Help with interpretting a clause please

[ray25]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NC


I have a separation agreement with my now ex-wife that is over 3 years old. We disagree on some of it and how it is written.

The first area of contention:

"Travel Restrictions - Neither party shall take the children on any overnight trip without prior notes to the other party. Until the children reach the age of 8 years, neither party will take the children on any overnight camping trip or other overnight adult social gathering involving the consumption of alcohol without the consent of the other party."

This clause exists because of some major control issues on ex-wife's part. She wanted to control all areas of my parenting time and have it all worded in the agreement(Itinerary's of everything the children did, ate, etc), even though up until the separation I was with the kids majority. This was the only part that remained in the end. I was out of money to continue and was being denied access until her demands were on paper. That is the background, I don't know if it matters either way but wanted you to know why it exists.

How she interprets it is that I can not take the children camping without her permission until children reach 8 years of age.

How I interpret it is that I CAN take the children camping without her consent as long as there is not alcohol involved. (I have actually taken the children camping once last summer and she had a fit but did not file for a breach of contract)

How would you interpret that clause? I did ask an attorney at work before going camping last year. I realize he practices in a different area but he said that it was open for interpretation.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NC


I have a separation agreement with my now ex-wife that is over 3 years old. We disagree on some of it and how it is written.

The first area of contention:

"Travel Restrictions - Neither party shall take the children on any overnight trip without prior notes to the other party. Until the children reach the age of 8 years, neither party will take the children on any overnight camping trip or other overnight adult social gathering involving the consumption of alcohol without the consent of the other party."

This clause exists because of some major control issues on ex-wife's part. She wanted to control all areas of my parenting time and have it all worded in the agreement(Itinerary's of everything the children did, ate, etc), even though up until the separation I was with the kids majority. This was the only part that remained in the end. I was out of money to continue and was being denied access until her demands were on paper. That is the background, I don't know if it matters either way but wanted you to know why it exists.

How she interprets it is that I can not take the children camping without her permission until children reach 8 years of age.

How I interpret it is that I CAN take the children camping without her consent as long as there is not alcohol involved. (I have actually taken the children camping once last summer and she had a fit but did not file for a breach of contract)

How would you interpret that clause? I did ask an attorney at work before going camping last year. I realize he practices in a different area but he said that it was open for interpretation.

Under 8, you can't take them on ANY overnight trip without notifying the other parent. Also, you can't take them on any overnight trip when alcohol will be consumed without the other parent's permission.



EDIT: After age 8, you only need to give notice - regardless of alcohol consumption...


That's how I read it.

 

[mommyof4]

Under 8, you can't take them on ANY overnight trip without notifying the other parent. Also, you can't take them on any overnight trip when alcohol will be consumed without the other parent's permission.



EDIT: After age 8, you only need to give notice - regardless of alcohol consumption...


That's how I read it.

Seconded.....

 

[Ohiogal]

I add my thirds.

 

[Zigner]

I add my thirds.

Wow -

 

[ray25]

Thank You!

 

[Ohiogal]

Wow -

You done good. Why wouldn't I agree with you?

 

[Ohiogal]

I cut and paste from your other thread

One more question about interpretation please

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NC

I have been an active father. I'm at all doctor's appointments that I'm informed of (even when I'm informed 10 minutes before and have to leave work to get there), all school conferences, etc. We have disagreed a few times on medical treatment and my ex-wife will do what she wants regardless of how I feel or my opinion. Our agreement seems all over the place and unclear with custody. I would like to address the issue but she refuses to do so. She said if I don't agree with her decisions, take her to court. Since our custody/visitation/child support is all done via a separation agreement, I would have to start an actual custody/visitation suit against her. Our circumstances have changed since the agreement was put in place so that might be the best option if she wants to continue to be difficult.

My question is: In reading the following clauses from our separation agreement, what are your thoughts and opinions on how it is currently written?

The above is left in for others.

