Interim Order on Remote Ownership Dispute
Once remote ownership dispute prevents one awkward moment, it must remain in force for the rest of the routine.
INTERIM ORDER In the Matter of: Remote Ownership Dispute (ROD) Docket Reference: Household Proceeding, Ongoing
To All Parties:
This interim order addresses the remote ownership dispute that has been active for an estimated period of between one and four years, depending on which party is asked and what they consider the origin event.
The remote belongs to no one specifically. This determination was made implicitly and has never been formalized, which is the source of the dispute. Custody of the remote is not formally contested. It is operationally contested at every viewing session, through a mechanism of placement, retrieval, and counter-placement that all parties recognize but none have described aloud.
The Placement Record
The remote is placed on the left armrest of the sofa by one party. It is retrieved from the left armrest and placed on the right cushion by a second party. It is retrieved from the right cushion and placed on the coffee table by a third party. The third party's placement is understood by the other parties to be aggressive, though the third party has not confirmed this intention.
The remote is not on the coffee table for more than fourteen minutes before being retrieved and relocated.
Forensic Concerns
This order notes two forensic concerns for the record.
First: the party most frequently observed holding the remote during a session is not the party most frequently observed pressing buttons on it. The holding party maintains control of the device while the pressing party makes requests. Neither party has named this arrangement. It is nonetheless consistent across a majority of observed sessions.
Second: the remote was lost for four days in February. Both parties searched. Neither party found it. It was discovered by the party who had not been involved in the search, in a location neither searching party checked. This outcome has not influenced the search protocol deployed when the remote is subsequently lost.
Interim Finding
Custody of the remote will continue to be contested through placement behavior until one party establishes physical proximity to it at the moment the viewing session begins. This is the de facto rule. It will not be formalized, because formalizing it would require acknowledging that it is a rule, which would require acknowledging that there is a dispute, which all parties prefer to avoid.
This order is interim. It will not become final.