DECISION AND ORDER AFTER A TRIAL Before this Court are cross petitions filed by the parties seeking a de novo determination regarding custody of the subject children, R.T. (DOB 08/27/2016) and P.T. (DOB 02/13/2018) as well as petitions alleging violations and seeking enforcement of temporary orders issued in this action. On November 27, 2017, M.T. [hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner" or "Father"] filed a petition () seeking custody of R.T. alleging that R.L.T. unlawfully deprived Father of his right to parent R.T. and was not responsive to engaging in mediation at the parties’ church. On December 19, 2017, R.L.T. [hereinafter referred to as "Respondent" or "Mother"] filed a cross-petition () seeking custody of R.T. alleging Father: has a history of drug and alcohol abuse; has a substantial criminal history; was abusive to Mother; and is incapable of caring for the child independently. On February 23, 2018, Father filed a petition () seeking custody of the parties’ newborn child P.T. alleging: Mother prevented Father from being present at P.T.’s birth; and Mother deviated from the previously agreed upon name for the child unilaterally naming the child without father’s consent. On March 7, 2018, Mother filed a cross petition () seeking custody of P.T. asserting that it would be in the child’s best interests for Mother to have custody as Mother can provide proper accommodations, attend to the child’s academic needs, and provide superior financial support to Father. On August 13, 2018, Father filed petitions (&) alleging that Mother was attempting to interfere with his parenting time by filing baseless family offense petitions against him and the children’s paternal grandmother. On October 10, 2018, Mother filed petitions (&) alleging that Father missed 1-5 visits with the subject children and was late for pick-ups and drop-offs. Mother further alleged that Father refused to administer medication to the children and failed to fulfill their dietary needs and attend to their general welfare. A trial was held on all the pending petitions on May 30th, 31st, June 5th and June 11th, 2019. , Esq. of Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, appeared on behalf of Father; ,Esq. appeared on behalf of Mother; and , Esq. appeared as the Attorney for the Children.1 Father called D.T. as a witness and testified on his own behalf. Mother called S.A., Father, M.C., M.B., and L.C. as witnesses and testified on her own behalf.2 The Attorney for the Children called no witnesses and in light of the subject children’s ages, this Court did not conduct an in camera interview with the children. RELEVANT HISTORY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS3 On December 19, 2017, the parties first appeared before this Court on Father’s petition seeking custody of R.T. This Court assigned an attorney for the child and issued a temporary order (over Mother’s objection) affording Father parenting time with the subject child R.T. on Sundays from 11:00AM to 5:00PM. In consideration of Mother’s allegations of Father’s alcohol abuse this Court ordered the Respondent to submit to urinalysis testing and imposed a strict condition that Father not consume or be under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the presence of the subject child. Immediately after the parties’ appearance before this Court, Mother proceeded to the Office of the Clerk to file a family offense petition () making allegations regarding incidents that purportedly occurred over one year prior to the filing of the petition. Specifically Mother alleged: on 8/3/2016 Father came home “drunk and high and repeatedly became physically and verbally abusive” to Mother; in October 2016 Father was under the influence of drugs and pointed a firearm at Mother while she was holding R.T.; in 2016 and 2017 Father operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with Mother and R.T. in the car; and Father “has criminal convictions for a felony and DWI.” The court issued an Ex Parte Temporary Order of Protection requiring Father to stay away from Mother and the child if consuming or under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol and to refrain from committing a family offense against Mother and R.T. On January 22, 2018, the parties appeared before this Court for conference and received the results of the urinalysis test Father submitted to on December 19, 2017 which was negative for illegal drugs, prescribed medications and alcohol. This Court expanded Father’s parenting time with R.T. (over Mother’s objection) to Tuesday through Thursday and Sundays. On February 7, 2018, the parties appeared before this Court for conference at which time Petitioner’s newly retained attorney sought an adjournment to familiarize himself with the matter and conference with opposing counsel. This Court adjourned the matter for conference on April 3, 2018 and trial on May 7, 2018. On April 3, 2018, this Court issued an order (over Mother’s objection) affording Father parenting time with P.T. on Sundays again with the provision that Father not consume or be under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the presence of the child. The previously selected trial date was changed to a conference and a new trial date of June 14, 2018 was selected. On April 13, 2018, Father filed a family offense petition () alleging that Mother recklessly endangered the subject children by transporting them in a vehicle while in possession of marijuana and a gun, which Mother turned over to the Nassau County