LANCASTER COUNTY COURT of COMMON PLEAS 225Th Anniversary Edition Judicial Services Report 2016

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 225th Anniversary Edition Judicial Services Report 2016

Table of Contents

Message from President Judge and District Court Administrator ...... 3

Court Organizational Structure ...... 4

History of the Court ...... 6

Past Judges ...... 8

2016 Board of Judges ...... 9

Court Administration ...... 10

Criminal Court ...... 18

Adult Probation and Parole Services ...... 21

Treatment Courts ...... 24

Civil Court ...... 33

Family Court ...... 35

Domestic Relations ...... 37

Juvenile Probation ...... 44

Orphans’ Court ...... 54

Magisterial District Courts ...... 56

Court Reporters ...... 62

Law Library ...... 66

Court Related Offices

Clerk of Courts ...... 70

Office of the Prothonotary ...... 71

Sheriff's Department ...... 72

In Memoriam ...... 74

Message from the President Judge and the District Court Administrator

We celebrate this year the 225th Anniversary of the first session of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on October 31, 1791. Central to that celebration is the recognition of the professional work performed by over 485 talented and dedicated Court employees. Although the Court has grown tremendously over the last 225 years to meet the needs of the County’s over 530,000 citizens, it is no less dedicated to the fair, Dennis E. Reinaker impartial, effective, and efficient administration of Mark M. Dalton District Court Administrator President Judge justice.

It is therefore with great pride we present this Judicial Services Report highlighting the major responsibilities and accomplishments of the Judges, Magisterial District Judges, various Court departments, and Court-related offices. Additionally, we are grateful for the support of the Commissioners, other elected officials and the citizenry of the County.

Dennis E. Reinaker Mark M. Dalton Dennis E. Reinaker President Judge

James P. Cullen Leslie Gorbey David L. Ashworth Jay J. Hoberg David R. Workman Donald R. Totaro Howard F. Knisely Jeffery D. Wright Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge

Margaret C. Miller Christopher A. Hackman Jeffrey J. Reich Leonard G. Brown III Merrill M. Spahn, Jr. Thomas B. Sponaugle Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge

19 Magisterial Mark M. Dalton Louis J. Farina District Judges District Court Administrator Joseph C. Madenspacher Senior Judges

Russell A. Glass Deputy Court Administrator Magisterial District Judges

Mark J. Wilson Lisa Miller Diane M. Fralich Eleanor L. Gerlott David H. Mueller Director Adult Probation Director Court Reporter Director Domestic Relations Librarian Law Library Director Juvenile Probation

Jennifer Mulroney Annie L. Flaud Beverly A. Kirby Daniel D. Scarberry Chris A. Reed ADCA-Criminal ADCA-Civil ADCA-Judicial Info. Systems ADCA-Bail/Pre-Trial Services. ADCA-HR/Fiscal/Purchasing

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

History of the Court

The Second Judicial Court The Act of April 13, 1791 that implemented the judicial parts of the Constitution of 1790 provided that Pennsylvania shall be divided into five districts or circuits, the second of which shall consist of Chester, Lancaster, York, and Dauphin Counties. The Act of February 24, 1806 divided the state into ten districts, with Lancaster, York, and Dauphin counties forming the second district. The Act of February 6, 1815 put Lebanon and Dauphin counties into the twelfth district, leaving only Lancaster and York counties in the second. The Act of April 11, 1835 removed York County from the second and joined it into Adams County, creating the nineteenth district. Consequently, Lancaster County alone constituted the second district from May 11, 1835 onward to the present.

When William Penn drafted his “Frames of Government” for Pennsylvania, the Eng- lish system was adopted. Judges skilled in the law administered justice in cases of serious felonies and heard appeals in regional courts, while Justices of the Peace, appointed from local citizenry, handled lesser offenses and administrative duties. Lancaster County was well-served by its early Justices of the Peace. Most of the men appointed were exception- al citizens, and many had served in the Pennsylvania Assembly as legislators. The provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 required for the first time that local courts have a presiding Judge “learned in the law”.

William Augustus Atlee was commissioned as the first President Judge of the Lancas- ter County Court under the 1790 Constitution. He held court in a structure in Penn Square, with the first session extended over four days, beginning October 31, 1791. The two trials held during that term involved theft, one of a cow and one of a horse. The horse theft case had been ordered held over for re-trial by order of the pre-constitutional court, and the alleged cow thief was cleared on the condition that he pay court costs.

Thus, both as to a place in which to conduct business and the beginnings of a case load, the 250 years of the constitutional judiciary we now celebrate owes a great debt to the sixty-two years of colonial and commonwealth judiciary which preceded it, and to William Penn’s foresight.

After Lancaster County was established in May of 1729, the new Lancaster County Court held its first session in August 1729 at Postlethwaite’s Tavern. In 1737, the Coun- ty’s first Courthouse was constructed in the square. Here, Indian Chiefs met with the British in 1744, during the ensuing four-year war with France. It was also in this Court- house that the Continental Congress met on September 27, 1777 and that the Pennsyl- vania General Assembly met during the British occupation of Philadelphia. In 1786, after this Courthouse was destroyed by fire, another was constructed in the square and used until 1853. In 1853, the Lancaster County Court met in Fulton Hall, now known as the Fulton Opera House, while the present Courthouse was being constructed between King, Duke, and Grant Streets. Sessions began here in 1854, and in 1977, the Court- house was expanded by an addition along Duke Street.

Pursuant to Pennsylvania’s 1790 Constitution, Judge Atlee received his commis- sion for life subject to removal either by impeachment or for reasonable cause by the Governor upon a two-thirds vote of both branches of the legislature. In 1838, the new Constitution allowed for ten-year judicial appointments by the Governor with Senate approval. Later, an 1850 amendment removed all sitting judges and replaced them with judges selected by popular election. In 1874, that term was set at ten years, although Justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were elected for twenty-one year terms. The 1968 amendments to the Constitution allowed for judges to be selected by popular election for their initial ten-year term and thereafter stand for either election or reten- tion.

Prior to the 1968 amendments, judges who were appointed to the Common Pleas bench also sat as Judges of the Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Jail Delivery and the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace. Oyer and Terminer Courts tried felony cases and the Quarter Sessions Courts tried misdemeanors. The difference in court names made no difference in court functioning. The 1968 Constitutional amendments created a unified judicial system from the District Justice Court through the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Orphans’ Court was declared a division of the Court of Common Pleas; the two had previously been separate. Major legislative efforts, most notable in 1976, 1978, and 1980, have served to modernize, organize, and rationalize the administration of justice for Pennsylvania citizens.

Lancaster County Judges and Court Officials have often set the example for other court systems with innovative programs to improve the administration of justice. In 1960, the Court created a separate Domestic Relations division. With the cooperation of local industry, the Court implemented a Work Release program at the Lancaster Coun- ty Prison to encourage restitution to the victim and to promote rehabilitation of the offender. In 1980, a Special Offenders Services project was inaugurated within the Proba- tion and Parole Department of the Lancaster County Court. This project has received national recognition for its work in supervising persons with mental retardation who have been convicted of crimes.

Past Judges

William Augustus Atlee: (PJ) T. Roberts Appel: (PJ of OC) Judge 1791-1793; Died 9/9/1793 Judge 10/18/1940-1949; Died 11/13/1950

John Joseph Henry: (PJ) Joseph B. Wissler: (PJ) Judge 1794-1810; Died 4/15/1811 Judge 1/1942-1/1972; Died 5/8/1983

Walter Franklin: (PJ) John L. Bowman: (PF of OC) Judge 1/18/1811-2/7/1836; Died 2/7/1836 Judge 4/19/1949-1/1970; Died 11/2/1977

Charles Ogle: William G. Johnstone, Jr.: (PJ) Judge 4/1/1836; Judge 1/1956-1/1976; Died 6/18/1990 Resigned July 1836 without having taken his seat W. Hensel Brown: (PJ) Oristus Collins: (PJ) Judge 1/24/1966-1/1978; Died 8/7/1988 Judge 8/8/1836-7/1839 Anthony R. Appel: (PJ) Benjamin Champneys: (PJ) Judge 1/1970-1/1990 Judge 7/1839-10/8/1842 Paul A. Mueller, Jr.: (PJ) Ellis Lewis: (PJ) Judge 1/1976-1/1996 Judge 1/14/1843-11/14/1851 Ronald L. Buckwalter: Henry G. Long: (PJ) Judge 1/1980-1/2000 Judge 11/17/1851-12/1871 Louise G. Herr: Alexander L. Hayes: Judge 1/1986-4/30/1992; Died 4/30/1992 Judge 4/13/1854-1/1875 Wilson Bucher: John B. Livingston: (PJ) Judge 1972-1982; Judge 12/1881-2/13/04; Died 10/18/1906 Senior Judge 2000-2003; Died 2/4/16

David W. Patterson: D. Richard Eckman: Judge 12/3/1874-2/21/1892; Died 2/21/1892 Judge 1/2/1978-8/8/1999; Died 8/16/2002

David McMullen: Michael A. Georgelis: (PJ) Judge 3/2/1892-1/1893 Judge 1/6/1986-12/31/2006; Senior Judge 1/1/2007-12/31/2007 Henry Clay Brubaker: Judge 12/19/1982-3/29/1899; Died 3/29/1899 Wayne G. Hummer, Jr: Judge 1/7/1980 -12/31/2007; Charles I. Landis: (PJ) Senior Judge 1/1/2008-12/31/2015 Judge 4/11/1899-11/1/1930 Michael J. Perezous: Eugene G. Smith: (PJ of OC) Judge 1/4/1982-12/31/2006; Judge 1/1902-1/11/1928; Died 1/11/1928 Senior Judge 1/1/2007-12/31/2014; Died 8/14/2016

Aaron B. Hassler: Louis J. Farina: (PJ) Judge 2/18/1904-1/1926 Judge 1/6/1986-12/31/2013; Senior Judge 1/1/2014-Present John M. Groff: (PJ) Judge 10/27/1927-9/1/1932 Lawrence F. Stengel: Judge 10/29/1990-6/27/2004 William N. Appel: (PJ of OC) Judge 3/1928-1937; Died 10/10/1937 Paul K. Allison: Judge 1/6/1992-12/31/2007; Died 1/19/2016 Benjamin Champneys Atlee: (PJ) Judge 1/1932-5/14/40; Died 5/14/1940 Henry S. Kenderdine, Jr.: Judge 1/6/1992 – 4/10/2010; Died 4/10/2010 Oliver S. Schaeffer: (PJ) Judge12/12/1932-2/20/1955; Died 2/20/1955 Joseph C. Madenspacher: (PJ) Judge 1/3/2000-12/31/2015; H. Clay Burkholder: (PJ of OC) Senior Judge 1/1/2016-Present Judge 2/2/1937-1/1956; Died 11/5/1983

Christian E. Charles: (PJ of OC) Judge 1/1938-11/29/1940; Died 11/29/1940

2016 Board of Judges

Front Row Back Row

DAVID R. WORKMAN Serving since 2003. J.D. from Widener MERRILL M. SPAHN, JR. Serving since 2013. J.D. from Dickinson University School of Law. School of Law.

JEFFREY J. REICH Serving since 2008. J.D. from Georgetown DAVID L. ASHWORTH Serving since 1999. J.D. from Delaware Law University Law Center. School of Widener University.

MARGARET C. MILLER Serving since 2008. J.D. from Dickinson JAMES P. CULLEN Serving since 1992. J.D. from Villanova School of Law. University School of Law.

HOWARD F. KNISELY DENNIS E. REINAKER, Serving since 2006. J.D. from Cumberland Serving since 2008. J.D. from Loyola PRESIDENT JUDGE School of Law of Samford University. School of Law.

