I was prepared to hate the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Newdow pledge-of-allegiance case, but it appears that they got it right:
Sandra Banning, the child?s mother, then filed a motion to intervene or dismiss, declaring, inter alia, that she had exclusive legal custody under a state-court order and that, as her daughter?s sole legal custodian, she felt it was not in the child?s interest to be a party to Newdow?s suit.
Newdow doesn’t have legal custody, either joint or sole, despite the fact that the kid spends 10 days a month with him. It’s extremely unusual for a California family court not to award joint legal custody – dad has to be a wacko or an abuser not to get this status, which is largely viewed as window-dressing. But in this case we see that it actually means something, so fathers shouldn’t accept anything less.