Doctor has a parent preference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Find another Dr. This is not acceptable.

Of course. It's in acceptable, particularly if one parent is a royal PITA!

Yeah that’s not how service providers work. OP needs to take their business elsewhere and probably file a complaint with the state board.

Based on what? Doctors can determine that a relationship is not effective and decline to continue, so long as they provide a bridge of emergency care for a month -- unless they are ER doctors. Every other doctor can say "no," and that is a part of standard practice. There is nothing to complain about.

But of course, what OP is experiencing is a great reason to change providers. She's just not going to get anyone in trouble for doing so, not the doctor and not herself or her kid (that is, there should be no retaliation for doing so -- of course!).

The doctor isn’t refusing care—and money— they’re trying to dictate which parent participates in the care of their child. That’s absolutely worth filing a complaint over. If the doctor just fired the family there’s no complaint to be made.

No, the doctor is dictating who the point person for future communication will be. One parents is unreasonable and the other isn't. The doctor is going about it in the way that will enable them to best serve the patient. Unreasonable parent needs to get their act together.

Not up to the doctor. You treat minors you deal with their parents, in the same way you treat adults you deal with their idiosyncrasies. Or you don’t. But you don’t get to take their money and illegally exclude their parent.

Sorry, that isn't how it works. This is just like saying "I will agree to provide care, but only during office hours" or "only at your appointment time" or "only scheduled once a week, not every day."

You can't force a doctor to work with you. They are not indentured servants. If the relationship doesn't work, either you or the doctor can put restraints on it -- and that includes that a given person will not be involved (parent, nurse, whatever). Either side gets to make the call on whether that works.

Just don't go back. Find someone else with whom you can maintain a therapeutic relationship.

A doctor cannot legally bar a parent from the care of their minor child. They can refuse the patient, but they cannot bar a parent.

Why are you making this a legal case? The OP said "preference". Nobody is being forcefully banned from the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Find another Dr. This is not acceptable.

Of course. It's in acceptable, particularly if one parent is a royal PITA!

Yeah that’s not how service providers work. OP needs to take their business elsewhere and probably file a complaint with the state board.

Based on what? Doctors can determine that a relationship is not effective and decline to continue, so long as they provide a bridge of emergency care for a month -- unless they are ER doctors. Every other doctor can say "no," and that is a part of standard practice. There is nothing to complain about.

But of course, what OP is experiencing is a great reason to change providers. She's just not going to get anyone in trouble for doing so, not the doctor and not herself or her kid (that is, there should be no retaliation for doing so -- of course!).

The doctor isn’t refusing care—and money— they’re trying to dictate which parent participates in the care of their child. That’s absolutely worth filing a complaint over. If the doctor just fired the family there’s no complaint to be made.

They are refusing care through a given individual. I'm sorry that you do not like it, but they get to do that. They get to say "I will not work with this person." Fine to make a complaint, but it's not going to mean anything to anyone at all -- don't let that make anyone more mad.

I’m not the OP. A doctor cannot bar a parent from an appointment with a minor while providing care which is what this doctor is trying to do. That is why a complaint to the state board (in addition to finding another doctor) is appropriate, because the behavior is a violation of the parents rights.

Yes, they can. Physicians bar verbally abusive parents from clinics all the time, while still seeing the patient if the banned parent is not present. Do you think you can just make up state board rules, just because that would make you feel better?

You have no "right" to access a given doctor's care, either for yourself or for a dependent. ANY person can be barred from entering a given doctor's office. If that is a parent of a minor, then that minor won't receive non-emergency care that day, because they will not have a parent entering with them. But that's just how it works.

I mean, go ahead and "report it," but it will go absolutely nowhere, because you don't have a leg to stand on. You've even gotten it exactly wrong -- it would be MORE of a concern to refuse to see a child because of the behavior of one of the parents, when there was no problem with the behavior of the other who could bring them instead.