LESLIE GORBEY Serving since 1997. J.D. from Widener JEFFERY D. WRIGHT Serving since 2008. J.D. from University of University School of Law. Pittsburgh School of Law.

JAY J. HOBERG Serving since 2001. J.D. from University of CHRISTOPHER A. HACKMAN Serving since 2008. J.D. from University of Toledo School of Law. Richmond School of Law.

DONALD R. TOTARO Serving since 2008. J.D. from American LEONARD G. BROWN, III Serving since 2011. J.D. from Campbell University, Washington College of Law. University School of Law.

THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE Serving since 2016. J.D. from Florida State University College of Law.

Court Administration

The Court Administration Office consists of five units. Each unit is supervised by an Assistant District Court Administrator with overall management conducted by the District Court Administrator. In alphabetical order, the units are: Bail Administration & Pre-Trial Services Criminal Family/Civil HR, Fiscal, & Purchasing IT Jury District Court Administrator Mark Dalton

Bail Administration & Pre-Trial Services The Bail Administration unit has responsibility for 5 major functions within the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas: Pre-trial Release/DUI Repeat Offender Program, pro se Protection from Abuse Petitions, screening for free legal counsel applicants, facilitation of Act 172 with reference of the use of interpreters for all court proceedings, and full compliance of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Language Access Plan.

Pursuant to the Lancaster County Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Bail Administrator of Lancaster County is designated as a Bail Agency. The duties of a Bail Agency include: investigating and making recommendations to the Court and Magiste- rial District Judges as to the bail risk and modifications of pre-trial criminal defendants, supervising pre-trial defendants released on conditional pre-trial release, and enforcing non-monetary conditions of bail. In addition, the Bail Administration unit supervises defendants in the DUI Repeat Offender Program (DROP) as well pre-trial release defendants released on Electronic Monitoring. The purpose and goal of the pre-trial release program is to ensure public safety and the defendant’s appearance for all court proceedings.

The Bail Administration unit is essential in reducing the population of the Lancaster County Prison with the use of daily investigations of all new prison commitments, interviews of potential candidates for pre-trial release, and recommendations of the supervision of the pre-trial release program. In 2015, the Bail Administration unit supervised 772 criminal pre-trial defendants in General Supervision, DUI Repeat Offender Program, and Electronic Monitoring status, saving a total of 96,558 days of jail time for the Lancaster County Prison. With the current cost of approximately $73.00 per day to house an inmate in the Lancaster County Prison, the Bail Administration unit saved county taxpayers a projected $7 million dollars in 2015. As an alternative to costly incarceration, Bail Administration was able to successfully supervise this pre-trial population, which could have otherwise been incarcerated.

The Bail Administration unit is one of two agencies in Lancaster County which provides access to the Court for victims of domestic violence to file pro se petitions. The Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse (PFA) Act requires the Court of Common Pleas to provide access to forms and clerical assistance for victims of domestic violence not represented by counsel. In addition to the Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse Act, in March 2014 the Pennsylvania Legislature established the Protection of Victims of Sexual Violence or Intimidation Act. As part of this legislation, the Bail Administration unit provides access and assistance to the Court for victims of sexual violence and intimidation to file pro se petitions seeking protection. In 2015, the Bail Administration unit provided assistance and access to 745 victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and intimidation.

The Bail Administration unit processes all requests for court-appointed counsel and free legal counsel in all criminal, Children and Youth proceedings, and support contempt hearings. Applicants for free legal counsel for these matters provide financial information to the Bail Administration unit and are screened for financial eligibility as established by court financial guidelines and criteria. In 2015, the Bail Administration unit processed 9,151 applications for free legal counsel for various related court proceedings.

In addition, the Bail Administration unit facilitates court policy and procedures as related to Act 172 of 2006, which requires the Lancaster Court of Common Pleas to provide state-certified or otherwise qualified interpreters for all court proceedings, including the Magisterial District Courts. It is the responsibility of the Bail Administration unit to preserve the rights of defendants, victims, plaintiffs, parents of juveniles, and witnesses involved in court proceedings who are not Eng- lish-proficient. In 2015, the Bail Administration unit provided services for 1,715 interpreter requests for 26 different languages in all 19 District Courts and the Lancaster County Courthouse.

Finally, in 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts launched an ini- tiative to assist, support, and enforce every Judicial District in Pennsylvania in implementing a Language Access Plan. Dur- ing the initial discussions as related to Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, it was decided that the Assistant Court Administrator-Bail would be designated as the Language Access Coordinator for all of the Lancaster County Court of Com- mon Pleas. Since March of 2015, the Bail Administration unit has ensured that any individual that is seeking the services of a Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas agency is serviced regardless of their level of English proficiency. Through the use of mandatory employee trainings, “I Speak” posters, telephonic interpreters, and translation of vital court documents, every individual seeking the services of the Court in Lancaster County is given equal access to the administration of justice. Through the efforts of the Bail Administration unit, all 53 languages reflected in Lancaster County can receive services at all court agency service centers. Criminal The Criminal Scheduling unit encompasses many different duties including, but not limited to, preparing weekly conference lists, organizing and notifying parties of judicial assignments, preparing the court schedule, scheduling requested criminal hearings, collecting statistics, and providing the public with information on scheduled events. This unit is comprised of two Criminal Scheduling Clerks and the Assistant District Court Administrator-Criminal.

The Bailiff unit is entrusted to maintaining peace in the courtrooms. The Bailiff is responsible for checking in those that are present for court. The bailiffs also staff the jury lounge and make sure jurors safely travel from check-in to the courtroom until dismissal. The Bailiff Unit is comprised of one Bailiff Supervisor, thirty-four bailiffs, and the Assistant District Court Ad- ministrator-Criminal.

Family/Civil The Family/Civil Scheduling unit is responsible for the scheduling and processing of custody, divorce, protection, and civil cases as well as various support, Orphans’ Court, Juvenile Dependency, and Juvenile Delinquency matters. Additional duties include custody conference file preparation, assisting self-represented litigants during protection hearings, managing the Arbitration program, compiling civil case trial lists, notifying parties of scheduled events, and responding to inquir- ies from the public and attorneys. This unit is comprised of two Custody Clerical Specialists, the Civil Case Coordinator, and the Assistant District Court Administrator-Family/Civil.

HR, Fiscal, & Purchasing The HR, Fiscal, & Purchasing unit of Court Administration is responsible for administrative work divided into human resources, fiscal, and purchasing. The staff consists of the Assistant Court Administrator, Account Clerk, and Receptionist and are responsible for the following:

Maintaining a liaison between the Court of Common Pleas and the County’s HR and the Controller’s department managing the changes in all court positions and personnel classifications. Directly responsible for Court Administration/Bail Ad- ministration, Jury Services, Judicial Operations, and 19 Magisterial District Courts that include payroll entry, payment of court-appointed attorneys, contractors, and re-occurring utility bills.

The oversight of the annual court budget and maintaining a liaison between the Court of Common Pleas and both the County’s Purchasing and Budget departments, ensuring compliance with all established purchasing policies and procedures.

A vital component of the HR, Fiscal, & Purchasing unit of the Court Administration Office is the receptionist. When visit- ing or contacting the Court of Common Pleas, the receptionist is the “go to” person who serves as an expert by providing direction.

Information Technology The Court Technology unit of the District Court Administration Office oversees court and courtroom technology resource utilization, facilitates a strategic vision for improvements to court technology, and maintains a Court Continuity of Operations Plan. Other responsibilities include maintaining security of court IT systems and data, providing project management for court technology projects, and administration of the Court website. The Court Technology unit also works in conjunction with the County Information Technology Department to provide support to technology users, as well as to maintain technology equipment and peripherals located within the Court. This unit is comprised of the Court Technologist and the Assistant District Court Administrator–Judicial Information Systems.

Jury Jurors perform a vital role in the American system of justice. The protection of our rights and liberties is largely achieved through the teamwork of judge and jury. They work together in a common effort, putting into practice the principles of our great heritage of freedom. The judge determines the law to be applied in the case, while the jury decides the facts. Thus, in a very important way, jurors become a part of the court itself. Each year the process of selecting jurors begins when the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts makes available a list that is comprised of Lancaster County residents from the Pennsylvania Departments of Human Services, Transporta- tion, Revenue, and State. From there, the jury software program randomly chooses names of people to summon for jury service. Any inconvenience and financial sacrifice that might be made to render public service as a juror are greatly appreciat- ed by the judges, the lawyers, and your fellow citizens. It is a strong act of citizenship akin to paying taxes, serving in the military, and voting. The Jury unit manages the daily operation of summoning, managing excusals, and preparing juror lists for each judge. Over 17,000 jurors were summoned in 2015. This unit is comprised of the Jury Coordinator and the Assistant District Court Administrator-Criminal.

Mark M. Dalton District Court Administrator

Russell A. Glass Deputy Court Administrator

Administrative Secretary Training Specialist Sr. Training Specialist

Jennifer Mulroney Annie Flaud Beverly Kirby Daniel Scarberry Chris A. Reed ADCA - Criminal ADCA - Civil ADCA - JIS ADCA - Bail & P/T Services ADCA- HR, Fiscal & Purchasing

Clerical Spec III Clerical Spec III Civil Case Coordinator CJAB Coordinator Clerical Spec III 2 Positions 2 Positions Senior P/T Intake 3 Positions Clerical Spec III

Jury Coordinator Clerical Spec III Senior P/T Spec Svc Account Clerk Bailiff Supervisor P/T Spec Svc

Senior Bailiff Bailiff 4 (PT) 27 (PT) Court Administration LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASELOAD AND STATISTICAL COMPARISON 2005 - 2015

