-ordered psychological evaluation of Father. During this period, Father was permitted one two-hour visit with the children each week at the Child Access Center. Twice, Mother cancelled these visits. The Court finds that her reasons for doing so were inappropriate, as she had taken the children to Michigan.<\/p>\r\n
Father currently is allowed two visitations per week with Paternal Grandfather\u2019s supervision. There is no evidence to suggest that Father would not encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between Mother and the children.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
I pretty much agree with Judge Ruest’s opinion here. It’s interesting to note that Judge Ruest explicitly references the petition’s timing to relocate and the petition for a protection from abuse order. I also recall Judge Ruest saying at one of the first violation hearings, “Isn’t this one of the PFA’s filed by those two friends that want to move their kids out of state?” She was, in fact, correct. One of Rita’s friends with four or five daughters wanted to move them all to Florida, and I think they concocted the same plan.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n2. The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party\u2019s 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.<\/p>\r\n
Mother previously obtained a PFA Order against Father. Father then violated that PFA Order twice. First, he texted Amanda upon his release from jail. Second, he texted Mother from an unknown cell phone number. Additionally, Father showed poor judgment by posting about Mother on Facebook, indirectly posting about his children on a dating website, and setting inappropriate alerts on his cell phone which the children eventually saw. The Court takes such violations seriously, and recognizes the emotional toll that they have taken on Mother.<\/p>\r\n
The Court does not believe that Father poses a continued risk of harm to the children or to Mother. Father\u2019s psychiatrist testified that he has treated Father continually since 2003. Father\u2019s depressive episodes each year while he sought tenure coincided with the start of school. The beginning of the school year does not appear to affect him as seriously now that he is tenured. Father\u2019s hospitalizations coincided with learning that Mother had filed for divorce and was having an extramarital affair. Father\u2019s psychiatrist testified that he sees improvement in Father\u2019s condition since March 2013, and that he appears to be able to handle the stressors in his life better.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
She’s got some things wrong here, as I texted Rita upon my release from jail for texting Amanda. I would argue that nothing I posted on Facebook was about Rita; they were my thoughts and had nothing explicitly to do with Rita. The joke about kids being a pain in the ass sometimes on Match.com was obviously beyond Judge Ruest’s understanding as someone without children.<\/p>\r\n
Next page…<\/p>\r\n
I’m not exactly sure what emotional toll me texting Amanda, “I love you,” and Rita a period had on her. There were reasons I did those things, and they were in no way meant to be abusive or threatening. However, Judge Ruest has to keep up her politically correct views to get reelected, so she says she takes the violations “seriously.”<\/p>\r\n
She then states that she thought I did not pose a “continued” risk of harming the kids or Rita. I wonder if she ever thought I posed a threat to them. Although she makes this statement, she did not dismiss the PFA order that I was subject to for two more years. I think that Judge Ruest and many other people in this country believe that every woman should have a PFA, so they have recourse whenever they feel<\/em> slightly intimidated or threatened.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n3. The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child.<\/p>\r\n
Mother performs the majority of the parental duties for the children. During the parties\u2019 marriage, Mother was primarily responsible for meeting the daily needs of all three children. Mother has continued to do so since the parties separated. Mother has also always been primarily responsible for Amanda\u2019s significant medical needs. Father assisted the children with homework, and was primarily responsible for working with Caleb\u2019s teachers to create his Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Recently, Mother has become more involved with Caleb\u2019s teachers and his IEP. Father cared for the children on the weekends when Mother worked part-time.<\/p>\r\n
4. The need for stability and continuity in the child\u2019s education, family life and community life.<\/p>\r\n
The children have always resided in the State College community, but their stability was sometimes negatively affected by Father\u2019s mental health issues. Amanda has received significant medical care from her doctors in Hershey, Pennsylvania, over the years. She has had approximately 11 surgeries, and will continue to need surgery as she grows.<\/p>\r\n
All three children will be changing schools next year regardless of whether they relocate to Michigan. Caleb will be entering high school; Amanda will be transitioning to middle school; and Amelia will be starting kindergarten.<\/p>\r\n
Mother has worked to keep the children\u2019s lives as stable as possible throughout the parties\u2019 separation; they continue to live in the marital home, she has maintained the same schedules and routines, and she continues to have a strong relationship with all three children.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
