LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
And mom was told she'd lose the kids if she moved....

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
. com...
"The Dave©" wrote in message
ews.com...
"Tracy" wrote
Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being
screwed
up
kids
because their parents simply could not come to terms about their
divorce
and
do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead they
have
spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their
children, in
my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I
mean
really
now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent
their
children - what am I thinking!

I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett &
Devlen,
so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she
wishes,
but
she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the details
with
Gary first.

I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to move
the
kids.
The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both parents
have
an
obligation to see to it that access is available. There are other
law
schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job
offer?
Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids from
their
father should never have been an option in her mind. You are 100%
correct,
Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted.

Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His
relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts
seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can
improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving
relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only
ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put
their differences aside for the sake of their children!

TM - keep in mind what you read what one side of the story.
Bottom-line -
the father took the case to court to keep the boys near him. That
doesn't
sound like a father who doesn't give a hoot about the relationship
between
him and his sons.

... and has done just that. Sounds like mom has also lost any value she
placed
on HER relationship with the kids...

Looks like it could be one of those cases where BOTH parents use the kids as
weapons against the ex. I've been subpoenaed to testify in a couple of
those over the years--not fun! None of the parents involved seem even aware
of how they are using the children--they are just so sure they are right,
that they truly believe that what they are fighting for is BEST for the
children. And the children MUST be upset because of what the OTHER parent
is doing. So here we have dad jamming things up in court to keep mom from
moving--and mom moving to a different place to stick it to dad. And the
kids now in a very precarious position, not knowing WHAT will happen to
them. It's just hateful all the way around!

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
And mom was told she'd lose the kids if she moved....

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
. com...
"The Dave©" wrote in message
ews.com...
"Tracy" wrote
Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being
screwed
up
kids
because their parents simply could not come to terms about their
divorce
and
do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead
they
have
spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their
children, in
my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I
mean
really
now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent
their
children - what am I thinking!

I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett
&
Devlen,
so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she
wishes,
but
she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the
details
with
Gary first.

I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to move
the
kids.
The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both parents
have
an
obligation to see to it that access is available. There are other
law
schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job
offer?
Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids from
their
father should never have been an option in her mind. You are 100%
correct,
Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted.

Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His
relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts
seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can
improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving
relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only
ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put
their differences aside for the sake of their children!

TM - keep in mind what you read what one side of the story.
Bottom-line -
the father took the case to court to keep the boys near him. That
doesn't
sound like a father who doesn't give a hoot about the relationship
between
him and his sons.

... and has done just that. Sounds like mom has also lost any value she
placed
on HER relationship with the kids...

Looks like it could be one of those cases where BOTH parents use the kids
as
weapons against the ex. I've been subpoenaed to testify in a couple of
those over the years--not fun! None of the parents involved seem even
aware
of how they are using the children--they are just so sure they are right,
that they truly believe that what they are fighting for is BEST for the
children. And the children MUST be upset because of what the OTHER parent
is doing. So here we have dad jamming things up in court to keep mom from
moving--and mom moving to a different place to stick it to dad. And the
kids now in a very precarious position, not knowing WHAT will happen to
them. It's just hateful all the way around!

How can dad "jammin things up in court" to keep his kids near him be a bad
thing??? If mom is intent to take his kids half way across the country,
what else is he suppose to do? You cant "work out" moving. You either move
or dont. Mom wanted to move... dad said he didnt want the kids to leave.
The only thing dad could do was arrange to move also. He shouldnt have to
do that.
~August

"~August" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
And mom was told she'd lose the kids if she moved....

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
. com...
"The Dave©" wrote in message
ews.com...
"Tracy" wrote
Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being
screwed
up
kids
because their parents simply could not come to terms about
their
divorce
and
do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead
they
have
spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their
children, in
my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I
mean
really
now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and
parent
their
children - what am I thinking!

I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys,
Garrett
&
Devlen,
so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she
wishes,
but
she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the
details
with
Gary first.

I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to
move
the
kids.
The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both
parents
have
an
obligation to see to it that access is available. There are
other
law
schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job
offer?
Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids
from
their
father should never have been an option in her mind. You are
100%
correct,
Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted.

Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His
relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The
courts
seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can
improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving
relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the
only
ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put
their differences aside for the sake of their children!

TM - keep in mind what you read what one side of the story.
Bottom-line -
the father took the case to court to keep the boys near him. That
doesn't
sound like a father who doesn't give a hoot about the relationship
between
him and his sons.

... and has done just that. Sounds like mom has also lost any value
she
placed
on HER relationship with the kids...

Looks like it could be one of those cases where BOTH parents use the
kids
as
weapons against the ex. I've been subpoenaed to testify in a couple of
those over the years--not fun! None of the parents involved seem even
aware
of how they are using the children--they are just so sure they are
right,
that they truly believe that what they are fighting for is BEST for the
children. And the children MUST be upset because of what the OTHER
parent
is doing. So here we have dad jamming things up in court to keep mom
from
moving--and mom moving to a different place to stick it to dad. And the
kids now in a very precarious position, not knowing WHAT will happen to
them. It's just hateful all the way around!

