Relocating a Child Due to a Stepparent's Promotion to a Job in Another State

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

Hello All,

A little bit of background:

I was recently married to my beautiful wife who is pregnant. We will be bringing in our son here in the next week or so (due 3/14). She has a daughter that is 4 and spends 5 days a week with us in our 2 bedroom condo that we rent in Orange County. Her daughter stays with her father 2 days a week. He lives with his mom and grandparents, and doesn't have a job although interns at the airport.

I was recently offered a promotion which involves leaving the state of California for Charlotte, NC. The promotion would allow me to purchase a 3 bedroom house for my family among other benefits such as being able to allow my wife to stay at home, and the over all better area and schools that are available.

Her main concern with the move, is what the father will do, or can do. He is not the most stable father. He never puts an effort to see his daughter more frequently. Just a few weeks ago we had our baby shower which required us to have my step daughter for the Saturday that he would normally have her. Instead of wanting to take her after the shower and for the rest of the weekend, or taking her for 2 days starting that Sunday, he just skipped the weekend all together and said he would just take her on her next scheduled days.

What are the laws and how can i make sure that i make the best move for my family? I don't want to miss this amazing opportunity.

Thank you

-jon

Dad and Mom have all lived in CA up to this point?

If yes, what kind of visitation is Mom going to offer?

Yes, they have both lived in SoCal up until this point.

I did the calculations, and at the current ratio, she would have to be with dad 3.5 months/year. So i would say something around 3 months a year. The details though, still need to be ironed out. Maybe 2 months and 1 month throughout the year? Not sure how it typically works. Or maybe a shorter stay (2 months throughout the summer) would be less stressful on the child.

The best move for your step child is to make sure she has continued access to both of her children, but that's not necessarily your concern. SO... (unfortunately) CA is very relocation friendly, so unless dad can prove that the move is in bad faith, he's going to see his daughter go live clear across the country. Although that would make you and your wife very happy, it is extremely sad for the child.

The good thing is that with a new parenting plan comes a new visitation agreement that should have him with the lion share of the child's extended visitation and your wife having to pay for that visitation. If you want to make the best move for your family, then you should stay in CA, but I believe the question you really wanted to ask is can dad stop us from doing what I want to do?

That answer is... probably not.

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

The best move for your step child is to make sure she has continued access to both of her children, but that's not necessarily your concern. SO... (unfortunately) CA is very relocation friendly, so unless dad can prove that the move is in bad faith, he's going to see his daughter go live clear across the country. Although that would make you and your wife very happy, it is extremely sad for the child.

The good thing is that with a new parenting plan comes a new visitation agreement that should have him with the lion share of the child's extended visitation and your wife having to pay for that visitation. If you want to make the best move for your family, then you should stay in CA, but I believe the question you really wanted to ask is can dad stop us from doing what I want to do?

That answer is... probably not.

---

^^^ what CC said.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

^^^ what CC said.

---

Except that part about the step child having continued access to both children

Sorry, I had to snicker

Quote:

---

Quoting SESmama

---

Except that part about the step child having continued access to both children

---

Sorry!!! :o CC is also sick.

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

The best move for your step child is to make sure she has continued access to both of her children, but that's not necessarily your concern. SO... (unfortunately) CA is very relocation friendly, so unless dad can prove that the move is in bad faith, he's going to see his daughter go live clear across the country. Although that would make you and your wife very happy, it is extremely sad for the child.

The good thing is that with a new parenting plan comes a new visitation agreement that should have him with the lion share of the child's extended visitation and your wife having to pay for that visitation. If you want to make the best move for your family, then you should stay in CA, but I believe the question you really wanted to ask is can dad stop us from doing what I want to do?

That answer is... probably not.

---

I have to disagree a bit with this.

His family consists of him, his wife, their soon to be child, (and any more they might have) and his stepdaughter. The best thing for his stepdaughter is perhaps to remain in CA close to her father. The best thing for the rest of his family, and perhaps for his stepdaughter in part or in whole, depending on life as it unfolds, is more likely to be for him to take the job in NC.

Putting the needs of one of the children, above the needs of the family as a whole, is not always the right thing to do...nor is it necessarily selfish to put the needs of the family as a whole, above the needs of one of the children.

In a perfect world everyone who wants to succeed would be able to succeed without ever having to relocate. In a perfect world everybody's parents would always be together and there would never be an issue of children being separated by long distance from one of their parents. HOWEVER THIS IS NOT A PERFECT WORLD. Its a messed up world with a messed up economy (CA being just about the worst in terms of cost of living) and a messed up social structure where many children are born out of wedlock and many parents are divorced.

So, everybody has to make decisions as best they can. It isn't easy and it isn't fun. Its hard work.

The presumption though is in favor of relocation and the court trusts the CP to make a decision based on the best interests of the child. Obviously that's not exactly how it happens much of the time, but it is what it is.

