Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Custody Modification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge keeps agreed school-year schedule but orders alternating summer weeks; declines fee award
Summary
In Maples v. Jones, Judge David D. Wolfe found a material change in living arrangements but kept the school-year Thursday-to-Tuesday schedule the parents had been using; he ordered alternating summer weeks, declined to award attorney fees, and directed the parties to exchange financial data for child-support recalculation.
Dixon County Chancery Court on the record resolved a custody and child-support dispute between Rose Hannah Maples and Gregory Kyle Jones by preserving the schedule the parents had given one another during the school year and by increasing the father's summer time.
Judge David D. Wolfe found that the parties had effectively modified the original parenting plan by agreement — expanding father Kyle Jones's time from every-other-weekend to a block from Thursday to the following Tuesday — and that other changes in both households (remarriages and new siblings) constituted material changes in circumstances that justified court review.
Nut graf: Rather than make a sweeping change during the school year, Wolfe kept the Thursday-to-Tuesday arrangement the parents had been using and instead ordered the parents to split the school summer break by alternating full weeks. The judge told both parties to exchange current income and insurance details so the juvenile-court child-support computation could be done in stages tied to family events and the child's new sibling status.
Maples told the court she opposed changing the existing school-year schedule, arguing the child had adapted and she did not want to disrupt stability, asking, "why change something that's not broken?" Jones and his new wife told the court they were prepared to take on additional parenting responsibility; Jones said he had changed jobs and could spend more time with his son.
Wolfe measured the change narrowly: he found a material change in circumstances but balanced that against the child's need for continuity in schooling. He adopted summer-week alternation to give both parents extended time while preserving school-year stability. He declined to award attorney fees to either side but directed the parties to finalize a written order and exchange payroll and insurance details for a recalculation of support that will account for a newborn in each household.
Ending: The judge issued a written ruling on the record and instructed counsel to draft implementing orders; he warned both parents that repeated unilateral decisions about major religious or parental matters could prompt future contempt findings.
