Copyright © 2009 - 2010 Mark and Susan Archer

All personal posts and comments formulated by Susan Archer, may not in any way, shape, or form, be copied, reproduced, transmitted, or otherwise taken from this blog, without the explicit written and approved request for permission by Susan Archer.

6/28/05

Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Scott Phillip ROEDER, Appellee, v. Susan ARCHER and Mark Archer, Appellants

Citation: 2005 WL 3948943 (Archer's Brief)

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Scott Phillip ROEDER, Appellee,
v.
Susan ARCHER and Mark Archer, Appellants.
No. 00527MDA05.
June 28, 2005.

The two principal witnesses on the issue of custody were Mr. Roeder and Mrs. Archer. This court concluded that it was in the child's best interests that she develops some relationship with her biological father. As she does not know this man and has not yet reached her third birthday, it is necessary to develop that relationship slowly, so as not to harm the child. As Mr. Roeder lives in Kansas, and Mrs. Archer in Pennsylvania, visits would have to be in Pennsylvania (at least, initially). As the court had concerns about the child's potential reaction to such visits, it was mandated that they be supervised by the Wyoming County Human Services Agency (Children and Youth).

Although Mr. Roeder has one adult child from a prior relationship, it did not appear that he was substantially involved in raising that child. Consequently, he will be required to complete appropriate parenting classes in Kansas before any unsupervised periods of partial physical custody will occur.

<...>

There was plenty of testimony concerning the Appellee's incarceration in Federal Prison, his diagnosis as schizophrenic, a *15 chronic illness for which be takes no medication; his lack of unsupervised custody for an 8 year period with his only other child, an 18 year old son; and his absolute lack of any experience parenting a female infant child that should have convinced the lower court to require the Appellee's successful completion of parenting education classes prior to the periods of supervised visitation as will occur as stated in the lower court's opinion of March 30, 2005.

Appellee also acted inappropriately when Appellant changed the diapers of her youngest son and this made the mother, Appellant, feel uncomfortable and not want to entrust her child to his care.

Both Appellants feared that Appellee would kidnap and hide their daughter since he threatened to do so with his son.

<...>

Appellee also was diagnosed with a chronic mental disability of schizophrenia for which he takes no medication, which may pose a clear and present danger to the female minor child.

As to the child's moral and spiritual best interests there was no testimony from any party concerning religious training of the child; the mother did try to point out to the Court that Appellee's past conduct and association with anti-government organizations is ongoing and poses a risk to her daughter.

Appellants submit that the overwhelming evidence suggests it is not in the best interests of this three year old minor female to be forced to establish a relationship with a man she does not know - let alone know as her biological father, especially when she lives in an intact family where the Appellants love her as the only mother and father she knows.

<...>

The Appellants herein, believe that the Plaintiff, Appellee herein, poses a great risk to the safety and welfare of , in that he lives in Kansas and has threatened to kidnap his son from his first marriage with whom he has only supervised visitation, and they also have knowledge of his affiliation with certain groups that refute the judicial or governmental authority's right to limit control or dictate what his actions should be, all of which pose clear and present danger to . Therefore, no visitation or custody should be granted Plaintiff, Appellee herein.