KTM,

Thank you for clarifying that for me!
It is good to know as we enter negotiations.

I also just read that it can be 16% of line D3 (instead of 18%) for mother paying direct expenses if we agree to buy clothing for our own homes.
Since it is 50/50 parent time we have already verbally agreed to buy clothing for the children to keep at our own homes.
I will run this by my lawyer.

Well I meet with my attorney today to send a reply to the settlelment that was proposed to me and I decided not to pursue the 2% clothing reduction yet.  I don't want to upset things and hoping she is willing to settle without mediation or the judge.
I am being allowed to supply the medical, dental and vision which helps me quite a bit.

I am still not comfortable with the lines in the settlement below.

On the second page of the property settlement and separation agreement, why do we really need this sentence below.
1.) "Wife, however, shall be designated as the party to have primary placement of said children"?
Can that hurt me in anyway? The kids and I want them to stay in the same schools and my wife isn't necessarily agreeing.
That line seems like it could hurt us.

2.) The permanent parenting plan says, "Father and Mother agree that they shall mutually exercise the joint legal and residential custody, control and education of the minor children of children".

Without getting to involved in the answer, does anyone know what the law is if she were to want to move them hundreds of miles away?

Thank you for any advice and Happy New Year!

#1 gives the Mother Primary Residential status.

Not a biggie unless she chooses to challenge you on the 50/50 schedule. Even then, it can easily be challenged by Court hearing and established pattern.

It may be a subtle way of giving her the income tax credits and deductions. Federal Law will honor that written agreement. No District Court Judge will Order that if you do not agree. They do not have jurisdiction over Federal matters. I tried to get Orders issued in my case about Tax Credits and Deductions and the Court refused. My X has not ever given me anything in writing which the Federal Tax laws require. So, in my case it is still ambiguous and an opening for problems with the IRS.

My X gets a tax credit on the Child Support Worksheet since I am the "Primary Residential Custodian" and under the CS Guidelines get the tax credits & deductions. Federal Law requires a written agreement and so it is sketchy with the IRS.

The CS Guidelines presume the credit will alternate years. The statement in #1 may allow her to claim the Federal deductions & credits every year. In which case you ought to be getting a credit for that loss on the Child Support Worksheet.

#2 is standard language and is not usually included as it is the definition of Joint Custody in the Child Support Guidelines = Law.

I don't think you have anything other than the tax issue to be concerned about.

As to moving the children out of the Courts Jurisdiction or even down the block from where they currently reside:

Both parents, under the Child Support Guidelines/LAW are required to give specific notifications to each other. Children being moved out of the Courts jurisdiction with or without notification can be challenged in a Court hearing. This may result in a change of custody to the parent residing within the Courts jurisdiction.

They way I read these statements, they will attend the same school/school district unless you both agree otherwise.  I'm not exactly sure why her attorney has chosen to use the language "primary placement."  I think, that unless a statement is made otherwise in the agreement, KTM may be on target that she is trying to gain the tax advantage.  You'll not really know what her intent is until it comes.  You can anticipate what her angle is, then just keep a very close eye.  She may think she is being sneaky, but you have us to help you.  Just bait the hook and watch her take it.  It probably will happen, but you will be ready.

I think you should go ahead and sign, knowing that if she tries to use this language to gain something in taxes, you can very easily take her back to court later and lower your child support accordingly.  The courts recognize the tax benefits of children, and if the parties are not equally sharing those benefits, an equivalent monthly credit or additional amount is assessed.

The idea is for you to get 95% of what you want in writing and start abiding by that agreement.  Once there is a new "status quo" a judge will be inclined to leave things as they are unless there is some kind of safety issue.