What happens if parents disagree over a developmental evaluation?

[LdiJ]

Please tell me what part of this you don't understand:
"If you share joint legal custody with the other parent and you exclude him or her from the decision-making process, your ex can take you back to court and ask the judge to enforce the custody agreement. "

What we are disagreeing on Misto is whether or not a simple evaluation is part of the "decision making process"...or whether its routine care that does not require a "decision". I am assuming that you don't think that both parents have to agree before the child can be taken to the doctor because they need an antibiotic or that both parents must agree before the child could be treated at a hospital for a broken arm, or something even worse?

If you do believe those are things that require a joint decision, then I think that you have a skewed idea of what joint legal custody means.

Its very possible that the results of the evaluation will recommend a course of action that both parents have to agree about. However, I sincerely doubt that a judge would consider an evaluation itself as requiring that.

 

[Ohiogal]

Where do you get that what you quoted means that parents must get permission from the other parent for either routine or emergency care?

Joint legal custody, as far as I have always seen it defined, is that each parent gets to make the ordinary and routine (or emergency) decisions on their own time, but that the major decisions (decision that impact both parents or impact the child long term) must be made jointly. How is getting a young child evaluated for development issues a "major decision"?
Seriously? How is the act of the evaluation something that impacts both parents or impacts the child long term? The results of the evaluation could have a long term impact, but only if the parents choose to act on those results. Example: If the evaluation recommends surgery to correct a hearing issue (which isn't impossible based on what OP described), then the SURGERY is a major decision that needs to be made jointly.

YOur bolded is COMPLETELY wrong. Completely and totally wrong. An evaluation is something that needs to be discussed with the other parent. As do vaccinations, prescription medications, mental health treatment, medical tests, and anything other than the child being weighed and measured.

 

[Ohiogal]

What we are disagreeing on Misto is whether or not a simple evaluation is part of the "decision making process"...or whether its routine care that does not require a "decision". I am assuming that you don't think that both parents have to agree before the child can be taken to the doctor because they need an antibiotic or that both parents must agree before the child could be treated at a hospital for a broken arm, or something even worse?

If you do believe those are things that require a joint decision, then I think that you have a skewed idea of what joint legal custody means.

Its very possible that the results of the evaluation will recommend a course of action that both parents have to agree about. However, I sincerely doubt that a judge would consider an evaluation itself as requiring that.

Taken a sick child to the doctor or getting a broken arm fixed in the ER are two things that can be considered EMERGENCIES. An evaluation is NOT an emergency. Replacing a knee because the knee cap is blown -- requires both parents.

In this case DAD can have mom held in contempt. Will he? I don't know. But she can be held in contempt.

 

[CJane]

YOur bolded is COMPLETELY wrong. Completely and totally wrong. An evaluation is something that needs to be discussed with the other parent. As do vaccinations, prescription medications, mental health treatment, medical tests, and anything other than the child being weighed and measured.

In THIS case, Mom HAS discussed it with the other parent.

I think y'all are confusing "discuss" with "come to an agreement".

Some definitions:
""joint legal custody," in which both parents share the right to make long-term decisions about the raising of a child and key aspects of the child's welfare"

"A parent with legal custody can make decisions about schooling, religion, and medical care, for example. In many states, courts regularly award joint legal custody, which means that the decision making is shared by both parents.
If you share joint legal custody with the other parent and you exclude him or her from the decision-making process, your ex can take you back to court and ask the judge to enforce the custody agreement. "

"The legal aspect of custody for children and divorce means decision making and the parental authority and rights of each parent. It means having the legal right to make and participate in any material decisions affecting the children. Included are the choice or change of school, college, camp, or comparable summer activity, special tutoring, music, sports, art, dance, and other cultural lessons, psychological or psychiatric treatment or counseling, doctors, and surgeons; notice of illness and injury; access to school and medical records; and all other material decisions affecting the health, education, and welfare of the children. Specifically, legal child custody is the right of the parent to make decisions regarding educational instruction, religious instruction, health care, discipline, and child care providers for their child, but anything relevant to the children could be included in the definition. Legal custody can be granted to one or both parents, but the overwhelming preference in South Carolina is for joint legal custody. The judge expects each parent to keep the other fully informed and to consult with the other parent in all major decisions effecting the child."

As far as I can see, Mom is following the order. Unless it specifically states that an agreement must be reached (and it doesn't), then she has to discuss and inform. She's done that.

This is NO different than when this same Mom posted about Dad taking the child to the doctor of his choice, in a different town, and simply 'informed' Mom that he was going to do so. Mom was told that he had every right to take the child to 'his' doctor on 'his' time because he'd 'informed her' that he was going to.

 

[gam]

In THIS case, Mom HAS discussed it with the other parent.

