Disturbed child needs help but parents can't agree about how.

[court]

If a child has some severe behavioural problems and is highly disturbed and both divorced parents (with shared custody) acknowldege this and parent #1 wants to take the child to the doctor about looking into a psychiatrist and parent #2 refuses just for the sake of being high conflict, can parent #1 just go about it anway? Are there legal repercussions? If it is for the best interest of the child do you figure I judge would see it that way?

Asking for a friend. Thanks in advance for advice

[DowntroddenDad]

As a parent of a son who has had issues well before separation was even on the horizon, I can add something, but I don't know what the law would suggest.

In my not so humble opinion, either parent can take their child to a regular doctor's appointment. But having done so, it would only be fair to share the results of that appointment with the other parent.

So my recommendation is take the child to the GP and ask for a recommendation in writing. Share that with your ex. It should be a joint decision which option to take, if any.

My ex, by the way, has excluded me from these decisions. When things went south though, she did ask for my help and I was able to find some places for assistance.

[Berner_Faith]

In my honest opinion... no court is going to come down on the parent who took the steps to get the child the help the child needs. In my opinion, the opposite would be true, the Judge would blast the parent that did not agree.

Personally, I feel it is one thing to make joint decisions, it is another to not seek the required medical help, just because one shares custody. Good advice given above about how to proceed.

[Tayken]

If a child has some severe behavioural problems and is highly disturbed and both divorced parents (with shared custody) acknowldege this and parent #1 wants to take the child to the doctor about looking into a psychiatrist and parent #2 refuses just for the sake of being high conflict, can parent #1 just go about it anway? Are there legal repercussions? If it is for the best interest of the child do you figure I judge would see it that way?

Asking for a friend. Thanks in advance for advice

Breaking down your question in more details:

If a child has some "severe behaviour problems and is highly disturbed" a number of professionals would already be involved in the matter. The children's school would be raising the issue with the parents involved and if truly "severe" and truly "disturbed" the Children's Aid Society would be involved as someone in the community would have noticed.

"refuses just for the sake of being high conflict" - Now, with regard to this statement, it is an interesting one. You clearly have sided with your friend, whom you are asking this question for.

The reality check you have to make as a "friend" is have you seen the other position of the other custodial parent? Or have you only considered your friend's personal opinions, who describes the child in question as having "severe behavioural problems and is highly disturbed"?

Furthermore, you have labeled the other parent, for whom's reason for opposing your friend's opinion as "high conflict". There are many reasons for which the other party may not be in agreement. It may be that your friend is "over anxious", seeking to leverage therapy to create conflict, wants to project blame of the behaviour of the child on the other parent improperly and not with the intent to help the child at all.

Or, is it so your friend can get a "backdoor assessment"?

Your Social Worker - Gary Direnfeld, MSW, RSW

Furthermore, Gary reminds everyone that conducting medical services without the consent of both services is grounds for disciplinary action:

One-sided assessments have very little weight in family law matters. Further, custody and access assessment Standards of Practice from psychiatry, psychology and social work prohibit one-sided assessments and are grounds for disciplinary action through respective colleges.

To answer your question with regards to "can parent #1 just go about it anway?" the answer is no. The additional answer is no and your friend would be hard pressed to find a reputable clinician who would conduct any therapy for the child in question without the full consent of the other parent. In fact, as stated by Gary, it is prohibited are are grounds for disciplinary action through the clinician's respective college.

The need for therapy for a child is not routine medical matters. A cold is a routine medical matter. Therapy is something that both parents should work together and assess together with the child's family practitioner of medicine.

In fact, due to the continual reminder from the clinical colleges to therapists of all kinds (read doctors) your friend would probably not find a reputable therapist who would conduct any therapy without the consent of the other parent.

It would depend on the genuine issues for therapy. The better solution is for your friend to bring the cogent and relevant evidence first to the other parent for their consideration. Failing agreement on that, then request to meet with the parent and family practitioner of medicine to discuss the matter and gain the child's doctor's medical opinion. If the doctor doesn't agree then, your friend should bring the matter to the superior court of justice but, it is highly doubtful that your friend after doing the previous recommended path to getting the child help would be successful at all before a judge.