police on April 10, 2018 claiming those items belonged to Father. Father withdrew the petition on the same day that it was filed. On April 17, 2018 Father filed an Order to Show Cause ( , and) seeking to advance the May 7th court date and alleging that Mother filed a criminal complaint against Father and denied Father parenting time with R.T. and P.T. in violation of this Court’s orders.4 On April 19, 2018, the parties appeared before this Court at which time Father’s petition was satisfied with this Court issuing an order affording Father “make up” parenting time with the children. On May 7, 2018, the parties appeared with counsel before this Court for conference at which time this Court was advised that there were criminal proceedings pending against Father because of the allegations Mother made in her criminal complaint. The June 2018 trial dates set in this matter were vacated and trial on the custody matter was stayed pending the disposition of the criminal matter. On August 6, 2018, notwithstanding the fact that the parties had multiple petitions pending over the prior eight months in Nassau County Family Court Mother filed a family offense petition in Queens Family Court () against Father alleging that Father had been harassing Mother since January 2018 and further alleged incidents in 2015 and 2017 where Father allegedly was “aggressive” towards Mother, “beat [Mother] while he drove”, and pushed Mother while destroying items in the home. The court issued a temporary order of protection restricting Father from having any contact with Mother or the children except for court ordered parenting time. On the same date, Mother filed a family offense petition in Queens Family Court () against the children’s paternal grandmother alleging that the grandmother recorded Mother on multiple occasions without her consent, harassed Mother through phone calls and text messages, and caused “deep scars that were bleeding” to the child P.T.’s neck. The court issued a temporary order of protection prohibiting grandmother from having any contact with Mother and the children. On August 7th, Mother again filed petitions in Queens Family Court seeking to modify the temporary orders of protection to allow Mother access to Father’s and grandmother’s home to retrieve possessions. Mother also amended the family offense petition that she filed against Father to change the dates of her allegations.5 On September 11, 2018, the parties appeared for conference at which time this Court admonished Mother on the record for initiating action in another county while related matters were pending before this Court. Mother withdrew the family offense petition against grandmother and the Temporary Order of Protection prohibiting grandmother’s contact with Mother, R.T. and P.T. was vacated. On August 9, 2018, Father filed a family offense petition against Mother () alleging that Mother harassed Father by repeatedly interfering with his parenting time and needlessly initiating police action in the presence of the subject children. The court issued an Ex Parte Temporary Order of Protection prohibiting Mother from having any contact or communication with Father except as it pertains to parenting time and prohibiting Mother from committing a family offense against Father. On August 13, 2018 Father filed the pending violation/enforcement petitions mirroring the allegations in his family offense petition. On October 10, 2018, Mother filed the pending modification petitions alleging that Father failed to properly care for the children and missed parenting time. On May 9, 2019, the parties appeared with counsel for the scheduled commencement of trial on all pending petitions. The parties requested an adjournment of the trial to explore resolution through mediation. Further, both parties made applications to withdraw the pending family offense petitions as a gesture of “good faith” in furtherance of settlement. Accordingly, all of the pending family offense petitions were dismissed without prejudice due to withdrawal and all temporary orders of protection issued were vacated. TRIAL TESTIMONY M.T. Father is 32 years old and has been married to Mother for four years. The parties share two children together, R.T., age two (2) and P.T., age one (1). Father has a bachelor’s degree from University and is working to obtain an MBA at College. During the marriage and prior to the parties’ separation Father was not continuously employed, however, Father worked as an administrator at , worked for , and “worked off the books” doing “odd jobs”. Father testified that he had difficulty gaining permanent employ because of the criminal charges that were pending against him since May 2018 as a result of Mother’s allegations. At the time of his testimony, Father just procured full time employment at and expected to have a “flexible” work schedule. Early into the parties’ marriage they experienced a great deal of acrimony and would frequently argue. Mother and Father socialized where alcohol would be involved without incident but if Father socialized outside of Mother’s presence she would accuse him of having a drinking problem. The parties sought counseling from clergy and parish members at their church to resolve their marital disputes. Father briefly attended AA meetings at the request of Mother in an attempt to save his marriage but denies that he has a problem with alcohol abuse. Father further refutes Mother’s allegations that he has attended any marital counseling sessions while under the influence of alcohol. Father testified