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.
OP said $350 each way or $700 RT. It wasn't clear if that was for both or for each. I assumed it was for each. The cheapest RT I can find is a bit more than $350, so it may be $700 for both.
HOWEVER, that's not all the costs. Add in parking in OK ($6 per day). Add in driving expenses. Add in luggage fees. Add in a rental car in CA. Add in the lost wages since she apparently plans to stay all week. It's a LOT of money.
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
Your post suggested to her that she had a chance of transferring jurisdiction to OK - and that's the way she understood it. The chance of that happening is nearly zero - so your post did nothing to inform her and actually misled her into believing that something was possible when it really isn't.
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.
It IS out of the question. Sure, there's about a 0.01% chance that it would be granted, but federal law precludes it.
And the fact that you're even considering it, apparently as a method to get out of your court ordered transportation expenses, says a great deal about your desire to foster Dad's relationship with the child.
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.
BS. You had a $50 K job and refused it. At the time, you were unmarried and Dad had apparently not filed for custody of any type (based on the fact that you admit there were no court orders covering support). As an unmarried Dad, he had no right to determine what's right for the child without a court order for joint custody.
And even if he DID have custody, he had no right to tell you to pass up a $50 K job.
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.
I call BS.
First, there are state aid programs to help with CS. Second, it's interesting that you can get a $50 K job in CA when it's convenient, but when you're looking for an excuse to leave the state, there's nothing there but working at McDonald's. And you are apparently qualified enough to get a state job in OK without even showing up. OK is having major budget problem and has cut an enormous number of state jobs in the past year.
With reasonable effort, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to get a job in CA.
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.
No one cares about your ranting against Dad. The fact is that he did step up to the plate after a while and has rights. The court has told you that you have to pay transportation. End of story.
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.
Why in God's name should he have to give up 3 weeks of work to satisfy your selfish desire to move the child away from him? He has no obligation to do so and expecting him to is unrealistic.
You're also ignoring all the lost wages (you're going to spend 3 weeks not working if you do it with your schedule and 6 weeks not working if he has any sense). Car rentals. Lodging expense. Meals. Luggage fees. If he exercises his full 6 weeks, I'd be absolutely shocked if it's less than $10 K MINIMUM.
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.
No, worst case scenario is that you're further damaging any relationship between your child and her father. All over a topic where your chances of getting jurisdiction transferred are slim to none.
I just wish that ONCE in this entire thread, you had given a single reason why it was better for YOUR CHILD to move - but you haven't. It's all about you and your selfish desires.