2005 % 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % 2010 % 2011 % 2012 % 2013 % 2014 % 2015 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES Cases Filed 106,307 2.38% 108,838 -2.94% 105,641 12.23% 118,566 -10.46% 106,159 -1.24% 104,838 0.70% 105,574 -4.06% 101,290 -4.00% 97,242 -8.70% 88,782 -1.01% 87,889 Cases Disposed 108,903 -4.85% 103,624 -2.51% 101,019 21.95% 123,189 -8.89% 112,239 -10.18% 100,818 7.49% 108,370 -3.05% 105,066 -5.15% 99,650 -10.35% 89,332 -1.73% 87,785 NOTE: 2015 BREAKDOWN CASES FILED Traffic 60,800 Summary Non-traffic 11,466 Civil & Landlord Tenant 7,301 Misdemeanor/Felony (incl. Private Complaints) 8,322 TOTAL 87,889 CRIMINAL Misdemeanors/Felonies Received 4,837 -2.21% 4,730 0.51% 4,754 2.73% 4,884 1.39% 4,952 -3.55% 4,776 3.64% 4,950 0.59% 4,979 0.64% 5,011 1.08% 5,065 0.20% 5,075 Misdemeanors/Felonies Disposed 4,204 14.82% 4,827 4.68% 5,053 -1.35% 4,985 2.97% 5,133 6.82% 5,483 -6.53% 5,125 11.26% 5,702 0.60% 5,736 -6.99% 5,335 -6.22% 5,003 PUBLIC DEFENDER & FREE LEGAL COUNSEL Applications Filed 7,569 7.19% 8,113 0.10% 8,121 5.16% 8,540 0.93% 8,619 -7.87% 7,941 1.44% 8,055 34.19% 10,809 -8.84% 9,854 -0.04% 9,850 -7.10% 9,151 JUVENILE Referrals 1,783 2.19% 1,822 1.70% 1,853 -8.69% 1,692 -18.14% 1,385 -12.49% 1,212 2.23% 1,239 -5.57% 1,170 2.48% 1,199 -21.85% 937 1.17% 948 Petitioned to Court 552 12.86% 623 -0.80% 618 5.34% 651 -23.81% 496 -3.23% 480 2.50% 492 -0.61% 489 -11.04% 435 -22.30% 338 1.48% 343 CIVIL Arbitration New Cases 167 15.57% 193 -19.17% 156 32.69% 207 -19.32% 167 82.04% 304 -16.12% 255 -25.10% 191 0.00% 191 -36.65% 121 -7.44% 112 Cases Disposed 60 25.00% 75 25.33% 94 -3.19% 91 53.85% 140 -31.43% 96 170.83% 260 -16.92% 216 -11.57% 191 -29.32% 135 -14.07% 116 All Actions Commenced New Cases 1,737 36.85% 2,377 12.37% 2,671 41.82% 3,788 4.75% 3,968 6.43% 4,223 -6.30% 3,957 2.48% 4,055 -18.30% 3,313 -12.22% 2,908 13.51% 3,301 Cases Listed for Trial / Starting 2010 Cases Available for Dispo 204 -9.80% 184 16.85% 215 -16.28% 180 10.56% 199 1508.04% 3,200 89.03% 6,049 40.50% 8,499 19.37% 10,145 12.75% 11,438 8.43% 12,402 Cases disposed, settled, jury, non-jury, 106 -12.26% 93 18.28% 110 -37.27% 69 24.64% 86 1068.60% 1,005 61.69% 1,625 9.11% 1,773 -8.52% 1,622 54.99% 2,514 26.61% 3,183 and (beginning 2010) default FAMILY Domestic Relations New TANF/Non TANF Cases Recd 4,297 3.61% 4,452 -5.05% 4,227 -2.51% 4,121 -2.50% 4,018 -0.07% 4,015 -2.91% 3,898 0.18% 3,905 -5.38% 3,695 -2.33% 3,609 -7.23% 3,348 Modifications (TANF/Non-TANF) 5,131 -5.65% 4,841 -0.33% 4,825 5.53% 5,092 5.28% 5,361 -8.34% 4,914 0.24% 4,926 -0.28% 4,912 -5.76% 4,629 -6.61% 4,323 -6.87% 4,026 Collections: (in millions of dollars) 62,295 2.56% 63,890 0.91% 64,474 0.40% 64,731 -4.06% 62,102 -5.17% 58,894 0.42% 59,141 -0.75% 58,699 0.48% 58,981 -0.71% 58,562 0.74% 58,996 Divorce Cases Filed 1,435 -0.70% 1,425 -0.77% 1,414 -3.89% 1,359 1.18% 1,375 9.24% 1,502 -6.06% 1,411 3.26% 1,457 -1.44% 1,436 -5.57% 1,356 4.35% 1,415 Granted 1,262 5.15% 1,327 -3.62% 1,279 -2.11% 1,252 -7.27% 1,161 11.80% 1,298 15.33% 1,497 -9.69% 1,352 -8.36% 1,239 3.47% 1,282 47.89% 1,896 Custody Conferences Conferences Held 1,071 9.52% 1,173 -1.79% 1,152 0.87% 1,162 -2.58% 1,132 0.18% 1,134 -9.70% 1,024 2.73% 1,052 6.37% 1,119 5.18% 1,177 -10.03% 1,059 Protection from Abuse Pro Se Petitions 600 42.00% 852 27.93% 1,090 -5.87% 1,026 3.12% 1,058 2.84% 1,088 -11.21% 966 2.80% 993 -18.63% 808 0.00% 808 -7.80% 745 ORPHANS' Adoptions Received 206 28.64% 265 -8.30% 243 4.53% 254 -3.94% 244 5.74% 258 -6.20% 242 2.89% 249 -6.83% 232 5.60% 245 -6.12% 230 Disposed 195 25.13% 244 -2.46% 238 5.46% 251 1.99% 256 -3.52% 247 -1.21% 244 -1.23% 241 -7.88% 222 6.31% 236 2.97% 243 Audits Received 62 17.74% 73 -16.44% 61 -9.84% 55 -3.64% 53 -7.55% 49 -8.16% 45 13.33% 51 -19.61% 41 2.44% 42 11.90% 47 Disposed 57 5.26% 60 3.33% 62 -33.87% 41 60.98% 66 -30.30% 46 10.87% 51 -9.80% 46 60.87% 74 -35.14% 48 18.75% 57 3-14-2016 Criminal Court Judges

JUDGE REINAKER, JUDGE CULLEN JUDGE ASHWORTH JUDGE TOTARO PRESIDENT JUDGE CRIMINAL COURT CRIMINAL COURT CRIMINAL COURT CRIMINAL COURT CIVIL COURT CIVIL COURT TREATMENT COURT

JUDGE WRIGHT JUDGE KNISELY JUDGE MILLER JUDGE SPAHN CRIMINAL COURT CRIMINAL COURT CRIMINAL COURT CRIMINAL COURT CIVIL COURT CIVIL COURT FAMILY COURT TREATMENT COURT TREATMENT COURT PROTECTION HEARINGS

Criminal Court

Criminal cases are initiated at the Magisterial District Court level of the Lancaster County Court system. There are nine- teen Magisterial District Court Judges in Lancaster County. During 2015, the Court of Common Pleas held forty-two weeks of criminal court with the eight Criminal Court of Common Pleas Judges. Each of these weeks had two to four judges presiding.

When a defendant is arrested by the police for alleged criminal offenses, he/she is brought before the Magisterial Dis- trict Judge who has jurisdiction over the geographical area in which the crime was allegedly committed. The Magisterial District Judge holds a preliminary arraignment during which the defendant is informed of his/her constitutional rights and the charges; the defendant receives a copy of the complaint filed and the amount of bail is determined. At this time, a date is set for the preliminary hearing.

The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine the existence of a prima facie case against the defendant. If a prima facie case has been established, or if the defendant waives his right to a preliminary hearing, the case is bound over to the Court of Common Pleas where an arraignment is held. Additionally, Magisterial District Judges determine if a case is to be dismissed and may accept a guilty plea if the case is classified as a misdemeanor of the third degree.

Once the case has made it to the Common Pleas level, the defendant is scheduled for a formal arraignment. At this time, the defendant enters a plea of guilty or not guilty. If the defendant chooses to plead guilty, a guilty plea date is scheduled. If a defendant pleads not guilty, the case is moved to a pre-trial hearing where specific issues can be addressed prior to scheduling the case for trial. At a trial, a defendant may have his/her case decided by jurors or a judge. The trial process determines if a defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges brought against him/her. If the defendant is found not guilty, the case is dismissed. If the defendant is found guilty, a sentencing is scheduled by the Court.

Adult Probation and Parole Services

The mission of Adult Probation and Parole Services is to enforce the mandate of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County by ensuring the legal accountability of those individuals under its supervision. This objective is accomplished through individualized direction, client-centered goal coordination, the effective use of community- based resources, and the swift and consistent administration of prescribed sanctions.

Director Mark Wilson Essential Values Operational Goals We believe that protection of the community is paramount. To provide the greatest likelihood of success for the We believe that each person is responsible for his or her individuals under our supervision, consistent with the own behavior and must be held accountable as a member safety of the community, through the use of restorative of the community. alternatives and corrective sanctions. To exercise the We believe that people in our charge can change for the authority with which we have been entrusted with better and that we can be instrumental in providing op- equality and discretion. portunities and resources to direct that change. We be- To perpetually evaluate and adjust program services to lieve that everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity best reflect our values and achieve our mission. and respect.

Office of Supervision Services One of two offices in Adult Probation & Parole Services, the Office of Supervision Services, provides supervision of adult offenders placed on probation and/or parole supervision by order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. The office is comprised of two divisions: the General Supervision Division and the Special Supervision Division, each headed by a Division Director. Each division is responsible for the duties and responsibilities of the various type of services during the course of supervision.

General Supervision unit Special Supervision unit Assessment unit Domestic Violence unit Central Intake unit Drug Court Pre-Parole unit Mental Health Court Medium/Maximum caseloads MH/ID units Sex Offender unit Veterans’ Court Re-Entry unit Electronic Monitoring/Transfer unit/ Low Risk caseloads

Office of Administrative Services One of two offices in Adult Probation & Parole Services (APPS), the Office of Administrative Services, is responsible for the administrative functions of APPS. The Collections Enforcement unit, responsible for collecting court-ordered fines, costs, and restitution, is also located in the Office of Administrative Services.

Our Business Manager, Administrative Analyst, and all of Operations Support are also part of Administrative Services. This office works directly with the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas District Court Administration office, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, and various other probation/parole and criminal justice agencies within the Commonwealth.

Providing effective community corrections is a “man-power intensive” business. APPS’ budget reflects this notion in that more than ninety percent (90%) of our budget is payroll services, while less than ten percent (10%) is operations/administration.

Proposed 2016 agency expenses total $10,123,500.

In 2016, the Court/APPS will again make substantial contributions to organizational expenses by offsetting the entire expenses of five APPS cost centers (B1127, B1131, B1147, B1148, B1149) with matching revenue which is generated by supervision/administrative fees. In other words, these five cost centers operate at no cost to the County general fund. In addition to revenue generated by supervision/administrative fees, APPS generates revenue through other sources such as electronic monitoring fees, community service insurance fees, etc. This fee-based revenue goes directly to the County general fund.

Additionally, it is anticipated that the Court/APPS will contribute $1,000,000 as a “County contributions” amount. This revenue is generated via the supervision fee and administrative fee revenue accounts of B1126.

Treatment Courts

Adult Drug Court The Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas has instituted a voluntary Adult Drug Court based on proven national research and program models. This Treatment Court targets primarily offenders who are ‘high risk/high needs’ through its evaluation process. This provides the participant an opportunity to pursue treatment for their addiction(s), while productively addressing associated legal problems.

The Lancaster County Adult Drug Court has two possible tracks: 1. predisposition, or 2. sentence/probation violation.

For participants whose cases are predisposition, sentencing will be deferred pending completion of the Drug Court program. Upon successful completion of the Drug Court program, including payments of fines, costs, and restitution, the participant’s charges may be reduced, dismissed, or the District Attorney’s Office will seek to expunge the pertinent charges as previously agreed, subject to court approval.

For participants who are post-sentence/probation violation, successful completion of Drug Court may result in the reduction or termination of any remaining supervision; however, these records cannot be expunged.

Once accepted, program participants can expect frequent contact with the Adult Drug Court Judge, probation officer, treatment providers, and the Drug Court Team. The Drug Court Program involves a minimum time commitment of twelve months, followed by a period of Aftercare. The length of the Aftercare component is based on the criminal charges for which the participant is being supervised; one year for misdemeanors and three years for felonies. Once the participant graduates from the Drug Court Program itself, including payment in full of all associated fines and costs, the criminal charges filed against the participant will be dismissed. After the participant successfully completes the Aftercare component, the District Attorney’s Office will agree to seek to expunge the pertinent charges as previously agreed, subject to court approval. For probation/parole violations, any remaining term of supervision the participant has may be terminated; however, probation/parole violations cannot be expunged.

If the participant is accepted into the Adult Drug Court Program, the participant will be expected to participate in and complete numerous pro-social, treatment-oriented activities. Typically, these include AA/NA meetings or approved alternatives, such as Al-Anon, Nar-Anon, Step to Freedom, group and individual therapy, weekly court appearances, community service, probation appointments, and random drug testing. As each participant requires a different level of intervention based on need and progress, the participants’ specific needs may require the participant to be involved in other related activities.

