Opinion ID: 2392803
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: plaintiff's legal argument

Text: Plaintiff cites the following cases and hornbook law to support her argument that the Court should enlarge visitation: 1. The Court may consider prior or contemporaneous negotiations to explain the contract term, see Simpson on Contracts § 101, as well as the conduct of the parties in order to determine what the parties intended the terms to mean, McGehee v. Maxfield, 256 A.2d 576 (D.C.App.1969). 2. The Court may amend the decree if a party can show that circumstances and conditions have so changed that the best interests of the child would be served by amending the custody order, Dawn v. Dawn, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 226, 194 F.2d 895 (1952); McGean v. McGean, 339 A.2d 384 (D.C.App.1975); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 247 A.2d 421 (D.C.App.1968). 3. [T]he courts have the power to, and should, specify the visitation rights in detail. . . [I]t is error to order that the right of visitation shall be at the discretion of the person having custody of the child . .. 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 803. 4. The plaintiff urges that this case is distinguished from the case of Utley v. Utley, 364 A.2d 1167 (D.C.App.1976) in that Utley deals with the concept of divided custody  among other matters  and the plaintiff herein is not disputing custody in the defendant. Also, that the children here are not those of tender years, being 14 and 12 years old, as opposed to the three year old involved in Utley.