The problem was that Rita did not want to keep their lives stable as she wanted to uproot them. She did not want to live in the marital home, nor did she want them to retain the exact schedules and routines. Keeping things stable was all done out of necessity because Rita was legally not permitted to move.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n5. The availability of extended family.<\/p>\r\n
The children do not have significant family ties in the State College area. The children are close with their Maternal Grandmother and Maternal Aunt, who live in Michigan. Additionally, they spend time with Mother\u2019s more extended family in Michigan each summer. Mother\u2019s nephew James also lived with the family for a period, and the children are close with him. Father has extended family in the Michigan area as well.<\/p>\r\n
The children are also close with their Paternal Grandfather, who spends part of each year at his home in Everett, Pennsylvania.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
In the six years since moving, the kids have seen my father once.\u00a0 Besides my aunt and uncle, who I stay with when I visit, they have not seen anyone else from my family. Rita certainly isn’t offering to drive them to Pennsylvania or Maryland for visits even though the drive to my dad’s house in Pennsylvania from Michigan is the same distance to State College.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n6. The child\u2019s sibling relationships.<\/p>\r\n
The children have lived together since they were born and no evidence was presented to suggest that the children should be separated from one another. In the absence of such evidence the Court recognizes that it is in the children\u2019s best interest to be raised together.<\/p>\r\n
7. The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child\u2019s maturity and judgment.<\/p>\r\n
No evidence was presented regarding the children\u2019s preferences.<\/p>\r\n
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.<\/p>\r\n
Although Father has posted inappropriately about Mother through various social media and technologies, and Mother has asked the children not to tell Father their whereabouts at times, and has filed a PFA which seriously impacted his time with the children, it appears that these have been isolated incidents. It does not appear that either parent is trying to turn the children against the other parent.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
I’m not sure if Rita was directly trying to turn the kids against me, but she kept telling me they were afraid. Again, I have no idea if this is true or not, as they never seemed afraid of me or said anything to indicate they were. If they were, however, it was utterly Rita’s doing through her paranoid thoughts.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n9. Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the child\u2019s emotional needs.<\/p>\r\n
Both parties appear to be capable of maintaining relationships with the children that suit their emotional needs. Father has a history of periods of depression, during which he has not been able to maintain relationships with the children that suit their emotional needs. Mother testified that Father has been more attentive to the children since the parties\u2019 separation.<\/p>\r\n
10. Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child.<\/p>\r\n
Mother has demonstrated a greater ability and interest in attending to the children\u2019s daily emotional, developmental, educational, and special needs. Father testified that the parties maintained traditional roles throughout their marriage, and that the children are all very close with Mother. Father has been actively involved in the children\u2019s education, helping them with homework and working to establish Caleb\u2019s IEP.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
It annoys me that she thinks Rita demonstrated a better ability and interest in attending to the kids’ “daily emotional, developmental, educational, and special needs.” I certainly could do those things if Rita had been working and I was a stay-at-home dad. I also was interested in those things, but someone had to earn money, which was entirely my job because Rita couldn’t.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n11. The proximity of the residences of the parties.<\/p>\r\n
Mother currently resides in the marital residence in State College. Father currently resides in temporary housing within State College, and intends to stay in the area. The parties will likely sell the marital residence, and it is unclear where Mother intends to live if she is not permitted to relocate. Mother seeks to relocate to Maybee, Michigan, which is approximately 6.5 hours from State College.<\/p>\r\n
12. Each party\u2019s availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child\u00adcare arrangements.<\/p>\r\n
Both parties are able to care for or make appropriate child care arrangements for Caleb and Amelia. However, Mother and her relatives who live in Maybee, Michigan, are the only people who Amanda will let help her with her medical needs. Father has had very little involvement in Amanda\u2019s medical care throughout her life, and would not be able to manage her significant medical needs without Mother\u2019s help. Although it appears that Amanda will be able to handle her care on her own in a few years, she currently needs constant adult supervision to ensure her conditions are properly handled and to avoid emergency hospitalizations.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
