A HUGE victory- with stipulations.

[rocknrollmommy]

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.

Please, since you are far superior than I, tell me what other option I have? You would rather I make my child live out of my car or are you generously offering charity? I have exhausted every avenue in order to try to remain here.

You asked why the travel arrangements shouldn't be more reasonable for you. You were answered

​

actually, your reply was

Why should you NOT be responsible for the cost of transportation, since you are the one making it necessary?

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

again, your reply was less than informative

"And it is unlikely you will be able to change jurisdiction to OK in six months. Again. YOU are the one creating the distance, not Dad. So HE should not be inconvenienced by your choices.

I'd suggest you start looking for a decent job in OK ASAP."

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.

I certainly do not need life lessons from someone who thumbs their noses at those who are less than fortunate than themselves. I merely asked for advice, not to be judged. After taking a look at your member profile, I now see that other people have certainly felt the same way. I moved to CA before the recession hit. I had a great job. I was in love, we had a future. When push came to shove, the "man" decided it was too much and bailed. It happens. I'm sure your wonderful, caring, doting husband/wife would never do that to you (or if they have, I can certainly see why).

There is no drama, in order to justify my actions (as you clearly made it a point to immediately place blame on me), I simply elaborated on the situation.

 

[jekyl007]

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 did not say they could just simply take it over.. if you read my post, I stated on there that she can legally file for it to be moved, but that it did not mean she would get that.. another poster was trying to make it sound like she didnt even have the legal right to file to have it moved to another state. which was not true.. no where in my post did I mislead her, even told her myself that it did not mean she would get it.. but that she does have a right to file it if she chooses to

 

[LdiJ]

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.





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.



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.

Psst Misto, the tickets are 350.00 each, its 700.00 when the child turns two and is required to have her own ticket...so its going to cost mom about 6k a year.

 

[LdiJ]

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 did not say they could just simply take it over.. if you read my post, I stated on there that she can legally file for it to be moved, but that it did not mean she would get that.. another poster was trying to make it sound like she didnt even have the legal right to file to have it moved to another state. which was not true.. no where in my post did I mislead her, even told her myself that it did not mean she would get it.. but that she does have a right to file it if she chooses to

I think that you should go back and re-read what I wrote. My post was entirely correct.

 

[jekyl007]

I think that you should go back and re-read what I wrote. My post was entirely correct.

I did not disagree with your post.. I also stated myself on numerous occasions now that it did not mean it would happen.. but it is still something she can file for.. unlike others who tell her she cant even file for it.. she can file for whatever she wants.. if CA refuses to move it then that will be the outcome.. but honestly nobody knows what the outcome would be and she has a legal right to file for it to be moved if she chooses to do so.. but just to clarify myself for the hundredth time It does not mean she will get it moved, but she can atleast file for it to see what happens after she has lived here for 30 days

 

[rocknrollmommy]

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.





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.



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.

All I needed to know was the IT IS POSSIBLE. Once moved, I can inquire about it and make an informed decision at that time based on information from the OK court system (and legal counsel). I simply did not want to waste time trying to pursue it if it were absolutely out of the question.

the job i was applying for was for a fire safety dispatcher position. the interview process was more than 6 months long and involved polygraph and background investigations. the job literally fell into my lap as a good friend worked in the same office and put in a good word for me. yes, the father DID have custodial rights. we were in a committed relationship and living together. he had just as much custodial obligation as i had at that point.

if i could work at mcdonald's and provide fully for my daughter, i'd do it in a heartbeat. the reality though, is that daycare costs $350 a week and that would essentially be my entire paycheck and then some. i would be losing money if i did that- it's just not a smart move.

there is no ripping my daughter from her father's arms. he wanted absolutely nothing- NOT A DAMN THING- to do with my daughter until it came time to put on a show for the court. i had witnesses lined up around the block who would testify before the judge and GOD that he was never a part of my daughter's life even when we lived under the same roof.

i think your math about the flights is off. what i was even suggested looked like this (based on 6 yearly visitations)

1- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
2- i pay $350 (for the father)
3- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
4- i pay $350 (for the father)
5- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
6- i pay $350 (for the father)

that comes to roughly $3150 in travel expense vs. $4200 if we flew to CA every time.

 

[stealth2]

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..

I know plenty, little girl. And what you are telling OP is simply not going to happen. YOU are the one who does not understand how this all works. She can file, but the chances of jurisdiction being changed are less than nil. THAT is what she needs to know - not pie in the sky BS from some wet behind the ears flibbety-gibbet.

Seriously - sit down, still your fingers, read and learn.

