Can father legally prevent mother from moving to another state? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 25 Old 12-15-2013, 09:13 AM - Thread Starter
 
Flybye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hi all. My question is just as topic states.  Can a father legally prevent the mother from moving to another state?

 

There is a single mom with a 15 month old who is dating someone across the country.  The father is exploring attorney options, and has already had an attorney contact the mother about getting the right to allow him to pick up the baby.  She has refused him to pick up the baby because he is lazy, and can barely even walk around the house without running out of breath because of his obesity when he visits.

 

I do not believe there is any law that prevents you from moving, but can something be written up by a lawyer to prevent her from moving temporarily?  Could such a thing be lifted?  What if there is something in place that states she can not move, and she were to marry the guy in another state?  Would the marriage be enough to allow the hold to move to be lifted? I can understand a judge not allowing the mother to move if there is no valid reason to do so, but if it's a marriage?

Flybye is offline  
#2 of 25 Old 12-15-2013, 09:29 AM
 
annlea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: CT
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Sidenote: I am speaking solely from my experience and not actual facts. I will say this though...every situation is different. But here is mine. I am legally not aloud to leave the east coast and father has been preventing me from leaving with our son despite barely being involved the past year and living only 2 hours away. And I wasn't aloud to even when I was getting married to a military man. In fact my husband was in the navy and had to jump through some major hoops to make sure he could stay with my son and I instead of getting shipped out with his boat. And in my experience it depends on the judge you get and not a law itself. Courts usually will make sure the father has his rights known. Again all just my own experience...I highly suggest doing some research or trying to find a lawyer


Wife, mom of 3, obsessed with photography, crafting and blogging http://annleaartsy.blogspot.com/
annlea is offline  
#3 of 25 Old 12-15-2013, 09:30 AM
 
sillysapling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)

I believe there are people on here where the father managed to get a court ruling that the mother isn't just forbidden to move to another state- she's not even allowed to leave her state temporarily. The one I remember lives on the state line so this severely limits her options of where to shop and also prevents her from visiting her family.

 

The fact that she's refusing to let the father pick up his own child, unless the court has ordered him unfit to, is NOT going to work in her favor. I highly doubt that remarrying will be enough to change it. The courts don't really care who you're dating or married to- they care that she's apparently using this marriage to justify cutting the father out of the child's life and denying him his "rights" to his own child, as she already has a history of doing. (not saying she's unjustified, this is how the courts will likely see it)

 

The system is horrible. I'm very sorry. I hope that things work out and that your friend lives in a more realistic court system.

 

 

 

 

 

They'll need to work out a different visitation/custody schedule, which may mean having to lose her daughter for months at a time every single year, having her daughter go to her ex's every summer and possibly over other school holidays as well. Is she ready for that?

Is there any reason that her BF can't move to where she is? Even if it means delaying their marriage- if he could start looking for a job where she is to ensure that she doesn't have to deal with the stress and drama, that would be ideal. If he's unwilling to even consider this, perhaps she should rethink how invested he truly is in both her and her daughter.


sillysapling is online now  
#4 of 25 Old 12-15-2013, 09:56 AM - Thread Starter
 
Flybye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The BF has a house in FL. The GF only rents in CA. It would simply be more logical for the GF to move to FL should things escalate to marriage. But if an agreement is made such as the child can visit the father most of the summer, swap holidays, etc, there really isn't a reason to prevent her from moving, right? Yes, it all comes down to the judge, but really what judge would disallow her from moving if she is willing to make up a schedule where the father can have the son during the year?

Flybye is offline  
#5 of 25 Old 12-15-2013, 09:59 AM
 
annlea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: CT
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysapling View Post
 

I believe there are people on here where the father managed to get a court ruling that the mother isn't just forbidden to move to another state- she's not even allowed to leave her state temporarily. The one I remember lives on the state line so this severely limits her options of where to shop and also prevents her from visiting her family.