I am confident that I could have managed Amanda’s medical care if needed. However, with Amanda being a pre-teen at the time and her issues relating to “private” areas of her body, I think it was best that Rita, or a woman, was around to help her.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n13. The level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another. A party\u2019s effort to protect a child from abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.<\/p>\r\n
Despite the PFA Order and inappropriate postings to social media, Mother is cooperative with Father. Mother assisted Father by taking him to the hospital even after their marital separation. Father did not seem to understand the gravity of the situation when Mother obtained a PFA Order, but he appears to have learned to cooperate with Mother as well.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
Rita did not take me to the hospital after the separation. We were still living together. The police would have arrested me for violating the PFA order if she had taken me to the hospital after the split.<\/p>\r\n
Next page…<\/p>\r\n
I clearly did not understand the “gravity of the situation” because there had never been any abuse, and I did nothing intentionally abusive. However, what I did learn, and I continued to discover, is that the courts don’t seem to care about preventing abuse as they are more interested in making sure people show them sufficient respect. I wonder if the Centre County judges think they are helping society by issuing so many PFA orders and putting people in jail for things that violated the order but were not abusive or intentional. It reminds me of Eric Cartman on South Park saying, “Respect my authority!!”<\/p>\r\n
\r\n14. The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party\u2019s household. There is no history of drug or alcohol abuse of either party.<\/p>\r\n
There is no history of drug or alcohol abuse of the members of Mother\u2019s household if she is permitted to move to Michigan. The Court is not aware of any drug or alcohol abuse by Ava Glantz, who lives in Father\u2019s household, or Mike, Mother\u2019s paramour in Michigan.<\/p>\r\n
15. The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party\u2019s household.<\/p>\r\n
Mother does not have any mental or physical condition which would preclude her from caring for the children.<\/p>\r\n
Father has had significant mental health issues over a Jong period of time. Currently, Father is managing his mental health. Father continues to seek the help of his therapist and his psychiatrist. His recent diagnosis and subsequent change to his medications appear to be working well for him. Father\u2019s psychiatrist testified that Father\u2019s condition is stabilizing, though only time will tell if he is stabilized. Father\u2019s psychiatrist has seen improvement in Father\u2019s condition since March 2013.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
I was glad Judge Ruest did not make a huge deal out of my mental health as Tonia did in her proposed version of this section.<\/p>\r\n
One thing that I always wanted was for Rita to get a psychological evaluation. She certainly needed, but refused to get, psychiatric treatment when our nephews died. I also think maybe some of her paranoia could have been identified and addressed. I’m confident Rita would claim that she’s not paranoid because she believes what she thinks happened did.<\/p>\r\n
I supposed that is what makes paranoia such a problem, i.e., those who are paranoid either think they aren’t or have a reason to be. On the other hand, I know for a fact that all of Rita’s allegations were not true. While some of the events did happen as I have and will describe, only her paranoia made her think I had ill intent.<\/p>\r\n
As each of my lawyers told me when I brought this up, requesting a psychological evaluation for Rita would have just backfired with the court thinking I was being vindictive. There was no way they would force her to get a psychiatric exam if I requested it, which meant there was no way they would ever learn that she was, in fact, paranoid to a very unhealthy degree.<\/p>\r\n
My advice to anyone who thinks someone might accuse them of something is to blame that person for something first. Accusations from the other party will then seem vindictive.<\/p>\r\n
\r\nII. Relocation-23 Pa.C.S.A \u00a7 5337(h)<\/p>\r\n
1. The nature, quality, extent of involvement and duration of the child\u2019s relationship with the party proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating party, siblings and other significant persons in the child\u2019s life.<\/p>\r\n
Both parties have significant relationships with the children. The parties maintained a \u201ctraditional\u201d role relationship with regards to the children, wherein Mother was primarily responsible for the children\u2019s day-to-day care and Father was the breadwinner.<\/p>\r\n
Father took the primary role in Caleb\u2019s educational and developmental needs, meeting with his teachers to develop Caleb\u2019s Individualized Education Plan. Since moving out of the marital home, Father has maintained frequent and regular contact with the children.<\/p>\r\n
The children have strong ties to their maternal aunt, grandparents, and cousins who live in Michigan. Over the years, the children have visited their extended family in Michigan for summer visits and some holidays, and the maternal aunt, Deborah Benson, and grandparents regularly visited the children in State College. The children also have a strong tie with their Paternal Grandfather.<\/p>\r\n
This factor is neutral.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