(Incidentally, Cali is #5 in the "OMGZ it's too expensive here!" list)

There's also the issue of family dynamics. In the Venn diagram of life (and oh I wish I had patented that idea), stepdaughter is slap bang in the middle of "Mom, StepDad and halfbrother" and "Dad and everything else". Inevitably one of the parents is going to disagree with the other parent's assessment , and the family unit of Mom & co is going to be very different to that of Dad & co.

Where does that leave us?

Move with Mom, keep together that family unit. Stay with Dad, and lose time with Mom. I'm not entirely convinced that one is better than the other, so what happens? All else being equal, status quo would then be a critical factor, yes?

Everyone staying in CA would be the only way to accomplish that.

The adults have choices here. Nobody is being forced to do A or B and it's not a compulsory military move. This one is about choice and that does - to me at least - change things just a wee bit.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

The presumption though is in favor of relocation and the court trusts the CP to make a decision based on the best interests of the child. Obviously that's not exactly how it happens much of the time, but it is what it is.

(Incidentally, Cali is #5 in the "OMGZ it's too expensive here!" list)

There's also the issue of family dynamics. In the Venn diagram of life (and oh I wish I had patented that idea), stepdaughter is slap bang in the middle of "Mom, StepDad and halfbrother" and "Dad and everything else". Inevitably one of the parents is going to disagree with the other parent's assessment , and the family unit of Mom & co is going to be very different to that of Dad & co.

Where does that leave us?

Move with Mom, keep together that family unit. Stay with Dad, and lose time with Mom. I'm not entirely convinced that one is better than the other, so what happens? All else being equal, status quo would then be a critical factor, yes?

Everyone staying in CA would be the only way to accomplish that.

The adults have choices here. Nobody is being forced to do A or B and it's not a compulsory military move. This one is about choice and that does - to me at least - change things just a wee bit.

---

I don't disagree with your logic, but I do disagree with your end result. What you said just reiterates that its very difficult to make the best decision for the family unit as a whole.

There is more than one child in this family. (or at least there will be in a couple of weeks) How do parents put the welfare of one child higher than the welfare of another? I think that the only way they can do that is by putting the welfare of the family as a whole as priority. In this instance status quo puts the welfare of one child higher than the welfare of the other, and higher than the welfare of the whole family. This is where I have grave doubts as to the standard party line.

Legalities aside (because we've already sorted that out)....

Again this comes down to choices we make.

The parents are not Mom and stepdad. The parents are Mom and Dad. Should the child's relationship with her other parent suffer because there is now a stepparent and a half-sibling in the picture? What changed in California to necessitate a relocation? Very simply, nothing. Mom remarried. New husband, new child. It's not because the military told them to move, and it's not because Mom has been offered a lucrative deal. It's a choice.

If staying in CA is putting the welfare of one child before the other - and in this case I disagree that's the case to begin with - is not moving to NC the same thing but with the half-sibling instead? Dad isn't choosing to move away. Mom is choosing to move away.

How do we decide? Should the non-relocating parent automatically be deemed as somehow lesser? (I know you're not exactly saying that - but let's be honest, it is the general gist of the discussion).

Mom has chosen to be with stepdad. If we say that relocating should be about need, rather than want, what happens in the OP's situation? If we cannot please both sides, then obviously one party is going to be terrifically unhappy with the decision.

Which parent is it going to be?

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

I have to disagree a bit with this.

---

SHOCKING :eek:

Let's look at it this way. Should the new husband stay in CA, both children have access to both sets of parents. If dad gets his way, he gets to do what he wants and the step daughter now loses access to her father. I realize that in your world and in most of the world that father's are optional, disposable beings, but they aren't. They are just as important as the mothers and if people would begin to respect that, this world would be a much better place.

Quote:

---

Quoting undotime

---

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

Hello All,

A little bit of background:

I was recently married to my beautiful wife who is pregnant. We will be bringing in our son here in the next week or so (due 3/14). She has a daughter that is 4 and spends 5 days a week with us in our 2 bedroom condo that we rent in Orange County. Her daughter stays with her father 2 days a week. He lives with his mom and grandparents, and doesn't have a job although interns at the airport.

I was recently offered a promotion which involves leaving the state of California for Charlotte, NC. The promotion would allow me to purchase a 3 bedroom house for my family among other benefits such as being able to allow my wife to stay at home, and the over all better area and schools that are available.

Her main concern with the move, is what the father will do, or can do. He is not the most stable father. He never puts an effort to see his daughter more frequently. Just a few weeks ago we had our baby shower which required us to have my step daughter for the Saturday that he would normally have her. Instead of wanting to take her after the shower and for the rest of the weekend, or taking her for 2 days starting that Sunday, he just skipped the weekend all together and said he would just take her on her next scheduled days.

What are the laws and how can i make sure that i make the best move for my family? I don't want to miss this amazing opportunity.

Thank you

-jon

---

Let me see.

You made sure to paint yourself and your wife the "best parents" for your step daughter. How did you try to do this ? By alleging that that father is :

(a) "Only" an intern.

