Thanks for that information about witnesses being separated. That was exactly what I was hoping to hear.
Ohiogal, I am not totally sure that any of my clients could give meaningful testimony as I described it since it would be speculation. But what they could say is that all of their projects are in the other state and it would help if I could be there too, and that they would have more jobs they could give me indefinitely (not just short term) if I were there to be able to meet in person and visit jobsites. I used to offer these services when I lived there, and it helped me be useful to clients on jobs that required extra hand-holding and oversight. I have several letters to that effect from various clients but I understand that those letters won't mean anything at trial without the person being there to say they wrote them-isn't that right? I can't afford to fly all of them out, and I was hoping that one of my clients testifying to the gist of what all the letters say will lend credibility to my stance across the board. What does "is your client going to testify and be certified as an expert?" mean? Are only experts permitted to testify for stuff like this?
I forgot to ask in my original thread if testimony by phone is ever done in custody trials.
LdiJ is right that in Hawaii the cost of living is higher than in the other state. The other state happens to be California which isn't necessarily cheap, but I have grocery ad comparisons (same store) that show Hawaii is at least 20% higher. Gasoline is about a buck a gallon more in Hawaii at the moment. Housing relatively similar, though.
Nextwife, I am considering trying to waive child support for a few years in exchange for his paying transportation costs, which I mentioned in another thread and I know how you don't like people to have multiple threads on relative subjects so I won't go too much into that here. To get the judge to see the logic in this I need to be able to illustrate how Dad funnels plenty of money through his life and therefore must have access to it. Basically I am wanting to show that he is arguing for the kids to stay in Hawaii without wanting to take responsibility for them. But if we actually DID move to California, his mommy would make sure he flew out as often as he wanted to see them. I know this is going way out on a limb, but he is claiming $1100 a month in income and has been floating a $3K a month household for 7 months so far, and racked up $15K in attorney fees. That extra money is available to him on demand is evident to me. Anyone else think this is a good argument or am I asking way too much of a mental leap here?
Basically it's a sad situation where Dad is not wanting to "man up" and I am willing to support the kids myself as he has said I should, but I can't do it here in Hawaii. No industry for me here. I need to be able to show the judge at trial that moving to CA equals higher income, which coupled with living rent free for a while with Dad will make our situation workable. Once our youngest is in school I will either have re-built my business enough to support us on our own or will get a regular in-house job with one of my clients. I have a few that would take me as a full time employee anytime and I suppose that testimony might matter as well.
I've done this one trade for 20 years in California, and trying to do it from Hawaii as I have for 4.5 years has diminished my usefulness to my clients and ultimately my income. Now that I am a single mom with an unsupportive STBX, it is critical that I return and save my livelihood, as it is the only one readily available to support the girls. He has "no skills" (his words in his response) and therefore according to him cannot be expected to contribute. I have this one skill and am willing to work at it but need to go where it counts.
I'm not looking to prove that moving to California in and of itself is better for the kids, but rather that this is what we must do to survive and it just so happens there are side benefits to doing so, such as better schools, extended family, and cultural opportunities not available on our little island. Of course his lawyer is focusing on those side benefits I've mentioned, claiming that I want to move there because it's in my best interest alone and because the kids will be near "fun things like Disneyland", and that I think these things outweigh their relationship with their father.
Not my point at all. If I ever mention Disneyland as an advantage to living somewhere, please shoot me. My stance is that there's nothing insurmountably wrong with Hawaii, and if Dad would get a job (or disclose the money he is actually living off of), maybe we could stay! Otherwise, here's my plan.
