Sample Petition for Sanctions

*Sample Petition (names redacted)

PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS

NOW COMES the Petitioner by his attorney,
Todd W. Elliott, Esquire, and presents this
Petition as follows:

1. The parties were engaged in a custody action
at the above term and number regarding their
fifteen year old son (hereinafter "Matthew").

2. Previously, on August 13, 2007, Defendant
(hereinafter "father") presented an Emergency
Petition for Special Relief for the Court to award
him custody of Matthew in light of (1) Matthew’s
strong preference to live with father, (2) the fact
that Matthew rejected his mother’s religion, and
(3) Matthew’s mother, the Plaintiff hereinafter
"mother" was not allowing Matthew to play
sports.

3. The Court then scheduled a custody
conciliation to take place August 23, 2007
before Judge Eaton.

4. On August 23, 2007, Matthew spoke to Judge
Eaton and confirmed the facts in his father’s
petition, namely, Matthew rejected his mother’s
religion, he wanted to change schools to live with
his father.

5. A custody trial was scheduled for November
15, 2007.

6. On November 15, 2007, at trial, Matthew once
again testified that he preferred to live with his
father primarily, and he was ready willing and
able to change schools.

7. At trial, the court also heard testimony about
mother’s devout practice of the Jahova’s
Witness religion and Mathew testified the rejects
the religion. In particular, he takes issue with the
number off meeting he was expected to attend
(4 - 5/ week) and the fact that all members (and
their families) are expected to go door-to-door
each Sunday.

8. Once again, Matthew also testified that his
mother’s religion stifled his involvement in
sports, which was his passion.

9. There was also evidence at trial that Matthew
has considered going to college (his favorite
college football team is "Pitt"); however, his
mother does not encourage secondary
education because of her religion, nor does she
allow Matthew to salute the American flag, say
the National Anthem at sporting events or
otherwise, celebrate his birthday or holidays
when she has primary custody.

10. It also came out at trial that mother
suggested to Matthew that he needed to live with
her primary (and follow her religion) because
humanity is in the "end of days" and the end of
the world as we know it is imminent.

11. On December 5, 2007, Judge Eaton
ordered that father have primary custody over
Matthew to begin the date of the new school
year, which is January 2, 2008.

12. The Court further ordered that the parties to
this case prepare Matthew "physically and
mentally" for the change in custody. See the
Court’s Order, Page 7.

13. In this case, mother has had exclusive
custody with Mathew for the past five (5) weeks
with the exception of one weekend (because
father agreed Matthew could go on a cruise over
Thanksgiving weekend, which had fallen on
father’s weekend with Matthew). As such, mother
has had opportunity to prepare Matthew for the
change in custody.

14. Unfortunately, she has also had opportunity
to improperly influence Matthew.

IMPROPER CONVERSATIONS WITH
MATTHEW ABOUT AN "APPEAL."

15. According to father, Matthew’s mother has
made several improper comments to Matthew
about whether he should comply with the
December 5, 2007 Order.

16. That is to say, soon after the custody trial in
this case, Matthew’s mother told Matthew that
she planned to appeal Judge Eaton’s December
5, 2007 order and that Matthew would ultimately
be returned to his mother’s home (and school
district), hence, there was no need for him to
prepare mentally for the change of schools to
Penn Hills. She also reminded him how much he
would "miss his friends" and suggested that his
mother’s home was his true "home."

17. All of these comments were improper. For
example, there was absolutely no reason for
Matthew’s mother to discuss the "appeal
process" with Matthew.

18. Then, on December 27, 2007, the
undersigned faxed a letter to counsel for mother,
cautioning mother against any further improper
conduct. See Exhibit "A."

19. The next day, (December 28, 2007), mother
served an "Emergency" Petition for Modification
of Custody Order.

20. To date, father has enrolled Matthew in the
Penn Hills School District based on the
December 5 Order and Matthew is scheduled to
start school at Penn Hills the morning of January
2, 2008. See Exhibit "B."

19. It is undisputed that Matthew is not looking
forward to changing schools and/or leaving
behind the home where he has lived primarily.
These are not new facts. That said, Matthew has
testified on two separate occasions that he firmly
rejects his mother’s religion and her religious
practices, he may want to go to college (which
his mother does not encourage), he wants to live
with his father primarily.

20. The only change that has occurred in this
case is that Matthew has lived with his mother for
five (5) weeks straight (which included a cruise
with her) with the exception of one weekend
during which father had custody.

24. It remains undisputed that Matthew whole
heartedly rejects his mother’s religion, the
attends of meetings 4-5 times a week, going
door to door in his school district of Shaler, and
he remains mortified at the prospect of seeing
classmates when going door to door.

SHUNNING

27. Mother has also told Matthew that he will be
shunned if he goes to live with his father. That is
to say, Matthew’s father will allow Matthew to
keep friendships with his existing friends;
however, Matthew’s Jahova’s witness friends will
"shun" him (according to his mother) if he goes
to live with his father.

28. In fact, Mother (and her fellow Jahova’s
Witness followers)have threatened Matthew with
disassociating him from his friends who happen
to be Jahova’s Witness and she has cautioned
Mathew against speaking to the Court about the
shunning process.

29. For this reason, Matthew knows that if he
goes to live with his father, his mother will
continue to manipulate the situation and bar him
from speaking to other Johava’s witness
members outside of meetings.

30. As such, Matthew has been threatened and
his mind has been poisoned such that true
compliance with the Court’s December 5, 2007
Order has been frustrated.

31. The Court should enter an award of attorney
fees against mother.

32. Moreover, at trial, the court considered the
impact that shunning might have on Matthew (in
the event he were to live with Mother primary and
refused to be baptised which would trigger
formal shunning).

33. Based on the above, this party seeks an
award of attorney fees and hearing to determine
the role that shunning in the future might have on
Matthew in the event that (1) Mother is given
primary custody and (2) Matthew refuses to be
baptized as Jahova’s Witness, which is another
thing that triggers "shunning" per the testimony at
trial, and we know Matthew rejects his mother’s
religion.