(b) Lives with his mother & grandparents

(c) Is *only* the non-custodial parent,

and

(d) by claiming that he is not the most stable of parents (per you) and that he does not attempt to see his child more.

An irritating example of the above : Him not taking the child after your wife's baby shower. Hey, IT WAS NOT required for you to have your shower on the weekend, and by scheduling it at the time, YOU infringed on HIS time with HIS KID, He, to his credit, obviously and graciously agreed to this, but then, instead of thanking him, you come on here and talk about how he IS NOT a good father because he should have taken the girl after the shower ! Would you have preferred it if he had simply told you that he wasn't going to give up his time with his child, and too bad, so sad, your wife was just going to have to suck it up and have her shower during HER time with the kid ?

The fact that your wife is "concerned" about what Dad will do tells me that he isn't as bad or as indifferent to the child, as you try to claim that he is. I hope he fights the relocation. If you can badmouth him when he is being a nice guy, it would not be in his best interests to let you all move across the country with his kid.

BTW, what is with your math ? If your current custody arrangements would translate to 3.5 months of the year with Dad, then he gets 3.5 months out of the year. Not a month, not two months, not two months and 15 days, but 3.5 months. Don't like it ? Again, too bad, so sad, it is how it is. If you don't want to give up your great opportunity, you shouldn't have married a woman who had a child with a local man. Bet the fact that he was "only" an intern and lived with his parents didn't bother you at all, before. So it shouldn't bother you now.

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

SHOCKING :eek:

Let's look at it this way. Should the new husband stay in CA, both children have access to both sets of parents. If dad gets his way, he gets to do what he wants and the step daughter now loses access to her father. I realize that in your world and in most of the world that father's are optional, disposable beings, but they aren't. They are just as important as the mothers and if people would begin to respect that, this world would be a much better place.

---

Now see...that is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You are stating that I see fathers as optional...which is bullshit. My opinion is gender neutral.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Now see...that is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You are stating that I see fathers as optional...which is bullshit. My opinion is gender neutral.

---

Your history over the years isn't gender neutral and I wouldn't be the first person to tell you that you think men are very optional and act as if women are the end all, be all in this world. 2 forums and a whole lot of years and everyone seems to know it but you.

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

Your history over the years isn't gender neutral and I wouldn't be the first person to tell you that you think men are very optional and act as if women are the end all, be all in this world. 2 forums and a whole lot of years and everyone seems to know it but you.

---

Only a small cadre of you believe that, and only because I argue with you when you go off on your anti mom rants.

I would be off the same opinion if mom were the non-custodial parent in this case. You flat out told the OP that it would be better for HIS family to remain in CA. I was pointing out the truth that his family consists of more people than just the stepdaughter, and while it might perhaps be better for her if his family remains in CA, it is probably not better for his family as a whole, and that a family cannot always make decisions based on what is better for just one member of the family.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Only a small cadre of you believe that, and only because I argue with you when you go off on your anti mom rants.

I would be off the same opinion if mom were the non-custodial parent in this case. You flat out told the OP that it would be better for HIS family to remain in CA. I was pointing out the truth that his family consists of more people than just the stepdaughter, and while it might perhaps be better for her if his family remains in CA, it is probably not better for his family as a whole, and that a family cannot always make decisions based on what is better for just one member of the family.

---

If it is better for the child to remain in California, then maybe Mom should give up primary custody and accept the role of NCP instead. She cant have her cake and eat it, too. Why should the step father's need for a promotion come ahead of the father's access to the child ? In blended families, life gets a lot more trickier, but when people have children with multiple partners, they willingly sign up for the compromises that come along with that. If they are unprepared or unwilling to make said compromises, then maybe they shouldn't choose to have kids with said multiple partners.

Why should the father go without seeing his child for several months of the year just because Mom remarried and it is better for HER husband (a legal stranger to her first child) and her new family to move out of state ? Why should the welfare of a legal stranger come ahead of the welfare of the child and the child's father ? It sucks that CA is so relocation friendly, but maybe it would better for the father to sue for full custody and grant Mom visitation rights, instead, since she is the one who benefits from the move and maybe even wants the move. As I said above, Mom can't have her cake and eat it, too.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Only a small cadre of you believe that, and only because I argue with you when you go off on your anti mom rants.

---

That's the cadre of people who are regularly on the boards and between your two screen names can follow what you say time after time after time after time. I'm not anti-mom, I'm anti further screwing up a situation people have already screwed up anymore. I'm PRO KID because the child is the ONLY one who is completely innocent in all this mess. Unlike you, I actually think about what's best for the child as opposed to what EITHER adult wants to do. Mom isn't moving for HER job, hell, she's going over there to NOT WORK.

Child be damned, you just want women to be able to do whatever they want with their own children and you expect men to tow the line and write the check. Women aren't that special. You've yet make one argument as to how this relocation would benefit THE CHILD. You know why? Because you don't care about what's best for THE CHILD.