I suppose I would agree with Judge Ruest on this factor and call it neutral.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n2. The age, developmental stage, needs of the child and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child\u2019s physical, educational and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child.<\/p>\r\n
Caleb is 14 years old, and will be entering high school this coming year. He was previously diagnosed on the autism spectrum, but his psychologist more recently changed his diagnosis to an \u201cemotional disorder.\u201d Mother and Father described him as a \u201cloner.\u201d He does not make friends easily, but has several close friends in State College. He has received special education assistance throughout his educational career. Though he has learning disabilities, he is bright and loves to read. His most recent Individualized Education Plan indicates that Caleb\u2019s learning disabilities in math, writing, and social skills necessitate specially designed instruction in order for Caleb to access the general education curriculum. His special education teacher for the past three years, Ms. Westerhaus, testified that he does not transition well. Caleb has difficulty completing his homework on time. Ms. Westerhaus testified that she has met with special education teachers at the State College Area School District High School. and that those teachers are prepared for Caleb\u2019s arrival in 9th grade.<\/p>\r\n
Amanda is 11 years old, and will be entering middle school this coming year. Amanda Is typically an A\/B student, and likes math. Amanda is socially outgoing and makes friends easily. Amanda has significant medical problems that require constant adult supervision. She has had multiple surgeries over the years, and has a reconstructed bladder and Hirchsprung\u2019s disease. Amanda has to take special care to maintain her physical health, and must complete certain medical procedures every three hours to avoid complication. Although she is learning how to do this herself, she still requires adult assistance. She was absent from school multiple times during 51\u201d grade with colds, strep throat, and urinary tract infections.<\/p>\r\n
Amelia is 5 years old, and will be entering kindergarten this coming year. She is a sweet, loving, and well-adjusted child. She socializes well with her preschool peers.<\/p>\r\n
This factor weighs against relocation with respect to Caleb and Amanda, and is neutral with respect to Amelia.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
Again, I would agree with Judge Ruest here. However, I would have put Amelia in with Caleb and Amanda because some of the activities she had started in State College, like ice skating, would have to stop when she moved to Michigan.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n3. The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating party and the child through suitable custody arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.<\/p>\r\n
Mother proposes relocating to Maybee, Michigan, a 6.5 hour drive from State College, Pennsylvania, where the children and both parents currently reside. It appears unlikely that Father would relocate to Michigan if the Court grants relocation because he is a tenured professor at The Pennsylvania State University. It is not feasible that the children would be able to have regular visits with Father given both the distance and their increasing extracurricular obligations as they get older. Father would be unable to continue to participate with the children\u2019s educational development on a daily basis. The parties have not suggested a workable parenting and visitation plan if the Court grants relocation.<\/p>\r\n
This factor weighs heavily against relocation.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
I was glad to see that Judge Ruest realized that the plan Rita had proposed was not workable. However, when she eventually allowed Rita to move, she implemented a schedule that was even crazier than what Rita suggested here. This factor was the only one Judge Ruest needed to consider, and I would agree that it weighs heavily against relocation.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n4. The child\u2019s preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child.<\/p>\r\n
Neither party presented any testimony on this factor.<\/p>\r\n
5. Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of either party to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the other party.<\/p>\r\n
There does not appear to be an established pattern of conduct of either party to either promote or thwart the relationship of the children and the other party. In a few instances, Mother apparently told the children not to tell Father where they had been or what they had done. In a few instances, Father posted inappropriate message alerts about Mother to his iPhone calendar that the children eventually saw.<\/p>\r\n
This factor is neutral.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
My actions were entirely accidental. Rita’s were undoubtedly intentional, and in fact, Rita told them to lie to me on several occasions. According to Amelia, I would later learn that there were specific topics Rita “forbade” them to discuss with me.<\/p>\r\n
Next page…<\/p>\r\n
While I can understand her wanting to keep the relationship with Mike a secret, she continued to have the kids lie to me after learning I knew of the relationship. There were multiple instances where Amelia had to change her story after realizing she had said something she should not have. None of the things she told me were any big deal, and I have no idea why she thought her mother would be upset if I knew.<\/p>\r\n
