Update on my case: I had a hearing today to reveal the results of the psych eval. I really don't know the entire 44 page report but the recommendation of the Psychiatrist was a shared parenting plan with a week on and week off. I'm totally confused. This psych eval was done back in Feb and when the report was wrote was dated July. What is anyone or everyone's opinion on this? In July I got the okay from the courts to enroll our son in a school that is 20-25 min away from where my sons dad lives and and 1 hour and 45 min away from where he works. I am getting married and moving no further distance than I was from my ex before, but it is quite a bit further than where he was located for his new job. How can a psychiatrists recommend a week on and week off schedule when my ex hasn't or can't take our child to school or pick him up. Our child is 5 also. Also in the report it was stated that my ex is immature, irrational, and has a severe alcohol problems needs more counseling than what he is receiving. His work schedule was reveled today in court and he works 8:15am-7pm Monday through Friday and he works 3 Saturdays a month. He doesn't even utilize the time he has with him during the week either. I'm confused why the recommendation when we didn't even have this type of schedule before.
I'm asking for advice or thoughts not a fight. I know this is only the psychiatrics recommendation but how does this impact the judges decision?
Also at the time the report was made in July my ex had just started his new job and the psychiatrist did not know his new working hours/distance ect. He was fired from his previous job because of lack of showing up and his alcohol problem. Previously we were working in the same town, but lived in different school districts. Even with that I find it hard to do a week on and week off schedule because my schedule was only working 3 days a week and his was 6 days a week. I get that maybe the Psychiatrist might still recommend a shared parenting plan BUT with my move, new job, my ex's new job ect none of this was in his report. How does that work? Should it be updated or could his report be invalid?