Seeking Relocation With a Pending Motion to Modify Custody

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

When our divorced was finalized over four years ago, we agreed to joint custody, with the two children living primarily with me. He would have them every other weekend. After about two years, he asked for more time with them and I agreed. So for about a year, the kids would stay the night at his home one weeknight per week. About a year and a half ago, I agreed to increase it even more, so now the kids are there two weeknights, plus every other weekend. They are now 15 and 10. My ex-husband has now filed a request for order with the court, asking for a modification of our custody agreement, so it will reflect the current arrangement (that is, two nights per week plus every other weekend). He also included in his request that the court consider granting him primary physical custody so that they will now live with him and spend every other weekend with me. He says both of the kids have told him they want this. Well my new husband and I would like to move away (40 miles) to buy a home and I want to move my kids with me. I should mention I have a new child with my new husband. All of my family is in the new city, as is his family. That would mean moving my kids into new schools. I need to know what chance I have to keep my kids with me, and what my argument has to be when we go to court. Thanks for your help.

Really? Why shouldn't dad be able to have custody of his children? Your children's family is their mom and dad. He has almost 50/50 time.

Quote:

---

Quoting catwoman1313

---

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

When our divorced was finalized over four years ago, we agreed to joint custody, with the two children living primarily with me. He would have them every other weekend. After about two years, he asked for more time with them and I agreed. So for about a year, the kids would stay the night at his home one weeknight per week. About a year and a half ago, I agreed to increase it even more, so now the kids are there two weeknights, plus every other weekend. They are now 15 and 10. My ex-husband has now filed a request for order with the court, asking for a modification of our custody agreement, so it will reflect the current arrangement (that is, two nights per week plus every other weekend). He also included in his request that the court consider granting him primary physical custody so that they will now live with him and spend every other weekend with me. He says both of the kids have told him they want this. Well my new husband and I would like to move away (40 miles) to buy a home and I want to move my kids with me. I should mention I have a new child with my new husband. All of my family is in the new city, as is his family. That would mean moving my kids into new schools. I need to know what chance I have to keep my kids with me, and what my argument has to be when we go to court. Thanks for your help.

---

California is generally very moveaway-friendly ... unless the current parenting time approaches a true 50/50 split. You'll likely need to answer OG's question, too - why shouldn't Dad have custody?

The wishes of the 15 year old certainly, will likely be an important factor and the 10 year old's will probably be considered too.

It's not that he shouldn't have custody of his children... it's that I don't want to go from seeing them four days a week to seeing them only two weekends a month. I have had primary custody for over four years and we are trying to buy a house for our family, which includes these two children. Can I argue that they are going to be separated from their half-sister?

Quote:

---

Quoting catwoman1313

---

It's not that he shouldn't have custody of his children... it's that I don't want to go from seeing them four days a week to seeing them only two weekends a month. I have had primary custody for over four years and we are trying to buy a house for our family, which includes these two children. Can I argue that they are going to be separated from their half-sister?

---

But it's not about what you want. At all. You can argue a half-sister if you want, but their father is far more important. Why does he have to compromise to take into account a child not related to him in the slightest?

I'm just looking for what kind of argument I can make to keep my children closer to me, as I now have to submit some sort of response. Moving away will put the kids closer to their extended family, and allow us to establish a permanent home for them.
Admittedly, my ex-husband's position is very strong, since he already has a home and family close by, and I can't argue that he doesn't have a case. It looks like I am going to have to hire an attorney to help, but I am afraid that any judge is going to look at this and grant the status quo, at a minimum. And if the status quo is upheld in a revised custody agreement, then I won't be able to manage the move away.

Quote:

---

Quoting catwoman1313

---

I'm just looking for what kind of argument I can make to keep my children closer to me, as I now have to submit some sort of response. Moving away will put the kids closer to their extended family, and allow us to establish a permanent home for them.
Admittedly, my ex-husband's position is very strong, since he already has a home and family close by, and I can't argue that he doesn't have a case. It looks like I am going to have to hire an attorney to help, but I am afraid that any judge is going to look at this and grant the status quo, at a minimum. And if the status quo is upheld in a revised custody agreement, then I won't be able to manage the move away.

---

I know what you're looking for. It's just that we tend to think about what's best for the children, not for the parent - and status quo is typically considered to be the better option by far.

You've already said your issue is that you don't want to see them less - but in the same context, you're okay with Dad seeing them less. That doesn't work so well.

Without a lawyer and a MUCH better reason why it's okay to take the kids away from dad and his extended family, I don't see this as a winning battle for you. Especially if the kids also are old enough to voice their choice in court.

Although I agree that CA is a pretty lenient Move Away state, I also think that when the NCP can prove that a move would greatly impact their current relationship with their children then a court will weigh heavily on that fact. The kids have a life where they are, a dad who loves them and is in their life, extended family and friends there. But you chose to remarry, have another child and now want to move away and take them from what they know. Doesn't sound like it's in the best interest for you but not for them at all. Know that by you moving away, you'll also have to pay for the kids travel for your visits.

Quote:

---

Quoting christielyn

---

Without a lawyer and a MUCH better reason why it's okay to take the kids away from dad and his extended family, I don't see this as a winning battle for you. Especially if the kids also are old enough to voice their choice in court.