 

The fact that she's refusing to let the father pick up his own child, unless the court has ordered him unfit to, is NOT going to work in her favor. I highly doubt that remarrying will be enough to change it. The courts don't really care who you're dating or married to- they care that she's apparently using this marriage to justify cutting the father out of the child's life and denying him his "rights" to his own child, as she already has a history of doing. (not saying she's unjustified, this is how the courts will likely see it)

 

The system is horrible. I'm very sorry. I hope that things work out and that your friend lives in a more realistic court system.

 

 

 

 

 

They'll need to work out a different visitation/custody schedule, which may mean having to lose her daughter for months at a time every single year, having her daughter go to her ex's every summer and possibly over other school holidays as well. Is she ready for that?

Is there any reason that her BF can't move to where she is? Even if it means delaying their marriage- if he could start looking for a job where she is to ensure that she doesn't have to deal with the stress and drama, that would be ideal. If he's unwilling to even consider this, perhaps she should rethink how invested he truly is in both her and her daughter.

I have already answered but I had to come back and bold the last part of this. THIS times a billion! 


Wife, mom of 3, obsessed with photography, crafting and blogging http://annleaartsy.blogspot.com/
annlea is offline  
#6 of 25 Old 12-15-2013, 10:00 AM
 
annlea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: CT
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flybye View Post
 

The BF has a house in FL. The GF only rents in CA. It would simply be more logical for the GF to move to FL should things escalate to marriage. But if an agreement is made such as the child can visit the father most of the summer, swap holidays, etc, there really isn't a reason to prevent her from moving, right? Yes, it all comes down to the judge, but really what judge would disallow her from moving if she is willing to make up a schedule where the father can have the son during the year?

The judge that I got would. 


Wife, mom of 3, obsessed with photography, crafting and blogging http://annleaartsy.blogspot.com/
annlea is offline  
#7 of 25 Old 12-15-2013, 10:41 AM
 
sillysapling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flybye View Post
 

The BF has a house in FL. The GF only rents in CA. It would simply be more logical for the GF to move to FL should things escalate to marriage. But if an agreement is made such as the child can visit the father most of the summer, swap holidays, etc, there really isn't a reason to prevent her from moving, right? Yes, it all comes down to the judge, but really what judge would disallow her from moving if she is willing to make up a schedule where the father can have the son during the year?


I'm surprised that a woman who won't even let her child's father pick up his own son would have no problem allowing her ex to be her child's sole caregiver for 3+ months a year.  If that's the case why isn't she working more with the father now to get on his good graces and ensure he agrees to the move? She's setting up a precedent where her ex can say "She isn't letting me pick up my own child, if she moves across country- what's stopping her from just refusing to put my own son on a plane to see me?" in court as an argument for preventing her from moving. If she thinks her ex is a fit parent who would easily be able to care for a small child for months at a time- she should be bending over backwards to prove that she's supporting a relationship between the two.

 

If you're right that she has no problem letting her ex take care of her child for months at a time, even when the child is very young (if they get married within the year- it could start before the child even turns 2), then she's really cutting off her nose to spite her face by refusing to let her ex pick up the child. She's setting a precedence that will work against her in court, she's not facilitating the relationship between her child and his father meaning that the transition to being away from Mom and only with Dad will be even harder on her child, etc. 

 

Has she actually said that she has no problem being away from her little boy for months at a time? If she hasn't, I would not assume she is. It's incredibly difficult on most parents, especially the younger the child is.


sillysapling is online now  
#8 of 25 Old 12-15-2013, 03:17 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Definitely possible. Would depend exactly on the laws in the state she is currently residing in. 


Mom to ds 10/12 and dd 2/05 ribbonrainbow.gif

Blogging about living with xeroderma pigmentosum at www.pacificnights.org/ and about life in general at http://livingavibrantlife.blogspot.com/
DTmama1 is offline  
#9 of 25 Old 12-16-2013, 01:21 AM
 
greenemami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)

He can't prevent the mother from moving, but he can prevent the mother from taking the child with her. 

 

If they have a legal custody agreement, she likely needs to give notice before moving or she can get in a lot of trouble, especially if the father disagrees.

 

The best plan would be to present the father with a parenting schedule for long distances and hope he agrees.  Otherwise, she will need to prove it is better for the child to move (and her remarriage likely does not count). 