The key element to the conduct for a justice to consider is the relevance and actual real evidence to the "severe behavioural problems and is highly disturbed". These are VERY histrionic and extreme statements to be making even to a public message form. If what you are describing is remotely truthful then you should be calling the Children's Aid Society and NOT posting to a public message board for legal opinions.

Finally, if your friend is providing factitious statements regarding the health and well being of the child in question, it could be systemic of a larger issue in your friend's psychology possibly and it may be your friend who truly needs the help. Any parent who describes their child as "severe behavioural problems and is highly disturbed" and this is nothing more histrionics and emotional reasoning may be exhibiting very concerning patterns of behaviour that they, and not the child, need significant intervention psychologically for.

Social Anxiety Disorder
Histrionic Personality Disorder
Factitious Disorder (and by proxy)
Dependent Personality Disorder
Avoidant Personality Disorder
Major Depression
Adjustment Disorder

The list of possible related comorbid diagnosis with a parent who describes their child's behaviour in such extreme terms is quite extensive.

Finally, if the child is not behaving in that pattern and the matter is taken to court and the parent is in contempt of the order and there was no genuine reason to enrol the child in therapy and only relates to parental anxiety a justice will possibly question if your friend should be making any custodial decision regarding the child in question. Your friend's ability to think logically and rationally, which is important when dealing with medical issues for children as a parent, will become the subject of questioning by the justice on the balance of probabilities possibly.

Also, if the child is in a shared situation, the court will consider, beyond just your friend's hearsay evidence regarding the children. In fact, the child's teacher, principal, daycare workers, doctor and other family members will be called to witness to determine if your friend's concerns are genuine.

Also, the court will need to consider the evidence that if the behaviour is happening, is it just when the child is with that parent and all the other evidence from third party witnesses that the child is not behaving that way while residing with the other parent.

So, if your friend wants to fight it out in court or resolve any problem for the child... They should work with the other parent, listen to the other parent's perspective in the matter and not project blame, rely upon emotional reasoning and think logically and rationally about if what you stated about the child's behaviour is truthful and if on the balance of probabilities a judge will believe your friend.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[court]

Tayken, your responses sometimes drive me crazy.
My daughter was considered to be disturbed by a psychiatrist because of the way she became withdrawn when with her father who verbally abuses me to her. You make it seem, to me anyhow, like a person that is considered to be disturbed would be jeffery dahmer(ish). Not always the case. You don't even know the age of the kid i am talking about or whether or not the school reported home. While I sometimes agree with advice you offer, sometimes you get a little ridiculous.

On another note, I am not just believing what this girl is saying. She is my ex-brother in law's new wife. I happen to know this little boy who is 'disturbed' and have known him his entire life. I also know his mother who suffers from personality disorders and is in fact a high conflict individual.

I thank the other two posters for your comments and thanks for your advice as well Tayken even though you tend to go a little overboard with your responses.

[Tayken]

In my honest opinion... no court is going to come down on the parent who took the steps to get the child the help the child needs. In my opinion, the opposite would be true, the Judge would blast the parent that did not agree.

BF: You are assuming that the parent's reason for bringing the child to therapy and the child's issues require medical intervention. Let we not forget the litany of over anxious parents who come to this very site claiming that they want sole custody because the other parent kept the child out too late and they got sick...

Personally, I feel it is one thing to make joint decisions, it is another to not seek the required medical help, just because one shares custody. Good advice given above about how to proceed.

Again, the medical help may not be required. There are negative consequences that need to be considered with placing a minor child in therapy for which they don't need and is not required.

The tone of speech used by court is very demonstrative of someone seeking to "gain control" over the other parent and seeking a practitioner of medicine to "believe" their story about the child. If the school teacher and others have not recommended therapy and taken the necessary steps to protect the child, the question for the court will be... Why did this parent do so and without consent? Was their concerns genuine?

Good Luck!
Tayken

[DowntroddenDad]

I hate to put into repute the psychologists and psychiatrists of the province, but Tayken what you are saying just does not happen, at least in my area.

