Every returning fight in a custody case is a sentence someone left vague. This builder writes the other kind: who, what, when, where, and what happens when it fails. In every clause.
50 decisions. Your jurisdiction. Nothing left to argue about later.
The problem
It reads fine in a lawyer’s office. It reads fine to a judge signing it. Here is how it reads three months later, when goodwill is gone:
The father shall have reasonable access to the children on weekends as agreed between the parties, with holidays to be determined and telephone contact as needed.
Four phrases. Each one is a motion, a lawyer’s letter, a missed weekend, an argument at a doorstep with a child watching. The builder’s job is to make this paragraph impossible to write.
Every "as agreed" is a fight waiting for a bad week. In high conflict, the plan is not a framework for cooperation. It is the thing that must hold when cooperation fails.
A flexible plan works exactly as long as both parents are at their best. Our clauses state the default, the deadline, and what silence means, so nothing depends on a good day.
What research consistently links to worse outcomes for children is not the schedule. It is exposure to conflict. A plan with nothing to argue about is child protection in document form.
The difference
A typical order
“Exchanges shall occur at reasonable times as agreed between the parties.”
Twelve words. Zero decisions. When one parent is 40 minutes late with no message, this clause has nothing to say about it. So the argument happens in the parking lot.
The same clause, from the builder
A parent who will be late for an exchange shall notify the other parent in the designated communication application before the exchange time. The receiving parent shall wait 20 minutes past the scheduled time. If the arriving parent has not arrived 20 minutes after the scheduled time and has not sent notice, the exchange is missed: the parent with the child keeps the child, the regular schedule resumes at the next scheduled exchange, and the missed time is not made up.
Every scenario already answered. Nothing to argue about, in the parking lot or anywhere else.
The builder flags every vague phrase as you work and offers the concrete rewrite.
“As agreed”, “reasonable”, “when appropriate”: they cannot reach a high-conflict plan. The software refuses.
Assembled from the frameworks courts actually use, including the federal parenting plan checklist and the guides family judges cite, then hardened for the cases where every gap gets found.
A plan for cooperative parents fails in a high-conflict household, and a parallel plan is overkill for an amicable one. The interview measures the conflict and the plan’s rigidity follows it.
You can still talk. A framework with room to flex, and a written variation process for when you cannot.
Everything scheduled. Changes in writing only. The usual fit for most separations.
High conflict. Minimal contact, app-only communication, a stated default for everything. Nothing depends on a conversation.
Where there is family violence or a protection order, the flow changes: conservative defaults, resources surfaced, and a plain recommendation of counsel.
Already a Litigent user?
The builder reads the structured record you have already built: your incident log, your documents, your case file, and proposes a starting structure with the evidence shown. Not a guess. A suggestion with its receipts, and every pre-filled answer is yours to change.
Suggested starting point: Parallel
Your incident log has 14 entries. Plans for households with recurring incidents work best with a parallel structure where nothing depends on discussion at the time.
From your record: 14 incidents, 49 documents, 212 communications.
Illustrative example. Your suggestion is built from your own record.
Section by section, in plain language, with the reason each clause exists explained as you go. Attach your existing orders as reference documents, or upload them right there.
Every choice renders into numbered clauses immediately. The completeness score climbs as you decide, and vague wording is flagged with the fix.
A complete, ordered plan in your jurisdiction’s vocabulary, ready to bring to a lawyer, a mediator, or the negotiation.
“I spent twelve years in the family court system, three of them with no lawyer at all. The fights that kept coming back were never about what the order said. They were about what it didn’t.”
Jeffrey Coleman, founder of Litigent AI
Pricing
Five hours of drafting at senior counsel rates is $2,500 before the first revision. And there will be revisions: errors surface, circumstances change, the other side sends back edits, and every round bills again. Every package below costs less than two of those hours, revisions included, and the work is yours to keep.
Do it yourself, with the machine checking every clause.
About half of one lawyer hour.
Get The PlanThe Plan, plus two working sessions with the founder.
The price of one lawyer hour.
Get GuidedHand-held from first question to finished draft.
A lawyer drafts this for $2,500 and up.
Get White GloveSessions with the founder are preparation and information sessions drawing on twelve years inside the family court system. The founder is not a lawyer and sessions are not legal advice. Already a Litigent subscriber? The builder is included in your plan, and your free 30 minute founder call is already on your dashboard.
No. The builder assembles legal information from your own choices into your document, with the reasoning shown. Litigent is not a law firm. We recommend reviewing the finished plan with a licensed lawyer in your jurisdiction, and the plan you export says so on its face.
Then you walk into mediation or court with a complete, specific proposal while the other side brings objections. A parent with a fully drafted plan is negotiating from a document. A parent without one is negotiating from memory.
Often most useful. Existing orders are where the vague clauses live. The builder lets you attach your current order as a reference document and draft the specific version, clause by clause, for a variation or consent discussion.
The plan uses your jurisdiction’s vocabulary and encodes its relocation notice rules. Canadian plans speak Divorce Act language: parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and the 60-day relocation machinery.
Litigent is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. The builder assembles legal information from your own choices. Review your plan with a licensed lawyer in your jurisdiction before signing or filing it. No outcome is promised or implied.