Why is my County not enforcing State Law?

[johnjgabel87]

Missouri is where I live and is where my wife filed for divorce... She filed for divorce on July 2nd of this year. Later that day she took my daughter without consent and went to Oklahoma State for the night and then moved in with her mother in the State of Colorado the next day... I called the police and they said they can not do anything since we are married. Last night I discovered this Missouri State Law... "Petition, contents--service, how--rules to apply--defenses abolished--parenting plans submitted, when, content, exception.
452.3103. Upon the filing of the petition in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation, each child shall immediately be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in which the proceeding is commenced, unless a proceeding involving allegations of abuse or neglect of the child is pending in juvenile court. Until permitted by order of the court, neither parent shall remove any child from the jurisdiction of the court or from any parent with whom the child has primarily resided for the sixty days immediately preceding the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage or legal separation." So I called my County Sheriff to remind them of the State Law and they still tell me they can not do anything... Why is my County not enforcing Missouri State Law???? How do I make my County Enforce this Law without paying for a lawyer?

 

[LdiJ]

Missouri is where I live and is where my wife filed for divorce... She filed for divorce on July 2nd of this year. Later that day she took my daughter without consent and went to Oklahoma State for the night and then moved in with her mother in the State of Colorado the next day... I called the police and they said they can not do anything since we are married. Last night I discovered this Missouri State Law... "Petition, contents--service, how--rules to apply--defenses abolished--parenting plans submitted, when, content, exception.
452.3103. Upon the filing of the petition in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation, each child shall immediately be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in which the proceeding is commenced, unless a proceeding involving allegations of abuse or neglect of the child is pending in juvenile court. Until permitted by order of the court, neither parent shall remove any child from the jurisdiction of the court or from any parent with whom the child has primarily resided for the sixty days immediately preceding the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage or legal separation." So I called my County Sheriff to remind them of the State Law and they still tell me they can not do anything... Why is my County not enforcing Missouri State Law???? How do I make my County Enforce this Law without paying for a lawyer?

Because divorce and its related laws are civil actions, not criminal actions. The job of the police is to fight crime and enforce statutes regarding criminal actions.

The police don't enforce contracts either, because those are also civil law. You have no way to enforce that law without going to court.

By the way, you both resided with the child for the sixty days preceeding the filing of divorce, so she did not break that part of the law. You stood on equal ground.

 

[johnjgabel87]

how do i contest the divorce?

since i will be representing myself, how do I contest the divorce and custody? what paperwork do i need to file and where can I go online to educate myself abou how I do this? I have been looking all over and can't find out how I do that... she is not letting me have any contact with my child but on few rare occasions am i able to call and talk to my daughter. my wife is not having any contact with me at all.

 

[Proserpina]

since i will be representing myself, how do I contest the divorce and custody? what paperwork do i need to file and where can I go online to educate myself abou how I do this? I have been looking all over and can't find out how I do that...

Start reading.

The forums here are very helpful; you should also start learning the civil and local rules of procedure.

See if your local courthouse has a self-help center, too.

In all honesty, an attorney would be your best bet if this is going to be contentious.

And Dad - get going on this. Mom has been gone for almost 3 months, and if she's gone for much longer you may not be able to have your child returned to your State.

 

[ecmst12]

I don't believe you are equipped to represent yourself in this matter. I would suggest applying for legal aid, or do whatever you need to do to get yourself a lawyer.

 

[johnjgabel87]

I accordance to my first post

Petition, contents--service, how--rules to apply--defenses abolished--parenting plans submitted, when, content, exception.
452.310

3. Upon the filing of the petition in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation, each child shall immediately be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in which the proceeding is commenced, unless a proceeding involving allegations of abuse or neglect of the child is pending in juvenile court. Until permitted by order of the court, neither parent shall remove any child from the jurisdiction of the court or from any parent with whom the child has primarily resided for the sixty days immediately preceding the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage or legal separation."

Now to my understanding that Preceding means to start, continue. Now I am under the impression that since "Upon the filing of the petition in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage.... each child shall IMMEDIATELY be subject to the jurisdiction of the court..." that meaning right after the divorce has been filed the child is in jurisdiction of the court and for the "preceding (starting) of the filing of a petition" , that for the (starting after the petition has been filed which is what preceding meaning to start/ continue) 60 days the child CAN NOT be taken away out side of the courts jurisdiction... Now I do believe that's what that means... because when it states that IMMEDIATELY the child is in jurisdiction of the court and for the 60 days preceding the filing the child shall not be removed from the other parent.... i honestly believe that's what that means.... It does say pretty clear that no one is to take the child out of jurisdiction where the child has been primarily living, FOR THE SIXTY DAYS meaning for sixty days STARTING the child cannot be take out of jurisdiction... I am just used to taking what ever comes and now im done... I am trying to get to the core of this because alot of people, and i know myself can mis understand the law and it is up to people like me or a lawyer to catch those commonly made mistakes of interpretation of the law...

