If you are a mass every Sunday kind of Catholic

[bolt.]

1 hour ago, BandH said:

I am not annoyed, and it’s not quibbling.  It costs me hundreds of dollars each time my attorney has to respond.  Money that could be spent feeding and clothing his children.  

My hope is that by limiting the agreement to mass, I can simply respond to other complaints by saying that I only committed to mass.  I will do more than that, but what I do in the privacy of my home is my business.  
 

 

I think I'm getting some clarity here, but I guess I'm not fully understanding. Again, I don't mean that in a passive-aggressive way at all, I mean that I'm sure there is a reason, I'm just not in a position to know what it is. I can see that avoiding him being able to force you to use and pay for your lawyer's services makes sense as a motivation!

What, in these two scenarios, distinguishes between an complaint your attorney has to respond to vs a complaint that you can respond to by saying something yourself?

I'm seeing a matrix:

1. He says "You are doing yxz, which isn't in compliance with being Catholic enough." A: You can say, "I think it's Catholic enough, I guess we disagree." Or B: Your lawyer needs to say something like, "My client affirms that she is abiding by her agreement at this time." (?) with a cost for their time in providing that response.

2. He says, "I don't really believe you are taking the kids to mass." A: you can say, "Yes I am, within reason, taking the kids to mass whenever possible." Or B. Your lawyer needs to say something like, "My client affirms that she is abiding by her agreement at this time." (?) with a cost for their time in providing that response.

So, if 1.B is happening often enough that you are concerned about it and the expenses associated with it, and 1.A. isn't a workable procedure Why do you think 2.B. isn't going to happen equally often, and why do you thin 2.A. is likely to be possible (or at least more possible than 1.A. currently seems to be)?

[prairiewindmomma]

2 hours ago, BandH said:

I am not annoyed, and it’s not quibbling.  It costs me hundreds of dollars each time my attorney has to respond.  Money that could be spent feeding and clothing his children.  

My hope is that by limiting the agreement to mass, I can simply respond to other complaints by saying that I only committed to mass.  I will do more than that, but what I do in the privacy of my home is my business.  
 

 

This could work if you were dealing with a reasonable person.

I don't think you are. I think you are dealing with someone who is abusing you legally. Reasonable people don't act like he has acted.  The fact that he has made repeated claims that you have been in contempt kind of illustrates that point. He has shown you who he is and how the next 7-8 years are likely to play out and I can't imagine he is going to give up trying to control you or the kids.

If you are getting significant other concessions that your attorney doesn't think you're likely to get otherwise, great, but even then, tread cautiously. I'd be mapping out 6 chess game plays ahead of what happens when xyz happens because I don't think this is going to end here.  And, fwiw, I think one of the scenarios you need to consider is what happens if you lose the support of his family (death, estrangement, whatever)....however unlikely that is, it's entirely possible. If no one is reining him in, what do you need your agreement to look like?

 

[Drama Llama]

2 hours ago, freesia said:

So, with this clarification, maybe a more direct way to state what  you are asking is--Do we think mass attendance would be enough to be considered raising a child Catholic by an every Sunday mass attender?

No because I don't think it's "enough" I just think it's the only reasonable thing to promise. 

There are lots of things, big and little, that I do that I think are important parts of raising my kids Christian.  We pray before meals.  We pray before bed.  We engage in service.  We keep Christian values in mind when making decisions.  I could go on.  

But to me, those are day to day parenting decisions to be made by the custodial parent.  They are 100% my responsibility, and my business.

[Faith-manor]

12 minutes ago, BandH said:

No because I don't think it's "enough" I just think it's the only reasonable thing to promise. 

There are lots of things, big and little, that I do that I think are important parts of raising my kids Christian.  We pray before meals.  We pray before bed.  We engage in service.  We keep Christian values in mind when making decisions.  I could go on.  

But to me, those are day to day parenting decisions to be made by the custodial parent.  They are 100% my responsibility, and my business.

I agree with you fully on this. It is the only reasonable thing to give him.  I don't know how to make him get that. Sigh. I hate the system. He shouldn't have an opinion or a say in any single thing at all. The family court system is the very definition of nightmare.

I am so sorry!!

[Not_a_Number]

The thing is that if you want to give him comfort, it's not really about WHAT you promise as much as how the negotiation goes. People aren't reasonable in general, and we have lots and lots of evidence that he isn't reasonable AT ALL. 

