Kentucky mom wanting to move to MO

[CJane]

NSA ~ You're hijacking. Start your own thread.

 

[CourtClerk]

ok, after all is said and done then with the CP needing the court or NCP to move out of state/metro area with the children, WHY is a NCP able to move out of state at whim? Why does the knife not cut both ways? If the court thinks its in the best interest for the child to have access to both parents why can the NCP decide to move and no one has a problem with that when in essence that parent is taking away regular access to him/her from the child?

I'm sorry I'm sort of hijacking this thread... it doesn't look like the OP came back, but if you'd like me to start a new thread I will.

Because it's the CP's obligation and responsibility to facilitate a relationship between the child(ren) and the NCP. Period. End of story.

Because CP's (lots of moms, but some dads do it too) tend to like to run off on a whim with the next man because he's nicer, cuter, better in bed, thinks he makes a better father and will run off with the children on a moment's notice.

 

[NSA4answers]

Because it's the CP's obligation and responsibility to facilitate a relationship between the child(ren) and the NCP. Period. End of story.

Because CP's (lots of moms, but some dads do it too) tend to like to run off on a whim with the next man because he's nicer, cuter, better in bed, thinks he makes a better father and will run off with the children on a moment's notice.

Unfortunate, I thought it was the responsibility of both parents to facilitate a relationship between both parents. It's interesting to me all the convolutions involved in "co-parenting."

So since it is the custodial parents obligation and responsibility to facilitate a relationship between child and NCP how does a CP do that when the NCP moves out of state?

 

[Ohiogal]

Unfortunate, I thought it was the responsibility of both parents to facilitate a relationship between both parents. It's interesting to me all the convolutions involved in "co-parenting."

So since it is the custodial parents obligation and responsibility to facilitate a relationship between child and NCP how does a CP do that when the NCP moves out of state?

By allowing opening and continuing contact and not hindering visitation with the NCP. After all the CP gets to put the children to bed and get them up every morning (or the majority of them) .. hence since they have greater privileges they have greater responsibilities.

 

[bulrid8]

I can tell you from a NCP stand point. The CP gets to spend all the time with the kids, the NCP has been told they can only see their kids on certain days.

So, me as dad, can only see my kids twice a month and some holidays. Then mom moves 1000 miles away. So, now I only see my kids once a month or less. This is not fair to the kids. They will grow apart from the dad and it will never be a good relationship again.

Is this fair to the children? NO. That is why the courts stay in control of the issue.

I have an EX that likes to move a lot. I am finally moving closer to my kids. If she tries to move again, I will fight for full custody. Even though I never wanted to put my kids through a custody battle, I will now.

The point is simple. Your kids are number one, not the new guy. If he loves you, then he will move to where you are and understand that the kids need to be close to their dad.

I guess it is all on moral standards. I would never do this to someone, but others don't care.

 

[NSA4answers]

By allowing opening and continuing contact and not hindering visitation with the NCP.

I think that can/should go both ways no matter if you are the CP or the NCP.

After all the CP gets to put the children to bed and get them up every morning (or the majority of them) .. hence since they have greater privileges they have greater responsibilities.

So that makes it ok that the NCP moves out of state? Since s/he doesn't get to put them to bed and get them up most days. Seems to me that using this line of reasoning the NCP's reasons for not allowing the CP to move out of state are purely to control the other parent since regardless of in state or out of state the above is the case.

 

[CourtClerk]

I think that can/should go both ways no matter if you are the CP or the NCP.

Your thoughts are irrelevant. If you don't like it, lobby your state representatives.

 

[>Charlotte<]

I think that can/should go both ways no matter if you are the CP or the NCP...So that makes it ok that the NCP moves out of state?

You're not getting it, and it's really not that hard to understand.

By moving the child out of state, the CP is interfering with the NCP's rights as a parent. No one is saying the CP can't move. It's all about whether or not the child may move. The child--for lack of a better word--"belongs" to the NCP just as much as he "belongs" to the CP, and the NCP has the right to choose whether s/he will allow the CP to create a greater geographical distance between them. That's what happens when one has custody of a child; decisions that affect the child are no longer at the sole discretion of the CP.

What sometimes works in the CP's favor is the unfortunate fact that some NCP's just don't give a damn. That may result in a NCP not fighting the move, or even moving away himself. It's also his right to be an indifferent parent. But if he chooses to be an involved parent who spends as much time with his child as possible, the CP cannot interfere with that.

 

[NSA4answers]

Your thoughts are irrelevant. If you don't like it, lobby your state representatives.

I never said my thoughts were relevant legally. I just happen to feel that it should be both parents right and responsibility to facilitate a relationship with the other parent. Isn't that kind of the idea of co-parenting?

