• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Moving out of state with Joint Custody

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Bianca71

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Mississippi
My ex and I share joint custody of our children and I just moved from Delaware to Mississippi. Our visitation paper says "as agreed upon by both parties." He knew I was moving and made no attempts to stop me prior to the move. He did not sign anything saying that he knew I was moving though. Does he have a legal right to get my kids taken back to Delaware, either for fulltime or for visitation? If so, would he have to do it by getting full custody? Thanks for any advice. He hasnt paid me child support and I think that if I file he will get mad and try to do something nasty back to me. I need an answer before I file. Thanks.
 


CJane

Senior Member
Bianca71 said:
What is the name of your state? Mississippi
My ex and I share joint custody of our children and I just moved from Delaware to Mississippi. Our visitation paper says "as agreed upon by both parties."
What does the order state re: notification and relocation? I'm not in your state, but my parenting plan includes the following language, and I'm under the impression that it's fairly standard.

452.377. 1. For purposes of this section and section 452.375, "relocate" or "relocation" means a change in the principal residence of a child for a period of ninety days or more, but does not include a temporary absence from the principal residence.

2. Notice of a proposed relocation of the residence of the child, or any party entitled to custody or visitation of the child, shall be given in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, to any party with custody or visitation rights. Absent exigent circumstances as determined by a court with jurisdiction, written notice shall be provided at least sixty days in advance of the proposed relocation. The notice of the proposed relocation shall include the following information:

(1) The intended new residence, including the specific address and mailing address, if known, and if not known, the city;

(2) The home telephone number of the new residence, if known;

(3) The date of the intended move or proposed relocation;

(4) A brief statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation of a child, if applicable; and

(5) A proposal for a revised schedule of custody or visitation with the child, if applicable.

3. A party required to give notice of a proposed relocation pursuant to subsection 2 of this section has a continuing duty to provide a change in or addition to the information required by this section as soon as such information becomes known.

4. In exceptional circumstances where the court makes a finding that the health or safety of any adult or child would be unreasonably placed at risk by the disclosure of the required identifying information concerning a proposed relocation of the child, the court may order that:

(1) The specific residence address and telephone number of the child, parent or person, and other identifying information shall not be disclosed in the pleadings, notice, other documents filed in the proceeding or the final order except for an in camera disclosure;

(2) The notice requirements provided by this section shall be waived to the extent necessary to protect the health or safety of a child or any adult; or

(3) Any other remedial action the court considers necessary to facilitate the legitimate needs of the parties and the best interest of the child.

5. The court shall consider a failure to provide notice of a proposed relocation of a child as:

(1) A factor in determining whether custody and visitation should be modified;

(2) A basis for ordering the return of the child if the relocation occurs without notice; and

(3) Sufficient cause to order the party seeking to relocate the child to pay reasonable expenses and attorneys fees incurred by the party objecting to the relocation.

6. If the parties agree to a revised schedule of custody and visitation for the child, which includes a parenting plan, they may submit the terms of such agreement to the court with a written affidavit signed by all parties with custody or visitation assenting to the terms of the agreement, and the court may order the revised parenting plan and applicable visitation schedule without a hearing.
 

jelly

Member
I think in most states you would be required to notify him in writing x-many days in advance before the move.. I don't think you needed a signature from him, but you would need some proof, like an e-mail, or certified letter receipt that you made the attempt to tell him. So, I would think, unless you have that, he has a chance... he would have to go for full custody unless you move back, or he agrees to two months of summer, you know, unless you can mediate some kind of specific arrangement. the fact that he doesnt pay support now wont help him though.. i dont know what court would return the kids to a deadbeat dad. on the other hand, sucks for you because you where the one who moved, so most courts would feel like you have to pay for the trips, unfortunately, for the visitation.

my suggestion, though, would seriously be WAIT until the 6 month mark. for the purposes of the court after your kids have been at the new place for six months that becomes the HOME state with jurisdiction to consider and make judgements on custody. right now, it would still be the other state which would be to your dissadvantage. not that it seems like he has a real shot from what you say, but if a social worker does a home study they will go to his house, they are not gonna fly out to yours, and if they do, they will charge you.. so, if you are concerned of his retaliation for trying to get the support he owes, you'd be better off waiting until six months.

also, i would consider making the visitation specific, as specific as posible.. you can always remain flexible and alter it as needed, but it will save you trouble down the road.
 

