- 9 -
accurately contemporaneous basis. Petitioner testified with
specificity as to the time that the children spent with her, and
Mr. Litton acknowledged that he and petitioner often mutually
agreed to deviate from the beginning and ending times set forth
in the Standard Possession Order.
Petitioner and Mr. Litton do not dispute that the children
spent the night at petitioner’s home on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and
the respective Fridays and Saturdays, as well as on other days
mutually agreed upon between the parties.8 With respect to the
designated Sundays, the Standard Possession Order awarded
petitioner physical custody of the children until 6 p.m. It
follows therefrom that the children would have spent the night at
Mr. Litton’s home on Sunday unless the parties mutually agreed
that the children would spent the night at petitioner’s home.
Indeed, it is apparent from the record that the parties
frequently agreed to allow the children to spend Sunday night
with petitioner when she had custody of them during the weekend.
Petitioner asserts that the children spent the night at her
home for most, or for more than half, of the Sundays that she had
physical custody of them for the weekend. Mr. Litton
acknowledged that the children spent the night at petitioner’s
home on Sunday for at least one-third of the time that she had
8 It appears that petitioner’s log contained notations for
such occasions, which were included in petitioner’s computation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011