Need Advice

[Youngmom]

What is the name of your state? California.

I have plans to move with my fiance and my 21 month old daughter to Virginia in August of this year. We are moving to be closer to my fiance's family. I have been planning this for some time and now all of the sudden my daughter's father, who is not on the birth certificate wants to be. He wants to legalize everything. He claims I dont let him see her but I told him that if he wants to see her that he can come get her but he doesnt have a car since it was repoed and has no way of driving the half hour to come get her. I used to drive there EOW but it took alot out of my time and I didnt think that I should be resposible for him seeing her. He needs to be responisible and its his responsibility to get a car and come see her.

He says he got a lawyer and all and is going to get his name on the birth certificate. I dont mind really but he isnt going to allow me to move. I dont think that it should matter now since I have been planning this for a while and now all of the sudden he wants to legalize everything. I know there is alot on this site about moving away cases but not too many that pertain to my situation. So I was wondering if anyone has any input. It wouldnt be detramental to my daughter since she doent have much of a relationship with her father anyway and she is too young to have many ties here.

Do you think that I have a good chance that the judge will rule in my favor?

 

[ceara19]

Do you think that I have a good chance that the judge will rule in my favor?

No**************..

 

[Youngmom]

Can you explain why?

 

[ceara19]

Can you explain why?

Because the father has just as much right to be a part of the child's life as you do. The only "family" that is relevant in court is the mother and the father. Moving to be closer to your fiance's family is does not benefit the child. Staying close to her father does.

 

[casa]

What is the name of your state? California.

I have plans to move with my fiance and my 21 month old daughter to Virginia in August of this year. We are moving to be closer to my fiance's family. I have been planning this for some time and now all of the sudden my daughter's father, who is not on the birth certificate wants to be. He wants to legalize everything. He claims I dont let him see her but I told him that if he wants to see her that he can come get her but he doesnt have a car since it was repoed and has no way of driving the half hour to come get her. I used to drive there EOW but it took alot out of my time and I didnt think that I should be resposible for him seeing her. He needs to be responisible and its his responsibility to get a car and come see her.

He says he got a lawyer and all and is going to get his name on the birth certificate. I dont mind really but he isnt going to allow me to move. I dont think that it should matter now since I have been planning this for a while and now all of the sudden he wants to legalize everything. I know there is alot on this site about moving away cases but not too many that pertain to my situation. So I was wondering if anyone has any input. It wouldnt be detramental to my daughter since she doent have much of a relationship with her father anyway and she is too young to have many ties here.

Do you think that I have a good chance that the judge will rule in my favor?

While I do not personally agree with parents moving out of state from other parents...in this case, YES you do have a good chance to move.

This is why: Dad's failure to establish paternity for the first almost 2 yrs of the child's life. Dad's failure to have ongoing contact/relationship with the child.



Right now, you are legally allowed to move, bc Dad isn't legally the father. Once dad has filed in court to establish his Rights...then, he will have a good chance at getting the court to order you to remain in the county/state pending a hearing or the court's determination.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

While I do not personally agree with parents moving out of state from other parents...in this case, YES you do have a good chance to move.

wrong.

This is why: Dad's failure to establish paternity for the first almost 2 yrs of the child's life. Dad's failure to have ongoing contact/relationship with the child.

How to do you know that dad is the failure and not the poster? You don't. Neither do I. However, dad, if he is found to be the dad, has all rights and responsibilities as mom in this case, and YOU know what will happen the minute he files for paternity.

Right now, you are legally allowed to move, bc Dad isn't legally the father. Once dad has filed in court to establish his Rights...then, he will have a good chance at getting the court to order you to remain in the county/state pending a hearing or the court's determination.

Finally a legitimate answer. Now tell her the REST OF THE STORY.

 

[casa]

wrong.

How to do you know that dad is the failure and not the poster? You don't. Neither do I. However, dad, if he is found to be the dad, has all rights and responsibilities as mom in this case, and YOU know what will happen the minute he files for paternity.


Finally a legitimate answer. Now tell her the REST OF THE STORY.

Actually BB, CA move-away laws have changed considerably re; relocation. The answer was valid.

I know Dad has failed to establish Paternity~ as he is not even listed on the birth certificate.