How can dad "jammin things up in court" to keep his kids near him be a bad
thing??? If mom is intent to take his kids half way across the country,
what else is he suppose to do? You cant "work out" moving. You either
move
or dont. Mom wanted to move... dad said he didnt want the kids to leave.
The only thing dad could do was arrange to move also. He shouldnt have to
do that.

But you are skipping the part where dad's relationship with the boys is
"tenuous and detached" and always has been. And the part where new wife
(maybe soon to be ex #3) does not have a good relationship with the boys,
either. Perhaps you could lay part of this at mom's door--but there seem to
have been a series of counselors over the last 7 years--and the original
request for a move was denied by the court so that the relationship between
dad and the boys could improve. When you look at how family court tends to
act toward NCP dads, it would seem that this family had a judge who was
actually willing to work with dad to make sure he DID have a relationship
with the boys--a somewhat rare judge in the scheme of things these days.
And yet the relationship has not improved. In spite of a father-friendly
judge. So, did dad go to court to block the move in order to keep his
visitation schedule? Or in order to stick it to mom? I don't know--but my
first impression was not a positive one about either parent. I have a
friend who wants to move this summer with her 8 year old daughter and
husband. She has to get the court's permission even though the child's
father has not seen her, asked about her, paid child support, or
communicated with her in over 4 years. That man has the power to say "No.
You can't move." Would he be just a loving dad who doesn't want his child
moved across country?

As for mom, she absolutely should not have moved those children. She was
wrong! And, considering how long it has taken for her last request to move
to work its way through the courts, she is probably counting on it taking
equally as long to resolve the mess created by their move to AZ--and the
boys will be pretty near grown by then. The whole system is disgusting!

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"~August" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
And mom was told she'd lose the kids if she moved....

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
. com...
"The Dave©" wrote in message
ews.com...
"Tracy" wrote
Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being
screwed
up
kids
because their parents simply could not come to terms about
their
divorce
and
do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead
they
have
spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their
children, in
my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude.
I
mean
really
now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and
parent
their
children - what am I thinking!

I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys,
Garrett
&
Devlen,
so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she
wishes,
but
she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the
details
with
Gary first.

I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to
move
the
kids.
The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both
parents
have
an
obligation to see to it that access is available. There are
other
law
schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job
offer?
Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids
from
their
father should never have been an option in her mind. You are
100%
correct,
Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted.

Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His
relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The
courts
seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can
improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and
loving
relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the
only
ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't
put
their differences aside for the sake of their children!

TM - keep in mind what you read what one side of the story.
Bottom-line -
the father took the case to court to keep the boys near him. That
doesn't
sound like a father who doesn't give a hoot about the relationship
between
him and his sons.

... and has done just that. Sounds like mom has also lost any value
she
placed
on HER relationship with the kids...

Looks like it could be one of those cases where BOTH parents use the
kids
as
weapons against the ex. I've been subpoenaed to testify in a couple
of
those over the years--not fun! None of the parents involved seem even
aware
of how they are using the children--they are just so sure they are
right,
that they truly believe that what they are fighting for is BEST for
the
children. And the children MUST be upset because of what the OTHER
parent
is doing. So here we have dad jamming things up in court to keep mom
from
moving--and mom moving to a different place to stick it to dad. And
the
kids now in a very precarious position, not knowing WHAT will happen
to
them. It's just hateful all the way around!

How can dad "jammin things up in court" to keep his kids near him be a
bad
thing??? If mom is intent to take his kids half way across the country,
what else is he suppose to do? You cant "work out" moving. You either
move
or dont. Mom wanted to move... dad said he didnt want the kids to leave.
The only thing dad could do was arrange to move also. He shouldnt have
to
do that.

But you are skipping the part where dad's relationship with the boys is
"tenuous and detached" and always has been. And the part where new wife
(maybe soon to be ex #3) does not have a good relationship with the boys,
either. Perhaps you could lay part of this at mom's door--but there seem
to
have been a series of counselors over the last 7 years--and the original
request for a move was denied by the court so that the relationship
between
dad and the boys could improve. When you look at how family court tends
to
act toward NCP dads, it would seem that this family had a judge who was
actually willing to work with dad to make sure he DID have a relationship
with the boys--a somewhat rare judge in the scheme of things these days.
And yet the relationship has not improved. In spite of a father-friendly
judge. So, did dad go to court to block the move in order to keep his
visitation schedule? Or in order to stick it to mom? I don't know--but
my
first impression was not a positive one about either parent. I have a
friend who wants to move this summer with her 8 year old daughter and
husband. She has to get the court's permission even though the child's
father has not seen her, asked about her, paid child support, or
communicated with her in over 4 years. That man has the power to say
"No.
You can't move." Would he be just a loving dad who doesn't want his child
moved across country?

As for mom, she absolutely should not have moved those children. She was
wrong! And, considering how long it has taken for her last request to
move
to work its way through the courts, she is probably counting on it taking
equally as long to resolve the mess created by their move to AZ--and the
boys will be pretty near grown by then. The whole system is disgusting!

