Court Opinion

ID: 9710248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:05:14.741773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:55.369312
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Judge,
dissenting.
1 respectfully dissent because I believe there is an important issue in the case that the majority does not address: Namely, what is the effect of Mother’s breach of the provisions of the Decree of Dissolution regarding shared custody?
Here, the essential facts are undisputed. Mother acted unilaterally in placing the parties’ daughter at a facility that was not *331covered by the parties’ medical insurance. Such unilateral action was a breach of Mother’s obligations under the shared custody order of the court and the parties’ own settlement agreement. Mother has not offered any justification for taking such unilateral action. Had Mother complied with her obligations, the tremendous costs of the placement at an uninsured facility may have been avoided. Father was never afforded the opportunity to participate in the decision-making that may have avoided such placement and such costs.
I believe it is not only unfair, but also bad policy to allocate any of the expenses of the placement to Father. Mother acted unilaterally in breach of the court’s order and the parties’ parenting agreement. In the absence of a legal justification for doing so, she should be solely responsible for the costs of doing so. We should adopt policies that encourage parents to cooperate and communicate — particularly, those who share custody of their children. We should discourage unilateral action by either parent in breach of the custody order. By making it possible for a parent who has breached the shared custody order by acting unilaterally to re-coup the costs of doing so from the other party, courts do just the opposite.
I would reverse the trial court’s order and remand with instruction to enter judgment for Father.