That IS the rest of the story. IF Dad actually files to establish paternity, Mom will be restricted to county/state PENDING the court's determination. Considering not only the CA move-away laws CURRENTLY...as well as Dad's failure to maintain visitation/contact or establish Paternity will clearly demonstrate Dad's history of concern for this child.

 

[ceara19]

Actually BB, CA move-away laws have changed considerably re; relocation. The answer was valid.

I know Dad has failed to establish Paternity~ as he is not even listed on the birth certificate.

That IS the rest of the story. IF Dad actually files to establish paternity, Mom will be restricted to county/state PENDING the court's determination. Considering not only the CA move-away laws CURRENTLY...as well as Dad's failure to maintain visitation/contact or establish Paternity will clearly demonstrate Dad's history of concern for this child.

Whether or not paternity has been established is not the point. The issue is WHY has paternity hot been established. She could just as easily be to blame.

 

[casa]

Whether or not paternity has been established is not the point. The issue is WHY has paternity hot been established. She could just as easily be to blame.

It's the MAJOR point. Right now, Mom is the ONLY legal parent of this child.

Mom cannot be to blame for Dad's failure to establish paternity~ He didn't 'want' to sign the BC...and for almost 2 yrs he has done nothing in court. All he had to do was file & the court would have ordered Mom to participate in DNA testing. Period.

OP says Dad won't even make the effort to come visit daughter...bc his car was repoed. He couldn't get a ride? Take a taxi? Take a bus? Establish Custody/Visitation to have Mom share transportation?? These are the questions the court will be asking as well.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Actually BB, CA move-away laws have changed considerably re; relocation. The answer was valid.

I know Dad has failed to establish Paternity~ as he is not even listed on the birth certificate.

That IS the rest of the story. IF Dad actually files to establish paternity, Mom will be restricted to county/state PENDING the court's determination. Considering not only the CA move-away laws CURRENTLY...as well as Dad's failure to maintain visitation/contact or establish Paternity will clearly demonstrate Dad's history of concern for this child.

I guess you didn't bother reading my responses. First, the wrong reply was because you assumed you KNEW what a judge would grant. and you should know by now that NO ONE can say what the chances are of anything in a case where only one side is known.

Secondly, you know the POSTER's side of this. Not the whole story. We do know that his name is not on the birth certificate. But why? That we don't know for a fact.

And lastly, that is NOT the rest of the story. That will happen if and when she moves, dad finds out and files an order for paternity and custody. NOW do you get what i'm cooking?

 

[casa]

I guess you didn't bother reading my responses. First, the wrong reply was because you assumed you KNEW what a judge would grant. and you should know by now that NO ONE can say what the chances are of anything in a case where only one side is known.

Secondly, you know the POSTER's side of this. Not the whole story. We do know that his name is not on the birth certificate. But why? That we don't know for a fact.

And lastly, that is NOT the rest of the story. That will happen if and when she moves, dad finds out and files an order for paternity and custody. NOW do you get what i'm cooking?

BB, of course I read your response...I'm always interested in your input

I said she "had a good chance" and DID NOT say what a judge would rule.

Secondly, we NEVER know the other side of the story. We have only what the OPs post...which we take as truth. If posters lie, then they don't get accurate opinions.

Whether Mom didn't allow Dad to sign the BC or Dad refused (and OP clearly writes he didn't 'want' to sign the BC)....either way, he's had almost 2 YEARS to do something about it. ie; filing to establish Paternity.

I think you are cooking out of state court proceedings. Meaning if Dad files between the time Mom moves & establishes residency in the new state....she could find herself being ordered back to CA for proceedings. HOWEVER, we MUST be honest in the fact that she'd also have an excellent chance at getting telephonic appearances bc...again...Dad waited 2 yrs before doing anything.

We'll see what actually happens...but only if the poster returns in August to tell us.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

BB, of course I read your response...I'm always interested in your input

I said she "had a good chance" and DID NOT say what a judge would rule.

you said Yes to "Do you think that I have a good chance that the judge will rule in my favor?" and the only correct answer to that specific question is "We can't know that".

Secondly, we NEVER know the other side of the story. We have only what the OPs post...which we take as truth. If posters lie, then they don't get accurate opinions.

