VERY unique situation. Please Help! - Page 3

[Avani]

True. So a family moves for the sake of getting their child medical help that could change their lives because it isn't available where they live. The whole family uproots and the son is thriving with the help of the specialists there and the child will be introduced to a full day program in the fall. The specialists are expensive (note the DAN dr and the programs available in previous posts) and( note all the happiness involved with the son's sudden progress). Then when the family is together again mom is very unhappy and upon realizing that she want's to file for divorce that she could stuck in NJ where all the services for her son are but also where her stbx's family is and not hers. So she sneakily chooses to take the kids back to a rural area of NE where her family is and now the son no longer has the services. Autism requires consistent therapies for life. When it comes to divorce children's needs should come first. Now for a SAHM (is she?) having the support of family is huge. So going back to NE seemed the best choice. For her. What about the children needing their dad or the fact that the autistic son was thriving with his new services. As the mother of an autistic child i know for a fact that autistic children hate change. Transition is intense, can last for months, and progressive therapies are crucial. So sounds like everything is being done for the benefit of the mom. Why not at the very least let the dad have the autistic boy in NJ where he can receive the needed help? If the dad chooses to stay in Jersey she will be sharing cusotdy across country anyways. Most us of SAHM's who divorce know that a huge thing about the divorce is being able to rejoin the work force or go back to school in order to support our children and ourselves. I wonder what rural NE has to offer in that form. True happiness comes from within. Not where we live. If our children our thriving somewhere that is an important factor. Those kids just got moved from their family home in NE to live with family in NJ. Then their dad came to Jersey and they got an apartment with their family and then their mom turned around and moved them back to NE. Not to live in their old family home but as the OP said they are living with her family. So 4 residences in 7 months. That's pretty unstable. Especially for an autistic child. I think the OP should carefully consider all of this because i wouldn't doubt if this comes up in court.

[churndash]

Bottom line, a judge is probably not going to think it's totally clever and cool that you lied to your children's father, took them out of state, and then filed for the separation.

You are probably going to have to provide a very good reason why you felt this subterfuge was necessary and "he's controlling" isn't going to cut it. Controlling is a very subjective term and could mean anything.

You won't be forced to move back to New Jersey, but if your husband won't be forced back to Nebraska either and if he stays in NJ, guess what - your kids are going to be getting on airplanes for the next several years. He will certainly get visitation if he wants it, and if he's out of state that usually means he will get a month in the summer, spring break, and either Thanksgiving or Xmas.

[Aridel]

Originally Posted by La Sombra

I agree. Big to you, Chicmom.

Honestly, I'm confused by some of the vitriol I see here. Even by going through OPs old posts (which I myself haven't done), doesn't mean that you get the whole story--only that you are reading snippets of things that Chicmom chose to share. Not everyone posts things on PaP or whatever other forum about their marital troubles so we don't know that nothing else was going on just because she didn't say so.

It's so true, unfortunately, that sometimes in a divorce situation you have to do things that are "sneaky" (not the word I'd use, but I get it) because you don't trust the other person to do the right thing. I had to secretly open another bank account and put some of our savings into it when I was preparing to leave my ex. In a perfect world, we would both agree civilly that we were each entitled to some money and sit down and make sure we each got what was fair. But I couldn't count on that happen--most women can't. So I had to do what I had to do to protect myself and my child and put myself in the best possible situation.

I assume that Chicmom genuinely believes that the best thing for her and her children would be to stay in NE where her support system is, etc. (which, without knowing all the details, makes perfect sense to me!) I don't know the details of her situation so I don't know whether or not I would think her actions were totally justified. The point is, I'm not going to assume either way. I do know that I fully accept the possibility that she *did* make the best decision and although it involved deceiving her husband, that it was the only way to prevent *herself* from being deceived or manipulated. Sometimes in a divorce, that's what it boils down to.

The point is, divorce is messy and complicated and none of us know any more of the back story than Chicmom has provided. So I hope nothing more than that you, Chicmom, get the legal and emotional help you need and that, above all, this situation is resolved in whatever way is best FOR YOUR CHILDREN.