Quote:

---

Quoting TroubledHell

---

If it is better for the child to remain in California, then maybe Mom should give up primary custody and accept the role of NCP instead. She cant have her cake and eat it, too. Why should the step father's need for a promotion come ahead of the father's access to the child ? In blended families, life gets a lot more trickier, but when people have children with multiple partners, they willingly sign up for the compromises that come along with that. If they are unprepared or unwilling to make said compromises, then maybe they shouldn't choose to have kids with said multiple partners.

Why should the father go without seeing his child for several months of the year just because Mom remarried and it is better for HER husband (a legal stranger to her first child) and her new family to move out of state ? Why should the welfare of a legal stranger come ahead of the welfare of the child and the child's father ? It sucks that CA is so relocation friendly, but maybe it would better for the father to sue for full custody and grant Mom visitation rights, instead, since she is the one who benefits from the move and maybe even wants the move. As I said above, Mom can't have her cake and eat it, too.

---

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but you are making the assumption that its better for the child to remain with the father and have a long distance relationship with the mother. Since we don't know any of these people, or the child, we are not in a position to even have an opinion on whether it would be better for the child to be with dad and have a long distance relationship with mom, or better for the child to remain with mom and have a long distance relationship with dad.

Which goes right back to my original points...

Families have to make decisions based on the good of the family in its entirety. Its not easy. Its hard. Making the assumption that a parent who needs to relocate for a good reason, rather than a spurious one, is automatically being a bad co-parent and not looking out for the best interest of their child is NOT being fair.

There are a few posters who believe that any parent who even remotely considers relocating, no matter what the reason, is the devil's spawn. I think that is ignoring the reality of life. Those same posters believe that the child should automatically be left with the non-relocating parent if that happens. I think that is ignoring the best interest of the child.

Which is why the courts make decisions based on the actual best interest of the particular child in question...at that particular time.

If either parent wants to move to another state to simply be near a boyfriend or girlfriend, then I understand the attitude that they are being selfish...and mostly agree with it. In most other circumstances, I take it on a case by case basis.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but you are making the assumption that its better for the child to remain with the father and have a long distance relationship with the mother. Since we don't know any of these people, or the child, we are not in a position to even have an opinion on whether it would be better for the child to be with dad and have a long distance relationship with mom, or better for the child to remain with mom and have a long distance relationship with dad.

Which goes right back to my original points...

Families have to make decisions based on the good of the family in its entirety. Its not easy. Its hard. Making the assumption that a parent who needs to relocate for a good reason, rather than a spurious one, is automatically being a bad co-parent and not looking out for the best interest of their child is NOT being fair.

There are a few posters who believe that any parent who even remotely considers relocating, no matter what the reason, is the devil's spawn. I think that is ignoring the reality of life. Those same posters believe that the child should automatically be left with the non-relocating parent if that happens. I think that is ignoring the best interest of the child.

Which is why the courts make decisions based on the actual best interest of the particular child in question...at that particular time.

If either parent wants to move to another state to simply be near a boyfriend or girlfriend, then I understand the attitude that they are being selfish...and mostly agree with it. In most other circumstances, I take it on a case by case basis.

---

I agree, in a perfect world, all parties work together but it is not a perfect world.

I grew up in a place that had a limit on how far divorced (or unmarried or separated) parents who shared custody could move from each other. Typically, it was 50 kms, give or take a few. When one parent left the country for *any* reason, they had to perforce leave the child with the other parent (this was to prevent international "kidnappings"). Passport applications and visa stampings had to be petitioned for by both parents signing on these applications. Essentially, the court held that if you procreated with someone, you were not going to be able to "get away" from the father or the mother of your child, because they (courts) deemed (barring certain circumstances) that it was in the best interest of the child to be raised by both parents. The exceptional circumstances would be the other parent being an inmate, or having a history of substance abuse, child abuse or child neglect. If a parent found a job in another state or in another country, then THEY had to give up custodial rights, and assume the role of the NCP. Very few judges would permit the relocating parent to retain primary custody of the kids, because that would open the doors for manipulation by the more financially savvy parent to force the other parent out of the child's life.

That is not the law in California. I get that. But, I agree with the laws of my former country because, in principle, if you do not want to share parenting duties, then you can only give up *your* own rights, not force the other parent out of *his* or *her* rights to be involved in the child's life on a daily or weekly or monthly basis. For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that Dad is a fit, loving father. The child has two fit, loving parents and access to both. But Mom decides that life would be better across the country for herself, her new husband and her unborn child. That is her choice to make, not anyone else's. But the direct consequence of her choice is that the father of her first child will no longer have access to the child. Is that fair ? Why should a fit, loving parent lose access to his or her child because the other parent suddeny decided to up & move to another state / country / continent "just because" ?

