Chapter 18. Free to Leave #2
Grant looked at the travel analysis. “What does the school-night model show from Nora's rental?”
At our lawyers' joint request, Dana Wells, a licensed clinical social worker with no connection to the school or either family, had been retained by both parents as a neutral parenting consultant for settlement planning.
She was not a court evaluator and had no authority to decide our schedule.
Her written analysis modeled public transit and driving from both residences using ordinary weekday ranges.
My rental was usually twenty-two to thirty-six minutes from school.
The penthouse was twelve to twenty-five.
Both were workable if departure times were realistic.
The rental had a furnished second bedroom, secure entry, and space for the cello.
“It supports equal school nights,” the mediator said. “The parties can use a two-two-five-five schedule after nesting if both homes remain available and transport duties are assigned.”
Grant turned to me. “Is that what you want?”
“I want the plan to preserve equal time unless Miles's needs or actual evidence require a change. Not your address.”
“Then withdraw my proposal,” he told Owen.
“Grant, we should discuss the transition burden.”
“We have the analysis. Her home qualifies. I am not using school proximity to recreate the majority-time request.”
Owen crossed out the paragraph.
The revised plan provided two more weeks of nesting while each parent prepared for a possible two-home schedule.
Neither was required to end nesting on that date.
If one parent invoked the transition, a seven-day notice started a two-week trial of the equal schedule, followed by a consultation with Dana.
Her recommendations were nonbinding. Disagreement went to mediation before court unless there was an emergency.
Health duties were divided by calendar month, with direct pharmacy access for both parents.
Activity transportation rotated. School forms had a three-day response rule.
Travel outside Illinois required itinerary, lodging, and emergency contacts, but not permission unless it interfered with the other parent's time or international requirements applied.
The plan prohibited Miles from carrying adult messages, choosing a parent, or reporting on either home. It also prohibited either parent from questioning him about the other's relationships, legal strategy, finances, or treatment.
“Staff records,” the mediator said.
The household app could include building access, maintenance, payroll, meal allergies, deliveries, and emergency contacts.
It could not include observations about my mood, sleep, medication, speech, parenting quality, or social activity.
Any genuine child-safety concern had to be communicated directly to both parents and counsel or emergency services as appropriate, not stored as informal surveillance.
Grant read that paragraph twice.
“Add the same protection for me,” he said. “No staff observations about either parent unless operational or a documented safety report.”
“Agreed,” I said.
The rule was not revenge. It applied to both homes and both adults.
“Final question,” the mediator said. “Is either party conditioning this parenting agreement on financial settlement or the status of the marriage?”
We both said no.
We signed at 4:37.
The plan would be presented at Wednesday's status hearing with the school summary, performance log, and proposed agreed order.
The judge could review voluntariness and request additional material, then either enter it or keep the existing order in place.
Rachel had reserved a short Friday presentation slot because the court might not complete review during Wednesday's status call.
Until entry, the existing neutral interim order remained in effect.
The signed agreement showed joint intent; it did not give us authority to replace a court order by ourselves.
We also prepared what Miles would be told.
The plan did not become his reading assignment.
The practical summary contained six points: both parents remained responsible; the current nesting schedule continued for now; school and orchestra stayed the same; a two-home trial might happen after notice; he did not carry messages; and he could raise a problem with either parent or Maya without choosing a side.
If the adults needed Dana's help after a trial, we would request the consultation ourselves.
“We tell him together after entry,” I said.
“Agreed,” Grant said.
“If the judge requests changes?”
“We wait until the terms are settled.”
The mediator added a note that any child summary had to match the entered order. Adults had repeatedly made Miles live inside plans that were not final. This time, we would not ask him to organize himself around a draft.
Outside the mediation room, Owen handed Rachel a file-stamped correction to Grant's original petition and supporting memorandum.
It identified every withdrawn restriction, corrected the inaccurate staff-assumption statement, disclosed that treatment references did not establish parenting impairment, and stated that Grant no longer alleged my panic history required supervised exchanges or restricted overnights.
The filing did not erase the original. Court records preserve both. Anyone who found the accusation could also find Grant's formal correction.
“All witness-contact materials?” Rachel asked.
“Produced Friday,” Owen said. “Carla's refusal and nonretaliation confirmation are included.”
Rachel checked her index. “We have them.”
Grant stood ten feet away near the elevators. He did not join the lawyers' exchange.
I had asked him to correct the record without treating correction as a path back to me. He had done it and kept his distance.
“Would you walk outside with me?” I asked.
Rachel studied my face. “You are allowed. The counsel-only boundary was yours, not a court order.”
I looked at Grant. “Twenty minutes. Public. No negotiation.”
“Yes,” he said.
* * *