 

[LdiJ]

All I needed to know was the IT IS POSSIBLE. Once moved, I can inquire about it and make an informed decision at that time based on information from the OK court system (and legal counsel). I simply did not want to waste time trying to pursue it if it were absolutely out of the question.

the job i was applying for was for a fire safety dispatcher position. the interview process was more than 6 months long and involved polygraph and background investigations. the job literally fell into my lap as a good friend worked in the same office and put in a good word for me. yes, the father DID have custodial rights. we were in a committed relationship and living together. he had just as much custodial obligation as i had at that point.

if i could work at mcdonald's and provide fully for my daughter, i'd do it in a heartbeat. the reality though, is that daycare costs $350 a week and that would essentially be my entire paycheck and then some. i would be losing money if i did that- it's just not a smart move.

there is no ripping my daughter from her father's arms. he wanted absolutely nothing- NOT A DAMN THING- to do with my daughter until it came time to put on a show for the court. i had witnesses lined up around the block who would testify before the judge and GOD that he was never a part of my daughter's life even when we lived under the same roof.

i think your math about the flights is off. what i was even suggested looked like this (based on 6 yearly visitations)

1- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
2- i pay $350 (for the father)
3- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
4- i pay $350 (for the father)
5- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
6- i pay $350 (for the father)

that comes to roughly $3150 in travel expense vs. $4200 if we flew to CA every time.

You have to be realistic. You are not going to be able to take six weeks a year off from work and be able to keep your job. Maybe the one with your mother but not the other one.

Therefore its going to be two round trip tickets for you. One to deliver her, and one to pick her up. That's more like 6+k a year. Having dad come to you likely wouldn't save you any money unless you would be willing (and he would be willing) for him to stay with you for that week.

 

[rocknrollmommy]

I know plenty, little girl. And what you are telling OP is simply not going to happen. YOU are the one who does not understand how this all works. She can file, but the chances of jurisdiction being changed are less than nil. THAT is what she needs to know - not pie in the sky BS from some wet behind the ears flibbety-gibbet.

Seriously - sit down, still your fingers, read and learn.

If it happens or not, that was not my question. my question was:

At that point can the custody case be transferred to OK?​

CAN. Not "will it". I get the fact that it "probably won't happen". Fine. If I choose to pursue it, that is on me. I don't care what the odds are, if there is a chance (no matter how small), I will try. The worst that could happen is they say "no". Best case scenario? It's transferred. Voila.

 

[jekyl007]

I know plenty, little girl. And what you are telling OP is simply not going to happen. YOU are the one who does not understand how this all works. She can file, but the chances of jurisdiction being changed are less than nil. THAT is what she needs to know - not pie in the sky BS from some wet behind the ears flibbety-gibbet.

Seriously - sit down, still your fingers, read and learn.

I am far from wet behind the ears.. I have gone through this with my 12 year old and my 8 year old.. You are the one who seems to be very immature and has to name call when called out on something.. nowhere did I state that she had 100% chance of getting it moved.. but if she is wanting to get jurisdiction changed then as the primary custodial parent she has every right to file to try to do so.. Even she knows that it may not happen, that is why she said she would talk to a lawyer when she moves to OK to see what her chances are.. That is very smart of her, instead of listening to someone like you that thinks they know everything So have you ever had to file to change jurisdiction? I have.. so I know a lot more about that then you could probally ever know.. In my case yes it did work out.. but not everyone gets so lucky, as I told her that myself..

 

[rocknrollmommy]

You have to be realistic. You are not going to be able to take six weeks a year off from work and be able to keep your job. Maybe the one with your mother but not the other one.

Therefore its going to be two round trip tickets for you. One to deliver her, and one to pick her up. That's more like 6+k a year. Having dad come to you likely wouldn't save you any money unless you would be willing (and he would be willing) for him to stay with you for that week.

I've already spoken to both employers and they are willing to work with the visitation schedule. I am being realistic. The contact from the State of Oklahoma job also mentioned that I might be able to use FMLA after I'm eligible so it would not hurt me (and certainly wouldn't hurt to try).

My parents have a spare room as well as a spare car he can use. My family holds no ill feelings toward him- they just want me and my daughter safe. He would have the whole week to spend with our daughter and the only time he would have to spend a penny would be if he decided to take her somewhere like the zoo. He would have a place to sleep, a car, and 3 hot meals a day- all free of charge.

 

[AbbaDabba730]

If it happens or not, that was not my question. my question was:


CAN. Not "will it". I get the fact that it "probably won't happen". Fine. If I choose to pursue it, that is on me. I don't care what the odds are, if there is a chance (no matter how small), I will try. The worst that could happen is they say "no". Best case scenario? It's transferred. Voila.

I must be missing something....but what is the big deal about having the orders moved to OK?