That was why I believe that the onus is on the relocating parent to take on the ramifications of such a decision. Mom cannot expect that her choices should be granted without any attending compromise. She has to choose between a better financial life for her new family (except her daughter from a previous marriage) OR she has to choose to retain primary custody of her kid. She cannot have it both ways, as these choices are mutually exclusive of each other.

Now, if the father decided to up & move, the same thing. The onus is on the parent who relocates to make the compromises. That parent cannot choose to relocate and expect that the other parent should compromise. Life doesn't work that way, for any of us.

The bottom line, once again, is that CA is pro-relocation. The relocating parent is assumed to have the child's best interest at heart and Dad would have one heck of a time proving otherwise - and remember, the burden falls on him, not Mom.

I realize this is over-simplifying somewhat, but bear with me.

Mom and Husband live in CA.
Dad also lives in CA
Mom & Husband are apparently solvent enough to have another child while still being able to provide for Mom's other child.
There's no "need" to relocate. Would it be nice? Sure. But is it actually needed? Apparently not.

So how on earth do we know that relocating is in the child's best interest? Mom doesn't have a new job there, and if the marriage fails what does Mom do then? Now her Husband has a say in things, in terms of their mutual child. Does Mom leave that child in NC, and come back to CA? Is she expected to stay in NC despite having - from what little information we've been given - no job there? How will she raise the children?

It's all very well saying "Well New Husband has a great job offer and we'll have more money". That's fine. But if they couldn't afford to raise the child without moving across the country, is it not a reasonable option to to leave the child with the parent who doesn't need to relocate in order to support his child?

There is no one-size-fits-all answer, obviously. But in this case I'm just not seeing "need".

@LL - she kind of IS moving to be with her boyfriend..the only difference is, they have a bit of paper saying they're married.

The even better part of this is that if this marriage doesn't work out, then mom will be asking how she can move back to CA because she has no family there, no support system and a job back in CA. THIS DAD will be complaining because his child is going to move back to the other coast and that's not fair to him.

At that point, I'm gonna chuckle and say... but it was good for your step child, now wasn't it?

Quote:

---

Quoting TroubledHell

---

I agree, in a perfect world, all parties work together but it is not a perfect world.

I grew up in a place that had a limit on how far divorced (or unmarried or separated) parents who shared custody could move from each other. Typically, it was 50 kms, give or take a few. When one parent left the country for *any* reason, they had to perforce leave the child with the other parent (this was to prevent international "kidnappings"). Passport applications and visa stampings had to be petitioned for by both parents signing on these applications. Essentially, the court held that if you procreated with someone, you were not going to be able to "get away" from the father or the mother of your child, because they (courts) deemed (barring certain circumstances) that it was in the best interest of the child to be raised by both parents. The exceptional circumstances would be the other parent being an inmate, or having a history of substance abuse, child abuse or child neglect. If a parent found a job in another state or in another country, then THEY had to give up custodial rights, and assume the role of the NCP. Very few judges would permit the relocating parent to retain primary custody of the kids, because that would open the doors for manipulation by the more financially savvy parent to force the other parent out of the child's life.

That is not the law in California. I get that. But, I agree with the laws of my former country because, in principle, if you do not want to share parenting duties, then you can only give up *your* own rights, not force the other parent out of *his* or *her* rights to be involved in the child's life on a daily or weekly or monthly basis. For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that Dad is a fit, loving father. The child has two fit, loving parents and access to both. But Mom decides that life would be better across the country for herself, her new husband and her unborn child. That is her choice to make, not anyone else's. But the direct consequence of her choice is that the father of her first child will no longer have access to the child. Is that fair ? Why should a fit, loving parent lose access to his or her child because the other parent suddeny decided to up & move to another state / country / continent "just because" ?

That was why I believe that the onus is on the relocating parent to take on the ramifications of such a decision. Mom cannot expect that her choices should be granted without any attending compromise. She has to choose between a better financial life for her new family (except her daughter from a previous marriage) OR she has to choose to retain primary custody of her kid. She cannot have it both ways, as these choices are mutually exclusive of each other.

Now, if the father decided to up & move, the same thing. The onus is on the parent who relocates to make the compromises. That parent cannot choose to relocate and expect that the other parent should compromise. Life doesn't work that way, for any of us.

---

I

I respect your opinion. However your opinion does not address the best interest of the child. It addresses the best interest of the parents. Your opinion assumes that the best interest of the child is to remain with the parent that is not relocating, which is not automatically accurate.

The reality of things is that which option will do the least HARM to the child.

How is it in the child's best interest to move in this situation? Because she may be able to have her own room and a PUPPY!!!!!????? Why are you assuming that there is something wrong with dad and he doesn't deserve to continue the contact with his child he has now? We've heard about the best interest of step dad and maybe mom....

but not even LL has addressed the best interest of the child (again, shocking)

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

I

I respect your opinion. However your opinion does not address the best interest of the child. It addresses the best interest of the parents. Your opinion assumes that the best interest of the child is to remain with the parent that is not relocating, which is not automatically accurate.

