What is the name of your state?NY
My ex obtained temp. custody by ex parte in 4/2002 – based on an allegation I was using drugs, which I proved false by blood , urine and hair tests. Regardless of the tests results the court was not going to change the order until the matter went to trial. Trial began 12/2002 then a mistrial was declared 4/2004, and the new trial ended 7/2004.
In 7/2003 my ex (military) moved to MA without advising me or seeking leave from the court, then violated the order prohibiting him from removing our child from NY.
The decision was based on 12 Factors constituting the “best interest” definition in the Michigan Statute (Compiled Laws, Section 722.23). In the courts opinion it constitutes the most comprehensive legal definition available, analyzing parental adequacy in terms of capacity, motivation, ability and efficaciousness planning.. The 12 Factors are:
(1) moral character and prudence of the parents;
(2) physical, emotional, mental, religious and social needs of the child;
(3) capability and desire of each parent to meet the child's emotional, educational, and other needs;
(4) preference of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and maturity;
(5) the love and affection and other emotional ties existing between the child and each parent;
(6) the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity;
(7) the desire and ability of each parent to allow an open and loving frequent relationship between the child and other parent;
(8) the child's adjustment to his/her home, school, and community;
(9) the mental and physical health of all parties;
(10) permanence of the family unit of the proposed custodial home;
(11) any evidence of domestic violence;
(12) an other factors.
The decision stated that I was “more capable as a parental figure, more attuned to the child’s needs, more willing to promote and encourage a close relationship with the other parent, and with the presence of a sibling in the household, the preferred parental figure.” It also stated that my ex was “subjecting our son to a nomadic life with no real home or base.” My ex’s parents were the primary care givers while our son was in his custody. His failure to change our son’s name (which I agreed to 3 years ago), acknowledge my rights and existence, and promote a relationship between our son and I, were the main basis for the decision.
Relocation was denied and custody was transferred to me – no visitation set yet. Now if the jerky has been reasonable and settled……..he’d have joint legal. I truly believe that no one “wins” custody, you can only lose it. Now, I get to be the better parent and offer him lots of visitation with our son! Thanks to everyone on this forum that has helped me throughout this process (especially the regular senior members), everything I learned here benefited me in court and hopefully the future.
My ex obtained temp. custody by ex parte in 4/2002 – based on an allegation I was using drugs, which I proved false by blood , urine and hair tests. Regardless of the tests results the court was not going to change the order until the matter went to trial. Trial began 12/2002 then a mistrial was declared 4/2004, and the new trial ended 7/2004.
In 7/2003 my ex (military) moved to MA without advising me or seeking leave from the court, then violated the order prohibiting him from removing our child from NY.
The decision was based on 12 Factors constituting the “best interest” definition in the Michigan Statute (Compiled Laws, Section 722.23). In the courts opinion it constitutes the most comprehensive legal definition available, analyzing parental adequacy in terms of capacity, motivation, ability and efficaciousness planning.. The 12 Factors are:
(1) moral character and prudence of the parents;
(2) physical, emotional, mental, religious and social needs of the child;
(3) capability and desire of each parent to meet the child's emotional, educational, and other needs;
(4) preference of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and maturity;
(5) the love and affection and other emotional ties existing between the child and each parent;
(6) the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity;
(7) the desire and ability of each parent to allow an open and loving frequent relationship between the child and other parent;
(8) the child's adjustment to his/her home, school, and community;
(9) the mental and physical health of all parties;
(10) permanence of the family unit of the proposed custodial home;
(11) any evidence of domestic violence;
(12) an other factors.
The decision stated that I was “more capable as a parental figure, more attuned to the child’s needs, more willing to promote and encourage a close relationship with the other parent, and with the presence of a sibling in the household, the preferred parental figure.” It also stated that my ex was “subjecting our son to a nomadic life with no real home or base.” My ex’s parents were the primary care givers while our son was in his custody. His failure to change our son’s name (which I agreed to 3 years ago), acknowledge my rights and existence, and promote a relationship between our son and I, were the main basis for the decision.
Relocation was denied and custody was transferred to me – no visitation set yet. Now if the jerky has been reasonable and settled……..he’d have joint legal. I truly believe that no one “wins” custody, you can only lose it. Now, I get to be the better parent and offer him lots of visitation with our son! Thanks to everyone on this forum that has helped me throughout this process (especially the regular senior members), everything I learned here benefited me in court and hopefully the future.
