If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Court: Closer scrutiny in custody case moves
By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, April 30, 2004 SAN FRANCISCO - In a decision that will shape thousands of California families, the state Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for custodial parents to move away and take the children with them. The court retreated from a landmark ruling, followed by lower courts for the past eight years, that stressed "stability in custody arrangements" and freed most divorced custodial parents - usually mothers - to move to new lives and new jobs. The new ruling puts the focus on children's "best interests," and it gives local judges wide discretion to determine what's best. Disruption of a child's relationship with a noncustodial parent may be sufficiently harmful that it justifies a change in custody, the opinion says. The case was closely watched by the dozens of family law authorities who submitted friend-of-the-court briefs. Their reactions to the decision were divided. The Association of Certified Family Law Specialists expressed "a lot of relief" at the opinion's emphasis on the real consequences for children, but leading family law professors predicted an increase in litigation that will tragically impact kids' lives. The National Organization for Women said the decision "binds the lives of many women and men, for that matter, who are trying to provide safety and economic opportunity for their families." The justices voted 6-1 to uphold a Contra Costa County judge's order switching primary physical custody of two youngsters - now 9 and 11 years old - to their father, Gary LaMusga, if their mother, Susan Navarro, followed her new husband to Ohio, where he worked and she had other relatives. "The primary importance ... is to be able to reinforce what is now a tenuous and somewhat detached relationship with the boys and their father," said the local judge, Terence Bruiniers, in ruling in LaMusga's favor. The state Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Navarro. Its interpretation of the Supreme Court's 1996 landmark was codified by the Legislature. But now the Supreme Court's majority has restored Bruiniers' decision and said its own 1996 opinion did not give appellate judges authority to second-guess Superior Courts on what's best for kids. Bruiniers had concluded that the children's "best interests" would be violated by weakening their relationship with their noncustodial father. Justice Joyce Kennard, the sole dissenter, said Bruiniers "never mentioned the potential harm to the children from losing their mother as their primary caretaker, despite undisputed evidence that this harm would be significant." Although the family's circumstances reportedly have changed since the initial ruling in 2001, and the outcome of the case may not be decided until the local judge reviews the current situation, the Supreme Court decision alters the ground rules for all such cases in the future. Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the court's majority, set forth a list of factors that judges "ordinarily should consider when deciding whether to modify a custody order in light of the custodial parent's proposal to change the residence of the child." Those include stability and continuity in the custody arrangement, the relationships of both parents with the children and with each other, the distance of and reasons for the proposed move, and the children's wishes. The decision changes the focus in move-away cases "from a parent-centered to a child-centered analysis," said Garrett Dailey, who argued on behalf of LaMusga in the Supreme Court. Dailey predicted that in most cases custodial parents will still be able to move and take the children. To assure that they don't lose that right, he said, "the best thing they can do is to be a good parent and foster their children's relationship with the other parent." The evidence indicated Navarro had failed to do that. On the other side of the case, Tony Tanke, who argued for Navarro, called the decision "fundamentally lawless." It gives local judges the power to forbid custodial parents from relocating "because they were not sufficiently friendly toward an ex-spouse," he said. "The Supreme Court decision has muddied the waters," said Leanne Schlegel, who was appointed by Bruiniers to represent the LaMusga children and had recommended that Navarro be allowed to take them and also be required to assure frequent contact between them and their father. The California Women's Law Center called the decision "a huge step backwards." "A tragic day for children, a tragic day for the rule of law and a tragic day for scholarship," said Carol Bruch, a University of California, Davis, law professor. She said the decision continues a line of recent state Supreme Court decisions giving more power to trial judges and removing effective appellate review. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Holly cow, what did you do to that post??? a pain in the neck to read
