visitation interference

[dsbod]

My daughter is in the physical custody of my ex in California. I live in Indiana, where the legal agreement about visitation was signed and filed. For two years, he has been non-responsive to my attempts call or contact my daughter. What can I do to enforce the visitation agreement?

 

[LadyBlu]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dsbod:
My daughter is in the physical custody of my ex in California. I live in Indiana, where the legal agreement about visitation was signed and filed. For two years, he has been non-responsive to my attempts call or contact my daughter. What can I do to enforce the visitation agreement?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can file on him for contempt in Indiana, but just a warning, when he responds to the contempt charge he will probably pursue a change of jurisdiction if he has had the child in his physical custody in California for 6 mos or longer.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LadyBlu:
You can file on him for contempt in Indiana, but just a warning, when he responds to the contempt charge he will probably pursue a change of jurisdiction if he has had the child in his physical custody in California for 6 mos or longer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My response:

Wrong, again.

Unless the Order rendered in Indiana "specifically" preserves jurisdiction to remain in that State, then Indiana is completely out of the picture.

Since the children have lived in California for more than 6 months, California now has jurisdiction over the Indiana court Order. Ergo, and since Indiana is now out of the loop in this matter, you must file for your further Orders within California. Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (the UCCJA), California now has "Home State" jurisdiction, and Indiana has relinquished its Home State jurisdiction in favor of California.

IAAL


------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."



[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited October 17, 2000).]

 

[LegalBeagle]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE:
Wrong, again.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you imagine the time and money wasted on following LadyBlu's advice..

 

[LadyBlu]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LegalBeagle:
Can you imagine the time and money wasted on following LadyBlu's advice.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No clients topday Leal Beagle? Hmmm wonder why?? As a matter of fact, all of the *Attorneys* seem to be able to spend alot of time on these boards working for free... what gives with that?

 

[nyslob]

woof...woof <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LegalBeagle:
Can you imagine the time and money wasted on following LadyBlu's advice.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[nyslob]

Lets see now... "unless the order rendered in Indiana" operative word here appears to be "unless". Having the slight indication that there is another view of the law. So I don't think IAAL has it all wrapped up into a nice little package either. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE:

My response:

Wrong, again.

Unless the Order rendered in Indiana "specifically" preserves jurisdiction to remain in that State, then Indiana is completely out of the picture.

Since the children have lived in California for more than 6 months, California now has jurisdiction over the Indiana court Order. Ergo, and since Indiana is now out of the loop in this matter, you must file for your further Orders within California. Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (the UCCJA), California now has "Home State" jurisdiction, and Indiana has relinquished its Home State jurisdiction in favor of California.

IAAL

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>