• 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.

Right to Move

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

Questions111

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Texas


I am a soon-to-be mother who currently lives in Houston and wants to move to Dallas within the next year or so. The father of the baby and I were never married, never lived together and basically had a short relationship. My family lives in Dallas and I basically have no support-system here in Houston. I really want to move to Dallas which is my home, which I'm extremely familiar with and where I can have the help of my parents but I'm afraid if I wait until the baby is born, he can stop me. Can he keep me from moving? Even though it is still within the same state?
 


Zephyr

Senior Member
after paternity, and his rights as a father have been requested, he can petition the court to have the child moved not more than a certain distance from him (like not more than 150 miles).
 

Questions111

Junior Member
Do courts typically grant that? They would really make the mother (and child) stay in a city just because the father lives there? So are you saying that I should move before the baby is born if I plan to move?
 
Questions111 said:
Do courts typically grant that? They would really make the mother (and child) stay in a city just because the father lives there? So are you saying that I should move before the baby is born if I plan to move?
Ok, the restriction in question here is called a Restriction of Domicile. Here in Houston they restrict to the 5 contigious counties. Harris, Galveston, Fort Bend etc. The Standard Order of Possession stipulation is 100 miles.

Yes, this is typically granted if the father has any involvement with the child. TX likes to keep broken families as close as they can.

Can you talk to your ex and explain to him that Dallas is where you need to be?

See, what happen with me is that I allowed my ex one move to Houston, then once I go here, I placed the Restriction of Domicile on my son. It's not an unresonable request. The agreement my ex and I had was a break in CS to cover some of my expensess of flying back and forth from Phoenix to Houston. Maybe you guys can do the same.
 

brisgirl825

Senior Member
Questions111 said:
Do courts typically grant that? They would really make the mother (and child) stay in a city just because the father lives there? So are you saying that I should move before the baby is born if I plan to move?
It's hard to tell if the courts would allow you to leave or not. However, you do have the choice to move, before the baby is born, w/o input from dad or the courts.
 
brisgirl825 said:
It's hard to tell if the courts would allow you to leave or not. However, you do have the choice to move, before the baby is born, w/o input from dad or the courts.
Not doing anyone a favor here!!!!
 

Zephyr

Senior Member
js- it may not be the morally right thing to do, but I think bris was just saying that at this point in time the op does have the legal right to move where ever she likes.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
WANNACRY said:
js- it may not be the morally right thing to do, but I think bris was just saying that at this point in time the op does have the legal right to move where ever she likes.
Yes, she does have the legal right to move wherever she likes. She also has the right to be given the information that she can do that as long as she does it before the baby is born. However....let me ask a question. The child isn't born yet and the mother doesn't want to live in Houston, she wants to live in Dallas. Why is it that "morally" the mother has to live where the father chooses to live? Why shouldn't "morally" dad be required to live where mom wants to live? I realize the question is a bit absurd...but there is some hypocracy in that issue.
 

Zephyr

Senior Member
sorry I wasn't clear on my wording LdiJ, I was specifically addressing jslopez's obvious annoyance with the advice given by brisgirl, not making a judgement.

:)
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
WANNACRY said:
sorry I wasn't clear on my wording LdiJ, I was specifically addressing jslopez's obvious annoyance with the advice given by brisgirl, not making a judgement.

:)
I really wasn't directing that at you specifically...it was more a general comment. I have just always found it a bit hypocritical that the consensus is that mom must remain somewhere (where she doesn't want to be) for the next 18 years, rather than dad having to make that sacrifice.
 

CJane

Senior Member
LdiJ said:
I really wasn't directing that at you specifically...it was more a general comment. I have just always found it a bit hypocritical that the consensus is that mom must remain somewhere (where she doesn't want to be) for the next 18 years, rather than dad having to make that sacrifice.
O/T It's right up there with assuming that because MOM doesn't have custody, the judge must have had 'good reason' or dad had 'strong evidence against' her, or whatever - when very few people make the same assumptions about dads who don't have custody.
 
WANNACRY said:
sorry I wasn't clear on my wording LdiJ, I was specifically addressing jslopez's obvious annoyance with the advice given by brisgirl, not making a judgement.

:)
I wasn't annoyed at anything. I was pointing out that at a glance, without any other information, it is in the best interest of the child to have both parents in his/her life. That is all.
 
LdiJ said:
I really wasn't directing that at you specifically...it was more a general comment. I have just always found it a bit hypocritical that the consensus is that mom must remain somewhere (where she doesn't want to be) for the next 18 years, rather than dad having to make that sacrifice.
I will agree with you if the move would DRAMATICALLY improve the childs welfare. Restriction of Domicile provisions are not designed to intrude in the child's best interest. They are designed to protect the parent child relationship. They can always be challenged and they are overturned often. One shouln't have to chase a moving target.
 

Zephyr

Senior Member
jslopez711 said:
One shouln't have to chase a moving target.
I agree with you js- however if all adults/parents acted like responsible adults/parents, the courts wouldn't be backlogged and there wouldn't be a need for sites like this one.

a non custodial parent should not have to chase a cp all over to maintain their relationship with their child, however I totally agree with LdiJ on the fact that one adult should not be stuck in an area that they hate or can't thrive in or can't get any support in.
 
WANNACRY said:
I agree with you js- however if all adults/parents acted like responsible adults/parents, the courts wouldn't be backlogged and there wouldn't be a need for sites like this one.

a non custodial parent should not have to chase a cp all over to maintain their relationship with their child, however I totally agree with LdiJ on the fact that one adult should not be stuck in an area that they hate or can't thrive in or can't get any support in.
Keep in mind that all the Restrictions of Domiciles are placed on the children, not the parents. And as unpopular as my next statement may sound, it is what it is. --Everything in life is a choice, weather it's a favorable choice or a non-favorable, these are choices.

As far as your other argument, yes, everyone needs a support group around. But if it was that bad, she should have moved long ago.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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