with what appears to be no word-wrap on! On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:38:46 GMT, wrote: Court: Closer scrutiny in custody case moves By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, April 30, 2004 SAN FRANCISCO - In a decision that will shape thousands of California families, the state Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for custodial parents to move away and take the children with them. The court retreated from a landmark ruling, followed by lower courts for the past eight years, that stressed "stability in custody arrangements" and freed most divorced custodial parents - usually mothers - to move to new lives and new jobs. The new ruling puts the focus on children's "best interests," and it gives local judges wide discretion to determine what's best. Disruption of a child's relationship with a noncustodial parent may be sufficiently harmful that it justifies a change in custody, the opinion says. The case was closely watched by the dozens of family law authorities who submitted friend-of-the-court briefs. Their reactions to the decision were divided. The Association of Certified Family Law Specialists expressed "a lot of relief" at the opinion's emphasis on the real consequences for children, but leading family law professors predicted an increase in litigation that will tragically impact kids' lives. The National Organization for Women said the decision "binds the lives of many women and men, for that matter, who are trying to provide safety and economic opportunity for their families." The justices voted 6-1 to uphold a Contra Costa County judge's order switching primary physical custody of two youngsters - now 9 and 11 years old - to their father, Gary LaMusga, if their mother, Susan Navarro, followed her new husband to Ohio, where he worked and she had other relatives. "The primary importance ... is to be able to reinforce what is now a tenuous and somewhat detached relationship with the boys and their father," said the local judge, Terence Bruiniers, in ruling in LaMusga's favor. The state Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Navarro. Its interpretation of the Supreme Court's 1996 landmark was codified by the Legislature. But now the Supreme Court's majority has restored Bruiniers' decision and said its own 1996 opinion did not give appellate judges authority to second-guess Superior Courts on what's best for kids. Bruiniers had concluded that the children's "best interests" would be violated by weakening their relationship with their noncustodial father. Justice Joyce Kennard, the sole dissenter, said Bruiniers "never mentioned the potential harm to the children from losing their mother as their primary caretaker, despite undisputed evidence that this harm would be significant." Although the family's circumstances reportedly have changed since the initial ruling in 2001, and the outcome of the case may not be decided until the local judge reviews the current situation, the Supreme Court decision alters the ground rules for all such cases in the future. Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the court's majority, set forth a list of factors that judges "ordinarily should consider when deciding whether to modify a custody order in light of the custodial parent's proposal to change the residence of the child." Those include stability and continuity in the custody arrangement, the relationships of both parents with the children and with each other, the distance of and reasons for the proposed move, and the children's wishes. The decision changes the focus in move-away cases "from a parent-centered to a child-centered analysis," said Garrett Dailey, who argued on behalf of LaMusga in the Supreme Court. Dailey predicted that in most cases custodial parents will still be able to move and take the children. To assure that they don't lose that right, he said, "the best thing they can do is to be a good parent and foster their children's relationship with the other parent." The evidence indicated Navarro had failed to do that. On the other side of the case, Tony Tanke, who argued for Navarro, called the decision "fundamentally lawless." It gives local judges the power to forbid custodial parents from relocating "because they were not sufficiently friendly toward an ex-spouse," he said. "The Supreme Court decision has muddied the waters," said Leanne Schlegel, who was appointed by Bruiniers to represent the LaMusga children and had recommended that Navarro be allowed to take them and also be required to assure frequent contact between them and their father. The California Women's Law Center called the decision "a huge step backwards." "A tragic day for children, a tragic day for the rule of law and a tragic day for scholarship," said Carol Bruch, a University of California, Davis, law professor. She said the decision continues a line of recent state Supreme Court decisions giving more power to trial judges and removing effective appellate review. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Holly cow, what did you do to that post??? a pain in the neck to read
