CP planning move to another state

[Mike703]

Is this always the case? My move from Texas to Illinois was allowed, but later ex was successful in getting a TX judge to order that my residence was limited to a particular city in Illinois.

My guess is because he was able to prove that the move was not beneficial enough for the child to exchange for his/her relationship with the father......

 

[Mike703]

No way the Tenn court had jurisdiction. Very bad attorney since the VA order had precedence.

You have no idea....unfortunately I didn't realize that until we were in the courtroom. I personally think she was working with ex's attorney, she seemed to know a lot about him. Lessons learned I guess.

 

[Mike703]

Yeah... many of us have gotten bad advice. You probably cannot block her move, but you should be able to get at least some of the travel expenses shared. Look up the TN laws on modifying and relocation... that should give you some guidelines on what you can expect.

I would think this could be done fairly easy and not much an attorney can flub up here, especially if you know the rules and laws up front.

Good luck.

Thanks...was hoping to find somebody who might have advice on the best way to at least put word out to the court. Will continue my research...

 

[luckymom]

My guess is because he was able to prove that the move was not beneficial enough for the child to exchange for his/her relationship with the father......

Huh?? As I said, my move from TX to IL was allowed, although dad contested it. But there was a later provision that restricted me from moving outside of Illinois. My point was that some judges will move to place limits on even long distance visitation situations.

How about 1) learning to read 2) getting over the attitude?

 

[CJane]

Following is a link to the statute for TN moveaways.

http://www.cynthiajbohn.com/CM/CustodyandAdoption/CustodyandAdoption27.asp

Turns out that the move will be granted, even if dad fights it unless he can prove one of the following is true... see quote below.

(d) If the parents are not actually spending substantially equal intervals of time with the child and the parent spending the greater amount of time with the child proposes to relocate with the child, the other parent may, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice, file a petition in opposition to removal of the child. The other parent may not attempt to relocate with the child unless expressly authorized to do so by the court pursuant to a change of custody or primary custodial responsibility. The parent spending the greater amount of time with the child shall be permitted to relocate with the child unless the court finds:


(1) The relocation does not have a reasonable purpose; or

(2) The relocation would pose a threat of specific and serious harm to the child which outweighs the threat of harm to the child of a change of custody; or

(3) The parent's motive for relocating with the child is vindictive in that it is intended to defeat or deter visitation rights of the non-custodial parent or the parent spending less time with the child.

Specific and serious harm to the child shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) If a parent wishes to take a child with a serious medical problem to an area where no adequate treatment is readily available;

(2) If a parent wishes to take a child with specific educational requirements to an area with no acceptable education facilities;

(3) If a parent wishes to relocate and take up residence with a person with a history of child or domestic abuse or who is currently abusing alcohol or other drugs;

(4) If the child relies on the parent not relocating who provides emotional support, nurturing and development such that removal would result in severe emotional detriment to the child;

(5) If the custodial parent is emotionally disturbed or dependent such that he or she is not capable of adequately parenting the child in the absence of support systems currently in place in this state, and such support system is not available at the proposed relocation site; or

(6) If the proposed relocation is to a foreign country whose public policy does not normally enforce the visitation rights of non-custodial parents, which does not have an adequately functioning legal system or which otherwise presents a substantial risk of specific and serious harm to the child.

 

[majomom1]

Originally posted by: Mike703
Really starting to wonder how many of you know what you are talking about, cause from what i've seen and heard in the past, there are certain factors as far as why a move would be allowed. In the end it is about being able to maintain the same level of relationship after the move that there was before the move. I question that this can be accomplished given the CP's track record (has historically not been very accomodating). Another valid point is that CP is moving so that husband can find better work, not necessarily for her or our daughter's own benefit. None of you have even thought of these factors, you all just see that i'm from a different state and automatically assume that I was never a part of this child's life. If you all had read the original thread, I stated that I did not have an issue with them moving, my main concern is maintaining the relationship with my daughter that I have now.

Every situation is different... and all states are different. In a perfect world, you wouldn't be in this predicament because your attorney would have done a better job.

Not everyone here is correct, but they can only answer based on the information you post. If you leave out relevant information, then you will not get accurate answers.

If you really want answers to handle this situation, and possibly eliminate future issues, stick around and read these threads. Not all information will be completely accurate, for your situation. We ask questions to help give you answers.

No one can give you any guarantees, including an attorney.

 

[LdiJ]

Really starting to wonder how many of you know what you are talking about, cause from what i've seen and heard in the past, there are certain factors as far as why a move would be allowed. In the end it is about being able to maintain the same level of relationship after the move that there was before the move. I question that this can be accomplished given the CP's track record (has historically not been very accomodating). Another valid point is that CP is moving so that husband can find better work, not necessarily for her or our daughter's own benefit. None of you have even thought of these factors, you all just see that i'm from a different state and automatically assume that I was never a part of this child's life. If you all had read the original thread, I stated that I did not have an issue with them moving, my main concern is maintaining the relationship with my daughter that I have now.

