Jody Michael Neal and Karen Lynne Neal
Case No: 1439503
Hearing Date: Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Children’s Wisdom teeth Exraction; Mother to Pay 1/2 of Unreimbursed Expenses

Req. For Order: Children’s Wisdom Teeth Extraction/Mother to pay one-half of Unreimbursed Expenses

Attorneys: Petitioner (“father”) in pro per; Respondent (“mother”) in pro per

Ruling: The Court grants father sole authority to schedule the children’s wisdom teeth extraction as recommended by the dentist and oral surgeon AND that mother is ordered to pay 1/2 of unreimbursed ($1204) expense directly to oral surgeon when service is rendered.

Background: Father filed the RFO on 2/27; the Court has read it all; the Court will summarize; testifies that the minor children, Christopher (age 15) and Emma (age 14), on their wishes, reside with father on a full-time basis; is highly attuned to their physical and emotional needs; their mother sees them more or less weekly for a dinner or lunch date; based on the current situation and the other facts; requests that the Court make the following orders:

a. That the Court grant father sole authority to schedule the children’s wisdom teeth extraction as recommended by the dentist and oral surgeon.

b. That the Court order mother to pay 1/2 of unreimbursed ($1204) expense directly to oral surgeon when service is rendered.

Father testifies that mother and father were married September 17, 1994; separated November 1, 2013; have three children; one son who is now an adult, Matthew (age 20), and two minor children, Christopher (age 15) and Emma (age 14); there was a two-day trial September 3 and 4 , 2015, for unresolved issues; judgment was entered October 26th, 2015, after a series of post-trial motions filed by mother; child custody was originally 50/50; in April of 2018, there was a hearing on father’s Request for Order seeking a change in the regular parenting schedule allowing the children to spend most of their time at father’s house; the Court set a new custody order that the children would visit mother every other weekend and maintain the existing holiday schedule.

Father testifies that mother has shown a pattern of denying permission for dental and orthodontic treatments for Christopher and Emma; at a recent dental checkup, Dr. Martin, DDS explained to father that both children had “impacted wisdom teeth” that needed to be removed as soon as possible; the risk factors of delay or inaction are listed by Dr. Martin as:

a. “Loss of adjacent 2nd molar from bone loss, infection, caries”

b. “Emergency pain infection”

c. “long term periodontal (gum) issues from inability to clean”

d. “many more…”

A copy of Dr. Martin’s email diagnosis was attached. Also attaches a copy of Dr. Jones’ assessment; the costs of the extractions are listed as $2805 per child. Dental insurance will cover $1601 per child leaving an unreimbursed cost of $1204 per child.

Mother filed a response on 3/19; the Court has read it all but will summarize here; mother requests that both parents retain authority to make necessary medical decisions, such as wisdom teeth extraction, of minor children. Decisions to be made jointly. All costs not reimbursed by insurance will be shared 50/50. All future medical appointments be scheduled at a time that both parents may be present. All medical appointments must be posted no less than a week in advance of the appointment date in “Our Family Wizard”.

Mother testifies that she has been a very involved in the children’s life; prior to divorce, she was the primary caretaker of the three children; she is very confident in her ability to make wise decisions for the benefit of the children. On February 8, 2019, father took both of the minor children to Dr. Martin, DDS for a check-up and cleaning; at that time, father received a referral from Dr. Martin for the removal of both children’s wisdom teeth; upon receiving his email, she immediately called the recommended oral surgery center (who their oldest child went to as well for the removal of his wisdom teeth a year ago) to find out more about the surgery from the oral surgeon’s point of view; mother’s concern is that the “children are too young for surgery.”

Mother testifies that father has had a history of aggression towards her; so much so, he refuses to co-parent their children; after hearing the surgeon’s opinion, she agreed to the extraction procedure for both children (Exhibit #4); additionally, she is concerned with father’s ability to meet his financial responsibility to cover his portion of the procedures; he is months in arrears with her alimony support payments and reimbursement of children’s health insurance payments; believes he will not fulfill his agreement to pay leaving the burden of payment on her; in response to the events surrounding this issue, she believes that certain orders need to be in place to ensure that the children are properly taken care of and not at the discretion of one parent’s indignant opinion.

Father filed his reply on 3/20; the Court has read it all but will summarize here; he notes that mother asks “all future medical appointments be scheduled at a time that both parents must be present, and all medical appointments must be posted no less than a week in advance of the appointment date in Our Family Wizard; he requests that the Court deny her requested orders because mother has not met the burden of proving those orders are either necessary or in the best interest of the children; reports that mother has committed to paying his half of the unreimbursed expense of the Procedures; he has already agreed (in writing) to financial responsibility with the oral surgeon; there is no risk of mother having to pay his portion.

Father testifies that he requested that the Court grant him sole authority to schedule the children’s wisdom teeth extraction; but he wants joint legal custody to remain in effect for all other issues; notwithstanding mother’s agreement that the procedure may go forward, he requests the Court to grant his Request for Order to have sole authority to schedule the procedures; he alone, will be responsible for the children’s week-long, post-surgical care.

The Court’s Conclusions

Father’s testimony is very persuasive under the circumstances.