My son has had major issues including overnights in the hospital. I have never ever been asked for consent by any physician or psychologist or psychiatrist. He has been undergoing counselling. I have asked my ex to be able to meet with the counsellor and been refused repeatedly. My daughter has also been to counselling, again I have never ever heard one word from them, though I would welcome any and all information.

I did attend a few sessions with a guidance counsellor when my son was struggling in school, and I worked with my ex to enroll him in an alternative school. My ex did chose to involve me. I have joint custody, but the wording states that day to day decisions will reside with her.

[Berner_Faith]

BF: You are assuming that the parent's reason for bringing the child to therapy and the child's issues require medical intervention. Let we not forget the litany of over anxious parents who come to this very site claiming that they want sole custody because the other parent kept the child out too late and they got sick...



Again, the medical help may not be required. There are negative consequences that need to be considered with placing a minor child in therapy for which they don't need and is not required.

The tone of speech used by court is very demonstrative of someone seeking to "gain control" over the other parent and seeking a practitioner of medicine to "believe" their story about the child. If the school teacher and others have not recommended therapy and taken the necessary steps to protect the child, the question for the court will be... Why did this parent do so and without consent? Was their concerns genuine?

Good Luck!
Tayken

That is true, but by seeking help, if none is actually required, the parent would be told so my the medical expert...or at least one would think so. I do agree that more information is required, but I also have seen first hand of parents denying therapy to their child because of their own fear of what will come out.

My cousin was abusive towards his wife, when his wife finally left, she had to fight tooth and nail for her rights (and lost), but the children were ordered by the court into counseling, my cousin never took them because he fears what they would say... he was very high conflict and abusive... yet those two girls were issued into his custody because they told the court that is what they wanted... in reality they were terrified of their father.

Obviously there are two sides to every story and without more detail, I don't think anyone can really say whether help is required or not required.

[Tayken]

Tayken, your responses sometimes drive me crazy.

You should discuss your crazy feelings with your therapist.

My daughter was considered to be disturbed by a psychiatrist because of the way she became withdrawn when with her father who verbally abuses me to her.

"considered" or "diagnosed". Both are very large words to use but, both have very different meaning. Are you trying to suggest that the "psychiatrist" diagnosed something? What was the diagnosis?

You make it seem, to me anyhow, like a person that is considered to be disturbed would be jeffery dahmer(ish).

dis·turbed
/disˈtərbd/
Adjective
1. Having had its normal pattern or function disrupted.
2. Suffering or resulting from emotional and mental problems.

Speaking purely in ontology, you will be hard pressed to find any registered clinician who would use the word "disturbed" in the way you use it to describe anyone else other than someone with extreme mental illness such as the individual you reference.

Not always the case. You don't even know the age of the kid i am talking about or whether or not the school reported home. While I sometimes agree with advice you offer, sometimes you get a little ridiculous.

What is rediculous as how you do not provide particulars to the situation, then attack someone for not knowing them. Then you call them ridiculous for not knowing. How is one to relate any information when there is lacking information? All we can operate is on an assumption. A child of 14 years or older can seek therapy themselves. A child who can dial a phone can call the kids help phone line to seek help. So, the only assumption left logically is that it is a minor child.

Then, what is the age of the child then? Better advice can be provided with better information and more accurate information.

On another note, I am not just believing what this girl is saying. She is my ex-brother in law's new wife. I happen to know this little boy who is 'disturbed' and have known him his entire life. I also know his mother who suffers from personality disorders and is in fact a high conflict individual.

You know because you have the diagnosis in hand from a licensed clinician? Or did you observe and diagnose this yourself?

I thank the other two posters for your comments and thanks for your advice as well Tayken even though you tend to go a little overboard with your responses.

Overboard? You just stated someone suffers from a personality disorder rand is in fact a high conflict individual. I challenge you to even identify what personality disorder, the diagnosis code for this disorder, and how you even know this private medical information.

You are judge, jury and executioner all at once for this person in the statement you have made so boldly to a public message form. But, on review of your posting to this site... You should really worry about all the playstation 3 the father of your child is playing. That surely is grounds for "sole custody"...