Do you think that the orders will change once they do? Having OK take juristiction (on the extremely slim chance they do) does not change the fact that you would still be responsible for travel expenses.

But again you were told that Fedreal applies. There are rules for reasons. If not every (ok, not every but some) parents would just up and move to another state to knock down the previous orders

 

[stealth2]

1- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
2- i pay $350 (for the father)
3- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
4- i pay $350 (for the father)
5- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
6- i pay $350 (for the father)

that comes to roughly $3150 in travel expense vs. $4200 if we flew to CA every time.

Jeebus @ both of you. In 6mos (your child is 18mos, old. Correct?), you will be paying for two tickets, each way. If you take a week off of work each time (good luck with THAT), you will be paying $700 x 6. $4200. You should add in your lost income to the expense. Otherwise, you will be paying $1400 x 6. $8400.

Dad is under NO obligation to agree to fly to OK to see his child. None. And if he DOES agree to do so? You should expect to cover his lodgings. If I were him, I'd ask that you pay for hotel (and not the fleabag down the road, although I also wouldn't go for the Hilton - but a Comfort Inn, Holiday Inn, comparable), car rental (or that you provide him with a car) and a per diem for food. He should not be out $$ based on your decision to move.

As for choices... we ALL have choices in life. Sometimes, we make choices we'd rather not make. But we do it because it's the right thing to do.

 

[gam]

All I needed to know was the IT IS POSSIBLE. Once moved, I can inquire about it and make an informed decision at that time based on information from the OK court system (and legal counsel). I simply did not want to waste time trying to pursue it if it were absolutely out of the question.

the job i was applying for was for a fire safety dispatcher position. the interview process was more than 6 months long and involved polygraph and background investigations. the job literally fell into my lap as a good friend worked in the same office and put in a good word for me. yes, the father DID have custodial rights. we were in a committed relationship and living together. he had just as much custodial obligation as i had at that point.

if i could work at mcdonald's and provide fully for my daughter, i'd do it in a heartbeat. the reality though, is that daycare costs $350 a week and that would essentially be my entire paycheck and then some. i would be losing money if i did that- it's just not a smart move.

there is no ripping my daughter from her father's arms. he wanted absolutely nothing- NOT A DAMN THING- to do with my daughter until it came time to put on a show for the court. i had witnesses lined up around the block who would testify before the judge and GOD that he was never a part of my daughter's life even when we lived under the same roof.

i think your math about the flights is off. what i was even suggested looked like this (based on 6 yearly visitations)

1- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
2- i pay $350 (for the father)
3- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
4- i pay $350 (for the father)
5- i pay $700 (that's $350 round trip for both me and my daughter)
6- i pay $350 (for the father)

that comes to roughly $3150 in travel expense vs. $4200 if we flew to CA every time.

You have failed in your math, to add in for dad a place to stay while he comes to your state for visitation.

Where in the heck is he suppose to be doing these visitations in OK?

You moved, you created distance, so the cost to transport child to DADS HOME IN CA, is on you. It is that simple.

Some cases it is shared, but there are reasons it is shared, many of them the distance was there from the start, some of them agree to the move and agree to share in the costs, there are other reasons to, but you don't have a valid reason.

You could try and work with dad here, offer to have less frequent visits, but those visits last for longer then a week. So he would still get his 6 weeks, just not 6 times a year. You could also throw in more time then the total 6 weeks, if he would cut the times down a year. This would be a fair way to give him his time, and cut your costs down.

You can try to file for anything, however what everyone is telling you is you most likely will not get this changed from CA to OK. Dad stills live in CA, dad is gonna fight to keep the case there, CA does not like to give up a case when dad stills live there and dad fights to keep it there. In my state they do not even like to change courts from county to county, if one parent still lives in the county the case was started from.

 

[stealth2]

I am far from wet behind the ears.. I have gone through this with my 12 year old and my 8 year old.. You are the one who seems to be very immature and has to name call when called out on something.. nowhere did I state that she had 100% chance of getting it moved.. but if she is wanting to get jurisdiction changed then as the primary custodial parent she has every right to file to try to do so.. Even she knows that it may not happen, that is why she said she would talk to a lawyer when she moves to OK to see what her chances are.. That is very smart of her, instead of listening to someone like you that thinks they know everything So have you ever had to file to change jurisdiction? I have.. so I know a lot more about that then you could probally ever know.. In my case yes it did work out.. but not everyone gets so lucky, as I told her that myself..

Yeah - I have. And had it granted - because the other parent had moved to a different state. What you don't seem to understand is that CA is loathe to relinquish jurisdiction. And you did not tell OP that her chances were as slim as they are. Because they are between slim and none.