how to prevent my child from being moved out of state?

[Spysy101]

Texas

My daughter is 3 months old and was born here in TX, her mother and I are both on her birth certificate and I have signed the AOP at birth.

We recently got into an argument about vaccines and ended up yelling at each other, which caused her to take a "break" at a family member's house out of state. She is now saying she is "temporarily moving" to that state while we "work on things"

I can't really afford an attorney, what are my options to get my daughter back home?

 

[adjusterjack]

Without an attorney, you have no options, unless you can figure out how to use the court system without an attorney. Nobody here can give you step by step instructions.

If you and she have already been to court you can enforce whatever order there were.

If you haven't been to court on any thing you will have to file for custody in whichever court is appropriate, possibly where you both have had residency recently, but I can't guarantee that.

Whichever court you choose, go on that court's website for self help pages that might lead to forms and instructions.

Otherwise, wait it out. When she wants money from you, you might have a little leverage to get her to come back.

 

[LdiJ]

Texas

My daughter is 3 months old and was born here in TX, her mother and I are both on her birth certificate and I have signed the AOP at birth.

We recently got into an argument about vaccines and ended up yelling at each other, which caused her to take a "break" at a family member's house out of state. She is now saying she is "temporarily moving" to that state while we "work on things"

I can't really afford an attorney, what are my options to get my daughter back home?

Your only option is court, and that is not an absolute guarantee. It will also permanently tank your relationship with mom so make sure that is what you want at this point.

 

[Zigner]

Your only option is court, and that is not an absolute guarantee. It will also permanently tank your relationship with mom so make sure that is what you want at this point.

I don't think it's appropriate to discourage a father from going to court to enforce his rights in this way. In fact, you know that we (as Seniors) tend to do just the opposite on this forum. Just sayin'.

 

[LdiJ]

I don't think it's appropriate to discourage a father from going to court to enforce his rights in this way. In fact, you know that we (as Seniors) tend to do just the opposite on this forum. Just sayin'.

Whenever I see a couple who is clearly having a typical fight I think it is something worth saying. It is not that he shouldn't enforce his rights, it is that he shouldn't jump the gun and turn something that might be a one or two week separation into a permanent split if that is not what he wants. It does not damage his rights to stop and take a breath before going full on hostile, but it could permanently tank his relationship to go full on hostile without taking a breath.

 

[Zigner]

In reality, court orders are good things. They prevent misunderstandings.

 

[Taxing Matters]

In reality, court orders are good things. They prevent misunderstandings.

I know from years of practice that once you file a lawsuit against another party, that's a blow to whatever relationship the parties had. If the lawsuit gets nasty, as domestic relations cases tend to go, it can permanently poison the relationship. When a person gets sued regarding something very personal, like what happens with their child, their defenses jump to high alert, and the battle is on. It's better if they can work it out between them before considering court. The key to those sorts of conversations is to keep emotions in check and focus on a solution that is good for everyone, not just yourself. Make the kid the most important thing, since the kid is the innocent party in whatever dispute the parents have. Once the parents make it personal between them, they lose a good opportunity to come up with a plan that would be better, perhaps much better, than what some judge wh0 knows very little about the family comes up with. IMO court should be the last resort, not the first, unless the child is in some kind of immediate danger. Once you cross that line of going to court, the relationship is pretty much forever altered by having a third party (the court) come in and dictate things to the parties. Few people are ever really happy about being on the wrong end of a court order restricting their relationship with their kids. And they'll blame their ex for it and, from what I've seen, they rarely forgive the ex for having done it. In other words, going to court can poison whatever relationship the couple still has. If they want to avoid misunderstandings, they can write down their agreement so that time doesn't alter the memories of the parents into believing the agreement was something other than what was agreed upon.

Of course if they can't work it out after making a concerted effort to resolve it themselves, then court may be the only option left.

 

[AlmostThere]

Here is the thing - the lawsuit does not need to be nasty - particularly if OP offers a visitation agreement and child support- so that it's not one sided.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Here is the thing - the lawsuit does not need to be nasty - particularly if OP offers a visitation agreement and child support- so that it's not one sided.

It doesn't have to be nasty, but when they are in conflict and that conflict reaches the court, it often does turn ugly. If they are cooperative they should be able to work out a schedule both parents are at least ok with and need not bring the matter to court at all, or just go to court to get the agreement they struck formalized in a court order rather than having the judge decide how things go. I know couples who handled their child support issues that way -- making the agreement themselves and then just getting it confirmed in a court order, and that typically works a lot better than having the judge make the decisions for the warring parents. I've not seen any instances where both combative parties were happy with the judge's choice, and sometimes both are unhappy with it. When you put your fate in the hands of a third party, you roll the dice and may not like how that turns out.

Obviously there are instances in which the couple already hates each other so much that no agreement is possible and it would be foolhardy to try. Those go straight to court, and the battle continues there with legal fees piling up and with child support/visitation unsettled for many months or even over a year if they really go at it.

I met a few of those sorts of spouses — the war of the roses types — that so hated each other that their whole goal was to hurt the other spouse, and if it cost them a lot to do it, they were ok with that. One of those couples ended up having to sell their home for 200k less than the first offer they got many months earlier because neither spouse wanted to split the sales proceeds with the other spouse. After awhile they realized the damage they had done and agreed to a sale so as to avoid making it even worse.