Let we all not forget this posting by you:

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...at-gamer-8069/

My ex, who I unfortunately still live with until January, and I have a 4 year old daughter. During our 8 years together he had and still does have a very sick addiction to PlayStation 3 online gaming. He does it so much that it destroyed our relationship and continues to destroy his relationship with our little girl.

That statement alone can be deemed a projection of blame in of itself in my humble opinion. You blame the failure of your relationship with the other parent on a "very sick addiction to PlayStation 3 online games". Wow.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Tayken]

Obviously there are two sides to every story and without more detail, I don't think anyone can really say whether help is required or not required.

Agreed, that is why I presented the option of bringing the issue to the child's primary care physician jointly and not trying to do it through a back door without the other parent knowing. That kind of conduct is not really something justices like when parents do this... Especially when there is an order for joint custody in place. Unilateral decisions without proper pathing to problem resolution can change custody orders rather quickly. Especially if done for all the wrong reasons. That is my warning to the "friend" of court to be very mindful of how they seek help for the child in question.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[court]

Taken, I read half of your response and then rolled my eyes. I find it amazing that you who preaches about high conflict individuals are actually extremely high conflict yourself. Your stir up irrelevant crap just to get a rise out of people. It won't work on me dear. I have read many of your responses to others and see how you tend to work. Listen, my question was pretty basic. I wanted to know legal rights regarding one parent taking the kid without the others permission. It was answered by you. I thank you. However, you broke down and questioned every aspect of my post that was unrelated and just lost a lot of credibility with me. Aren't you a lawyer? Don't you have cases to study instead of trolling this board looking to create conflict?

[Nadia]

Given that this is a Joint Custody situation, "legally" you do not have the right to take your child to seek therapy without the other parent's consent.

Tayken correctly points out that no health professional will provide care (unless it is an emergency medical care) without first securing consent from both parents. They can be reprimanded by their licensing body and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that anyone who is licensed is not likely to risk their license being revocked.

However, if your concerns are real and consent is being withheld unreasonably, you could possibly return to court to request relief. Explain 1) why the therapy is necessary 2) that consent is being witheld on unreasonable grounds.

You would need more then your own opinion as to the necessity of therapy. For example, any reports of incidents that have taken place at school. Or any recommendations made by the family physician when the child is taken for a pre-scheduled "routine" appointment. This should hopefully help you get your child the help he/she may need.

Until then, any efforts to go behind the back of the other parent and take your child to be seen by a health professional would be frowned upon by the court. Even if it is done for the best of intentions.

[Mess]

1. Hospitals can and will provide any level of care to a child without a parent's consent. In my experience hospital staff are very assertive about this and occasionally arrogant about their right and obligation to care for a child. This has been well tested in court. Of course there are some limitations; it is guarenteed that hospital legal departments and senior administration know what the limits are and policy is distributed to staff.
2. The child's own GP is their gatekeeper to specialized medical care. They know their own legal limitations. You won't force a GP to do something they are not legally able to do. As said above, it is perfectly legal for a parent to take their child to a GP for an assessment. No court would censure or punish a parent for doing so. The GP's assessment and recommendation carries a lot of weight and would only be discredited in rare circumstance.
3. GP's are not mental health experts, but they have training and experience so as to recommend examination by a specialist. If a GP recommends further treatment or diagnosis by a specialist, no family court judge is going to make a finding against a parent who began this process.
4. There is certainly a middle step here; if one parent is creating a barrier to care, in a joint custody situation, then certainly it would be necessary for the other parent to follow up. A judge's decision would be based on factual evidence. Diagnosis of the GP would be strong evidence. Diagnosis of a specialist would be extremely strong evidence. Opinion of a dissenting parent? What facts could be presented?

Anytime we bring things to court there is going to be a level of uncertainty about the outcome. A parent seeking to provide professional medical care for their child is not going be in the weaker position.

It's not possible to make a black and white statement about what you can and cannot do, but any action by a dissenting parent would need to be fact based. The right of the child is to have access to needed diagnosis and care.