Rita always acted like I was trying to track her when I could not have cared less where she was. I wanted to know generally where my kids were and if they were safe.<\/p>\r\n
While I never once asked Rita what she was doing, I frequently asked the kids what they were doing. Rita portrayed this as me trying to figure out what she was doing. She never realized that I never asked what she was doing when the kids were with me. I didn’t care.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n6. Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the party seeking the relocation, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity.<\/p>\r\n
Relocation would enhance Mother\u2019s general quality of life because she would receive emotional support and childcare assistance. Mother has not had a solid night\u2019s sleep in 11 years due to Amanda\u2019s medical conditions. Mother needs help caring for Amanda, and her family can offer that help in Michigan. Additionally, Mother\u2019s paramour lives in Michigan and that relationship affords her emotional support.<\/p>\r\n
Mother\u2019s financial situation is likely to change regardless of whether relocation is granted. The biggest drain on Mother\u2019s finances appears to be the marital residence. Father has agreed to refinance the existing mortgage and home equity loans, but Mother indicates that she does not wish to remain in the marital residence if she stays in State College. It therefore appears that the parties will sell the marital residence. If Mother stays in State College, she could find more affordable housing. If Mother moves to Michigan, she has the opportunity to live with her sister and brother-in-law for a low rent of $200\/month for up to two years. Mother has a job in State College that is guaranteed through the next school year. She would likely be able to get a similar job in Michigan, but she has not obtained employment there.<\/p>\r\n
Mother did not present testimony about any intention to further her education.<\/p>\r\n
This factor weighs in favor of relocation.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
Again, I would agree with Judge Ruest. It sure seemed like it would benefit Rita to move to Michigan. However, I wonder if it’s worked out as she planned. I understand that she doesn’t get the help and support she thought she would get from her family, and from what I estimate Mike must make as a team leader at Ford, money really should not be a tight as Rita makes it seem. I, however, suspect that Mike has been unwilling to make any sacrifices in his spending for Rita or the kids.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n7. Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the child, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity.<\/p>\r\n
It appears that the children can have a high quality of life in State College and Maybee, Michigan, alike. Relocation would afford the children the opportunity to spend more time with Mother\u2019s extended family, with whom they are close. They would benefit emotionally from Mother\u2019s enhanced quality of life because she is their primary caretaker. Additionally, Amanda would benefit from having additional caretakers to assist with her significant medical needs.<\/p>\r\n
However, relocation would be detrimental to the children\u2019s emotional attachment to their father and their education, in particular Caleb\u2019s education. Although there was testimony suggesting that the smaller class sizes in Michigan would suit him, there was also testimony that he would adjust to State College\u2019s high school well. State College has a better rated school system than the schools near Maybee, Michigan, and is better prepared to provide for Caleb\u2019s special educational needs. All three children would benefit from remaining in the State College school system.<\/p>\r\n
This factor is neutral.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
I would disagree with Judge Ruest on this point, and I’m not sure how she concluded the class sizes in Dundee were smaller than in State College. There was testimony that the student-to-teacher ratio in State College was 13 to 1 while it was 23 to 1 in Dundee.<\/p>\r\n
I think the smaller overall size of the school may have benefitted Caleb some; I also feel that it ultimately hurt him. State College provided many more opportunities for him, and living in a city with excellent public transportation would have made Caleb’s life so much better. I’m sure he would have wanted to play video games all day in State College too, but he would not have an excuse that he has nowhere to go and no method to get anywhere.<\/p>\r\n
I think Rita overstated how much better her quality of life would be living in Dundee. From my experience, her family relied on her as much as Rita relied on them. Thus, while Rita talked about all the extra support provided to her, she never mentioned all the additional support required. While I doubt Rita would ever tell me truthfully if things weren’t as great as she expected, it almost certainly isn’t since she seemed to have convinced herself the grass was greener (where the dogs are shitting – Soundgarden).<\/p>\r\n
\r\n8. The reasons and motivation of each party for seeking or opposing the relocation.<\/p>\r\n
Mother\u2019s stated motivation for seeking relocation is access to her extended family who can help her with childcare. Specifically, Mother desires regular assistance tending to Amanda\u2019s significant medical needs. Mother needs help, and that help is available in Michigan. However, Mother was not forthcoming about her relationship with her paramour in Michigan. This calls into question the true motivation behind her request.<\/p>\r\n
