Just an observation

[jekyl007]

How is it that on January 12th you lived in NC, and now you live in OK?

I am moving to NC in april.. that is why I was asking about it for NC.. when he deploys I am moving to be closer to family and friends for both sides of the family while he is in afghanistan.. that is why I asked about NC with the guardianship.. He deploys first week of april and I move back there second week of april

*Edit* ex military wife so that is why I went from NC originally to PA, then to OK. and now back to NC in April

 

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by AbbaDabba730
How is it that on January 12th you lived in NC, and now you live in OK?


I am moving to NC in april.. that is why I was asking about it for NC.. when he deploys I am moving to be closer to family and friends for both sides of the family while he is in afghanistan.. that is why I asked about NC with the guardianship.. He deploys first week of april and I move back there second week of april

*Edit* ex military wife so that is why I went from NC originally to PA, then to OK. and now back to NC in April

Or maybe no one should believe anything you say.

 

[jekyl007]

Or maybe no one should believe anything you say.

or maybe you people are just so into flaming that you cant handle the truth on stuff and live in your own little world apparently.. you dont have to believe me.. I really dont care.. I have been honest with everything I have said.. why post it for OK when I am moving soon and will be in NC and that was the state that I would be in if she was to file for temp custody while he is in afghanistan? I mean seriously.. I can proove it all but dont have to..

 

[AbbaDabba730]

or maybe you people are just so into flaming that you cant handle the truth on stuff and live in your own little world apparently.. you dont have to believe me.. I really dont care.. I have been honest with everything I have said.. why post it for OK when I am moving soon and will be in NC and that was the state that I would be in if she was to file for temp custody while he is in afghanistan? I mean seriously.. I can proove it all but dont have to..

because if the child is a resident of OK, or PA or whatever than different laws apply than if you live in NC.

But I am sure you already know all of that since you are so smart

 

[jekyl007]

because if the child is a resident of OK, or PA or whatever than different laws apply than if you live in NC.

But I am sure you already know all of that since you are so smart

I was asking about the guardianship if she was to file while I was living in NC.. because I was not sure at the time if it would still be valid to use it in NC when it was done in OK.. but I got my answer myself because yet again, everyone was more interested in the fact that he called me mommy when bio mom doesnt see him or anything else.. thats all a lot of you do is flame people for this and that instead of actually trying to help them out.. but now we have already got the permission to go to NC and told that since it is a military document it can be used in NC at Fort Bragg.. but again, nobody helped out with that on here.. flame flame flame is what I see from most people on here..

 

[CreativeBlock]

flame flame flame is what I see from most people on here..

With all due respect, usually, when you see flames, there's a troll nearby. Ofttimes, cooking in a large pot and emitting the loveliest aroma.

Usually (and this is philosophy at best), when you see several people stating one thing and one person in opposition, majority doesn't rule because they can ~ they rule because they are right.

Obviously, some situations do not apply. But, usually, it applies.

 

[jekyl007]

With all due respect, usually, when you see flames, there's a troll nearby. Ofttimes, cooking in a large pot and emitting the loveliest aroma.

Usually (and this is philosophy at best), when you see several people stating one thing and one person in opposition, majority doesn't rule because they can ~ they rule because they are right.

Obviously, some situations do not apply. But, usually, it applies.

I do not see how someone is right for saying that telling someone that they "can legally file for a change in something, but may not recieve it" is irresponsible.. just because some of the popular girls (mean girls) all like to agree together doesnt make them right when it comes to flaming others or being mean to others.. nor does it make it right when they try to pass judgement on others without knowing their true situations.. people come here for some advice. not to be told they are "bad parents" or they "are selfish" and so on.. either stick to actually trying to help the people without calling names or being rude or dont be on here to "give" advice if you are only trying to give your opinions

 

[Silverplum]

So do as you've been told before: provide a proper legal citation for your statements.

All the other intelligent, educated grownups here do so, and have done so in this very thread. They've proven you wrong six ways from last Tuesday.

If you're correct, you'll be able to prove it.

I do not see how someone is right for saying that telling someone that they "can legally file for a change in something, but may not recieve it" is irresponsible.. just because some of the popular girls (mean girls) all like to agree together doesnt make them right when it comes to flaming others or being mean to others.. nor does it make it right when they try to pass judgement on others without knowing their true situations.. people come here for some advice. not to be told they are "bad parents" or they "are selfish" and so on.. either stick to actually trying to help the people without calling names or being rude or dont be on here to "give" advice if you are only trying to give your opinions

 

[jekyl007]

So do as you've been told before: provide a proper legal citation for your statements.

All the other intelligent, educated grownups here do so, and have done so in this very thread. They've proven you wrong six ways from last Tuesday.

