Question for CJane

[TCool]

What is the name of your state? WI

That said, changing custody - unless this was agreed to rather than arrived at after the presentation of evidence and then decided by a judge - is a HUGE endeavor that easily costs upwards of 15K and can take years to accomplish.

You said this in another thread. What I want to know is if custody was agreed on if its easier to change even if that agreement was signed by the judge. I'm concerned about this because me and my ex had a custody agreement written up by my lawyer and then signed by both of us and the judge. So, would that be easier for her to change in court if she decided she no longer liked the agreement?

Thanks much

 

[majomom1]

What is the name of your state? WIYou said this in another thread.* What I want to know is if custody was agreed on if its easier to change even if that agreement was signed by the judge.* I'm concerned about this because me and my ex had a custody agreement written up by my lawyer and then signed by both of us and the judge.* So, would that be easier for her to change in court if she decided she no longer liked the agreement?Thanks much

I am not cjane... but can I answer? She cannot just decide she no longer likes the agreement. The court won't allow parents to just change their mind. There has to be a good reason, or cause, to change the agreement.

I found a site for WI that has some great questions and answers for your state, on this subject.

Any modification can run into the thousands. Contested ones especially.

http://www.legalexplorer.com/legal/legal-QA.asp?Sid=9&Qid=1#quest

 

[fairisfair]

her chances would be better only because the evidence was not what the original decision was based upon.

hearing the same evidence twice rarely provides a different outcome.

Regardless, courts are still reluctant to change a child's living situation without very good cause.

oh, oops, I'm not CJane. LOL

 

[CJane]

I wouldn't say easier... I would say ... less hard.

The difference, really, is in what's allowed to be presented in court.

If you have a trial and present evidence and make arguments, none of that stuff can be used again in the future. That's why, very often, you'll see us ask "How much of this is new since the last order was signed/filed?" Because if it was brought up last time, it's irrelevant now... sort of.

But, if it was an agreed order, the judge didn't see the evidence or hear the arguments and so it's all fair game in a modification.

 

[majomom1]

I wouldn't say easier... I would say ... less hard.

The difference, really, is in what's allowed to be presented in court.

If you have a trial and present evidence and make arguments, none of that stuff can be used again in the future. That's why, very often, you'll see us ask "How much of this is new since the last order was signed/filed?" Because if it was brought up last time, it's irrelevant now... sort of.

But, if it was an agreed order, the judge didn't see the evidence or hear the arguments and so it's all fair game in a modification.

But... also, if it was before the agreement, and not an issue, then you may have to explain why it is a concern now, afterwards.

The fact that you knew, and still agreed, the judge may not consider it a relevant factor now.

 

[CJane]

But... also, if it was before the agreement, and not an issue, then you may have to explain why it is a concern now, afterwards.

The fact that you knew, and still agreed, the judge may not consider it a relevant factor now.

That's true as well.

Just ask stupidhead.

 

[majomom1]

That's true as well.

Just ask stupidhead.

Urgh... I got my own stupidhead bringing up stuff from 15 years ago!

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

If you have a trial and present evidence and make arguments, none of that stuff can be used again in the future. That's why, very often, you'll see us ask "How much of this is new since the last order was signed/filed?" Because if it was brought up last time, it's irrelevant now... sort of.

My question is: is this true in all the states?

My X was bemoaning lots in court (08/2007) on stuff from prior to our court date 10/2001. Mind you, we also had a court date 07/2003. My attorney ignores it all and it appears that the referees & judge does also.

 

[CJane]

My question is: is this true in all the states?

My X was bemoaning lots in court (08/2007) on stuff from prior to our court date 10/2001. Mind you, we also had a court date 07/2003. My attorney ignores it all and it appears that the referees & judge does also.

I can't speak to how it is in all states... but I think you can generally count on stuff that has previously been presented to the court and ruled on not being admissible later. That's why Stupidhead has shifted his allegations to CPS - the court doesn't care.

 

[TCool]

Awesome! Thanks for the responses guys.

BTW, in our custody agreement its stated that I will have primary placement, and we will have shared legal custody. However, after the custody agreement we had a child support agreement that states "Primary legal and physical custody is with the father" Ofcourse, the father is me. Neither of us caught that right away. Anyway, does that change the custody at all?

 

[CJane]

Awesome! Thanks for the responses guys.

BTW, in our custody agreement its stated that I will have primary placement, and we will have shared legal custody. However, after the custody agreement we had a child support agreement that states "Primary legal and physical custody is with the father" Ofcourse, the father is me. Neither of us caught that right away. Anyway, does that change the custody at all?

Nope. The child lives primarily with you. That gives you primary custody.

 

[TCool]

Nope. The child lives primarily with you. That gives you primary custody.

Ya, but what about the legal custody part. In the custody agreement we have joint legal custody but the child support agreement says I have primary legal custody. Does that just not matter then? Sorry, when it comes to this stuff I'm somewhat stupid. LOL, just confused here.

 

[CJane]

Ya, but what about the legal custody part. In the custody agreement we have joint legal custody but the child support agreement says I have primary legal custody. Does that just not matter then? Sorry, when it comes to this stuff I'm somewhat stupid. LOL, just confused here.

Legal custody simply means decision-making for education, religion and medical. "Primary" legal custody isn't something that matters. The physical custody of the child is referred to in a child support order/agreement to assist in determining the payor/payee it is not decided by the order/agreement for CS.

 

[TCool]

Legal custody simply means decision-making for education, religion and medical. "Primary" legal custody isn't something that matters. The physical custody of the child is referred to in a child support order/agreement to assist in determining the payor/payee it is not decided by the order/agreement for CS.

Ok, I kind of thought that. Just figured I'd ask.

Thanks