 

Like PP said, she will likely have to pay the bulk of travel expenses and her child will end up with dad alone for long periods of time, which would be very worrisome since she doesn't trust him with her at all now :(


Single mama namaste.gif to dd dust.gifand ds fencing.gif, loving my dsd always reading.gif .
greenemami is online now  
#10 of 25 Old 12-16-2013, 06:18 AM
 
Springshowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
I would assume she can't move with the child unless she has a legal agreement saying she can. I am sad for her but California is a nice place. Maybe her new partner can relocate.
Springshowers is online now  
#11 of 25 Old 12-16-2013, 02:48 PM
 
One_Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
I've known two dad's who were able to prevent a move and one judge who questions moves in state that require the child to be in the car for long periods of time. I work with a father who lost most of his rights because he did just move out of state and he was ordered to return and the mom got almost all custody. It isn't something I would consider doing without a legal agreement signed by a judge.
One_Girl is offline  
#12 of 25 Old 12-16-2013, 06:39 PM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
My divorced BF is prohibited from leaving the state with her two kids.
philomom is offline  
#13 of 25 Old 12-18-2013, 02:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
Flybye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Now what if the mother simply left the state with no notice to the father with no legal agreement in place or in the works?

 

Could he legally order her to come back, or if there is nothing in place to begin with, then that's it, she is free?

Flybye is offline  
#14 of 25 Old 12-18-2013, 02:26 PM
 
sillysapling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)

I've heard about people doing that being charged with kidnapping and losing custody of their children (I think it was different situations- but I don't know how different or where the line is). She could definitely get in trouble for doing it. It would NOT look good in court. Because there's a few months before you qualify as a resident of a new state (IIRC), she would still have to go through the courts in the state where she previously lived to get this sorted out- so either she would have to fly back (costing money each time), or she wouldn't be able to show up in court which, again, does NOT look good and would ensure that her ex gets a far better deal than she's likely comfortable with. It's possible that if she has a lawyer show up for her that will be enough- but doing this would look BAD. She's already refusing to let her ex pick up his own child, running like this would be a huge red flag of parental alienation, if it isn't outright considered parental alienation.

 

It's really troubling to me that her boyfriend is so willing to let her risk serious legal repercussions and less time with her own child like this. Has he even offered to move to where she is? I appreciate that he owns a house- but if he's serious about wanting to be part of her life and family, he should be willing to take the financial blow and do right by her child and her as a mother. It is unfortunate, but it is not unheard of for a man (or woman) to turn neglectful or even abusive towards his (or her) step children because he loves their mother- but resents the children and wants nothing to do with them. This man is showing red flags for becoming this kind of step father if he cares more about a house than about his future stepchild's well-being.


sillysapling is online now  
#15 of 25 Old 12-18-2013, 02:27 PM
 
Springshowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
I know a similar story and the woman lost all custody because she moved away with the child without a court order.
Springshowers is online now  
#16 of 25 Old 12-18-2013, 02:30 PM
 
chel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: lost in a cornfield
Posts: 4,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flybye View Post

Now what if the mother simply left the state with no notice to the father with no legal agreement in place or in the works?

Could he legally order her to come back, or if there is nothing in place to begin with, then that's it, she is free?

Not that easy to get away from an ex once you have a child.

All just depends how much father wants to be part of parenting.
Father could easily go to court. Worse case I've seen in real life, is mom move for a marriage. From OH to IL. She lost primary custody. Only saw daughter in summer and alternating holidays. Mom also had to pay child support.


It's not so much that father can determine where mom lives. She can leave the country, but chances are she cant take the child. Courts don't look favorably on divorced parent taking child away from the other parent.

Best case, courts allow mom to move with child. Mom pays for all travel for child to see other parent on a schedule determined by the courts. Most likely alternating holidays and a longer summer break. Everyother birthday, etc

mom to 14yr dd and 4yr dd
chel is offline  
#17 of 25 Old 12-18-2013, 02:32 PM
 
greenemami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)

Is he on the birth certificate (i.e. is he legally the father)?  Has he spent time with the child on a regular basis? 