You've made some good points. I just want to point out that when a father
remarries and has subsequent children, the courts rule he knew about his
prior obligation to his ex-spouse for CS and therefore he gets no
preferential treatment for his subsequent family.

Likewise, when a mother remarries and knows she has an obligation to not
move the children away from their father, the court is telling her she
should not get preferential treatment just because her new husband wants to
move.

The feminists are making a big deal out of this case because the rulings
have limited mother's choices post-divorce. As usual the feminists won't
admit similar treatment of fathers occurs all the time.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"~August" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
And mom was told she'd lose the kids if she moved....

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
. com...
"The Dave©" wrote in message
ews.com...
"Tracy" wrote
Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up
being
screwed
up
kids
because their parents simply could not come to terms about
their
divorce
and
do what is necessary for the sake of their children.
Instead
they
have
spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for
their
children, in
my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type
attitude.
I
mean
really
now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and
parent
their
children - what am I thinking!

I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys,
Garrett
&
Devlen,
so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever
she
wishes,
but
she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the
details
with
Gary first.

I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to
move
the
kids.
The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both
parents
have
an
obligation to see to it that access is available. There are
other
law
schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a
job
offer?
Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids
from
their
father should never have been an option in her mind. You are
100%
correct,
Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted.

Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His
relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The
courts
seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can
improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and
loving
relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the
only
ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't
put
their differences aside for the sake of their children!

TM - keep in mind what you read what one side of the story.
Bottom-line -
the father took the case to court to keep the boys near him.
That
doesn't
sound like a father who doesn't give a hoot about the
relationship
between
him and his sons.

... and has done just that. Sounds like mom has also lost any
value
she
placed
on HER relationship with the kids...

Looks like it could be one of those cases where BOTH parents use the
kids
as
weapons against the ex. I've been subpoenaed to testify in a couple
of
those over the years--not fun! None of the parents involved seem
even
aware
of how they are using the children--they are just so sure they are
right,
that they truly believe that what they are fighting for is BEST for
the
children. And the children MUST be upset because of what the OTHER
parent
is doing. So here we have dad jamming things up in court to keep
mom
from
moving--and mom moving to a different place to stick it to dad. And
the
kids now in a very precarious position, not knowing WHAT will happen
to
them. It's just hateful all the way around!

How can dad "jammin things up in court" to keep his kids near him be a
bad
thing??? If mom is intent to take his kids half way across the
country,
what else is he suppose to do? You cant "work out" moving. You
either
move
or dont. Mom wanted to move... dad said he didnt want the kids to
leave.
The only thing dad could do was arrange to move also. He shouldnt
have
to
do that.

But you are skipping the part where dad's relationship with the boys is
"tenuous and detached" and always has been. And the part where new wife
(maybe soon to be ex #3) does not have a good relationship with the
boys,
either. Perhaps you could lay part of this at mom's door--but there
seem
to
have been a series of counselors over the last 7 years--and the original
request for a move was denied by the court so that the relationship
between
dad and the boys could improve. When you look at how family court tends
to
act toward NCP dads, it would seem that this family had a judge who was
actually willing to work with dad to make sure he DID have a
relationship
with the boys--a somewhat rare judge in the scheme of things these days.
And yet the relationship has not improved. In spite of a
father-friendly
judge. So, did dad go to court to block the move in order to keep his
visitation schedule? Or in order to stick it to mom? I don't know--but
my
first impression was not a positive one about either parent. I have a
friend who wants to move this summer with her 8 year old daughter and
husband. She has to get the court's permission even though the child's
father has not seen her, asked about her, paid child support, or
communicated with her in over 4 years. That man has the power to say
"No.
You can't move." Would he be just a loving dad who doesn't want his
child
moved across country?

As for mom, she absolutely should not have moved those children. She
was
wrong! And, considering how long it has taken for her last request to
move
to work its way through the courts, she is probably counting on it
taking
equally as long to resolve the mess created by their move to AZ--and the
boys will be pretty near grown by then. The whole system is disgusting!

You've made some good points. I just want to point out that when a father
remarries and has subsequent children, the courts rule he knew about his
prior obligation to his ex-spouse for CS and therefore he gets no
preferential treatment for his subsequent family.

Likewise, when a mother remarries and knows she has an obligation to not
move the children away from their father, the court is telling her she
should not get preferential treatment just because her new husband wants
to
move.

The feminists are making a big deal out of this case because the rulings
have limited mother's choices post-divorce. As usual the feminists won't
admit similar treatment of fathers occurs all the time.

Mom's choices to move or stay are not at all limited. She can go anywhere
she wants to. Her choice to move the children is what is limited. I think
what is being sought is a judgement that states that mom and kids are a
package, and, since she has a right to move, the whole package goes with
her. Hopefully, that won't happen.

The other thing that bothers me about this particular case is that, not only
does mom want to move the boys away from dad, she also wants him to pay more
in child support at the same time. I don't know if that is arrogance, or
just plain rudeness. Geesh!!

As for no preferential treatment for subsequent families--my husband didn't
even know about daughter #1 when we married and had kids, and our children
are still considered "subsequent family!"