arguing that the plaintiff wanted to switch the child to a new school because the director of the first program allowed the defendant to sign the child out with the prior plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. The inability to compromise eventually led to a legal parties’ dispute over the comparative rights of each parent in choosing a pre-school for their child. The defendant argued that joint legal custody grants both parties equal rights on education issues, that pre-school attendance is an education issue, and that the plaintiff violated the rights by changing the pre-school without his explicit defendant’s child’s consent. Further, the defendant relied heavily on 86 480 (1981) in Beck v. Beck, N.J. order to bolster his argument that parents sharing joint legal custody under 9:2-4 N.J.S.A. have rights and responsibilities regarding the care, nurture, education and welfare “equal of their children.” The plaintiff contends that the principle is meant to apply specifically to significant education issues once the child reaches school age and begins attending class in a regular education program (kindergarten through twelfth grade, and potentially college). She further argues that this principle cannot reasonably apply to pre-school, as it is not a major educational decision. She also turns to 140 583 Pascale v. Pascale, N.J. (1995) in support of her argument that the primary residential custodian is generally responsible for many facets of the day-to-day life including arranging alternative child’s care such as daycare. The Court first examined the reliance on and Upon review, Pascale Beck. parties’ the Court found that neither case was factually relevant to the issue of pre-school
arguing that the plaintiff wanted to switch the child to a new school because the director of the first program allowed the defendant to sign the child out with the plaintiff’s prior knowledge or consent. The parties’ inability to compromise eventually led to a legal dispute over the comparative rights of each parent in choosing a pre-school for their child. The defendant argued that joint legal custody grants both parties equal rights on education issues, that pre-school attendance is an education issue, and that the plaintiff violated the defendant’s rights by changing the child’s pre-school without his explicit consent. Further, the defendant relied heavily on Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480 (1981) in order to bolster his argument that parents sharing joint legal custody under N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 have “equal rights and responsibilities regarding the care, nurture, education and welfare of their children.” The plaintiff contends that the principle is meant to apply specifically to significant education issues once the child reaches school age and begins attending class in a regular education program (kindergarten through twelfth grade, and potentially college). She further argues that this principle cannot reasonably apply to pre-school, as it is not a major educational decision. She also turns to Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583 (1995) in support of her argument that the primary residential custodian is generally responsible for many facets of the child’s day-to-day life including arranging alternative care such as daycare. The Court first examined the parties’ reliance on Pascale and Beck. Upon review, the Court found that neither case was factually relevant to the issue of pre-school
5471_1.docx