A HUGE victory- with stipulations.

[rocknrollmommy]

so what is he 550 a month for then?

The $550 per month goes toward diapers, food, clothing, health care, education (at some point I will enroll her in preschool- preferably as soon as she is old enough), and then on top of all of that- the visitation expenses.

 

[rocknrollmommy]

The $550 per month goes toward diapers, food, clothing, health care, education (at some point I will enroll her in preschool- preferably as soon as she is old enough), and then on top of all of that- the visitation expenses.

And living rent free is only temporary. As I was raised to not leech off of others, as soon as we are able to we (my daughter and I) will be in a place of our own, at which point any remaining child support with go to providing a roof over my daughter's head and running water for her to bathe in.

 

[AbbaDabba730]

The $550 per month goes toward diapers, food, clothing, health care, education (at some point I will enroll her in preschool- preferably as soon as she is old enough), and then on top of all of that- the visitation expenses.

And living rent free is only temporary. As I was raised to not leech off of others, as soon as we are able to we (my daughter and I) will be in a place of our own, at which point any remaining child support with go to providing a roof over my daughter's head and running water for her to bathe in.

So even with all the above you consider dad to not be providing for the child?

 

[stealth2]

I'm still waiting to hear why you should NOT have to pay for transportation when you are creating the distance.

You have been given permission by the court to relocate. So do it. And pay for the child to go home to see her Dad as ordered. It really IS that simple. And no, you still cannot change jurisdiction to OK.

Dunno why you think the backstory would change any of that.

 

[stealth2]

The $550 per month goes toward diapers, food, clothing, health care, education (at some point I will enroll her in preschool- preferably as soon as she is old enough), and then on top of all of that- the visitation expenses.

So what is it that you think YOU should be paying for, if not transportation to see her Dad, at a minimum?

 

[stealth2]

I understand it. Many people want the support of their family and friends after a breakup...particularly when they become a single parent. I don't view it as wanting to get away from the other parent, but as wanting to get back to their "comfort zone". If they aren't on a strong career path and need economic assistance its even more understandable.

It still may be selfish of course, but its understandable. Sometimes its not even selfish, sometimes its "survival".

In this case, dad getting a week every other month and mom having to provide the transportation is completely and totally fair, and mom is going to have to figure out a way to handle that.

I don't disagree, LDi. But apparently our OP seems to think it's not right, it's not fair, and all that other good stuff.

 

[rocknrollmommy]

So even with all the above you consider dad to not be providing for the child?

I never said that the child support (which was only recently put in place) was a provision for our daughter. Up until the court ordered the support, he refused to provide.

I will be spending just as much of my hard earned money providing for our daughter as well. My issue with the travel expense is that the burden rests completely on me. It's not entirely my fault we have to move away. All it would have taken was to pay 1 month of day care costs (which I had offered to reimburse him for) and I would have had a fantastic job and none of this would have ever become an issue.

I've heard of split costs in situations like this- the father will pay for travel to him, mother pays for return. Why would that be inappropriate? Why is it absurd for me to offer to fly him to OK for the visitation instead of paying for both myself and my daughter to fly to OK(at least for every other visitation)?

 

[jekyl007]

OP, I reside in Oklahoma and moved here almost 2 years ago.. if the court says you can move then after living in Oklahoma for 30 days you can file through Oklahoma to have your custody case moved to Oklahoma.. (I know cuz I did it) by oklahoma law after 30 days your child is a resident of Oklahoma if they spend more than 50% of their time with you and you are the primary custodial parent.. does not mean they will move it, but you can file for it to be moved and heard in court as to why you want it moved here..

 

[rocknrollmommy]

I'm still waiting to hear why you should NOT have to pay for transportation when you are creating the distance.

You have been given permission by the court to relocate. So do it. And pay for the child to go home to see her Dad as ordered. It really IS that simple. And no, you still cannot change jurisdiction to OK.

Dunno why you think the backstory would change any of that.