that the parties separated in August 2017 after an altercation that occurred when Mother became upset and began arguing with Father while R.T. slept. Father denies being under the influence during this event and further denies that he waved a gun at Mother. The argument ended when Mother packed up her belongings and left the marital residence with the subject child R.T. Father testified that he was very active in the day to day care of R.T. and Mother after the subject child’s birth. Father changed diapers, picked up groceries for the family, and fed R.T. Father was not able to enjoy the same level of involvement in the first months of P.T.’s life inasmuch as Mother restricted Father to having supervised access to P.T. in the maternal grandparents’ home. Father was involved in Mother’s prenatal care when pregnant with R.T., attending doctor’s appointments, and was present throughout Mother’s labor and delivery. Conversely with P.T., Father was not invited to Mother’s prenatal appointments and was only notified one hour prior to P.T.’s birth that Mother planned to deliver the child in a hospital in despite the fact that both parties resided on . The parties initially discussed naming the child ” ” and then after the child’s birth Father learned that Mother unilaterally named their daughter P.T. Father filed a petition seeking custody after several unsuccessful attempts to co-parent with Mother. Father testified that he was arrested during these proceedings because of Mother’s false criminal complaint and was subjected to an investigation by the Department of Social Services (DSS) after Mother falsely alleged that he harmed the children. The criminal case was ultimately dismissed and the DSS investigation was unfounded and closed. Father testified that on several occasions throughout these proceedings Mother interfered with his parenting time to the extent that his only recourse was to seek court intervention. Throughout these proceedings Father continued to reside in the marital residence in which is a one-bedroom apartment in a paternal relative’s home. Father signed a lease for a new apartment in and testified that he had planned to move immediately and would have the children attend public schools if awarded custody. Father testified that it would serve the children’s best interest for Father to be awarded sole legal custody because Mother is “incapable of co-parenting.” Father has extended himself in “every way possible” for the sake of the children and asserts that Mother has failed to do the same. If Father were awarded custody, he would afford Mother as much parenting time as practicable and create open lines of communication. Father has concerns about Mother being awarded custody inasmuch as she frequently creates conflict involving police in their parenting exchanges and attempting to sow strife between Father and members of their community. D.T. (Father’s Witness) D.T. is the mother of Father and the paternal grandmother of the subject children [hereinafter referred to as "Grandmother"]. Grandmother is employed as an admissions coordinator at a nursing home and enjoys a great deal of flexibility in her work schedule. After R.T. was born, Grandmother took a leave of absence from her employment for 10 months to assist the parties in caring for the subject child. Grandmother accompanied Mother and R.T. to medical appointments and assisted Mother and R.T. with their day to day needs. Grandmother no longer enjoys a close relationship with Mother since Mother filed a family offense petition against Grandmother barring her access to her grandchildren. Since the stay away order was vacated Grandmother has resumed enjoying time with the subject children while assisting Father with their care. Grandmother denied knowledge of Father presently having an alcohol or substance abuse problem but is aware that Father was convicted for driving while intoxicated twelve years ago. Grandmother testified that she anticipates being the children’s caregiver when Father is at work and is willing to adjust her schedule however necessary to ensure that she can provide support. R.T. Mother is 32 years old and is married to Father with whom she shares the two subject children. Mother obtained bachelor’s and master’s degrees from University and is presently employed as a middle school teacher in , New York. Mother was employed throughout her pregnancy with R.T. but then took an extended leave from employ to be a “stay at home mom.” After R.T.’s birth the parties primarily relied upon Mother’s employment benefits and savings to survive financially as Father quit his job when R.T. was two months old. Mother and Father also received financial assistance from members of their church who would give the family gift cards and sometimes purchase food and other necessities. Mother began attending her current place of worship after Father introduced it to her. Mother and Father were baptized, became members of the church, and evangelized and preached the gospel together. The parties received support from members of the church and would go to elders in the church for marital advice and counsel. After Mother moved out of the marital residence the parties received counseling at the church as well. Mother testified that throughout the parties’ marriage she was subjected to Father’s “physical, verbal, and emotional abuse.” In November 2016, Father pointed a gun at Mother while R.T. was in her arms. Mother pleaded with Father to put away the gun and then they agreed that Father would turn the gun in to