I think y'all are confusing "discuss" with "come to an agreement".

Some definitions:
""joint legal custody," in which both parents share the right to make long-term decisions about the raising of a child and key aspects of the child's welfare"

"A parent with legal custody can make decisions about schooling, religion, and medical care, for example. In many states, courts regularly award joint legal custody, which means that the decision making is shared by both parents.
If you share joint legal custody with the other parent and you exclude him or her from the decision-making process, your ex can take you back to court and ask the judge to enforce the custody agreement. "

"The legal aspect of custody for children and divorce means decision making and the parental authority and rights of each parent. It means having the legal right to make and participate in any material decisions affecting the children. Included are the choice or change of school, college, camp, or comparable summer activity, special tutoring, music, sports, art, dance, and other cultural lessons, psychological or psychiatric treatment or counseling, doctors, and surgeons; notice of illness and injury; access to school and medical records; and all other material decisions affecting the health, education, and welfare of the children. Specifically, legal child custody is the right of the parent to make decisions regarding educational instruction, religious instruction, health care, discipline, and child care providers for their child, but anything relevant to the children could be included in the definition. Legal custody can be granted to one or both parents, but the overwhelming preference in South Carolina is for joint legal custody. The judge expects each parent to keep the other fully informed and to consult with the other parent in all major decisions effecting the child."

As far as I can see, Mom is following the order. Unless it specifically states that an agreement must be reached (and it doesn't), then she has to discuss and inform. She's done that.

This is NO different than when this same Mom posted about Dad taking the child to the doctor of his choice, in a different town, and simply 'informed' Mom that he was going to do so. Mom was told that he had every right to take the child to 'his' doctor on 'his' time because he'd 'informed her' that he was going to.

This is the problem with Joint Legal, you discuss and you don't agree, which happens often when parents can't co-parent. Then what?

This is why you will see orders that say Parent X has final say.

It's the "then what", that OP needs to concern herself on. What is the "then what" in her court. I think it matters very much depending on the court.

 

[CJane]

This is the problem with Joint Legal, you discuss and you don't agree, which happens often when parents can't co-parent. Then what?

This is why you will see orders that say Parent X has final say.

It's the "then what", that OP needs to concern herself on. What is the "then what" in her court. I think it matters very much depending on the court.

I've read quite a bit of case law lately that strikes down the concept of 'final say'. It's contrary to the idea of joint legal to declare that one parent's decision-making trumps the other. It's seen as a cloaked version of sole custody.

I know that here, barring something long term like braces, or very major like elective surgery, it's the 'discuss' and 'confer' that matters, and the parent who has physical possession of the child at the time makes the decision that they feel is best for the child in that moment.

And unless her order specifically requires agreement no agreement is required.

 

[InfantCustody]

I've read quite a bit of case law lately that strikes down the concept of 'final say'. It's contrary to the idea of joint legal to declare that one parent's decision-making trumps the other. It's seen as a cloaked version of sole custody.

I know that here, barring something long term like braces, or very major like elective surgery, it's the 'discuss' and 'confer' that matters, and the parent who has physical possession of the child at the time makes the decision that they feel is best for the child in that moment.

And unless her order specifically requires agreement no agreement is required.

All the order says, word for word, is "Standard joint custody language will apply."

As I said, I am going to have him evaluated because I would have to go against the advice of two medical professionals in refusing the evaluation. I also consider the source of objection. He is the parent who failed to get Bean medical care when he had his "diaper condition" and ended up with a substantiated CPS case against him for serious neglect.

I will continue to consult with him, and take his opinion into consideration, but unless he takes it to court, I don't think going against medical advice (of his doctor, and mine) would be the best idea.

Is "Joint legal custody language" usually spelled out more clearly?

The agreement in court was my atty would type up the financial papers (which was done) and his would do the custody papers. That never happened.

Obviously, I will try to get him to work with me, but I am wondering if you could be held in contempt when it says "Standard joint custody language will apply" since I don't know what standard joint custody language is? It is a technicality, and one I would never abuse, but I am curious...

Thanks as always!

 

[gam]

I've read quite a bit of case law lately that strikes down the concept of 'final say'. It's contrary to the idea of joint legal to declare that one parent's decision-making trumps the other. It's seen as a cloaked version of sole custody.

I know that here, barring something long term like braces, or very major like elective surgery, it's the 'discuss' and 'confer' that matters, and the parent who has physical possession of the child at the time makes the decision that they feel is best for the child in that moment.

And unless her order specifically requires agreement no agreement is required.

State laws and case laws do not define it enough. That's why you have ones around here saying 2 different things. Nobody is even in agreement on what is or what is not major medical or routine.