I could certainly take my child to their GP next week, without the other joint parent's knowledge or consent. The GP could certainly refer to a specialist if it was called for. The specialist would certainly see the child. If the other parent wanted to create a fuss, they would need cause and factual support, but the medical personel would certainly see my child. I have never been asked for a court order or my ex's signature for any medical proceedure, and I have taken my child to specialists and for surgery.

[Tayken]

That is true, but by seeking help, if none is actually required, the parent would be told so my the medical expert...or at least one would think so. I do agree that more information is required, but I also have seen first hand of parents denying therapy to their child because of their own fear of what will come out.

Actually, depending on the frequency and level of concern placed on the medical condition it could constitute a possible factitious disorder by proxy on the part of the alleging parent.

This can be demonstrated in the constant attention seeking for medical conditions for which do not exist in a child by a parent. This could be both acute physical conditions (rashes, etc...) and factitious psychological conditions.

This is known as "exaggeration" of medical conditions to clinicians.

My cousin was abusive towards his wife, when his wife finally left, she had to fight tooth and nail for her rights (and lost), but the children were ordered by the court into counseling, my cousin never took them because he fears what they would say... he was very high conflict and abusive...

Section 30 or OCL involved in determination of the "facts" you are presenting.

yet those two girls were issued into his custody because they told the court that is what they wanted... in reality they were terrified of their father.

OCL or Section 30 involved in determination of your "facts" you are presenting?

Obviously there are two sides to every story and without more detail, I don't think anyone can really say whether help is required or not required.

If help is required then help will be given. If help is not required and one parent is possibly suggesting it is not and a parent possibly comes to a public message forum and exaggerates a medical condition and seeks negative advocates to support their position...?

Language used by the OP is common statements of exaggeration used by highly conflicted people and those who exhibit patterns of behaviour similar to those of a factitious disorder by proxy.

Just saying..

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Tayken]

Taken, I read half of your response and then rolled my eyes.

I note you haven't address any that one in your response.

I find it amazing that you who preaches about high conflict individuals are actually extremely high conflict yourself.

This is a prime example of projection on your part. Easy to "call" someone "high conflict" with vague statements of "beliefs" but, hard to demonstrate. Might I recommend you actually give some insight if you want to demonstrate your "belief".

Your stir up irrelevant crap just to get a rise out of people. It won't work on me dear.

What is "irrelevant" in my response? You haven't addressed any of that and I would be more than willing to respond and add the additional background and information to bring "relevance" to the topic if you would like.

I have read many of your responses to others and see how you tend to work.

And, how is that? How do I "work"? You present yourself as an expert so I challenge you to present this information you claim to have yet, haven't bothered to share with anyone... Other than a baseless and unfounded statement like this.

Listen, my question was pretty basic.

Actually, no it is quite a complex situation. If it was "basic" then, you with your infinite wisdom (see above responses to your infinite wisdom you attempt to project in your statements) should have known the answer and not even needed to seek advice on a public message forum. So your own statement is a contradiction to yourself.

I wanted to know legal rights regarding one parent taking the kid without the others permission.

Court orders are the law. They can be enforced as law on a contempt motion or a material change in circumstance. Should your friend take action in contravention of a court order they would be in civil contempt of a court order or demonstrating a material change in circumstance for which the court may be required to consider the custodial arrangements as ordered. You want the basic definition in law there you go.

It was answered by you. I thank you.

Thank-you should be genuine and not including "rolling of eyes" or statements thereof.

However, you broke down and questioned every aspect of my post that was unrelated and just lost a lot of credibility with me. Aren't you a lawyer?

No, I am not a lawyer, nor am I a practitioner of medicine. I am a human being just like anyone else posting to this site. (With the exception of OrleansLaywer.)

Don't you have cases to study instead of trolling this board looking to create conflict?

Actually, as I am a lawyer and a human being who comes to this site to help people, who's reputation as recorded on this site recognizes that quite predominantly, I come here to in fact do the opposite.

To identify to histrionic statements from possibly histrionic posters that it is highly improbable that the situation is as dire as they project, that the results of their intentions, although good, could lead them into some very difficult and conflicted situations and to rationalize their thinking before acting.

Good Luck!
Tayken