We agreed to a new Parenting Plan; should we go back to Court?
In addition, we usually include the following paragraph or something similar in our agreements:
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall preclude both parents from jointly and voluntarily modifying the above-described co-parenting schedule or from reaching agreements for the co-parenting of the children by the parents that are not in conformity with the foregoing co-parenting schedule provided that such modifications and agreements be reduced to a writing in advance and be signed and/or otherwise (e-mail) confirmed and/or otherwise ratified by both parties. Either parent may request a modification of the foregoing parenting schedule from the other parent. Any modification of the parenting schedule shall be requested reasonably in advance, except in emergency situations. The parties shall take into consideration the best interests of the children when discussing exceptions to the parenting schedule.
This is intended to provide parents with encouragement to be flexible when life requires it or children's ages require new arrangements.
But, if you enter into such a modification, should you go back to court to have it approved by the court?
According to the Massachusetts Appeals Court in an unpublished decision, if you don't ratify the agreement in writing and have it approved by the court it may not be enforceable. In Benoit v. Benoit the court found that the oral agreement between parents to make changes to the parenting schedule was not sufficient evidence to show a material and significant change in circumstances. The court therefore refused to enter the oral agreement as a new order. If the parties had made the agreement in writing and entered it as an Agreement for Modification, then the Father could have enforced it in court. But since they didn't, the court was not willing on the evidence of an oral agreement alone, to enforce the changes.
This entry was posted on at 6:00 AM and is filed under agreements, child custody, divorce, parenting plan, visitation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 April, the Québec Ministry for Sustainable development, Environment and Parks presented a regulation project on pricing of ...
-
Well kids I plan to scoot out of here shortly, to begin my long solemn weekend regimen of prayer , reflection , and expanding my abdomen , s...
-
Hydraulic fracturing and shale gas leaks in Québec: New science shed light on the «cow farts» leaks(BY HUGO) Just a quick post to follow up on reports relating to shale gas leaks from wells in Québec. The Québec Ministry for Natural Resour...
-
Former CFO for R. Allen Stanford, Jim Davis, pleaded guilty to fraud yesterday . This is probably not good news for Proskauer's Tom Sjob...
-
(BY HUGO) Les Cahiers de droit just published their issue 3 & 4, Vol. 51, a special issue on water law with many articles exploring int...
-
(BY HUGO) Since the beginning of May, the flow of an emissary of Lake Champlain, the Richelieu River, is near or at record level, and a larg...
-
Billy Shields has a nice piece on the never-ending saga involving BDO Seidman and the new trial that commenced this week against BDO Intern...
-
Well kids it's the end of another work week (unless you are working all weekend or don't have a job at all), so I'm flying the c...
-
You know, I find it more than a little annoying that Scott Rothstein has stolen my 3d DCA "bunker" imagery. It's mine, dammit!...