If you're correct, you'll be able to prove it.

seriously have to provide a legal citation to proove that anyone can file for a change of jurisdiction? that is common knowledge that you can file for it.. but ok.. here you go

3. Exclusive continuing jurisdiction for the State that entered the decree. The failure of the UCCJA to clearly enunciate that the decree-granting State retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction to modify a decree has resulted in two major problems. First, different interpretations of the UCCJA on continuing jurisdiction have produced conflicting custody decrees. States also have different interpretations as to how long continuing jurisdiction lasts. Some courts have held that modification jurisdiction continues until the last contestant leaves the State, regardless of how many years the child has lived outside the State or how tenuous the child's connections to the State have become. Other courts have held that continuing modification jurisdiction ends as soon as the child has established a new home State, regardless of how significant the child's connections to the decree State remain. Still other States distinguish between custody orders and visitation orders. This divergence of views leads to simultaneous proceedings and conflicting custody orders. Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act - Family Law

The second problem arises when it is necessary to determine whether the State with continuing jurisdiction has relinquished it. There should be a clear basis to determine when that court has relinquished jurisdiction. The UCCJA provided no guidance on this issue. The ambiguity regarding whether a court has declined jurisdiction can result in one court improperly exercising jurisdiction because it erroneously believes that the other court has declined jurisdiction. This caused simultaneous proceedings and conflicting custody orders. In addition, some courts have declined jurisdiction after only informal contact between courts with no opportunity for the parties to be heard. This raised significant due process concerns. The UCCJEA addresses these issues in Sections 110, 202, and 206. Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act - Family Law



now no where did I state that CA would give it to her or that OK would try to steal it.. my comment was that, she could file for it but that she might not recieve it to be changed from there to here.. BUT you can file for it.. nobody can stop you from doing so because it is your legal right to file to have it moved.. however the other state can deny this request.. which is what I stated numerous of times

 

[jekyl007]

and since all the other proper grownups can provide stuff.. then someone show me something that states.. "A person can not FILE for a jurisdiction change"

 

[jekyl007]

As with the rendition of an initial child custody or visitation order, the jurisdictional requirements of the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (FPKPA, 28 USCA § 1738A) and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA, Ca Fam § 3400 et seq.) must be satisfied whenever a California court is called upon to modify a child custody/visitation order.

Both the UCCJEA and the FPKPA determine the proper forum as between interested states (or countries) for litigation of virtually all custody and/or visitation disputes.

If all concerned parties were California residents when a California court made the original custody/visitation determination and the parties remain California residents when a modification is sought, the California court's "continuing jurisdiction" will not be in issue. UCCJEA jurisdictional issues arise when either (a) a California court is asked to modify an out-of-state custody/visitation order; or (b) a California court is asked to modify its own custody/visitation order after any of the concerned parties has moved away.

Generally, the state that made the initial child custody determination will have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to modify the order. There cannot be "concurrent" UCCJEA modification jurisdiction. [Ca Fam §§ 3422, 3423]

A California court may not modify another state's custody/visitation order unless:

California has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under Ca Fam § 3421(a)(1) or (2) ("home state" or "significant connection" jurisdiction, ¶7:90 ff., 7:100 ff.); AND EITHER

• The other state court determines (i) it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because neither the child, nor the child and a parent, nor the child and a "person acting as a parent" , have a "significant connection" with that state and "substantial evidence" is no longer available in that state concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships, or (ii) a California court would be a "more convenient forum" to entertain the proceeding under Ca Fam § 3427; OR

• A California court or the other state court determines that the child, child's parents and any "person acting as a parent" do not presently reside in the other state. [Ca Fam § 3423(a) & (b); 28 USCA § 1738A(d),(f)]

If the California court is on notice (through the documents supplied by the parties) that custody litigation has been commenced in another state having jurisdiction "substantially in accordance with" the UCCJEA, the California court must stay its proceeding and communicate with the other state court to resolve the jurisdictional conflict. [Ca Fam § 3426(b)]



now again I stated.. that she would probally not get it.. but she can file to try that is on her.. The point is that she can file for it though if she chooses to

 

[CreativeBlock]

I do not see how someone is right for saying that telling someone that they "can legally file for a change in something, but may not recieve it" is irresponsible

That is a moot point. Anyone can file for anything in the US. I could file tomorrow that I am a faerie princess and I would be legally able to do so.

Doesn't make it valid, though.

... just because some of the popular girls (mean girls)

Again, with all due respect, you're assuming there's an investment of emotion on their part; I see no emotional investment on their part. Further, I think that assuming such is irrational.

Or you're assuming they have something to prove. And since I see no one on this thread who's asserted any legal expertise or credentials (though I do believe a few do have them, and then some), they have nothing to gain professionally OR emotionally.

I am a disinterested third party. I have not participated in either this thread prior, nor the thread that provoked this resulting thread. I have simply read with interest. And even I think that you're being too emotional and hypersensitive.

not to be told they are "bad parents" or they "are selfish" and so on..

With all due respect, it is selfish. Whether it's the right thing to do, or not, is immaterial. And I believe that is their gist (I could be wrong ~ and if I am assuming something without basis, ladies, please correct me). And I agree.

It may be easier and better long-term for the move, but you seem to be forgetting the child. Has anyone asked her if she'd like to move? If she's ready to give up on her father? Obviously, since she's a mere 18 months, no one has ~ nor would she be able to answer.

But it's not fair to her. She has the right to know her father. She has the right to see him more often than 6x a year, if she so wishes. Furthermore, many studies suggest strongly that just because a father is "disinterested" in his infant/toddler, that they can go on to form loving, close relationships.