It doesn't have to be a moral judgment to say that this move is likely to have been a poor choice, just a pragmatic one. In general, courts look badly on parents who appear to be interfering in custody, and parents who take children out of the area without the consent of the other parent, especially if that parent is involved and has a relationship with his/her children. Again, I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, or that the OP needs to move back to NJ ASAP or anything. It may be the right thing for the family to move to NE, it might not - I have no idea. I am not speaking to the motives of the OP, or what is best for her children. She may be 100% right that she needs to be around family, away from a bad relationship. It could help if she has documentation about how controlling he was, and how it affected the kids, as well as herself.

But what the OP has left herself open to is the fairly common legal tactic of the STBX demanding primary custody, since he will say she has shown herself to be willing to interfere with his relationship with their children. The court cannot require her to move to NJ, nor can they require him to move back to NE, but they can mandate where the children will live. If the OP is able to maintain physical custody, in NE, it is likely she will be required to pay for travel to the children's father, and that he will get substantial visitation time.

Child custody cases are not only about doing what you think is right for your family. They are also about what happens in court, and what courts expect and require. It's good the OP has a lawyer, hopefully she is getting great advice on how to 'sell' her decision in court as best she can.

[spinknottle]

Originally Posted by PoppyMama

It's easy to judge when you're not in the situation. Given the OP's choice of staying in a state where stbx had all the support and going back to where my kids had grown up and we all had ties I might have done the same thing she did. Her x tried to make it so she would be stuck there to keep custody and she was sneaky and got out. They both played dirty and sometimes that's the way it goes. If she hadn't gotten sneaky and gotten out she would be stuck there with no support and we'd all be feeling bad for her. I'd personally rather have my kids in a place I felt I could take care of them and have everybody mad at me than be up a creek and have everyones pity.

I don't see where her EX tried to make it so she was stuck there. All I read was speculation based on a law of the state. That's it. The OP described nothing in the EX's behaviour that showed me that he was being manipulative with a goal of keeping her there and then leaving her.

I don't see where the EX played dirty. I see a man that moved with his wife nad children for the sake of their son, sold his businiess in the process.

[spinknottle]

Originally Posted by La Sombra

It's so true, unfortunately, that sometimes in a divorce situation you have to do things that are "sneaky" (not the word I'd use, but I get it) because you don't trust the other person to do the right thing.

I don't understand this mentality. You state that it's ok to do sneaky things because you don't trust the other parent to do the right thing. Well I didn't see hte husband being sneaky, and it's the wife that did something wrong. I'm sure the husband doesn't trust her to do the right thing from now on and I'm sure he'll make a show of that in court.

[JBaxter]

Ok the way Im reading this is.... Child had an issue and OP was informed that NJ ( where her H has family) had good autism services --- taking a wild guess that the family or her H provided that info. They moved stayed a couple months OP was seeing things were not all they were cracked up to be then her H offered to move her back on a date that was AFTER the 6 month period.
OP then took her children "home" to her parents and stayed.

OP's husband WAS planning something. and would not have randomly picked a date after the 6 month mark to move her back. HE KNEW the law.

And if he wasnt in agreement in moving back why did he agree to help her move?

OP its not going to be fun XH are that for a reason. Sounds like you "lucked" out on your vacation/move.

Hang in there hun!

[Avani]

I don't believe that most families sell their homes and shut down their business practices in one state, move to another state and sign a year lease on a new place because they are only staying a few months. None of the evidence backs that up. After signing a years lease and attempting to get her RN license and signing her son up for a full time program in the fall she suddenly chose to leave with the kids. I bet her ex picked up on why she wanted to "vacation" back to NE and that is why he mentioned the July date in helping her move back. He had just moved his whole family across country, i can imagine he knew exactly why she wanted to go back and was trying to prevent it. Now her kids have been moved 4 times in 7 months, the autistic son no longer has the great services and all the children have no father present.