the police. Father failed to dispose of the gun as the parties originally planned and Mother ultimately turned the gun in to the police in April 2018 along with drug paraphernalia that Mother indicated belonged to Father. After several conversations, Father promised Mother he would turn in the gun as they originally planned. Mother also testified that in December 2016 Father came home drunk and insisted that he drive them both to despite Mother offering to drive. Mother got into the car and during the ride the parties began to argue and it “turned physical.” Father grabbed Mother by her wrist and struck her several times while continuing to drive. On August 14, 2017, the parties’ terminated their relationship after Mother and Father got into an altercation that ended with Mother moving out of the marital residence with R.T. Earlier that day the parties were at a family function where Father was drinking alcohol while Mother refrained from imbibing. Father elected to stay out later than Mother and returned home hours later intoxicated. The parties began to argue, and Mother testified that Father struck her several times and tried to break her laptop. Mother contacted her brother and father and they came to the home to pick up Mother and R.T. Mother testified that after she moved out she attempted to arrange times where Father would see R.T., but Father declined to exercise parenting time stating that “he needed time for himself.” Mother resides in a 3-bedroom home with the subject children at a confidential address in . R.T. attends nursery school/day care in , which is 15 minutes away from Mother’s residence. Mother plans to enroll the children in a private school in once they become school age. Mother seeks an award of residential custody and joint legal custody of the children. Mother seeks a “split” parenting time schedule and hopes to co-parent with Father in the future. Mother wants the court to intervene when the parties cannot agree on major decisions for the children or in the alternative wants final decision making authority. Mother is a “reasonable parent” and is proactive in attending to the children’s medical, educational, and extracurricular needs. Mother has kept her address confidential and plans to continue to do so in the future. Mother wants to continue to communicate with Respondent via the Our Family Wizard application and seeks to attend the PEACE program to learn more effective ways to co-parent with Father. S.A. (Mother’s Witness) S.A. is 67 years old and was employed at prior to his retirement. Mr. attends Church where he first met the parties. Mr. has counseled the parties on several occasions regarding marital disputes and has engaged with them socially as well. Mr. met with Father several times in 2016 at which time Father appeared to be very angry and expressed that there was a great deal of tension and acrimony in the parties’ marriage. Mr. was aware of an incident between the parties where Father had a gun. Mr. confronted Father about this event and Father expressed remorse. Mr. encouraged Father to seek counseling. Mr. denied having witnessed Father consume alcohol to the point of intoxication but suggested that Father attend an alcohol treatment program to resolve an issue of contention in the parties marriage. Mr. has observed both Mother and Father interact with the children. Mr. described both Mother and Father as loving parents and the children always appear to be happy when in their care. M.C. (Mother’s Witness) M.C. is Mother’s twin brother and is the maternal uncle of the subject children [hereinafter referred to as "Uncle"]. Uncle has observed Mother care for the subject children on many occasions and has accompanied Mother to “over a dozen” doctor visits. Uncle has attended family functions where Father was present and observed that Father was intoxicated at a funeral in October 2015. Uncle assisted Mother and R.T. in moving out of the marital home. Mother and R.T. moved into the maternal grandparents’ home (where Uncle also resides) and Mother shared a bedroom with R.T. during that time. M.B. (Mother’s Witness) M.B. is a member of Church and has known Mother and Father for approximately 6 years. Ms. has interacted with the parties socially on several occasions and has never observed either party consume alcohol. Ms. has observed the children while in Mother’s care and they always appeared appropriately dressed and well-kept. L.C. (Mother’s Witness) L.C. is Mother’s father and the maternal grandfather of the subject children [hereinafter referred to as "Grandfather"]. Grandfather testified that Mother moved back to his residence in or about August or September 2017. On the day Mother moved out, Mother called Grandfather to the marital residence at approximately 3:00AM. When Grandfather arrived he encountered Father who appeared to be “not normal” and smelled like alcohol. Father apologized to Grandfather repeatedly but was not specific regarding what he was apologizing for. After Mother moved into Grandfather’s home Grandfather would occasionally see Father when he came to the home to visit with the subject children. DISCUSSION AND DECISION After hearing the testimony of the parties and reviewing all of the evidence submitted herein, and the court having searched the statewide registry of orders of protection, the sex offender registry and the Family Court’s warrant and child protective records, this Court finds that the best interest of the subject children would be served by an award of legal custody to the Father with residential custody to the Mother and a shared parenting time schedule to be enjoyed by both parties. Any court in considering questions of child custody must make every effort to determine what is for the best interest of the children. Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 169 (2d Dept. 1982). There is no prima facie right to the custody of children in either parent, and the court shall determine solely what is for the best interest of the children and what will best promote their welfare and happiness and make award accordingly. DRL§70(a). While concerns such as the financial status and the ability of each parent to provide for a child should not be overlooked by a court in determining an award of custody, an equally valid concern is the ability of each parent to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development. Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 (2d Dept. 1982). In all cases, courts should be free to consider and give appropriate weight to all of the factors that may be relevant to the determination of custody. Tropea v. Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 740-741 (2d Dept. 1996). Both parties have demonstrated to this Court’s satisfaction that they are loving and capable parents, they enjoy spending time with their children, and they are committed to their children’s well being. While these factors should be the foundation for the parties enjoying joint custody and a strong co-parenting relationship, sadly this is not the case. Joint custody is inappropriate where the parties are antagonistic toward each other, do not communicate at all, and have demonstrated an inability to cooperate on matters concerning the children. See Matter of Moore v. Gonzalez, 21 N.Y.S.3d 292, 293 (2d Dept. 2015); Matter of Floria v. Niven, 123 AD3d 708 (2d Dept. 2014); Matter of Lawrence v. Davidson, 109 AD3d 826 (2d Dept. 2013); Matter of Wright v. Kaura, 106 AD3d 751 (2d Dept. 2013). The issues presented at trial by both parties indicate that a “traditional” award of joint custody is impracticable at this present time. The parties first presented to this Court experiencing an understandable amount of acrimony given the volatility of their break up and the problems they both acknowledge having in their marriage. Mother made allegations that Father abused alcohol, was physically abusive to Mother, and is incapable of parenting the children. Mother has gone to great lengths to prevent Father from having access to the subject children including travelling to [redacted] for labor and delivery of P.T. causing Father to miss her birth and filing multiple family offense petitions against Father and Grandmother. By her own admission, Mother went so far as to turn a firearm into the police a year after she left the marital residence claiming that it belonged to Father which resulted in his arrest. Mother seeks a healthy co-parenting relationship with Father while simultaneously sabotaging any potential for achieving the same. Mother’s refusal to share her home address with Father further complicates the parties co-parenting relationship and will become untenable as the children age. Father has expressed sadness, frustration and anger regarding the state of his co-parenting relationship with Mother but to his credit still recognizes the significance of Mother’s role in the children’s lives and is more likely to include Mother in discussion and decision making regarding the children. As the children’s best interests are served by Father having legal custody they are similarly served by the children residing primarily with Mother while the parties enjoy a shared parenting time schedule. Although Father has played an active role in caring for the children Mother has been their primary caregiver and is well-suited to be their residential custodian. Mother has secured accommodations for her and the children, has created a plan for their education and is able to provide for all of their necessities. At the time of his testimony Father was residing in the marital residence with plans to relocate to a newly procured apartment. Father did not provide any plan for the children’s education aside from saying they would attend public school and offered no testimony regarding the condition of his new apartment. Further, Father has secured new employment and while he asserts that he enjoys a flexible schedule provided no information regarding his anticipated work hours or availability. While Grandmother has been a wonderful caregiving resource that both parents have benefitted from in the past, her stated availability to care for the children whenever Father requires is not enough to surmount the deficit in the information this Court has about his schedule. Mother is in a superior position to be deemed the children’s residential custodian. This Court ordered the use of the Our Family Wizard co-parenting application during these proceedings to give the parties a neutral space where they can communicate and share information regarding the children. Both parties testified that the application has been useful and while Father seeks a more natural form of communication with Mother the parties are not quite there yet. This Court recommends that the parties engage in family counseling or joint therapy to address the history that is the source of their anger and work towards building a healthy co-parenting relationship. In the interim, the parties are to continue to use the Family Wizard application (or some similar co-parenting application if mutually agreed