[Anonymous]

OP isn’t answering any questions. Suspect a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Find another Dr. This is not acceptable.

Of course. It's in acceptable, particularly if one parent is a royal PITA!

Yeah that’s not how service providers work. OP needs to take their business elsewhere and probably file a complaint with the state board.

Based on what? Doctors can determine that a relationship is not effective and decline to continue, so long as they provide a bridge of emergency care for a month -- unless they are ER doctors. Every other doctor can say "no," and that is a part of standard practice. There is nothing to complain about.

But of course, what OP is experiencing is a great reason to change providers. She's just not going to get anyone in trouble for doing so, not the doctor and not herself or her kid (that is, there should be no retaliation for doing so -- of course!).

The doctor isn’t refusing care—and money— they’re trying to dictate which parent participates in the care of their child. That’s absolutely worth filing a complaint over. If the doctor just fired the family there’s no complaint to be made.

No, the doctor is dictating who the point person for future communication will be. One parents is unreasonable and the other isn't. The doctor is going about it in the way that will enable them to best serve the patient. Unreasonable parent needs to get their act together.

Not up to the doctor. You treat minors you deal with their parents, in the same way you treat adults you deal with their idiosyncrasies. Or you don’t. But you don’t get to take their money and illegally exclude their parent.

Sorry, that isn't how it works. This is just like saying "I will agree to provide care, but only during office hours" or "only at your appointment time" or "only scheduled once a week, not every day."

You can't force a doctor to work with you. They are not indentured servants. If the relationship doesn't work, either you or the doctor can put restraints on it -- and that includes that a given person will not be involved (parent, nurse, whatever). Either side gets to make the call on whether that works.

Just don't go back. Find someone else with whom you can maintain a therapeutic relationship.

A doctor cannot legally bar a parent from the care of their minor child. They can refuse the patient, but they cannot bar a parent.

Why are you making this a legal case? The OP said "preference". Nobody is being forcefully banned from the office.

Because the OP asks “will the courts take it seriously” which clearly means there’s a case already at work, and other than courts ordering vaccines or certain treatments, you don’t get to strip a parent of their rights because a doctor says so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Find another Dr. This is not acceptable.

Of course. It's in acceptable, particularly if one parent is a royal PITA!

Yeah that’s not how service providers work. OP needs to take their business elsewhere and probably file a complaint with the state board.

Based on what? Doctors can determine that a relationship is not effective and decline to continue, so long as they provide a bridge of emergency care for a month -- unless they are ER doctors. Every other doctor can say "no," and that is a part of standard practice. There is nothing to complain about.

But of course, what OP is experiencing is a great reason to change providers. She's just not going to get anyone in trouble for doing so, not the doctor and not herself or her kid (that is, there should be no retaliation for doing so -- of course!).

The doctor isn’t refusing care—and money— they’re trying to dictate which parent participates in the care of their child. That’s absolutely worth filing a complaint over. If the doctor just fired the family there’s no complaint to be made.

No, the doctor is dictating who the point person for future communication will be. One parents is unreasonable and the other isn't. The doctor is going about it in the way that will enable them to best serve the patient. Unreasonable parent needs to get their act together.

Not up to the doctor. You treat minors you deal with their parents, in the same way you treat adults you deal with their idiosyncrasies. Or you don’t. But you don’t get to take their money and illegally exclude their parent.

Sorry, that isn't how it works. This is just like saying "I will agree to provide care, but only during office hours" or "only at your appointment time" or "only scheduled once a week, not every day."

You can't force a doctor to work with you. They are not indentured servants. If the relationship doesn't work, either you or the doctor can put restraints on it -- and that includes that a given person will not be involved (parent, nurse, whatever). Either side gets to make the call on whether that works.

Just don't go back. Find someone else with whom you can maintain a therapeutic relationship.

A doctor cannot legally bar a parent from the care of their minor child. They can refuse the patient, but they cannot bar a parent.