 

If there is no custody agreement, then technically, she could probably just move.  BUT, you said the dad was already talking to an attorney.  If he goes through with filing for a custody agreement, it is not going to look good for mom that she moved without notifying/asking the dad-it will likely be viewed as purposefully interfering with their relationship.  And if he files within 6 months (or however much time it takes to establish legal residency in the new place) then all of the custody stuff will likely take place across the country. 

 

I would not personally not risk it unless it was a case of abuse or similar dire circumstances, especially if the child has a good relationship with her dad.   

sillysapling likes this.

Single mama namaste.gif to dd dust.gifand ds fencing.gif, loving my dsd always reading.gif .
greenemami is online now  
#18 of 25 Old 12-18-2013, 02:39 PM
 
sillysapling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenemami View Post
 

Is he on the birth certificate (i.e. is he legally the father)?  Has he spent time with the child on a regular basis? 

 

If there is no custody agreement, then technically, she could probably just move.  BUT, you said the dad was already talking to an attorney.  If he goes through with filing for a custody agreement, it is not going to look good for mom that she moved without notifying/asking the dad-it will likely be viewed as purposefully interfering with their relationship.  And if he files within 6 months (or however much time it takes to establish legal residency in the new place) then all of the custody stuff will likely take place across the country. 

 

I would not personally not risk it unless it was a case of abuse or similar dire circumstances, especially if the child has a good relationship with her dad.   


It sounds like the mother has been interfering with the father forming a relationship with the child - "The father is exploring attorney options, and has already had an attorney contact the mother about getting the right to allow him to pick up the baby.  She has refused him to pick up the baby"- so even if he doesn't have a relationship with their kid, it seems like the courts will be more likely to see proof of parental alienation on her part than to see him as a deadbeat dad who doesn't want anything to do with the child (and I've seen enough cases where that WAS the case- that the dad wanted nothing to do with the kid- and the courts STILL bent over backwards to get him time with his children so even if they do see it as him not being interested- that's no guarantee the courts will rule in a way that favors her).


sillysapling is online now  
#19 of 25 Old 12-18-2013, 03:42 PM
 
rubelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

There was a mom here who moved across the country to be with her own family to get away from her abusive ex (she'd moved to marry the ex) and was ordered to take the child back and I think the father (who never wanted to spend any time with the child before that) got 50/50 custody. Not sure what ended up happening, last I'd heard she ended up staying in that tiny town to be close to her kid. It was horrible for her.


Robin~ single, work-at-home momma to my WonderBoys
YoungMan (6/00) & LittleBoy (6/04)
rubelin is online now  
#20 of 25 Old 12-18-2013, 03:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
Flybye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The mother has her reasons for trying to alienate the child from the father, which is only a year old. 

 

I am not pointing fingers at anyone.  This is a mutual screw up from the beginning.  The mother should have been more careful, but the father had flat out told her "I got you pregnant so that you stay with me" among other unimportant things which makes him a not so nice fellow.  As you can imagine, just that one sentence alone is enough to give the mother a foul taste in her mouth about the father.  Should she alienate the child from him just because of his past intentions?  No, but during the year of the child's life, he has barely been involved, which is due to a combination of him being too lazy and her trying to avoid him.

 

I agree, things have to be done right.  Regardless of what has transpired in the past, things have to be done right moving forward.

 

I find it pretty disturbing at the amount of power a judge has to prevent her from being happy with her child should she choose to move.  I have heard counselors say the happiness of the parent is extremely important to the happiness of the child.  Children can sense when you are unhappy and when things are wrong.

 

It seems the best case scenario if nothing is done with the attorney is get a written statement from the father stating its okay to move.  Worst case scenario they go to court to form an agreement, you play Russian roulette, and lose when the judge tells you that you can not move. So much for a free country LOL.

Flybye is offline  
#21 of 25 Old 12-18-2013, 03:49 PM
 
rubelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

a court will nearly always approve an agreement by the parents. It's only when one of them contests something that the court needs to make the final decision. If you're stuck with a crappy ex who fights you about everything, you do end up at the mercy of the courts.