with what appears to be no word-wrap on! On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:38:46 GMT, wrote: Court: Closer scrutiny in custody case moves By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, April 30, 2004 SAN FRANCISCO - In a decision that will shape thousands of California families, the state Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for custodial parents to move away and take the children with them. The court retreated from a landmark ruling, followed by lower courts for the past eight years, that stressed "stability in custody arrangements" and freed most divorced custodial parents - usually mothers - to move to new lives and new jobs. The new ruling puts the focus on children's "best interests," and it gives local judges wide discretion to determine what's best. Disruption of a child's relationship with a noncustodial parent may be sufficiently harmful that it justifies a change in custody, the opinion says. The case was closely watched by the dozens of family law authorities who submitted friend-of-the-court briefs. Their reactions to the decision were divided. The Association of Certified Family Law Specialists expressed "a lot of relief" at the opinion's emphasis on the real consequences for children, but leading family law professors predicted an increase in litigation that will tragically impact kids' lives. The National Organization for Women said the decision "binds the lives of many women and men, for that matter, who are trying to provide safety and economic opportunity for their families." The justices voted 6-1 to uphold a Contra Costa County judge's order switching primary physical custody of two youngsters - now 9 and 11 years old - to their father, Gary LaMusga, if their mother, Susan Navarro, followed her new husband to Ohio, where he worked and she had other relatives. "The primary importance ... is to be able to reinforce what is now a tenuous and somewhat detached relationship with the boys and their father," said the local judge, Terence Bruiniers, in ruling in LaMusga's favor. The state Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Navarro. Its interpretation of the Supreme Court's 1996 landmark was codified by the Legislature. But now the Supreme Court's majority has restored Bruiniers' decision and said its own 1996 opinion did not give appellate judges authority to second-guess Superior Courts on what's best for kids. Bruiniers had concluded that the children's "best interests" would be violated by weakening their relationship with their noncustodial father. Justice Joyce Kennard, the sole dissenter, said Bruiniers "never mentioned the potential harm to the children from losing their mother as their primary caretaker, despite undisputed evidence that this harm would be significant." Although the family's circumstances reportedly have changed since the initial ruling in 2001, and the outcome of the case may not be decided until the local judge reviews the current situation, the Supreme Court decision alters the ground rules for all such cases in the future. Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the court's majority, set forth a list of factors that judges "ordinarily should consider when deciding whether to modify a custody order in light of the custodial parent's proposal to change the residence of the child." Those include stability and continuity in the custody arrangement, the relationships of both parents with the children and with each other, the distance of and reasons for the proposed move, and the children's wishes. The decision changes the focus in move-away cases "from a parent-centered to a child-centered analysis," said Garrett Dailey, who argued on behalf of LaMusga in the Supreme Court. Dailey predicted that in most cases custodial parents will still be able to move and take the children. To assure that they don't lose that right, he said, "the best thing they can do is to be a good parent and foster their children's relationship with the other parent." The evidence indicated Navarro had failed to do that. On the other side of the case, Tony Tanke, who argued for Navarro, called the decision "fundamentally lawless." It gives local judges the power to forbid custodial parents from relocating "because they were not sufficiently friendly toward an ex-spouse," he said. "The Supreme Court decision has muddied the waters," said Leanne Schlegel, who was appointed by Bruiniers to represent the LaMusga children and had recommended that Navarro be allowed to take them and also be required to assure frequent contact between them and their father. The California Women's Law Center called the decision "a huge step backwards." "A tragic day for children, a tragic day for the rule of law and a tragic day for scholarship," said Carol Bruch, a University of California, Davis, law professor. She said the decision continues a line of recent state Supreme Court decisions giving more power to trial judges and removing effective appellate review. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Holly cow, what did you do to that post??? a pain in the neck to read
