Just an observation

[jekyl007]

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.

yes I couldnt agree more.. that is why I do feel it was wrong for someone to call her selfish when she was doing it for her child.. sorry you had to go through all that.. I know how it is.. if you have a better chance of making it somewhere else without the help of welfare then that is far from selfish =)

 

[jekyl007]

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.

because what I asked about I had never experienced before.. that is why I asked specifically about that.. but when it came to her asking if she could file to try to get a change in jurisdiction, then yes I answered that because I do know a lot about that.. so there is a difference.. I asked about something I knew nothing about.. then replied to something that I did know about

 

[divona2000]

rocknrollmommy was already warned 8 months ago of the problems she is about to face.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/unmarried-cohabitating-mother-needs-move-out-state-8-4-10-a-520889.html

Originally Posted by rocknrollmommy
I would like to file for custody in Oklahoma, but I've heard that I must reside there for 6 months before I can do so. Is this correct?

Yep. Until you establish residence in OK

When it comes to visitation, how is that normally worked out when the parents live in different states and the child is so young? Do I pay for him to fly out? Does he pay for us to fly back? Is the one of us supposed to pay to put the other up in a hotel for the duration of the visitation?

Since you'd be creating the distance, you'd theoretically be responsible for transportation, and possibly his expenses if he has to stay in a hotel.

...and...

It may all be moot anyway, since she doesn't actually have the court's permission yet...
"We went through the evaluation process and we received the recommendation on 12/27 that stated I should be granted my request to move back to Oklahoma and since there were no objections it was submitted to the court yesterday for the judges approval"

 

[Silverplum]

because what I asked about I had never experienced before.. that is why I asked specifically about that.. but when it came to her asking if she could file to try to get a change in jurisdiction, then yes I answered that because I do know a lot about that.. so there is a difference.. I asked about something I knew nothing about.. then replied to something that I did know about

Corrected version:

You replied incorrectly to a legal question you know nothing about.

Just like a hundred and three other noobs per month. So very common.

 

[jekyl007]

Corrected version:

You replied incorrectly to a legal question you know nothing about.

Just like a hundred and three other noobs per month. So very common.

ok geez seriously.. some of you people need to learn to read.. so let me try to put it in more simple terms for those of you who might need a dictionary..

when I asked about the guardianship papers it was because I was unsure how those worked because I had never dealt with that before... when I told the poster that she COULD file for a change in jurisdiction if she wanted to but that she might not would get it, that is because I have been through that sometimes I think some of you read only every other word.. the bear ate the cookie.. let me guess you just read "the ate cookie" Just because I am new on here does not mean that I am new to custody.. after all I do have two OLDER kids and have been through most of it before.. I do not answer something unless I have had to go through it and learn the laws of it myself..

 

[Proserpina]

The fact that this thread even exists is ridiculous to begin with.

 

[GinAA]

The fact that this thread even exists is ridiculous to begin with.

I 2nd that statement.

 

[Zigner]

...when I told the poster that she COULD file for a change in jurisdiction...

That is what is called a RED HERRING. Don't guess.

 

[CSO286]

I 2nd that statement.

I second that second.

Can we get a vote on thread closure?

I vote yes.

 

[GinAA]

I second that second.

Can we get a vote on thread closure?

I vote yes.

I vote yes as well.

 

[CreativeBlock]

I second that second.

Can we get a vote on thread closure?

I vote yes.

Yes, for me, too.

I think LdJ made her point adequately and the rest is either conjecture or semantics. At the very least, it's grist for the argument mill.