I am in the midst of, after 7 years of amicable relations with my ex, our first family court battle over the issue of vaccinations (You can read the background in this thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1380386/vegans-help-family-court-need-evidence-to-support-ethical-objection#post_17322755 )
In these stressful weeks before the hearing, I am getting a second opinion on the recommendation that my DDs be vaxed with TDaP. After a decade being happy with our pedi, I have seen that he has evolved more into the mainstream, is less open-minded about the vax issue, and furthermore, my ex has joined the board at the practice. I feel this is a conflict of interests, and that my concerns are always going to seem like they are going against medical advice, which I am sure will not help me in court.
I found in the finding your tribe forums, a thread about AP/non-vax friendly pedis in my area and made an appointment for DDs. But now my ex is saying I can't just change physicians because our divorce agreement says we have equal say on medical decisions. Currently DDs are only insured via my DH's insurance, so on one hand, I feel as though we should be the ones to say who their pedi is, but on the other hand, I see his point--the fact that we both have a say is why the vax issue is going to court.
Moreover, my ex wants to add DDs to his insurance and stay with the same physician. If I like this new physician, I probably want to switch. Will this be another matter the court has to decide? The only posts I can find seem to be about one parent shirking health insurance responsibilities, or complaining about the cost of insurance. In this case, we *both* want to carry insurance and have an equal say--so the problem is "overinvolvement" not "underinvolvement." From what I understand, with double coverage, the insurance companies will coordinate coverage so they don't both have to pay, but I just don't understand how these insurance companies can dictate that only one plan is primary and the other must be secondary if they charge us the same premium. If we have equal legal and physical custody and are each *paying* insurance, why can we *not* get double service??? That's BS as far as I'm concerned--I'm paying the same amount now that I would be when my ex adds them, so why do I not have a right to as many office visits as I did before he adds them??
In other words, what I think is fair is this: if dad pays to cover DDs and if we pay to cover DDs then DDs should be able to go to dad's preferred pedi for a checkup *and* my preferred pedi for a checkup. We're each *paying* the same we would pay if the other insurance didn't exist, so why would we not each be entitled to a checkup? This way if his pedi advises something and my pedi advises something else, we can negotiate on whose medical opinion to follow, rather than him having the upper hand because he's now buddies with the dr, has direct influence as a board member, and the dr has become more mainstream and in line with dad's now-more-mainstream philosophies. It makes me look like the crazy outside voice of dissent, but if I have a pedi's recommendation to fall back on, then it's more easily seen as a difference in medical opinion, rather than one person going against medical advice all the time...