Good relocation info resource.

[stealth2]

http://www.famlawconsult.com/reader.html

 

[casa]

http://www.famlawconsult.com/reader.html

This will be a good one for Searches. Thanks for sharing Stealth.

 

[LdiJ]

http://www.famlawconsult.com/reader.html

It certainly IS a good resource. Its interesting to see the differences from one state to another as well.

Quite a few states don't put the full burden of proof on the relocating parent.

 

[casa]

It certainly IS a good resource. Its interesting to see the differences from one state to another as well.

Quite a few states don't put the full burden of proof on the relocating parent.

And some that used to...don't so much anymore. It's Sometimes good, & Sometimes bad.

 

[ceara19]

It's nice to see that Texas is just as nonsensical and vague on the relocation issue as they are on everything else.

 

[casa]

***Bump***

 

[tigger22472]

This issue was up to MUCH debate a few months ago when I took my family law course.

We were given a scenario of a couple who while married had moved across the country from their families due to the man's job. After the move the man was very involved in his job and eventually had an affair. When the wife found out she filed for divorce. Within the divorce she filed to relocate back to the original state with their child where the grandparents lived.

Like some of the states in the link given here we were told that MOST states will give a relocating parent the right to move as long as they show that it was not to prevent, prohibit or deny visitation and not to be vindictive. Lots of words like 'virtual visitation' were thrown around.

We were asked if we were the judge would we allow the wife to move. I was the only person , including the professor that said No. Everyone stated they would allow it because by moving back (mind you they had moved away several years prior) the wife would have support of other family members and since the husband had been so involved with his work and his affair, obviously he did not care enough about his child for it to matter if the wife moved or not. On top of all of this, all the students and the professor, said they would petition to have the man pay for all transportation (if I remember correctly the states were Florida and NY).

The point I'm trying to make by pointing this out is that ANYTHING basically can be used to attempt to show 'best interest of the child' and more and more judges are allowing these moves. All one has to say is that they have family and a support system where they want to move and many, many times it is being allowed.

 

[casa]

This issue was up to MUCH debate a few months ago when I took my family law course.

We were given a scenario of a couple who while married had moved across the country from their families due to the man's job. After the move the man was very involved in his job and eventually had an affair. When the wife found out she filed for divorce. Within the divorce she filed to relocate back to the original state with their child where the grandparents lived.

Like some of the states in the link given here we were told that MOST states will give a relocating parent the right to move as long as they show that it was not to prevent, prohibit or deny visitation and not to be vindictive. Lots of words like 'virtual visitation' were thrown around.

We were asked if we were the judge would we allow the wife to move. I was the only person , including the professor that said No. Everyone stated they would allow it because by moving back (mind you they had moved away several years prior) the wife would have support of other family members and since the husband had been so involved with his work and his affair, obviously he did not care enough about his child for it to matter if the wife moved or not. On top of all of this, all the students and the professor, said they would petition to have the man pay for all transportation (if I remember correctly the states were Florida and NY).

The point I'm trying to make by pointing this out is that ANYTHING basically can be used to attempt to show 'best interest of the child' and more and more judges are allowing these moves. All one has to say is that they have family and a support system where they want to move and many, many times it is being allowed.

In states where the burden falls on the CP (OR the NCP)...it's still a case-by-case determination. *IMO* In the case you mentioned, it made sense to allow the move-away...whereas in cases where there is an active NCP in the child's life- the move may not have been allowed. And even further, there are geographical implications re; which states view infedility etc., as a determining factor in divorce/custody.

 

[tigger22472]

In states where the burden falls on the CP (OR the NCP)...it's still a case-by-case determination. *IMO* In the case you mentioned, it made sense to allow the move-away...whereas in cases where there is an active NCP in the child's life- the move may not have been allowed. And even further, there are geographical implications re; which states view infedility etc., as a determining factor in divorce/custody.

My arguement in that factor was firstly that in the scenario the request was right out the starting gate. You know the saying, "You don't know what you had until you've lost it" and so maybe the husband wasn't an attentive father, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have later. My other argument was that it was a young child involved (I think around 4) and although it may not have been the proper thinking but obviously in marriages when there is an affair there are generally issues in the marriage where the couple cannot get along. When it gets that far many realize the concequences that are suffered by others. My point was maybe the man didn't want to be around his wife and as a concequence the child suffered from his lack of attention also. Divorce and visitation would change this, he wouldn't have to be with the wife to be with the child.

My biggest complaint however, was over and over we were told that it would likely be granted if it was shown to be in the child's best interest and NOT to be vindictive. But, everyone (and mind you, the professor was a lawyer and many of the students are going on to law school) said they would allow the move because A) he wasn't an attentive father BECAUSE of the affair, pointing out that the affair is what took him from the house and B) that the man had used joint account money with the mistress, in their opinion, once again proving he didn't care about the child (even though there was no indication that this action caused the child to suffer in any way). My issue was ok, maybe the wife didn't ASK for the relocation to be vindictive, but everyone was sure willing to give it to her for those reasons.

 

[casa]

My arguement in that factor was firstly that in the scenario the request was right out the starting gate. You know the saying, "You don't know what you had until you've lost it" and so maybe the husband wasn't an attentive father, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have later. My other argument was that it was a young child involved (I think around 4) and although it may not have been the proper thinking but obviously in marriages when there is an affair there are generally issues in the marriage where the couple cannot get along. When it gets that far many realize the concequences that are suffered by others. My point was maybe the man didn't want to be around his wife and as a concequence the child suffered from his lack of attention also. Divorce and visitation would change this, he wouldn't have to be with the wife to be with the child.

My biggest complaint however, was over and over we were told that it would likely be granted if it was shown to be in the child's best interest and NOT to be vindictive. But, everyone (and mind you, the professor was a lawyer and many of the students are going on to law school) said they would allow the move because A) he wasn't an attentive father BECAUSE of the affair, pointing out that the affair is what took him from the house and B) that the man had used joint account money with the mistress, in their opinion, once again proving he didn't care about the child (even though there was no indication that this action caused the child to suffer in any way). My issue was ok, maybe the wife didn't ASK for the relocation to be vindictive, but everyone was sure willing to give it to her for those reasons.

Right...and unfortunately in some states fidelity is considered when determining custody (Which I do not agree with, despite my own personal moral values). Probably in the case you were studying~ The most important factor was that Mom had no extended family (support) since she had moved to that state specifically to be with Dad <?>