Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
Both parties must agree. That does not prevent a therapist or doctor from treating a child brought in by a parent, however. They are not bound by your order. Only the parties are bound. Instead, you must file a Motion for contempt to block medical care that you do not agree with and to enforce your rights as they exist in the court order - between teh parents.
|
Cinder2
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 4361
Loc: Southern California
|
|
It is generally agreed that in an emergency situation, that both parents can take the child for medical care. But in the case of a non-emergency, like seeing a therapist, the parents are to make the decision jointly.
So here are the three things you could do:
1. Take the child to the therapist and hope your ex doesn't care or chooses not to do anything about it.
2. Take the child to the therapist and prepare for your ex to file contempt of court against you.
3. File with the court that you would like to take the child to the therapist and that your ex does not agree with you.
The third option will definitely take the longest, but I'm sure you will succeed. There's no way the judge is going to say that counseling is a bad idea.  Personally, if it were me, I might risk door #1, but I don't know your ex or how litigious (or rich) she is.
Cinder
|
kschnitz
newbie
Reged: 02/20/07
Posts: 36
Loc: Texas
|
|
I had a similar issue in Texas. Key here is the 'responsibility' part. I'd inform the ex of the need (documented by the pediatrician) and take the child to the therapist. The ex isn't medically qualified to make the decision, probably didn't even accompany the child when they were taken to the doctor. A sour ex could alternately complain you didn't take the child for neccessary care as directed by the child's doctor. Do what you need to do to care for the child, even if in the end you have to foot the bill yourself.
--------------------
SuperCat
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
Oh please...why did that not work in our case then? DH and his ex have joint legal and must make joint decisions on everything...yet she did not have to consult with DH before taking them to nurmerous specialist and doctors...and when we finally went to court over it, judge said oh well..you pay half of it anyway, and yes she can keep doing that, no matter WHAT it says in the CO.
For us, having joint legal means diddly squat for the most part.
Heck, he can take this kid to a therapist..and if mom doesn't like it and takes him to court for it...highly doubt anything will come of it.
|
Pops_IL_CP_Dad
addict
Reged: 02/02/08
Posts: 406
Loc: Illinois
|
|
You are required to consult with her about this issue. That's it. She doesn't have to agree.
Joint legal custody in an area, like for medical issues, only means that the parents have agreed to consult with each other. It does not mean they are required by a court to agree. I can't imagine any judge saying that if both parents don't agree that a child needs to go to a specialist, then the child just plain does not go.
If one parent isn't assigned decision making power, then either parent can take the kid to a specialist -- whether or not the other parent agrees.
That's the biggest problem with flat joint legal custody. It presumes that the parents will work cooperatively with each other on a permanent basis regarding all issues.
--------------------
Focus on what is legally relevant, not morally indignant or petty.
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
Quote:
Ah. Does it have it in your order that only mom can take him for anything other than emergencies? If you are NCP, I would think you have a court order. And medical issues should be addressed in it. If not, I'd think you could take him.
NCP or CP has nothing to do with the ability to bring a kid to a doctor. Joint vs. sole custody does. Just because you are CP doesnt mean you can wontonly drag a kid to see a doctor without the others consent.
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
Pops_IL_CP_Dad
addict
Reged: 02/02/08
Posts: 406
Loc: Illinois
|
|
No, both parties are not required to agree.
According to California Family Code section 3003, “'Joint legal custody' means that both parents shall share the right and the responsibility to make the decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of a child.”
Both parents have EQUAL rights to makes these decisions. Joint legal custody is awarded with the PRESUMPTION that the parents will consult and cooperate with each other on these issues.
--------------------
Focus on what is legally relevant, not morally indignant or petty.
Edited by Pops_IL_CP_Dad (03/16/08 01:07 PM)
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