Robin~ single, work-at-home momma to my WonderBoys
YoungMan (6/00) & LittleBoy (6/04)
rubelin is online now  
#22 of 25 Old 12-19-2013, 11:28 AM
 
autumngrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

I've read about one mom who went to visit her parents in another state for a couple week vacation (she says Dad was aware of the vacation and that it was a vacation, not moving) and Dad filed with the Court while she was gone. Despite being the primary parent until that point, she lost primary custody of the children to Dad because Dad (and the Court) accused her of attempting to flee with the children to keep them away from Dad.

 

If a mother thinks there exists any possibility that her child's father will file for parenting time or primary custody if she moves out of state, it is hugely risky to move without prior permission from a judge. She wagers her child's future by such an action, even if he doesn't have any Court-ordered parenting time prior to the move.

 

Being lazy doesn't (at least to the Court) make someone a bad parent. Wanting a partner to remain a partner by intentionally getting her pregnant doesn't weigh in to the Court's opinion of a parent either, as far as ordering parenting time is concerned. The Court will care a lot that she's been interfering with Dad's relationship with the child (and not to her benefit). The Court's obligation is not to consider Mom's best interest, it's to consider the child's best interest. Telling the Court that she will be a terrible parent if she has to share parenting time with Dad only gives him more ammunition that he should be the primary parent! Telling the Court that she is trying to alienate the child from her father is the nail in the coffin--most states custody laws specifically address ability and willingness to facilitate a relationship with the child's other parent in consideration of a child's best interests, and inability or unwillingness to facilitate the relationship can be grounds to change custody to the alienated parent, sometimes even without any other factors.

Springshowers likes this.

fairy.gif (DSD 10yo) angel2.gif (29wks - 2/2012) babygirl.gifrainbow1284.gif (1/2013)

autumngrey is online now  
#23 of 25 Old 01-19-2014, 03:47 PM
 
ILoveMyBabyBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flybye View Post

The mother has her reasons for trying to alienate the child from the father, which is only a year old. 

I am not pointing fingers at anyone.  This is a mutual screw up from the beginning.  The mother should have been more careful, but the father had flat out told her "I got you pregnant so that you stay with me" among other unimportant things which makes him a not so nice fellow.  As you can imagine, just that one sentence alone is enough to give the mother a foul taste in her mouth about the father.  Should she alienate the child from him just because of his past intentions?  No, but during the year of the child's life, he has barely been involved, which is due to a combination of him being too lazy and her trying to avoid him.

I agree, things have to be done right.  Regardless of what has transpired in the past, things have to be done right moving forward.

I find it pretty disturbing at the amount of power a judge has to prevent her from being happy with her child should she choose to move.  I have heard counselors say the happiness of the parent is extremely important to the happiness of the child.  Children can sense when you are unhappy and when things are wrong.

It seems the best case scenario if nothing is done with the attorney is get a written statement from the father stating its okay to move.  Worst case scenario they go to court to form an agreement, you play Russian roulette, and lose when the judge tells you that you can not move. So much for a free country LOL.

That line really disturbs me. Unless she was raped by him if she had consensual unprotected sex they were both equal participants in getting her pregnant. I don't think people are aware of the laws that are in place regarding moving to another state with young children. It is not easy when the parents are estranged. One of my friends played 30,000$ in court and lawyers fees because her ex fought her in her move across country and she loses him all summer long. I was told repeatedly during my divorce I could not move out of state without permission or I would be charged with interstate kidnapping, I live 20 mins from the state line. I wanted to have the option to move 30 mins into the bordering state so I could move closer to family. I was told by my lawyer until the children are 18 they are wards of the state and I must get permission to move out of state. My ex has said and will fight me on that 30 minute move and I do not have the money to fight him. My new bf just about lost it when I told him this news because he lives in the neighboring state. I point blank said it is what it is and I know the longer we live here the harder it will be to get the okay to move without a good reason like a job, not a boyfriend....

supermod.gif semi crunchy single student super mama to DS 7wave.gif and DD 3shy.gif. Falling in stillheart.gif with single super dad superhero.gif to DD5kissy.gif and DD2energy.gif 
ILoveMyBabyBird is offline  
#24 of 25 Old 01-19-2014, 09:41 PM
 
sillysapling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)

If her ex raped her, messed with her birth control, or lied about being infertile- this is an incredibly different situation and my heart goes out to your friend. Sadly, it's incredibly hard to prove at this point and is unlikely to have a real effect on custody, though. But I agree with the PP that if she knowingly had unprotected sex, she's just as guilty of the pregnancy. It sounds more like he agreed to unprotected sex knowing that there was a high likelihood of pregnancy and thinking it would keep her with him, which isn't a good thing, but it's not the same as forcing her to become pregnant despite her attempts to prevent it.