So making promises that would make a reasonable conservative Catholic happy is irrelevant, because a reasonable conservative Catholic would be happy with you as is! The issue isn't that you aren't doing enough and you won't be able to fix the issue by providing more stringent requirements for yourself -- you'll just give him leverage to haul you into court. 

[*LC]

I completely understand where you are coming from, but I agree with everyone saying you should not give him (more) power over your life.

While reading replies, something started nagging me and I finally realized it was the old saying that one should never make the first offer in a negotiation. (The explanation is below.)

After reading your thoughts, the replies and the explanation below, I have a suggestion. 
 

He most likely isn’t going to agree to your suggestions no matter what. So, in your draft/proposal, you simply say kids will be raised Catholic. That is the only thing you put in your proposal about religion, and it will force him to define what raised Catholic means to him. 

When he wants language saying the kids will attend mass every week, you can counter with kids will be given opportunity to attend mass. If it’s kids will be confirmed, you counter with mother will give kids the option to participate in confirmation. Same thing for confession. (If he comes back again proposing, a high number on these things, you then go with the numbers others suggest here that are vague and/or low.) The wording you start with can definitely be different than my quick suggestion, but you want it to be vague enough that he will be forced to be the one to make the the actual first specific proposal. Good luck; stay strong.

This is based on:

The 5 rules for a good negotiation

1) Never speak first.
This is perhaps the most well known of negotiating tactics, if you can, have the other guy go first. Those who would advise a more aggressive and manipulative strategy will say that it’s a good power play. The truth is a bit more mundane and obvious, if the guy is willing to sell you the thingy for £10 but you open by offering £15, you just shot yourself in the foot. Though, the rule should really be “don’t make the first offer” rather than don’t speak first; speaking first is your opportunity to prompt them to make the first offer (making it very tricky for them to get you to do so). A simple “How much do you want for it?” or “What time were you thinking?” will work wonders. So speak first, offer second

[Drama Llama]

He is the one who wants to keep the vague “raised Catholic” language.  He has offered first. That is his offer.   I don’t want that language which is why I need to replace it. I am the one who wants the language limited to mass.
 

[Not_a_Number]

Ugh, misread, my bad. Ignore what I said earlier.  

I think what you say in that case is that this won't work for you and see if he can come up with something less vague. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Not_a_Number

[Faith-manor]

2 minutes ago, BandH said:

He is the one who wants to keep the vague “raised Catholic” language.  He has offered first. That is his offer.   I don’t want that language which is why I need to replace it. I am the one who wants the language limited to mass.
 

Band, do you have any bargaining chips, anything he really wants as part of the separation settlement that would not bother you to give up? "I will exchange the language you propose for, children will be given the opportunity to attend mass, in exchange for giving you X?"

My brother gave up custody of his kids for the house. No joke. It was more important to him to have that house than parenting rights to his kids. Sigh. He got what he deserved, a thing, and nothing more.

Again, so sorry this is happening to you. I wish I knew how to help you. You must be so darn weary from dealing with him.

[Drama Llama]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Right, this is where you say "OK, what would you prefer?" so that you don't have to make the first offer. And then refuse anything that sounds unreasonable, replacing it with vaguer language. 

So I offer him the language he is asking for, that he has used over and over to hurt me and then say “what would you prefer?”  

[Not_a_Number]

No. I'm sorry, I misread. You say that this language doesn't work for you because it's too vague, and then wait for him to suggest something else. But I think @*LC is really onto something with not making the first offer -- what you want to do is to present the problem instead of the solution. 

[Drama Llama]

Children will be given the opportunity to attend mass is the language that I want.  
 

Children will be raised Catholic is the language he wants.  He isn’t asking to change the language.  

[Not_a_Number]

NM. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Not_a_Number

[Drama Llama]

Me removing language I don’t want isn’t me trying to control him.  

[Rosie_0801]

2 minutes ago, BandH said:

Me removing language I don’t want isn’t me trying to control him.  

It is. 

You are doing it to try and control his responses, which you really don't have control over.

Whatever wording you end up with, you're still going to have to respond to his crap with "I am adhering to the court orders. Your rights are being preserved" over and over until he gives it up or your youngest turns 18.

What you want to do would work if he was a reasonable person, but he is not a reasonable person. You need to play the game the way the system expects you to play. 

[Drama Llama]

1 minute ago, Rosie_0801 said:

It is. 

You are doing it to try and control his responses, which you really don't have control over.

Whatever wording you end up with, you're still going to have to respond to his crap with "I am adhering to the court orders. Your rights are being preserved" over and over until he gives it up or your youngest turns 18.