They each insisted the other spouse pay the taxes owed on the joint return and refused to cooperate with me to resolve their rather hefty tax liability, forcing me to seize assets to collect the tax. And when the IRS sells those assets, rarely does it get fair market value for them, which results in another waste of money by the couple. I never have understood how one can hate someone else they once claimed to love so much that they are willing to damage their own situation just to get a swipe at damaging the other.

I tried to tell the couple that they can hate each other all they want, but if they just cooperate with me to get the taxes paid they'd be a lot better off with more money for both. Neither one wanted to hear it. Instead, they wanted to subpoena me into their divorce proceedings to testify about assets I uncovered that the other spouse had because they were sure that the other spouse was hiding something. Fortunately state court subpoenas are not enforceable against the federal government and IRS counsel got the subpoena squashed. That was good for me, but also good for them, though they didn't know it at the time. Having me testify in state court would, among other things, have made all their tax and financial difficulties public knowledge, something that would have hurt both their careers.

In the end they lost collectively around $300,000 in this fight. I can't fathom a spouse tossing away $150,000 just to try to make the ex's life hell. But those folks are out there..

 

[commentator]

In my mediation experience and what I've seen as a living this life person, court settled custody arrangements are far and away the way to do it. Because one or the other parties in the situation is very likely going to turn out to be either a bully, a manipulator, or a sneaky pete. And I have seen several custody cases, unresolved until they finally got a court order, that became chaotic for all concerned and went on that way for years. If there is no plan, what would make you think that two people who could not work out as a couple or partnership before there was a child would suddenly become able to work together for the good of that child?

Once some people get engaged in a conflict, they can't let it go, even if it is costing them time and money and causing great pain. The best way to deal with things, in my opinion, is with a firmly established comprehensive legal set up from very early on. In setting up custody arrangements and mediating between couples there gets to be an incredible amount of detail sometimes, but this is being pro-active when you realize that it was going to come up later and be a huge hill to die on, even if it is something so petty as where the child keeps his toothbrush, who does which holiday and who gets to claim what on their taxes. From the sound of this one, there may be some real serious divergence of opinion concerning health matters, etc. that wouldn't even have been considered so much back in my day. But they call out for some quick action and getting things set up legally.

 

[quincy]

Spysy101, you say your baby is 3 months old. What this tells me is that neither you nor the baby’s mom have had a good night’s sleep in at least 3 months.

When a couple is exhausted, and wacky hormones and unpredictable uncontrollable emotions are roiling, and there is a needy newborn crying for attention in the background, it is not easy to have a calm rational discussion about anything. I can understand your partner trying to avoid conflict by fleeing to friendly family for emotional support and for help with the baby.

I don’t presume to know what your relationship with the baby’s mom is or has been like, or whether involving attorneys and courts is something that will be necessary in the future. What I do know is that making any major decision when sleep-deprived could be a decision both you and your partner regret.

While it won’t hurt to speak to a family law attorney, I agree with the advice offered by Taxing Matters. I also would think hard about how you can help make the transition from a two-person relationship to a three-person family an easier one for all of you (perhaps by offering your partner some at-home baby care in Texas so both you and mom can get temporary breaks).

 

[Zigner]

Spysy101, you say your baby is 3 months old. What this tells me is that neither you nor the baby’s mom have had a good night’s sleep in at least 3 months.

When a couple is exhausted, and wacky hormones and unpredictable uncontrollable emotions are roiling, and there is a needy newborn crying for attention in the background, it is not easy to have a calm rational discussion about anything. I can understand your partner trying to avoid conflict by fleeing to friendly family for emotional support and for help with the baby.

I don’t presume to know what your relationship with the baby’s mom is or has been like, or whether involving attorneys and courts is something that will be necessary in the future. What I do know is that making any major decision when sleep-deprived could be a decision both you and your partner regret.

While it won’t hurt to speak to a family law attorney, I agree with the advice offered by Taxing Matters. I also would think hard about how you can help make the transition from a two-person relationship to a three-person family an easier one for all of you (perhaps by offering your partner some at-home baby care in Texas so both you and mom can get temporary breaks).

You (and @LdiJ & @Taxing Matters) make good points. While I still feel that a court order is likely the good way to go, that's more in the long run. At this point, on top of the aforementioned lack of sleep, mom's hormones are still out of whack. What she says now is likely said out of anger and frustration and she may change her mind pretty quickly. I retract my earlier statement (implication) that the OP should consider court at this time. I still maintain that, as a longer-term strategy, court is the way to go, but it's probably a bit premature right now.

 

[commentator]

I get the impression that this couple was not really strongly together, though they may have been trying to share parenting as a couple. If they are already fighting about issues like vaccinations, that to me is not a good sign, whether they're sleep deprived or not. So you get a pass for a few months of being sleep deprived and hormonal, but then what happens if it turns into a long period of differences? What if she meets a nicer prospective boyfriend out there and they never reconcile? I agree he maybe shouldn't come at her with guns blazing at this point, but at the same time, I would see some custody arrangements in the future unless they get back together and decide to be a permanent couple.