MarginOfError

Especially in the case of a baptism performed in violation of Church policy and potentially contrary to legal agreements. I think an 8 year old can understand, "we found out the preparations for your baptism weren't properly arranged. So you will get to be baptized again after we talk about it a little more."

Your ex-wife may also be in violation of your custody agreement. You may have legal options your lawyer can discuss with you. (But not knowing the details of the custody agreement, I can't be sure).
Also, I would recommend that you request documentation that the ordinance has been revoked from Church headquarters. Please hold her and her leaders accountable to the violation of your trust and privilege as the custodial parent.
 
EDIT:
I will note here that church policy does not require that written consent be given by the custodial parent. The bishop is advised that he may ask for written consent if there is a question. So the local bishop you talk to may be clueless about the deception. I hope that is the case.

Especially in the case of a baptism performed in violation of Church policy and potentially contrary to legal agreements. I think an 8 year old can understand, "we found out the preparations for your baptism weren't properly arranged. So you will get to be baptized again after we talk about it a little more."

The natural corollary to this is that a man's place is where he chooses to be. (Yes, that's 's feminist concept)
I remember reading a review of several studied some years ago the tracked how well children thrived as a function of whether the mother worked or not. What they found was not that the mother's employment status was related to children thriving, but what the mother wanted her employment status to be. 
Women who worked but didn't want to tended to have children who didn't thrive. The children of working women who wanted to work were just as well off as the children of non working women who didn't want to work. Turns out, happy parents make happy children.

One last drive by before I leave to go camping in tree houses...
I'm a feminist. I'm an outspoken feminist. My church leaders at the ward and stake level know I'm a feminist.
I just chartered a Venture Crew out of my ward building. It's coed! And it was authorized by the stake presidency.
I'm the ward clerk. And I use feminist philosophy to help shape ward culture.
I'm an institute teacher. Last year I taught the New Testament from the perspective of Jesus as a feminist. I've never learned so much from the scriptures. (I also taught the Book of Mormon from the perspective of Mormon being a Lamanite. )
I also get asked to teach temple prep courses for members preparing to be endowed and sealed. And I teach as a feminist.
Sleep well tonight, anti-feminists 

Your ex-wife may also be in violation of your custody agreement. You may have legal options your lawyer can discuss with you. (But not knowing the details of the custody agreement, I can't be sure).
Also, I would recommend that you request documentation that the ordinance has been revoked from Church headquarters. Please hold her and her leaders accountable to the violation of your trust and privilege as the custodial parent.
 
EDIT:
I will note here that church policy does not require that written consent be given by the custodial parent. The bishop is advised that he may ask for written consent if there is a question. So the local bishop you talk to may be clueless about the deception. I hope that is the case.

Especially in the case of a baptism performed in violation of Church policy and potentially contrary to legal agreements. I think an 8 year old can understand, "we found out the preparations for your baptism weren't properly arranged. So you will get to be baptized again after we talk about it a little more."

The natural corollary to this is that a man's place is where he chooses to be. (Yes, that's 's feminist concept)
I remember reading a review of several studied some years ago the tracked how well children thrived as a function of whether the mother worked or not. What they found was not that the mother's employment status was related to children thriving, but what the mother wanted her employment status to be. 
Women who worked but didn't want to tended to have children who didn't thrive. The children of working women who wanted to work were just as well off as the children of non working women who didn't want to work. Turns out, happy parents make happy children.

When I've visited other churches, I've usually asked how the congregation I'm visiting would like me to act. 
Once, when attending an Eagle court of honor at a Jewish synagogue, the Eagle's mother approached me with a basket of head coverings and timidly asked if I would wear one in their holy space. I told her that I was visiting her place of worship, and would do the action that caused the least offense to her community. She replied, "Oh, I dont care. But my father is very orthodox." So I put on the head covering.
When I've visited an Episcopal church, the minister told us we were free to choose, and understanding our beliefs, said he felt no offense if we chose not to take Communion. In all cases, I've observed that my willingness to acknowledge the sensitivities of the congregation has earned me favor and flexibility.
For those who are desiring to participate, but are concerned about the use of wine, most congregations I've encountered will instruct you to cross your arms over your chest to indicate that you are declining the wine, but still wish to receive the wafer. It is common for children to do this, not uncommon for adults, and I believe is a fairly well recognized signal. (Maureen might be better informed)