Why are you making this a legal case? The OP said "preference". Nobody is being forcefully banned from the office.

Because the OP asks “will the courts take it seriously” which clearly means there’s a case already at work, and other than courts ordering vaccines or certain treatments, you don’t get to strip a parent of their rights because a doctor says so.

I don't think that's OP saying all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Find another Dr. This is not acceptable.

Of course. It's in acceptable, particularly if one parent is a royal PITA!

Yeah that’s not how service providers work. OP needs to take their business elsewhere and probably file a complaint with the state board.

Based on what? Doctors can determine that a relationship is not effective and decline to continue, so long as they provide a bridge of emergency care for a month -- unless they are ER doctors. Every other doctor can say "no," and that is a part of standard practice. There is nothing to complain about.

But of course, what OP is experiencing is a great reason to change providers. She's just not going to get anyone in trouble for doing so, not the doctor and not herself or her kid (that is, there should be no retaliation for doing so -- of course!).

The doctor isn’t refusing care—and money— they’re trying to dictate which parent participates in the care of their child. That’s absolutely worth filing a complaint over. If the doctor just fired the family there’s no complaint to be made.

No, the doctor is dictating who the point person for future communication will be. One parents is unreasonable and the other isn't. The doctor is going about it in the way that will enable them to best serve the patient. Unreasonable parent needs to get their act together.

Not up to the doctor. You treat minors you deal with their parents, in the same way you treat adults you deal with their idiosyncrasies. Or you don’t. But you don’t get to take their money and illegally exclude their parent.

Sorry, that isn't how it works. This is just like saying "I will agree to provide care, but only during office hours" or "only at your appointment time" or "only scheduled once a week, not every day."

You can't force a doctor to work with you. They are not indentured servants. If the relationship doesn't work, either you or the doctor can put restraints on it -- and that includes that a given person will not be involved (parent, nurse, whatever). Either side gets to make the call on whether that works.

Just don't go back. Find someone else with whom you can maintain a therapeutic relationship.

A doctor cannot legally bar a parent from the care of their minor child. They can refuse the patient, but they cannot bar a parent.

Why are you making this a legal case? The OP said "preference". Nobody is being forcefully banned from the office.

Because the OP asks “will the courts take it seriously” which clearly means there’s a case already at work, and other than courts ordering vaccines or certain treatments, you don’t get to strip a parent of their rights because a doctor says so.

I don't think that's OP saying all that.

^ just adding that most of the conversation in here has not included OP. We don't know what this doctor has actually done to show their preference. I initially read it that perhaps there is a divorce going on and one of the parents is going to use this in their favor because they parents don't get along or agree on care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Find another Dr. This is not acceptable.

Of course. It's in acceptable, particularly if one parent is a royal PITA!

Yeah that’s not how service providers work. OP needs to take their business elsewhere and probably file a complaint with the state board.

Based on what? Doctors can determine that a relationship is not effective and decline to continue, so long as they provide a bridge of emergency care for a month -- unless they are ER doctors. Every other doctor can say "no," and that is a part of standard practice. There is nothing to complain about.

But of course, what OP is experiencing is a great reason to change providers. She's just not going to get anyone in trouble for doing so, not the doctor and not herself or her kid (that is, there should be no retaliation for doing so -- of course!).

The doctor isn’t refusing care—and money— they’re trying to dictate which parent participates in the care of their child. That’s absolutely worth filing a complaint over. If the doctor just fired the family there’s no complaint to be made.

No, the doctor is dictating who the point person for future communication will be. One parents is unreasonable and the other isn't. The doctor is going about it in the way that will enable them to best serve the patient. Unreasonable parent needs to get their act together.

Not up to the doctor. You treat minors you deal with their parents, in the same way you treat adults you deal with their idiosyncrasies. Or you don’t. But you don’t get to take their money and illegally exclude their parent.

