Here is my husband's notes in response to his ex-wife's response to the motion to change parenting time. These aren't being submitted to the court, they're just for reference during mediation or before the referree, but they're typed in third person just in case he has to turn it in. He's still willing to negotiate on a couple of the things that state he disagrees, but wanted to leave a little room to work with. He agreed with most additions that she requested, but not all in their entirety. Just looking for opinions...do most points sound fair?
The Plaintiff’s original motion requested, in summary, the following changes be made to the parenting plan:
1. Plaintiff requests parenting time begin on Wednesdays at 3:37pm (school’s ending time) until Sunday at either 9am or 2pm, alternating weeks as the current CO determines.
2. Change ROFR from 2 hours to 8 hours
3. Allow both parents 2 weeks of summer vacation time, to be used in either a 2 week increment or 2-1 week increments. Should follow current CO guidelines with regards to determining how many of the other parents’ overnights are allowed.
4. Notice to exercise summer parenting time must be given at least 30 days prior to requested dates, unless worked out between the parties.
5. Specify Mother’s Day/Father’s Day/Kids’ Birthday should start at 9am and end at 8:30pm each year.
6. Allow children to spend 5 hours time with their half siblings on their birthday.
7. Change Halloween parenting time from 6pm-10pm to 3:30pm-10pm.
The following is the Plaintiff‘s answer to the Defendants response:
1. Defendant claims that the Plaintiff already has “substantial parenting time and if his motion were granted, Defendants parenting time would be severely impacted”. Plaintiff disagrees in that, during the school year, this would mean a difference of only 7.5 hours per week for the Defendant, no overnights will be lost, and during the summer the parenting plan would equate to an almost 50/50 distribution of time with the children (He would have 3:37pm Wednesday afternoon through 9am or 2pm on Sunday). The Plaintiff agrees with the Defendant that the children should have equal parenting time with both parties, and he is trying to modify the parenting plan to reflect this. Not only with regards to time exercised, but having the ability to enjoy uninterrupted time with the children. The plaintiff is also trying to satisfy the requests of the children, who stated they are “tired of going back and forth” between homes and feels that the frequent exchanges and short hours at night are causing undue stress and making it difficult for them to have any real quality time as a family.
2. The Defendant is requesting that she receive every other weekend with the children. The hypocrisy of this request is evident, in that she claims a loss of 7.5 hours per week will “severely impact” her parenting time, and is in the same response asking for a total of 80-90 hours per month, including 4 overnights, of the Plaintiff’s parenting time. The Plaintiff has been more than cooperative since the Court Order became effective in allowing the Defendant time with the children as requested when on his parenting time, as long as provided proper notice. He is willing and able to continue this practice with the cooperation of the Defendant, and if in the children’s best interest.
3. Plaintiff stands by his statement that the Defendant has, in writing through email, text and over the phone, refused to feed the children on the nights the Plaintiff picks them up, unless on her own terms. The Plaintiff picks up the kids at 6pm, and only request the kids be fed dinner by the Defendant when the children have an activity or event to go to (whether school related, extracurricular, or family affair). The court order does not state that either parent is exclusively responsible for the meal preparation of the children at any given time, and the Defendant’s refusal to do so is evidence of her inability and unwillingness to co parent with the Plaintiff.
4. Answers to further modifications requested by the Defendant:
A) Agree to modification of ROFR being changed to 8 hours. Plaintiff can also agree, if Defendant is agreeable, to eliminate the ROFR except for in the case that either parent is unavailable overnight with the children.
B) Defendant’s statement is contradictory. Requests 7 days of summer vacation, to be used consecutively or non consecutively. Then states any hours used as regular parenting time shall be included in the 7 days, thus negating the statement that days may be used nonconsecutively. Again, Plaintiff is requesting 14 days of summer vacation as outlined above.
C) Agree with 30 days notice to be given with intent to exercise summer vacation time, disagree that it cannot “conflict with any other scheduled events”. Based on past experiences with the Defendant, the Plaintiff believes that this stipulation is intended to be used as a tool to frustrate his ability to exercise his summer vacation time. Common sense and common courtesy should be used when scheduling summer vacation time, as to not intentionally overlap the other parent’s known planned special events, but within reason. Plaintiff believes that neither parent should need to ask permission to take their vacation with the children. Also, vacation time cannot be utilized over 4th of July holiday time or over Labor Day holiday time, unless you are the parent who has the children for that holiday and choose to use it for their vacation.
D) Agrees that Children’s birthday can be modified to end at 8:30 on school nights, and 10pm on non-school nights. Plaintiff still believes that a start time is necessary and that the children’s birthday should begin at 9am, regardless of whether a school day or non-school day.
E) Again, Plaintiff agrees that Mother’s Day (as well as Father’s Day) should start at 9am, and would also like to add an ending time of 8:30pm.
F) Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant’s request for division of the Winter holiday time. Both parties are able to spend either Christmas Eve or Christmas with the children, and as stated before, Plaintiff is willing to give time to the Defendant, as needed and as is appropriate, for her family events over the break. If the Winter Break were to be split between the parties, the Plaintiff’s time with the children would be lost on his birthday every other year.
G) The Plaintiff disagrees that the Defendant should be given 5 hours during the Sunday before Christmas of Winter break if it falls during the Plaintiff’s scheduled holiday. The Plaintiff has, for the last 3 years in a row, allowed the Defendant to have the children for her family’s party because there were no other plans scheduled during that time. However, if the Plaintiff chooses to take an out of town trip over the holiday, his vacation time would be negatively impacted in order for the Defendant’s proposal to happen. Plaintiff can agree to allow the Defendant the kids for 5 hours in order to attend the party if on his time, as long as no other family or vacation plans have been made. Plaintiff would not, however, like this to be a mandatory event.
H) Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant that Mid-Winter break should be alternated. He should continue to recieve the Winter Break, minus the day and a half she has the children for the holiday and whatever other time he is able to give her the children for her family's events, and she should continue to have the Mid-Winter Break.
I) Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant about lifting the Grandparenting time limits. As the CO states, the Grandparents are allowed 2 overnights per month during their own child’s parenting time. It does not have limits as to how many hours the Grandparents are allowed to spend with the children each month, giving them adequate parameters in which to make plans. If the Defendant would like the children to spend more overnights with the grandparents, she is free to stay the night, as well. However, if she is unavailable to care for the kids overnight and the Grandparents have already exercised their overnights for the month, the Plaintiff would like the opportunity to have the extra time with the children himself, and expects that the Defendant would appreciate the same opportunity.
J) Plaintiff agrees that both parties should be promptly notified of emergencies that occur with the minor children, but not until the safety and health of the children has been secured.
K) Plaintiff agrees to use both parent’s health care insurances for the children’s care. Also agrees that adequate time should be provided to pay a medical bill, but not to the extent that it verges on collections like has happened in the past. Agrees that medical bills cannot be deducted from child support payments. Agrees to coordinate benefits, if applicable to the situation. Agrees that, if one party knowingly and unnecessarily goes to a non-participating provider, they will be responsible for that medical payment.
L) Plaintiff agrees that at this time, the children should remain in Plymouth Canton school district. However, if circumstances change, the current court order and the parent’s joint legal custody gives both Plaintiff and Defendant the right to motion the Court to allow permission to change district’s if it is found to be in the best interest of the children. He would like for this right to remain intact.