Again, I never stated that "it's not fair, it's not right, etc..." to pay for travel expenses. I simply stated that I thought it was a little extreme for me to have to burden the cost alone.

I gave the backstory because by your reply you made it seem as if I were just some woman ripping her child out of her loving and doting father's arms when that is CLEARLY not the case. You implied I had the option of remaining where I currently am and again, that is not the case. I went into further detail so you could see a tiny bit of why we must leave. I could have gone into further detail and touched on the history of covert emotional incest, control issues, and outrageous power-struggles but I decided to try to keep it short.

 

[rocknrollmommy]

OP, I reside in Oklahoma and moved here almost 2 years ago.. if the court says you can move then after living in Oklahoma for 30 days you can file through Oklahoma to have your custody case moved to Oklahoma.. (I know cuz I did it) by oklahoma law after 30 days your child is a resident of Oklahoma if they spend more than 50% of their time with you and you are the primary custodial parent.. does not mean they will move it, but you can file for it to be moved and heard in court as to why you want it moved here..

THANK YOU for your incredibly helpful reply Jekyl. I really appreciate it. I wanted to make sure that was even possible before I attempted it.

 

[stealth2]

OP, I reside in Oklahoma and moved here almost 2 years ago.. if the court says you can move then after living in Oklahoma for 30 days you can file through Oklahoma to have your custody case moved to Oklahoma.. (I know cuz I did it) by oklahoma law after 30 days your child is a resident of Oklahoma if they spend more than 50% of their time with you and you are the primary custodial parent.. does not mean they will move it, but you can file for it to be moved and heard in court as to why you want it moved here..

Bull. It is not going to happen as long as Dad lives in CA.

Again, I never stated that "it's not fair, it's not right, etc..." to pay for travel expenses. I simply stated that I thought it was a little extreme for me to have to burden the cost alone.

I gave the backstory because by your reply you made it seem as if I were just some woman ripping her child out of her loving and doting father's arms when that is CLEARLY not the case. You implied I had the option of remaining where I currently am and again, that is not the case. I went into further detail so you could see a tiny bit of why we must leave. I could have gone into further detail and touched on the history of covert emotional incest, control issues, and outrageous power-struggles but I decided to try to keep it short.

You DO have the option of staying where you are. But the court is giving you permission to move and that's fine. However, since you are moving the child away, you will be responsible for getting her back to her Dad for his time. Spend a wee bit of time reading here, and you will see that we warn moving parents of this all the time. So it's not unusual, or shocking, or anything else.

You asked why the travel arrangements shouldn't be more reasonable for you. You were answered - because you are creating the distance. That $350/$700 wouldn't need to be spent if you remained where you chose to create the child.

You asked if you could change jurisdiction to OK. You were told you would not be able to and why.

All of your drama is really moot. You chose to move to CA. You chose to become involved with this man. You chose to have a child by him. You chose to bear the child in CA. You chose CA to have jurisdiction. Now the court makes the choices for you. That's how it works.

 

[stealth2]

THANK YOU for your incredibly helpful reply Jekyl. I really appreciate it. I wanted to make sure that was even possible before I attempted it.

It is not at all likely.

 

[LdiJ]

Again, I never stated that "it's not fair, it's not right, etc..." to pay for travel expenses. I simply stated that I thought it was a little extreme for me to have to burden the cost alone.

I gave the backstory because by your reply you made it seem as if I were just some woman ripping her child out of her loving and doting father's arms when that is CLEARLY not the case. You implied I had the option of remaining where I currently am and again, that is not the case. I went into further detail so you could see a tiny bit of why we must leave. I could have gone into further detail and touched on the history of covert emotional incest, control issues, and outrageous power-struggles but I decided to try to keep it short.

While it may seen extreme to you that you have to cover all of the travel expenses, its actually quite standard for the moving parent to be responsible for that.

I understand why you have to move and obviously the judge did too, since you were given permission to do so. However, the judge rightly made you responsible for transportation for visitation, so you are going to have to handle that.