 

The family law is messed up- but, frankly, this situation is why. It's not really clear whether this man will be a good father or a negligent one, it sounds like he's never gotten the chance to show what sort of father he'd be, so the courts aren't able to look at his parenting record (although they tend to be ridiculously lenient) and will argue he deserves a chance. Your friend is attempting to alienate their child from her ex, but it's possible that she's protecting her child from a parent who would be negligent and put the baby at risk. The courts aren't omnipotent, and err towards assuming that parents are a good influence on kids until proven otherwise (unfortunately they're way too lenient, though).

Unfortunately, it would be better if your friend had tried to let her ex be involved with the child and he showed that he can't be trusted with the baby, even though this means putting a newborn at risk.  Sadly the only way to prove to the courts that a person shouldn't be trusted around children is to put them at risk and let them be hurt, and she would have had to figure out who to report it to and then had to prove what happened and he may still have gotten another chance. But, it's possible that this man actually will be a good father- it's not unheard of for people to get their act together when a baby's in the picture, and his health concerns aren't a good enough argument. There are people with disabilities that rather severely limit mobility who are able to take good care of their babies and children, so his mobility problems aren't a strong enough argument and his laziness isn't stopping him from wanting to be involved with his baby.


Everyone makes mistakes and this is an incredibly complicated situation. I'm sure your friend just wanted to get out of the relationship and put it behind her and get away from a man she doesn't like and regrets being with- which is perfectly understandable and usually the natural response to a break up. Having a baby in the picture makes it even more complicated, I'm sure that her protective instincts are wanting to keep her baby away from this man, but this was a poor move legally. I understand why she took her actions, but unfortunately she's put herself in a very difficult situation because of them. Your friend should have been looking up family law before the baby was born, rather than waiting until now. Again, I understand why she didn't, there are so many other things to worry about while you're pregnant. 

 

As it stands now, even if your friend gives up on moving, because her ex has gotten a lawyer involved, she'll likely be facing a custody battle that will be very difficult for her. These can be awful. Hopefully she'll be able to get everything to work out, and even if she'd done everything perfectly she could still be facing difficulty because the court systems are messed up. If she hasn't already, she should be trying to find a lawyer.


sillysapling is online now  
#25 of 25 Old 01-23-2014, 03:43 AM
 
VocalMinority's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: surrounded by testosterone
Posts: 1,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

No time to read all the other responses, but it sounds like the original poster is unclear about her (or her friend's) most basic rights and responsibilities, so I'll be very specific:

 

An adult US citizen who is not in criminal trouble (like on probation) has a federal right (i.e., this is true regardless what state you live in) to move anywhere he/she wants - whenever he/she wants - at least within the US.

 

But you don't necessarily have the right to take everything with you.  For example, if you receive some type of welfare payment, or subsidized healthcare though your original state, those benefits don't automatically continue if you move (as opposed to just traveling) out of state.  Nor do you automatically qualify for the same things, in your new state.  There's often a waiting period, to establish permanent residency in the new state (i.e., make a good faith showing that you'll remain there), before you can even apply for new benefits.  

 

Some might see that as an unfair restriction on their right to move (because if they lose benefits, they might not be able to afford to move where they want).  But legally, this doesn't restrict your right to move.  It's just a factor a person must consider, before packing up and leaving - just like you have to think about how you'll afford transportation to your new state and where you'll live and what you'll do for money, once you get there.

 

Child custody is similar.  Most family courts believe that, in divorce, it's best to keep a child's circumstances as stable and consistent as possible.  