As a participant, they can expect to receive a sanction if they violate the Adult Drug Court Program rules or fail to achieve certain Phase requirements. Typical violations that may be sanctioned include: missed appointments, failed or adulterated drug tests, new arrests/charges, and lack of participation in treatment. Sanctions will be imposed relative to the violation, and progressive in nature. Sanctions may include: essays, loss of incentives, demotion in phase, fines, curfew restrictions, incarceration, and termination from the Adult Drug Court Program. The Adult Drug Court Team reserves the right to impose these and/or other sanctions appropriate to each particular participant and violation.

In turn, if the participant maintains purposeful and positive participation in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Adult Drug Court, the participant may receive appropriate incentives as well. These incentives will be determined by the Adult Drug Court Team and specific rewards will depend on available resources. Historically, this has included donated gift cards from area businesses as well as Drug Court-purchased gift cards made possible through donations.

Adult Mental Health Court Lancaster County Adult Mental Health Court is a specialty court program for criminal offenders diagnosed with a serious mental illness. Offenders can be referred to the program by police officers, Magisterial District Judges, attorneys, probation officers, case managers, prison staff, judges, family members, and other agencies or individuals who come into contact with an offender who might qualify for the program.

Referral applications are reviewed by the Mental Health Court Coordinator to determine if the offender meets the program’s initial eligibility criteria. If the offender does meet initial eligibility criteria, the application is forwarded to the Lan- caster County MH/MR office, who will determine if the offender is eligible and appropriate for case management services under their guidelines. Upon approval from MH/MR, the application is forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office, who will determine if the offender and the underlying charges are appropriate for the program based on such factors as the offender’s criminal history, the circumstances of the crime involved, and input from the crime victim and prosecuting officer. The Mental Health Court Treatment Team evaluates the suitability of each referral. An offender is either accepted into Mental Health Court, referred to Special Offenders Services, or referred back to the standard criminal justice system.

Participation in Mental Health Court is voluntary. Informed consent will be obtained for evaluation and consideration by the Court Team. The Lancaster County Mental Health Court is a program which has two possible tracks:

1. pretrial diversion, or 2. post-sentence.

For participants whose cases are diversion, sentencing will be deferred pending completion of the Mental Health Court program. Upon successful completion of the Mental Health Court program, including payments of fines, costs, and restitution, the participant’s charges may be reduced, dismissed, or the District Attorney’s Office will seek to expunge the pertinent charges as previously agreed, subject to court approval. For participants who are post-sentence, successful completion of Mental Health Court may result in the reduction or termination of any remaining supervision; however, these records cannot be expunged.

An offender accepted into Mental Health Court is provided with a mental health case manager through the Lancaster County Office of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services and a specialized mental health probation officer through Lancaster County Adult Probation and Parole Services. Working together, this team of individuals assists the offender under Mental Health Court supervision by assessing service needs and availability and monitoring offender compliance with services and participation in treatment/supervision plans.

Mental Health Court participants are expected to honor an approximate 12 to 18 month commitment to the program, which consists of four phases. Phase I is intensive and requires frequent contact with the participant’s probation officer and case manager, as well as weekly court appearances. Offenders who successfully complete the requirements of a given phase (a period of approximately 3 to 6 months) are promoted to the next phase. With each successive phase, and as long as they continue to meet program and treatment requirements, offenders are monitored less frequently and less in- tensely.

A participant can expect to receive a sanction if they violate the Mental Health Court program rules or fail to achieve certain phase requirements. Typical violations that may be sanctioned include: missed appointments, failed or adulterated drug tests, new arrests/charges, dishonesty, and lack of participation in treatment. Sanctions will be imposed relative to the violation, and will be progressive in nature. Sanctions may include but are not limited to: essays, loss of privileges, phase demotion, community service, additional fines, curfew restrictions, incarceration, and termination from the Mental Health Court program. The Mental Health Court team reserves the right to impose these and/or other sanctions appropriate to each particular participant and violation.

In turn, if the participant maintains purposeful and positive participation in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Mental Health Court, the participant may receive appropriate incentives and recognition as well. The method of recognition will be determined by the Mental Health Court team and specific rewards will depend on available resources.

Veterans’ Court Lancaster County’s Veterans’ Court is a treatment court based on proven national research and program models of Drug Courts, as well as successfully implemented Veterans’ Courts in jurisdictions nationwide. This provides the participant an opportunity to pursue appropriate treatment, while productively addressing associated legal problems.

The Lancaster County Veterans’ Court is open to any current or former member of any branch of the military, including the Reserves and National Guard. Referrals will be accepted after criminal charges have been filed and the case has been forwarded to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas for further disposition. Any felony or misdemeanor charge will be considered, with the exception of homicide or registerable sex offenses. Referrals will also be accepted for criminal defendants who are before the Court of Common Pleas for alleged violations of existing probation/parole sentences, or as a condition of an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD).

Participation in Veterans’ Court is voluntary. Informed consent will be obtained for evaluation and consideration by the Court team and again at the point of acceptance into Veterans’ Court.

For participants whose cases are on the non-diversionary track, successful completion of Veterans’ Court program, including payments of fines, costs, and restitution, may result in the reduction or termination of any remaining supervision; however, these records cannot be expunged.

Once accepted, program participants can initially expect weekly contact with the Veterans’ Court judge and frequent contact from their probation officer, treatment providers, Veterans’ Justice Outreach worker, and the Veterans’ Court team. Participants will proceed through four phases of engagement.

Accepted participants will be assigned a Veteran Mentor. V eteran Mentors are veterans of the armed services who vol- unteer their time to assist participants in the court. Veteran Mentors are not part of the Veterans’ Court team, but rather are a resource designed to provide advice, personal experiences, recommendations, and guidance to veterans involved with the legal system. A Mentor will be assigned to each veteran participant (offender). This unique relationship promotes and fosters, through encouragement, a “can do” attitude in the participant; the participants become motivated to accomplish their goals in treatment, to feel that they are not alone, and to know that the Mentor and the court are there for them.

The Lancaster County Veterans’ Court is a post-plea/pre-sentence court which has three possible tracks: 1. diversion 2. modified 3. non-diversion.

For participants whose cases are on the diversionary track, sentencing will be deferred pending completion of the Veterans’ Court program. Upon successful completion of the Veterans’ Court program, including payments of fines, costs, and restitution, the participant’s charges may be reduced, dismissed, or the District Attorney’s Office may agree to expunge the pertinent charges as previously agreed, subject to court approval.

For participants whose cases are on the modified track, sentencing will be deferred pending completion of the Veter- ans’ Court program. They will plead guilty to a minimum of two specific offenses, one more serious than the other. Upon successful completion of the Veterans’ Court program, including payments of fines, costs, and restitution, the more serious charge will be dismissed.

Accepted participants will also be expected to participate in and complete numerous pro-social, treatment-oriented activities based on an individualized treatment plan. Typically, these may include but are not limited to: meetings with Veteran Mentors, AA/NA Meetings (or approved alternatives), group and individual therapy, medication management/psychiatrist appointments, regular appointment with a Veterans’ Justice Outreach worker, weekly court appearances, community service, probation appointments, and random drug testing. As each participant requires a different level of intervention based on need and progress, the participants’ specific needs may require the participant to be involved in other related activities.

A participant can expect to receive a sanction if they violate the Veterans’ Court program rules or fail to achieve certain Phase requirements. Typical violations that may be sanctioned include: missed appointments, failed or adulterated drug tests, new arrests/charges and lack of participation in treatment. Sanctions will be imposed relative to the violation, and will be progressive in nature. Sanctions may include: essays, loss of privileges, phase demotion, additional fines, curfew restrictions, incarceration, and termination from the Veterans’ Court program. The Veterans’ Court team reserves the right to impose these and/or other sanctions appropriate to each particular participant and violation.

In turn, if the participant maintains purposeful and positive participation in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Veterans’ Court, the participant may receive appropriate recognition as well. The method of recognition will be determined by the Veterans’ Court team and specific rewards will depend on available resources.

Court Facility Dog: Hamlet

Hamlet is a facility dog utilized by the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and handled by Adult Probation and Pa- role Services. His role is to work primarily with participants of the Veterans’ Court and Mental Health Court programs. Par- ticipants of these programs experience serious mental illness, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), addiction, or a combination. The goal is to lessen their stress and anxiety during activities such as court appearances before the judges and office visits with probation officers or other outside supports/resources. With decreased anxiety, participants may be more comfortable being honest, open, and forthcoming with court officials and members of their support system thus allowing these entities to better determine what treatment and resources are needed; this will potentially allow for more effective progression through both the program and their mental health and/or substance abuse recovery. Hamlet is also utilized in the Adult Probation office outside of the Treatment Courts. In this capacity, Hamlet spends time with clients in the office while they meet with their probation officer; by lowering their stress and anxiety the probation officer is able to conduct a more productive, supportive, and goal-oriented appointment. Hamlet is wonderful with children and is used to interact with them so their parent can focus on the meeting with their probation officer.

Mark Wilson Director

Brett Cole Teri Miller-Landon Deputy – Supervision Services Deputy – Administrative Services

Division Director Division Director

Collection Unit Sex Offender Unit Specialty Court Coord Per-Parole Unit Central Intake Unit Supv + 4 POs + 5 Staff Supv + 6 POs Supv + 7 POs Supv + 4 POs Supv + 7 ISS

EMU/Transfer Unit / Support Operations Max/Med Caseload Assessment Unit SOS Unit Low Risk Unit Supv + 10 Staff Supv +9 POs Sup +9 POs Supv + 6 POs Supv + 10 POs

Administrative Max/Med Caseload Max/Med Caseload Re-Entry Unit DV Unit Analyst Supv +9 POs Supv +9 POs Supv + 10 POs Supv + 10 POs

Business Manager Max/Med Caseload Supv +9 POs Adult Probation & Parole Services Civil Court Judges

JUDGE CULLEN JUDGE ASHWORTH JUDGE WRIGHT CRIMINAL COURT CRIMINAL COURT CRIMINAL COURT CIVIL COURT CIVIL COURT CIVIL COURT TREATMENT COURT TREATMENT COURT

JUDGE MILLER JUDGE BROWN, III CRIMINAL COURT CIVIL COURT CIVIL COURT FAMILY COURT TREATMENT COURT PROTECTION HEARINGS

Civil Court

The amount of damages being sought in a civil law suit determines in which court the action is filed. Claims for $12,000 or less may be heard by District Judges. Otherwise, civil actions are filed in the Court of Common Pleas. Within the Court of Common Pleas, lawsuits seeking damages of $50,000 or less are usually heard by a panel of arbitrators. An arbitration panel consists of three attorneys selected by the court, who hear evidence in a case and render a decision.

In a civil jury trial case, a complaint is filed at the Prothonotary’s Office of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. The person seeking damages is called the plaintiff. An answer to the complaint is then filed by the person against whom the suit was brought, the defendant, or by their attorney. In the answer, the defendant admits or denies the allegations made by the plaintiff in the complaint.

Next, the attorneys for the litigants engage in a process called discovery. During discovery, each attorney gathers the information needed to prepare his/her case for trial. Some ways of gathering information include the sending of written in- terrogatories for the other party to answer or the talking of oral dispositions, before a court reporter, from experts and witnesses.

Often the attorneys will file pre-trial motions asking the Court to decide legal issues about the lawsuit or to solve a dispute arising from the discovering process. The court renders a decision on a pre-trial motion in the form of an order, which is frequently accompanied by an opinion to explain the decision.

When the case is ready to go to trial, a pre-trial conference is scheduled with the attorneys and the assigned judge. This conference is designed to explore the possibility of settling the dispute and to clarify the issues to be presented at the trial if a settlement cannot be reached. After the pre-trial conference, the court issues a trial date. At the trial, evidence is presented by both parties, and the jury renders a verdict either in favor of the plaintiff or in favor of the defendant. If the verdict is in the plaintiff’s favor, the jury also determines the monetary damages to be awarded.

