In Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290, 508 A.2d 964 (1986), the Court first recognized that a trial court has the power to grant joint custody. In so doing, the Court listed a number of factors to consider in granting joint custody. "Clearly the most important factor" is the capacity of the parents to communicate and to reach shared decisions affecting the child's welfare. See Taylor, 306 Md. at 304. Indeed, joint custody should not be awarded "in the absence of a record of mature conduct on the part of the parents evidencing an ability to effectively communicate with each other concerning the best interest of the child, and then only when it is possible to make a finding of a strong potential for such conduct in the future." Id. Nevertheless, the parents need not agree on every aspect of parenting, but their views should not be so widely divergent or so inflexibly maintained as to forecast the probability of continuing disagreement on important matters. Ordinarily, the best evidence of compatibility with this criterion will be the past conduct or 'track record' of the parties. We recognize, however, that the tensions of separation and litigation will sometimes produce bitterness and lack of ability to cooperate or agree. The trial judge will have to evaluate whether this is a temporary condition, very likely to abate upon resolution of the issues, or whether it is more permanent in nature. (306 Md. at 305-07.) The Court of Appeals rejected the proposition "that a trial judge may never order joint legal custody over the objection of one parent." Id. It was unwilling to grant either parent "veto power" over such a possibility. We are unwilling to fashion a hard and fast rule that would have the effect of granting to either parent veto power over the possibility of a joint custody award. A caring parent, believing that sole custody is in the best interest of the child, may forcefully advance that position throughout the litigation but be willing and able to fully participate in a joint custody arrangement if that is the considered decision of the court. (306 Md. at 308.)