Father\u2019s motivation in opposing relocation is that he wants to have a regular, daily relationship with his three children, and he does not want to leave his tenured faculty position at The Pennsylvania State University. The family needs Father\u2019s regular income because he is the main breadwinner. Additionally, Father believes it is important for the children to continue to live in State College, which has always been their home. Father\u2019s motives in opposing relocation appear to be based upon the children\u2019s best interests.<\/p>\r\n
This factor is neutral.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
I suppose I agree with this. However, I might say it was a factor slightly against relocation because while Rita had wanted to move to Michigan for a long time, it was not until Mike came into the picture that she started pushing hard for it.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n9. The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party\u2019s household and whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party.<\/p>\r\n
The Court does not believe that Father poses a continued risk to the children or Mother, as described in its discussion under factor 2 of 23 Pa.C.S.A \u00a7 5328(a) above.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
Again, so why did Judge Ruest issue a protective order for three years? I honestly think that the statute should limit these orders to six months because if there’s continued abuse, the court can continually renew the order. If it expires, the plaintiff can always apply for a new one. As I’ve said, someone intent on causing serious harm to someone will not wait to do it until a court order expires.<\/p>\r\n
\r\nBased on the foregoing, the Court determines it is in the children\u2019s best interest to be in Mother\u2019s primary physical custody. Father will have escalating visitation rights under the Court\u2019s supervision. The Court further finds that it is in the children\u2019s best interest to remain in State College, Pennsylvania, and not to relocate to Maybee, Michigan.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
Thank you, Judge Ruest. Although I still blame you for setting this whole story in motion.<\/p>\r\n
\r\nDue to financial and logistical concerns, the Court does not believe that the children will be able to maintain their relationship with Father if they relocate to Michigan. Father has ongoing issues with depression and anxiety, and a recent bipolar II disorder diagnosis, but those issues do not pose a risk to the children. Father has worked consistently with a psychiatrist for 10 years, follows his psychiatrist\u2019s advice, and has demonstrated that he knows when to seek additional help. The children\u2019s bond with their father is invaluable and should be encouraged. Father\u2019s earnings as a tenured faculty member at The Pennsylvania State University are important to the children and Mother alike. Although it is clear that Mother needs help caring for the children, specifically, Amanda\u2019s medical needs, it is not clear that she cannot obtain help in State College. The State College Area School District is a significantly better rated school district than the available districts in Michigan, and Amanda and Caleb each have a particular need for continuity. Finally, Amanda has received extensive medical treatment, including 11 surgeries, at Hershey, Pennsylvania, and it is anticipated this medical care will be ongoing.<\/p>\r\n
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Mother\u2019s Petition to Relocate. Mother shall continue to have primary physical custody of the children. Father shall have periods of partial physical custody. These custody arrangements along with additional requirements for the parents are set forth below.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
This order was the first one concerning custody the court issued, and I was happy they did as Rita was using the vagueness of the previous agreement to prevent me from seeing the kids and provide her more time in Michigan.<\/p>\r\n
\r\nAccordingly, the following is entered:<\/p>\r\n
ORDER<\/p>\r\n
AND NOW, this day of 21st (sic) day of August 2013, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:<\/p>\r\n
\r\n
- Rita Mockensturm (\u201dMother\u201d) and Eric Mockensturm (\u201dFather\u201d\u2019) shall share legal custody of the minor children, Caleb James Mockensturm (D.O.B. 09\/18\/1998), Amanda Paige Mockensturm (D.O.B. 10\/30\/2001), and Amelia Mae Mockensturm (D.O.B. 04\/22\/2008).<\/li>\r\n
- Mother shall have primary physical custody of the minor children subject to Father\u2019s periods of partial physical custody as follows:\r\n
\r\n
- Every Sunday at from 11:00 am until 7:00 pm;<\/li>\r\n
- Every Monday and Wednesday from 4:00 pm until 7:00 pm;<\/li>\r\n
- At such other times as the parties may agree.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/li>\r\n
- Father shall continue to receive therapeutic counseling with a licensed mental health professional, to follow the recommendations of his mental health providers, and to take all of his prescribed medications in accordance with their recommendations.<\/li>\r\n
- The parties shall attempt to develop a proposed Parenting Plan to submit to the Court.<\/li>\r\n
- If the attorneys cannot agree on a Parenting Plan, the Court will schedule a conference to determine whether it is in the children\u2019s best interests to expand Father\u2019s periods of physical custody.<\/li>\r\n
- All provisions of prior Orders of Court not modified by this Order shall remain in full force and effect.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n
