Evidently, I went about this the wrong way at first, by quoting a comment from the "Custody Change" thread. Sorry! I didn't realize that was taboo. I'm just trying to start a new thread, so I don't get too off-topic in the "Custody Change" one.
I'm interested in an issue that was raised elsewhere: a non-residential parent being required to get permission slips from the residential parent in order to pick up their child from school or take their child to the doctor; and situations where a child is refused admittance to their non-residential parent's neighborhood school... even when the parents have joint legal custody.
Generally, I think such things happen when local guidelines and practices haven't been updated since the days Mom customarily "got the kids" in a divorce (just as she might "get the house" or "get the car") and Dad became "just a visitor". Today, of course, courts typically value letting both parents play parental roles. In many places, joint legal custody is standard and some courts are trending toward 50-50 physical custody. There can be confusion when court orders do not clearly define one parent as "custodial" and the other as "non-custodial", but institutions like schools and hospitals are still mired in the assumption that one and only one divorced parent makes decisions for a child.
I know well, from my husband's experiences, how hurtful and frustrating that confusion can be. His court orders and our state guidelines clearly spelled out his right to unfettered access to his son's school; his right to seek medical care for his son; his right to access all of his son's records; and his "right of first refusal" (i.e. the right to parent his son whenever his ex was unavailable - even if it was not his scheduled parenting time - and never have daycare or babysitters take priority over him). Yet, he was routinely denied admittance to his son's schools, not allowed to pick up his son after school on his parenting time days, not allowed to pick up his son from daycare or the sitter's, and refused copies of his son's school and medical records, unless he had permission slips from his ex.
Even when a residential parent is cooperative and willing to write all the appropriate permissions, it is still humiliating for the non-residential parent to ask for and use them. There is an unmistakable message that the NRP is not really a parent; that only the RP is qualified and authorized to care for the child; that the NRP's involvement depends on the RP, not on the court, which ordered the parents to share equally in decision-making!
At worst, policies that ignore joint legal custody and give total deference to the RP give that parent the power to circumvent their ex's rights, by refusing to give the required permission slips. It makes you feel powerless and infuriated to have joint legal custody and to be told by a teacher, principal, daycare director or doctor, "Regardless what rights the court says you have, we view your ex as the custodial parent, so we're doing whatever she says. And she says you can't enter the school (or you can't pick up your child; or you can't view his records; or you can't have his teeth cleaned...) If you think what she's telling us is wrong, take her back to court." One wonders what good a NRP's rights are, if no one outside the court honors them and it costs thousands of dollars to go back to court to enforce them!
As far as enrolling a child in the NRP's neighborhood school, the school should expect the RP's involvement. (They should want to ensure that the NRP isn't enrolling the kid in school without the knowledge or consent of the RP.) But if both parents prefer their child to attend school in the NRP's neighborhood, the school should not overrule them with its own policies that prioritize one parent over the other. If the NRP contributes tax money to his neighborhood school - and especially if a court has given him equal legal responsibility for his child - the school should not be entitled to interfere.
But how far can NRPs be expected to push the envelope? Again, if the RP is reasonable and will give any needed permission slips, it's easiest to just use them. If there's a halfway-decent school in the RP's neighborhood, it's easiest to just send the kid there. But ultimately, changes in both policies and mindsets will require people taking stands. I will applaud any NRP who - like my husband - will say, "Here are my court orders. Here's our state law. I have the same right to pick up my kid without a permission slip as my ex does. If you refuse to let me, you're interfering with my custodial rights and I'm not afraid to take it to court." Or, "My ex and I both want our child to attend this school. I'm a tax-paying resident of this district. I am a full legal guardian of my child - just like my ex. You have no more right to refuse admission than my ex's neighborhood school does. We'll take you to court if we have to."
FTR, I am not judging others who don't take stands. It's expensive, time-consuming and upsetting. It's not for everyone. After my husband got custody, we could not justify continuing to pursue all the mistreatment by schools and doctors. I'm just saying that family courts seem to be slowly changing toward a more egalitarian approach to divorced parenting. The way institutions will catch up is through lawsuits that enforce what's going on in the courts.
