Custody Visitation - Ex moved away

[stealth2]

Sounds to me like your best bet is to get a atty and ask the court to change the whole thing so that the minor child spends a whole week at a time with one parent then the parents transport on a so called switch houses day and child is with the other parent , Of course you should talk to your atty to see if commutes can alternate too so that way you both share in the mileage for her choice.

Week on/week off is going to be problematic once school is in play.

 

[LdiJ]

Sounds to me like your best bet is to get a atty and ask the court to change the whole thing so that the minor child spends a whole week at a time with one parent then the parents transport on a so called switch houses day and child is with the other parent , Of course you should talk to your atty to see if commutes can alternate too so that way you both share in the mileage for her choice.

They now live an hour apart and the child will be starting school soon, so every other week doesn't work.

 

[_HappyDad_]

Some states have a default guide that outlines situations as a parent moving away. There would be a notice that any move outside of a specific radius would trigger a change in the parenting plan. If there are no clear guidelines for the parenting plan change, a hearing would be needed absent an agreement of the parents.

If you can, you would likely argue the child's ties to the community. Since your child is five, it might be hard to make it about remaining in the same school. In some states, the compulsory age of attendance is six years old, so the child has not been in school legally before that age.

As others have mentioned, your state might have a deadline to contest a move away. Do you know if that applies to you? You would want to ensure that a 50-50 parenting plan remains in place if a parent relocates to stay near the child, no matter which parent relocates. So, if the court grants the mother's move away, make sure you mention that you will move there, too, and that you want 50-50 to stay in place. (Vice versa if the mother moves back to your area).

 

[zddoodah]

Sounds to me like...

The OP hasn't been back to the thread since the day he started it three weeks ago and didn't respond to questions about highly relevant facts. Either the OP is taking action or accepted the situation. Either way, he doesn't appear to be interested in this thread anymore.

 

[Zigner]

If you can, you would likely argue the child's ties to the community. Since your child is five, it might be hard to make it about remaining in the same school. In some states, the compulsory age of attendance is six years old, so the child has not been in school legally before that age.

First - please try to avoid giving general advice instead of actually researching the applicable state laws.
Second - this particular paragraph is very poorly written. The way you wrote it implies that it is somehow against the law for children to be in school prior to their reaching the compulsory age of attendance, which is simply not true.

 

[_HappyDad_]

Zinger, which part of my post are you referring to regarding applicable state laws?

The compulsory attendance age is outlined in a state's respective board of education. Some parents argue that their child has been in "school" for two years. However, the child is only four years old. The point is that a child is not in school until the age of compulsory attendance is met, and states have deadlines or cut-offs for those ages.

I did not mean it to sound like a crime to send a kid to "preschool." But, the point is that preschool is not school by legal terms.

 

[Zigner]

Zinger, which part of my post are you referring to regarding applicable state laws?

In both of the points in your post, you failed to research applicable state law, instead offering general information that may, or may not, apply to the OP's situation.

The compulsory attendance age is outlined in a state's respective board of education. Some parents argue that their child has been in "school" for two years. However, the child is only four years old. The point is that a child is not in school until the age of compulsory attendance is met, and states have deadlines or cut-offs for those ages.

As worded, your previous post stated that it was illegal for children to attend school prior to reaching the compulsory age of attendance, and that is obviously untrue. Furthermore, it's entirely possible for children to attend actual school (not preschool) prior to reaching the compulsory age of attendance. I did it...my sister did it...my kids did it...my grandkids did it (and will do it).

And, one final point: The ages of compulsory attendance for school are established by state laws, not the states' boards of education.

 

[_HappyDad_]

Yes, it looks like we agree that compulsory age of attendance is a legal matter. I hope our exchange encourages OP and others reading to research their state guidelines. I was intentionally vague about the state, as I didn't want to specifically say what OP's state guidelines are. I am hoping he will do the research himself to strengthen his understanding. But, my general advice still applies.


I have not heard of truancy officers coming after the parents of a four-year-old for not being in school. And the more significant point is that schools must have a free public option. Sending kids to a facility where you can pick how many days a week the child attends a la cart is not a school. Schools have attendance requirements, and that was my point to OP. He likely cannot use the status quo of the school district if his child has not yet attended school according to the legal requirements we just discussed.


That's pretty awesome that you attended school at age four!

