Unborn Child

[ezmarelda]

The thing is that it is NOT a child until it is born. It is a fetus.

but mom is a person (i think...i hope) and she can not take the "possible" child/ren and/or herself out of jurisdiction

 

[ezmarelda]

And
Cluck, cluck, cluck!

But seriously, folks: how long could this legal situation last, the one in which the mother has ALL of the power if unwed?

Answer: Not too long. It appears to be juuuust about finished, in CA.

what?!...try to even the playing feild??!! how dare us

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

I am NOT arguing that the mommie-to-be should have stayed in California. I'm just having a hard time with a court having jurisdiction over a fetus who hasn't become a child yet. Now, I would NOT argue in the least if the restaining order was for the M-T-B, but ...

Now, curiousity here. What if mom is on bed-rest or in the hospital in Oregon on 03/03?

 

[StampGirl]

And
Cluck, cluck, cluck!

But seriously, folks: how long could this legal situation last, the one in which the mother has ALL of the power if unwed?

Answer: Not too long. It appears to be juuuust about finished, in CA.

Yep we are pretty darn forward thinkers out here in Calif LOL

As Casa pointed out earlier, IF Mom had done what she was supposed to do legally and petitioned the court to move to Oregon, she would have been granted permission. But because she chose to do what she wanted, she is now in trouble. End of story.

 

[Zigner]

Now, curiousity here. What if mom is on bed-rest or in the hospital in Oregon on 03/03?

That's where the attorney comes in handy

 

[casa]

I am NOT arguing that the mommie-to-be should have stayed in California. I'm just having a hard time with a court having jurisdiction over a fetus who hasn't become a child yet. Now, I would NOT argue in the least if the restaining order was for the M-T-B, but ...

Now, curiousity here. What if mom is on bed-rest or in the hospital in Oregon on 03/03?

Ginny, no offense, but what part of "unborn" child do you NOT understand??

Mom and unborn child were RESTRAINED from leaving CA Jurisdiction.

So, IF Mom were ordered to bedrest? Her bed should STILL BE in CA. Get it?

 

[StampGirl]

I am NOT arguing that the mommie-to-be should have stayed in California. I'm just having a hard time with a court having jurisdiction over a fetus who hasn't become a child yet. Now, I would NOT argue in the least if the restaining order was for the M-T-B, but ...

Now, curiousity here. What if mom is on bed-rest or in the hospital in Oregon on 03/03?

She better hire an attorney darn quick to represent her in court then. I dont' think the Judge is going to have a whole bunch of sympathy here because she did violate a court order to stay in California and she left.

Someone in her family better pony up the $$$ for an attorney and quick in this instance.

 

[casa]

That's where the attorney comes in handy

Right. AND that attorney CANNOT say Mom is a legal resident of OR...because she's not yet. So, all they could do is try to LIE and say Mom was 'visiting' out of state.

ETA: My point is Mom can't challenge Jurisdiction NOW bc she is not yet a legal OR resident. She can challenge Jurisdiction if she has the baby in OR...but what will happen is she will have to answer to the CA Courts FIRST. And that involves an EXISTING Court Order. And, then if she argues for Jurisdiction, there is the nasty little matter of one of the parents STILL RESIDING in CA.

Smart Dad here. VERY SMART Dad. Or very smart attorney Dad hired.

Is it arguable? Of course, everything is. But the odds are in Dad's favor.

 

[Silverplum]

*If* she's *really* on bed-rest, then I see a road trip in the female's future.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

but mom is a person (i think...i hope) and she can not take the "possible" child/ren and/or herself out of jurisdiction

A child is a human being between birth and puberty.[1] The term may also define a relationship with a parent or authority figure, or signify group membership in a clan, tribe, or religion; or it can signify being strongly affected by a specific time, place, or circumstance, as in "a child of nature" or "a child of the Sixties."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

A fetus (or foetus or fœtus) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth. The plural is fetuses, or sometimes feti.

In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development begins about eight weeks after fertilization, when the major structures and organ systems have formed,[1] until birth.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

A mother is a biological and/or social female parent of an offspring. In the case of a mammal such as a human, the biological mother gestates a fertilized ovum, which is called first an embryo, and then a fetus. This gestation occurs in the mother's uterus from conception until the fetus is sufficiently developed to be born. The mother then goes into labor and gives birth.

It's simple biology here: Before birth = fetus; after birth = child

 

[Golfball]

Mother was served in CA. The presumed father filed for custody/visitation/child support (I believe) in CA BEFORE she moved. She was also served before she moved. Mom then consulted a family friend (attorney in San Fran according to this OP) who said she could move, then she moved to Oregon.

The Mother needs to get to CA by the date on her court-ordered papers. Pronto.

Correct me if I am wrong but the crucial fact here is that the papers were filed and she was served BEFORE she left California. That is why she is in violation of the court order and was ordered back to California.

I was asking a hypothetical (but related) question, rather than about the matter immediately at hand.

If she was served inside the state (or legally resided in the state at the time of the order), the court has jurisdiction over the mom, and the court can order the mom to continue her residence in CA. No argument from me on that point.

 

[casa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus



It's simple biology here: Before birth = fetus; after birth = child

Ginny did you miss Zigner's post? There is CLEARLY a place to check "unborn" when listing adults/children restrained in the order.

Just ask Stampgirl, this happened to HER while prego too.

 

[casa]

I was asking a hypothetical (but related) question, rather than about the matter immediately at hand.

If she was served inside the state (or legally resided in the state at the time of the order), the court has jurisdiction over the mom, and the court can order the mom to continue her residence in CA. No argument from me on that point.

In Mom's original post, she stated she was served (& appeared) in CA and THEN moved.

 

[StampGirl]

Ginny did you miss Zigner's post? There is CLEARLY a place to check "unborn" when listing adults/children restrained in the order.

Just ask Stampgirl, this happened to HER while prego too.

Ahh yes The fond memories of being pregnant while getting divorced!!!

We had 2 children (ages 5yr and 2yrs) and one on the way. Court orders specifically stated all children and "unborn child" are NOT allowed to leave the state of California without the consent of the other parent (my ex) and/or a Judge.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

In Mom's original post, she stated she was served (& appeared) in CA and THEN moved.

I looked at the TWO forms. The one is for establishing paternity and has the check mark the unborn.

The restraining order on the second form talks about the child. THAT is what I can't wrap my brain around. It is TECHNICALLY, BIOLOGICALLY NOT a child. It is a fetus. Just cuz I put two words together: unborn + child does NOT make it correct to correlate on a second form.