Single Mother of 2 Wanting to Relocate Back to Where Her Family Is

My question involves a child custody case from the State of: South Dakota.

I am a single mother of two. My youngest is 6 months old and I left her father in July. He was drinking all the time and towards the end I had to call law enforcement and have him removed from home because he was drunk and kicked a baby gate at me while the children are home. I have lived in South Dakota almost two years and I am wanting to return home to Nebraska because that is where my whole family is. In South Dakota I have no family once so ever and a total of 2 friends. I have been put recently on depression medication. I feel alone up here.
My biggest concern is the baby's father. We were never married and all we have is child support established. I spoke with an attorney about my rights in June and South Dakota is a Mother's state which means I technically have full custody of the child. I have been allowing him to see her every other weekend. From the time the baby was born til when I moved the father only spent two whole days with her. So therefore he never changed her diapers or fed her.
My question is: can I by law move back home to my home state where all my family and friends are with the baby since nothing has ever gone to court for custody?

Technically yes. But Dad can rush to court in SD and cause you to have to travel back and forth while custody is being decided.

Can you afford that, and can you afford to keep up the current visitation order (because the chances are good that you'll be paying for transportation)?

What if since the baby has years until school starts him and write up an agreement for every other holidays and birthdays. And maybe him getting her every other 2 months or so? Its a total of 402 miles so maybe include that each one has to meet half way.

Why should Dad have to meet halfway? I'm not being snarky - but you're creating the distance, not Dad.

You need to take a look at long-distance parenting plans. If you and Dad can come to an agreement though, you can submit that to the court (in SD), and it will generally be signed off by the judge without a problem.

Be specific though - about who is responsible for pick up/drop off, who gets which holidays, and don't leave it ambiguous.

(That's a very common problem we see - the parents agree to something so vague it's virtually unenforceable and when one parent gets pissed off at the other, well..you can imagine the results)

Quote:

---

Quoting bkamp08

---

...We were never married and all we have is child support established. I spoke with an attorney about my rights in June and South Dakota is a Mother's state which means I technically have full custody of the child.

My question is: can I by law move back home to my home state where all my family and friends are with the baby since nothing has ever gone to court for custody?

---

As already noted, the answer to your question is YES.

But you should speak to another attorney to review the facts and confirm your rights in this matter.
Some attorneys will advise you to file a custody action in ND before leaving.
Others may recommend you pack up and fly with the wind to MN without further ado.
That decision is ultimately up to you. But to make the right decision you really need to sit down with an attorney or two who can explain the pros and cons of each choice. As a practical matter, the reality is that for many unwed parents in your situation where no custody order is in place, simply packing and leaving is a viable option.

IF you file any custody actions or parenting plans in a ND court, you are guaranteeing ND will have jurisdiction over your children.
BUT IF you leave without filing anything and dad does not file in ND within 6 months of you leaving, MN will have jurisdiction, and dad will then have to go to court where you reside in MN.

If you and child are already living in MN with a strong family support group at the time dad files for custody in ND, you should be allowed to stay there pending the case... and beyond. There should be no legal presumption you bear (other than share) costs of travel to accommodate visitation, since you were within your legal rights to move when you did.

ND wouldn't care a hoot, since OP is in SD.

:cool:

And yes, very often the relocating parent IS made to be responsible for 100% of travel costs when they create the distance.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting gator1

---

As already noted, the answer to your question is YES.

But you should speak to another attorney to review the facts and confirm your rights in this matter.
Some attorneys will advise you to file a custody action in ND before leaving.
Others may recommend you pack up and fly with the wind to MN without further ado.
That decision is ultimately up to you. But to make the right decision you really need to sit down with an attorney or two who can explain the pros and cons of each choice. As a practical matter, the reality is that for many unwed parents in your situation where no custody order is in place, simply packing and leaving is a viable option.

IF you file any custody actions or parenting plans in a ND court, you are guaranteeing ND will have jurisdiction over your children.
BUT IF you leave without filing anything and dad does not file in ND within 6 months of you leaving, MN will have jurisdiction, and dad will then have to go to court where you reside in MN.

If you and child are already living in MN with a strong family support group at the time dad files for custody in ND, you should be allowed to stay there pending the case... and beyond. There should be no legal presumption you bear (other than share) costs of travel to accommodate visitation, since you were within your legal rights to move when you did.

---

You missed Nebraska, too?

This is SD and Nebraska - not ND and Minnesota.

Incorrect Gator1. The parent creating the distance is usually responsible for paying for all transportation, when they have created other than an insignificant distance.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

very often the relocating parent IS made to be responsible for 100% of travel costs when they create the distance.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

Incorrect Gator1. The parent creating the distance is usually responsible for paying for all transportation, when they have created other than an insignificant distance.

---

Both of you are incorrect.

My own personal experience shows this is NOT true, and that in many cases travel expenses are more likely to be ordered evenly split, than one parent or the other being required to pay all costs. I have unrestricted access to download seminars and presentations from the State Bar in advanced family and civil law courses by leading attorneys in the state, who candidly discuss issues such as this in the context of statutes, case law, and rulings from benches from different regions, and which affirm my own experiences. Courses which the general public (ie; yourselves) do not have access to.

For many reasons splitting long distance travel costs is most fair and equitable, and encourages parents to be just a tad more agreeable and find the most time and cost effective means of arranging travel. While parents are occasionally ordered to pay all costs for interstate travel, this is NOT the norm. Oftentimes in these cases the parent not burdened with any costs tries to make it difficult and expensive for the paying parent, which is not hard to do.

Relocation should NOT be assumed to be something in which punitive measures should be invoked, just because one parent creates a distance. Ultimately the decision to grant relocation is based upon the BEST INTEREST of the child, not the best interest of the relocating parent. Although the two are almost always intertwined.

To arbitrarily burden a custodial parent with 100% of long distance travel expenses, where the parent cannot really afford it, is NOT in the child's best interest. And for a state such as South Dakota which has a presumption in favor of relocation, it is highly unlikely there is any presumption the relocating parent bear 100% of costs.

You're assuming much.

Probably not wise.

You have absolutely no idea what we may, or may not, have access to in terms of legal information.

But at least you got the right state this time. Well done!

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

You're assuming much.

Probably not wise.

You have absolutely no idea what we may, or may not, have access to in terms of legal information.

---

From the nature of your responses, it's a good bet either the information you have access to is inadequate, or your ability to reason though it is inadequate