I have heard many men declare that it's not until they reach an older age (presumably because there's the capacity for more interaction and less diaper-changing or discussions of Barney's latest video) that they find them "interesting." That could easily be the case, here.

either stick to actually trying to help the people without calling names or being rude or dont be on here to "give" advice if you are only trying to give your opinions

They've taken the time to search and cite laws, regulations, case histories, and precedents. That would constitute advice. That would actually constitute concern for the OP's situation. Otherwise, why would they bother?!

And FTR, I've not only conversed with several of the contributors in the other thread (as well as this one), but have seen many of their posts. They are sensitive people who are here because they care and they want to help.

Your reaction to their posts does not change that. Nor does it diminish that in any way. You do them a grave disservice by calling them "mean girls" and implying that their responses are cruel or otherwise non-productive.

 

[jekyl007]

That is a moot point. Anyone can file for anything in the US. I could file tomorrow that I am a faerie princess and I would be legally able to do so.

Doesn't make it valid, though.



Again, with all due respect, you're assuming there's an investment of emotion on their part; I see no emotional investment on their part. Further, I think that assuming such is irrational.

Or you're assuming they have something to prove. And since I see no one on this thread who's asserted any legal expertise or credentials (though I do believe a few do have them, and then some), they have nothing to gain professionally OR emotionally.

I am a disinterested third party. I have not participated in either this thread prior, nor the thread that provoked this resulting thread. I have simply read with interest. And even I think that you're being too emotional and hypersensitive.



With all due respect, it is selfish. Whether it's the right thing to do, or not, is immaterial. And I believe that is their gist (I could be wrong ~ and if I am assuming something without basis, ladies, please correct me). And I agree.

It may be easier and better long-term for the move, but you seem to be forgetting the child. Has anyone asked her if she'd like to move? If she's ready to give up on her father? Obviously, since she's a mere 18 months, no one has ~ nor would she be able to answer.

But it's not fair to her. She has the right to know her father. She has the right to see him more often than 6x a year, if she so wishes. Furthermore, many studies suggest strongly that just because a father is "disinterested" in his infant/toddler, that they can go on to form loving, close relationships.

I have heard many men declare that it's not until they reach an older age (presumably because there's the capacity for more interaction and less diaper-changing or discussions of Barney's latest video) that they find them "interesting." That could easily be the case, here.



They've taken the time to search and cite laws, regulations, case histories, and precedents. That would constitute advice. That would actually constitute concern for the OP's situation. Otherwise, why would they bother?!

And FTR, I've not only conversed with several of the contributors in the other thread (as well as this one), but have seen many of their posts. They are sensitive people who are here because they care and they want to help.

Your reaction to their posts does not change that. Nor does it diminish that in any way. You do them a grave disservice by calling them "mean girls" and implying that their responses are cruel or otherwise non-productive.

when some people resort to name calling others then I do see them as being "mean girls" I am not saying all of them.. but just a few.. nor did I ever once disagree about it not being right about the 18 month old not being able to see NCP.. the courts decided she could move.. so that isnt even the issue.. I have been through all this custody stuff before personally.. and I do not think its wrong to tell her that she can file for it.. especially when I am making it clear to her that she may not get it though.. She has a right to know all her legal options whether others agree with it or not.. And I still do not see how the ones who are flaming should be given respect when they arent giving advice instead they are calling people selfish and stuff like that.. I showed what I was asked to show.. and refuse to argue this any further.. I know I was not in the wrong and will leave it that way nor was I irresponsible for telling her that she could file it if she wants to.. I may have only been on here for a few days but I am far from new when it comes to custody matters..

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

I take notice to the word "selfish" when there is a move away situation. I was involved in one. Dad saw the child EOW & on Wed. nights. There was ONE teeney weeney issue. Dad did NOT support the children even though there was a court order.

I could NOT find a decent job (worked 3 part time jobs) that would provide benefits for any of us. Dad didn't work - he was "self employed" so HE provided no benefits. I was losing the house because I couldn't find a job. Therefore, when an opportunity showed up to move half way across the country, I took it.

Dad put up a valiant fight, but, the judge said it was SELFISH on HIS part to keep us there if he was not willing to put his MONEY where his mouth was.

I found a job within 6 weeks of moving here and have supported my children without the use of any government aid. Had I stayed, I would have been on TANF in a homeless shelter.

Therefore, before we call someone "selfish" for moving them, we MUST think of the child. Which is better? Food in the belly and a roof over their head, or a living in abject poverty as a burden to society.

 

[Monte86]

The thing I don’t understand is…
People come here for legal advice because they don’t know the answers, they get the answers and then proceed to try and answer OTHERS legal questions on the board RIGHT afterwards. If you didn’t know the answer to yours what makes you think you’ll know the answer to theirs? Maybe, but doubtful. I spent A LOT of time reading here to get the gist of the forum before answering ANY questions and even then I usually allow the seniors to answer. This is a great forum but I have learned if you act a fool, you’ll be treated that way.
MOST of the answers are out there on the internet to be found if you search. Trust me I have learned google is your friend.