In 2015, 3,301 new civil lawsuits were filed in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. Through meetings between litigants and their attorneys, voluntary settlements can be reached in many cases, and a trial can be avoided.

Family & Juvenile Court Judges

JUDGE GORBEY JUDGE WORKMAN JUDGE HACKMAN JUDGE REICH FAMILY COURT FAMILY COURT FAMILY COURT FAMILY COURT JUVENILE DEPENDENCY JUVENILE DELINQUENCY JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROTECTION HEARINGS

JUDGE HOBERG JUDGE BROWN, III JUDGE SPAHN JUDGE SPONGAUGLE ORPHANS’ COURT CIVIL COURT CRIMINAL COURT FAMILY COURT JUVENILE DEPENDENCY FAMILY COURT FAMILY COURT JUVENILE DEPENDENCY PROTECTION HEARINGS PROTECTION HEARINGS

Family Court

Family Court matters include custody and visitation of children, support, paternity, divorce actions and equitable division of marital property, as well as domestic violence and abuse cases. Cases are assigned to judges on a one judge/one family basis, which means that once a case is assigned it remains with that judge for all related proceedings. Some aspects of family cases, notably divorce and custody matters, may be heard before quasi-judicial officers, masters, or conference officers, who are appointed by the court to make recommendations to the assigned judge. The one judge/one family approach ensures effective control in the processing of cases and the implementation of ever-changing laws, Rules of Procedure, and Appellate Court decisions.

Binns Park, 150 North Queen Street, Lancaster, Pa

Domestic Relations

The Child Support Enforcement Program is a cooperative endeavor between Federal, State, and local governments. As a recipient of Title IV-D Social Security Act funds, Pennsyl- vania is required to enter into an agreement (known as the "Cooperative Agreement") with Courts of Common Pleas and the County Commissioners. The purpose of the agreement is to maintain and improve the effectiveness of the Title IV-D Child Support Enforcement Pro- gram.

The Domestic Relations Section (DRS) is the provider of child support services in Lancas- ter County under the federal child support program (Title IV-D). These services include: Director Diane Fralich Filing services for child support, spousal support, and/or alimony pendente lite actions Paternity establishment Support Order establishment and modification of existing support orders Enforcement of Support Orders - including financial and medical provisions of Support Orders.

Open Cases: 1960- 1,970 2015- 17,357

Information specific to the Lancaster County DRS is The PA Child Support website is an innovative solu- available at the Lancaster County Court website. More tion for providing child support information to the general information on the Pennsylvania Child Support child support community and alleviating some of the Program is available at the Pennsylvania Child Support customer service demands in the DRS offices. It is an Program website, or by calling the Pennsylvania Child easy way to access child support program information Support Helpline at 800-932-0211. and case details.

The Lancaster County Domestic Relations Section of the court was established in 1960, at which time the responsibilities included establishment of support orders and collection of support payments. With technological advances, the child support program has changed dra- matically over the years. Technology allows the DRS to identify a parent's available income sources, determine a parent's ability to pay, and enter realistic orders based on this information. The use of available technology also allows the DRS to provide mobile-friendly customer service. Office Conferences Conducted:

1960 702 2015 16,851 Team Concept

As a result of the numerous program changes, in 2014 a team concept was implemented to manage support cases in the Lancaster DRS. Five teams were created. Each team is comprised of 1 Supervisor, 2 senior conference officers, 6 conference officers, and 2 support staff. Each team is assigned an alphabetical caseload and is responsible for the establishment, modification, enforcement, and management of all orders associated with their caseload. This con- Support Collected: cept enables staff to provide personalized and efficient 1960 $1,158,009 service to child support clients. It also allows the team to

2015 $58,995,719 intervene early to build compliance and payment con- sistency.

Mobile Access to Child Support Information

The PA Child Support website (CSWS) Mobile Solution was launched in 2015; it is a mobile-friendly version of the existing PA Child Support website. Currently, the PA CSWS is accessed approximately 18,000 times per day. It is esti- mated that 67% of Pennsylvania child support case members have the ability to access the PA CSWS via a mobile device. Smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices are becoming part of everyday life and are also becoming the preferred method of accessing online content. The PA CSWS Mobile Solution is intended to provide an easier way New Support filings: Modification petitions filed: to access all Pennsylvania child support services for child 1960- 551 1960- 429 2015- 3,348 2015- 4,026 support case members, as well as the general public.

E-Services Customer Service Representatives

As part of the federal child support program, DRS Ini- The Lancaster County DRS maintains a Customer Ser- tiation Unit workers provide assistance to a person who vice Call Center staffed by information specialists who wishes to file a support action against a parent. This free will answer questions and provide information by tele- service is provided on a first come, first serve basis in the phone, U.S Mail, and email. By following the appropriate Lancaster County DRS Office and no appointment is need- prompts when calling the DRS at the Customer Service ed. Appointments are scheduled for clients who need to number, 717-299-8141, callers have the option to leave a file the support action to another state. message on the Interactive Voice Response system 24 In conjunction with the Bureau of Child Support hours a day, 7 days a week. Enforcement (BCSE), Lancaster County DRS initiated an The assigned Customer Service Representative electronic process in September of 2014 allowing litigants (CSR) reviews these messages and takes action by re- and attorneys to submit court documents to the DRS via turning the call or forwarding the message to the appro- the PA CSWS. Documents currently being accepted are: priate team or staff member. As a registered member on the PA Child Support website, individuals may contact New Application for Support the DRS through email messages. Petition for Modification These emails are reviewed by a representative who Withdrawal of Complaint will reply to the inquiry or forward to the appropriate Entry of Appearance staff. The Customer Service Representatives provide Petition for Recovery of Overpayments. prompt, quality service to clients and all persons contact-

ing the DRS. Whether the process is started by the client online or by coming into the office, DRS employees will confirm the information submitted and request any additional information, if necessary. The DRS will also accept and process support documents that have been prepared by the attorney of record on a support case.

Clients who have an existing support case in DRS can register on the PA CSWS to obtain specific information about their support case, including payment information. Clients can also choose to receive email and/or text message notifications for payments received and scheduled appointments.

2015 Call Center Statistics

Email 3,143 IVR Messages 3,731 Calls 49,843

DRS Outreach Initiatives The Lancaster County DRS has developed and implemented initiatives to reach out to specific groups within the community.

DRS Inmate Outreach Program

The DRS provides services to incarcerated clients. The Inmate Outreach Program was created to encourage increased communication between the DRS and clients incarcerated at Lancaster County Prison (LCP). The program has helped the DRS establish a professional rapport with specific clients and facilitate case actions due to the exchange of information. DRS staff meet with clients incarcerated at LCP to answer case questions and/or to provide information about the programs and services available through the DRS. DRS staff visit the prison twice monthly in order to meet with any client who has requested a meeting. DRS staff members access and/or update case information remotely within the Pennsylvania Child Support Enforcement System (PACSES) Database.

DRS Participation in Re-entry Management Organization (RMO) Program

As part of the Lancaster County Prison (LCP) Family Responsibility & Parenting Course, staff from the DRS provide information about the child support program to those transitioning out of LCP and returning to the community. The course participants are provided with an opportunity to ask questions about the child support program and are encouraged to maintain contact with the DRS.

Teen Parenting Program

DRS launched an outreach effort related to a Bureau of Child Support Enforcement (BCSE)-designed program which is geared toward public school districts within Lancaster County. The goals of the program include:

informing teens about the Pennsylvania Child Support Enforcement Program; educating teens about the responsibilities of parenting; reducing child support cases with parents under the age of 18.

As demand for the program has grown, additional staff members have received the required training and DRS’ outreach efforts have expanded beyond public schools to include specialized teen programs.

Veterans’ Program

The Domestic Relations Veterans’ Outreach Program was organized to assist military Veterans’ in managing their child support cases. Many Veterans’ have large child support debts which are a major impediment to their achieving financial stability. Domestic Relations staff assists the veteran in filing for modifications, reducing their arrears, reinstating Driver's licenses, and insuring that they consistently meet their monthly child support obligations while maintaining financial stability. The outreach program also works alongside local Veterans’ Administration facilities to identify and assist any Veterans’ who may be participating in VA-sponsored programs and need help in managing their child support case while participating in these programs. The Lancaster County DRS child support program continues to be committed to program innovation and continuous im- provement as we strive to address the needs of the families relying on child support services. Diane M. Fralich Director – Domestic Relations

Melissa L. Youse Deputy Director

Admin Serv Spec IV-D Fiscal Technician

Staff Attorney Staff Attorney

Cler Supv III Team Supv Team Supv Team Supv PACSES Supv Cler Supv III Team Supv Team Supv Cler Supv III III Admin Asst Conf Off Sr Conf Off Sr Conf Off Sr Admin Asst CS Conf Off Sr Conf Off Sr CSR 2 positions 2 positions 2 positions 2 positions 2 positions 2 positions 8 positions

CS Conf Off Conf Off Conf Off CS Acct Clerk Conf Off Conf Off 11 positions 6 positions 7 positions 7 positions 9 positions 5 positions 7 positions 6 positions

CS CS CS P/L CS CS 2 2 2 1 position 2 2 Positions positions positions positions positions Domestic Relations Juvenile Probation

Our Mission The mission of the Lancaster County Office of Juvenile Probation shall be to, in accordance with the Juvenile Act and the Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure, provide balanced attention to the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability to repair the harm to victims of juvenile offenders, and the development of competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive members of the community and to do so while treating all parties with dignity and respect, affording all that their constitutional and legal rights are recognized and enforced. Director David Mueller

Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) One of the most significant reforms in the history of Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system occurred in 1995, when the purpose of the system was fundamentally redefined during a special legislative session on crime. The Juvenile Act now states that the purpose of Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system is:

“… to provide for children committing delinquent acts programs of supervision, care, and rehabilitation which provide balanced attention to the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed, and the development of competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive members of the community.”

Act 33 of Special Session No. 1 of 1995 amended the purpose clause of Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act to establish balanced and restorative justice as the philosophical and theoretical framework for Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system. The statute clearly defined three goals for Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system:

the protection of the community; the imposition of accountability to repair the harm to victims for offenses committed; the development of competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive members of the community.

Since the statute’s enactment, The Office of Juvenile Probation has devoted a great deal of time and resources to imple- ment policies, practices, and programs that advance BARJ and to accomplish the goals embodied in Act 33.

Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy (JJSES)

In an effort to consolidate the ongoing work that Pennsylvania and Lancaster County have done in the area of BARJ, the Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy (JJSES) was developed, the stages of which began being implemented in 2010. The Office of Juvenile Probation has embraced the mission of JJSES which summed up in its Statement of Purpose:

“We dedicate ourselves to working in partnership to enhance the capacity of Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system to achieve its balanced and restorative justice mission by:

employing evidence-based practices with fidelity at every stage of the juvenile justice process; collecting and analyzing the data necessary to measure the results of these efforts; and, with this knowledge, striving to continuously improve the quality of our decisions, services, and programs.”

The JJSES corresponds to the principles of balanced and restorative justice, the foundation upon which our juvenile justice system is built. Simply put, JJSES emphasizes the use of research evidence to achieve one of the core BARJ objectives: increasing youth skills (competency development) in order to reduce the likelihood that those involved in the juvenile justice system will commit delinquent acts in the future. JJSES is being implemented in four stages across Pennsylvania and including the Office of Juvenile Probation here.

The Office of Juvenile Probation is about the work of achieving our Balanced and Restorative Justice Mission through evidence based policy and practice. In other words, we are integrating BARJ and JJSES.