 

[Zigner]

I have not heard of truancy officers coming after the parents of a four-year-old for not being in school. And the more significant point is that schools must have a free public option. Sending kids to a facility where you can pick how many days a week the child attends a la cart is not a school. Schools have attendance requirements, and that was my point to OP. He likely cannot use the status quo of the school district if his child has not yet attended school according to the legal requirements we just discussed.


That's pretty awesome that you attended school at age four!

You're not getting it.

Let's say that the compulsory age of attendance in a hypothetical and unnamed state is 6 years old. Let's also say that kiddo started kindergarten (or even 1st grade) at 5 years old. There is no judge who would say that kiddo isn't attending "real" school, nor is it illegal in any way for kiddo to attend school at that age.

 

[_HappyDad_]

Yes, I agree that there is nothing illegal about attending school at an earlier age.

You're missing my point. No one is patrolling the streets for truant four-year-olds.

A four-year-old could attend first grade, for sure. But, there are no legal consequences for removing a four-year-old from first grade, unless the state guidelines mandate a four-year-old to attend first grade.

So, OP cannot likely argue that his kid has attended school in his district for the last three years if the kiddo is presently only five years old.

 

[Zigner]

Yes, I agree that there is nothing illegal about attending school at an earlier age.

You're missing my point. No one is patrolling the streets for truant four-year-olds.

Didn't say they were. I was merely pointing out that your statement was wrong. You have since (in a roundabout way) clarified your earlier statement, so I won't continue.

So, OP cannot likely argue that his kid has attended school in his district for the last three years if the kiddo is presently only five years old.

Where did three years come up?

In any case, the compulsory attendance law in Maryland requires attendance of a child at 5 years of age unless a 1-year exemption/extension is requested, AND, 1 year of kindergarten is required prior to entry into first grade (with some exceptions). https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=ged&section=7-301

Pointing out appropriate state law is always preferred over "general advice".

 

[_HappyDad_]

Right on. I didn't reference his state and only mentioned a possible approach for OP. You know, give a man a fish, or teach him to fish?

Three years came up because even if his kid was in kindergarten, which is not mandatory in all states, he might not be able to use school attendance as a means for the status quo for the school. Three years was an arbitrary number to provide an example.

If his kiddo has been in the same school for the last four years, then that would be a great approach to contest a move away from the mother. The kiddo would have established roots in that community. The kiddo would have friendships, activities, and such that could be a detriment to leave. Differently states, that it would not be in the child's best interest to be uprooted.

And, before you parse out that argument, yes, the mother is free to make her case based on best interest standards, as well.

But, with a five-year-old, that argument is a little more challenging. Does a five-year-old make that strong of friendships with classmates? That would require the opinion of an expert, perhaps. Can one contest a move away based on a five-year-old best friend?

I'm glad that you found the law for his state. That is helpful.

I am encouraging OP not to focus on just one thing to make his case; instead, he should find many details to bolster his case.

And, even more generally, for him, and any other poster, to look up as much information for themselves as possible.

 

[Zigner]

Right on. I didn't reference his state and only mentioned a possible approach for OP. You know, give a man a fish, or teach him to fish?

Most long-term members here will tell you that I'm have no aversion to guiding people to the answer vs giving them the answer in some instances. In other instances, however, it's more appropriate to cite state law.

 

[Ohiogal]

Yes, I agree that there is nothing illegal about attending school at an earlier age.

You're missing my point. No one is patrolling the streets for truant four-year-olds.

A four-year-old could attend first grade, for sure. But, there are no legal consequences for removing a four-year-old from first grade, unless the state guidelines mandate a four-year-old to attend first grade.

So, OP cannot likely argue that his kid has attended school in his district for the last three years if the kiddo is presently only five years old.

You are so wrong on so many points. A four year old CANNOT attend first grade for sure as you put it. Once a child is enrolled in school, that is when truancy laws kick in. That is when it matters. Please quit posting about laws that you don't understand.

 

[_HappyDad_]

What do you consider enrolled in school? What grade?

I was merely trying to agree with Stealth that a kid can attend school before the compulsory age, not that every four-year-old can attend school.

Have you seen parents get into trouble because their four-year-old was withdrawn from school?

What happens if they cannot handle full-time school at that age? Does a four-year-old have to struggle, despite not being mandated to attend at four years old?

What happens when one divorced parent enrolls a four-year-old into school, but the other parent clearly states their disagreement, and therefore the child only attends 50% of the time?

What other points am I incorrect on so that I can educate myself?