The case

A general dental practitioner in private practice contacted Dental Protection seeking advice following an unusual situation involving a minor patient.

The patient had previously attended the practice for an initial consultation, during which a treatment plan was discussed. No further treatment was carried out at the practice, and no follow-up appointments were scheduled.

Some time later, the practice received an email from the patient’s mother expressing serious concerns about dental treatment that had allegedly been carried out without her consent. She stated that multiple extractions had been performed during a single appointment, despite her having expressly requested that treatment be staged.

The correspondence was emotive and raised concerns about parental authority, consent, and the wellbeing of the child. The mother indicated that she shared custody with the child’s father and believed that her consent should have been obtained prior to any treatment proceeding.

The practice investigated the matter and confirmed that the child had not undergone any treatment at their facility. It became apparent that the procedure had been performed by another provider.

The mother subsequently sent a follow-up email apologising for the confusion and confirming that she had mistakenly attributed the treatment to the wrong practice. She explained that the child’s father had arranged and consented to the treatment elsewhere, which had been undertaken without her knowledge.

Although the matter was resolved quickly and did not escalate further, the incident prompted the member to reflect on their own processes. In particular, they sought clarity on whether it is necessary to verify the marital status of parents and whether consent should routinely be obtained from both parents when treating minors.

How Dental Protection helped

The member contacted Dental Protection for general advice on how to approach parental consent in situations involving minors, particularly where there may be shared parental responsibility.

Dental Protection reassured the member that, in general, a person with parental rights and responsibilities is legally entitled to consent to treatment on behalf of a minor. It was explained that, in most cases, it is acceptable to rely on consent from one parent, particularly for routine dental care.

However, the advice also focused on practical risk management. The member was encouraged to remain alert to situations where there may be disagreement between parents or where consent could later be challenged. In such circumstances, a more cautious approach – including seeking consent from both parents – may be appropriate.

Guidance was also provided on managing higher-cost or more significant treatment plans. The member was advised that it may be prudent to clarify who will be responsible for payment and, where appropriate, to suggest that parents discuss and agree on the proposed treatment beforehand. This can help to avoid disputes that may arise not only from clinical outcomes but also from financial expectations.

In addition, Dental Protection emphasised the importance of clear documentation. Recording who provided consent, what was discussed, and the basis on which consent was accepted can be critical in demonstrating a reasonable and defensible approach should concerns arise later.

The advice was framed in a practical and balanced way, supporting the member to feel confident in their day-to-day decision-making while also recognising the complexities that can arise in family dynamics.

Outcome

The matter did not escalate into a formal complaint, claim, or regulatory investigation. The misunderstanding was resolved following the mother’s clarification and apology to the practice.

The member was reassured by the advice received and confirmed that they would incorporate the guidance into their future practice. The file was subsequently closed without further action.

Learning points

• Parental consent for minors is often straightforward in practice, but complexities can arise in situations involving separated or divorced parents. Clinicians are not expected to routinely investigate family dynamics but should remain alert to indicators of potential disagreement.

• Consent from one parent is generally sufficient. A parent with parental rights and responsibilities can usually provide valid consent for a child’s treatment. However, this may not apply where there is clear evidence of dispute or limitation of authority.

• Clinical and financial considerations may intersect. For more extensive or costly treatment plans, it can be helpful to clarify financial responsibility and encourage parents to reach agreement beforehand, reducing the risk of later conflict.

• Clear documentation supports defensibility. Recording who provided consent and the context in which it was obtained is an important safeguard, particularly where concerns arise after treatment.

• Communication remains central. Even where legal requirements are met, perceived lack of communication between parents can lead to dissatisfaction and complaints. A measured and transparent approach can help mitigate this risk.

• Early advice can prevent uncertainty. Seeking guidance from Dental Protection at an early stage can help clinicians navigate grey areas with confidence and adopt a consistent, defensible approach in their practice.