 

[Ohiogal]

North Carolina, OP's state, discussed the very issue in:
Patterson v. Taylor, 140 N.C.App. 91, 535 S.E.2d 374 (N.C.App. 2000)

I encourage the OP to read this case and realize that she could end up in court over it. If she does, she should ask that the details be defined as to what should happen. Dad could take her to court for contempt. That is fact. An evaluation is NOT routine. That, I will stand by, is also fact. However, whether the court will FIND her in contempt is debatable. Especially if the physicians testify.

 

[mistoffolees]

North Carolina, OP's state, discussed the very issue in:
Patterson v. Taylor, 140 N.C.App. 91, 535 S.E.2d 374 (N.C.App. 2000)

I encourage the OP to read this case and realize that she could end up in court over it. If she does, she should ask that the details be defined as to what should happen. Dad could take her to court for contempt. That is fact. An evaluation is NOT routine. That, I will stand by, is also fact. However, whether the court will FIND her in contempt is debatable. Especially if the physicians testify.

Which happens to be just about exactly what I said way back in post #2 (although without the citation).

 

[CJane]

North Carolina, OP's state, discussed the very issue in:
Patterson v. Taylor, 140 N.C.App. 91, 535 S.E.2d 374 (N.C.App. 2000)

For my edification, can you explain where in that case OP's specific issue fits? I get that the case discusses ambiguity in the language of joint custody. I don't get where case law would support a finding of contempt in the case OP is describing.

 

[funnybabyboy200]

I don't know if you had the eval or not, however, I looked at the thread from May in regards to CPS. I am unsure if the case is still open.

However, if it is, they may be able to assist you in mandating developmental therapy for your son. In Pennsylvania, if a child is determined to be delayed by Early Intervention & CYS is involved, EI is mandatory, no longer an option to the parents. My son is involved in EI, and they have been a God send. He had a 25% cognitive delay, and he has made leaps & bounds since August of 2011.

 

[Humusluvr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NC

When a child has been referred for a developmental evaluation, what happens when one parent (can you guess which one? ) is saying they disagree with the evaluation being carried out?

We share joint legal and physical custody. Ex's attorney never typed up the final custody order (it is the hand written order from the trial day), so all it says re: joint legal custody is "Standard joint custody language will apply."

Reason for the evaluation is Little IC isn't speaking any words, doesn't stack blocks, is still resisting eye contact/any close physical contact and is not "on track" for his age. Additionally, if he is in a noisy environment, he will cover or hit his ears.

How does this work? At this point, I have not cancelled his evaluation and do not intend to do so unless I am advised otherwise. I feel like 2 MD's (both mine and ex's) think he may have a delay, so the evaluation is necessary.

Thoughts?

After having read this (I read the whole thing, and the case law) here's my thoughts.

Having the evaluation done, after you've already told him you wanted to, would not be a violation of your court order. An evaluation is simply gathering information. You don't have to agree, you just have to tell him BUT if he wanted to have his OWN evaluation done, that would be his right. You couldn't object. The EVALUATION isn't a major, life changing decision.

The choice on what to do AFTER the evaluation is what would impact the best interests of the child. If the evaluation comes to show the child needs intensive therapy, a surgery, medicated, or a special school - THAT is what would be major and need to be agreed upon. THAT is what would affect the child's best interests. If one of the parents disagreed on THAT - then it would need to go to court.

If dad charged contempt, after his substantiated CPS claim, and mom said, "The doctors suggested I get him evaluated. I had X number of doctors suggesting this. I told dad. Dad didn't want an evaluation. Judge, I feel that if I didn't get this evaluation, it would be going against medical orders. What if I didn't get the eval, and child suffered? Getting more information, rather than having less information, is in our child's best interests. If the tests proved the child was fine, both dad and I could be relieved and happy. If the tests showed problems that needed addressed, as the doctors suggested, then dad and I would have to make a plan together. Getting information is not bad for the child. It helps dad and I to parent him."

Now, this would change if you were testing child every MONTH for some new illness or disorder, or becoming obsessive about it. But getting one eval, based on multiple doctors' advice, after you notified dad - how could a judge hold you in contempt for gathering information to MAKE a decision?

 

[TheGeekess]

I don't know if you had the eval or not, however, I looked at the thread from May in regards to CPS. I am unsure if the case is still open.

However, if it is, they may be able to assist you in mandating developmental therapy for your son. In Pennsylvania, if a child is determined to be delayed by Early Intervention & CYS is involved, EI is mandatory, no longer an option to the parents. My son is involved in EI, and they have been a God send. He had a 25% cognitive delay, and he has made leaps & bounds since August of 2011.

What happens in PA is irrelevant to what happens in NC.

 

[Humusluvr]

What happens in PA is irrelevant to what happens in NC.

"The FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues."

Seems like OP could gleam some advice from funnybabyboy200

It's something to think about.