Who Should Pay Travel Costs for Visitation

My question involves a child custody case from the State of: CA

a little background: I've lived 75 miles from my Children's mom for last 2 years. Visitation has been every other weekend and long periods in Summer with travel costs being shared. I would pick the children up at her home and she would at mine. Financial situation is that I work, she doesn't (although the court is encouraging her to). I pay Child and Spousal Support.

My job has required for me to relocate to Northern CA from Southern CA. So, the children will need to travel further which will be increase costs. Air travel rather than car.

I have had to move in the past for employment and did so when married to the children's mom, so this is not new. If I did not move my employment would be at risk and there would be no money for anything. Presently, I in effect pay for everything through support.

My question is can the courts impose on her to share the travel costs? Or, the fact that I would have increased costs for visitation travel, can/should this be applied to calculating support which would reduce support. Which argument is appropriate.

Thanks for any help
Mark

The court can do whatever it believes to be in the best interest of the children, taking into consideration your respective means and, of course, the fact that it is you who is causing the increased distance and cost.

what in the world makes you think the court will order your ex to pay for your moving expenses?

Quote:

---

Quoting Lehk

---

what in the world makes you think the court will order your ex to pay for your moving expenses?

---

Where was that ever mentioned?

Quote:

---

Quoting Mark01

---

My question involves a child custody case from the State of: CA

a little background: I've lived 75 miles from my Children's mom for last 2 years. Visitation has been every other weekend and long periods in Summer with travel costs being shared. I would pick the children up at her home and she would at mine. Financial situation is that I work, she doesn't (although the court is encouraging her to). I pay Child and Spousal Support.

My job has required for me to relocate to Northern CA from Southern CA. So, the children will need to travel further which will be increase costs. Air travel rather than car.

I have had to move in the past for employment and did so when married to the children's mom, so this is not new. If I did not move my employment would be at risk and there would be no money for anything. Presently, I in effect pay for everything through support.

My question is can the courts impose on her to share the travel costs? Or, the fact that I would have increased costs for visitation travel, can/should this be applied to calculating support which would reduce support. Which argument is appropriate.

Thanks for any help
Mark

---

Generally, the parent who creates the distance picks up the additional costs for transportation for visitation. If you want to maintain every other weekend, then its pretty much guaranteed that you would have to cover the cost.

I understand the basics.....if you move further away then it is not the other persons responsibility to cover additional costs for visitation.

However in this circumstance there are the following points to consider

1. All money in his situation comes from me. My job, income. This includes Child Support and Spousal Support. The relocation was necessary to maintain employment which in effect maintains all financial responsibility. Should not the additional costs of visitation be taken into account now in deciding the amounts of Child and Spousal support?

2. The children's mom has made a move like this before "with me" when we were married. She knows the logistics of my job and what is required to maintain employment. When we made a move "together" previously her daughter from a previous marriage of hers was part of that move and she paid half of visitation travel with her ex at the time also paying half. In effect she has a precedent on this. I know this is not binding, but it does go to show previous agreements on her part.

The bottom line is that there is only so much money which I fund (she does not work) and this needs to cover everything. The judge has warned her regarding seeking employment but she has not done so in last 18months.

Again, thanks for any replies.

1. It's your choice - you're choosing to move further away.

2. Doesn't matter.

The judge cannot force her to work; you can however request that she is imputed an income.

Yes, it's my choice. But the choice is bound by the reason. I move and have a job. Or I don't and move and don't have a job. I've made these economic decisions my whole life to support my family. And now because I support 2 households I get penalized. Where is the sense in that?

Can she be encouraged to move to bring the children closer to me, their father?

Quote:

---

Quoting Mark01

---

Yes, it's my choice. But the choice is bound by the reason. I move and have a job. Or I don't and move and don't have a job. I've made these economic decisions my whole life to support my family. And now because I support 2 households I get penalized. Where is the sense in that?

Can she be encouraged to move to bring the children closer to me, their father?

---

Sure, she can be encouraged to do so, but she cannot be legally required to do so. Look dad, I am truly sorry but I don't think that things are going to work out for you the way that you would like them to.