Here are the basic facts:
Separated 3.5 yrs. Had a case conference and a settlement conference.
Ex and I have agreed on custody and access but the ex wants Police enforcement in the separation agreement. I am totally against it because I don't want my kids exposed to the police. There has never been one incident in the 3.5 yrs (on my part) that would justify having to get the police involved.
Her lawyer sent the following in an offer to settle regarding this:
"The police enforcement can be used as a last resort. Ms. xxxx insists on having the police, in their relevant jurisdiction enforce the provisions of any agreement. Mr xxxxx should not have a problem with this issue unless he intends to defy the agreement. She does agree to modify this paragraph to reflect that this clause will not be used lightly by either party and if it is abused, then the coordinator can review the issue. Most issues can be solved through a parenting coordinator. This clause protects both parties"
I replied that I was against it.
Her lawyer recently replied back the following:
"Please advise your client that the intent of this clause is for the protection of both parties, in the event that either party does not honour the established agreement. There is no intent that the parties will use this recklessly. Perhaps you can suggest some wording that will allow the parties to allow enforcement of the proper authorities, in the event that the children are not returned or if there is a breach of an agreement"
My lawyer didn't recommend having police enforcement although he didn't give me an alternative so I need some advice on what to respond regarding the police enforcement clause. I've searched this forum and it seems the consensus is that a Judge would not recommend it either. I suppose I could stick to my guns and deal with it at another settlement conference, but I'm trying to avoid that if I can.
This is the only sticking point left to hammer out.
Separated 3.5 yrs. Had a case conference and a settlement conference.
Ex and I have agreed on custody and access but the ex wants Police enforcement in the separation agreement. I am totally against it because I don't want my kids exposed to the police. There has never been one incident in the 3.5 yrs (on my part) that would justify having to get the police involved.
Her lawyer sent the following in an offer to settle regarding this:
"The police enforcement can be used as a last resort. Ms. xxxx insists on having the police, in their relevant jurisdiction enforce the provisions of any agreement. Mr xxxxx should not have a problem with this issue unless he intends to defy the agreement. She does agree to modify this paragraph to reflect that this clause will not be used lightly by either party and if it is abused, then the coordinator can review the issue. Most issues can be solved through a parenting coordinator. This clause protects both parties"
I replied that I was against it.
Her lawyer recently replied back the following:
"Please advise your client that the intent of this clause is for the protection of both parties, in the event that either party does not honour the established agreement. There is no intent that the parties will use this recklessly. Perhaps you can suggest some wording that will allow the parties to allow enforcement of the proper authorities, in the event that the children are not returned or if there is a breach of an agreement"
My lawyer didn't recommend having police enforcement although he didn't give me an alternative so I need some advice on what to respond regarding the police enforcement clause. I've searched this forum and it seems the consensus is that a Judge would not recommend it either. I suppose I could stick to my guns and deal with it at another settlement conference, but I'm trying to avoid that if I can.
This is the only sticking point left to hammer out.
Comment