At least one local court has issued a policy statement in light of Covid-19 regulations:

Policy of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, regarding
custody exchanges and COVID-19 regulations.

Effective March 23, 2020 at 8:00 p.m. Governor Wolf has issued a ‘Stay at Home’ Orders to
Chester County and 6 other counties* to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

Guidelines issued with the Governor’s Order provide that allowable activities and essential travel include
“travel to care for … minors, dependents … ”; and “travel required by law enforcement or court order.
“[emphasis added]. In addition, the Governor’s Office of General Counsel has confirmed to the
President Judges of Pennsylvania’s Judicial Districts that the Governor’s order does not prohibit
necessary travel to effectuate existing custody orders.

Accordingly, it is the policy of the Chester County Family Court that existing custody orders which
provide for custodial exchanges of children are to be complied with, absent true exigent or emergency
circumstances.

If the exchange is to occur in a public place that may create an elevated risk, the parties should consider
exchanging at their respective residences (curbside, if necessary) or such other location as they may
agree.

If a party believes emergency circumstances exist which would justify temporary suspension of custodial
exchanges, he/ she must prepare an Emergency Petition for Temporary Modification of the custody
order, stating precisely the alleged exigent circumstances. It must also state the currently-used
telephone number and email address of both the moving party/counsel and the opposing party/counsel.
The petition should be sent to Family Court Administration via email to smarker@chesco.org or by fax
to 610-344-5974. It will be reviewed by a judge. Once reviewed, if approved for filing, the moving party
must file the original with the Prothonotary and serve it upon opposing counsel/litigant. A telephone
conference between counsel (or self-represented parties) and a judge will be held when service has
been verified. If necessary after conference, a hearing on the record may be conducted via telephone .
At the present time, judicial reviews and conferences will only occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
12:00 noon, Monday through Friday. Telephone hearings will be scheduled at the convenience of the
Emergency Family Judge assigned for a given day.

These policies are subject to change as the medical and regulatory situation evolves. Counsel and parties
are encouraged to use mediation as an alternative to emergency filings. These are difficult times for all,
and cooperation between parents will serve the best interests of their children.

MMD partner Thomas A. Musi, Jr. was recently nominated and accepted by the American Institute of Personal Injury Attorneys as one of Pennsylvania’s top 10 attorneys for client satisfaction.

AIOPIA Press Release.Musi

An MM&D client recently had felony charges nol prossed as a result of quick and efficient work by partner Richard C. Daubenberger.   The client was implicated in a drug sale to an undercover officer in September of 2017, but was not taken into custody until August of 2018.  Attorney Daubenberger successfully argued that the client was not brought to trial in a timely manner and that the charges must be waived.  The Commonwealth was unable to show that due diligence was used in bringing Mr. Williams to trial and, ultimately, the charges against him were dismissed.

Partner Richard Daubenberger obtained a favorable sentence for a client involved in a car crash that injured four nuns. While it was not contested that the accident occurred, he successfully argued for leniency, on the basis that the client did not have a criminal history, but did have a difficult upbringing and suffers from adjustment disorder, anxiety and depression,
https://www.delcotimes.com/news/nun-crash-driver-gets-weekends-probation/article_2b3a185c-024d-11e9-bdf6-8b333d3cc71a.html

We recently had to unexpectedly seek an attorney due to a stupid mistake that could have resulted in a life altering direction with the possibility of facing jail time. The case was unusual due to a registered fire arm being involved with a small amt. of Marijuana. Rich [Daubenberger] was responsive, direct and wanted to ensure everyone understood the options and the direction that was being taken. He was accommodating and accessible for meetings via conference calls and email when needed. He explained the process throughout as it related to hearings, options and what to expect at each one based upon his 20+ years of experience, which was accurate. His knowledge of the process, the court system and legal associates personalities proved to be valuable. His ability to see the good in people and recognize the qualities in people resulted in being able to present the case/facts to the Judge in an open plea decision. The result…NO JAIL time for a felony conviction based upon what the DA sentencing recommendations were (23 mos. incarceration) …but a sentence of 30 day home monitoring and 2 yr probation. THANK YOU RICH for recognizing that all guidelines do not fit the crime and working to keep a path open and impacting a young mans future that could have gone in a totally different direction! We’ll keep our deal and be in touch after probation!!!! (The details MATTER in the law)

Partner Thomas A. Musi recently successfully defended a motion to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, in which the plaintiff sought to certify a class against his client under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  In doing so, Attorney Musi successfully argued that the plaintiff failed to show any common evidence among the proposed class members.  Rather, he convinced the court that the proposed members of the class had individualized issues of consent that would likely result in thousands of “mini-trials” if the class was certified.

Attorney Peter Maganas, head of the Expungement and Pardon Division at MM&D recently appeared at the State Capitol to argue two pardon applications. After Peter presented the cases, both applicants were recommended to the governor to be granted clemency. One case involved a felony gun conviction and another case involved felony drug conviction.

“Richard was my son lawyer and he made good with his promises. Richard was honest and upfront from the start. Richard did not make promises that he would save my son from his “stupid” mistake he did promise he would do his best to keep my son out of jail and he did. My son and I are truly grateful for Richards knowledge of the law. My son ended up with probation and I could not be more pleased with Richard help in this case. I would referral anyone with legal issues to Richard.”