Respondent has defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced the rights or remedies of Petitioner, in that:

Despite an order of joint legal and physical custody, father, respondent (name deleted), had child Dorothy's (name changed) ears pierced without informing her mother, petitioner Erica Manfred.

This is a violation that can never be replaced because:

• Ear piercing is a rite of passage and a bonding experience that is traditionally shared by a mother and daughter. My child will never have the memory of getting her ears pierced with her mother, a memory that I treasure of me and my deceased mother.

• This is a joint medical decision that should be shared by both parents as per our custody agreement. Pierced ears can get infected and necessitate twice daily cleaning. I did not agree to do this.

This action violates the rights of the petitioner because:

• I do not believe in 5-year-old girls getting their ears pierced. As a lifestyle choice I believe girls should do this in their teens, as I did. My opinion in this matter is now moot.

• When Dorothy was born both respondent and I discussed getting her ears pierced at that time, and decided we did not approve of earrings on a small child. Respondent specifically ignored this spoken agreement.

• Respondent knew how I felt about this issue. I had informed him previously how important it was to me to take Dorothy to such traditional mother/daughter activities as haircuts. I believe his action was in retribution for my getting Dorothy’s hair cut when he was ut of town.
  

• I expressly informed respondent by email the week before that I did not want my child’s ears pierced—that this should be a joint decision and that if there was any conflict it should be mediated by a mutually agreed upon professional as stated in our custody agreement. Respondent ignored this email, claiming he hadn’t received it. However, he did receive other emails sent the same day.

This action was harmful to the child because:

• Respondent placed her squarely in the middle of a conflict that should have been worked out previously by her parents. She was the one to inform me about the ear piercing which I responded to with shock and anger, which upset her.
  

• This is the only first time she will ever have her ears pierced and she therefore lost a valuable bonding experience and treasured memory with her mother.
  

I am requesting relief from the court as follows:

• I would like the respondent to be admonished to make ALL substantive decisions jointly with petitioner or risk losing custody.
  

• Decisions should be defined as anything that affects the physical and mental health and well-being of the child—including invasive cosmetic procedures

Divorce360.com is not a substitute for advice from a lawyer, accountant, financial planner, therapist or other professional to obtain advice. Divorce360.com is not intended to, and should not, take the place of professional advice. The opinions expressed in the divorce360.com message boards are those of the author and the author alone. Divorce360.com does not endorse any specific product or service.