Jane Smith is a fictitious divorce in Washington and its hypothetical problem seems familiar to many divorced parents. Jane never acknowledges John's husband, John Smith, who is taking care of children at John's residence. John sometimes drops a bad person Cusun Shumo with his child. Cousin Schmo has promised smokers, parties, two people DUI recently. Jane wants to know if she can refuse Quins Shumo as a caregiver.
This article answers Jane's question from the standpoint of a Washington divorce lawyer. In this article, 1) the general rule under the Washington Act, 2) the provision of the general child rearing plan to change the general rule of Washington, 3) it is necessary to adopt the provision of care worker related child rearing plan in Washington Legal proceedings, and 4) more extreme relief for disastrous circumstances.
1. principle. Unfortunately in the case of Jane, the Washington State case law generally gives each parent a right to decide who will do the care function during the residence period with the child. The Department of the Washington Court of Appeal decided that this rule Magnusson vs. Johannesson, 108 Wash.App. I write in 109 (2001) as follows.[o]Normally parents may designate other carers even though the childcare plan does not make any special findings or conclusions. "
2. Common clause to change general rules. Several kinds of provisions change this general rule when written in a child rearing plan. The most common in Washington is a) "first veto" and b) exclusion of certain caretakers.
A. First veto. "First veto" is a relatively simple concept. Before parents use caregivers, parents must provide opportunities to care for other parents at that same time. Judges usually add the first refusal provision to child rearing plan when someone asks when plans are formulated. Divorced parents worried about Jane's scenario must seriously consider asking for the first veto.
B. Specific Caretaker exclusions. Jane's child care plan may also limit John's choice by specifically naming and prohibiting potential nurses who are considered dangerous. Excluding potential caretakers is less common than the veto of fists, and the courts tend not to admit this type of exclusive provision.
3. Addition of one of these provisions. If Jane's child rearing plan does not include any of the above provisions, additional claims can be made to the court pursuant to RCW 26.09.260. Adding one of these provisions involves a "minor change" in childcare planning. This kind of minor change requires Jane to prove important and relevant changes in the situation that occurred after the child care plan was written. A major change in Jane's case will be the recent two DUIs of Quinn Schmo.
Four. More Extreme Relief. Finally, Jane has more extreme options when the situation becomes obviously miserable. Jane can call Child Protective Services Division of Washington's Social Health Service, Social Child Protective Services Division to call 1-866-363-4276 and report child abuse. Or Jane may request domestic violence protection order or restraining order. This type of extreme redemption is limited to circumstances where the caretaker seriously risks or hurts the happiness of children.
The general rule of Washington does not support Jane, but she has a variety of options to deal with her concerns, depending on its severity and demonstrability.
EmoticonEmoticon