Parenting Plan- How specific should you be?

[tunnelight]

I've never understood why any agreements would ever say anything about new partners. Not the least because any such clause (unless it is related to spousal support) is almost completely unenforceable. But also because those clauses are wrong, why is it anybody's business what I do or do not do with any future partners?

To be clear, the focus is not really what you do with your future partners. Anal it all you want. Nobody cares... and Let's keep that under the sheets. The focus is more so on the child, reasons in 2 posts above.

I thought some of the clauses were silly but I as I stated previously, once joint custody and access were settled, the rest wasn't any Hill for me to die on.

Frankly, why be so opposed to and offensive agreeing to non enforceable clauses if they are in fact non enforceable? Do you have plans to use child as a messenger to surprise the other parent of a new partner ? Or is your ex going to be talking with your new wife to decide what course of action to take for health care?

Why not just agree to them if they are not things you are going to be going against?

Ps. my response was more targeted at Iona then to you Janus.

[tunnelight]

Yep.

To be quite frank- I'm asking tunnelight because I want to be prepared to shoot down all of that nonsense. A partner clause, a non-disparaging clause, a promoting the relationship with the other parent clause, a right of first refusal clause, etc etc etc.

I agreed to them because I knew I would adhere and follow through with them. Can you just imagine going into mediation and I disagree with this, and that, and that other thing, and those things, and this other thing, and that, and this, and that..... I am only agreeing to sole custody to me and supervised access to dad. Oh and I get to monitor his counselling sessions and having 1on1s with his counsellor on a daily basis.

Don't even bother with mediation. I sort of see why mediation didn't work out well for ya.

I'm a contracts lawyer that deals with legal agreements for 95% of my practice.

We don't give 2 ducks if you are a custody trial lawyer. The fact that you're a lawyer alone convinces me that you feen of conflict and litigation... NEW PARTNERS? OBJeCTIOn!! That's NOT ENFORCABLE !! I have a law degree!! LETS SET IT DOWN for a trial!!!

Just set it down for a trial and stop wasting his and your own time while creating an artificial status quo

[iona6656]

Our agreement had 2 provisions:
1. Father's day and Mother's Day: 6pm on the Saturday to 6pm on the Sunday
2. Summer: Even years Parent A had first choice for 2 consecutive weeks, deadline was May 31; Odd years Parent B had first choice, same deadline; if deadline was missed, the other parent got first choice. (not a fan of the forfeiting of vacation time if the deadline is missed). Time start and end was same as transfer days when kids were not in school 6pm.

For the rest of the summer- after the consecutive weeks were chosen- it's just one week with one parent, then switch?

I noticed you said you did parallel parenting. Can I ask how did you decide which parent took which responsibility?

[dftr]

Would love a template if anyone has one available!

[Tayken]

Would love a template if anyone has one available!

See my response to your thread.

[CoolGuy41]

It would be nice to have a provision that allows a parent to take the child(ren) on a 1-week vacation anytime (summer or not) that they have the money, time, and will to do it. Not only am I missing such a provision, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how one would word such a clause in the air-tight way while still sharing legal custody and parenting time with frequent changeovers.

Does anybody have an example of a vacation travel clause that is both flexible and not vulnerable to abuse?

[rockscan]

I think my partners is good but it still leaves it open:

If special occasions, extracurricular activities, holidays, excursions or other opportunities become available to the children, or to [the parents], neither of them shall insist that the residency arrangements set out herein shall be adhered to without exception.

Now I should note that the ex used this for ALL of her stuff and to prevent my man from seeing his kids (they have an opportunity, you can’t deny them this opportunity!!!) whenever possible but if he wanted to do something oh that isn’t in the agreement!!!

[Janus]

I think my partners is good but it still leaves it open:

If special occasions, extracurricular activities, holidays, excursions or other opportunities become available to the children, or to [the parents], neither of them shall insist that the residency arrangements set out herein shall be adhered to without exception.

Now I should note that the ex used this for ALL of her stuff and to prevent my man from seeing his kids (they have an opportunity, you can’t deny them this opportunity!!!) whenever possible but if he wanted to do something oh that isn’t in the agreement!!!

Which means that your partner's clause is actually terrible.

I've said it before, flexibility has to be algorithmic. Otherwise you are setting yourself up for future fights.

[iona6656]

Rocksan- I like the wording- but I think it's open to interpretation which is probably why evil-ex interpreted it to her liking.

It would be nice to have a provision that allows a parent to take the child(ren) on a 1-week vacation anytime (summer or not) that they have the money, time, and will to do it. Not only am I missing such a provision, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how one would word such a clause in the air-tight way while still sharing legal custody and parenting time with frequent changeovers.

