transportation interpretation

[ccmidaho]

Hello Soc, hoping you can provide your interpretation of the transportation clause in our court agreement. Here is the section worded exactly.
******
"When child is scheduled to return to mother, mother shall arrange the transportation. When child is scheduled to return to father, father shall arrange the transportation. Until child is age 3, Father will supply transportation to mothers home when exchanges occur between the parents (i.e. non-daycare pickup or return). After age 3, exchanges, the parties will alternate providing transportation for exchanges between the parents (i.e., non-daycare pickup or return), with the receiving party picking up the child."
*****
Dad is providing all transportation for all exchanges that occur between father and mother until child is three (at mother's insistence) - there is no question about that in the agreement.
 
When child turns three we want to make sure we understand the change.  Agreement says that transportation after age 3 will alternate, with receiving parent being the one responsibile for pickup. Here is the situation: When the child turns 3 years old, there is NO situation in which the father is the receiving parent on exchanges. This is because when the father is picking up the child, he always picks him up from daycare rather than from Mother. When there is an exchange between the mother and father directly, mother is ALWAYS the receiving parent.  
 
Here are the questions:
 
1. Based on above, does this mean that mother is providing all transportation when exchanges occur between parents starting when child is 3 as she is always the receiving parent?
 
2. Does the word "alternate" in the last sentence cloud things at all or is it still very clear even with this word in there?  (while I don't know this for sure, its my guess that when Mother signed it, she didn't realize that the father was never going to be the receiving parent so she probably assumed tranportation between the two of them would equally be rotated back and forth).

Thanks and happy holidays!




 

 

[socrateaser]

>Here are the questions:
>
>1. Based on above, does this mean that mother is providing all
>transportation when exchanges occur between parents starting
>when child is 3 as she is always the receiving parent?

It looks to me like the first sentence of the order is a template from a standard parenting plan, and the next two sentences were inserted to deal with the child's youth and the unwillingness of the mother to compromise on the issue of transportation.

The wording is worse than awful -- it's incomprehensible. What does "arrange" mean? Does it mean make arrangements, or pay for transportation, or both? What does "provide" mean? Does that mean the same as "arrange" or does it mean something else? Unless these terms are defined precisely, the order is practically meaningless.

My advice is that you stipulate to new language that spells out exactly what will take place using words like "transport" and "pay for," or if you can't stipulate, then move the court for a clarification order, so that there will be no misunderstandings.

Honestly, I read the order several times, and I don't know what it means. And, if I can't interpret it, then neither can a judge or a police officer. You need this thing to be clear -- otherwise it will be an unending source of dispute.

>
>2. Does the word "alternate" in the last sentence cloud things
>at all or is it still very clear even with this word in there?
> (while I don't know this for sure, its my guess that when
>Mother signed it, she didn't realize that the father was never
>going to be the receiving parent so she probably assumed
>tranportation between the two of them would equally be rotated
>back and forth).

"alternate" is the least of your worries. The first sentence is clear. The rest is mud. Get it fixed.