Although I agree that CA is a pretty lenient Move Away state, I also think that when the NCP can prove that a move would greatly impact their current relationship with their children then a court will weigh heavily on that fact. The kids have a life where they are, a dad who loves them and is in their life, extended family and friends there. But you chose to remarry, have another child and now want to move away and take them from what they know. Doesn't sound like it's in the best interest for you but not for them at all. Know that by you moving away, you'll also have to pay for the kids travel for your visits.

---

It's not automatic that Mom would have to pay for all transportation.

Am I correct in understanding that in this case the "status quo" is the current arrangement - regardless of the actual agreement at the time of divorce? Is two years on the new plan enough time to consider it "status quo"?

And, if the judge grants a revision to reflect this status quo, is it possible I will be forced to keep the kids in their current schools? I mean, it would be nearly impossible to move 40 miles away if they have to be at their father's house twice a week.

Thanks

Quote:

---

Quoting catwoman1313

---

Am I correct in understanding that in this case the "status quo" is the current arrangement - regardless of the actual agreement at the time of divorce? Is two years on the new plan enough time to consider it "status quo"?

---

It doesn't matter what your agreement was; what's considered is the current situation and how long it's been happening. 2 years is more than ample time. 6 months - year is usually ample time.

Quote:

---

And, if the judge grants a revision to reflect this status quo, is it possible I will be forced to keep the kids in their current schools? I mean, it would be nearly impossible to move 40 miles away if they have to be at their father's house twice a week.

Thanks

---

That's the point. You're likely going to be given a choice - either relocate and give Dad full custody, or stay put if you can't manage transporting them to and from Dad's. Sorry Mom, but you've said nothing about why this move would benefit them more than having less time with their father would be detrimental to them. It's so far been about you, not them. THEIR family is Dad, and unless he folds eventually you're going to have to make a choice.

Thanks Dogmatique. I appreciate the feedback.
My reasons for moving:
Moving to the new city will allow me to purchase a home (cheaper real estate). Owning a home will establish a permanent residence for our family, so we are no longer living in a tiny rental. The kids will have their own bedrooms, a big yard and more space. They will also be closer to their grandparents and other extended family (uncles, cousins, etc.). Living in the new city will be more affordable overall, freeing up more money for family activities.
It is a favorable move for my husband and I .... And I completely understand the issue about it needing to be a good more for the CHILDREN more than anything. My personal belief is that reasons I state above do constitute a "good reason" but I don't know that an objective third-party would agree with that.

Thanks

Quote:

---

Quoting catwoman1313

---

Thanks Dogmatique. I appreciate the feedback.

---

I appreciate your appreciativeness (!). So please take this with the same grace, k?

Quote:

---

My reasons for moving:
Moving to the new city will allow me to purchase a home (cheaper real estate). Owning a home will establish a permanent residence for our family, so we are no longer living in a tiny rental.

---

Nope, it won't. If you're laid off or something catastrophic happens you'll still be homeless - just as you would be if you rented. However, it could also be said that Dad is also providing a permanent home.

Quote:

---

The kids will have their own bedrooms, a big yard and more space.

---

Not important. They're doing fine with the current arrangement, and the courts don't change custody because one parent has a bigger house with more bedrooms, or more money.

Quote:

---

They will also be closer to their grandparents and other extended family (uncles, cousins, etc.).

---

But further away from Dad - and he is, by far, more important than the others combined.

Quote:

---

Living in the new city will be more affordable overall, freeing up more money for family activities.

---

Tighten your wallet and you can still have family activities - and that's only those that actually cost anything. Nature field trips, historical buildings... the list of free/almost free stuff is literally endless.

Quote:

---

It is a favorable move for my husband and I .... And I completely understand the issue about it needing to be a good more for the CHILDREN more than anything. My personal belief is that reasons I state above do constitute a "good reason" but I don't know that an objective third-party would agree with that.

Thanks

---

Honestly? I would be astonished if the court actually gave you permission to relocate the kids over Dad's objections. You have, realistically, nothing. In my opinion.

If Dad were absent, or only marginally involved, my response would probably be a complete 180. But from the facts you've shared, I don't rate your chances of success highly at all.

So, you do have options. Again, why can't Dad have custody? You're basically asking for him to become the EOW parent - if it's unacceptable to you, why is it not unacceptable for him?

See where I'm coming from?

Yes, I see where you are coming from. It sounds to me like I don't have a case.

There is no good reason why the father cannot have custody. He's a good dad and takes great care of them.... I just want to keep my kids living closer to me, that's all.

Time to think hard about whether the move is a good idea. Thanks again for all your help.

Quote:

---

Quoting catwoman1313

---

Yes, I see where you are coming from. It sounds to me like I don't have a case.

There is no good reason why the father cannot have custody. He's a good dad and takes great care of them.... I just want to keep my kids living closer to me, that's all.

Time to think hard about whether the move is a good idea. Thanks again for all your help.

---

You're welcome, catwoman. I appreciate you not going on a tirade :)

(It's as if you were Dad writing from the "other side", so to speak ;) )