 

Some states' courts tend to think this means keeping a child in the same place - same daycare, same school system, near the same relatives.  So, Mom has a right to move whenever and wherever she wants.  But if she wants to take her child, she has to make a really convincing argument as to why the child should ALSO move away from everything he/she is used to, instead of remaining in the original state, with Dad.

 

Other states' courts tend to think:

#1 - If Mom's the primary caregiver, the best way to maintain stability for the child is for him/her to go wherever Mom goes.  Then Dad has the burden of proving why keeping the child in the original state is important enough to change which parent the child lives with.

#2 - Losing custody of one's child is much worse than losing healthcare benefits.  It would make many mothers feel forced not to move, even though they have a legal right to do so.  Thus, making a mother fight to keep custody of her kids, if she moves out of state, would violate her federal rights.

 

WHICHEVER type of state you live in, if you are still legally married to the child's father - or if you're divorced and there are custody/visitation orders in place - you may NOT move your child out of state without legally notifying the father and the court, and getting the court's permission to take your child with you.  States generally have specific laws or rules about how - and how far in advance of the move - this notice must be given.  To simply leave could be considered parental kidnapping / "interference with child custody", which can be serious enough for you to lose custody.  It's also a crime.  (In comparison, a commonplace violation of family court orders - like not letting Dad have his usual weekend visit, because you took the child out of town for your sister's wedding - is only a civil violation.  You can't be arrested, for that.)

 

You MUST file this notice in the state where you currently live.  You can't wait until you get to the new state and file it there.  The state where you currently live has jurisdiction over your divorce and your child.  It can take up to a year, to establish residency in a new state and for that state to acquire jurisdiction over your child's custody.

 

Whether you need to file for divorce from the father (and, as part of your filing, declare your intention to move out of state); or whether you're already divorced - you already have primary custody - and you need to file notice of your intent to relocate and ask to modify Dad's visitation orders...there will be specific things that a court in your state must consider, in determining what's best for the child, regarding your move.  You should be able to find those things online, by looking up your state's laws/guidelines regarding divorce and child custody.

 

In any state, the following things will matter to the judge, whether they're written into the state law, or not:

 

1- Does Dad WANT the child to live with him, if you move?  Or does he just want to keep you here?  He can't do that.  To keep the child here, he has to be willing to have custody.

 

2- Does Dad have health, mental or other issues that would keep him from being the primary caregiver?

 

3- Do you have appropriate plans in place, for how you'll live and provide for the child in your new state?  Where will you live?  Will there be adequate space for your child?  How will you make money?  What will you do for childcare?  What will you do for transportation to/from work and childcare?  What kind of support network will you have there?  Do you know anyone there besides your long-distance boyfriend?  If, for example, you plan to move in with your boyfriend and let him support you, and you know no one else in the area, that might sound sketchy to a judge.  If you two break up, you'd be in bad shape.  Your intention to marry your boyfriend probably won't matter to the court, unless/until you actually do it.  People intend to get married all the time and don't wind up doing it.  And you and he will have some major changes to deal with.  You'll go from a long-distance relationship to seeing each other all the time - AND he'll suddenly be helping to raise your one-year-old, which is much easier to talk about than to actually do.

 

4- Can you be relied upon to help your child maintain a relationship with his/her dad?  It will be hard enough, long distance.  If you come across as having a negative attitude toward Dad; if you have a history of blocking him from spending time with the child or being involved in special events in the child's life - or if it seems like you want to move in order to get away from Dad - a judge might worry that letting the child move away with you would destroy any relationship the child has with his/her father.  Do you have a proposal for when and how Dad would see the child?  How would the two of you make that work, financially?  How might Dad stay in contact, between visits?  Phone calls are pretty useless, for a 15-month-old.  Are you and Dad able to Skype?  Do you and Dad communicate reasonably well, such that the two of you could arrange visits and phone calls, without constantly having to go back to court?

Springshowers likes this.

One woman in a house full of men:  my soul mate:    or... twin sons:(HS seniors) ... step-son:  (a sophomore) ... our little man:   (a first grader) ... and there is another female in the house, after all:  our
VocalMinority is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off