upon by the parties) for no less than two years (August 2021) and until the youngest child’s eighteenth birthday or both parties agree in writing to discontinue use of the application. Father successfully demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Mother failed to comply with the parties’ temporary schedule of parenting time and unreasonably interfered with Father’s parenting time by filing family offense petitions against Father and Grandmother. However, the relief requested in Father’s petition is moot given the issuance of the decision herein and Final Order of Custody and Parenting Time and shall be deemed dismissed in satisfaction. Mother failed to offer any evidence at trial in support of her allegations that Father violated this Court’s temporary orders and those petitions shall be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, this Court grants Father’s petitions for custody of the subject children and otherwise denies all pending petitions; and it is hereby Ordered that the petitions filed under docket numbers and are granted with a Final Order of Custody and Parenting Time to be issued in accordance with this Court’s decision; and it is further Ordered that the petitions filed under docket numbers , , , , , and are hereby dismissed with prejudice; and it is further Ordered that Father shall have legal custody of the children R.T. (DOB 8/27/16) and P.T. (DOB 2/13/18). Mother shall have residential custody with the parties to enjoy a shared parenting time schedule; and it is further Ordered that in his role as legal custodian Father shall, after seeking input from and upon reasonable consultation with Mother, have final decision making authority regarding all major decisions for the subject children including but not limited to school, religious education, medical treatment, therapeutic treatment, etc. with the following exceptions and/or specifications: Both parties shall endeavor to reach an agreement regarding the children’s medical treatment. If the parties cannot agree they must both confer with the children’s treating physician and comply with the recommended course of treatment absent an alternative recommendation made by a qualified medical professional. Both parties shall endeavor to reach an agreement regarding the children’s participation in extracurricular activities. To the extent that an agreement cannot be reached each party may enroll each child in one extracurricular activity of each party’s choosing at the enrolling party’s cost. The parties are to make every effort to ensure that the selected activities do not unreasonably interfere with either party’s parenting time. Each parent is responsible for transporting the children (or arranging transport) to the children’ scheduled activities during their respective parenting time unless otherwise agreed in writing. Notwithstanding Father’s status as the legal custodian, Mother is hereby authorized to schedule annual doctors visits and dental appointments for the children provided Father is given advance notice and the opportunity to attend. Both parties are authorized to seek emergency medical treatment for the children while in their care and must notify the other parent immediately upon said emergency arising. Both parties are authorized to give consent and execute written consent forms for events and activities that are nominal in nature such as field trips, school outings, and the like that will take place during their respective parenting times. Both parties shall have full and unfettered access to any of the children’s records that a parent is legally entitled to as well as may contact and discuss the children’s progress with their schools, teachers, doctors, dentists, tutors, coaches, etc. Routine parenting decisions of a day to day nature shall be made by the parent that is exercising parenting time. It is Ordered that commencing September 1, 2019, Father shall enjoy the following weekly parenting time schedule: Father shall enjoy parenting time with the children each Tuesday from 8AM (if the children are enrolled in school parenting time for the child that has school shall commence at dismissal from school) until Wednesday at 8AM (or the commencement of the school day). Father shall enjoy parenting time with the children each Thursday from 3PM (or at dismissal from school depending on which time is earlier) until 7PM. Commencing Friday, September 6, 2019, Father shall enjoy parenting time on alternating weekends from Friday at 3PM (or at dismissal from school depending on which time is earlier) through Sunday at 7PM. All parenting time not specifically delineated above as Father’s parenting time shall be deemed Mother’s parenting time. Father shall enjoy any additional parenting time as the parties agree. It is Ordered that commencing September 1, 2019, the parties shall enjoy the following school recess and holiday parenting time schedule:6 The holiday parenting time schedule as indicated herein shall supersede the parties weekly parenting time schedule. The school recess provisions shall take effect for both children once the subject child R.T. enjoys his 5th birthday (in August 2021). Labor Day Weekend — Father shall enjoy in odd years and Mother shall enjoy in even years Columbus Weekend — Mother shall enjoy in odd years and Father shall enjoy in even years Halloween — Father shall enjoy in odd years and Mother shall enjoy in even years Thanksgiving Recess (including the Thanksgiving holiday) — Father shall enjoy in odd years and Mother shall enjoy in even years