- 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