Just for discussion...
Let's use the most common custodial scenario for this one. BM is custodial. BF is EOWE. BF wants to allow his child to do X. X is something that is not illegal, not unsafe...something like say, watching a certain movie. BM has said no to that.
Generally speaking, I'm of the opinion that the more conservative parent "wins". However, I think that carries more weight when said parent can back up their choice with some logical, rational reasons. Simply saying no for the sake of control or "just because" is more likely to be disregarded.
Recently, there was a post where BM was ticked that BF allowed a 13 YO to watch the movie Dirty Dancing. BM was opposed due to content. While it's rated PG 13 and many other parents have let kids much younger than 13 watch the movie with no ill effects, BM in this supposed situation was vehemently against it.
If you were BM or BF in such a situation, what would you do and what would you expect the outcome to be?
In our situation, BM and BF(DH) generally coparent and if one person says no, there's almost always logic associated with it that is communicated/discussed. Very rarely does one parent go against the other. If anything, it's more common that during the course of discussion, someone changes their mind once they hear the reasons behind something.
What say you?