Please review pp, input welcome

[rmet4nzkx]

as far as religious activities, he doesn't practice any faith or faith based activities, I identify myself as christian but I visit several churches, and am not a memeber of any. Thanks for the great input

You two should agree on any restrictions on caregivers, not just your opinion of his mother.

Since you are using this to protect your best interest in case he gets upset when you get married, expect him to fight the school issue. Having the school is more convenient for you and it doesn't allow dad to have as many opportunities in his area where she is half the time.

I think you are going to have to be willing to transport more and possible make up some time if he is giving up his time for her to go to activities in your neighborhood.

 

[Zephyr]

You two should agree on any restrictions on caregivers, not just your opinion of his mother.

Since you are using this to protect your best interest in case he gets upset when you get married, expect him to fight the school issue. Having the school is more convenient for you and it doesn't allow dad to have as many opportunities in his area where she is half the time.

I think you are going to have to be willing to transport more and possible make up some time if he is giving up his time for her to go to activities in your neighborhood.

I totally see what you're saying rmet, but the fact is he doesn't have a neighborhood, he is 5 miles from the closest store, a little gas station, he lives 15 miles from the town to his north and 18 miles from my town. he is in the middle of no where. But like I said before I am totally willing to do all the transport just so she has the opportunity to participate.

as for school he would not have additional transport for that as his southern property line is the northern line of the school distict so he would basically have to walk her maybe 50 ft, as opposed to my driving her twenty miles to catch a bus for his district...

 

[casa]

It may be worth addressing any future moves...ie; the 30 mile restriction. Then, if either parent moves, there will be no issues to fight about- when custody % needs to change. One parent may think transporting over 30 miles(in the event of a move) is 'reasonable' for the child, while the other does not. And anything you nail down in this order, will be something you won't waste more $ and time in court on later.

 

[Zephyr]

It may be worth addressing any future moves...ie; the 30 mile restriction. Then, if either parent moves, there will be no issues to fight about- when custody % needs to change. One parent may think transporting over 30 miles(in the event of a move) is 'reasonable' for the child, while the other does not. And anything you nail down in this order, will be something you won't waste more $ and time in court on later.

ah good idea, I hadn't thought of that....are you saying ----the parent remaining in the area becomes pri**** custodial parent and the other parent has such and such visitation- along those lines?

 

[brisgirl825]

ah good idea, I hadn't thought of that....are you saying ----the parent remaining in the area becomes pri**** custodial parent and the other parent has such and such visitation- along those lines?

I would say that, that is reasonable.

 

[LdiJ]

Thank you for explaining all of that, I am actually printing up your answer to reference later, I think I may have to read it a couple time to understand it, I know he won't want to swap years because if he doesn't get to claim her he actually has to pay in, but he might not mind getting half of my refund since, onpaper I make so much more than him....so having 50/50 though, we would then just ignore the eic credit all together? we are definitely having a professional do this haha, but does that affect the day care credit? he pays $25 per month, I pay 250 per month, that credit could make a significant difference on my return.

Yes, it also effects the daycare credit...again, only the parent who has the child more than 50% of the time is eligible to take the daycare credit.

You may be over-reacting regarding the EIC. Remember, there are imcome limits. The EIC is like a bell shaped curve. The EIC credit (which is basically a form of welfare) starts off very small, at low levels of income. It gradually increases as income increases (between about 11k and 16k its 2600 for one child 4400 for two) as income increases over the max level it gradually reduces, until it phases out completely for a single parent making about 35k, and a married couple making about 37k. For parents in the 25-37k range its actually pretty small.

When EIC is no longer applicable, or is only marginally applicable, or if the parent isn't eligible, the child tax credit is most significant. However, that is a credit against tax due only, and isn't refundable...so lower income parents
who don't qualify for EIC, don't get much benefit from that.

There is also the "additional child tax credit" which is refundable....but its really complicated to determine who might or might not be eligible for that...or that on any significant level. (it goes along with the exemption). I could never explain that here...because there are too many variables involved. Generally someone with one child won't get much benefit, if any from that....no matter what their income level is.

 

[casa]

ah good idea, I hadn't thought of that....are you saying ----the parent remaining in the area becomes pri**** custodial parent and the other parent has such and such visitation- along those lines?

Yes. More & more parents are addressing future re-locations in their court orders. It decreases the 'fight' when one moves. Myself & my nuttyX did this in our original order...and when I moved, he tried to challenge the move- but the previous agreement bit him in the butt (Because when I moved, I purposely stayed within the radius we agreed upon.)

 

[Whyte Noise]

I think I confused Rmet with my "You may want to include sleepovers at g'ma and g'pa's houses as well if they do that." part when I was talking about the FROR clause you had.

I said "g'ma and g'pa's houses"... Plural... meaning for both sets of grandparents. That sleepovers at friends and grandparentS (plural again) may want to be noted as being independant of needing a caregiver, but construed as an activity for the child and not part of the FROR clause of 8 hours or overnight.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I think I confused Rmet with my "You may want to include sleepovers at g'ma and g'pa's houses as well if they do that." part when I was talking about the FROR clause you had.

I said "g'ma and g'pa's houses"... Plural... meaning for both sets of grandparents. That sleepovers at friends and grandparentS (plural again) may want to be noted as being independant of needing a caregiver, but construed as an activity for the child and not part of the FROR clause of 8 hours or overnight.

I'm not confused, perhaos you are as Zephyr doesn'r want child alone at parental grandma's without dad present, apparently a question of competence in at least her eyes, which would require both parents agreeing to any caregiver wether grandparents or not, FROR or not. WHo knows maybe dad feels the same way about her mother?

