Can someone please explain to what extent does this statement actually mean exactly in the eyes of the law.

In exercising joint legal custody, the parties shall both share in the right and the responsibility to make decisions relating to the health, education and overall general welfare of the children. This shall include, and not be limited to all decisions on medical, dental, orthodontia, counseling, educational decisions including the choice of schools, religious decisions and any and all extra curricular activities.

Does this mean, I could make the decisions I need to but he has the right to an opinion? Does this mean I can not make any decisions without consulting him? Does this mean we have to agree before any decisions can be made at all? Does this mean I can make decisions on the "little" things but must only notify him? I realize consultation and permission of major decisions i.e. surgery, choice of schools would be implicit.

It is so sticky! For example: if I wanted to put our 3 year old in a dance class that would only be during my parenting times and does not interfere with his parenting time at all do I have to:
- enroll her and only notify him?
- enroll her and not notify him at all?
- consult with him and we have to agree on it before I can even enroll her?

I would appreciate any ideas from a legal (not personal, unless you have been given specific information from a lawyer) perspective? Thanks!
p.s. Not that this should make any difference but I am in California.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tawnynkids

Can someone please explain to what extent does this statement actually mean exactly in the eyes of the law.

For example: if I wanted to put our 3 year old in a dance class that would only be during my parenting times and does not interfere with his parenting time at all do I have to:
- enroll her and only notify him?
- enroll her and not notify him at all?
- consult with him and we have to agree on it before I can even enroll her?

I would appreciate any ideas from a legal (not personal, unless you have been given specific information from a lawyer) perspective? Thanks!
p.s. Not that this should make any difference but I am in California.

---

In your example you have to consult with him and you have to agree on it before you can enroll her:confused: If you enroll her in a dance class without his permission he can make you some troubles... and if you ask him to pay this expenses he has right to refuse... ;)
In joint legal custody, both parents share the ability to have access to educational, health, and other records, and have equal decision-making status where the welfare of the child is concerned. It is important to note that joint physical custody and joint legal custody are different aspects of custody, and determination is often made separately in many states' divorce courts. E.g. it is possible to have joint legal custody, but for one parent to have primary physical custody.

I read you post but opted for a long time not to answer, since to be honest, the exact meaning of that phase is what your local court and judge believes it is, what a judge in California may rule on it to mean, may not be at all what a judge in Texas says it is.

So often rulings on very vague phases are hard to tell. Next hopefully their would have been in the dozens of other pages of a custody agreement more exact wording and definitions of it.

But in general it means that neither has complete control and if both do not agree completely on a action, the other can merely attempt to change it, because they have equal rights to do that, or you both end up back into court to have the judge rule what is best.

That is why of course so many of these agreements never work, heck my wife and I who are married and in love, can not agree.

So use that for an example, if you were still married, and one wanted one thing, and the other wanted something else, what would have happened then,? Now you have a judge to make a final ruling on.
Personally I have a couch to sleep on to let me know I was wrong and she was right, but divorced couples don't have these method.

So what do they do, they take out all the hate for each other and use the kids rights as a tool to punish the other parent.

In a perfect word ( well there would be no divorce) but in a perfect world, this could work, but in the real world, two people will not always agree, and esp divorced people.

Joint legal custody means that neither parent is allowed to "surprise" the other. That is, neither parent may make a decision or take an action that results in a major change in a child's life unless the other parent agrees or the Court allows it. The statute specifies five "major changes," which are: residence, religion, health care, education and recreation.

To make joint custody work, parents should first recognize the status quo as to each of these "major change" matters. For the most part they should determine what was in place before the parents filed for divorce as to residence, religion, health care, education and recreation; and then, based on the principle that consistency is generally in the best interests of the children, the law provides that neither parent may unilaterally modify any of the five status quo matters.

If one parent wishes to make a major change, he or she should make a written change proposal to the other parent, who then has the duty to actually investigate the proposed change and respond. If the parents deadlock--one wants a change to occur, and the other wants no change--the rule is that no change may be effected until the Court, or some other, agreed-to-authority, e.g. an arbitrator selected by the parents, approves the change.
Parents should recognize that the five major changes

Specifically addressed in our statute are not the only matters that should be discussed by them, but they are the only matters that MUST be mutually agreed to or submitted to an authority for resolution. Parents should find it useful to follow the golden rule of joint custody, which is: before taking an action concerning your children, ask yourself: if the other parent did this without my knowledge or approval would I be upset? If the answer is yes, consider it a major change that invites prior discussion.

Parents should also recognize that ANY action or activity for which one parent wants or expects the other parent's support or financial contribution, is a major change that needs advance discussion.

The bottom line about all this is that divorcing parents need to recognize that a divorce DOES NOT END their relationship with one another, it merely changes that relationship.

Joint or shared custody can work IF the parents can come to a common understanding of what it is, but as with so many things, it is essential to define the terms.