I don't need to lobby anyone, I'm merely attempting to understand the law. I don't think (and yes I'm allowed to have an opinion with out it being legally accurate) that a NCP should not be legally allowed to say "Hey... I'm gonna move across the country... so if you could just go ahead and make sure that my relationship with our child flourishes that'd be great, k thanks." but then that same parent can turn around and say "absolutely not, you're not moving out of the state because I want my parenting time the way it is now... period." If the NCP really care much about the relationship with the then s/he would not move out of the state in which the child lives in.

 

[NSA4answers]

You're not getting it, and it's really not that hard to understand.

By moving the child out of state, the CP is interfering with the NCP's rights as a parent.

I guess you're not getting what I'm saying. I get that a CP can't just up and move out of the state... I've moved on to why the NCP can just up and move out of state whenever s/he chooses. Isn't that kinds of interfering with the child's right to have a relationship with the parent? Because after all isn't that who this is really all about, the child?

No one is saying the CP can't move. It's all about whether or not the child may move. The child--for lack of a better word--"belongs" to the NCP just as much as he "belongs" to the CP, and the NCP has the right to choose whether s/he will allow the CP to create a greater geographical distance between them. That's what happens when one has custody of a child; decisions that affect the child are no longer at the sole discretion of the CP.

Thanks for that... I already get that... flip it around now... and make the child the person who's rights we're looking after not either of the parents who seem to not give a hoot about what's right for the child only to make sure their 'rights' are met. WHY can a NCP move away from the child?

What sometimes works in the CP's favor is the unfortunate fact that some NCP's just don't give a damn.

Luckily for the child and all...

That may result in a NCP not fighting the move, or even moving away himself.

AHHHAAA now you're getting it... WHY is that ok?? I thought the court was looking out for the best interest of the child... how can the court view it legally ok that a NCP moves away from the child, but not ok that a CP and child move to a diff state? If it's all about the child... WHY...

It's also his right to be an indifferent parent. But if he chooses to be an involved parent who spends as much time with his child as possible, the CP cannot interfere with that.

No apparently only the NCP can interfere with the child's rghts... but hey, I suppose we'll just turn a blind eye to that right... after all NCP get's what s/he wants regardless. But it's all about the kids, right.(tic) Frankly, if the court is going to mandate what one parent does in the best interest of the child then that should apply to both parents.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Isn't that kinds of interfering with the child's right to have a relationship with the parent? Because after all isn't that who this is really all about, the child?

But it's not about the child. It's about the NPC's right to be a parent and have input in decisions that affect the relationship between the NCP and the child. It is "about the child" to the extent that it's deemed to be in the child's best interest to uphold the parent's rights, but it's still about the parent's rights.

flip it around now... and make the child the person who's rights we're looking after not either of the parents who seem to not give a hoot about what's right for the child only to make sure their 'rights' are met.

Again, it's not the "child's rights" we're looking after. It's the parents' rights.

WHY can a NCP move away from the child?

Because in that case the mother isn't removing the child from the father against the father's wishes. The father is, himself, creating the distance. Not Mom's fault, not Mom's problem.

 

[NSA4answers]

But it's not about the child. It's about the NPC's right to be a parent and have input in decisions that affect the relationship between the NCP and the child. It is "about the child" to the extent that it's deemed to be in the child's best interest to uphold the parent's rights, but it's still about the parent's rights.



Again, it's not the "child's rights" we're looking after. It's the parents' rights.



Because in that case the mother isn't removing the child from the father against the father's wishes. The father is, himself, creating the distance. Not Mom's fault, not Mom's problem.

Sorry but this entire post is ignorant to me. Lock it, delete it, ban me whatever. My custody arrangements will ALWAYS be what's in my child best interest first while respecting my rights and my child fathers rights second. It is incredibly unfortunate that more parents don't feel this way.

 

[>Charlotte<]

For crying out loud, lady, how dense can you possibly be? We're talking about the law. What it is, and why it is what it is. THE LAW regarding a parent's decision to move is about the non-custodial parent's right to have input regarding where his child lives. It's simple. That is in the best interest of the child, whether you want to admit it or not.

You're either too stupid to grasp the concept or you just refuse to admit your point is invalid. If the former, I give up. If the latter, I'm not wasting any more time on you.

And incidentally, what's "unfortunate" is that so many women think they get to make all the decisions regarding a child that has another parent, and if that other parent doesn't like it that's just too bad. Fortunately, this particular law works to restrain control freaks.

 

[Ohiogal]

Sorry but this entire post is ignorant to me. Lock it, delete it, ban me whatever. My custody arrangements will ALWAYS be what's in my child best interest first while respecting my rights and my child fathers rights second. It is incredibly unfortunate that more parents don't feel this way.

YOU are the ignorant one> YOU are the one who feels that what you ALONE think is what is in the child's best interests.

 

[NSA4answers]

YOU are the ignorant one> YOU are the one who feels that what you ALONE think is what is in the child's best interests.

I'm sorry WHEREdid I state that?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because obviously you aren't seeing what I'm saying. You're seeing some sinister malicious side to it and that definitely wasn't the intent of my HYPOTHETICAL situation.