Your use of the term "joint custody" suggests that your case might not have been originally decided in Colorado, or that it was a long time ago, because Colorado no longer uses that terminology. The current Colorado terminology refers to "decision-making" responsibility, but use of the "joint custody" language would be comparable to what is now referred to as "mutual decision-making responsibility". Unless the court ordered parenting plan specifically says something different, joint custody and mutual-decision making require that both parents agree on "major" decisions. Sending a teenager to an out-of-state boarding school is clearly a major decision - factually, there is an element of abandoning the role of parenting involved by relocating the child to the care and control of third parties so it involves more than just financial obligations, but determining respective financial obligations alone is sufficient to justify involving someone else to break the obvious tie vote. Since both parents do not agree, the parents need to either seek a ruling by the court or, alternatively, agree to have the court appoint someone as an arbiter to make the decision based on the best interests of the child. The child's wishes are relevant, but not controlling. And, depending on all the surrounding facts and circumstances (including the past history and each parent's financial resources), a court might permit the child to go to the boarding school, but require the "consenting" parent to bear the full cost. There is nothing in the law that grants a child the right to any private school arrangement and the judge has considerable discretion in determining whether it is appropriate to compel a parent to pay for private schooling.
Answered on Jan 04th, 2011 at 10:43 AM