Kline v. Yanick

18 Pa. D. & C.5th 114
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County
DecidedNovember 9, 2010
Docketno. 03-6555
StatusPublished

This text of 18 Pa. D. & C.5th 114 (Kline v. Yanick) 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
Kline v. Yanick, 18 Pa. D. & C.5th 114 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

LASH, J.,

The matter before this court is the complaint of plaintiff, Kathy S. Kline (hereinafter “grandmother”), seeking partial custody of her two (2) grandchildren. Trial was held on November 5, 2010. The court enters the following findings of fact:

[116]*116I.FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff, Kathy S. Kline (hereinafter “grandmother”) is an adult individual who currently resides at 76 Heister Street, Box 304, Strausstown, Berks County, Pennsylvania 19559.

2. Defendant, Theodore S. Yanick, III (hereinafter “father”) is an adult individual who currently resides at 673 Benjamin Franklin Highway, Douglassville, Berks County, Pennsylvania 19518.

3. Defendant, Tracey G. Yanick (hereinafter “mother”) is an adult individual who currently resides at 718 Birch Street, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania 19604.

4. Father and mother are the natural parents of two (2) minor children, Alexandria Yanick, born January 8,1999, and Timothy Yanick, born November 14, 2001, (hereinafter “minor children”). Grandmother is the paternal grandmother of the minor children.

5. Mother and father were formerly married, separating in 2003 and receiving a divorce in June of 2006.

6. Grandmother currently resides with her husband, Charles H. Kline, Jr.

7. Father currently resides with his wife, Terry Yanick, and her daughter.

8. Mother currently resides with the minor children.

9. There were several custody orders entered addressing the rights and duties of father and mother, the [117]*117first order being entered on January 28, 2004. The latest order is dated February 24, 2010. That order was entered by agreement of the parties and set forth, among other things, that mother and father would share legal custody of the minor children, with mother to have primary physical custody and father to have partial physical custody every other weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m.

10. The order of February 24, 2010 also provided, in paragraph 12, the following:

The children shall not be in the presence of father’s mother, Kathy Kline, until such time as father provides a letter from his counselor to mother or to mother’s attorney stating that father is capable of protecting the children’s safety while they are in the presence of father’s mother and that he is present and supervising the children in the presence of his mother.

11. In response and in objection to paragraph 12 of the February 24, 2010 order, grandmother filed the within complaint for custody on or about March 8, 2010. Grandmother seeks to have partial custody of the minor children every sixth weekend and for one week every summer for vacations.

II. DISCUSSION

In making disposition, this court considered the testimony of the parties and grandmother’s husband, Charles H. Kline, Jr. By agreement, the minor children were not required to testify. Additionally, the parties stipulated [118]*118to all terms and conditions of a recommended order prepared by the custody master, with the exception of the clauses relating to grandmother’s time for partial custody. Accordingly, all the other terms of that recommended order shall be incorporated into the within order.

In essence, grandmother is requesting that this court restore her ability to have contact and custody time with the minor children. Grandmother testified that, prior to some issues arising between she and mother, grandmother and the minor children enjoyed an excellent relationship, with the minor children spending a good amount of time with grandmother at her house, particularly on certain weekends. Grandmother stated that when the minor child, Timothy, was a toddler, grandmother had custody of him from Sunday evening through Friday evening every week continuing for several months, while mother and father were working. This continued until the minor child was able to be enrolled in the daycare where mother works.

Grandmother states that she wants a normal grandmother/grandchild relationship, wants to have the minor children spend time at her house, and believes that she can adequately provide for their supervision during these periods. She is requesting one weekend every sixth week, along with a week during the summer for vacation.

Grandmother acknowledges that the minor children are enrolled in activities, listed by mother to include football, cheerleading, softball, and baseball. Grandmother requests that on her weekends, that the minor children be permitted to spend the time with her rather than attend these scheduled activities.

[119]*119In accordance with paragraph 12 of the current court order, grandmother obtained a letter from Daniel R. Smith, M.S.S., L.C.S.W., opining on her capacity to be a safe caretaker. Mr. Smith found grandmother to be a “genuine and very gentle woman,” believing that she would not bring harm to the minor children in any way. Mr. Smith recommended that grandmother have unsupervised visitation, effective immediately.

Mother objects to grandmother’s request. Mother acknowledges that grandmother should be permitted to visit with the minor children, but that this should occur during father’s periods of partial custody, that grandmother should not have an independent schedule. She states that she has several concerns with grandmother’s care. She cited an incident occurring in 2006, when grandmother treated one of the minor children for head lice, by using a mixture of diesel fuel and water to clean the lice from the minor child’s head. While father was present and allowed this to happen, mother, who found out about it later, objected, believing this to be unsafe. Mother also has concerns with the sleeping arrangements, believing that there are not enough beds for the minor children at grandmother’s house, and that Timothy sleeps with Mr. Kline and Alexandria sleeps with grandmother. Mother also objects to any deviation from the minor children’s scheduled activities. Mother pays for these activities, believes they are important, and should not be interfered with by grandmother.

Father has no objection to grandmother having every sixth weekend and a week in the summer. However, he agrees with mother that the minor children’s activities [120]*120should not be disrupted. He testified that Timothy has ADHD and that Timothy’s therapist directed that Timothy be kept on a consistent schedule. If his schedule is disrupted, such as by missing a practice because he is at grandmother’s house, this could affect his capacity to function. Father stated that when Timothy is not properly on his medications or not properly in a routine, he can become unruly.

The paramount concern in a child custody proceeding is the best interests of the child. Costello v. Costello, 666 A.2d 1096, 1098 (Pa. Super. 1995). A determination of what is in the best interests of a child is made on a case-by-case basis and must be premised upon consideration of all factors which legitimately have an effect upon a child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well - being. Alfred v. Braxton, 659 A.2d 1040, 1042 (Pa. Super. 1995).

Under 23 Pa.

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

Related

Alfred v. Braxton
659 A.2d 1040 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)
Costello v. Costello
666 A.2d 1096 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Pa. D. & C.5th 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kline-v-yanick-pactcomplberks-2010.