What you want to do would work if he was a reasonable person, but he is not a reasonable person. You need to play the game the way the system expects you to play. 

The system wants me to negotiate a final agreement, and for it to be specific.  

[Rosie_0801]

7 minutes ago, BandH said:

The system wants me to negotiate a final agreement, and for it to be specific.  

The system wants specifics about things that are matters of law. Money, custody time, you must tell him if the kids go to hospital etc.

The system does not want specifics about religious religion is under anyone's roof. That is not a matter of law. On this point, he is currently looking like the reasonable one. Not that anyone is looking at the moment.
 

There is no wording you can provide that will stop him using his legal right to use the courts to abuse you if he feels like it. All you can do is keep it vague enough that he hasn't a leg to stand on if his lawyers let him bring his controlling b.s to court because you get out of there quicker.

[Rosie_0801]

If you're trying to hurry the documents through to create safety in other areas, you need to let this one go. 

Focusing on what you can do instead of what you can't is the better use of your limited resources.

It well sucks that in this world a person's right to abuse is more protected than a person's right to not be abused, but here we are.

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, BandH said:

Children will be given the opportunity to attend mass is the language that I want.  
 

Children will be raised Catholic is the language he wants.  He isn’t asking to change the language.  

But they're already attending Mass, and that isn't making him happy, right? 

If you leave it at "the children will be raised Catholic" and they generally go to Mass and have the opportunity for religious instruction, he definitely has no basis for contempt. He might fight to get the wording changed later, but he is, 100%, going to be fighting you over something. 

Just now, BandH said:

The system wants me to negotiate a final agreement, and for it to be specific.  

"The children will be raised Catholic" is bog standard wording for custody agreements, particularly if the concerned parent is in agreement with it. If two people go in with an agreement, the court is generally only going to request clarification or changes if they note something that may not be in the child's best interest. 

I know family courts vary, but this is something really standard that I've never heard of them interfering with. 

If you give numbers or percentages for Mass attendance, that is going to give him the idea to have the same for confession (which should a completely personal decision or else devoid of all meaning), obligatory days of fasting and what fasting should look like, and he is definitely going to want reports on all of this. That's being way too deep in your kool-aid, and really violating the boys' personal sense of moral obligation, and their right and responsibility to make their own religious decisions.  

Are they still in Catholic school? 

[Rosie_0801]

If he hauls you back for something b.s, you can hire a cheaper lawyer. You don't need an expensive lawyer to agree with a judge that who drove the kids to church (or whatever) is none of his business. In those circumstances, his lawyer won't even try to win.

[Harriet Vane]

(((BandH))) -- I am really, really sorry that your dh has become this and that he has dragged you down into his miserable vortex with him. I'm so very, very sorry for the ongoing stress, worry, and pain that you experience. 

 

What Rosie and katilac are saying here is true. They are offering good legal strategy and good advice in general. 

Keeping the wording vague--"raised Catholic"--in a legal document is both standard in custody agreements for religion and will ultimately protect you best. Codifying numbers or percentages or specific rites will not help you. It would do the opposite--it would restrict your freedom and that of your children. It would give him MORE ammunition for court, not less. 

It's also a point that you can "concede" to him. You can say, "Okay, we'll keep this wording, that I will raise the kids as Catholic." And then you just continue doing so, holding to what you personally feel meets that obligation. You personally can choose to quietly live by your own, internal checklist, honorably doing those things that entail raising children in this faith. Your internal checklist does not have to be cemented into a legal document.

When you appear to concede something to him, it may open a door for something else that is important to you in the custody agreement. If you let him feel he has "won" by keeping this point ("raised Catholic"), you may be able to gain in other ways. 

You will not be able to prevent him from threatening to take you to court. I wish it were otherwise. But I can assure you that based on the information you have shared here, you have truly raised them in the Catholic faith and can easily prove that in court. The court would accept church attendance as meeting that obligation--they are not in the business of policing religious practice. 

[Jaybee]

(((((BandH)))))

[Drama Llama]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

But they're already attending Mass, and that isn't making him happy, right? 

If you leave it at "the children will be raised Catholic" and they generally go to Mass and have the opportunity for religious instruction, he definitely has no basis for contempt. He might fight to get the wording changed later, but he is, 100%, going to be fighting you over something. 

"The children will be raised Catholic" is bog standard wording for custody agreements, particularly if the concerned parent is in agreement with it.
 

I am the concerned parent and I am not in agreement with it.

