Can a noncustodial parent take their child to church??

[chorichori]

Our son is the legal father of little Maddy, paying support and having her spent weekends several times a month.  Her mother is now saying that she does not want Maddy to EVER attend any church.  She does have legal custody-  is there a clear-cut rule about this for Oregon residents?  We are in Portland.

 Just wondering if birth mom has that kind of control even during our son's weekends with Madison.  

Thanks so much,

Oregon gramma

ps-  Just so you know, this is a very normal little Baptist church, nothing weird.

[Crockpot]

Hello.  If your son shares legal custody of your granddaughter he should be able to take her to church.  If he does not, then the courts would probably side with the parent with legal custody.  This is my understanding of legal custody in general, not specific to any state.

[olanna]

Your son's time is his and is none of the CP's business, so long as she safe.

Tell Mom she doesn't have to take her to church on her time.

;)

[chorichori]

Thanks for the encouraging words.  It is just common sense that his time with her shouldn't be controlled by CP mom.  Someone needs to call her bluff.

We've been buffalowed (sp) by the fact that she has legal custody and it isn't a shared custody situation.  I know she's been given way too much control because she's the CP.   Time to change things!

Thank you!

[olanna]

Truth is...

Both parents have say in all medical and educational decisions and information.  Just because Mom is CP doesn't make her the only decision maker when it comes to the child.  What it really boils down to is that Mom has primary physical custody, ie, the child lives at her house. It doesn't give her free rain on determining what happens when she is with the other parent. Truth be told...it's none of her business.

[mistoffolees]

>Truth is...
>
>Both parents have say in all medical and educational decisions
>and information.  Just because Mom is CP doesn't make her the
>only decision maker when it comes to the child.  What it
>really boils down to is that Mom has primary physical custody,
>ie, the child lives at her house. It doesn't give her free
>rain on determining what happens when she is with the other
>parent. Truth be told...it's none of her business.

This may be bad advice.

IF they have joint legal custody, I would agree.

But if mother has sole legal custody, the father could find himself in trouble. Legally, the parent with legal custody has the right to determine where the child goes to school, what church (if any) they attend, what doctor they see, and so on. If the mother has sole custody, she would be within her rights to go to court to have his visitation severely restricted - perhaps supervised.

If the mother does have sole legal custody, then she DOES have the right to control some things that happen to the child in the father's house. So it IS her business.

Admittedly, that's not right, but that's the law. It is also unlikely that a court would punish the father for taking the child to church, but it could happen.

If he has joint custody, I'd just take the child to church. If not, he needs to think it over very carefully.

[olanna]

See how flawed things are when you get the governement involved with your parenting?

[mistoffolees]

>See how flawed things are when you get the governement
>involved with your parenting?

Do you have a point?

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how the kids would be better off with no government involvement. Do you really think that child support payments would INCREASE if the government weren't involved? That's clearly absurd.