I am not assuming that you have been uninvolved in your child's life. I am quite sure that you have been as involved as its possible to be with a 9 hour distance between the two of you.

What I am saying, is that the only thing that might prevent you from enjoying that same level of involvement, is the transportation costs to maintain that same level of involvement. It may mean that flying will become more appropriate than driving, for example. Therefore, you are not going to be able to prevent the move, but you are going to be able to address the transportation issues and have the costs fairly apportioned.

While you are in court for that issue, you may want to consider getting the judge to order "virtual visitation". That is becoming increasingly popular, and it really is a great way to maintain regular contact in a long distance situation. Getting to see the parent while talking to them gives the child so much more than just a phone call.

 

[lwpat]

VA courts did not rule in her favor (I was awarded full custody) so she fled to Tennessee with our child and filed there

You can't forum shop. No Tenn court could assume jurisdiciton under this situation unless both parents agreed to jurisdiction. The VA court order should have been enforced by the Tenn court provided he acted promptly.

 

[CJane]

You can't forum shop. No Tenn court could assume jurisdiciton under this situation unless both parents agreed to jurisdiction. The VA court order should have been enforced by the Tenn court provided he acted promptly.

Dad said he 'waited too long' which in my mind means more than 6 months. So, Mom filed in TN, and dad didn't fight jurisdiction which is the same thing as consenting to jurisdiction.

It's too late to change it now, mom has custody and mom will almost certainly be granted permission to move. TN has a presumption (see the statute I posted) that if both parents aren't spending equal time with the child, the move will be granted unless it's proven to be harmful. Both parents are NOT spending equal time with the child because Dad already lives 9 hours away. The move WILL be granted according to statute.

 

[LdiJ]

You can't forum shop. No Tenn court could assume jurisdiciton under this situation unless both parents agreed to jurisdiction. The VA court order should have been enforced by the Tenn court provided he acted promptly.

Its possible that VA did not validly have jurisdiction to start with. That is one reason why TN would have taken over the case. One example would be if the child was born in TN, and then mom and the child went to live with dad, but did not stay there for enough time to establish VA's jurisdiction.

 

[Mike703]

Its possible that VA did not validly have jurisdiction to start with. That is one reason why TN would have taken over the case. One example would be if the child was born in TN, and then mom and the child went to live with dad, but did not stay there for enough time to establish VA's jurisdiction.

That definitely was not the case....

 

[Mike703]

Following is a link to the statute for TN moveaways.

http://www.cynthiajbohn.com/CM/CustodyandAdoption/CustodyandAdoption27.asp

Turns out that the move will be granted, even if dad fights it unless he can prove one of the following is true... see quote below.

Thank you very much...this is helpful!

 

[Mike703]

I still dont think you all quite understand what I'm trying to accomplish, I AM NOT TRYING TO KEEP THEM FROM MOVING. I am trying to preserve my rights and my visitation if the move does in fact take place.

I can not afford to travel to Indiana for visitations on a consistent basis, so CP will have to accomodate or else the relationship between myself and my daughter could be severed (I believe that was one of the factors listed in Cjane's post for dispute).

So please...understand what I typed above and stop telling me that I can't keep them from moving...that's not the objective!

 

[Mike703]

Dad said he 'waited too long' which in my mind means more than 6 months. So, Mom filed in TN, and dad didn't fight jurisdiction which is the same thing as consenting to jurisdiction.

It's too late to change it now, mom has custody and mom will almost certainly be granted permission to move. TN has a presumption (see the statute I posted) that if both parents aren't spending equal time with the child, the move will be granted unless it's proven to be harmful. Both parents are NOT spending equal time with the child because Dad already lives 9 hours away. The move WILL be granted according to statute.

Well in all honesty...this goes back to the 'got bad legal advice' post. One of the factors that should have thrown her case out the window was that she was not officially a resident when she filed. Not to mention the hearing did not take place in juvenile or family/domestic court. Was just a bad experience all around. I dont think being a minority in rural Tennessee helped my case either...

 

[Mike703]

I am not assuming that you have been uninvolved in your child's life. I am quite sure that you have been as involved as its possible to be with a 9 hour distance between the two of you.

What I am saying, is that the only thing that might prevent you from enjoying that same level of involvement, is the transportation costs to maintain that same level of involvement. It may mean that flying will become more appropriate than driving, for example. Therefore, you are not going to be able to prevent the move, but you are going to be able to address the transportation issues and have the costs fairly apportioned.

While you are in court for that issue, you may want to consider getting the judge to order "virtual visitation". That is becoming increasingly popular, and it really is a great way to maintain regular contact in a long distance situation. Getting to see the parent while talking to them gives the child so much more than just a phone call.

I'm more interested in Physical Visitation....