Moving out of state and sharing child custody

On Mar 9, 3:15 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

ups.com...

There is no constitutionally protected right to travel.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution covers freedom of travel and
movement between the states.

There is NO constitutionally protected right to travel....for minors
(i.e. children).

This means that children DO NOT automatically follow the CP across
state lines.

Ask a judge what happens when a CP takes children across state lines
without permission.

TMT

On Mar 9, 4:48 am, "Kenneth S." wrote:
I think we should deal with practicalities here and with the
realities of what actually happens, not with theories or with what we wish
would happen.

In the days when I was writing up cases for a newsletter -- and I
did it for more than 10 years -- I too saw cases where the mother was not
allowed to move far away from the father. However, I doubt if there were
more than about two or three in all that time. I remember no cases where a
custodial father was prevented from moving--no doubt because custodial
fathers are so rare.

As for the comment about dealing with the moveaway situation in
advance, I wish it were the case that fathers could protect themselves in
this way. I myself had such a moveaway provision. However, I was always
aware that, if my ex wanted to move away with the children, it was very
likely that all that would happen would be that there would be a
reexamination of the custody arrangements, and she would then be allowed to
do so.

As for there being "no constitutionally protected right to travel,"
a very quick search of the database that I used when I was writing up the
cases finds frequent references by judges to this right, and they have been
referring to it for years, so it appears to be a well-established element in
these matters. Sometimes, the context of these references is simply to find
an excuse to deny the right to fathers. See, for example, the following
excerpt:

"The federal statute that directs the secretary of state to withhold
passports from parents who are more than $5,000 delinquent in child support
does not violate the constitutional right of international travel, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit held Feb. 22 (Eunique v. Powell, 9th
Cir., No. 99-56984, 2/22/02).

"Denying passports to 'deadbeat' parents is rationally related to the
government's interest in combating the economic problems caused by parents'
failure to pay child support, Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez said. He rejected
a dissenting judge's view that the due process right to leave one's country
'is too important to be subject to abridgment on so permissive a standard.'"

As for the rest of your message, it would be nice to think that
judges' bias towards mothers would trigger immediate interest by the media.
However, in many years of involvement in the fathers' rights movement I
found that there was no inclination by the media to run stories about this.
I saw this as just another indication of father's lack of political clout.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

ups.com...



There is no constitutionally protected right to travel.

I have seen cases where the CP was not allowed to move out of state
because of the hardship it caused the CHILDREN by denying visitation
by the NCP. I have also seen custody changed because the original CP
wanted to move the children to another state.

As with any good contract, any divorce stipulation needs to spell
these possible situations out and their resultant changes to custodial
status before the divorce is finalized IN WRITING.

I do agree that courts tend to favor the CP whether that parent is the
father or mother. The parent who is CP negotiates from a position of
power...like it or not.

To counter this, the NCP needs to take an ACTIVE role in the
children's lives with NO EXCUSES. This approach allows one to have a
strong case if one needs to pursue further court action in the future.

And of course it varies very much from state to state. Considering
that the majority of marriages fail, it is only common sense to reside
in a state that allows for favorable divorce terms if the marriage
does fail. This should be a consideration as to where one should live
as much as salary, climate or culture.

If a judge is showing undue favoritism, having the case show up on the
six o'clock news and shining the public spotlight on the situation can
do wonders.

TMT

On Mar 8, 6:24 am, "Kenneth S." wrote:
Unfortunately, I must seriously question the overall summary of the
situation below. Of course, it varies from state to state. However, in
many years of writing up cases from all over the U.S. for a newsletter on
family law issues, it appeared to me that -- overwhelmingly -- mothers
who
wanted to move were allowed to do so with the child or children.

The mothers' lawyers typically would argue that the mothers had a
constitutionally protected right to travel, and the judges would just
pretend to swallow this argument. Of course, the judges must have been
aware -- unless they were complete numbskulls -- that the issue wasn't
whether the mother could move to Timbuctu or not. The issue was whether
she
could take the children. If the judges ever got into the question of the
children's interests, they almost invariably concluded that the move
would
be favorable to the children. And after all the father could always see
them for a few weeks during the summer, couldn't he?

In many years of writing up these cases, I concluded that there was a
simple way of predicting the outcome of disputes in family law courts
throughout the U.S. It was to apply the principle that the man will lose.
I
found that interesting, considering that most men know of the prevalent
anti-male prejudice in the courts, and considering that the cases that
reached the courts must have been the ones where fathers were convinced
that
they had the best of the argument.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

groups.com...

Interesting question...I know of several families who have faced this
situation.

One would need to ask this question of a lawyer who is aware of what
the specific state's laws are.

In the cases that I am aware of the CP will not be allowed to leave
the state with the child in tow. NCPs have considerable (almost
absolute) say as to where the CP can reside since distance affects the
court order on visitation. Thinking that you can just up and leave is
a ticket straight to jail for some serious time. Judges take a dim
view of crossing state lines with children without consent since many
child abductions are parent based trying to thwart the court's
rulings.

The best solution for everyone involved...get a job where the CP is
now located...or get another girlfriend. Yeah I know that is not what
you want to hear but that is likely how it will be played out.

As has been said before, life is the art of compromise.

Also be advised that second marriages have a higher incidence of
divorce. (~70%)

Good luck with your decision.

TMT

On Feb 24, 6:51 pm, "eric" wrote:
Hello,

I need some advice on the following situation. I want to marry a girl
who is divorced and has a 4 year old daughter. She has shared custody
of the child with her ex-husband. They both live in California not
very far from each other, so according to the court order, the child
spends half of the week with her mother and the rest with her father.
Now, I used to live close to the girl but recently moved out of state
to Texas on a new job and cannot move back in the next few years. I
want to marry her and want her to move to Texas, but at the same time
don't want her to lose custody of her child. She raised the child
entirely by herself and it has only been recently that her ex-husband
has been sharing custody, most probably to avoid paying for child
support. What can we do in such a situation so that she can move to
Texas but still have either partial or full custody of her child?

Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ken,

It would seem you have an agenda.

I am dealing with practicalities here and with the realities of what
actually happens.

If you have compiled cases for a newletter, then please provide the
cites to the cases you mention.

I look forward to reading them.

Perhaps the disagreement we have here is that family law changes over
time. The quantity and high profile of many child abductions across
state lines have forced the family courts to recognize that the CP has
obiligations to maintain residence near the NCP.

Thanks

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 9, 3:15 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

ups.com...

There is no constitutionally protected right to travel.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution covers freedom of travel and
movement between the states.

There is NO constitutionally protected right to travel....for minors
(i.e. children).

This means that children DO NOT automatically follow the CP across
state lines.

Ask a judge what happens when a CP takes children across state lines
without permission.

Assuming the CP is a woman (which is an all but sure bet), and the judge is
truthful, ................. nothing.


TMT