VeronicaGia

Senior Member
jelly said:
my suggestion, though, would seriously be WAIT until the 6 month mark. for the purposes of the court after your kids have been at the new place for six months that becomes the HOME state with jurisdiction to consider and make judgements on custody. right now, it would still be the other state which would be to your dissadvantage. not that it seems like he has a real shot from what you say, but if a social worker does a home study they will go to his house, they are not gonna fly out to yours, and if they do, they will charge you.. so, if you are concerned of his retaliation for trying to get the support he owes, you'd be better off waiting until six months.

also, i would consider making the visitation specific, as specific as posible.. you can always remain flexible and alter it as needed, but it will save you trouble down the road.
As long as our posters ex remains in Delaware, that is where the court order will stay. Her new state will have no jurisdiction over him. She can wait 6 days, 6 months, 6 years, 600 years, it doesn't matter. She will be traveling to Delaware for all custody and support issues.
 

VeronicaGia

Senior Member
Now to our poster.....if he wants to now challenge your move, he can. It doesn't matter whether it is written in your order or not. Whether he wins or not, no one knows, but you can plan on being 100% responsible for all costs associated with visitation since you are the one who moved.

There is something people with kids don't understand. As adults YOU can move wherever you want. The kids fall under the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore it is the court that decides whether the kids can move or not, who will have custody, who pays support and how much and if medical and dental will be part of the order. Once you go to court, you give up your right to parent your kids without interference.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
jelly said:
my suggestion, though, would seriously be WAIT until the 6 month mark. for the purposes of the court after your kids have been at the new place for six months that becomes the HOME state with jurisdiction to consider and make judgements on custody. right now, it would still be the other state which would be to your dissadvantage. not that it seems like he has a real shot from what you say, but if a social worker does a home study they will go to his house, they are not gonna fly out to yours, and if they do, they will charge you.. so, if you are concerned of his retaliation for trying to get the support he owes, you'd be better off waiting until six months.
Most of the time it will NOT work this way. The originating state will retain jurisdiction. The child's Home State comes into play when there is no existing order.
 

jelly

Member
i dont think thats accurate..

there's a document called the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.. it dictates that the "home state" -where the chilkd has resided for the past 6 months- has priority in jurisdiction over custody UNLESS your original custody decree says that that particular court will have exclusive continuing jusrisdiction.
you can see the whole document at :
http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/uccjea97.htm


SECTION 201. INITIAL CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 204, a court of this State has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if:
(1) this State is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home State of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State;
(2) a court of another State does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (1), or a court of the home State of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum under Section 207 or 208, and
(A) the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this State other than mere physical presence; and
(B) substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships;
(3) all courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (1) or (2) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this State is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under Section 207 or 208; or
(4) no court of any other State would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (3).
(b) Subsection (a) is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child-custody determination by a court of this State.
(c) Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child-custody determination.


1. Home State Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the home State has been prioritized over other jurisdictional bases. Section 3 of the UCCJA provided four independent and concurrent bases of jurisdiction. The PKPA provides that full faith and credit can only be given to an initial custody determination of a "significant connection" State when there is no home State. This Act prioritizes home state jurisdiction in the same manner as the PKPA thereby eliminating any potential conflict between the two acts.

The six-month extended home state provision of subsection (a)(1) has been modified slightly from the UCCJA. The UCCJA provided that home state jurisdiction continued for six months when the child had been removed by a person seeking the child's custody or for other reasons and a parent or a person acting as a parent continues to reside in the home State. Under this Act, it is no longer necessary to determine why the child has been removed. The only inquiry relates to the status of the person left behind. This change provides a slightly more refined home state standard than the UCCJA or the PKPA, which also requires a determination that the child has been removed "by a contestant or for other reasons." The scope of the PKPA's provision is theoretically narrower than this Act. However, the phrase "or for other reasons" covers most fact situations where the child is not in the home State and, therefore, the difference has no substantive effect.







it may be helpful to review the whole document, the courts do abide by this:
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
And it is most often the case that the originating court WILL retain jurisdiction as long as one parent continues to reside there. Especially if s/he contests the jurisdiction change. To boil it down, the courts will not generally penalize the remaining parent for the distance created by the parent who moves.
 

BL

Senior Member
Most , If not all States Have Joint Custody Kidnapping ( yes Kidnapping ) Laws .
Some States have different names for it .

By the Posters own admission , she did NOT enter into an Agreement for the Children to be removed from the State .

Further more ,The Mother has Frustrated the Fathers rights with the intent to keep the Father from utilizing his visitation rights .

The Mother here wants to act like She does NOT understand the Courts Orders , when in Fact She does ( She admitted There was NO agreement made ) .

Secondly Child Support is a separate issue .

If the father can prove ( through the Children's school enrollments , Mothers Address , Etc ) , that The Mother intent was to Keep the Children in that State , He can :

1) File Joint Custody Custodial Interference ( Kidnapping ) , with the Police or the DA's Office . Most States recognize this as a Felony Crime .

2) File Civil contempt in Family Court , As I was advised File a Modification Petition instead and cite the Contempt .
 
Last edited:

LdiJ

Senior Member
However, back to her original question....Yes, if you file anything regarding child support dad is likely to challenge your move to Mississippi. If you leave it alone, he may not. Wait a year.
 

BL

Senior Member
LdiJ said:
However, back to her original question....Yes, if you file anything regarding child support dad is likely to challenge your move to Mississippi. If you leave it alone, he may not. Wait a year.
Does he have a legal right to get my kids taken back to Delaware, either for fulltime or for visitation? If so, would he have to do it by getting full custody? Thanks for any advice
Those were the questions , the last sentence about support was a comment.
 
most states and Judges frown on those who move themself and child(ren) out of the state. In fact in Texas they say you are free to leave, and even if you get a job in Hawaii making 1million a year, the courts will usually see the side of the parent that is staying in the same state and county, unless extreme situations are involved.
 

casa

Senior Member
jelly said:
i dont think thats accurate..

there's a document called the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.. it dictates that the "home state" -where the chilkd has resided for the past 6 months- has priority in jurisdiction over custody UNLESS your original custody decree says that that particular court will have exclusive continuing jusrisdiction.
you can see the whole document at :
http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/uccjea97.htm


SECTION 201. INITIAL CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 204, a court of this State has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if:
(1) this State is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home State of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State;
(2) a court of another State does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (1), or a court of the home State of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum under Section 207 or 208, and
(A) the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this State other than mere physical presence; and
(B) substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships;
(3) all courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (1) or (2) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this State is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under Section 207 or 208; or
(4) no court of any other State would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (3).
(b) Subsection (a) is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child-custody determination by a court of this State.
(c) Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child-custody determination.


1. Home State Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the home State has been prioritized over other jurisdictional bases. Section 3 of the UCCJA provided four independent and concurrent bases of jurisdiction. The PKPA provides that full faith and credit can only be given to an initial custody determination of a "significant connection" State when there is no home State. This Act prioritizes home state jurisdiction in the same manner as the PKPA thereby eliminating any potential conflict between the two acts.

The six-month extended home state provision of subsection (a)(1) has been modified slightly from the UCCJA. The UCCJA provided that home state jurisdiction continued for six months when the child had been removed by a person seeking the child's custody or for other reasons and a parent or a person acting as a parent continues to reside in the home State. Under this Act, it is no longer necessary to determine why the child has been removed. The only inquiry relates to the status of the person left behind. This change provides a slightly more refined home state standard than the UCCJA or the PKPA, which also requires a determination that the child has been removed "by a contestant or for other reasons." The scope of the PKPA's provision is theoretically narrower than this Act. However, the phrase "or for other reasons" covers most fact situations where the child is not in the home State and, therefore, the difference has no substantive effect.







it may be helpful to review the whole document, the courts do abide by this:
jelly you are missing the point. "Home state" is where the children live IF there is no standing court order...OR it is the state of the court hearing the issue. Once a custody ruling is made- THAT court retains jurisdiction unless/until BOTH the Custodial & Non Custodial parent move out of that state....AND the Custodial parent establishes legal residency in another state AND THEN domesticates the order to the new state.

Even if a Custodial parent moves out of state- as long as one of the parents remains in the original state, then jurisdiction remains there.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
Blonde Lebinese said:
I thought this posted last night , guess not :



Did we miss this or what , about bringing him BACK to Delaware ?

Is there a Delaware AZ ?? , because I can't find one in my Readers Digest drive America travel maps , or on the Net .
Where did you drag AZ from?
 

BL

Senior Member
I don't know ,I've got AZ stuck in my head , some thread about CA. and AZ . Dang I did it again , I will delete it , I deleted it last night too .

Ever had a brain day ? LOL I'm on my first cup a coffee , and No , there is no spirits in it . :) , nor did I have any last night .
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top