Custodial parent interfering with visitation

[LdiJ]

LD i understand what you are saying and my school district is exactly the same way, which is I moved so that DD can attend the school we wanted as it was her home school now based on my home address. So presumably (and I dont know anymore that Dad here really cares about which school the child is in!), Dad and Mum were in agreement about the child's existing school. Now Mum is moving and yes the child will have to go to Mum's "home" school, but that then represents a change in school that Dad still has to approve regardless of the reason, i.e., Mum's moving, Mum wants a different school etc etc.
It is most likely going to be a no brainer for the courts to allow Mum to move and the child to go to a new school, BUT since Mum is being very evasive about her move and the new school, Dad has an oppurtunity here to exert his legal rights which will be considered by the courts. There is no reason to assume that the courts will automatically grant Mum the move, despite Dad being a long distance NCP if Dad's objection to the new school are credible enough.
Having said all this, this particular Dad seems to be only focused on plane tickets, so it may all be a moot point

You are really giving people a false impression...I am sorry but you really are.

There is absolutely no chance that a judge would deny a parent the right to relocate based on the quality of public schools, when the other parent is on the other side of the country. A judge doesn't have that discretion. A judge cannot order a parent to live in an area (for example) that a parent cannot afford...or cannot continue to afford... simply because the public schools have a higher rating.

A judge has the discretion to deny relocation when it impacts the other parent negatively. A judge has the discretion to change custody if a child is not making progress in school and it can be proven that the other parent is culpable.

However, you are giving people the impression that a parent on the other side of the country can control where the custodial parent lives, simply by school ratings....and that is absolutely not true.

 

[profmum]

You are really giving people a false impression...I am sorry but you really are.

There is absolutely no chance that a judge would deny a parent the right to relocate based on the quality of public schools, when the other parent is on the other side of the country.

And in effect you are saying that any NCP who lives in a different state has NO legal rights to the type of school the child is enrolled in, that is misleading!

A judge doesn't have that discretion.

A judge has EVERY RIGHT to deny or grant a relocation

A judge cannot order a parent to live in an area (for example) that a parent cannot afford...or cannot continue to afford... simply because the public schools have a higher rating.

This is NOT about relocation, the argument is about changing schools because of Mum's relocation, Dad should not be trying to block relocation for the reasons you mentioned (ie living out of state etc) but if that necessitates a change in school Dad has every legal right to have a voice in which school the child attends or at the very least for this OP, know what that school is!.

A judge has the discretion to deny relocation when it impacts the other parent negatively. A judge has the discretion to change custody if a child is not making progress in school and it can be proven that the other parent is culpable.

A judge has the discretion to DENY a school change if it is not in the child's best interest, whatever the reason for that change is.


However, you are giving people the impression that a parent on the other side of the country can control where the custodial parent lives, simply by school ratings....and that is absolutely not true.

Again you miss the point here. If Mum wants to relocate, she has to notify the court and/or get Dad's permission, if Dad has an objection with what school that such a relocation will result in, he has a right to object, whether that is based on ratings or whatever (I just used that as a simple illustrative example), it could be other reasons or a number of them. I did not IMPLY solely based on school ratings. You are suggesting that an NCP has NO say in his/her child's educational decision.

Let's agree to disagree!

 

[CJane]

Again you miss the point here. If Mum wants to relocate, she has to notify the court and/or get Dad's permission, if Dad has an objection with what school that such a relocation will result in, he has a right to object, whether that is based on ratings or whatever (I just used that as a simple illustrative example), it could be other reasons or a number of them. I did not IMPLY solely based on school ratings. You are suggesting that an NCP has NO say in his/her child's educational decision.

Let's agree to disagree!

Profmum, you're flat wrong on this one.

Mom ONLY needs permission IF she's leaving San Diego county, and EVEN IF she IS, there is no way at all Dad could enforce that portion of the order. He could file contempt, sure.... but he'd lose.

MOST orders (and we don't know FOR SURE about this one) simply say that the children will use one parent's address for school purposes. If that address changes, it's a foregone conclusion that the child's school will change and will still use THAT parent's address. Especially if the other parent is not in close enough proximity to maintain the original school choice.

This isn't an issue that "Joint Legal" comes into play because there is really no "decision" to be made. Now, if Mom has the choice of several schools, all in the same district and all convenient for HER (because remember Dad is across country), then Dad has some say - but no way does he have a CONTROLLING say as he's not close enough logistically for a judge to rule in his favor and inconvenience Mom in any way.

I get what you're saying, really I do. But IN THIS CASE, with the facts as presented, what you're saying isn't correct or practicable.

 

[LdiJ]

Profmum, you're flat wrong on this one.

