Custody agreements, whether mutually agreed upon by divorced parents or negotiated and imposed by the court, are often detailed in nature. They specify where minor children will live, who will be allowed to visit with them, where they are to go to school, who will care for their medical needs, and the nature of their religious upbringing, among many things. It is not unusual for custody agreements to be re-litigated and or modified as new situations arise or aspects of the child's or the parents' lives change. Recent highly publicized research on long-term brain injury among football players-the result of repeated concussions-has made its way into the family law arena. In a recent case, two parents with joint custody of their son took their dispute over this matter to court. Citing medical research on football injuries to the brain, the father argued that the youngest of his three sons should not be playing the sport. The boy was 17 and had suffered three concussions, but he had been cleared for play by his doctors. The boy's mother said their son was mature enough to be aware of the risks and should be allowed to continue to play if he so wished. Because the couple had joint legal custody, the school in this case initially barred the boy from playing, on the father's instructions, and a family court judge allowed the ban to stand. The mother then petitioned for sole legal custody related to extracurricular activities. While the case was being decided, the boy was allowed to play and completed his junior season. The family entered a court-mandated mediation program, but relationships among the father, his ex-wife, and his three sons remained strained (Belson, 2018). There are no empirical data on how often this issue arises in court, but anecdotal accounts from law firms indicate that disputes over participation in football are not uncommon in custody proceedings, particularly in states where football is revered. Judges themselves are split on the issue, with some considering the sport too dangerous and siding with the parent who wants to prevent it. Others believe the decision should be left to the custodial parent.

1) In this case, the parents had joint custody. How, then, should the judge decide? Is modifying the agreement to give the mother sole custody over extracurricular activities a good solution? Should the father get sole custody over extracurricular activities?
 

2) The boy at issue in this case was almost 18. Is that relevant? What if the boy were 14?

3) The father in this case had been a football fan his whole life and had encouraged his sons to play. He changed his attitude after reviewing scientific research on cognitive and neurological damage caused by playing football. The mother said that their son was aware of the research as well as the risks, and that coaches were careful about taking preventive measures to avoid concussions. Where do you stand?

4) If you were the court-appointed psychologist asked to mediate this situation, how would you proceed?

5) Regarding custody disputes in general, should a judge ask a child with which parent he or she wants to live? Should all children involved in a custody dispute be asked, or should this decision be a function of age? At what age should judges start to place significant weight on (i.e., truly consider) the child's preference, and why that age?