2 hours ago, katilac said:

 

If two people go in with an agreement, the court is generally only going to request clarification or changes if they note something that may not be in the child's best interest. 

I know family courts vary, but this is something really standard that I've never heard of them interfering with. 

If you give numbers or percentages for Mass attendance, that is going to give him the idea to have the same for confession (which should a completely personal decision or else devoid of all meaning), obligatory days of fasting and what fasting should look like, and he is definitely going to want reports on all of this. That's being way too deep in your kool-aid, and really violating the boys' personal sense of moral obligation, and their right and responsibility to make their own religious decisions.  

Are they still in Catholic school? 

No

[Harriet Vane]

19 minutes ago, BandH said:

I am the concerned parent and I am not in agreement with it.

No

What do you disagree with? In other words what are you not in agreement with? Raising them as Catholic? 

 I’m genuinely trying to understand—this is clearly bothering you quite a lot.

[Drama Llama]

41 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

What do you disagree with? In other words what are you not in agreement with? Raising them as Catholic? 

 I’m genuinely trying to understand—this is clearly bothering you quite a lot.

He uses “non-Catholic” as an excuse to question my behavior.    Because it’s vague, so he feels like he can say “Oh, you did X and that wasn’t a Catholic role model for the kids.” 

So, I want to be able to say “Nope, this is all I agreed to, mass on Sunday and confirmation classes.  The rest is not your business.”  
 

Will it help the contempt issue?  Maybe not.  But it shouldn’t hurt.  

 

[TravelingChris]

What particular things is he calling non-Catholic?  I think that would help us all figure out what to recommend.  But I agree with all the other posters who say he isn't rational and will be harassing you on any number of things.  

[Drama Llama]

And to be clear, when I say he is questioning my behavior, I am not doing non-Catholic things.  It’s things like not sending my kid to youth group, because his schedule is already really full and he has homework.  Or referring to him as the kids’ dad when I should say my husband because Catholics don’t get divorced.  

[TravelingChris]

Okay, the examples you brought up are nuts.  I was a Catholic growing up and didn't go to youth group.  And it is false that Catholics don't divorce and aren't allowed to-- what they aren't allowed to do is remarry without an annulment.

[TravelingChris]

36 minutes ago, BandH said:

And to be clear, when I say he is questioning my behavior, I am not doing non-Catholic things.  It’s things like not sending my kid to youth group, because his schedule is already really full and he has homework.  Or referring to him as the kids’ dad when I should say my husband because Catholics don’t get divorced.  

And no judge will want to have these ridiculous arguments in the courtroom.   

[Harriet Vane]

5 hours ago, BandH said:

He uses “non-Catholic” as an excuse to question my behavior.    Because it’s vague, so he feels like he can say “Oh, you did X and that wasn’t a Catholic role model for the kids.” 

So, I want to be able to say “Nope, this is all I agreed to, mass on Sunday and confirmation classes.  The rest is not your business.”  
 

Will it help the contempt issue?  Maybe not.  But it shouldn’t hurt.  

 

I can see that he is harassing and haranguing and beating you down. I’m sure that hurts and I am sure you are sick and tired of it. I’m so sorry. Truly so sorry.

He will continue to do this no matter what. I’m just so sorry for that. You have been more than kind and patient with him. It’s not fair. Not fair at all.

I still think that attempting to negotiate this point will ultimately hurt you, probably a lot. What you need is a signed agreement. Giving him issues to argue about stretches out the process. Negotiating specifics will open a whole can of worms during your hammering out the agreement and he is likely to want more specifics on that list than are reasonable to agree to.

In legal terms, the current wording serves you best and offers far more to your children in terms of options and choices as they grow. Protecting your children’s freedom and choices is essential. Don’t lock them into something unsustainable. 

 

[Clemsondana]

With issues that petty I don't think that it will help, but maybe 'Will be provided opportunity and encouraged to attend Catholic mass as expected  by the Church'.  I wouldn't commit to a number, or to ensuring that they go because life is unpredictable.  I don't think your custody agreement should be less flexible than the Church itself.  I understand wanting to limit church participation requirement to mass, since most people that I know of all denominations think of youth group and other extras as great when it works (schedule and socially) but not actual requirements.  But, by the time that he's trying to manage how you word things, I think that it indicates that he'll just keep looking for things to complain about.  My parents have been married for 50+ years and my mom sometimes refers to my dad as 'your dad'.  I can't remember the last time that I referred to spouse as 'my husband' to real people - I either say his name or, if in reference to something with the kids, may say 'Their dad will do...'.  The only time I say 'my spouse' is online in forums where I don't want to use a name.  