Our Resources Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory To achieve a reduction in recidivism through the prevention of delinquent behavior, we adhere to the three principles of risk, need, and responsivity. A necessary first step in this process is the introduction and use of a valid and reliable assessment instrument, the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), to measure both a youth’s risk to re-offend and needs. This information can then be used to determine appropriate levels of supervision, to establish measur- able, case-specific goals, and to better allocate resources in order to achieve effective outcomes for juveniles, their families, and our communities. Applying appropriate interventions (i.e., matching services based on those risk factors) can facilitate behavioral change and potentially reduce recidivism. The YLS/CMI is a validated and reliable risk instrument that assesses risk for recidivism by measuring 42 risk/need factors over the following eight domains: • prior and current offenses; • family circumstances/parenting; • education/employment; • peer relations; • substance abuse; • leisure/recreation; • personality/behavior; • attitudes/orientation. These domains indicate areas of need that, if addressed, would potentially reduce re-offending behavior or recidivism.

Evidence Based & Cognitive Behavioral Interventions Our goal then is to employ evidence-based resources, programs, models, and interventions that are specifically created to target one of the domains identified by the YLS/CMI. There are a variety of interventions available to the office which are proving to have positive results.

Our Outcomes The overall goal of the office’s work is to address Community Protection by reducing recidivism. We look longitudinally out two years after case closing to see if the juvenile has remained crime free. Here are some results:

The YLS/CMI outcomes present a picture of the clients we are providing services to:

With regard to outcomes related to Balanced and Restorative Justice, we present the following outcomes:

Community Protection Accountability

$43,131.31 collected - Restitution $6,425.00 collected – Crime Victim’s Compensation Fund

Juvenile Justice Dennis E. Reinaker,

Outcome Measures President Judge

David R. Workman Christopher A Hackman Report Period January 01, 2015 to December 31, 2015 Juvenile Court Judges

Lancaster David H. Mueller, County Chief Juvenile Probation Officer

All data is based on cases closed during the period indicated.

Total cases closed that involved probation, supervision, or other service : 372

COMMUNITY PROTECTION: THE CITIZENS OF PENNSYLVANIA HAVE A RIGHT TO SAFE AND SECURE COMMUNITIES.

SUMMARY:

1. # and % of juveniles who successfully completed supervision without a new offense resulting in a Consent Decree, Adjudication of Delinquency, ARD, Nolo Contendere, or finding of guilt in a criminal proceeding: 334; 89.8%.

2. # and % of juveniles who, while under supervision, were charged with a new offense that resulted in a Consent Decree, Adjudica- tion of Delinquency, ARD, a plea of Nolo Contendere, or a finding of guilt in a criminal proceeding: 38; 10.2%. a. # and % of juveniles who, while under supervision, were charged with a "direct file" offense and subsequently entered ARD, a plea of Nolo Contendere, or a finding of guilt in a criminal proceeding: 1; 0.3%.

3. # and % of juveniles who, while under supervision, were charged with a new offense and whose cases are pending in criminal court: 13; 3.5%. a. # and % of juveniles who, while under supervision, were charged with a "direct file" offense that is pending in criminal court: 1; 0.3%.

4. # and % of juveniles with no judicial finding of technical violations of probation while under supervision: 356; 95.7%.

5. # and % of juveniles with a judicial finding of technical violations of probation while under supervision: 16; 4.0%.

6. Median length of supervision: 7.0 months.

ACCOUNTABILITY: IN PENNSYLVANIA, WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITED BY A JUVENILE, AN OBLIGATION TO THE VICTIM AND COMMUNITY IS INCURRED.

SUMMARY:

Community Service Restitution

# and % of juveniles assigned community service: 167; 44.9%. # and % of juveniles with a Restitution obligation: 94; 25.3%.

a. # and % of juveniles who completed assigned community a. # and % of juveniles who made full restitution service obligation: 162; 97.0%. to their victim(s): 75; 79.8%.

Total community service hours completed: 4,827. Total amount of restitution collected: $43,131.31.

Victim Awareness Other Financial Obligations

1. # and % of juveniles directed/ordered to participate in a 1. # and % of juveniles ordered to pay Crime Victim's victim awareness curriculum / program while under supervi- Compensation Fund Costs: 182; 48.9%. sion: 116; 31.2%. a. # and % of juveniles who paid Crime Victim's a. # and % of juveniles who successfully completed a victim Compensation Fund Costs in full: 167; 91.8%. awareness curriculum / program while under supervision: 102; 87.9%. 2. Total amount Crime Victim's Compensation Fund Costs collected: $6,425.00.

COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT: JUVENILES WHO COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PENNSYLVANIA'S JUVENILE SYSTEM SHOULD LEAVE THE SYSTEM MORE CAPABLE OF BEING RESPONSIBLE AND PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF THEIR COMMUNITIES.

SUMMARY: 1. # and % of juveniles directed/ordered to participate in a competency development activity while under supervision: 370; 99.5%. a. # and % of juveniles who successfully completed a competency development activity while under supervision: 366; 98.9%. 2. # and % of juveniles directed/ordered to participate in a substance abuse treatment program while under supervision: 94; 25.30%.

a. # and % of juveniles who successfully completed, or are actively participating in, a licensed substance abuse treatment program at case closing (in-patient or out-patient): 87; 92.6 %. 3. # and % of juveniles employed or engaged in an educational or vocational activity at case closing: 343; 92.2%.

PLACEMENT SUMMARY: THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION PERTAINS TO JUVENILES COMMITTED TO OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY DISPOSITION. ALTHOUGH OUT-OF-HOME PLACE- MENT IS NOT CONSIDERED A JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM OUTCOME MEASURE, THIS INFORMATION IS OF INTER- EST TO POLICY-MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC.

SUMMARY: 1. # and % of juveniles committed to out-of-home placement for 28 or more consecutive days (excluding detention, shelter care, and diagnostic placement): 32; 8.6%. 2. Median length of stay in out-of-home placement (excluding detention, shelter care, and diagnostic placement): 12.4 months.

Understanding the Juvenile Jusce Process

Crime commied

Police invesgaon

Handled informally by police Referral to a community agency

Referral made to Juvenile Probaon

Intake Detenon

Dismiss—no jurisdicon Detenon Hearing

Warning issued/released Released home

Informal Probaon Released on alternave to detenon Peoned Consent Decree Connued detenon

Adjudicaon Hearing

Charges dismissed

Charges adjudicated

Disposional Hearing

Probaon Day Treatment Foster/Group Care Residenal Services

Secure Care Aercare Services

Released

David H. Mueller Director

Charles R. Shaffer Deputy Director

PO Supervisor PO Supervisor PO Supervisor PO Supervisor PO Supervisor PO Supervisor Admin Secretary

PO PO PO PO PO PO Secretary Sr 7 Positions 7 Positions 3 Positions 7 Positionsonn 8 Positions 8 Positions

Account Clerk

Clerical Spec 6 Positions

Juvenile Probation Orphans’ Court Judge

JUDGE HOBERG ORPHANS’ COURT JUVENILE DEPENDENCY

Orphans’ Court

The Orphans' Division is one of the five divisions of the Court of Common Pleas, and serves to protect the personal and property rights of all persons and entities who are otherwise incapable of managing their own affairs. The name "Orphans" in the name of the Court is derived from the general definition of "orphan" as one lacking protection, not the common association of a child deprived by the death of his or her parents. This division of the Court traces its ancestry back to the old City of London’s Court for Widows and Orphans’. In 1776, the Pennsylvania Constitution formally established an Orphans’ Court in Pennsylvania. The Orphans’ Court was once separate and independent from the Court of Common Pleas. The two Courts were unified in 1969, and since 1970 the Orphans’ Court has been administered by a judge from the Court of Common Pleas.

The Court's jurisdiction extends to minors, incapacitated persons, decedents, trusts, principals and agents under powers of attorney, non-profit charitable organizations, cemetery companies, birth records and marriage licenses. The Court appoints guardians for minors and incapacitated persons to handle their financial affairs and/or their health and safety needs. The actions and accounts of fiduciaries, including guardians, agents under powers of attorney, executors, administrators, and trustees are examined and audited. The Court hears disputes involving inheritance and estate tax and marital license issues. Questions regarding the administration and distribution of the decedents', minors' and incapacitated persons' estates, testamentary and inter vivos trusts, special needs trusts, non-profit corporations organized for charitable purposes, as well as Appeals from the Register of Wills are adjudicated and resolved. Settlements of actions involving minors, incapacitated persons, decedent's estates and wrongful death and survival beneficiaries are reviewed. Authorizations to act as an approved corporate fiduciary are issued by the Court.

As a Court of equity, it is the Court's mission to ensure that the best interests of those persons and entities, who are "orphans" in the general sense of the word, are not compromised.

Magisterial District Court Judges

Front Row Back Row Not Present From left to right From left to right

BRUCE A. ROTH, ESQ. JAYNE F. DUNCAN, ESQ. B. DENISE COMMINS MDC 02-2-02 MDC 02-3-09 MDC 02-3-02

MILES K. BIXLER RAYMOND S. SHELLER NANCY G. HAMILL MDC 02-1-03 MDC 02-3-05 MDC 02-3-07

SCOTT E. ALBERT, ESQ. JOSHUA R. KELLER JANICE JIMENEZ MDC 02-3-01 MDC 02-2-06 MDC 02-2-04 EDWARD A. TOBIN WILLIAM E. BENNER, JR, ESQ. DAVID P. MILLER, ESQ. MDC 02-2-08 MDC 02-3-03 MDC 02-1-02 TONY S. RUSSELL BRIAN E. CHUDZIK, ESQ. MDC 02-3-03 MDC 02-2-05 STUART J. MYLIN RODNEY H. HARTMAN MDC 02-3-04 MDC 02-3-06 ADAM J. WITKONIS, ESQ. MARY MONGIOVI SPONAUGLE, ESQ. MDC 02-2-01 MDC 02-2-03

Magisterial District Courts

Magisterial District Courts are the first level of judicial authority in Pennsylvania and are the courts where most people experience the judicial system for the first time. Magisterial District Judges handle all traffic cases, minor criminal cases, landlord/tenant cases, and civil cases involving amounts up to $12,000. Magisterial District Judges also preside at arraign- ments, set bail, and conduct preliminary hearings in misdemeanor and felony criminal cases to determine if the cases should be dismissed or transferred to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.

There are 19 Magisterial District Judges located in offices throughout Lancaster County. They are elected to six-year terms and, as officers of the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System, may administer oaths and affirmations and take acknowledgements. They also have authority to perform marriages.

The Magisterial District Courts in Lancaster have an annual budget of approximately $4.5 million and represent 14% of the overall Court budget. They have 94 employees, process 90,000 cases each year, and generate annual revenue of approximately $10.7 million, of which $2.5 million is turned over to the county. Recently, the Magisterial District Courts transi- tioned to the PaEpay system for the payment of fines and costs at all of the Magisterial District Courts. This allows an individual to pay fines, costs, restitution, or collateral online from any internet-connected computer, or from the lobby of any Mag- isterial District Court.

The Office of District Court Administration, through the Deputy Court Administrator, provides administrative support to the Magisterial District Judges by preparing the Magisterial District Court’s operating budget, administering facility and equipment needs, assisting in personnel management and case management, providing staff training and professional development, and attending all audit conferences. Administrative assistance is provided to the Magisterial District Judges through preparation of court orders for on-call, vacation, continuing education, illness, recusal hearing assignments, consol- idation and reassignment of cases.

