Questions your Family Law prof can answer in 30 seconds or less:

[ciroccoj]

"So if a divorcing couple has one parent who believes in allowing blood transfusions and the other doesn't, who wins?"

Comments

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure the one who believes in medical science, since there were several celebrated cases of parents who got in legal trouble for denying their children medical services.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think you're right. It's a really tough issue, though. The kind that Supreme Court Justice flee from screaming, so the expression on our prof's face when the student asked this was pretty amusing. I swear I could almost read the "WTF?" caption floating above her head ;)

[linaelyn.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing, like so much of family law, it's not so much who wins, as who loses: The Kid.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing, like so much of family law, it's not so much who wins, as who loses: The Kid.
Yeah, pretty much. Man, I am so not going into family law. I thought I could take it, but just reading the cases depresses the shit out of me. I can't imagine doing this for a living.

[twistedm.livejournal.com]

wouldn't it depend on the divorce agreement? i think i've learned that there are varying types of custody, at least in the USA: physical custody is only part of the story. parents also need to establish who has the right to make religious and other such decisions for the kids, like public school vs religious private school, and where the kid goes to church or synagogue, etc.

otoh, if a kid got sick and one parent brought the child to the hospital without the other parent present, i suspect the hospital would do what that parent authorized and wouldn't say "so, where's the other bio parent, and do you have permission for this?"

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

wouldn't it depend on the divorce agreement?
Well... sort of, but not really. There are different types of divorce agreements, but they can all fall by the wayside when a child is in danger/need. The courts will not hesitate to step in if they think a kid needs help. Which can be good or bad, depending on your point of view.

parents also need to establish who has the right to make religious and other such decisions for the kids, like public school vs religious private school, and where the kid goes to church or synagogue, etc.
Same here, though most of the time the assumption is that either one parent will have physical custody and thus control of important decisions, or (the preferred choice) both parents will share the decision-making powers, whether they physically share the child or not. If the parents would like to both keep decision-making powers, but really can't communicate or cooperate with each other, they may want parallel parenting, which can take two forms: either each parent making decisions independently whenever the child is with them (ie, goes to church with Mom one weekend, mosque with dad the next) or splitting areas (ie, mom decides religion, dad decides schooling, whoever has the kid decides medical procedures).

otoh, if a kid got sick and one parent brought the child to the hospital without the other parent present, i suspect the hospital would do what that parent authorized and wouldn't say "so, where's the other bio parent, and do you have permission for this?"
Yeah, probably. The whole denying blood transfusions thing would be a doozy, though. I'm pretty sure the transfusion-positive parent would win, but I would imagine most judges would run away from the case with their hands over their ears screaming "LalalalalaLALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" rather than make a ruling. Our prof's face when the student asked the question was priceless; just such a complete "What do I look like, BUDDHA??!" I almost died trying not to laugh ;)

[twistedm.livejournal.com]

"What do I look like, BUDDHA??!"

hmm. don't you mean King Solomon? ;)

and i'm glad law school is funny sometimes. :)