Mom ONLY needs permission IF she's leaving San Diego county, and EVEN IF she IS, there is no way at all Dad could enforce that portion of the order. He could file contempt, sure.... but he'd lose.

MOST orders (and we don't know FOR SURE about this one) simply say that the children will use one parent's address for school purposes. If that address changes, it's a foregone conclusion that the child's school will change and will still use THAT parent's address. Especially if the other parent is not in close enough proximity to maintain the original school choice.

This isn't an issue that "Joint Legal" comes into play because there is really no "decision" to be made. Now, if Mom has the choice of several schools, all in the same district and all convenient for HER (because remember Dad is across country), then Dad has some say - but no way does he have a CONTROLLING say as he's not close enough logistically for a judge to rule in his favor and inconvenience Mom in any way.

I get what you're saying, really I do. But IN THIS CASE, with the facts as presented, what you're saying isn't correct or practicable.

I will also add that a judge cannot willy nilly deny a relocation either. A judge can only deny a relocation if the judge is willing to put the child(ren) in the custody of the other parent to keep the children in their current community/school...or if the relocation has a negative impact on the non-relocating parent, and is willing to put the child(ren) in the custody of the non-relocating parent in order to prevent that.

Any move this mother would make within the continental US would have no negative impact on dad, because she cannot get any further away than she is now. Any place else would be closer. If she moved somewhere remote/rural then it might up transportation costs, but a judge can easily make her responsible for that.

Since dad is not in the area a judge cannot put the children in dad's custody in order to keep them in their school/community either.

A judge also cannot prohibit mom from leaving San Diego county at all, a judge can only prevent the children from leaving San Diego county. An adult US citizen has the constitutional right to live anywhere they like in the US. A parent also has the constitutional right to the care and control of their children.

Since the judge cannot force the children to stay in San Diego county, and still be in the custody of ONE of their parents, a judge cannot force the children to stay...period.

Profmum really doesn't understand how joint legal custody works in terms of educational decisions if she believes that an ncp can stop a move simply by objecting to the children's school changing. It can be a factor if the parents live in the same community, but only a factor.

 

[profmum]

I will agree to disagree with CJane and LD on this one!.. I agree that what I am saying may not be practicable.. but you both do know that anything is possible in court..judges listen to anything and the outcome can be surprising.

Mum is moving within SD county, Mum is allowed to do so, Mum's move results in the child changing schools, Dad may not like the new school, Dad has a legal right to voice his opinion, whether he lives 10 mins from Mum or 5 states over. Practically the odds of Mum NOT being allowed to move with the kids may not be very high, but it is possible. There is no certain outcome in Family Law.. CJane you know this from personal experience. So there is no "wrong" or "not going to happen" in any scenario including this one.

 

[LdiJ]

I will agree to disagree with CJane and LD on this one!.. I agree that what I am saying may not be practicable.. but you both do know that anything is possible in court..judges listen to anything and the outcome can be surprising.

Mum is moving within SD county, Mum is allowed to do so, Mum's move results in the child changing schools, Dad may not like the new school, Dad has a legal right to voice his opinion, whether he lives 10 mins from Mum or 5 states over. Practically the odds of Mum NOT being allowed to move with the kids may not be very high, but it is possible. There is no certain outcome in Family Law.. CJane you know this from personal experience. So there is no "wrong" or "not going to happen" in any scenario including this one.

Well..its a serious agree to disagree. Because in a scenario like this one, if dad tried to stop a move based on not liking the new school, and a judge sided with dad, it could be overturned on appeal, in a heartbeat. Why? Because it would be a violation of mom's constitutional rights.

 

[melanie679]

Please... allow me to explain.
My husband is not concerned that his child's mother will choose poorly when choosing a school. The ONLY reason I put the part in there about the "needing dad's permission to move" was because it states that she needs to give him a 45 day written notice. My husband will obviously "allow" them to move (to Orange County) and trust the mother to choose a good school in their district.
The reason I put it in there was because she blatantly withheld all information about a possible move when he spoke with her about his son's Thanksgiving visit. She said she needed to "check his school schedule". When my husband told her that he already checked it on the school's website, she responded "you may be looking at last year's schedule." Knowing he was, indeed, checking the 2009-2010 calander, he bought the tickets (since the prices were rising steadily.)
He just wants to spend time with his son and she has been finding ways to not let that happen for years... which is why he filed for the modification (and was granted it in July)

 

[stealth2]

because it states that she needs to give him a 45 day written notice.

<snip>

she blatantly withheld all information about a possible move

If she's not planning on moving w/in 45 days, she was under no obligation to tell him anything about a potential move, although it may have been the "nice" thing to do.


As for this? I disagree.

Having said all this, this particular Dad seems to be only focused on plane tickets, so it may all be a moot point

So far, we only have stepmom disagreeing with anything.