You won't have to take a week of work to do so, but it will mean two round trip tickets for you each time. One to deliver her, and one to go back and pick her up. I would hang on to that free apartment for a while, to help you build up a war chest of savings so that you can handle that until she is old enough to fly alone.

I also wouldn't be too sure about Jekyl's advice. In order for OK to take jurisdiction CA has to be willing to release it, and CA is not known for releasing jurisdiction easily. If dad fights jurisdiction being released to Ok, it will NOT happen.

 

[jekyl007]

does not matter if OP had the child in CA.. you are calling bull on something you know nothing about.. After 30 days in Oklahoma that child is a legal resident of Oklahoma and that is their state of residence.. Therefore she can file to have it moved to Oklahoma through Oklahoma.. As I stated, I did this with my two older children when I moved here.. but yet again, as I stated it does not mean that she will necessarily get it depending on the situation with CA and the custody there.. Please do not call bull on something that you apparently know nothing about.. This place is suppose to be about accurate information and she was given accurate information.. OP, you do what you need to do that is within your legal rights, and you legally have a right to file in OK to get your custody case moved here..

 

[mistoffolees]

OP, I reside in Oklahoma and moved here almost 2 years ago.. if the court says you can move then after living in Oklahoma for 30 days you can file through Oklahoma to have your custody case moved to Oklahoma.. (I know cuz I did it) by oklahoma law after 30 days your child is a resident of Oklahoma if they spend more than 50% of their time with you and you are the primary custodial parent.. does not mean they will move it, but you can file for it to be moved and heard in court as to why you want it moved here..

That is extremely misleading and is likely to lead OP to reach the wrong conclusion (which she already did).

There are federal rules that govern child custody in order to minimize the interstate wars over custody. Under the federal rules, as long as Dad stay in CA, OK can not simply take over jurisdiction in this case.

I do not have a college degree as of yet (I have taken classes when possible but not everyone is able to graduate within 4 years). The economy where I live is absolutely horrible and it is next to impossible to find a job that will allow me to remain here and support my daughter. That is why I made the incredibly difficult decision to move back to my home state. I had a very lucrative job lined up (more than enough to support myself and daughter) but could not afford the child care and my ex told me that he would not pay for any of the daycare expenses because he felt I should take a job working in the evenings so we could avoid such expenses (this was while we were still in a relationship. The position required paid training however I would not get my first paycheck until the next pay period- a full month away and child care was ~$350 per week for the cheapest center).

Basically, he wanted me to pass up the opportunity to make >$50K to go to work for minimum wage because he refused to place our daughter in child care.

Wah, wah, wah, wah.

You had the opportunity for a $50 K job without a college degree - yet you're complaining that there are no jobs in CA? At the time, you were unmarried and if I'm reading your story right, he had no custodial rights - he had absolutely no control over the matter. YOU made a choice not to take a good job - and now you want to punish him.

I've got news for you - there are jobs everywhere if you're willing to look. Maybe not what you want, but it's possible to get jobs. The fact that you turned down a $50 K job in CA proves that.

I never said that the child support (which was only recently put in place) was a provision for our daughter. Up until the court ordered the support, he refused to provide.

Up until the court ordered it, he had no obligation to pay it.


BOTTOM LINE:
You got a court order allowing you to yank the child away from her father for no reason other than your selfishness. The court order says that you have to pay for transportation - which is pretty much standard in cases like this. There is absolutely no justification for that to be dropped, nor is there any justification (by Federal law) for jurisdiction to be moved to CA.

Oh, and btw, if you do the math, you just screwed yourself big time. Child goes back and forth every other month - 6 times a year. You'll have to fly with the child in both directions - so you're looking at THREE tickets at $700 each - or $12 K in airline tickets. Plus your time off work. That's at least $15 K in pre-tax income just to cover those tickets. Not to mention the money you're going to spend on legal fees to fight a contempt charge if you miss a single one of them.

I'll bet that $50 K job in CA that you passed up in order to steal your child from her father is looking a lot better.