 

[johnjgabel87]

from the last reply

I would get a lawyer if I could... Who on earth would not get a lawyer if they could... I was the stay at home dad... I was raising our daughter while my wife worked... We had a agreement and we live out of town... So when she left, I HAD NOTHING, no anything, stranded out in the middle of no where with no money, no transportation, and legal aid is denying me because of conflict of interest and i dont understand where that resides from... My wife is also using a lawyer that used to be my judge, and from the law firm that me and my family have used on the SAME cases that that retired judge, now lawyer, that same law firm represented me. I'm not ignorant, I was abandoned and like a poor sick dog, you cant just make it better without help and my help left me. It was a suprise to me and my whole family

 

[johnjgabel87]

And just to say if any missunderstandin

I am in no way saying that anyone is wrong in there words, I do know that asking questions and questioning the law and it's meaning is the best thing i can do because I would rather know than to be ignorant and just agree with what ever anybody says because like the police stated i could not do anything but then to find out I could have filed a TRO to bring my daughter back and that may not have worked but it was at least worth a shot... because ignorance is when you don't ask and find out, you just accept what was done and said and ignorance in no exception to the law. IT's best to ask if there are any questions that pertain to the law and how it is stated.. Thats how you gain knowladge, people make mistakes, i know i have made plenty

 

[LdiJ]

I am in no way saying that anyone is wrong in there words, I do know that asking questions and questioning the law and it's meaning is the best thing i can do because I would rather know than to be ignorant and just agree with what ever anybody says because like the police stated i could not do anything but then to find out I could have filed a TRO to bring my daughter back and that may not have worked but it was at least worth a shot... because ignorance is when you don't ask and find out, you just accept what was done and said and ignorance in no exception to the law. IT's best to ask if there are any questions that pertain to the law and how it is stated.. Thats how you gain knowladge, people make mistakes, i know i have made plenty

You are interpreting the first part of the statute correctly. The child should not have been removed from Missouri and Missouri has jurisdiction. However if you consent to the child being removed from Missouri, then the child can be removed. Your problem, is that in waiting so long to challenge the move in court, you lend credibility to any argument that mom might make that you consented to the move.

The second part of the statute you are not interpreting correctly. Since you BOTH lived with the child in the 60 days preceeding the filing of divorce, you BOTH had equal rights to have the children living with you now.

Otherwise, that would force divorcing parents to continue to live together, because neither one of them could remove the child from the other parent.

If one of you had moved out, without taking the children, and did not live with the children for 60 or more days preceeding filing for divorce, then that person would not be able to remove the children from the parent with whom they had been living for the last 60 days.

 

[johnjgabel87]

I had just found out about the TRO a last week

Now I see that because it has been so long that it would be hard to bring my daughter back but the purpose of the Immediate Reliefe is to show proof that there was no consent. I did contact the city and county police within weeks after my wife had taken our daughter out of state so by contacting them again to verify if they would testify in court to help prove that I did not have consent befor hand, would that help my case any?

 

[johnjgabel87]

You are interpreting the first part of the statute correctly. The child should not have been removed from Missouri and Missouri has jurisdiction. However if you consent to the child being removed from Missouri, then the child can be removed. Your problem, is that in waiting so long to challenge the move in court, you lend credibility to any argument that mom might make that you consented to the move.

The second part of the statute you are not interpreting correctly. Since you BOTH lived with the child in the 60 days preceeding the filing of divorce, you BOTH had equal rights to have the children living with you now.

Otherwise, that would force divorcing parents to continue to live together, because neither one of them could remove the child from the other parent.

If one of you had moved out, without taking the children, and did not live with the children for 60 or more days preceeding filing for divorce, then that person would not be able to remove the children from the parent with whom they had been living for the last 60 days.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I see that because it has been so long that it would be hard to bring my daughter back but the purpose of the Immediate Reliefe is to show proof that there was no consent. I did contact the city and county police within weeks after my wife had taken our daughter out of state so by contacting them again to help prove that I did not have consent befor hand, would that help my case any?

 

[LdiJ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I see that because it has been so long that it would be hard to bring my daughter back but the purpose of the Immediate Reliefe is to show proof that there was no consent. I did contact the city and county police within weeks after my wife had taken our daughter out of state so by contacting them again to help prove that I did not have consent befor hand, would that help my case any?

I doubt that would help you. That wasn't the appropriate avenue to take, which you would have known if you had consulted an attorney or had come to this forum 3 months ago.