Does anybody have an example of a vacation travel clause that is both flexible and not vulnerable to abuse?

What about something like the following


No more than once in any two calendar years, either party may seek a vacation arrangement with the child(ren) outside the main schedule of this Agreement for trips up to 14 consecutive calendar days.

No later than four months before the scheduling of the trip, the parent planning the trip (the "trip parent") shall give notice to other parent (the "non-trip parent") of the location and itinerary of the trip. The trip parent shall make arrangements with the child(ren)'s school to cover any work that may be missed as a result of the trip.

The non-trip parent shall provide a written response within two weeks notice of the trip, and agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the non-trip parent refuses the requested time, they must provide the trip parent with written reasons within the two week time period which must include one of the following grounds:

• the trip will unreasonably interfere with the child(ren)'s schooling as confirmed in writing by the child(ren)'s school.

• the trip is to a location listed on the Government of Canada's 'Travel Advice and Advisories' website as an 'AVOID ALL TRAVEL' location

• the trip interferes with the non-trip parent's scheduled vacation as already agreed upon in writing by both parents

The trip parent shall ensure that the child(ren)'s passports are valid, and have received any required vaccinations as recommended by the child(ren)'s family doctor or pediatrician. The trip parent shall provide a copy of the vaccinations administered to the non-trip parent.

The trip shall not be included or counted towards the division of parenting time as it is meant to be a special occasion, not to be repeated as a regular occurrence.

[rockscan]

Which means that your partner's clause is actually terrible.



I've said it before, flexibility has to be algorithmic. Otherwise you are setting yourself up for future fights.

The whole agreement is like this. The clauses are totally straight forward but his ex reads it how she feels. Just like the law. She chooses how it should be interpreted. Support paying parent will pay a portion of school expenses. That portion will be determined by her. Expenses will be of her choosing.

Personally I think the clause is great and easy to follow. Its the difficult ex that makes it useless.

[rockscan]

Why is a clause like this so bad?

Each parent will have the right to travel with the children for up to two weeks each year. The other parent will provide full consent, passports and other necessary items to facilitate this travel upon receiving full details on destination, expected accommodations and details on activities.

[iona6656]

Why is a clause like this so bad?

Each parent will have the right to travel with the children for up to two weeks each year. The other parent will provide full consent, passports and other necessary items to facilitate this travel upon receiving full details on destination, expected accommodations and details on activities.

I don't think it's bad- the idea of it is reasonable. But if you have an ex that veers towards being unreasonable- you probably need a greater amount of details and super clear wording on how it would work and there better be a really clear description of when it cannot work. 'Open to interpretation' is always the downfall of agreement/contract conditions.

[rockscan]

Im just too reasonable a person because the thing I see is that the kids are both parents kids. One parent treats them like their property. That is the wrong part of the whole thing.

[Janus]

No more than once in any two calendar years, either party may seek a vacation arrangement with the child(ren) outside the main schedule of this Agreement for trips up to 14 consecutive calendar days.

No later than four months before the scheduling of the trip, the parent planning the trip (the "trip parent") shall give notice to other parent (the "non-trip parent") of the location and itinerary of the trip. The trip parent shall make arrangements with the child(ren)'s school to cover any work that may be missed as a result of the trip.

The non-trip parent shall provide a written response within two weeks notice of the trip, and agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the non-trip parent refuses the requested time, they must provide the trip parent with written reasons within the two week time period which must include one of the following grounds:

• the trip will unreasonably interfere with the child(ren)'s schooling as confirmed in writing by the child(ren)'s school.

• the trip is to a location listed on the Government of Canada's 'Travel Advice and Advisories' website as an 'AVOID ALL TRAVEL' location

• the trip interferes with the non-trip parent's scheduled vacation as already agreed upon in writing by both parents

The trip parent shall ensure that the child(ren)'s passports are valid, and have received any required vaccinations as recommended by the child(ren)'s family doctor or pediatrician. The trip parent shall provide a copy of the vaccinations administered to the non-trip parent.

The trip shall not be included or counted towards the division of parenting time as it is meant to be a special occasion, not to be repeated as a regular occurrence.

Wow.

That's really good. Almost separate thread with a sticky good.

I would personally be ok dumping the schooling requirement, because such trips will almost always negatively impact schooling. That said, the "in writing from school" clause mitigates that to some extent.

[iona6656]

Wow.

That's really good. Almost separate thread with a sticky good.

I would personally be ok dumping the schooling requirement, because such trips will almost always negatively impact schooling. That said, the "in writing from school" clause mitigates that to some extent.

What I anticipated there was that one parent might be more involved in the kids schooling and know the academic requirements more than the other- e.g. exam schedules.