For parents with sole legal decision-making authority, it can be easy to assume that this court-ordered authority allows them to control access to educational, medical, and other types of legal records. We frequently receive calls from distressed parents in this exact position asking us how they can prevent their child’s school or healthcare provider from communicating with the other parent.
The short answer is that is not what sole legal decision-making does. But it can be more complicated than that.
What sole legal decision-making actually means
Under Arizona law, legal decision-making—sometimes still referred to as legal custody—defines the parents’ rights and obligations when it comes to making legal decisions for their children. But what constitutes a “legal decision” can be unintuitive and a source of conflict because, to be perfectly honest, it is poorly defined.
A.R.S. § 25-401 defines legal decision-making as “the legal right and responsibility to make all nonemergency legal decisions for a child including those regarding education, health care, religious training and personal care decisions.”
Read in isolation, it may seem like this contradicts what we said earlier. Who your child’s teacher or doctor shares sensitive information with certainly sound like nonemergency educational and healthcare decisions, respectively. But the technicalities here are that access to that information is (a) not an actual decision and (b) more explicitly addressed by a different statute.
Access to legal records and infomration
Under A.R.S. § 25-403.06, both parents are entitled to equal access to their child's school, medical, and other records and information, regardless of the legal decision-making authority arrangement. This broadly includes most types of important records maintained on the child’s behalf.
The statute states that each parent may obtain this information directly from the providers (i.e. the schools or healthcare providers) or from the other parent. This is really important because the statute further provides that “a person who does not comply with a reasonable request shall reimburse the requesting parent for court costs and attorney fees incurred by that parent to force compliance with this section.”
This means that a provider who refuses to share information with a legal parent can be ordered to pay that parent’s attorney’s fees and costs. More common in practice, it also means that the parent with sole legal decision-making can be ordered to pay those fees and costs if they refuse to provide information to the other parent.
How access can be limited or restricted
The access statute does acknowledge the family court’s authority to restrict a parent’s access to records. In our experience, it is rarely used, but judges can enter specific orders—beyond ordinary legal decision-making orders—to limit a parent’s ability to contact providers.
One scenario where this does occur is when one parent harasses a school or medical provider. Neither entity has any obligation to tolerate hostility from a parent forever. This type of behavior can compromise the child’s status as student or patient. We have seen situations where a parent’s constant communications have caused doctors to discontinue treatment of a child. In situations where this is happening, it might make sense for the family court to enter specific orders restricting that parent’s ability to interfere with the child’s medical care.
For this to work, you would need it specifically spelled out in the court orders. It is very important that any restriction is unambiguous as you will be asking a layperson, often an administrative assistant with a school or doctor’s office, to make a preliminary interpretation. They may feel uncomfortable doing so and may refer it to their own lawyers for review. Because of multiple points of interpretation, clarity and precision are very important.
Mistakes can be costly
Most parents with whom we discuss this subject sincerely misunderstand what rights they have when they have sole legal decision-making. This is a great example of why it is beneficial to consult with a child custody lawyer, even if you intend to represent yourself. It would be perfectly understandable to read 25-401 in isolation and conclude that it supports the position that the parent with sole legal decision-making can control access to records and information. There is no direct reference to 25-403.06, so there would be no reason to know that it exists. But this mistake could invite sanctions, including an order requiring you to pay the other parent’s attorney’s fees and costs.
And, unfortunately, this is not the only example of statutory interplay or nuance that affects the outcome of a case. There are many potential traps like this, so we recommend scheduling a free initial consultation to discuss your situation before taking any action.