Dennis E. Reinaker President Judge

Mark M. Dalton District Court Administrator

Russell A. Glass Training Spec Centralized Court (DUI/Night) Deputy Court Administrator 2 Positions 7 PT Positions

MDJ Scott Albert Vacant MDJ William Benner MDJ Miles Bixler MDJ Brian Chudzik MDJ Denise Commins MDJ Jayne F. Duncan MDJ Nancy Hamill MDJ Rodney Hartman MDC 02-3-01 MDC 02-2-01 MDC 02-3-03 MDC 02-1-03 MDC 02-2-05 MDC 02-3-02 MDC 02-3-09 MDC 02-3-07 MDC 02-3-06

MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv

MDC Clerk (2) MDC Clerk (4) MDC Clerk (1) MDC Clerk (4) MDC Clerk (2) MDC Clerk (3) MDC Clerk (2) MDC Clerk (2) MDC Clerk (2)

MDC Clerk P-T (2) MDC Clerk P-T MDC Clerk P-T MDC Clerk P-T MDC Clerk P-T (2) MDC Clerk P-T Custodian P-T Custodian P-T MDC Clerk P-T

Custodian P-T Custodian P-T

MDJ Janice Jimenez MDJ Joshua Keller MDJ David Miller MDJ Stuart Mylin MDJ Bruce Roth MDJ tony Russell MDJ Ray Sheller MDJ Mary Sponaugle MDJ Edward Tobin MDJ Adam Witkonis MDC 02-2-04 MDC 02-2-06 MDC 02-1-02 MDC 02-3-04 MDC 02-2-02 MDC 02-2-07 MDC 02-2-02 MDC 02-2-02 MDC 02-2-02 MDC 02-2-02

MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv MDC Clerk Supv

MDC Clerk (5) MDC Clerk (2) MDC Clerk (3) MDC Clerk (1) MDC Clerk (4) MDC Clerk (3) MDC Clerk (2) MDC Clerk (3) MDC Clerk (3) MDC Clerk (5)

MDC Clerk P-T MDC Clerk P-T MDC Clerk P-T MDC Clerk P-T MDC Clerk P-T MDC Clerk P-T MDC Clerk P-T MDC Clerk P-T

Custodian P-T Magisterial District Courts Court Reporters

The duties of a court reporter, often referred to as a stenographer, have essentially remained the same for the past 225 years. The primary task of a court reporter is to capture the spoken word.

Technology, of course, has made the job of a court reporter much easier. From feather quills to computers, the evolution of the profession has been quite remarkable.

Before the invention of an official shorthand, court proceedings were taken down in full writing. Of course, getting everything accurately was probably a stretch, but a basic summation of what occurred was recorded. The proceedings were then put into some form of a legible document, today referred to as a transcript, which could later be re- Director Lisa Miller viewed by the attorneys and judges for appeal purposes.

In the early 19th Century, an American by the name of Isaac Pitman invented a phonetic shorthand theory which enabled stenographers to record proceedings at quicker speeds. This theory of shorthand was adopted by pen writers throughout the English-speaking world. Pitman then produced a varied number of new “editions” of his theory. However, some of his modifications did not bode well with the international shorthand community. One of the major changes was the placement of dot vowels. He reversed the order and published his new theory in his following edition.

This modification outraged the steno community. After spending years training in this system, the users were faced with having to adopt these basic changes if they wanted to keep up with current trends. The British, in traditional stiff upper lip fashion, accepted the changes, stating that the modification would be the last they would accept. The Americans, however, in true rebellious fashion, were less accommodating. Some adopted the new theory; however, others produced their separate shorthand versions, keeping the vowels where they originally were. This resulted in several different versions, although not too dissimilar to the original version.

Fractions of these shorthand versions were used for many years until the arrival of a young, ambitious Irish immigrant named John Gregg. Often referred to as the “Apple Macintosh of the 19th Century”, Gregg produced a new version of shorthand that had many more appealing factors. Still phonetic in nature, Gregg shorthand was more efficient than Pitman. It allowed the stenographer to keep the pen on the paper, so hand movements flowed easier. Pitman’s version had both thick and thin lines, whereas Gregg’s version depended on lighter strokes. Although both versions were utilized, in the end it was Gregg’s creation that won the popular vote. Gregg still remains the most popular version of shorthand to this day in North America.

Advancing technology soon caught up with stenographers at the dawn of the 20th Century with the invention of the first functional stenotype machine. Created in 1877 by an American named Miles Bartholomew, this remarkable machine, com- prising of only ten keys, enabled the user to utilize the keys depressed singularly or simultaneously, to capture the spoken word with a combination of dots and dashes. There were various improvements to this original prototype over the ensuing years. The modern steno machine keyboard that most resembles the keyboard utilized today by stenographers made its debut a few decades later in 1939. Still based on the use of phonetics, the machine enabled the operator to create ‘briefs’, allowing for entire phrases to be taken down at once. Extra keys were added, to make a total of 26, and letters were assigned to each key or a combination thereof. A typical brief, for example, is the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt”. These four words can be written simultaneously, and would look like this on a typical stenotype machine: “kwr a eu r d.” All it took to record this simple phrase was one stroke; all keys being depressed at once. This was transferred to a roll of paper, similar in appearance to a grocery store bill, which was then typed up by the stenographer or a note reader, who could decipher these mysterious combination of letters.

The demise of Pitman/Gregg shorthand pen writers in the court systems began much earlier, however, in 1914 at a national shorthand speed competition. Hundreds of hopeful pen writers crowded the convention, when in walked a group of teenage competitors. Sponsored by the Universal Stenotype Company, these upstart youths were trained to operate steno machines at equal or in excess speeds of the most seasoned of pen writers. These machine writers managed to win every contest and walked home with all of the awards. Alarmed at this new technological development, and fearing for their very livelihood, contest organizers pulled the plug on the national competition for five years. However, by the time the next national competition returned in 1919, the point had been made. Even though machine writers were banned from the competition, it was too late. Machine writers had already begun to replace pen writers in court rooms across America.

Today there are thousands of court reporters employed in various aspects of the profession. Increasing computer technology has enabled court reporters to be useful in other areas besides the courtroom. One of these areas is called CART, Computerized Automatic Real-time Translation. This enables the end user to read almost simultaneously what is being spoken on a computer screen. Specialized software is programmed to translate the reporter’s machine strokes, turning the seemingly unintelligible mass of letters into decipherable language. This is particularly helpful for the hearing impaired, who utilize the services of court reporters to follow live proceedings such as the news, government hearings, sporting events, and even in university settings.

At present, there are currently 19 official court reporters for Lancaster County who produce thousands of pages of tran- scripts each year. As the population of Lancaster County continues to expand and new judges are elected to the bench, the demand for court reporting services will also increase.

Lisa Miller Director – Court Reporters

Rhonda Adams Receptionist – Court Reporters Supervisor – Court Reporters

Court Reporters 18 Positions

Court Reporters Law Library

The Lancaster County Law Library was founded in 1867 by the Lancaster Bar Associa- tion to provide a collection of materials needed by attorneys for legal research. Today the library is no longer part of the Bar Association, but its primary purpose remains the same.

The Law Library is also open to the public and is used quite regularly by members of the general public. The library will celebrate its 150th anniversary in 2017!

In 1867, the library had about 2,200 volumes in its collection. Presently, the library has about 27,000 volumes in its collection, which represents about 3,500 titles. Several of the books that were part of the original collection are still part of the library. The collection consists mainly of what is referred to as primary source material--the actual text of Director Eleanor Gerlott various state and federal statutes, cases, and regulations. The library also has various secondary sources, or books that explain the law, including legal textbooks and treatises, law reviews, and other periodicals and legal reference books. Materials in the Law Library deal solely with American law, and most are technical in nature since they are geared to the professional. Since 1980, the library has maintained a special file of all of the opinions from the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.

Much of the material in the Law Library is still in print format. However, the library does provide free access to Westlaw and Lexis, which are computer-assisted legal research services. About 10 years ago, it actually became more cost-effective for the library to offer free access to Westlaw and Lexis than to continue to buy some of the books in print. The library has converted most of its file of Lancaster County opinions to an electronic format, and this database can be searched from the patron-access PC in the Law Library. The library now also has an online catalog (Library World), which can be accessed from the patron-access PC or the library’s website.

The staff of the library consists of one full-time, professional Librarian and one part-time Library Assistant. They provide reference assistance to library patrons by suggesting sources to consult and interpreting legal cites and abbreviations. However, they do not do legal research for people, and they do not give legal advice. The staff responds to in-person reference requests, as well as those received via phone or e-mail.

Circulation figures have decreased gradually in the last several years, partially because of the increased use of online services by attorneys in their offices. However, the legal community continues to rely on the library to provide access to secondary sources and other materials that they can’t access in their offices, and these types of publications circulate frequently. Library users now also have the capability to e-mail the results of their online searches to themselves, and this is a great new service. Although the nature of legal research has changed greatly in the last 150 years, the Law Library is still proudly supporting the legal research needs of the Bench, the Bar, and the public in Lancaster County.

Judge Henry S. Kenderdine, Jr. Court Self-Help Center

The Judge Henry S. Kenderdine, Jr. Court Self-Help Center opened in July 2004, and it was the first center of its kind in Pennsylvania. In the years before the center opened, the court was seeing more and more people trying to represent themselves in certain types of actions, such as child custody proceedings, no-fault divorces, and license suspension appeals. There were only limited resources available to help these people, so, in 2002, the court began planning for a center that could help address some of these needs. The main purpose of the center is to provide one central location where self- represented (or pro se) litigants can obtain some of the information and forms that they may need to represent themselves in certain types of court actions. The staff in the center does not give legal advice, and they do not help people fill out the forms; they provide an environment where people can access the tools and resources they may need in court.

The center currently has 15 packets available; all of these packets can be purchased for a nominal fee in the center, or they can be downloaded free of charge from the court’s website. The subject matter of the packets is varied, including but not limited to: child custody proceedings, no-fault divorces, license suspension appeals, name changes, summary appeals, certain actions at the Register of Wills office, and certain actions at the Magisterial District Judge offices. All of the packets were prepared by people knowledgeable in that area of law, including court and elected officials, attorneys, paralegals, etc. Packets are updated as necessary to reflect changes in the law.

During the first few years that it was open, the center sold an average of about 700 packets a year. However, since about 2009, sales have been steadily on the rise, and in 2015, the center sold over 1,000 packets. The largest sellers have always been the family law packets (custody and divorce), but again, since about 2009, sales of the IFP (in forma pauperis) packet have also increased. Packet sales, though, only tell part of the story of the success of the center. People really ap- preciate having a place where they can get information that is specifically geared to their concerns, even if after reading the sample packets they decide that they want to consult an attorney.

When the center opened in 2004, it was called the Lancaster County Court Self-Help Center. In 2010, the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution to officially rename the center the Judge Henry S. Kenderdine, Jr. Court Self-Help Center. Judge Kenderdine had passed away unexpectedly earlier that year. Prior to his passing, he had been very active in the planning and ongoing work of the center, and he was committed to the cause of equal justice for all.

Eleanor L. Gerlott Law Librarian

CS-Law Library CT- Court Self Help Center

Law Library / Court Self Help Center Court-Related Offices

Clerk of Courts

Our mission is to effectively and efficiently maintain accurate criminal records for the Courts and citizens of Lancaster County.

The Clerk of the Courts is an independent public official, established by the Pennsylva- nia Constitution, whose duties and responsibilities are set forth in the laws of the Common- wealth. The Clerk of the Courts is elected by County voters to a four-year term and is the custodian of the records for the criminal division of the Court of Common Pleas.

Jacquelyn Pfursich, Clerk of Courts

County Courts In Pennsylvania County court operations in Pennsylvania involve complex work processes and specialized expertise. A highly trained staff in the Clerk of Courts office is essential in order to initiate, process, coordinate, maintain, and archive all the data and documents associated with each case, and have them available to the various users on a time sensitive basis. Numerous County departments utilize case information to make critical decisions concerning incarceration of defendants, drivers license suspensions, and financial penalties.