[churndash]

Originally Posted by JBaxter

Ok the way Im reading this is.... Child had an issue and OP was informed that NJ ( where her H has family) had good autism services --- taking a wild guess that the family or her H provided that info. They moved stayed a couple months OP was seeing things were not all they were cracked up to be

That is not what she said in multiple posts gushing about her son's progress in NJ. Furthermore, the OP has multiple posts going back before the move showing that she was an active participant in the research and decision to move.

OP's husband WAS planning something. and would not have randomly picked a date after the 6 month mark to move her back. HE KNEW the law.

How do you know this? How can you possibly know this? You cannot make this assertion. You don't know the OP, you don't know her husband.

And if he wasnt in agreement in moving back why did he agree to help her move?

Assuming he ever actually said that. Here's the pickle the OP has gotten herself into.

She lied to her husband. She admits doing so. So when she goes to court, the judge will already see her as someone who lies if she thinks it's in her best interests.

This is why this whole sneaking and lying thing is NOT a good idea. It makes the person lose credibility in the eyes of the court. And when you are dealing with divorce and custody issues, what the judge thinks of you means everything.

[soso-lynn]

Originally Posted by Avani

True. So a family moves for the sake of getting their child medical help that could change their lives because it isn't available where they live. The whole family uproots and the son is thriving with the help of the specialists there and the child will be introduced to a full day program in the fall. The specialists are expensive (note the DAN dr and the programs available in previous posts) and( note all the happiness involved with the son's sudden progress). Then when the family is together again mom is very unhappy and upon realizing that she want's to file for divorce that she could stuck in NJ where all the services for her son are but also where her stbx's family is and not hers. So she sneakily chooses to take the kids back to a rural area of NE where her family is and now the son no longer has the services. Autism requires consistent therapies for life. When it comes to divorce children's needs should come first. Now for a SAHM (is she?) having the support of family is huge. So going back to NE seemed the best choice. For her. What about the children needing their dad or the fact that the autistic son was thriving with his new services. As the mother of an autistic child i know for a fact that autistic children hate change. Transition is intense, can last for months, and progressive therapies are crucial. So sounds like everything is being done for the benefit of the mom. Why not at the very least let the dad have the autistic boy in NJ where he can receive the needed help? If the dad chooses to stay in Jersey she will be sharing cusotdy across country anyways. Most us of SAHM's who divorce know that a huge thing about the divorce is being able to rejoin the work force or go back to school in order to support our children and ourselves. I wonder what rural NE has to offer in that form. True happiness comes from within. Not where we live. If our children our thriving somewhere that is an important factor. Those kids just got moved from their family home in NE to live with family in NJ. Then their dad came to Jersey and they got an apartment with their family and then their mom turned around and moved them back to NE. Not to live in their old family home but as the OP said they are living with her family. So 4 residences in 7 months. That's pretty unstable. Especially for an autistic child. I think the OP should carefully consider all of this because i wouldn't doubt if this comes up in court.

I agree with the fact that the way the OP went about doing things was wrong, sneaky and just gravely uncool. If I were a judge in this case, I would have a very hard time siding with the mother. She could have been upfront about what she did. If the law says they have to be in NJ 6 months, she could have just filed for divorce/custody and the case would have been sent to NE. No need for taking the children hostage and lying to their father. In can be advisable sometimes to do extreme things to protect oneself and the children in extreme situations (dangerous abusive situations, for example) but this does not seem to be the case.

However, as an autistic person, I definitely think that most autistic children can thrive in a rural setting with few services (I sure did). I have some major issues with DAN! and their goal to "cure" autism. OP, you should take a look at the concept of 'neurodiversity' and not measure progress by how 'normal' your child appears to be. I find that many parents of autistic children get in the way of their development by making them take part in all kinds of therapy that have the stated goal to change who they are.

So, basically, the issue of taking off with the kids in a deceitful way should be considered separately than the issue of the best place for the autistic child to live.

[laura163]

Originally Posted by Avani

So she sneakily chooses to take the kids back to a rural area of NE where her family is and now the son no longer has the services.

......
I wonder what rural NE has to offer in that form.
.

Omaha is a city, it may not be NYC but is isn't "rural".

[Goodmom2008]

Originally Posted by momof4peppers

I'll agree with everyone that you need a lawyer. I'll look into getting you some recommendations for Middlesex County divorce attorneys.

