The standard possession order allows parents to agree to alternate periods of possession if they reach an agreement. That’s common sense. When parents do not agree it’s sometimes suggested that a therapist, the child, or some other third party dictate what the possession schedule should be. While this proposition may have some practical merit, it is not enforceable.
The leading case on this is Roosth v. Roosth, 889 S.W.2d 445 (Tex.App. 1994). Here the trial court awarded the father in this case possession only at time agreed by the mother. Father appealed and the Court of Appeals overruled the trial court stating ” (t)he absolute discretion and and the lack of enforceability is effectively a denial of the (father’s) right to visitation with the children.” Furthermore, the Appellate Court state stated that the possession schedule must contain clear and unambiguous terms. The lesson is that for any possession order to be enforceable it must contain actual times and dates of possession and that subjective or aspirational language won’t be enforced.