## Facts

- The parents divorced in 1985 and were granted joint custody over their three children regarding “custody, care, control and education.”
- The judgment was later amended to give the father primary physical custody; the mother received visitation.
- The parties’ son Robert scored highly on a third-grade placement test and completed curriculum above his grade level.
- Robert was selected for the school district’s talented-and-gifted program, which would place him with other gifted students outside his home school.
- The mother sought Robert’s enrollment, asserting it was necessary for his academic development.
- The father opposed enrollment, expressing concerns about adjustment and a narrowed academic focus, and citing experience with the parties’ older child in the program.
- After the parents reached an impasse, the mother moved for an order compelling Robert’s enrollment.
- The trial court denied the motion, citing Robert’s existing educational environment, transportation concerns, the program’s segregated nature, and a view that the primary physical custodian should decide absent specific law.

## Issues

1. When parents share joint legal custody and disagree on a major educational decision, may the court default decision-making authority to the parent with primary physical custody.
2. Whether the court must resolve such a joint-custody impasse by applying the Child Custody Act “best interests of the child” analysis.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals vacated the order denying the mother’s motion and remanded.
- The court held the trial court erred by treating the dispute as governed by a default rule favoring the primary physical custodian.
- The court directed that the educational-placement dispute be decided under the Child Custody Act’s best-interests framework.

## Legal Principles

- Joint custody includes shared decision-making authority over important decisions affecting a child’s welfare, including education.
- Physical custody (residential placement) is distinct from legal custody (authority to make major decisions).
- When joint legal custodians cannot agree on a major decision affecting the child’s welfare, the court may intervene to resolve the dispute.
- The court must apply the statutory best-interests factors to decide the contested issue; it may not resolve the impasse by presuming the physical custodian’s preference controls.

## Conclusion

In a joint legal custody arrangement, neither parent has unilateral authority over major educational decisions; when parents cannot agree, the court must decide the dispute by applying the Child Custody Act’s best-interests analysis rather than deferring to the parent with primary physical custody.


Lombardo v. Lombardo, 507 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993)