Legal Opinion

Armistead v. Sewell

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County

Decided November 29, 2005No. 97-7837Published

1Opinion of the Court

GRIM, P.J.,

The matter before the court is a custody dispute. The pertinent facts and procedural history are as follows.

The parties were never married. Their daughter, Princess Paige Tiyci Sewell Eisenhart (Paige), was bom on January 21, 1996. On September 24, 1997, they entered into a stipulation and order that granted plaintiff, Robin Eisenhart Armistead, Mother, primary physical custody and defendant, Paul Sewell, Father, partial physical custody.

In 2003 Father filed a petition for modification to obtain more extensive periods of partial physical custody. Mother opposed Father’s petition.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bresnock v. BresnockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Mahoney v. MahoneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Skomo v. SkomoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API