Order Interpretation... again :)

[3junebugs]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MD but order is issued out of PA.

I had hearing in front of a judge on 12/7/09. The NCP failed to appear even with proper service. So my lawyer asked that it be ordered that I retain primary physical and legal custody of our son and that visitation will be upon mutual agreement since NCP didn't assist in transportation once since our last Master's hearing in July.

I got the order in the mail today and it reads as follows:

ORDER

AND NOW, THIS 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2009, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

MOTHER SHALL HAVE PRIMARY PHYSICAL AND LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FATHER WHO FAILED TO APPEAR TODAY.

BY THE COURT:

[JUDGES NAME]

And that's all it says. There is NOTHING about us having to agree about visitation and such like I thought it would.

Does this mean that there is just no ordered visitation? I fully intend continue taking my son when I can. It just so happens on the Saturday before court, on my way to PA, I was ran off the road by a careless driver and my van was totaled. My son and I are sore but didn't sustain any major visual injuries. We are working toward getting another car, but it may be a little bit since we took a loss.

I am sure that his father will interpret the order as I just am retaining physical and legal but that the old order is still in effect. But from my understanding any new order supersedes a previous order, right? If the old order was still in effect, wouldn't the new order have to mention that the old order has been amended or modified?

Thanks!

 

[Ronin]

It appears the new order superceedes the prior order (to include visitation). The lack of reference to visitation in the new order can be interpreted to mean that you got your request that visitation be by "mutual agreement". Obviously, dad will interpret it differently.

However, the judge indicates this "default order" is the result of dad's failure to appear in court. The judge made this order 'without prejudice', presumably to leave the door open for dad to go back to court to address and modify this order if he wishes.

 

[3junebugs]

It appears the new order superceedes the prior order (to include visitation). The lack of reference to visitation in the new order can be interpreted to mean that you got your request that visitation be by "mutual agreement". Obviously, dad will interpret it differently.

However, the judge indicates this "default order" is the result of dad's failure to appear in court. The judge made this order 'without prejudice', presumably to leave the door open for dad to go back to court to address and modify this order if he wishes.

ok - I see thanks! He hasn't filed a modification in years, he just likes to complain But we'll see!