I have full custody, can I move

[tigger22472]

Look, you have been told what legally you CAN and what you legally CAN'T do and what the concequences can be if you do the things you can't.

Regardless of how old your child is she doesn't get to choose who she lives with .... the judge does. Now.. you can move, risk dad coming after you and fighting you for custody AND WINNING because at that point you are in contempt of court and are preventing him or making it harder for him to have a relationship with his child. OR you can do it legally and speak to an attorney to see the legal procedures in informing dad and how much notice your state requires you give him... that is the LEGAL answer to your question.

 

[Bloomer]

Someone please explain something to me -

It has always been my understanding that UNLESS there were specific limitations, restrictions, or provisions in the court order that keeps a custodial parent from moving with the child then there wasn't any restrictions.

Now I realize that a lot of states are trying to protect NCPs from having their children moved out of state and away from them and frustrating parent/child relationships by adding restrictive statutes in their legislation but I am not aware of any federal law covering the issue that covers all states. Wouldn't this matter still be a state specific matter based on the actual language in the order and the actual laws of each state?

Just curious.

 

[shanainc]

Thanks to everyone for your help

I did finally hear back from my attorney this evening, (second opinion, had already had one attorney in the county our papers are filed in look at our separation papers and divorce papers and he told me I could move, etc., but wanted second opinion). I was advised that with the childs father having signed away all rights, etc..and having no "set" visitation being set at this time, and how everything is set now that i have the right to move away for a just reason(s) such as career opportunites, etc.
I do have to notify father, which I would do anyway and will put this all in writing with the courts at my will, etc...
and I will also agree to continue to let my child have a great and strong relationship with her father as I have always pursued and hoped for. She will in the end if I go through with the move, end up having the same amount of time per year with her father, as I feel is very important. That has never been the issue.
I called her father this evening after the phone call from my attorney and told him I wanted to move and for the reasons I wanted (not brining up I had talked to a lawyer because I didn't want to intimidate him), but he agreed he had moved on with his life and moved out of the county we had resided in and moved in with a girlfriend, etc...and that I shouldn't be held back either in pursuing my life. We agree we will work around the schedule for our daughter to always see and have a great relationship with her dad.
I'm thinking I'll send her down to stay with him a month during the summer and a week here and there through out the year when she's out of school. Also, emails and phone calls.
Thanks to everyone for your input.

 

[Grace_Adler]

I just wanted to state that I didn't type in caps to yell or anything, I typed it that way because that's the way it is usually standard on divorce papers. Just didn't want anyone to think that and sometimes it is used for emphasis.

The reason I wanted to know was because I have been told by 4 different attorneys that under the part where it says "it is therefore ordered.... " on the judgment, that you have sole custody, then you don't have custody at all. The part where it says it is ordered is the court order for custody, if it doesn't specify and say it, it doesn't matter if it was mentioned elsewhere in the paperwork, it has to specifically say it is ordered on the judgment. I know it says that to incorporate the separation papers into it but I don't know if that's the same thing. That's the part that concerns me.

Is this the attorney that drew up the divorce because most attorneys won't even speculate on what your divorce papers mean without looking over them first. I talked to countless attorneys about that and they all said they had to see the divorce decree first.

Also, you might not want to use the term "he signed away his rights". He still has rights to this child, it makes it sound like his parental rights have been terminated. He just doesn't have custody but he still has rights to seek visitation, medical records, school records, etc and still has a say in his child's life, so he didn't sign away his rights. It just makes it confusing to some people is all, especially in a legal sense.

 

[shanainc]

WELL LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR

I don't think you people are understanding that I want her dad in her life...When I say signed away rights, I mean, he can't make a life decision where she is concerened, can't file her as a dependant on taxes unless I allow this, he couldn't even pick her up from school if I so didn't want him to PER THE JUDGE THAT SIGNED THE DIVORCE PAPERS WHEN HE ASKED IF THE FATHER UNDERSTOOD THIS.
He does have rights of visitation....and that is great, I would never hope he wouldn't want to see her.
But point is, I have total care, custody and control of her. Her well being is my responsiblity as it always has been.
He is her father and can see her, which is great. But if the papers and what they say didn't mean anything why should we have divorce papers or separation papers drawn up to begin with if they don't mean what they say.
Anyway, 2 different lawyers have had my separation and divorce papers in hand and agree. Guess you have to read what it says to understand. I got a second opinion from a different lawyer to be sure. Both came out with the EXACT INFORMATION TO ME. I do have rights just as her father does. I can move and set up visitation for him as I had planned to do. Called her father and he agreed also.
Thanks again.

 

[snostar]

Someone please explain something to me -

It has always been my understanding that UNLESS there were specific limitations, restrictions, or provisions in the court order that keeps a custodial parent from moving with the child then there wasn't any restrictions.