[brehon]

15 minutes ago, Clemsondana said:

I don't think your custody agreement should be less flexible than the Church itself.

This is crucial. The Church does not require youth group nor does the Church require one to refer to a spouse with any particular language. Following the precepts of the Church is what She requires. You are already doing that.

My family is a conservative Catholic family. My kids don’t go to a youth group and my dh and I refer to each other myriad ways. 

I’m so very sorry you’re living the hell that you are. You will not forestall him using any and all legal means to harass you and the boys by putting strictures on yourself. Please listen to the other ladies saying that what you are wanting to do in a legal document will harm both you and your boys. 

[Condessa]

Maybe something along the lines of they will be raised catholic with the guidance of ______ (priest who’s judgement you trust).  That way it doesn’t add specific requirements for you, but it takes the judgement of whether your actions are “catholic enough” out of dh’s hands and into the hands of a reasonable person?

Edited June 21, 2023 by Condessa

[Drama Llama]

9 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Okay, the examples you brought up are nuts.  I was a Catholic growing up and didn't go to youth group.  And it is false that Catholics don't divorce and aren't allowed to-- what they aren't allowed to do is remarry without an annulment.

And to be clear, I have no intention to divorce him or annul the marriage or date.  I am faithful to my vows, I just interpret “honor” to mean protecting his children when he can’t.  

[Harriet Vane]

4 minutes ago, BandH said:

And to be clear, I have no intention to divorce him or annul the marriage or date.  I am faithful to my vows, I just interpret “honor” to mean protecting his children when he can’t.  

It’s a tough needle to thread and I admire you immensely. I really, really do.

[Dmmetler]

1 hour ago, Condessa said:

Maybe something along the lines of they will be raised catholic with the guidance of ______ (priest who’s judgement you trust).  That way it doesn’t add specific requirements for you, but it takes the judgement of whether your actions are “catholic enough” out of dh’s hands and into the hands of a reasonable person?

I'd suggest avoiding listing specific names if at all possible. I know the Catholic parish near my college went through three priests in the four years I was there. 

[Drama Llama]

2 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

I'd suggest avoiding listing specific names if at all possible. I know the Catholic parish near my college went through three priests in the four years I was there. 

There are other reasons why the priest plan wouldn’t work.

[wintermom]

14 hours ago, BandH said:

He uses “non-Catholic” as an excuse to question my behavior.    Because it’s vague, so he feels like he can say “Oh, you did X and that wasn’t a Catholic role model for the kids.” 

So, I want to be able to say “Nope, this is all I agreed to, mass on Sunday and confirmation classes.  The rest is not your business.”  
 

Will it help the contempt issue?  Maybe not.  But it shouldn’t hurt.  

 

He's using a very broad, unrealistic "definition" which I would doubt could hold up in a court of law - or even better, with the Catholic church. I wouldn't make any further changes to "bring the children up Catholic" as he suggests. He would have to find some kind of documentation to prove your actions are going against the "bring up Catholic." The burden of proof would be on him, wouldn't it? 

"Bringing a child up as Catholic" does not mean you need to be a Catholic role model. They aren't interchangeable. They are completely separate things. You fight any kind of non-sense he's trying to pull. 

[ktgrok]

15 hours ago, BandH said:

He uses “non-Catholic” as an excuse to question my behavior.    Because it’s vague, so he feels like he can say “Oh, you did X and that wasn’t a Catholic role model for the kids.” 

So, I want to be able to say “Nope, this is all I agreed to, mass on Sunday and confirmation classes.  The rest is not your business.”  
 

Will it help the contempt issue?  Maybe not.  But it shouldn’t hurt.  

 

If you decide to do it like that, I'd put "regularly attend Mass and confirmation classes" so there is wiggle room for illness/emergencies/etc. 

[Drama Llama]

2 hours ago, wintermom said:

He's using a very broad, unrealistic "definition" which I would doubt could hold up in a court of law - or even better, with the Catholic church. I wouldn't make any further changes to "bring the children up Catholic" as he suggests. He would have to find some kind of documentation to prove your actions are going against the "bring up Catholic." The burden of proof would be on him, wouldn't it? 

"Bringing a child up as Catholic" does not mean you need to be a Catholic role model. They aren't interchangeable. They are completely separate things. You fight any kind of non-sense he's trying to pull. 

