OK. So DD2s 3rd birthday is coming up – it is a Monday. He has the girls for the weekend prior and will drop them off to school/daycare on that Monday morning and then I pick them up from daycare/school that afternoon as it is my normal scheduled night with them that night. As we are both seeing on her actual birthday I didn't think we needed to discuss it.
Birthdays are covered in our orders as an exception as follows – earlier clauses outline our 2/2/3 schedule quite clearly:
Clause 7.6: “if any of the Children's birthdays fall on a school day, then the Children shall spend time with the parent who did not have the care of the Children on the morning of the birthday from the conclusion of school until 7pm on the children's birthday. If any of the Children's birthdays fall on a weekend, then the Children will spend time with the parent whom that are otherwise not with on that weekend for four hours by agreement and failing agreement, from 1pm to 5pm on the day of the birthday.”
Him: “could you please confirm if you require me to pick the girls up the evening of [DD2] birthday (as per clause 7.6)? I’m relaxed about this seeing as it is your night to have them, but am equally happy to pick them up to stay with me.”
Me: “I suggest you read Clause 7.6 of the agreement. You have [DD2] on the morning of her birthday. I do not believe further discussion is required.”
His View: “In terms of the clause, I suggest you read it. It states, quite clearly, that you have [DD2] until 7pm because you did not have care of her that morning. It may not reflect what you wished, but that is exactly what it says.....perhaps [my L] could assist you in interpreting what is, in effect, his document??”
My Response: “I suspect it is an interpretation issue. My understanding is that clause is only relevant where the parent who does NOT have the child on the morning of her birthday also does NOT have her on the evening of her birthday. That is not the case here. The intention of the clause is so the birthday girl gets to see both parents on her birthday. Again, no further discussion is required.”
I suspect he thinks the fact that I am not the parent who has them that morning that somehow this clause changes the normal 2/2/3 schedule so that I only have them from the conclusion of school until 7pm and I have to hand them over to him at 7pm that night.
This clause doesn’t replace the schedule – it is transposed ON TOP of it to ensure both parents get to see the girls on their actual birthday. It is not required when both parents already get to see her as is the case for this birthday.
He isn’t trying to exercise his perceived right here so I don’t understand why the need to be so obtuse. Maybe he is trying to make it crystal clear to me that he is ‘letting’ me have the girls that night.... even though it is already my night. Because he's so magnanimous dontcha know. .
How do you all interpret this? Am I missing something blatantly obvious? I’ve shared this with a few friends (including several lawyers) and they say they have NFI how he interprets it the way he has. The clause is clear. I just want to check with my SI D PhD's too as I have 27 birthdays to get through with this muppet.
I wish I could say he wasn’t this stupid when I was married to him. Alas, I can’t.