What if I do this...

[tdpltina]

What is the name of your state? California

No custody of my 4 year old has been legally established. An exboyfriend is the father, and he does pay court-ordered child support. I want to move to FL, but am afraid he will start a custody battle.

So...

I simply move to Florida and file for custody when I am there. What would I need to worry about?

 

[stealth2]

That he will file in the current state as soon as you leave and neither you nor the child are considered residents of FL. How would you feel if he did the same to you?

 

[casa]

What is the name of your state? California

No custody of my 4 year old has been legally established. An exboyfriend is the father, and he does pay court-ordered child support. I want to move to FL, but am afraid he will start a custody battle.

So...

I simply move to Florida and file for custody when I am there. What would I need to worry about?

If he pays court ordered child support, then some semblence of custody has been established-

If you move without giving notice or following CA move away law, you will find yourself returning to CA from FL for all hearings- You may be ordered to return to CA or forfeit custody- and either way, you'll likely end up paying all costs for transportation of visitation since you created the distance by moving.

There's a lot to worry about. Better to do things the right way.

 

[tdpltina]

If he pays court ordered child support, then some semblence of custody has been established-

If you move without giving notice or following CA move away law, ...

What's the move away law?

 

[stealth2]

Look up LaMusga - it shouldn't be tough as it was all over the news not long ago and redefined CA moveaway law.

 

[tdpltina]

Let me be more specific about this. The father and I were never married or cohabitated. We simply dated for a few weeks. I'm thinking that if I simply move to Florida and establish custody there, the California law doesn't even apply. It's not like the child ever lived with his father at any time.

 

[CJane]

Let me be more specific about this. The father and I were never married or cohabitated. We simply dated for a few weeks. I'm thinking that if I simply move to Florida and establish custody there, the California law doesn't even apply. It's not like the child ever lived with his father at any time.

You're risking being charged with kidnapping, and losing custody of your child. Is it worth that risk?

 

[tdpltina]

You're risking being charged with kidnapping, and losing custody of your child. Is it worth that risk?

Can you please cite something that says I'm risking being charged with kidnapping? That's exactly the sort of thing I need to see.

 

[stealth2]

Let me be more specific about this. The father and I were never married or cohabitated. We simply dated for a few weeks. I'm thinking that if I simply move to Florida and establish custody there, the California law doesn't even apply. It's not like the child ever lived with his father at any time.

HELLO! Is anyone home? He can file BEFORE you establish residency. Are you really so clueless? GO read LaMusga, then come back.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Can you please cite something that says I'm risking being charged with kidnapping? That's exactly the sort of thing I need to see.

You risk being charge with kidnapping, parental interference and a whole host of other crimes, both statutory and Federal.

So go ahead and move. Your child will be visiting you in prison before long

 

[tdpltina]

HELLO! Is anyone home? He can file BEFORE you establish residency. Are you really so clueless? GO read LaMusga, then come back.

OK there Mr. Stealth, this is the fiance talking here now. tdpltina didn't get on here to be abused. She came on here to get help in determining the best course of action to take, and is presenting "what ifs" to get constructive response. Keep up the attitude, and you'll be dealing with me.

Now, we did read LaMusga, and it does NOT necessarily reverse Burgess. Let us quote:

" There had been a history of conflict between the parents that led to difficulty in setting a reasonable visitation schedule. Mr. LaMusga had literally worked for years to obtain what many would regard as normal contact for a noncustodial parent, only to face the prospect that his children would be moved thousands of miles away. Mr. LaMusga had initially requested joint custody, while his former wife preferred sole custody and worked to minimize contact. A psychologist testified that the children were suffering from alienation and loyalty conflicts induced by the mother's attitude and behavior.

"The Contra Costa County Superior Court correctly considered a change in custody merely because a move was contemplated, regardless of whether the move itself was in "good faith," but made its decision on careful consideration of the evidence. It determined appropriately that the children would benefit from greater contact with their father rather than less, and decided that a change in custody, if the mother moved, would be in the children's best interest. The effect of less contact with the father would be detrimental to the children's development.

"Just as a move in "good faith" does not guarantee that custody will remain unchanged, the new decision clarifying existing law does not suggest a guarantee that custody will change merely because a custodial parent decides to move and a noncustodial parent objects...."

It seems to us that LaMusga simply puts things up for consideration rather than merely giving a mother a green light as Burgess, in effect, did. None of the above circumstances applies to tdpltina's case vis-a-vis conflict. Therefore, taking LaMusga to automatically mean that she risks losing custody is assumptive and not necessarily correct.

 

[casa]

OK there Mr. Stealth, this is the fiance talking here now. tdpltina didn't get on here to be abused. She came on here to get help in determining the best course of action to take, and is presenting "what ifs" to get constructive response. Keep up the attitude, and you'll be dealing with me.

