Appeal of LINDA S. DINGMAN and RICHARD A. DINGMAN

In a Matter of a Mail Dispute 	) May 18, 1998
Between     			)
      				)
LINDA S. DINGMAN   		)
      				)
      and     			)
      				)
RICHARD A. DINGMAN   		) P.S. Docket No. MD 98-158


APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT 	Linda S. Dingman
  LINDA S. DINGMAN:   		32 Ololu Drive
      				Winter Park, FL  32789-2821

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT 	Tanya M. Plaut, Esq.
  RICHARD DINGMAN:   		506 Mariposa Street
      				P. O. Box 3708
      				Orlando, FL  32802-3708

INITIAL DECISION

This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Postal Operations Manual, Issue 7, August 1, 1996, Section 616.21 which requires Chief Field Counsel to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to the Judicial Officer for resolution. The mail in dispute is that addressed to Trevor and/or Tyler Dingman, 2405 Euston Road, Winter Park, FL 32789-3416. The mail is currently being held by the Winter Park Postmaster.

Both parties submitted sworn statements, as required by 39 C.F.R. §965.5. The following findings of fact are based on the material submitted by the parties and material forwarded by the United States Postal Service Law Department, Atlanta Office.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The addressees of the mail in dispute, Trevor and Tyler Dingman, are the minor children of Disputants Linda and Richard Dingman. By virtue of a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, issued on December 16, 1997, by the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial District for Orange County, Florida, the Disputants' marriage was dissolved and various other matters, including shared custody of their children, were addressed. (Final Judgment)

2. Under the terms of the Final Judgment, the parents have shared and equal custody and responsibility for the children, with the children living with each parent a week at a time (with certain exceptions not relevant here). Each parent also has ultimate decision-making authority for specific aspects of the children's lives - e.g., Richard Dingman has authority with respect to the children's schooling, while Linda Dingman has authority with respect to medical matters. (Id.)

3. Although Richard Dingman was declared the owner of the property at the disputed address under the terms of the Final Judgment, neither parent now lives at that address. (Id.; Change of address orders signed by disputants in January 1998; letter from Atlanta Office, USPS Law Department).

4. The mail currently being held by the Winter Park Postmaster consists of such mail as magazine subscriptions and mail related to other services (e.g., "Books of My Very Own"), all of which was ordered, requested, and paid for by Linda Dingman or her family/friends for the two minor children (Sworn statement of Linda Dingman; attachments to letter from Winter Park Postmaster).

DECISION

In this mail dispute, each of the divorced parents of two minor children contends that he or she is entitled to receive the mail addressed to the children at their former address.

Under §D042.2.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual, "A minor's guardian may control delivery of mail addressed to the minor. If there is no guardian … either parent may receive delivery of the minor's mail." In this instance, there is no evidence of the continued existence of a guardian for the children.^1/ Further, neither parent has a superior claim to delivery of the mail based on the amount of time the children live with that parent. Accordingly, based solely on the fact that the mail now being held consists of magazine subscriptions or is related to other activities paid for by Linda Dingman (or her family or friends), such mail should be delivered as directed by Disputant Linda Dingman. Because neither parent lives at the disputed address, it is unlikely that a significant amount of mail will be addressed to the children at that address in the future. However, any such mail should also be delivered to the children as directed by Linda Dingman.

This decision addresses only the delivery of the mail and not ownership thereof. Should any mail be delivered to Linda Dingman as a result of this decision that should, more appropriately, be received on the children's behalf by Richard Dingman - e.g., in view of his decision-making authority in specified areas (see Finding 2), that mail should promptly be delivered by Linda Dingman to Richard Dingman.

The attached delivery order should be issued.

 				David I. Brochstein
 				Administrative Judge

1. Although the Final Judgment makes reference to a guardian ad litem, there is no identification of that person and no evidence that the guardian has any continuing authority following the issuance of the Final Judgment.