Klahold v. Klahold

36 Pa. D. & C.4th 469, 1996 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 66
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County
DecidedMarch 21, 1996
Docketno. 1035-94 A.D.
StatusPublished

This text of 36 Pa. D. & C.4th 469 (Klahold v. Klahold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Klahold v. Klahold, 36 Pa. D. & C.4th 469, 1996 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 66 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).

Opinion

GRIM, J.,

The above captioned matter is a custody dispute. The following are the pertinent facts.

The parties were formerly married. They are the parents of a daughter, Kelly Ann, bom April 25, 1988. The parties’ final separation occurred in March 1991. They were divorced in April 1992. Since the separation Kelly has lived with defendant, Sherry L. Klahold. Plain[471]*471tiff, Mark E. Klahold, is seeking primary physical custody.

Plaintiff, Father, lives in Ephrata, Pennsylvania. He is unemployed and on disability due to injuries suffered in an automobile accident in September 1994, when a drunk driver hit him. Prior to the accident he had been self-employed as a dry wall hanger for 12 years. In fall 1995, he started courses in marine biology at Harrisburg Area Community College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He took one course each semester in 1995. He planned to take two courses per semester in 1996. He hoped to graduate in 1998 and transfer to another college to pursue a Ph.D. in marine biology; however, he does not want to move from the Lancaster area.

Father lives in a two bedroom apartment in an apartment complex. Kelly has her own bedroom. If he were to become employed again, Kelly’s former baby sitter has agreed to care for her if the court awarded Father primary physical custody. The baby sitter lives two to three miles from Father’s residence.

Under the present order Father gets custody of Kelly on alternate weekends, alternate holidays, and two weeks for vacation. For seven months in 1992 Father voluntarily did not exercise his custody rights. In 1995 Father did not have Kelly for vacation; he testified that defendant, Mother, does not cooperate with him so he did not request vacation time.

Father testified that he desires custody of the child because he believes that Mother continually uses the child against him and does not provide him with information about Kelly’s education and activities. Father stated that when he tries to find out things about Kelly from Mother she yells and curses at him. Father does [472]*472not know if Kelly has witnessed any of the confrontations between her parents.

Mother’s former paramour, Jeffrey Nester, sexually molested Kelly when they were living together. Mother separated from him when she learned that the molestation had occurred. Father, however, believes that Mother still has a relationship with Mr. Nester and he wants to remove Kelly from any danger. Father testified that he has seen Mr. Nester three times at Mother’s residence after the time that Mr. Nester was no longer to have any contact with the child. The last time Kelly voluntarily told Father that she had seen Mr. Nester was in 1994.

Kelly tells Father that Mother is mean to her and that he says nicer things to her than Mother does. Father believes that he can offer Kelly a more loving home than Mother does.

Father used marijuana and cocaine during most of the marriage. He testified that his last drug usage was three months prior to the parties’ separation. Mother has no knowledge of any recent use by Father.

Mother lives in an apartment in Mohnton, Pennsylvania with Kelly. Kelly has her own bedroom. Mother has always been the child’s primary caretaker. Mother worked during the marriage. When she was unavailable to care for Kelly, the child went to a baby sitter even during Father’s periods of unemployment; Father had not felt capable of caring for Kelly.

Mother testified that Father has a problem coping with anger. She testified that Father had employed her brother during their marriage. When her brother had quit to work elsewhere, Father then decided to kill her brother and his family with his gun. After this incident Father was admitted to a psychiatric unit for two weeks. This episode occurred before Kelly’s birth.

[473]*473Mother claims that Kelly is scared and nervous about visiting Father and her anxiety has impacted negatively on her academic performance this year. Prior to this school year Kelly had done well in school.

Kelly is in second grade. She daydreams in class. Sometimes she does not do her homework when she is with Father although she tells Mother that she has done it. When Mother calls Kelly at Father’s residence to determine if Kelly has completed her homework, Father refuses to allow Mother to talk to the child and hangs up on her. Mother has not informed Father about Kelly’s problems in school because she feels that there is nothing he can do to help the situation.

Mother admits that the parties do not communicate. She puts copies of Kelly’s report cards in her bag but she does not give Father any other information pertaining to school.

Mother takes Kelly to counseling for children who are victims of sexual abuse. Father wants to participate in these sessions but Mother testified that they are only for the children.

Mother doubts Father’s parenting ability. Father took two showers with Kelly. Father told Mother that he had done so to save time. On the first occasion he wore nothing. For the second shower he had donned swimming trunks. Kelly also complains to her that Father enters her bedroom without knocking.

Mother testified that since the sexual abuse was made known, Kelly has had no contact with Jeffrey Nester. Mother has no intentions to reunite with him.

Kelly told the court that she wants to live with Mother and visit Father less often. She is unhappy with Father because he always yells at her and refuses to allow her to talk to Mother when she visits. She stated that [474]*474she has not seen Jeffrey Nester since she had informed people about his conduct. She said that both parents and Mother’s relatives use bad words when they talk about the other parent and it upsets her to hear them.

Michelle L. Munson Ph.D., did the psychological custody evaluation. The parties stipulated that her report could be admitted into evidence without the necessity of testimony.

Dr. Munson believes that Father possesses no insight. He is grossly immature and impulsive. He has poor follow-through with his ideas. He has poor boundaries with Kelly whom he frequently treats as a peer companion. Father puts substantial pressure on Kelly by informing her of his emotional needs and expecting her to fulfill them. Father insists that Kelly tell him negative things Mother may have done.

Dr. Munson believes that Mother’s judgment and general level of functioning are good. Mother does well in the role of mother. Mother sets appropriate limits and boundaries for Kelly.

Dr. Munson determined that Kelly loves both parties. Kelly, however, lies to both parents, especially Father, in order to please them and “make them feel better.” Since the parties do not check out the information Kelly tells them, they treat the lies as truths. Kelly appears confused about the parties’ ongoing inability to cooperate or communicate.

Kelly suffers from an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features subsequent to the sexual abuse. Dr. Munson believes that she is also at risk of developing a more extensive and far more manipulative disorder if her parents do not begin to resolve their issues and start communicating with one another rather than confiding in their child.

[475]*475Dr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bresnock v. Bresnock
500 A.2d 91 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1985)
In Re Custody of Pearce
456 A.2d 597 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Stolarick v. Novak
584 A.2d 1034 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1991)
Warren v. Rickabaugh
600 A.2d 218 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1991)
Murphey v. Hatala
504 A.2d 917 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 Pa. D. & C.4th 469, 1996 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klahold-v-klahold-pactcomplberks-1996.