Sorry, that isn't how it works. This is just like saying "I will agree to provide care, but only during office hours" or "only at your appointment time" or "only scheduled once a week, not every day."

You can't force a doctor to work with you. They are not indentured servants. If the relationship doesn't work, either you or the doctor can put restraints on it -- and that includes that a given person will not be involved (parent, nurse, whatever). Either side gets to make the call on whether that works.

Just don't go back. Find someone else with whom you can maintain a therapeutic relationship.

A doctor cannot legally bar a parent from the care of their minor child. They can refuse the patient, but they cannot bar a parent.

Why are you making this a legal case? The OP said "preference". Nobody is being forcefully banned from the office.

Because the OP asks “will the courts take it seriously” which clearly means there’s a case already at work, and other than courts ordering vaccines or certain treatments, you don’t get to strip a parent of their rights because a doctor says so.

No parent has a "right" to take their child to a given doctor. That isn't a thing. No court can force any doctor to work with a particular person (parent or child), outside of the ER.

You seem to think that a doctor saying "I'm not going to work with this one parent" is somehow stripping the parent of rights. It isn't. That parent can just take the child to a different doctor.

You can't force the doctor to work with someone they cannot work with, just because you want to take the child there. That reallyw ould be stripping someone of their rights, and it would be the doctor.

[Anonymous]

PS: But by all means, go ahead and argue this in court and see what happens.

[Anonymous]

If the child is being treated, there does have to be a parent present, and there has to be a parent to run point for follow-up on results and management. But as long as there is one person in that role for the child, then that's all you need. That suffices legal responsibility for the child.

The other parent can request records and go through that process to get information about their child, but that's a different matter. There's only legal obligation to keep one parent involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever experienced a doctor having a preference on which parent should be handling medical? I have not experienced this until recently and I'm not sure what it means. The doctor is asking that all future appointments be held with one parent as opposed to the other. Looking for opinions of doctors and what would make them do this and is it serious? Will the courts take it seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Find another Dr. This is not acceptable.

Agree. And I'm the one who schedules/handles 99% of the appointments.

I would not allow a doctor to suggest they only deal with me, really unprofessional.

Unless we're talking about major verbal abuses/major transgressions in some way towards the doctor from the other parent obviously... a PITA is not a justification to ask to only see one parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Find another Dr. This is not acceptable.

Agree. And I'm the one who schedules/handles 99% of the appointments.

I would not allow a doctor to suggest they only deal with me, really unprofessional.

Unless we're talking about major verbal abuses/major transgressions in some way towards the doctor from the other parent obviously... a PITA is not a justification to ask to only see one parent.

Except that it is, if it is a sufficient burden. The child can go elsewhere, if the therapeutic relationship is not able to be maintianed -- and again, the only exception is the ER. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

^^maintained

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you the problematic parent or the reasonable one?

The reasonable one. I'm just trying to understand the implications.

I want someone to be able to work with both parents and I'm trying to better understand if this is a parent issue or a doctor issue.

Obviously it's easier to only communicate and coordinate with one person. But I would think this is somewhat normal and find the request a little odd. They didn't elaborate, only to say the other parent paints a very different picture of the situation.

I understand the importance of continuity of care, but again- communicating treatment plan to multiple caregivers isn't that unusual.

Ask the doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you the problematic parent or the reasonable one?

The reasonable one. I'm just trying to understand the implications.

I want someone to be able to work with both parents and I'm trying to better understand if this is a parent issue or a doctor issue.

Obviously it's easier to only communicate and coordinate with one person. But I would think this is somewhat normal and find the request a little odd. They didn't elaborate, only to say the other parent paints a very different picture of the situation.

I understand the importance of continuity of care, but again- communicating treatment plan to multiple caregivers isn't that unusual.

You need to get to the bottom of this. I don't know how; I've never been through something like this. Is there something like a medical guardian ad litem for a child?