Joint legal decision making means both parents share the legal right and responsibility to make major nonemergency decisions about their child’s education, health care, religious upbringing, and personal care. It requires both parents to be involved and to reach agreement — or to have a process for resolving disagreements on decisions that significantly affect the child.

Joint legal decision making is not the same as equal parenting time. Parents can share legal decision making on a very unequal parenting schedule, and one parent can have substantially more parenting time while decision making is shared. The two questions are decided separately.

Arizona courts may award joint legal decision making when the parents can communicate and cooperate on major decisions despite their personal disagreement about other things. The test is not whether the parents like each other. It is whether they can function well enough to make major decisions for their child when needed.

Joint legal decision making is not appropriate in every case. When there is a documented history of domestic violence the Alec and Lydia Act creates a mandatory presumption against awarding any legal decision making to the abusive parent. When the parents have demonstrated an inability to communicate or cooperate on anything involving the child, joint decision making tends to produce more conflict and more litigation rather than less.

Tie-breaking provisions matter when joint legal decision making is awarded. If the parents cannot reach agreement how does the impasse get resolved. Some decrees give one parent tie-breaking authority on specific categories. Others require a dispute resolution process before any parent acts unilaterally on a major decision. The specific mechanism matters and should be negotiated carefully.