 

[Whyte Noise]

I'm not confused, perhaos you are as Zephyr doesn'r want child alone at parental grandma's without dad present, apparently a question of competence in at least her eyes, which would require both parents agreeing to any caregiver wether grandparents or not, FROR or not. WHo knows maybe dad feels the same way about her mother?

Don't get snippy Rmet. We've been doing so well lately, you and I.

Zephyr's ex MIL is a loon. She's threatened to take the child from Zephyr, there was a restraining order she violated twice (with police reports made), calling Zephyr 15-20 times in one day, contacted PayPal and Ebay and had Zephyr's accounts with them frozen. There was harassment, threats and verbal abuse by the paternal grandmother which, I believe, is documented in court records. I wouldn't want her around my child alone either, grandmother or not.

And actually, dad agreed to Zephyr's mother being a supervisor of visitation so I think it's safe to assume that dad doesn't feel the same way about her mom as she does about his.

 

[betterthanher]

Dental**
Mother - 50%
Father - 50%

What about orthodontia?

E. Dependency Exemption

Parents shall discuss tax filing with a professional tax preparer about who is eligible to claim the dependency exemption for EIC and refund purposes. Parents shall use the buyout method after receiving the tax prepares advice and following such. Each parent shall submit to the other their buyout within 3 business days of receiving their refund check. Parents may not file for extensions.

In regards to the filing an extension issue, I am not sure you would have any legal authority over that. Filing an extension is a tax-payers' right and if a parent needed to file an extension, I don't think you'd have much, even if it's in an order.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Don't get snippy Rmet. We've been doing so well lately, you and I.

Zephyr's ex MIL is a loon. She's threatened to take the child from Zephyr, there was a restraining order she violated twice (with police reports made), calling Zephyr 15-20 times in one day, contacted PayPal and Ebay and had Zephyr's accounts with them frozen. There was harassment, threats and verbal abuse by the paternal grandmother which, I believe, is documented in court records. I wouldn't want her around my child alone either, grandmother or not.

And actually, dad agreed to Zephyr's mother being a supervisor of visitation so I think it's safe to assume that dad doesn't feel the same way about her mom as she does about his.

I'm not confused and I'm not snippy.
If both parents agree, then they agree, it is something they need to agree on, that's all.
You were the one suggesting sleepovers at grandparents without qualification

I said "g'ma and g'pa's houses"... Plural... meaning for both sets of grandparents. That sleepovers at friends and grandparentS (plural again) may want to be noted as being independant of needing a caregiver, but construed as an activity for the child and not part of the FROR clause of 8 hours or overnight.

I only said that the language needs to be applied equally to all caregivers since parental grandmother is specificaly mentioned by name. A judge looking at the agreement wouldn't know the maternal grand mothe is alive or any of the history you produced to justify paternal grandmother's banishment. The language raises questions.

 

[Zephyr]

I'm not confused and I'm not snippy.
If both parents agree, then they agree, it is something they need to agree on, that's all.
You were the one suggesting sleepovers at grandparents without qualification I only said that the language needs to be applied equally to all caregivers since parental grandmother is specificaly mentioned by name. A judge looking at the agreement wouldn't know the maternal grand mothe is alive or any of the history you produced to justify paternal grandmother's banishment. The language raises questions.

now it's clearer to me what you meant before, it MAY not end up being much of an issue dad himself has gotten very frustrated with his mom's games over the last year and a half, so we will see what he says, he has been distancing himself from her little by little. I think he realize how destructive she is, it' s just hard when it's your mom, but that is something that will have to be rewritten. And that is why I pointed out that it was in there from ny first post, I want this to be legal and fair to both of us, but especially to our daughter.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

now it's clearer to me what you meant before, it MAY not end up being much of an issue dad himself has gotten very frustrated with his mom's games over the last year and a half, so we will see what he says, he has been distancing himself from her little by little. I think he realize how destructive she is, it' s just hard when it's your mom, but that is something that will have to be rewritten. And that is why I pointed out that it was in there from ny first post, I want this to be legal and fair to both of us, but especially to our daughter.

That is why you need all inclusive language, because while the parents agree now, you may not in the future just on principle's sake. While his mother may make your life miserable, she may be a wonderful grandmother and if that is the case, there may be no need to qualify her interactions with the child, something you ex may object to if he realizes this parenting plan is meant to protect your best interest on the event of your remarriage.

 

[Zephyr]

That is why you need all inclusive language, because while the parents agree now, you may not in the future just on principle's sake. While his mother may make your life miserable, she may be a wonderful grandmother and if that is the case, there may be no need to qualify her interactions with the child, something you ex may object to if he realizes this parenting plan is meant to protect your best interest on the event of your remarriage.

rmet this plan is written for my daughter's best interest, her dad and I have known that we would have to have a more specific plan for quite some time, I have asked him since we have seperated to not allow his mother to be alone with our daughter, and while the timing of this really quite honestly for my benefit as dad will be angry that I am getting married (dashing his weird hopes that we will get back together after his mom kicks the bucket) it doesn't by any means take away from the fact that this is basically a fair document that protects us both as parents in our daughters life.

I will address the language you and others have pointed out. But please don't think that just because the timing is extremely convenient (mostly because we have been getting along so well) that doing the right thing for our daughter isn't my priority, because it is.

I do really appreciate all of the advice I have gotten, some things you just don't see until they're pointed out to you.