menu MENU

Posts Tagged ‘Parenting Plan’

Making a Child’s Health Decisions

December 7th, 2017

Missouri courts have authority to allow one parent to make all of the healthcare decisions for a child.  If you are unable to agree on a parenting plan, a court will make one for you.

If you are in a child custody battle and need legal representation, contact our law office at 816-524-4949 or our website at Hoorfarlaw.com.

Your Parenting Plan Must Address Holidays

September 19th, 2017

parenting plan

Missouri law requires that every parenting plan address holidays and other special occasions.  If your parenting plan does not address holidays, your parenting plan is in violation of Missouri law and may need to be redone.

If you need assistance with a parenting plan, contact our law office at 816-524-4949 or visit our website at Hoorfarlaw.com.

Getting a Valid Parenting Plan

September 26th, 2016

parenting-plan

A parenting plan is a plan that two parents must follow when they have a custody agreement for their child.  The plan sets forth the dates and times that each parent gets to spend with their child.  Missouri law requires that a parenting plan address which parent gets the child for holidays and school holidays.

If you need a parenting plan or would like to try and redo your parenting plan, contact our law office at 816-524-4949 or visit our website at www.Hoorfarlaw.com.

Making Sure You Have a Valid Parenting Plan

May 8th, 2015

parenting plan

 

Missouri law requires that every parenting plan involving school-aged children to address school holidays. Parenting plans also must involve a dispute resolution provision to resolve any disputes between the parents.  If you have a parenting plan that does not conform with Missouri law, or you are unhappy with your custody situation, contact our office at 816-524-4949 or www.Hoorfarlaw.com.

Child custody judgment set aside because custody routine the parties had used pendent lite led the father to believe a judgment consistent with that schedule would be entered. Lewis v. Lewis, No. 31663

November 6th, 2012

This was an action for dissolution of marriage in which a default was taken against the Father. He sought to have the judgment set aside, but the trial court denied his request. The Parenting Plan entered gave the parties joint legal and physical custody with the cornerstone physical custody of the Father being every other weekend. However, he had to work on Friday, Saturday and Sunday in alternating months. During the pendency of the case, his work schedule had been accommodated. He was led to believe a Parenting Plan would be set in similar fashion. The Parenting Plan of the default judgment effectively eliminated his weekend time for six months of the year unless the Mother acceded a variance therefrom.

Soon after the entry of the default the Mother refused to work around the Father’s work schedule. The trail court noted that the Father could always seek a modification of the judgment if this persisted. The Father’s request for the judgment to be set aside was denied. Father’s appeal followed.

Held: Reversed. “A work schedule that does not allow for meaningful parental contact six months of the year constitutes a meritorious defense.”

Moreover, the parties had a previous agreement under which they were working, thereby causing the Father to assume the judgment would be consistent with it. “If the (trial) court’s assessment of the situation indicated that, as a matter of law, agreements between the parties was not a valid reason to default in dissolution, then we disagree. In this case, where the parties had voluntarily maintained a custody schedule and a child support schedule, where Father was not served with a different Parenting Plan that would have put him on notice that the parties did not have an agreement, where Mother knew that Father received his mail at a post office box and not the address where he was physically served, where the motion to set aside the default judgment was entered, and where the entered judgment differed significantly from the status quo, Father’s behavior in failing to file an answer was not intentionally or recklessly designed to impede the judicial process.

Courtesy of The Missouri Bar.