Help with wording of Joint Stip

[hoosierpapa4]

I believe that I am in a position where the X may be willing to settle all outstanding issues (modification of custody, parenting time, child support, contempts etc.).  I do have an attorney.  I have communicated to my attorney what would be required in order for a settlement (terms including what type of custody - parenting time etc.).

What I would like would be your take on wording the acknowledgement that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred, and ensuring that the Joint Stip which will become an order of the court upon adoption by both parties has within it the acknowledgement that a significant change of circumstances has occurred in such a manner as to not allow the issues to go undocumented which started the motions.

Example:
The X allowed both of our minor children to smoke before the age of 18, provided cigarettes to them (one of them being an extreme asthmatic).  The X conscented to the withdrawal of my eldest, at the time 17 years of age from High School.  My now 18 year old has not lived in her care for more than 6 months, is not pursuing post-secondary or secondary education and is supporting herself (we do have a motion for emancipation too).

As you can see, and I won't bore you with the rest of the details, there is a complete lack of parental care and supervision involved.

1) Should the joint stipulation have wording within it which acknowledges these significant change of circumstances?

2) How do we (attorney and I) ensure that these "sins" are acknowledged in the event that the X decides a year from now that she would like to petition the court for a change of custody?

The last thing that I want is for the last 2 years of pain to go un-acknowledged and to be forgotten or not usable in future litigation as the X will file frivolous law suits, I would like to be able to point to the joint stip and say "how have these changed".

3) Is there another means of acknowledging these things than in the joint stipulation that would be more effective?

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

[socrateaser]

>1) Should the joint stipulation have wording within it which
>acknowledges these significant change of circumstances?

You're on the wrong track. What you really want is just the opposite, i.e., you want the facts of the other parent's bad behavior available for any future possible hearing. If you write the facts into your order/judgment, then you will have made it impossible to raise these issues, except upon new incidence of the same activity.

Better to just say, that "the parties agree, and the court hereby finds that a substantial change in circumstances affecting the children's best interests has occurred."

[hoosierpapa4]

1) But, doesn't the act of having an agreed entry (in Indiana that is) forgive those things that occurred prior to the agreement?

2) Should the agreed entry/joint stipulation have any wording for "with prejudice" or something along those lines?

[socrateaser]

>
>
>
>1) But, doesn't the act of having an agreed entry (in Indiana
>that is) forgive those things that occurred prior to the
>agreement?

If the facts that you wish to preserve were alleged in your pleadings then those facts would be barred upon future litigation, in the absense of an agreement to the otherwise, regardless of whether or not you recite them in the order. So, the real question is, what will it take to get the other party to agree to your terms. If you start making all sorts of conditions that are not material to the settlement, you're just gonna piss off your ex.
>
>2) Should the agreed entry/joint stipulation have any wording
>for "with prejudice" or something along those lines?

"With prejudice" is used in a dismissal to bar relitigation of the same issue upon the same set of facts. Without prejudice permits relitigation. The term has little application when applied to a final judgment/order.

If you want to preserve the facts for relitigation you want something like, "the parties agree and the court orders that any allegations not subjected to a full trial on the merits which were pending prior to entry of this stipulated judgment/order shall not be barred from relitigation in any future action."

I'd say the chance of opposing counsel agreeing to the above text is zero -- but, you can try.