Pamela A. Ruest, Judge<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n
Next page…I was happy with this as it allowed me to see the kids more regularly and for more time. Because I was now living in Ava’s house, which has an in-ground pool and sits on 10 acres with a stream running through the property, I had many more things for them to do. Unfortunately, Rita would continue to ignore the custody order\/agreement with absolutely no ramifications.<\/p>\r\n
Almost immediately after this, Tonia filed a motion to reconsider that dragged us all back to court. The new information she had was that I had submitted a request to modify child support which Rita got two days after the second hearing.<\/p>\r\n
In April of that year, I spoke with associate dean Anthony Atchley, who suggested I apply for a Family Medical Leave for the fall semester to take time to try to get things back in order. In the application, I had stated that the modification was because Penn State had put me on unpaid leave, which was technically accurate. I didn’t mention the FMLA in the petition because I didn’t know how much income it would provide.<\/p>\r\n
The state approved the application on May 20, 2013, but I, of course, never mentioned it to Rita because that would have put me back into jail. I’m sure Rose was aware, but I guess she thought it wasn’t any of Rita or Tonia’s business. The tax-exempt disability checks would net me slightly less monthly income, so I filed for a child support modification. I didn’t think “going on disability” was necessary or even moral, but it seemed like Penn State wasn’t giving me an option.<\/p>\r\n
Tonia’s position in the motion to reconsider was that Judge Ruest’s primary reason for denying relocation was that I was a tenured professor at Penn State and could support the kids by staying in Pennsylvania. She argued that my job was in jeopardy, which at the time, it was not. She also said that Dr. DeCarle had essentially lied during his testimony. There were some inconsistencies between what he said on the FMLA application and what he told the court. However, it was an inconsistency of omission on the FMLA application.<\/p>\r\n
Tonia kept trying to make Dr. DeCarle predict future anxiety attacks because he stated that one might expect anxiety attacks to occur every three to six months on the FMLA application. He kept saying that there was no good way to predict it, and the best way was to assume they were cyclic, and since I’d had two in six months, you might expect them to recur every three months. Dr. DeCarle then said he didn’t think this applied to me because specific things caused the attacks, and if you went back further into history, you could make a different prediction.<\/p>\r\n
What infuriated me about this entire thing was that Tonia somehow obtained the letter from dean Atchley about me being “reinstated” and the FMLA application. I had submitted these documents to domestic relations, so they understood what my income would be. I had no idea that domestic relations would\/could then provide them to the opposing party.<\/p>\r\n
In the end, it didn’t matter much as Judge Ruest denied Rita’s motion to reconsider. However, that was just the beginning of an exhausting custody battle in which it seemed like every time I would request more time and freedom with the kids, Tonia would file an “emergency” petition trying to prevent me from seeing them. Each time Tonia submitted one of these, she would make some wild claims about my mental health “spiraling” out of control, and each time I would have to defend myself by trying to establish that there was no evidence for her to make that conclusion.<\/p>\r\n
Not long after Judge Ruest denied the reconsideration, on November 6, 2013, Rita filed another petition\/notice to relocate, starting the entire process over again. It appears this didn’t go anywhere because there was no hearing, and I suspect she only did this because if I didn’t respond within 30 days, it would mean that I did not object to the relocation. Maybe Tonia thought Rose and I weren’t paying attention, but we did object.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
After the second part of the hearing, each lawyer submitted their proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” These were essentially draft orders that each side would have liked the judge to sign without modification. Requiring these was effectively a way for Judge Ruest to get the lawyers to do her job. Her final […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_oasis_is_in_workflow":0,"_oasis_original":0,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2503","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/unstablefocus.mynetgear.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2503","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/unstablefocus.mynetgear.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/unstablefocus.mynetgear.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unstablefocus.mynetgear.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unstablefocus.mynetgear.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2503"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/unstablefocus.mynetgear.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2503\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2519,"href":"https:\/\/unstablefocus.mynetgear.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2503\/revisions\/2519"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/unstablefocus.mynetgear.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}