Our Responsibilities Each year, the Lancaster County Clerk of Courts Office handles approximately 8,000 new criminal court records (adult, juvenile, and summary). Since all documents pertinent to a criminal court case must be filed with the Clerk of Courts, the office is the hub of the criminal court system in the county. All criminal court-related departments in county government rely upon the Clerk’s office for accurate and up-to-date records. All records, with the exception of those involving juveniles, are open to public inspection. The office maintains a staff of nearly 30 employees.

Other responsibilities of the Clerk of Courts include:

 Processing Bail

 Assessment and Distribution of Fines and Costs

 Recording Verdicts and Sentences

 Reporting Dispositions to State Agencies

 Licensing of Private Detectives

 Registration of Constables

 Recording Tax Collector Bonds

 Processing of Appeals to State Appellate Courts

Office of the Prothonotary

Mission: To fulfill the statutory responsibilities in an as efficient, cost effective manner as possible, while focusing on providing exemplary customer service and utilizing automation to achieve both efficiencies as well as improved public access to the civil record of the court.

The Prothonotary is an elected position. This position holds a four year term. The office is the record keeper for all civil filings, including Divorce, Custody, and PFA’s. The office is located in the Courthouse, and is responsible for the filing, recording, and processing of all civil actions, including Magisterial District Justice Appeals, Judgments, Criminal Judgments, Federal, State, and Local Tax Liens are recorded at the Prothonotary’s Office. In 2015 there were 3,301 civil complaints filed, 3,818 judgments filed, and 4,079 criminal judgments. Custody Complaints, Petitions for Modifications, and Custody Contempt Petitions are Katherine Wood-Jacobs, Prothonotary filed in the Prothonotary's Office. In 2015, there were 1,017 new custody cases filed. Once filed, the custody case is sent to the Court Administration Office where a Custody Conference is scheduled with a Custody Conference Officer (CCO). Lancaster County has three CCOs. The CCOs hear cases eight days per month. In 2015, the CCOs conducted a total of 1,059 custody conferences. Of those conferences, only 326 were unable to be resolved and were sent to a Common Pleas Judge for a hearing. Divorce actions are civil litigation and are a very multi-faceted process. In addition to getting divorced, the divorce process also addresses the dissolution of financial and property rights. In 2015, there were 1,415 new divorce cases filed in Lan- caster County. When parties to a divorce action agree, it is an uncontested divorce. When parties to a divorce action do not agree, it is a contested divorce. Contested divorce matters are heard by a Divorce Master. Lancaster County has four Di- vorce Masters, who are assigned cases on a rotating basis. In May 2015, the divorce code was revised to require parties to file specific documents within specific time frames in order to have their case assigned to a Divorce Master. With this amendment, in 2015 there were 79 cases assigned to Divorce Masters. This is a significant decrease from the ten year average of approximately 130 cases assigned to a Divorce Masters. The Prothonotary is responsible to maintain a record of all Protection from Abuse (PFA) petitions, Sexual Violence Pro- tections orders (PSVI) and Protection from Intimidation order (PFI) The PFA and PSVI petition process is started at Domestic Violence Legal Clinic (DVLC) or Bail Administration. The PSVI process is started either at the YWCA or Bail Administration.

The Office of Prothonotary is responsible for the recording and filing of legal papers for the civil side of the court system. These legal papers and documents can include topics and issues such as: · Accepting passport applications · Mechanical, municipal, county, and state and federal income tax liens · Administering oaths · Mental commitments · Appeals · Mortgage foreclosures · Changes of names · Petitions for opening ballot boxes on recounts · Civil actions · Power of attorney registrations · Conduct ceremonies for naturalization · Protection from Abuse · Custody · Quiet titles · Divorce · School audit reports · Issue certificates · Treasurer sale deed records · Judgements

The responsibilities of the elected Office of the Register of Wills and Clerk of the Orphans' Court are two-fold: The Register of Wills is responsible for the probate of Wills and appoint- ing representatives for decedent estates, while the Orphans' Court has jurisdiction over the administration of the estate and distribution of the estate's assets.

As a quasi-judicial officer, the Register may hold hearings, take testimony, review evidence and issue a decree to settle disputes relating to probate. Interested parties who do not agree with the Register's ruling may appeal to the Orphans' Court Division.

The Register also acts as an agent for the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and is responsible for collecting all Inheritance Taxes and relevant filings for Lancaster County.

Besides performing duties pertaining to the administration of estates, the Clerk of the Or- phans' Court is responsible for issuing marriage licenses and maintaining records for adop- Ann Cooper, tions, guardianships, terminations, and trusts. Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans’ Court Sheriff’s Office

The Mission of the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office is to assure a safe environment for our community and an excellent quality of life. We provide a substantial level of services directed in a courteous and respectful manner for the protection of lives, property, and civil rights of all our citizens and visitors.

Duties Mark S. Reese, Sheriff Serve most original process in civil matters and obtain personal jurisdiction for the Court Provide Security/Protection to the Court of Common Pleas and the Lancaster County Courthouse Convey/transport prisoners to and from court and state prisons Provide a K-9 explosive detection unit for use in all areas of the county Assist all other law-enforcement agencies as they may be needed Serve Protection from Abuse orders Serve and make arrests for outstanding Bench Warrants Conduct investigations into and issue concealed weapons permits and licenses to sell firearms Conduct judicial sales of real and personal property, and determine property ownership

Divisions The Civil Division of the Sheriff"s Office is responsible for serving various types of civil processes, to include Protection From Abuse Orders (PFAs), garnishments, and various types of writs, as well as conducting levies.

The Sheriff's Office Firearms unit process applications for License to Carry Firearm Permit and applications for License To Sell Firearms for gun dealers.

The Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office K-9 unit was formed in February 1998 with Deputy Marc Lancaster appointed as the first handler, and his partner, a black lab named Kayla. Kayla retired in April 2005. The Sheriff’s Office’s second handler was Deputy David Bolton, and his partner, a Belgian malinois named Cobra. Cobra retired in April 2010. The K-9 Unit currently consists of two K-9 teams, Sgt. David Bolton and his partner Ronin, and Deputy David Cole and K-9 Edik. Sgt. Bolton was selected to be the handler in September 2004. Bolton handled Cobra for six years, and now handles Ronin. Bolton and Ronin went through an intensive six week police K-9 academy at North East Police K-9 Academy, located in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Deputy Cole was selected in July 2015 with K-9 Edik. They attended K-9 training at Castle's K9. Deputy Cole now trains with North East Police K-9 Academy. Ronin and Edik are shepherd/malinois mixes from the Czech Republic. Ro- nin and Edik are trained in a variety of important skills.

K-9 Benefits: One of Ronin and Edik's skills is explosive detection. Both dogs can detect a variety of different odors, including the odors of bomb ingredients.

Some other K-9 skills include:

Tracking- K-9's track by either ground disturbance or by scent of the person being tracked. Also, during a track, if they locate an article, they will alert by lying down without touching it. Building searches- Ronin or Edik can locate criminals who are hiding in buildings. Deputy protection- Ronin and Edik will protect their handler and other deputies when they are in danger. Demonstrations- Both K-9 teams also conduct demonstrations of their K-9 skills, and explain the K-9 unit skills and functions. They provide demonstrations to schools, clubs, and places of business.

Both teams train everyday. Ronin and Edik, as well as their handler, also train 16 hours a month with trainer Paul Price of North East Police K-9 Academy. Both teams are also certified each year through United Police and Correction K-9 Associa- tion.

Warrant Division: The Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office not only arrests individuals that have active bench warrants in Lancaster County, but also has the unique ability to track down and extradite fugitives from all over the world. By working with the United States Marshals Service, in addition to the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the United States Department of Agriculture, the Pennsylvania State and United States Attorney General’s Offices, the Pennsylvania State Police, and several local law enforcement agencies, the Sheriff’s Office has achieved this ability.

In Memoriam

Judge Judge Henry S. Kenderdine, Jr. Paul K. Allison May 18, 1946 to April 10, 2010 January 6, 1937 to January 19, 2016

A graduate of Dickinson College and Dickinson Judge Paul K. Allison was born in School of Law, Judge Kenderdine served as a 1st North Adams, MA and was a grad- Lieutenant in the U.S. Army before beginning his uate of Williams College and later legal career with the firm Alspach and Ryder in a graduate of the University of 1973. The following year, he became a part-time Pennsylvania Law School. Previous assistant District Attorney for Lancaster County, to his tenure as a judge with the while remaining associated with Alspach and Ry- Lancaster County Court of Com- der. In 1980, he was appointed First Assistant Dis- mon Pleas starting in 1991, he trict Attorney, a position he held until he was elect- practiced law for 30 years. He was ed District Attorney. He was re-elected to a second also the solicitor in Elizabethtown term and served a total of eight years as District and served as a former board Attorney from 1984-1992. president for the Hempfield School As District Attorney, he had a reputation for be- District. He was a practicing judge ing tough, but fair. He was also very innovative. in Lancaster County for 16 years. During his tenure, he created the Lancaster County Drug Enforcement Task Force to facilitate the in- vestigation and prosecution of drug dealers, and the Victim Witness unit to protect and enforce the rights of victims of crime and witnesses. At the conclusion of his term as District Attor- ney, he was elected a Judge of the Court of Com- mon Pleas of Lancaster County for a ten-year term. He was retained as a Judge and began his second term in 2002. As a member of the bench, he dealt exclusively with family law matters such as divorce, support, and custody.

Judge Judge Wilson Bucher Michael J. Perezous November 1, 1920 to February 4, 2016 August 1, 1936 to August 14, 2016

A 1942 Franklin and Marshall Judge Michael J. Perezous returned to graduate, Judge Bucher served as Lancaster after graduating from the Temple an Army Captain in WWII until University School of Law and completed a 1946, then earned a University of preceptorship with local attorney George Pennsylvania law degree in 1948. C. Xakellis. He was briefly a sole practition- er before forming a partnership with Attor- Admitted to the Lancaster County ney Xakellis and Jon Mongiovi, which en- Bar in 1950, Judge Bucher was in dured for 20 years as the firm Xakellis, Pe- private law practice in Columbia rezous, and Mongiovi, until Judge Pere- until 1971. From 1960 to 1964 he zous's election to the bench in 1981. He served as Lancaster County Assis- dubbed the law firm "the United Nations". tant District Attorney and District While serving as a lawyer and a jurist, he Attorney from 1964 to 1968. He was was given an "AV" rating by his peers, elected Judge of the Lancaster which represents the highest level of exper- County Court of Common Pleas in tise and achievements as a trial lawyer. He 1972 and appointed Senior Judge in represented private clients as a criminal 1982, serving until 2000. defense attorney and maintained a general civil practice, as well as a solicitor for West Hempfield Township, the Annunciation Or- thodox Church, and the Lancaster County Institution District. He was also an assistant solicitor for both Lancaster City and Coun- ty. He was retained by Lancaster County voters for two additional 10-years terms following his first, until reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 in 2006.

Acknowledgements

The Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas 225th Anniversary Committee:

Mark M. Dalton, District Court Administrator

Cheri Modene, Committee Chair

Diana Netherton, Committee Chair

Connie Cole Amy Coleman Bob Dungan Colleen Durkin Ashley Ellison Lindsay Elser Gil Figueroa Eleanor Gerlott Scott Kennedy Melissa Kreitz David Mueller Chris Reed Angelica Rivera Pat Russoniello Megan Sawdey Trinidad Spinello Pattilyn Sprout Monica Stover John Wimer Melissa Youse

The 2016 Judicial Services Report Sub-Committee:

Colleen Durkin, Co-Chair

Monica Stover, Co-Chair

Connie Cole

Scott Kennedy

Melissa Kreitz

David Mueller

Melissa Youse