In the wake of a new Florida law protecting a parent’s rights not to teach sex education, comes a case in which too much sex talk ended up modifying one parent’s child custody. Recently, a Michigan family law case drew a line between educating your children about sex and inappropriate conversations.

Sex Talk child custody

The ‘Birds and the Bees’

The parents have four children: three daughters and one son, and they have been divorced since 2018. They were awarded joint legal custody of the four children with a split: One parent had the boy, and the other parent had the three girls

In 2021, Father asked to change legal residence, parenting time, and custody relative to EJ and JJ, requesting that the trial court award him primary physical custody of the two children and that the court change their legal residence from Petoskey to his home in Plymouth, Michigan.

The Mother opposed the motion. During an evidentiary the Father introduced several exhibits, including a recorded conversation between the Mother and the three daughters indicating that she had inappropriate conversations with the children, had difficulties controlling her anger, used vulgarities and profanity in conversations with the children, and consumed an excessive amount of alcohol during parenting time.

After the evidentiary hearing, the referee recommended that the trial court deny the motion. The Father filed an objection which was heard by the trial judge in a de novo hearing. The Father argued he was not given sufficient time to present evidence necessary to meet the burden of proof, that the referee should have found that there was a joint custodial environment, and that it was in the children’s best interests to change custody.

The trial court granted Father’s motion and awarded him primary physical custody. The Mother appealed.

Florida Modifying Custody

I have written about modification of child custody before. In Florida, during the initial child custody case, a family court must determine the best interest of a child based upon all of the factors listed in our child custody statute.

After determining the best interest of the child, and entering a child custody decree, Florida law grants continuing jurisdiction to the family court to modify the custody order but does not state the conditions necessary for modification.

Modification is based, in Florida, on the substantial change test. A party seeking a modification must prove a substantial and material change in circumstances, and that the best interests of the child will be promoted by such modification.

How Not To Teach Your Children

On appeal, the Mother argued the family court abused its discretion when it modified her custody. She argued under Michigan law, courts are not permitted to “modify or amend its previous judgments or orders or issue a new order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.”

But at trial, there was evidence the Mother was having inappropriate conversations with the children about her sex life, wrestling with the children, negligently leaving her sex toy where one child and a friend found it, and was demonstrating she had an inability to control her anger and interact appropriately with the children.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the family judge. At the time of the trial, one child was only 11 years old and the other child was only 10 years old. There was a litany of evidence that the Mother was sharing her sex life details, making remarks about a date’s erectile dysfunction, raising her voice during a conversation with the children about sexuality, leaving a sex toy exposed, and allowing the children to be in the presence of a man she was dating who became intoxicated and acted highly inappropriately, and wrestling with the children after drinking.

The Michigan Court of Appeal opinion is here.

A new case on the COVID-19 vaccine and child custody modification in Colorado asks what happens after the divorce when a parent has a change of heart about vaccinating the children, while the other maintains a religious-based objection to vaccination?

COVID CUSTODY

Rocky Mountain Parenting

In a post-divorce dispute, a court had to address the burden of proof to apply when considering the request of a father to modify the medical decision-making responsibility clause of their parenting plan to allow him to vaccinate the children, over the objection of the mother.

The parties’ parenting plan provided for joint medical decision-making authority and that “[a]bsent joint mutual agreement or court order, the children will not be vaccinated.”

The father had a change of heart about the children remaining unvaccinated. He described a “wake-up moment” he had when traveling for business to Seattle while the city was experiencing a measles outbreak, and then being afraid to be around the children after he got home out of fear of unknowingly exposing them.

Mother opposed vaccinating the children, in part, because it conflicted with her religious beliefs and also argued that vaccines pose a risk of side effects for the children. Specifically, because mother has an autoimmune disease and the children all had midline defects at birth, she asserted that vaccinations for the children are contraindicated.

The parents agreed a parenting coordinator/decision-maker (PCDM) could decide the issue. However, the PCDM declined to render a decision, stating that the issue was outside of her expertise and likened rendering a decision on it to “practicing medicine without a license.”

While the trial court rejected mother’s medical-based objections, the judge found that vaccination would interfere with mother’s “right to exercise religion freely,” and therefore imposed an “additional burden” on father “to prove substantial harm to the children” if they remained unvaccinated.

The court ruled that father had not met this additional burden and denied his motion to modify medical decision-making responsibility.

Father appealed.

Florida Vaccinations and Child Custody

I have written about the relationship between vaccinations and child custody in Florida before. In Florida, the prevailing standard for determining “custody” is a concept call shared parental responsibility, or sole parental responsibility. Generally, shared parental responsibility is a relationship ordered by a court in which both parents retain their full parental rights and responsibilities.

Under shared parental responsibility, parents are required to confer with each other and jointly make major decisions affecting the welfare of their child. In Florida, shared parental responsibility is the preferred relationship between parents when a marriage or a relationship ends. In fact, courts are instructed to order parents to share parental responsibility of a child unless it would be detrimental to the child.

Issues relating to a child’s physical health and medical treatment, including the decision to vaccinate, are major decisions affecting the welfare of a child. When parents cannot agree, the dispute is resolved in court.

At the trial, the test applied is the best interests of the child. Determining the best interests of a child is no longer entirely subjective. Instead, the decision is based on an evaluation of certain factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child and the circumstances of the child’s family.

In Florida, a court can carve out an exception to shared parental responsibility, giving one parent “ultimate authority” to make decisions, such as the responsibility for deciding on vaccinations.

The decision to vaccinate raises interesting family law issues. It is important to know what your rights and responsibilities are in Florida.

A Double Black Diamond Issue

The appellate court reversed.

Generally, Colorado has a substantial change in circumstances test for modifications, so that a court cannot modify a parenting plan unless it finds that a change occurred in the circumstances of the child or of a party and that modification is necessary to serve the child’s best interests.

In Colorado, a court has to keep the decision-making responsibility allocation from the prior decree unless doing so “would endanger the child’s physical health” and the harm likely to be caused by a change in decision-making responsibility is outweighed by the advantage to the child.

In this case, the court found that the mother’s free exercise rights are not implicated by a court’s allocation of decision-making responsibility between parents because when allocating decision-making responsibility between parents, the court is merely expanding one parent’s fundamental right at the expense of the other parent’s similar right.

The trial court erred by imposing a heightened burden on father to show substantial harm — a burden only relevant to show a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny analysis — when considering his request to modify the parenting plan.

Once the court found the failure to vaccinate endangers the children’s physical health, and that the risks of vaccination are “extremely low” as compared to its benefits of “preventing severe illness, permanent severe damage, and death,” it should have proceeded to the second prong of the inquiry, namely, whether the harm likely to be caused by changing decision-making responsibility outweighed the benefit to the child.

The opinion is here.

Tag: child custody modification

Sex Talk and Modifying Child Custody