The reality of things is that which option will do the least HARM to the child.

---

No, as I said before, having access to both parents (if they are loving, FIT parents) is in the best interests of the child. If one of the parents wants to relocate (and thereby knowingly or unknowingly seeks to terminate the child's access to the other parent) then THEY are not acting in the best interests of the child but in their OWN best interest.

The OP, a legal stranger to the child, is moving not because he HAS to, but because he WANTS to. He claims a better financial life for his family and tries to portray his wife's ex as an unfit parent. It is all about what is in his own best interests. To further bolster his case, he quotes LAME examples to "prove" this. So, I infer that it is NOT in the child's best interests to be with a parent & her new spouse, because they seek to badmouth the other parent, and willfully seek to restrict her access to her father. Not good at all for the child to grow up believing that her natural father is a ne'er-do-well and a deadbeat and how he didnt even have a job and lives in his Mom's basement.

I don't agree with a lot of laws of my former country, but by Jupiter do I agree with their custody laws !!! :) :) :)

You move, YOU see the kids once or twice a year. You made your choice, now deal with the consequences. It is not the other parent's problem.

Except in this case, it IS the other parent's problem.

In some states the presumption is in favor of relocation (CA is one of those). In others, it's against relocation. And there are some states which don't have a presumption either way, and instead use the "shifting burden" method.

The bottom line is that no matter what the presumption may be, both sides will have an opportunity to present their reasons.

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

How is it in the child's best interest to move in this situation? Because she may be able to have her own room and a PUPPY!!!!!?????

---

While the OP didn't present anything that made the Dad seem anything less than 'good enough', I disagree that nothing has been presented regarding the child's best interest regarding the move. OP states that if they move his wife can be a SAHM. It is in the child's best interest to have a stay at home mom. So much better that the parent should move half way across the country from the other parent? OP hasn't convinced me that is the case, at all, but I don't know OP or the Dad in the situation and one paragraph isn't enough information to reach any conclusion.

Quote:

---

Quoting drthyrd

---

While the OP didn't present anything that made the Dad seem anything less than 'good enough', I disagree that nothing has been presented regarding the child's best interest regarding the move. OP states that if they move his wife can be a SAHM. It is in the child's best interest to have a stay at home mom. So much better that the parent should move half way across the country from the other parent? OP hasn't convinced me that is the case, at all, but I don't know OP or the Dad in the situation and one paragraph isn't enough information to reach any conclusion.

---

If she is an SAHM, how is she going to financially support her child from a previous relationship ? Should step-Dad support someone else's child ? It appears that OP wants his wife to stay home with their mutual child, not because her being a homemaker would benefit step-daughter. If that was the case, why isn't she an SAHM now ?

Should Dad be made to pay increased child support because step-Dad decided his wife shouldn't work outside the home, but instead stay home with his own child ? What happens if this marriage doesn't work out ? Even if step-Dad was willing to support his wife's child from another relationship for the duration of the marriage, what happens if it ends ? I know that that is a hypothetical question but it is not an impossible one.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

The bottom line is that no matter what the presumption may be, both sides will have an opportunity to present their reasons.

---

I hope the judge laughs the OP's wife out of the court when she whines about how he is such a badddddddd Daddy because he wouldn't take his daughter after her baby shower which she purposefully scheduled during his time with his child but which he graciously accommodated. Oh, and she had better have a darned good explanation about how she is going to support their mutual child if her plans are to stay home with her children. Maybe she will make the argument that she is entitled to stay home but that *he* needs to stop interning and start working, instead, because after all, he's the man and all that...

Unfortunately (for Dad at least), this is what will happen:

Mom files a new parenting plan at the same time as notifying/filing/whatever.

Dad objects.

Next is court.

Dad is going to need some damn good reasons to prevent the relocation.

Mom will sit there and after Dad's done, if it's necessary (and it doesn't appear that it is necessary these days), Mom can counter Dad's objections.

She doesn't have to prove a whole lot of anything, outside of "No, your Honor, I assure you that I'm not trying to remove Junior's Dad - in fact, the parenting plan allows for regular Skype and phone contact which Dad never had, in addition to extended parenting time".

With that said, I can think of several ways Dad could counter that based upon the situation right now. I'm sure y'all can figure out where I'm going there ;)

:cool:

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Unfortunately (for Dad at least), this is what will happen:

Mom files a new parenting plan at the same time as notifying/filing/whatever.

Dad objects.

Next is court.

Dad is going to need some damn good reasons to prevent the relocation.

Mom will sit there and after Dad's done, if it's necessary (and it doesn't appear that it is necessary these days), Mom can counter Dad's objections.

She doesn't have to prove a whole lot of anything, outside of "No, your Honor, I assure you that I'm not trying to remove Junior's Dad - in fact, the parenting plan allows for regular Skype and phone contact which Dad never had, in addition to extended parenting time".

