I still wonder, a clause in an order that says "it may be appropriate to modify the access arrangements in the event of changes such as .......ONE PARTY HAVING A VEHICLE"?
The reason why I have a problem with the wording is that,
1) no access has ever been denied, including midweek. Why link midweek possibility with having a car?
2) one party already has a car
3) I've been in court going 3 yrs and I would hate to return to court out of the wording "one party having a vehicle"
Help me see..why does it seem extremely important to my ex's lawyer that these 5 words remain in the final order ? I am puzzled.
Many thanks,
Inlimbo.
The reason why I have a problem with the wording is that,
1) no access has ever been denied, including midweek. Why link midweek possibility with having a car?
2) one party already has a car
3) I've been in court going 3 yrs and I would hate to return to court out of the wording "one party having a vehicle"
Help me see..why does it seem extremely important to my ex's lawyer that these 5 words remain in the final order ? I am puzzled.
Many thanks,
Inlimbo.
Comment