DAD.info
Forum - Ask questions. Get answers.
Welcome to the DAD.Info forum: Important Information – open to read:

Our forum aims to provide support and guidance where it can, however we may not always have the answer. The forum is not moderated 24 hours a day, so If you – or someone you know – are being harmed or in immediate danger of being harmed, call the police on 999.

Alternatively, if you are in crisis, please call Samaritans on 116 123.

If you are worried about you or someone you know is at risk of harm, please click here: How we can help

Notifications
Clear all

[Solved] Exploring the Variation option

 
 Toks
(@Toks)
Estimable Member Registered

Hi. I'm looking in to the option of going for a variation of the Court Order pertaining to my son as the vague wording is causing continual friction with my son's mother who resents the loss of control occasioned by the broad details in the Order. She continually tries to assert her authority by interpreting any of the several frustratingly vague points or apparently contradictory points in it in her favour.

The Order states that our son is to share all his school holidays equally between us. However there is a default clause (for when we can't agree on the structure of any holiday) which states that he spend week 1 with me, week 2 with his mum and so on. The default clause also mentions that his contact with me will start at 10 am on the first day and end at 6pm on the last. At the beginning, we were both confused by this, as it was impossible to work out equal holiday time under this default mechanism.

Two years ago, we decided to clarify the vague areas and agreed that school holidays begin the minute school breaks up and ends on the morning the school reopens, and that Inset days were also part of the holidays, and that the days would be calculated on a 24 hour cycle, as the 10am/6pm default cycle was confusing. This agreement was done via email, so there is a clear record of it, and has mostly been followed ever since, despite continuing coolness in relations. However, a few months ago she deviated from this and took an extra day and a half in a holiday (which I thought best to highlight my dissatisfaction, but let it go). She is now deciding to repeat this action again, by interpreting and invoking the default clause to her advantage, which will again mean my son having an extra day with her. Knowing her as I do, this is now on course to becoming a regular occurance, so feel I need to challenge and get this and other vaguely worded (and perpetually contentious) sections of the Order clarified officially now. The thought of another decade of anxiety while she tries to turn back the clock to the 'glory' pre Court Order days where I did as I was told or else, fills me with dread.

Will I be able to go for a variation to get this more clearly defined? I'm finding this situation stressful, and I have enough written evidence that shows she is on a mission to control and curtain times that aren't clearly defined (for example, we've had annual conflict over the length of time my son spends with me on his birthday, because the Order simply states that he should 'spend time' with both parents on that day. She usually arranges to travel somewhere on his birthday, and uses this as the reason he and I can only spend 3 hours of the day together).

The Courts must be aware of the problems parents face with ambiguously worded Orders. Why aren't they learning from this?

Quote
Topic starter Posted : 16/03/2017 5:15 am
(@dadmod4)
Illustrious Member

I can see that a judge might take the view that for a day and a half each holiday, you should sort it out yourself, and not come back to court, and if they do, then going back to court could be counterproductive. At the very least, you'll need to try mediation again, as I don't think this falls under an enforcement. It's certainly worth trying to get to an agreement that if she's bending it in her favour, then the following holiday, you do the opposite in your favour.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 16/03/2017 11:54 pm
 Mojo
(@Mojo)
Illustrious Member Registered

I agree with actd...it's important to choose your battles wisely and as has been said, they may see this as a rather petty reason to bring it back,to court.

As there is such ambiguity in the wording of the order, it just wouldn't be feasible to pursue enforcement, although you haven't mentioned that's what you're thinking about. If you did decide to go for a variation as you did mention, I think it would have to have more substance to it than a short 36 hour loss occasionally.

I would say try mediation, you managed to work together to make amendments to the order in the past, perhaps this would be the best way to tackle it.

All the best

ReplyQuote
Posted : 17/03/2017 6:56 pm
Toks and Toks reacted
 Toks
(@Toks)
Estimable Member Registered

Thanks very much Mojo and actd. I shall take a deep breath. I mainly communicate with her by email as this not only keeps records of our interaction, but also serves as a greater guarantee to her moderating her behaviour. I'll re-send to her the emails where she herself stated her preference for the amendments and her wish for us to stick with them (just in case she's forgotten)

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 17/03/2017 10:32 pm
Share:

Pin It on Pinterest