With that said, I can think of several ways Dad could counter that based upon the situation right now. I'm sure y'all can figure out where I'm going there ;)

:cool:

---

All I will say is that I hope that Dad hires you to deal with his custody case. :) :)

Wow. Lord forgive me for not giving you ALL of the reasons why I feel he is not a fit dad. I did not come here to explain to you these things nor to ask for your uneducated opinions. I gave one recent example. While you may think he was being "nice" by letting her stay with us for the baby shower, based on my real world experience with dad, he was gracious and very willing to let her stay, because he was relieved of the responsibility for his entire precious weekend which allowed dad to go out and party. Why do you think he passed on taking her at all? Not a phone call to say hello, not 5 minutes to take her to get some ice cream, no Skype, zero effort(as always). It doesn’t take a rocket scientist. Or maybe it does.

Debating is fun and all, but seriously guys, what is the point of debating on facts for which none of you have the slightest clue, like seriously NO clue. We are talking about a guy here who when he had a choice of 2 days out of the week, he chose his work days and left his daughter to be taken care of by his mom.

Bottom line: As a loving step father who has financially and emotionally supported this child, I feel it would be in the child’s best interest to be with us in NC.

EDIT: To clarify, when mom and dad first started making the routine more official, dad was working.

Why not? Your wife was trying to be relieved of all responsibility for the entire weekend.... but here's the good thing. Since the time share is going to swing WAY in the other direction, your wife very well may be ordered to pay child support. Y'all forgot about that income shares model, didn't you?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting undotime

---

I feel

---

Your feelings mean nothing.... in fact, your feelings about dad could actually have dad be custodial parent.

Quote:

---

Quoting undotime

---

Wow. Lord forgive me for not giving you ALL of the reasons why I feel he is not a fit dad. I did not come here to explain to you these things nor to ask for your uneducated opinions. I gave one recent example. While you may think he was being "nice" by letting her stay with us for the baby shower, based on my real world experience with dad, he was gracious and very willing to let her stay, because he was relieved of the responsibility for his entire precious weekend which allowed dad to go out and party. Why do you think he passed on taking her at all? Not a phone call to say hello, not 5 minutes to take her to get some ice cream, no Skype, zero effort(as always). It doesn’t take a rocket scientist. Or maybe it does.

Debating is fun and all, but seriously guys, what is the point of debating on facts for which none of you have the slightest clue, like seriously NO clue. We are talking about a guy here who when he had a choice of 2 days out of the week, he chose his work days and left his daughter to be taken care of by his mom.

Bottom line: As a loving step father who has financially and emotionally supported this child, I feel it would be in the child’s best interest to be with us in NC.

---

Well, the fun part of that is it's not your decision.

Don't bother with the unfit thing. The court has NOT deemed him as unfit, hence he's not unfit. Your opinion doesn't make him unfit. Hell, MOM's opinion doesn't make him unfit.

Now when you've decided to check yourself, try re-reading what has been discussed here.

You're welcome.

And a bit of advice from an old-timer. If your marriage fails, don't think for one minute that Mom will suddenly become Fair & Just Parent Of The Year.

Because she won't.

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

Why not? Your wife was trying to be relieved of all responsibility for the entire weekend.... but here's the good thing. Since the time share is going to swing WAY in the other direction, your wife very well may be ordered to pay child support. Y'all forgot about that income shares model, didn't you?

- - - Updated - - -


Your feelings mean nothing.... in fact, your feelings about dad could actually have dad be custodial parent.

---

How do you figure? We wanted to confirm with him the time we would be done with the shower so we could drop her off(as we do every other weekend) and he passed. It was not our weekend, of course we tried to communicate with him regarding her visitation. Are you saying we should have just held on to her without acknowledging the schedule? This is absurd.

It's this kind of reasoning that gives you no credibility.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Well, the fun part of that is it's not your decision.

Don't bother with the unfit thing. The court has NOT deemed him as unfit, hence he's not unfit. Your opinion doesn't make him unfit. Hell, MOM's opinion doesn't make him unfit.

Now when you've decided to check yourself, try re-reading what has been discussed here.

You're welcome.

And a bit of advice from an old-timer. If your marriage fails, don't think for one minute that Mom will suddenly become Fair & Just Parent Of The Year.

Because she won't.

---

I'm not saying that gives me the right to do as I wish, and I am not trying to go to court saying he is an unfit parent. That's not my intention. I am simply stating my opinion as it relates to the discussion in this thread.

We will cross that bridge if we get there, but thanks for the advice.

I know you feel very strongly about this. And I know that you feel that the relocation is inherently in the best interests of your stepchild. I get that.

But take yourself out of the equation for a second. We have a mother, we have a father, and we have a stepfather. The stepfather has made it quite, quite clear that he thinks Dad is basically an unfit waste of space.

Dad gets wind of this.

Dad recognizes that StepDad is essentially creating and promoting the idea that Dad is second best. Dad files for custody, based upon this.

The court sides with Dad.

Mom becomes the visiting parent.

