Out of state visitation to noncustodial parent

[Stevenjay3]

Father wants mother (custodial parent) to send child to his new State of residence for visitation and wants mother to pay half the cost.

Father moved out of state by choice and not for reasons of employment.

Mother has informed father that he may visit child in home state with prior notice but will not send child to fathers new state of residence.

Father has had mother summoned to court for denial of visitation.
Mother has no money for lawyers. Father has received large inheritance and can afford travel to childs home state as well as paying lawyers to harass mother.

Terms of divorce allowed for outstate visitation only if mother were to move out of state (return to her home state) which she has not done. Mother continues to reside in state where divorce took place.

Divorce took place in Michigan. Father moved to New York.

Child's age: 12 years

Any comments or advice would be greatly appreciaited

[Mr. Knowitall]

What possible reason does the mother have for refusing to let the child visit his father in New York? I hope her reasoning is something more than "because I don't have to".

If Michigan's 100 mile rule applies, the father may have been obligated to go to court to get permission to move, at which time these issues (e.g., the split of cost, a new parenting time schedule) could have been resolved. If there's nothing that requires the mother to share in travel costs for parenting time, the father is probably solely responsible for that cost until a court rules otherwise.

[Stevenjay3]

Thanx for your response.

Father is an alcoholic with mental issues but she has no way to prove it. Would a petition from former neighbors aid her cause?

I think (not sure) 100 mile rule here applies only to parent with physical custody which he does not have.

[Mr. Knowitall]

It applies to a parent with legal or physical custody; he probably has joint legal custody.

[Stevenjay3]

Are you telling me that the father has to get permission from the court to move more than 100miles away if he has joint legal custody.

I hope so.

He did not receive permission from the court. He just moved.

Is he in trouble with the court?

Thank you again.

[aaron]

Assuming he moved after the statute came into effect, and the statute (MCL 722.31) applies to him on the basis that he is a joint legal custodian, then he should have obtained permission (or your consent) before moving.

(1) A child whose parental custody is governed by court order has, for the purposes of this section, a legal residence with each parent. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a parent of a child whose custody is governed by court order shall not change a legal residence of the child to a location that is more than 100 miles from the child's legal residence at the time of the commencement of the action in which the order is issued.

(2) A parent's change of a child's legal residence is not restricted by subsection (1) if the other parent consents to, or if the court, after complying with subsection (4), permits, the residence change. This section does not apply if the order governing the child's custody grants sole legal custody to 1 of the child's parents.

(3) This section does not apply if, at the time of the commencement of the action in which the custody order is issued, the child's 2 residences were more than 100 miles apart. This section does not apply if the legal residence change results in the child's 2 legal residences being closer to each other than before the change.

(4) Before permitting a legal residence change otherwise restricted by subsection (1), the court shall consider each of the following factors, with the child as the primary focus in the court's deliberations:

(a) Whether the legal residence change has the capacity to improve the quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent.

(b) The degree to which each parent has complied with, and utilized his or her time under, a court order governing parenting time with the child, and whether the parent's plan to change the child's legal residence is inspired by that parent's desire to defeat or frustrate the parenting time schedule.

(c) The degree to which the court is satisfied that, if the court permits the legal residence change, it is possible to order a modification of the parenting time schedule and other arrangements governing the child's schedule in a manner that can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship between the child and each parent; and whether each parent is likely to comply with the modification.

(d) The extent to which the parent opposing the legal residence change is motivated by a desire to secure a financial advantage with respect to a support obligation.

(e) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.

(5) Each order determining or modifying custody or parenting time of a child shall include a provision stating the parent's agreement as to how a change in either of the child's legal residences will be handled. If such a provision is included in the order and a child's legal residence change is done in compliance with that provision, this section does not apply. If the parents do not agree on such a provision, the court shall include in the order the following provision: “A parent whose custody or parenting time of a child is governed by this order shall not change the legal residence of the child except in compliance with section 11 of the “Child Custody Act of 1970”, 1970 PA 91, MCL 722.31.”.

(6) If this section applies to a change of a child's legal residence and the parent seeking to change that legal residence needs to seek a safe location from the threat of domestic violence, the parent may move to such a location with the child until the court makes a determination under this section.

If he comes back before the court to argue that you should contribute to travel costs, you can certainly point out that he moved without either your consent or court approval, and use that fact to argue that he should bear the travel costs.