Shall Means Shall

There is a world of difference between “should” and “shall.”

“Should” is polite.
“Shall” is enforceable.
“Should” leaves room for interpretation.
“Shall” closes the door.

And when you are dealing with someone like Mark Anthony Stephens, every open door becomes an escape hatch.

Melissa should have had a divorce decree that understood the difference between normal disagreement and bad-faith avoidance. The problem was never simply that Mark disagreed. The problem was that he appears to have repeatedly treated responsibility as optional unless forced, cornered, or exposed.

A standard parenting plan assumes both parents are trying. It assumes both parents understand obligations. It assumes both parents care enough to communicate, pay, show up, follow medical advice, and act in the children’s best interest.

But Melissa was not dealing with a standard situation.

She needed language that said Mark shall provide documentation. Mark shall use the required communication platform. Mark shall comply with medical recommendations. Mark shall pay reimbursements. Mark shall respond within a defined time. Mark shall provide proof before making financial claims. Mark shall follow the order whether he feels like it, understands it, agrees with it, or wants to relitigate it.

Because without mandatory language, Mark had room to perform confusion.

The pattern shows up everywhere. In Rob Peters’ statement, Mark was supposed to reimburse the league for Nathan’s replacement baseball uniform after a house fire, but “his father did not come through with the payment,” and Russ stepped in so Nathan would not be delayed or penalized. That is not just a baseball story. That is a decree story. That is what happens when adult obligations become someone else’s cleanup project.

The same theme appears in Liam’s health communications. Russ and Melissa were not asking Mark and Tori to become perfect parents. They were asking them to stop feeding fear, conspiracy, and food panic into a child whose health was already fragile. The email states plainly that the boys’ health and well-being were more important than adult pride, and that Liam took Mark’s words literally.

A decree with soft language would never survive that kind of parent.

Melissa needed a decree that did not ask Mark to cooperate. It needed to require cooperation. It needed to remove the luxury of selective interpretation.

Because for some people, vague language is not a mistake.

It is an invitation.

Tags: