Parenting plan

[gipsy]

Already posted ': I have an answer from you
  The second part of parenting plan modification question
 The plan states at 1st grade winter vacation is reviewable
 You wrote :'" For parenting plan modification  I have to show it is in the best interest of the child :
   Don't laugh : It seems the court would see this But it seems a laughing matter
  So I am trying to get a direction on what My modification will say  for how it is in the best interest
   First :
1  What do I do to show the best interest ?
2 : Just write why I think so In My declaration ?

 Here's My Idea ,Remember I said don't laugh at a argument that should be plain and valid !
  So Is this a valid reason?
4 Because Boy's should have more time with  a dad that love's them ?
5 Because  the winter Chum salmon run is on and My son likes to catch fish with me ?
  See what I mean Maybe these are not on the right page, But it seems logical to me ,As I have many memories of salmon fishing with My Dad And its seems to be .  Recreational salmon fishing is in the better interest because its a good ole Male thing to do , And he likes it and its a good role model as far as doing recreational things :
   The reason I say don't laugh is because it seems to me often times the court doesn't look at simple reality :  Boy's need Dads " And this is a free Un oppressed nation :
  But when dealing with the court there seems to be a different set of reasoning, Not way out there , But in a way different than common sense
  A further explanation is Very few women fish , Or teach a boy to be a sportsman ; or understand boyish behavior
  Wich is equivocal to Me teaching a girl how to use her Barby Dress up Toy's :
  My entire commentation seems to be a logical reason for me to have winter break
    6 does any of my post provied a reason in the best interest ?

 

[socrateaser]

>First :
>1  What do I do to show the best interest ?
>2 : Just write why I think so In My declaration ?
>
> Here's My Idea ,Remember I said don't laugh at a argument
>that should be plain and valid !
>  So Is this a valid reason?
>4 Because Boy's should have more time with  a dad that love's
>them ?

Can you prove this? Don't "laugh," but if you allege something, then you are obliged to prove it. You will need testimony from a psychologist or other expert stating that it is his/her expert opinion that boys of a certain age need more contact with their father. It isn't enough for you to produce some scholarly work on the subject. You must have an expert available to explain the science to the court.

>5 Because  the winter Chum salmon run is on and My son likes
>to catch fish with me ?

This is a nice sentiment, but it falls directly under my answer above.

>   The reason I say don't laugh is because it seems to me
>often times the court doesn't look at simple reality :  Boy's
>need Dads "

The court has a duty to be an impartial decisionmaker. Parties who come to court must prove their case with credible evidence that tends to make a material fact more or less certain. Just saying that "Boys need Dads" is not proof -- it's just your unsupported opinion.

Now, there is a concept called "judicial notice," where facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute and are easily verifiable via generally available sources, can be "noticed" as a fact by the court. So, you can certainly ask the court to take "judicial notice" of the fact that "Boys need Dads," and I wouldn't be surprised that the court may just recognize your statement as true.

Certainly, if I were opposing counsel, I would have difficulty objecting to your request on grounds of insufficient foundation, at least not without appearing to be trying to harrass you. However, I could argue that, while we all know that Boys need Dads, the question is really, does this particular Boy need this particular Dad more at this particular time in his life? And, that gets you back to needing the expert witness to explain why the answer is a resounding "yes."

>And this is a free Un oppressed nation :

It is? That's news to me. I see oppression everywhere. Why, it's hiding behind every "Bush" at this very moment! ;-)

>  But when dealing with the court there seems to be a
>different set of reasoning, Not way out there , But in a way
>different than common sense

Yes, it's called the rule of law -- an attempt to reason out everything based upon verifiable proof. Doesn't always work, because politics and human emotion get in the way.

>  A further explanation is Very few women fish , Or teach a
>boy to be a sportsman ; or understand boyish behavior

Pray that you don't draw a woman judge who likes to fish.

>  Wich is equivocal to Me teaching a girl how to use her Barby
>Dress up Toy's :

I don't know where you're from, but in my universe men spend their entire lives attempting to get an opportunity to play with "Barbie," and they will jump through just about every hoop imaginable in order to do it.

Reminds me of a long distant personal experience. I was in a TV commercial when I was in my early 20s. One of the actresses in the commercial was Ms. May from that year's Playboy magazine. Many times, I had heard people say, "No real woman looks like the women in those foldouts." Um, my personal experience is that this little bit of common sense is totally wrong. Those women DO look just that good, and if they bat their eyes at you just right, you will open up your checkbook and start spending money as if you were under the spell of the Sirens of Ancient Greece.

>  My entire commentation seems to be a logical reason for me
>to have winter break

There is no such word as "commentation." I think you meant "commentary."

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but you are setting yourself up to lose if you treat the court like it's some elitist club for people who don't understand real life. You need to recognize that there is a system, and it's been in place for about 700 years now, and it's not gonna change because you think it's not reasonable. Lawyers are not dumb, and you will get nowhere attempting to trivialize the legal system and/or its members. You have to decide that this is a serious place for serious thoughts, and if that means that what seems to you to be illogical is logical to others, then you need to reevaluate your mindset, because, frankly, your mindset is incorrect.

> 6 does any of my post provied a reason in the best
>interest ?

Take the kid(s) to a psychologist and have them evaluated. Tell the psychologist what you want to achieve and ask for help to get there.

Or, you can try your method and maybe it will work. But, if it doesn't, don't come back here to tell the world about the court's injustice towards you, because it won't be the court's injustice at all -- it will be your failure to play by the rules of the game.