Joint Legal, Medical and Education

[Mizfit]

BM has Primary Residential. Papers state clearly there is joint legal and joint decision making for medical and education.  BM began homeschooling without discussing it with me.  

Went to mediation last year over this issue. Agreed to allow a "trial" year with certain provisions so that I could feel I was a part of DD's education and life.  

Year is over.  None of the mediation agreements have been followed.  Testing shows homeschool is not effective for DD.  Have re-scheduled mediation 3 times - 3 different mediators.  BM cancelled 2 of them, showed for one but refused to negotiate.

Children are also not immunized, something I have been pushing for for years.

Hiring a Father's Rights attorney on Wednesday.  Have talked to 4 attorneys - all say I should win.  BM says as Primary Residential, she has all the decision making.

1.  Do we waste our money going back to court?
2.  Does her failure to comply with the original mediation agreement help? Does her cancelling appointments?
3.  Even though our parenting plan states joint decisions, can she still override my opinions because she is primary residential?

Thanks.

[socrateaser]

>1.  Do we waste our money going back to court?

I don't know what you're trying to win. If you are suggesting that you will obtain a reveral of custody on the present facts, I doubt it. You could get more parenting time, and an order for the child to return to public school, but in order to get primary custody means showing a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child's best interests, and I'm not seeing that in your post.

The problem with this sort of borderline problem case is that as soon as you file, the other parent will suddenly clean up her act and render most of your arguments moot. Then, the court will dismiss, and she'll start pushing the line. You must try to make certain that the court will clarify the responsibilities of both parents so that if there's more trouble, you can start up where you left off and not all over from scratch.


>2.  Does her failure to comply with the original mediation
>agreement help? Does her cancelling appointments?

Well, it shows she's not particularly interested in the child's best interests, but that's not usually enough to get the judge to switch primary custody. You need something really aggressively against the child's interests, and in this case, everything can be remedied by just forcing the termination of home schooling, so there's no compelling reason to switch custody roles.

>3.  Even though our parenting plan states joint decisions, can
>she still override my opinions because she is primary
>residential?

Joint means that both of you can override each other unless your orders specifically state that both of you must agree or go to court for a decision.

Primary residential is only relevant in that you can make a decision and she can override it because she has more opportunities to do so. You need to clarify your respective roles by court order so that there are no more disputes in these areas. This may cause you to get even less than you already have, but at least you'll know exactly what you do have as far as authority goes.

Your goal should be to show that you are concened only with the child's interests and not your getting control over the child. That's the high road. Then, if the other parent starts to badmouth you in court, the judge will see that you are the more concerned parent and that is the best way to get a favorable order.

PS. There is no such thing as a "fathers' rights" attorney. There is only an attorney who will try to get you the best outcome possible. If an attorney advertises as being for fathers' rights, this would make me a bit skeptical, because emphasizing a father's rights over the interests of the child is usually a good way to lose credibility with the court.

Just my opinion. Your attorney may be the best one money can buy. I just don't find that the term "fathers' rights" carries any legal weight and you you shouldn't allow yourself to think that it does, because you may believe you will have a better chance in court than you actually have.

[Mizfit]

I should have clarified.

I am not going to push for 50/50 really... just more time with the kids.  

I want them in public school and to be immunized.  I feel that both of these decisions she has made without me are NOT in the children's best interest and since we have JOINT decisions, I feel that the best interest of the children should prevail.

[socrateaser]

>I should have clarified.
>
>I am not going to push for 50/50 really... just more time with
>the kids.  
>
>I want them in public school and to be immunized.  I feel that
>both of these decisions she has made without me are NOT in the
>children's best interest and since we have JOINT decisions, I
>feel that the best interest of the children should prevail.

Then you aren't asking for very much at all. You should have no trouble withe immunization issue. However, courts are reluctant to leave decision making to a split decision of two adverse parents, so you could end up with even less power than you already have on the joint decision making issue. More than likely your case will settle out of court with an agreement on a more precise decision making process going forward. You should try to craft one with your attorney and offer it to the ex, so as to avoid a court battle.