Court Opinion

ID: 9513976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:42:56.397362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:07.247214
License: Public Domain

VANDEWALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
[¶ 18] The record in this case reveals that Katherine Young was no longer able to deliver the child to a place of neutral exchange at 4:00 p.m., on Wednesdays, as had been agreed upon by the parties, because “[historically, Katherine was able to find someone, primarily her significant other, to bring Maria to Rainbow Bridge at 4:00 p.m., but that situation changed when he located other employment.” The trial court found this to be a change in circumstances that justified the modification of the judgment in order to begin visitation each Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. rather than 4:00 p.m. However, the record also reveals that, by agreement of the parties, on those Wednesdays on which the child was in school, James Young picked the child up at school. Because he is no longer allowed visitation until 6:00 p.m. he is no longer able to pick the child up at school and his visitation' has been shortened by two hours each Wednesday.
[¶ 19] The reason for the modification is James Young’s insistence on the child being delivered to the neutral place of exchange by 4:00 p.m. even though Katherine Young, who operates a daycare, was not able to do so on some of those Wednesdays on which the child was not in school. I take no issue with that decision. However, on those Wednesdays on which the child is in school, I would modify the judgment to’allow James Young to continue to pick the child up at school as he had in the past. During the summer when the child is not in school and on those Wednesdays on which the child is ill or for other reasons is not in school, the visitation time would begin at 6:00 p.m. rather than 4:00 p.m. Presumably there would be few of those Wednesdays during the school year. To not allow James Young to continue to pick up the child at school on those Wed*158nesdays when she is in school seems to be a punishment for his intransigence rather than a decision furthering the best interests of the child.
[¶ 20] GERALD W. VANDEWALLE, C.J., and DALE V. SANDSTROM, J, concur.