Now, I'm not going to sit and pretend to know how that would go. But what I can do, is warn you and Mom about this because parents have this habit of being completely blindsided in family court when they don't really know what's going on.

Thank you for the information Dogmatique, i appreciate it. Once we make a final decision, if we decide it would be best to move, our first line of business will be to hire an attorney.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I know you feel very strongly about this. And I know that you feel that the relocation is inherently in the best interests of your stepchild. I get that.

But take yourself out of the equation for a second. We have a mother, we have a father, and we have a stepfather. The stepfather has made it quite, quite clear that he thinks Dad is basically an unfit waste of space.

Dad gets wind of this.

Dad recognizes that StepDad is essentially creating and promoting the idea that Dad is second best. Dad files for custody, based upon this.

The court sides with Dad.

Mom becomes the visiting parent.

Now, I'm not going to sit and pretend to know how that would go. But what I can do, is warn you and Mom about this because parents have this habit of being completely blindsided in family court when they don't really know what's going on.

---

You shouldn't have. The OP and his wife should be allowed to run their mouths in front of a seasoned family court judge who would then find cause to award primary custody to Dad. People like the OP is one of the reasons that there is drought in California.

Quote:

---

Quoting undotime

---

It's this kind of reasoning that gives you no credibility.

---

You think so?

Of ALL the people who have posted in this thread, how many of us do you think have spent 40 hours/wk for somewhere close to a decade inside of a family court in CA?

I'll give you ONE guess. Make it good.

Quote:

---

Quoting TroubledHell

---

You shouldn't have. The OP and his wife should be allowed to run their mouths in front of a seasoned family court judge who would then find cause to award primary custody to Dad. People like the OP is one of the reasons that there is drought in California.

---

Take a look at this entire thread and tell me who has been running their mouth and casting judgment. You all are a hostile group ready to pounce without a reasonable amount of information; feeding off each other’s inaccuracies.

I simply wanted some basic information on the subject, and instead of asking me for information in good faith(as any good seasoned court judge would) figuring there just might be some good intentions behind the request(or at least in an attempt to get more information), you cast me into the abyss. This is a rookie move and shows just how much emotion you let cloud your thoughts.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

You think so?

Of ALL the people who have posted in this thread, how many of us do you think have spent 40 hours/wk for somewhere close to a decade inside of a family court in CA?

I'll give you ONE guess. Make it good.

---

I can reason that you are suggesting this person is you. If that is the case, I feel sorry for your clients. Unless you are the guy fighting for the wrong team. To say that we are trying to unload her with the basis of not wanting the responsibility for that weekend, is insulting and an uneducated blind statement. We would rather keep her when we can, although there is a schedule we must adhere to.

Quote:

---

Quoting undotime

---

he was gracious and very willing to let her stay, because he was relieved of the responsibility for his entire precious weekend which allowed dad to go out and party. Why do you think he passed on taking her at all? Not a phone call to say hello, not 5 minutes to take her to get some ice cream, no Skype, zero effort(as always). It doesn’t take a rocket scientist. Or maybe it does.

Debating is fun and all, but seriously guys, what is the point of debating on facts for which none of you have the slightest clue, like seriously NO clue. We are talking about a guy here who when he had a choice of 2 days out of the week, he chose his work days and left his daughter to be taken care of by his mom.

---

And how do YOU know that he didn't pick her up to go party ? You schedule her shower during Dad's time with the daughter and you don't notify him ahead of time. When you finally do get a hold of him, he lets his daughter stay. And your reaction ? "Well, he just wanted the weekend off" simply because he wouldn't take her after the shower, and give your wife HER weekend off ? AMAZING ! What, he should just roll over and do your bidding ?

BTW, doesn't your wife want HER weekends off ? Once the starts school, she is going to be gone 6 hours a day and then her dad takes her for the weekend. NICE !! But, of course that doesn't count. Also, what is this about Skype ? Why should a local dad Skype his local daughter ?

Another thing : What he does with HIS time is HIS business. If that means that his daughter is with his family and not with him, that is HIS decision to make. His mother & grandparents are her blood and they are entitled to spend time with her IF Dad wants them to. Not your business, not by a long shot.

Quote:

---

Quoting undotime

---

Bottom line: As a loving step father who has financially and emotionally supported this child, I feel it would be in the child’s best interest to be with us in NC.

---

WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK ? Who are YOU to this child ? You married her mother. SO ? Putting a ring on her finger does NOT give you any rights to her child with another man. YOU are a TOTAL STRANGER TO THE KID. You DO NOT get any say so just because you waltzed her Mama down the aisle. And, if you are ridiculous enough to FINANCIALLY support this child, then you are the sucker in the equation. Tell Mommy to get a second job or increase Dad's child support. Just because you pay for the kid doesn't make you that child's father unless you formally adopted her. So, just let Dad and Mom resolve this and figure out how to provide for the kid that THEY brought into the world. This is none of your business.