NO, this is not necessarily true. Even if a State does not have specific laws that address this issue many times it is left up to the discrection of the court/Judge. The State has an ongoing interest in the residential status of children that are presently under their court orders.

Ex: NY, no restriction of CP moving in court order, no state laws to that effect either. CP moved out of state (w/child
) without requesting permission to move from the court or notifying NCP. CP was immediately found in contempt for not filing an application requesting permission to move.

OP, Good Luck

 

[Grace_Adler]

I understand what you are saying but you are the one not getting what we are trying to say.

It has to specifically say that it has been ORDERED! I don't care what it says anywhere else on that paper if it is not on the final judgment where it says "It is therefore ordered etc." and signed by a judge it does not mean a thing. I don't know what it says but I know for a fact that if it is not done in the right format and under the part where it says it is ordered and signed by a judge, then you don't have custody. I'm not saying you don't but we don't have x-ray vision to read it and see if it was done correctly or not.

The lawyer who explained it to you without seeing it should never have done that. How can he explain something he hasn't seen with his own eyes? He could make a mistake and tell you wrong.

I mean, you may have custody, I don't know.

If this was an uncontested divorce, which is what it sounds like, didn't he wave his rights to go to court?

I know what you are saying about signing away his rights but I am telling you right now you don't need to go around saying he did because he did not sign away his rights. Signing away your rights means he doesn't have the right to visitation, custody, to see school records, medical records and it means that he wouldn't have to pay child support. It means it would be like he was never their father. If you go in court or talk to an attorney this way, that is what they are going to think you are talking about. You are talking out of context and you don't have a clue how important it is to know what you are talking about but I have been trying to explain it to you.

He does have rights, he can see the child's records, visit with her, pursue custody and yes he can file them on taxes if the she stays with him a certain amount of time during the year or he can show he has paid for more then half of the things she needs. I don't need to know any info on this and what's going on, I'm just telling you what he can do and for you to not speak out of context because it is very important. I was trying to help you.

And as far as why the papers would be drawn up if they didn't mean anything is because of a situation like this...

My husband's ex had someone draw up their divorce papers. Under "Findings of Fact" it states the children are to reside with her, that's it. One would assume that means custody right? Wrong. It didn't specify what type of custody and it was not put under the part where it says "It is therefore ordered..." on the final judgment which is the part that is a court order by a judge. So guess what? All this time she thought she had sole custody and she doesn't have squat. No one has legal custody of the children. So why were these papers drawn up if they don't mean anything? Because they were done incorrcectly that's why.

I just wanted to make sure you weren't in the same situation.

If you take the child out of state, he can contest it and make you bring her back more then likely if you don't come to a legal agreement now.

Ok, I am done. Good Luck.

 

[Bloomer]

NO, this is not necessarily true. Even if a State does not have specific laws that address this issue many times it is left up to the discrection of the court/Judge. The State has an ongoing interest in the residential status of children that are presently under their court orders.

Ex: NY, no restriction of CP moving in court order, no state laws to that effect either. CP moved out of state (w/child
) without requesting permission to move from the court or notifying NCP. CP was immediately found in contempt for not filing an application requesting permission to move.

OP, Good Luck

****Thank you snostar, I did not know that!

 

[shanainc]

It does state I have TOTAL custody, physical, etc

We both had lawyers that represented us in the divorce and it is stated as a JUDGEMENT AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE THAT I HAVE FULL CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF MINOR CHILD.!!! We both had been advised of our rights not only by our attorneys but by the judge.
I did have 2 attorneys look at the actual papers this week, they had them in hand and both told me the same thing. They got back with me yesterday and both agreed without knowing what the other lawyer had said, they both told me the EXACT SAME THING. AND LET ME STRESS, THEY BOTH HAD COPIES OF MY DIVORCE PAPERS IN HAND.
She sees her dad 4 days a month so he CAN NOT FILE HER ON TAXES...both his attorney and my attorney and THE JUDGE TOLD US THAT. THE JUDGE ALSO STATED THAT HE COULDN'T EVEN SO MUCH AS PICK HER UP FROM SCHOOL UNLESS I OKAY'D IT by putting him on the list of people that I allow to pick her up, BECAUSE I HAVE TOTAL PHYSICAL CUSTODY, etc. I guess the judge wanted to be sure his lawyer had explained what it meant to give total custody over to me.
Which he does, there's never been a conflict. I let her go there every other weekend, and they have a great relationship. I have been told of my rights by 2 ACTUAL ATTORNEYS AS OF NOW and KNOW MY RIGHTS AS HAVING FULL CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF MY DAUGHTER as it is ordered by the judge and signed. Thank you to everyone for your input, but I have gotten the facts I need now from my attorney, and also another attorney as a second opinion.
I've even already talked to her dad and he agrees and wants me to be able to pursue the opportunties in my life and knows the deal. We will handle it from here...thank you.

