Clarification of "notwithstanding"

[mrsr0o27]

My husband was taken back to court 2 years ago by his ex. The judgement they received was for joint visitation; they were each given a copy of the stipulation that provides for this. The judge stated that this stipulation is "notwithstanding" the existing agreement. I want to be sure I understand this correctly. If the newest order only makes mention of visitation, then only that part of the original order is null and void, correct? In other words, all other parts of the original order except visitation still stand since they are not included in the newest order - right?

 

[MorgansDaddy]

Yes, the other issues and still covered by the previous order, and the new order cancels out what the other says about visitation.