Now, we did read LaMusga, and it does NOT necessarily reverse Burgess. Let us quote:

" There had been a history of conflict between the parents that led to difficulty in setting a reasonable visitation schedule. Mr. LaMusga had literally worked for years to obtain what many would regard as normal contact for a noncustodial parent, only to face the prospect that his children would be moved thousands of miles away. Mr. LaMusga had initially requested joint custody, while his former wife preferred sole custody and worked to minimize contact. A psychologist testified that the children were suffering from alienation and loyalty conflicts induced by the mother's attitude and behavior.

"The Contra Costa County Superior Court correctly considered a change in custody merely because a move was contemplated, regardless of whether the move itself was in "good faith," but made its decision on careful consideration of the evidence. It determined appropriately that the children would benefit from greater contact with their father rather than less, and decided that a change in custody, if the mother moved, would be in the children's best interest. The effect of less contact with the father would be detrimental to the children's development.
"Just as a move in "good faith" does not guarantee that custody will remain unchanged, the new decision clarifying existing law does not suggest a guarantee that custody will change merely because a custodial parent decides to move and a noncustodial parent objects...."

It seems to us that LaMusga simply puts things up for consideration rather than merely giving a mother a green light as Burgess, in effect, did. None of the above circumstances applies to tdpltina's case vis-a-vis conflict. Therefore, taking LaMusga to automatically mean that she risks losing custody is assumptive and not necessarily correct.

OK if your fiance can't hold her own ground, she shouldn't go stepping out alone now should she?

I'm in CA and have observed many many move-away cases. Your fiance has been advised appropriately...just because she <played?> dumb about the responses, doesn't mean she didn't get accurate information.

Since reading the statutes is left to interpretation- and your is as individual as anyone's is...here's the simple version: A move out of state from CA must be made by convincing the court that the move would be in the Best Interest of the child. (not the parent) ie; is there the CHILD's extended family in the new state? (in this case, No, it's YOUR family and you have no legal claim to the child at all even once you are married) Will the move take the child states away from their biological parent? Yes. Will the move take the child away from the school, community and support systems already establishes? Yes.

Whether your fiance was married to the father or not, he is legally established as the father (hence the child support order) and he has a right to be in his child's life and not have his child moved states away from him, greatly decreasing his time and opportunity to establish a bond.

If it's still a confusing concept for both of you, consider this: How about the child stay in CA with the father and Mom can move with you out of state? What? You/She don't like that idea? Why not?....Exactly!

 

[tdpltina]

Why do I get the feeling that this board is trolled by angry fathers with axes to grind?

casa, stealth, don't call tdpltina clueless, don't insinuate dumb. She's asking what ifs to get peoples' advice, not your insults. That shouldn't be hard for you two to understand. We're not trying to open a debate in here, we're trying to get a feel what is required to make this move.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Casa and Stealth are both women, so your assumption that this board is inhabited by angry fathers with an ax to grind is.... well.... WAY off the mark.

The child's legal state of residence is CA. Thats where you live now. Once you move to FL, your fiance couldn't file for custody until AFTER 6 months of being in that state. Period. It's called UCCJEA. Look it up. She can't just move to FL and file immediately. CA is the home state, and is where ANY AND ALL filings for custody or visitation would take place, even up to 6 months AFTER she moves to FL. She and the child may be living in FL, but that doesn't give FL the authority to hear a case based on UCCJEA (which all 50 states partake in).

So... if mom moves her and the child to FL, dad can file in CA for custody or visitation at the minimum. Guess who will be making cross-country trips to go to court? It won't be dad. And no... before you even ask... she can NOT get it "moved" to FL. Why? because FL is not the child's home state, won't be for 6 months, and a FL court doesn't have jurisdiction. CA does.

If she up and moves without permission from either the father or the court (or at least notice to the father of the intended move), she can bite off more than she can chew.

Is it really worth it to just up and move.... have to come back to CA for each and every hearing.... take a chance on losing the case and having to move back.... or even possibly losing custody?

The bare-bones truth is this.... she's wrong in her thinking:

I'm thinking that if I simply move to Florida and establish custody there, the California law doesn't even apply. It's not like the child ever lived with his father at any time.

CA law DOES apply as that's where jurisdiction would be. It's the child's home state. She couldn't file anything in FL until the child had been in FL for the 6 months preceding the filing.

 

[stealth2]

Well, Mr Fiance, your little tina got legal advice - she cannot simply waltz out of CA with the kid and expect to be able to deal with everything in another state. Doing so DOES place her at risk of some rather severe consequences. That neither of you like that answer is really not the board's problem. Maybe you'd both be better off if you sprung for an hour of time with a family law attorney. Perhaps s/he can explain to you that moving just to be with her new may-un may not be a good enough reason to move the child away from the father.