I'm interested in an issue that was raised elsewhere: a non-residential parent being required to get permission slips from the residential parent in order to pick up their child from school or take their child to the doctor; and situations where a child is refused admittance to their non-residential parent's neighborhood school... even when the parents have joint legal custody.
Generally, I think such things happen when local guidelines and practices haven't been updated since the days Mom customarily "got the kids" in a divorce (just as she might "get the house" or "get the car") and Dad became "just a visitor". Today, of course, courts typically value letting both parents play parental roles. In many places, joint legal custody is standard and some courts are trending toward 50-50 physical custody. There can be confusion when court orders do not clearly define one parent as "custodial" and the other as "non-custodial", but institutions like schools and hospitals are still mired in the assumption that one and only one divorced parent makes decisions for a child.
I know well, from my husband's experiences, how hurtful and frustrating that confusion can be. His court orders and our state guidelines clearly spelled out his right to unfettered access to his son's school; his right to seek medical care for his son; his right to access all of his son's records; and his "right of first refusal" (i.e. the right to parent his son whenever his ex was unavailable - even if it was not his scheduled parenting time - and never have daycare or babysitters take priority over him). Yet, he was routinely denied admittance to his son's schools, not allowed to pick up his son after school on his parenting time days, not allowed to pick up his son from daycare or the sitter's, and refused copies of his son's school and medical records, unless he had permission slips from his ex.
Even when a residential parent is cooperative and willing to write all the appropriate permissions, it is still humiliating for the non-residential parent to ask for and use them. There is an unmistakable message that the NRP is not really a parent; that only the RP is qualified and authorized to care for the child; that the NRP's involvement depends on the RP, not on the court, which ordered the parents to share equally in decision-making!
At worst, policies that ignore joint legal custody and give total deference to the RP give that parent the power to circumvent their ex's rights, by refusing to give the required permission slips. It makes you feel powerless and infuriated to have joint legal custody and to be told by a teacher, principal, daycare director or doctor, "Regardless what rights the court says you have, we view your ex as the custodial parent, so we're doing whatever she says. And she says you can't enter the school (or you can't pick up your child; or you can't view his records; or you can't have his teeth cleaned...) If you think what she's telling us is wrong, take her back to court." One wonders what good a NRP's rights are, if no one outside the court honors them and it costs thousands of dollars to go back to court to enforce them!
As far as enrolling a child in the NRP's neighborhood school, the school should expect the RP's involvement. (They should want to ensure that the NRP isn't enrolling the kid in school without the knowledge or consent of the RP.) But if both parents prefer their child to attend school in the NRP's neighborhood, the school should not overrule them with its own policies that prioritize one parent over the other. If the NRP contributes tax money to his neighborhood school - and especially if a court has given him equal legal responsibility for his child - the school should not be entitled to interfere.
But how far can NRPs be expected to push the envelope? Again, if the RP is reasonable and will give any needed permission slips, it's easiest to just use them. If there's a halfway-decent school in the RP's neighborhood, it's easiest to just send the kid there. But ultimately, changes in both policies and mindsets will require people taking stands. I will applaud any NRP who - like my husband - will say, "Here are my court orders. Here's our state law. I have the same right to pick up my kid without a permission slip as my ex does. If you refuse to let me, you're interfering with my custodial rights and I'm not afraid to take it to court." Or, "My ex and I both want our child to attend this school. I'm a tax-paying resident of this district. I am a full legal guardian of my child - just like my ex. You have no more right to refuse admission than my ex's neighborhood school does. We'll take you to court if we have to."
FTR, I am not judging others who don't take stands. It's expensive, time-consuming and upsetting. It's not for everyone. After my husband got custody, we could not justify continuing to pursue all the mistreatment by schools and doctors. I'm just saying that family courts seem to be slowly changing toward a more egalitarian approach to divorced parenting. The way institutions will catch up is through lawsuits that enforce what's going on in the courts.
Follow Mothering