I am not worried that we'll go to court and I'll lose custody because I referred to him as "Dyson and Hoover's Dad", or I sent my kids to church with my FIL while I visited my sick mother.  I am worried about the cost of attorney fees, and potentially missed work, to respond to his claims, and I worry about the impact that accusations have on our mental health.  I also worry about wearing the judge down, so that they no longer take the case so seriously, when I need them to.

But I just also, mentally, need to be able to say "this is what I agreed to", and I need that to be concrete.  I won't agree to be Catholic.  It happens that I am, but my religion is my choice.  I won't agree that my kids will end up Catholic.  That's their choice to make as adults.  Ironically, I think there's a good chance that my oldest will reject anything he associates with his father, including Catholicism.

So, I want the document to be clear about what I am willing to agree to, which is mass and religious ed.  

[Heartstrings]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

If you decide to do it like that, I'd put "regularly attend Mass and confirmation classes" so there is wiggle room for illness/emergencies/etc. 

I like that phrasing.  

[Faith-manor]

44 minutes ago, BandH said:

I am not worried that we'll go to court and I'll lose custody because I referred to him as "Dyson and Hoover's Dad", or I sent my kids to church with my FIL while I visited my sick mother.  I am worried about the cost of attorney fees, and potentially missed work, to respond to his claims, and I worry about the impact that accusations have on our mental health.  I also worry about wearing the judge down, so that they no longer take the case so seriously, when I need them to.

But I just also, mentally, need to be able to say "this is what I agreed to", and I need that to be concrete.  I won't agree to be Catholic.  It happens that I am, but my religion is my choice.  I won't agree that my kids will end up Catholic.  That's their choice to make as adults.  Ironically, I think there's a good chance that my oldest will reject anything he associates with his father, including Catholicism.

So, I want the document to be clear about what I am willing to agree to, which is mass and religious ed.  

Then I think you should go with exactly that. Mass and religious ed at your discretion. He isn't likely to sign anything you propose because he wants to make you miserable. He is going to make you spend an unholy amount of money on attorney fees simply because he can. And if the judge gets worn down by this, it will not be YOU that he doesn't take seriously. It will be him. He can also dismiss his complaints with prejudice (this happened to my brother) which mean he can never make that complaint again and have anything done about it. You will not have to answer it. His lawyer won't even submit it.  But you have to steel yourself between now and then for the attacks. No language in any document will stop him because the system legalizes harassment. So get the language you want to begin with and then go from there. Mass. I would leave it at mass, opportunity to attend mass. You don't want to force confirmation classes on your kids because it was in the custody agreement. He is going to fight. But he is going to fight no matter what. There just is no way to stop someone like him from doing that. You cannot reason with irrational people.

[freesia]

 I think you are coming clearer to what you want. You say mass and religious education. Your youngest is almost at confirmation anyway, right?  At this point, he’s  likely to be confirmed, so it’s almost a non-issue to negotiate. It’s different if the boys were younger. I’m going to change what I said earlier a bit. I would leave out amounts of attendance. I might even leave out “at your discretion.”  I think that’s implied by the fact that you have legal custody—you’ve said you are the tie break on decisions. I don’t think you should ever report to him on mass. I think you can just say that you are taking them regularly.if there’s no number listed then he can’t take you to court or demand to know. There is no way you are going to do it exactly the way he would in theory. I haven’t done raising religious kids the way I thought I would or always the way my dh would prefer 100%. That’s just normal parenting flexibility which he isn’t around to experience. So, if you want mass in there, put it in. Ask your lawyer the best way to phrase it. 

[Drama Llama]

4 hours ago, freesia said:

 I think you are coming clearer to what you want. You say mass and religious education. Your youngest is almost at confirmation anyway, right?  At this point, he’s  likely to be confirmed, so it’s almost a non-issue to negotiate. It’s different if the boys were younger. I’m going to change what I said earlier a bit. I would leave out amounts of attendance. I might even leave out “at your discretion.”  I think that’s implied by the fact that you have legal custody—you’ve said you are the tie break on decisions. I don’t think you should ever report to him on mass. I think you can just say that you are taking them regularly.if there’s no number listed then he can’t take you to court or demand to know. There is no way you are going to do it exactly the way he would in theory. I haven’t done raising religious kids the way I thought I would or always the way my dh would prefer 100%. That’s just normal parenting flexibility which he isn’t around to experience. So, if you want mass in there, put it in. Ask your lawyer the best way to phrase it. 

Yeah, he's got like another 9 months to go before confirmation.