Guess what? I NEVER take anything for truth without specific facts to support the statement.

Whether Mom didn't allow Dad to sign the BC or Dad refused (and OP clearly writes he didn't 'want' to sign the BC)....either way, he's had almost 2 YEARS to do something about it. ie; filing to establish Paternity.

and so has she. So are you assuming that simply because he's a male he should be held to a higher standard?

I think you are cooking out of state court proceedings. Meaning if Dad files between the time Mom moves & establishes residency in the new state....she could find herself being ordered back to CA for proceedings. HOWEVER, we MUST be honest in the fact that she'd also have an excellent chance at getting telephonic appearances bc...again...Dad waited 2 yrs before doing anything.

almost right. While she can do the telephonic appearance, the court can order the CHILD returned to the jurisidction.

We'll see what actually happens...but only if the poster returns in August to tell us.

You really do live in la la land

and no one has yet explained to this innocent little poster about the notification process and HER failure of duty. if she KNEW or has ocassion to know who the father is, she has a duty to the court just as much as he did to establish paternity and perform proper notification BEFORE the move.

You can't penalize someone for being male without also penalizing the other side.

 

[nextwife]

he doesnt have a car since it was repoed and has no way of driving the half hour to come get her. I used to drive there EOW but it took alot out of my time and I didnt think that I should be resposible for him seeing her. He needs to be responisible and its his responsibility to get a car and come see her.

Actually, she stated that he HAD been seeing the child regularly, but she got tired of driving. So he DOES have a relationship with the child.

Dad's poverty (as in can't afford a car), as I understand it, cannot be used to deny his constitutional paternal rights. There is a not an asset test required before one gets to be a parent to one's child. Poor parents have the same right as parents who can afford a car.

 

[casa]

you said Yes to "Do you think that I have a good chance that the judge will rule in my favor?" and the only correct answer to that specific question is "We can't know that".

Guess what? I NEVER take anything for truth without specific facts to support the statement.

and so has she. So are you assuming that simply because he's a male he should be held to a higher standard?


almost right. While she can do the telephonic appearance, the court can order the CHILD returned to the jurisidction.

You really do live in la la land

and no one has yet explained to this innocent little poster about the notification process and HER failure of duty. if she KNEW or has ocassion to know who the father is, she has a duty to the court just as much as he did to establish paternity and perform proper notification BEFORE the move.

You can't penalize someone for being male without also penalizing the other side.

Yikes BB~ Actually the last 3 cases I worked on...were all helping fathers. I don't let sexism enter into the equation. I make no assumptions- but only follow the LAW re; Paternity. In CA if you don't establish Paternity, when in an unmarried situation, you are not legally the father. Not my law, just my state's law.

While I agree not all posters are honest...since I don't have telepathy, I must take them as they are. IF a poster gives incorrect information- they will be hurting THEMSELVES, and that has nothing to do with me.

DNA testing being what it is today- that can be established @ a credible testing center without the child being in CA.

I still say YES, she has a GOOD CHANCE of being allowed to move.

OK, OK, I live in the land of LA-LA but that doesn't mean I myself am in "LaLa Land"

 

[casa]

Actually, she stated that he HAD been seeing the child regularly, but she got tired of driving. So he DOES have a relationship with the child.

Dad's poverty (as in can't afford a car), as I understand it, cannot be used to deny his constitutional paternal rights. There is a not an asset test required before one gets to be a parent to one's child. Poor parents have the same right as parents who can afford a car.

Just as an FYI, an ONGOING relationship means you see your child even if no one else does all the transportation FOR you. That was the point. That is the question the court will ask: "Mr. so-and-so why haven't you seen your child on an ongoing basis?"

Poverty has nothing to do with it. Dad can ask for a ride, take a bus (they are almost everywhere in CA)...this is a highly populated state where not everyone has their own vehicle. In other words, not having a car doesn't mean you can't be active/consistent in your child's life.

I think it speaks volumes that as soon as Dad didn't have Mom playing taxi...he just QUIT seeing his child. That's not parenting. That's parenting when/if it's convenient. A competent judge would see this also. *IMO* (And yes, I realize everyone isn't lining up for it)