Winter Recess (excluding Christmas) — Mother shall enjoy in odd years and Father shall enjoy in even years Christmas Eve (from Dec 24th at 12PM through Dec 25th at 12PM) — Father shall enjoy in even years and Mother shall enjoy in odd years Christmas Day (from Dec 25th at 12PM through Dec 26th at 12PM) — Father shall enjoy in odd years and Mother shall enjoy in even years Mid-Winter Recess — Father shall enjoy in even years and Mother shall enjoy in odd years Spring Recess — Mother shall enjoy in even years and Father shall enjoy in odd years Easter Sunday — Father shall enjoy in even years and Mother shall enjoy in odd years Memorial Weekend — Father shall enjoy in even years and Mother shall enjoy in odd years Independence Day (4th of July) — Father shall enjoy in odd years and Mother shall enjoy in even years Mother’s Day and Father’s Day to be shared with the appropriate parent from 10AM-8PM Children’s birthday — Each parent shall be entitled to enjoy parenting time with both of the children on either child’s birthday. If the child’s birthday falls on a school day, the parent that is not regularly scheduled to have parenting time shall be entitled to two hours of uninterrupted parenting time after school with the children. If the child’s birthday falls on a weekend the parent that is not regularly scheduled to have parenting time shall be entitled to four hours of uninterrupted parenting time on the birthday. The parent that is not regularly scheduled to have parenting time will have priority in selecting what time he/she seeks to enjoy with the children. Parents’ birthday — Each parent shall be entitled to enjoy parenting time with both of the children on their respective birthdays. If the parent’s birthday falls on a weekday that he/she is not regularly scheduled to have parenting time that parent shall be entitled to two hours of uninterrupted parenting time after school/camp with the children. If the parent’s birthday falls on a weekend that the celebrant is not regularly scheduled to have parenting time that parent shall be entitled to four hours of uninterrupted parenting time on their birthday. The parent that is celebrating his/her birthday shall have priority in selecting what time he/she seeks to enjoy with the children. It is Ordered that each parent shall be entitled to enjoy two nonconsecutive weeks of parenting time with the children in the summer months (June through August). Father shall have priority of selecting his weeks first in even years and shall notify Mother by March 1st as to what weeks he requires, and Mother shall notify Father by April 1st as to what weeks she requires. Mother shall have priority selecting in odd years whereby Mother will be required to notify Father by March 1st and Father will provide notification by April 1st. Failure to timely notify will not result in a forfeiture of parenting time however that parent will lose priority in selection of dates; and it is further; Ordered that the parties shall commence their respective periods of parenting time by picking up the children (or arranging for another suitable adult to pick up the children) from the children’s school/camp (if applicable), the curbside of the other parent’s home, or any other location mutually agreed upon between the parties. To the extent that Mother seeks to keep her address confidential on occasions in which the Father would be expected to pick up the children at Mother’s residence if the parties cannot agree on an alternate location the exchange shall take place in the parking lot of the strip mall located in ()at the intersection of Street and Boulevard; and it is further Ordered that the party that is enjoying parenting time shall ensure that the subject children contact the parent that is not enjoying parenting time at least once daily via video conference (if available) or telephone at a time that is mutually agreed upon between the parties. At the time each child reaches 13 years of age the party who is enjoying parenting time shall no longer be required to physically facilitate daily calls/contacts but must make every effort to encourage the children to initiate regular contact with the other parent; and it further Ordered that when travelling with the children over an extended period of time (48 hours or more) or over a substantial distance (100 miles or more) the traveling parent must provide the non-traveling parent notification of travel, an itinerary, and a means by which the children can be contacted during travel; and it is further Ordered that the parties shall continue to use the Family Wizard application (or some similar application as agreed upon between the parties) to communicate regarding adjustments to the parenting time schedule, calendaring appointments and activities, sharing information about the children’s school, travel, extracurriculars, social activities and the like. The parties shall annually renew their subscriptions to the application until such time that both parties expressly agree to terminate its use. This is the Decision and Order of the Court. Pursuant to section 1113 of the family court act, an appeal must be taken within thirty days of receipt of the order by appellant in court, thirty-five days from the mailing of the order to the appellant by the clerk of the court, or thirty days after service by a party or attorney for the child upon the appellant, whichever is earliest. Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed: Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom given]: Dated: August 9, 2019
