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According to the Massachusetts Appeals Court in an unpublished decision, if you don't ratify the agreement in writing and have it approved by the court it may not be enforceable.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
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
(BY HUGO) Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin , that shows...
-
To paraphrase Mark Harris , it seems that Scott Rothstein continues to rule our world. Here's the latest: 1. Bill Scherer sues the fir...
-
(BY HUGO) The Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks has published 2 new project regulations . One is to amend the Regul...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 October 2010, Professor Jake Peters from the USGS Georgia Water Science Centre will give a conference on inter-state tension...
-
The AFL-CIO blog claims a new study shows the excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans would affect significantly more non-union w...
-
Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon has issued a report on social media cases. Anyone who fails to consider the NLRA in general and the...
-
So who else is going to the Federation Judicial Reception tonight: This year’s Judicial Reception will recognize three outstanding legal pr...
-
When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is bei...
-
My students and readers of this blog know my support for Dana Corp 's approach to ensure that employees' right to select union r...