When I've visited other churches, I've usually asked how the congregation I'm visiting would like me to act. 
Once, when attending an Eagle court of honor at a Jewish synagogue, the Eagle's mother approached me with a basket of head coverings and timidly asked if I would wear one in their holy space. I told her that I was visiting her place of worship, and would do the action that caused the least offense to her community. She replied, "Oh, I dont care. But my father is very orthodox." So I put on the head covering.
When I've visited an Episcopal church, the minister told us we were free to choose, and understanding our beliefs, said he felt no offense if we chose not to take Communion. In all cases, I've observed that my willingness to acknowledge the sensitivities of the congregation has earned me favor and flexibility.
For those who are desiring to participate, but are concerned about the use of wine, most congregations I've encountered will instruct you to cross your arms over your chest to indicate that you are declining the wine, but still wish to receive the wafer. It is common for children to do this, not uncommon for adults, and I believe is a fairly well recognized signal. (Maureen might be better informed)

I am a feminist. I am a proud and vocal feminist. It is my feminism that enables the ways in which I help men to break down social norms to help them be more open and expressive, to build more community and support with each other.
It was feminism that inspired me to push for more social engagements within my Elders Quorum, building greater unity and trust among my brethren.
Feminism is a broad category of social pholosophy. Labelling it all as "bad" because you don't like certain strains of the bandwidth says less about feminism and more about the speaker.

When I've visited other churches, I've usually asked how the congregation I'm visiting would like me to act. 
Once, when attending an Eagle court of honor at a Jewish synagogue, the Eagle's mother approached me with a basket of head coverings and timidly asked if I would wear one in their holy space. I told her that I was visiting her place of worship, and would do the action that caused the least offense to her community. She replied, "Oh, I dont care. But my father is very orthodox." So I put on the head covering.
When I've visited an Episcopal church, the minister told us we were free to choose, and understanding our beliefs, said he felt no offense if we chose not to take Communion. In all cases, I've observed that my willingness to acknowledge the sensitivities of the congregation has earned me favor and flexibility.
For those who are desiring to participate, but are concerned about the use of wine, most congregations I've encountered will instruct you to cross your arms over your chest to indicate that you are declining the wine, but still wish to receive the wafer. It is common for children to do this, not uncommon for adults, and I believe is a fairly well recognized signal. (Maureen might be better informed)

When I've visited other churches, I've usually asked how the congregation I'm visiting would like me to act. 
Once, when attending an Eagle court of honor at a Jewish synagogue, the Eagle's mother approached me with a basket of head coverings and timidly asked if I would wear one in their holy space. I told her that I was visiting her place of worship, and would do the action that caused the least offense to her community. She replied, "Oh, I dont care. But my father is very orthodox." So I put on the head covering.
When I've visited an Episcopal church, the minister told us we were free to choose, and understanding our beliefs, said he felt no offense if we chose not to take Communion. In all cases, I've observed that my willingness to acknowledge the sensitivities of the congregation has earned me favor and flexibility.
For those who are desiring to participate, but are concerned about the use of wine, most congregations I've encountered will instruct you to cross your arms over your chest to indicate that you are declining the wine, but still wish to receive the wafer. It is common for children to do this, not uncommon for adults, and I believe is a fairly well recognized signal. (Maureen might be better informed)

Your underwear, your body, your choice. 
I'm neither condoming nor condemning. Personally I find the people who are adamant about wearing them as much as possible to be as boorish as those who are cavalier about wearing them. 
Wear your underwear as you see fit and come what may. I guess that makes me an underwearatarian

You are the kind that "babysit" your own kids, don't you?

I am a feminist. I am a proud and vocal feminist. It is my feminism that enables the ways in which I help men to break down social norms to help them be more open and expressive, to build more community and support with each other.
It was feminism that inspired me to push for more social engagements within my Elders Quorum, building greater unity and trust among my brethren.
Feminism is a broad category of social pholosophy. Labelling it all as "bad" because you don't like certain strains of the bandwidth says less about feminism and more about the speaker.

