I know this is not an answer, but I have to ask, why? I would say if both parents OWN a kid 50 / 50 then yes both parents must ok it. I still cannot understand, why a parent or parents can ok either a religion for a kid that knows nothing about religion in the first place, can decide what religion if any the kid wants to be when older, nor if the kid if male wants to be circumsized. Let the kid make an informed choice when they are like ten or 15 y/o or older. You may have created the kid by love, but that Kid must have rights without being brainwashed into religion or being circumsized without their consent. It seems that people (parents), seem to OWN their kids, like a piece of property now days. Very similar to the old days of slaves.

that is the childs decision , not a parents. their resposibility is to help get that child to that DECISION!!!!!

From the Church Handbook of Instructions: "Minors: A minor child may be baptized only if the custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s) consent and if local leaders have good reason to believe that the child understands the baptismal covenant and will make every effort to keep it through obedience to the gospel, including faithfully attending Church meetings. Children Whose Parents Are Divorced: A child whose parents are divorced may be baptized if the parent(s) with legal custody gives permission. If the mother has custody and has remarried, and if the child is not formally adopted but has assumed the surname of the stepfather, the child may be baptized in the name by which he or she will be known." So it sounds like yes, if both parents have legal custody, both parents must consent to the baptism.

I used to believe as Solistics wrote, that if both parents have joint legal custody then they must both consent. That is not the case though, as I recently learned the hard way. I objected (in writing) the baptism of my 8 year-old son. My ex wrote a letter to Elder Jeffrey Holland, who forwarded the question for review by the Church's General Counsel, a man by the name of Lance Wickman. Mr. Wickman's office looked into the issue and APPROVED the baptism over my objection, using the following reasoning (taken straight from his memo to Elder Holland): "It would appear that [mother] has the unilateral authority to make the baptismal decision for her son. Her ex-husband would not have a legal basis to stop the baptism, and he would not have a legal claim to pursue against the church if we baptize the child on [mother's] authority. ... It is true that the Church Handbook (p.33) requires both parents to consent to a child's baptism. But I believe that provision is driven by the legal concerns, which are not applicable here." There you have it. In the words of the Mormon Church's highest lawyer, Lance Wickman, the parental consent provision is really just driven by "legal concerns." So, if, in Mr. Wickman's opinion, a father would not be able to prevent the baptism from occurring, or successfully sue the Church if it happens without the father's consent ... well then, in that case, the Church can ignore its own policy and baptize the child anyway. Which is what happened. One night my ex, local church leaders and friends, took my son to the Mormon church and baptized him. I didn't know about it, and had expressly withheld permission, but it happened anyway. So take nothing for granted. I'm now exploring legal remedies for the violation of my child.

Definitely. It's not one parent's place over the other to do something so serious as that without the other's consent.

From strictly a court point of view in 2008, either parent may engage the children in whatever lawful religious situation they choose while the child is in their custodial care. This is even the case where a divorce decree has wording stating something about religion in it such as the children will attend "Church A" or the children won't be raised in a religion, etc. While there are exceptions of individual judges making decrees on religion, that is very much the exception these days as long as they're not doing non-mainstream stuff such as slaughtering iguanas or playing nude volleyball at the church meetings. Courts pretty much stay away from the religion thing and filing a motion on it is generally a waste of time/dollars. In this case, according to the postings above, the LDS church has their own policies on such things and also their own clarifications of such policies. Since it is a private organization, as churches tend to be, they are free to make any such declarations they wish and define them how they wish.

It depends on the child's age, but I think you have the question backwards. What you are asking is "If parents are in a joint custody situation, does one parent have veto power over the other's decision to get the child baptized?" My answer to that would be no. Whether the child is baptized or not concerns chiefly the child, and if one strongly believes that it is necessary and the other thinks it is just a meaningless ceremony the one who strongly believes can't be prevented by the other.

Better to beg forgivness than to ask permission . . . at least something gets accomplished.

NO. Both parents have a right to expose the child to their respective religious beliefs. Many joint custody orders specify procedures parents should follow in the event they cannot agree on an issue. The most common procedure is for the parents to consult a mediator. o First, the joint parenting agreement must state how decisions affecting the children are to be shared. o Second, the joint parenting agreement must provide a means of resolving disputes over the agreement. This means of resolving disputes usually includes mediation but mediation is not mandated. o Third, the joint parenting agreement must provide for periodic review of its terms. A parent may not be able to prevent a non-custodial parent from taking the children to the church of his (or her) choosing unless there is a showing of harm to the child.