 

[haiku]

everyone still answered your question legally and correctly, you STILL had to inform dad of your move, and if he had balked, you would be in court, no matter what your custody, and no matter what the lawyers told you....

 

[Grace_Adler]

OK FIRST OF ALL TURN YOUR CAPS OFF AND STOPS SHOUTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY ALREADY YOU'RE THE ONE WHO DOESN'T GET IT!!!!!!!!


I was giving you advice based on what could happen and so was everyone else but you didn't want to hear it and still don't.

"We both had lawyers that represented us in the divorce and it is stated as a JUDGEMENT AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE THAT I HAVE FULL CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF MINOR CHILD.!!! We both had been advised of our rights not only by our attorneys but by the judge."

*You didn't state this to begin with we had to pull the information out of you. You also said that you were granted custody in your separation papers at first.. that is a HUGE difference! This is what you said and now you are changing it.

"Where it says It is ordered, adjurned, decreed, it just says that we dissolve marriage on grounds of 1 year separation, that we were married on *** date and have lived continuously apart since, that we had one minor child born, there are no other claims pending and that the last statement is that SEPARATION AGREEMENT BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DIVORCE..."

THE SEPERATION AGREEMENT IS WHERE IT STATES THAT I HAVE "FULL CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF MINOR CHILD

*You said before it was only in the seperation papers ^ and now you say it is in the divorce papers and put under the court ordered part. Do you see how confusing your answers are? Which one is it? There is a huge difference and this is what I was trying to figure out because it is all in the format and wording but whatever.. you got the answers you wanted.

"They got back with me yesterday and both agreed without knowing what the other lawyer had said, they both told me the EXACT SAME THING. AND LET ME STRESS, THEY BOTH HAD COPIES OF MY DIVORCE PAPERS IN HAND. "

*I read that the first time around. ONCE AGAIN I WILL STRESS I was trying to pull info out of you to make sure because you are the one that came here looking for advice. You made it sound like you called a separate attorney who hadn't seen the papers yet. Your post was confusing that's why I asked all those questions.

"She sees her dad 4 days a month so he he CAN NOT FILE HER ON TAXES"

*Ok apparently you didn't get this either. I didn't want to know all that. I was just letting you know under what circumstances he could do it and if the circumstances did in fact apply that he has the right to do so. I don't understand why you are not getting what I am saying. I didn't say he can right now and I really don't care. I'm just telling you that he has the right if the circumstances applied. You get all mad when you have to come back and say things but we are the ones having to pull the info out of you.

"THE JUDGE TOLD US THAT. THE JUDGE ALSO STATED THAT HE COULDN'T EVEN SO MUCH AS PICK HER UP FROM SCHOOL UNLESS I OKAY'D IT "

*What does this have to do with having the right to visit with his child, see school records, and medical records? He still has those rights according to the law and those are things he does not need your permission for.

"I've even already talked to her dad and he agrees and wants me to be able to pursue the opportunties in my life and knows the deal. We will handle it from here...thank you. "

*Great! I'm glad to hear it.

I don't know why you are copping an attitude when all everyone on here was trying to do was help and give you advice according to the law but you don't want to hear it or understand it or give the correct and necessary information. Even now you still have no clue what I am saying. I was also giving advice on what *could* happen. Well, you got the info you wanted so why don't we just leave it at that?

 

[shanainc]

actually, to the guy that said I got the info i needed

I never wanted to know if I could leave WITHOUT TELLING HER DAD...as i would never do that if I could do that legally or not. That just would not be right. I just wanted to know if I could go with my child, period, after telling him. I WOULD HAVE NEVER DREAMED OF LEAVING AND NOT TELLING HIM AND GIVING HIM ALL THE INFORMATION on when, where, visitation, etc. NEVER! I wouldn't want that done to me, so I would not do that to anyone else.

 

[tigger22472]

First off the long and short of it is that Dad CAN try to stop you from moving if he wanted.

Secondly regarding the 'rights' thing...Grace explained the difference of giving up rights and having rights. You act as if the way he acted at the divorce is wrong. I for one see NOTHING wrong with what he did. He was the bigger person and obviously accepted that you could probably provide a more stable home at the time for the child. What YOU need to remember is that order can ALWAYS be changed.

 

[haiku]

wtrguekgfdkhkdknm,j




(haiku bangs head on keyboard.....)

 

[Grace_Adler]

LMAO @ Haiku! You too?

Thanks Tig and Haiku, sometimes it helps to have others to try help explain things... or not?