When Child Custody Schedules and the Holidays Collide
Just when everything seems to be functioning as seamlessly as possible, the holidays are upon us and a new battle is brewing. Which parent will have the kids for the holidays?
November 21, 2018 at 04:01 PM
6 minute read
The school year went off without a hitch. You, your ex-spouse and the kids have seemingly adjusted to the custody schedule and fallen into a pattern. All appears to be calm despite two parents living separate lives while juggling their children's custody schedules, school events, extracurricular activities and the like. But just when everything seems to be functioning as seamlessly as possible, the holidays are upon us and a new battle is brewing. Which parent will have the kids for the holidays?
The best way to avoid continuously battling over holidays is to address it when initially negotiating the custody schedule. A well-written custody agreement will not only detail when the children will be with each parent on a weekly basis, but will also go further to discuss custody of the children during school breaks, holidays and summer vacation. Some of the holidays addressed in a custody agreement include New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Easter, Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
While placing a set holiday schedule in the custody agreement may appear to resolve future conflicts, it is not uncommon for parents to repeat the same discussion (or arguments, in some cases) year after year regarding where the children will spend the holidays, despite a court order or an agreement already outlining the schedule. While there are often issues involving either one or both parents wanting to deviate from the custody schedule for vacations or other reasons during the summer vacation or school breaks, it seems that no time of year leads to more custody disagreements than the holiday time starting with Thanksgiving and ending with New Year's Day.
Each parent usually has a holiday tradition they want to share with their children. They may want to take the children to visit family members. Oftentimes, those visits entail traveling some distance which cannot be accomplished in one day. Both parents should be respectful of such traditions. Additionally, if a parent is going to request a deviation from the schedule in any way, they should give the other parent notice as soon as possible to allow for discussion and compromise.
Usually, the agreement is fashioned in such a way so that one parent has the children for a holiday during even years and the other has the children during odd years. It can be a little trickier for some holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas. For Thanksgiving, sometimes the parents will split the actual holiday so the children have two Thanksgiving dinners. Other times, the children may spend all of Thanksgiving with one parent and then have another replicated Thanksgiving dinner with the other parent on another day of the holiday weekend. For the Christmas holiday, sometimes one parent will have the children for Christmas Eve through Christmas morning and the other parent has the children for Christmas Day. These are just some examples, but parents can choose whatever works best for them and the kids. Of course, if the parents are from different religious backgrounds conflict may be avoided for several holidays, whereby each parent will have the children for their religious holidays.
While fighting over the holiday schedule is surely stress-inducing for the parents, imagine how it feels to the children caught in the middle. Children need stability and do well with a routine they can predict. Additionally, children of divorce often feel torn between both parents and feel the need to please both of them. This is difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish and, as a result, a child trying to please both parents can be made to feel inadequate or a failure. Parents should try to keep the schedule as undisturbed as possible to allow the children comfort in knowing what to expect.
Courts are also becoming stricter in enforcing the terms of custody orders. If there is noncompliance of the custody order, the other parent can file a contempt petition pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1915.12. If after a hearing the parent is found in contempt of the custody order, the parent may be fined, committed to jail or both. The filing party can also seek counsel fees from the other parent. More and more, courts are granting the filing party counsel fees when finding that the other party violated the Custody Order. Not only are courts awarding counsel fees, but often they are granting the filing party make-up time with the children.
It is easy for divorced parents to get caught up on what used to be. It is understandable that they want to share long-standing family traditions while creating new traditions and memories with their children. It should be encouraged that the children have an opportunity to spend time with extended family. It should also go without saying that creating such memories must be accomplished within the confines of the custody order. If both parties are agreeable to deviating, then strictly following the order may not be necessary. For this, there must be give and take by both parents. If, however, the parents are unreasonable, have unrealistic expectations or are bullying the other parent, the courts will likely need to get involved.
There is no substitute for an inclusive custody agreement. Even with the existence of an order that dictates holiday and vacation schedules, deviation requests are sure to arise at some point. If parents are not able to address scheduling on their own, the courts may need to get involved. And if one parent chooses not to follow a custody order, there are consequences they may face as a result.
Negotiating a custody schedule that pleases all involved can be accomplished but it takes communication, compassion and understanding on both sides. The goal is and should always be what is best for the children. Parents must keep this as the focus and put petty disagreements with their ex-spouse to the side. Holidays should be a time that children look forward to and not a source of anxiety and turmoil.
Donna M. Marcus is an associate attorney in the Norristown office of Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby. She concentrates her practice on family law including divorce, child support and custody matters. Previously, she was an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia in the Child Support Enforcement Unit. Contact her at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllImmunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
5 minute readRule 126(b) Citations to Unpublished Opinions: Some of Us Still Don’t Get It
6 minute readProposed 'Bulk Sensitive Personal Data' Rule and the DOJ’s Comprehensive National Security Regulations
7 minute readThe Importance of Plaintiffs Not Letting Defendants Dictate Settlement Tax Strategies
9 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250