Your underwear, your body, your choice. 
I'm neither condoming nor condemning. Personally I find the people who are adamant about wearing them as much as possible to be as boorish as those who are cavalier about wearing them. 
Wear your underwear as you see fit and come what may. I guess that makes me an underwearatarian

For what it's worth, I don't care if you have children or not. Do whatever you feel is right in a spirit of prayer and humility. 
It'd be great if more people were supportI've of that. But alas, part of the fallen state involves being a jerk.

I'll pick up some beer for my shampoo tonight

I can speak from experience here. When the ward and stake leadership believe you are gay, you get a lot fewer questions about everything.

I have deliberately obliterated the use of the historical singular conjugation (thee) in favor of the colloquial use of you in my prayers. 
In Ukrainian, Russian, and I believe many other foreign languages, prayers have historically been said with the familiar conjugation. To use the formal pronouns is perceived with sadness that the speaker feels so distant and unworthy to approach God. 
As I've watched people come into the church and develop feelings of self consciousness over not understanding the thee/thou usage, I've decided that encouraging (almost requiring by the handbooks) these pronouns is a meaningless barrier to those who so want to approach their God. So I don't use it. I exclusively use 'you' and encourage any and all who prefer to do so to join in this practice.
Approach God using your language. For heaven's sake, be familiar with Him. We'd all be better of if we were more familiar with deity.

Gag. This talk is insanely overrated. I typically see it brought up in the context of "we have to do things the same way we always have because 'the unwritten order of things'"
Honestly, if it was really that important, it should have been written down.

I have deliberately obliterated the use of the historical singular conjugation (thee) in favor of the colloquial use of you in my prayers. 
In Ukrainian, Russian, and I believe many other foreign languages, prayers have historically been said with the familiar conjugation. To use the formal pronouns is perceived with sadness that the speaker feels so distant and unworthy to approach God. 
As I've watched people come into the church and develop feelings of self consciousness over not understanding the thee/thou usage, I've decided that encouraging (almost requiring by the handbooks) these pronouns is a meaningless barrier to those who so want to approach their God. So I don't use it. I exclusively use 'you' and encourage any and all who prefer to do so to join in this practice.
Approach God using your language. For heaven's sake, be familiar with Him. We'd all be better of if we were more familiar with deity.

@Rob Osborn, there is a fundamentail flaw in your argument. You claim is that the failure to prove the absence of a Designer is proof that said Designer exists. This line of logic is a fallacy.
When it comes down to it, there is only one way to objectively and scientifically rule confirm the existence of the Designer. That is to systematically observe each and every intelligent being in the universe until at least one of them is identified as The Designer.
Likewise, there is only one way to objectively and scientifically prove that there is no Designer. That is to systematically observe each and every intelligent being in the universe until it has been shown that exactly zero of them can be identified as The Designer.
That's it. End of story. And any honest scientist will concede that simple logical truth when pressed on the matter.
But you simply cannot conclude that the failure to disprove The Designer is proof that said Designer exists. That is a logical fallacy until the time that every last intelligent being in the universe has been observed (at which point the truth will be self evident).
If you can conceive of the impossibility of observing every intelligent being in the universe, then you might understand why science doesn't trivialize itself with the search for God, and why ID fails as honest scientific inquiry.

This is a jaw droppingly short sighted thing to say. 
Fun fact: it's quite likely that the time elapsed between homo sapien and stegosaurus is LESS than the time elapsed between stegosaurus and triceratops. 
The start of the Jurassic period was 200 million years ago. That time period represents less than 5% of the Earth's  age.  The age of the earth itself represents only a little less than a third of the age of the universe. 
And you're going to claim that because homo sapien has failed to replicate the conditions of your Designer as proof of your Designer's existence? 
Homo sapien's existence is still being measured on the scale of thousands of years. And it took your Designer over eight BILLION years to produce intelligent life!
When put into perspective, I have to say, your Designer doesn't sound anywhere near as Intelligent as you make her sound.