The restraining order is standard and is part of the Presumed Father packet he filed. He is "presuming the unborn child is his", therefore she is restricted from taking the "presumed unborn child" out of the state until a Judge deems otherwise.What I can't wrap my brain around is the verbage:
It restrains the parents from removing the CHILD. Technically, a child does not exist, therefore, no violation in my little pea brain. Now, if the restraining order was for MOM, then, absolutely.
I can see where California has jurisdiction AFTER the birth, so I'm not arguing there. Just the restraining order.
It is supposed to protect the soon to be father from exactly what this mom did: which is fleeing the state to make his right as Dad to be an active participant in his child's life.