As a total aside - you do NOT want EI services from NJ. Not only are they not very good (IMHO) you have to pay for them! Yes it's a sliding scale, but if you make over $75K a year, it's cheaper to pay privately for the services. In MA, the services were significantly better AND FREE. Even in IL the EI services were free. 4 years ago, NJ changed their laws to discourage just your situation (moving here from another state to take advantage of "fabulous" services) by building in a "family cost participation". Evaluations are free, services are not. In the 3 years we've been out of the NJ EI system, it may have changed again, but I don't think so.

Maybe you could use this as a factor in your decision to return to NE?

No, she can't. Because it isn't factual. My youngest (now 8) was in EI for a year and a half before Kindergarten started (she's now 8). Didn't cost me a dime (I live in NJ). And they didn't ask me about how much income was coming into the household, either. My ex and I were together when the evaluations started and he made more than $75K a year.

No, she's going to have to explain to the judge how ripping the kids away from their father is in their best interest. I suggest that she use a different argument other than it is easier for her to be a single parent in the state she moved to.

And chances are good that NJ will have jurisdiction since they had started the process of relocating there. To the point that they signed a lease and she started the process to obtain her RN license in NJ. And even if it doesn't, he could still end up with custody because of what she did.

And she just may lose custody, even if she moves back to NJ, because of this stunt she pulled. Really stupid move on her part.

[Goodmom2008]

Originally Posted by chicmom

My stbx is very sneaky and is always well prepared. When I was living in NJ with him, he new how miserable was, how sorry our marriage. He kept telling me, "If you are that miserable here, let's just wait until July 18th, and I will help you back to NE". Well, now I am seeing how significant that day was. He knew about the 6 month Uniform Child law and he was trying to get me trapped there where I couldn't bring my kids back home. He always has some sort of agenda. He is a very smart man.

This is kind of a bad analogy, but this whole time in NJ and trying to leave there, I felt like I was in the movie "Not Without My Daughter".

NJ does not participate in the Uniform Child Law. You got lucky simply because you went back two weeks before the 6 month mark.

You still stand a very good chance of losing custody because of your actions.

[chicmom]

You are incorrect. NJ does participate in the Uniform Child Custody Act. Where are you getting your information?

[Goodmom2008]

Originally Posted by chicmom

You are incorrect. NJ does participate in the Uniform Child Custody Act. Where are you getting your information?

NJ does participate in the custody part. It is the UIFSA that it does not participate in. Which is different than custody, that is child support. I got the two mixed up.

Either way, you stand a very good chance of losing custody because of your actions.

[Minxie]

NJ adopted the UCCA in 1979. All fifty states have adopted it:

http://www.nccusl.org/nccusl/uniform...-fs-uccjea.asp

[Avani]

Originally Posted by laura163

Omaha is a city, it may not be NYC but is isn't "rural".

I'm very aware of the difference between Omaha and new York. I've been to both places. However op said she lived in rural Nebraska where there were no services for her special needs child. She didn't refer to Omaha but a rural area with no services.

[*MamaJen*]

I think we're making a lot of assumptions and judgments about someone else's life, without a lot of background information.

[lach]

Originally Posted by JBaxter

Ok the way Im reading this is.... Child had an issue and OP was informed that NJ ( where her H has family) had good autism services --- taking a wild guess that the family or her H provided that info. They moved stayed a couple months OP was seeing things were not all they were cracked up to be then her H offered to move her back on a date that was AFTER the 6 month period.
OP then took her children "home" to her parents and stayed.

New Jersey is widely recognized as having the best services for autistic children in the US. That is one of the reasons commonly given for why New Jersey's autism rate is so high: people (like OP) move from all over the country so that their children can receive those services. I don't entirely buy that, but it is the conventional wisdom.

Perhaps her DH had a devious plan to keep her trapped in New Jersey (not exactly Iran), but any amount of research, which it sounds like OP did, would have shown that New Jersey is an excellent place to raise an autistic child. That it also happens to be where her DH's family is isn't exactly grounds for conspiracy.