"Child Custody. Husband and Wife agree that presently they are both fit, suitable and proper persons to have the care, custody and control of the minor children of their marriage and that presently the best interests and welfare of the minor children will be promoted if legal and physical custody is placed jointly in Husband and Wife, and the minor children reside primarily with Wife and secondarily with Husband. Accordingly, the parties agree that Wife shall have custody of the minor children and Husband shall have reasonable and liberal visitation rights. Reasonable and liberal visitation rights shall be defined as those rights which the parties from time to time agree upon with the understanding that the goal is to promote contact between the Husband and the children, keeping in mind the schedules of Husband and Wife and the ages and schedules of the children. The parties agree that the purpose and intent of this provision is to promote visitation between each child and the noncustodial parent; accordingly, reasonable visitation shall include at least the minimum as set forth below."

First it sounds like Legal and Physical joint custody but then sounds like wife has custody (but didn't define as physical or legal just "custody") with me having visitation rights.

You have joint custody.

Then in the very next paragraph:


"Husband's Parenting. Husband's physical custody of the children shall be as follows. Unless otherwise agreed to by Husband and Wife, Husband shall visit with the children an amount of time comparable to at least every other weekend and three evenings during every week. In the event Husband has unavoidable conflicts for scheduled visitation, he shall have the right to visit with the children for a comparable period of time during the next weekend or the next weekday evening, unless Wife has made plans which conflict with visitation at such times. The parties agree that the purpose and intent of this provision is to promote visitation between each child and the noncustodial parent; accordingly, reasonable visitation shall include at least the minimum as set forth below."

Okay.

All the following paragraphs define the actual visitation schedule with the specifics. In each instance regardless of whether it pertains to me or to her, it says "visitation". "wife's vacation visitation" "husband's vacation visitation" etc.

And?

This is the information about decision making but just says we will confer about our decisions. Nothing about what happens if we don't agree with each other. It sounds like we both have the same amount of access:

"The parties agree that either shall have full access to all health and educational information on each child to the same extent as if that parent were the only parent. Each party agrees to notify the other of scheduled doctor appointments for either child. In the event of serious accident or illness, the first party to learn of same shall notify the other party as soon as practicable. The parties further agree to confer frequently on all important matters pertaining to each child's well-being; and all decisions concerning the children that are made by either or both of them shall be reached with the primary goal of promoting the best interest and welfare of the child involved."

I apologize about the length of this post!

Okay either one of you can make decisions regarding the children. Joint legal and physical custody.

 

[ray25]

Thank you OG. I appreciate all your time.

Should I delete the other post? I wasn't sure if I should add it to my previous post or start a new thread.

 

[Ohiogal]

Thank you OG. I appreciate all your time.

Should I delete the other post? I wasn't sure if I should add it to my previous post or start a new thread.

I reported it after I copied it. If it is back delete it. It is much easier for us if everything is in ONE thread if it deals with custody/support/related issues.

 

[sipa]

Holy Cow

Three agreements in one thread, Holy Sh** I don't think I have ever seen that! And a poster who used their court order to type in their question? Oh My this is a record!

 

[Silverplum]

Three agreements in one thread, Holy Sh** I don't think I have ever seen that! And a poster who used their court order to type in their question? Oh My this is a record!

You're right!

*wipes away a tear of happiness*

 

[ray25]

I've been reading posts for a few days and read the sticky.

I've been dealing with a high conflict situation for quite some time and definitely have learned a lot from the situation. In reading posts on here from others, most are looking at their situations from their emotional standpoints. I'm trying to see things from other viewpoints of people NOT emotionally invested. I don't want you to tell me what I want to hear, I want to hear what is constructive.

 

[Ohiogal]

I've been reading posts for a few days and read the sticky.

I've been dealing with a high conflict situation for quite some time and definitely have learned a lot from the situation. In reading posts on here from others, most are looking at their situations from their emotional standpoints. I'm trying to see things from other viewpoints of people NOT emotionally invested. I don't want you to tell me what I want to hear, I want to hear what is constructive.

And we thank you for doing that. You are a blessed newbie to those of us cynics.

 

[Silverplum]

I've been reading posts for a few days and read the sticky.

I've been dealing with a high conflict situation for quite some time and definitely have learned a lot from the situation. In reading posts on here from others, most are looking at their situations from their emotional standpoints. I'm trying to see things from other viewpoints of people NOT emotionally invested. I don't want you to tell me what I want to hear, I want to hear what is constructive.

*wipes away two tears of happiness!!*