with what appears to be no word-wrap on! On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:38:46 GMT, wrote: Court: Closer scrutiny in custody case moves By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, April 30, 2004 SAN FRANCISCO - In a decision that will shape thousands of California families, the state Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for custodial parents to move away and take the children with them. The court retreated from a landmark ruling, followed by lower courts for the past eight years, that stressed "stability in custody arrangements" and freed most divorced custodial parents - usually mothers - to move to new lives and new jobs. The new ruling puts the focus on children's "best interests," and it gives local judges wide discretion to determine what's best. Disruption of a child's relationship with a noncustodial parent may be sufficiently harmful that it justifies a change in custody, the opinion says. The case was closely watched by the dozens of family law authorities who submitted friend-of-the-court briefs. Their reactions to the decision were divided. The Association of Certified Family Law Specialists expressed "a lot of relief" at the opinion's emphasis on the real consequences for children, but leading family law professors predicted an increase in litigation that will tragically impact kids' lives. The National Organization for Women said the decision "binds the lives of many women and men, for that matter, who are trying to provide safety and economic opportunity for their families." The justices voted 6-1 to uphold a Contra Costa County judge's order switching primary physical custody of two youngsters - now 9 and 11 years old - to their father, Gary LaMusga, if their mother, Susan Navarro, followed her new husband to Ohio, where he worked and she had other relatives. "The primary importance ... is to be able to reinforce what is now a tenuous and somewhat detached relationship with the boys and their father," said the local judge, Terence Bruiniers, in ruling in LaMusga's favor. The state Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Navarro. Its interpretation of the Supreme Court's 1996 landmark was codified by the Legislature. But now the Supreme Court's majority has restored Bruiniers' decision and said its own 1996 opinion did not give appellate judges authority to second-guess Superior Courts on what's best for kids. Bruiniers had concluded that the children's "best interests" would be violated by weakening their relationship with their noncustodial father. Justice Joyce Kennard, the sole dissenter, said Bruiniers "never mentioned the potential harm to the children from losing their mother as their primary caretaker, despite undisputed evidence that this harm would be significant." Although the family's circumstances reportedly have changed since the initial ruling in 2001, and the outcome of the case may not be decided until the local judge reviews the current situation, the Supreme Court decision alters the ground rules for all such cases in the future. Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the court's majority, set forth a list of factors that judges "ordinarily should consider when deciding whether to modify a custody order in light of the custodial parent's proposal to change the residence of the child." Those include stability and continuity in the custody arrangement, the relationships of both parents with the children and with each other, the distance of and reasons for the proposed move, and the children's wishes. The decision changes the focus in move-away cases "from a parent-centered to a child-centered analysis," said Garrett Dailey, who argued on behalf of LaMusga in the Supreme Court. Dailey predicted that in most cases custodial parents will still be able to move and take the children. To assure that they don't lose that right, he said, "the best thing they can do is to be a good parent and foster their children's relationship with the other parent." The evidence indicated Navarro had failed to do that. On the other side of the case, Tony Tanke, who argued for Navarro, called the decision "fundamentally lawless." It gives local judges the power to forbid custodial parents from relocating "because they were not sufficiently friendly toward an ex-spouse," he said. "The Supreme Court decision has muddied the waters," said Leanne Schlegel, who was appointed by Bruiniers to represent the LaMusga children and had recommended that Navarro be allowed to take them and also be required to assure frequent contact between them and their father. The California Women's Law Center called the decision "a huge step backwards." "A tragic day for children, a tragic day for the rule of law and a tragic day for scholarship," said Carol Bruch, a University of California, Davis, law professor. She said the decision continues a line of recent state Supreme Court decisions giving more power to trial judges and removing effective appellate review. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Try this.....
Court: Closer scrutiny in custody case moves By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, April 30, 2004 SAN FRANCISCO - In a decision that will shape thousands of California families, the state Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for custodial parents to move away and take the children with them. The court retreated from a landmark ruling, followed by lower courts for the past eight years, that stressed "stability in custody arrangements" and freed most divorced custodial parents - usually mothers - to move to new lives and new jobs. The new ruling puts the focus on children's "best interests," and it gives local judges wide discretion to determine what's best. Disruption of a child's relationship with a noncustodial parent may be sufficiently harmful that it justifies a change in custody, the opinion says. The case was closely watched by the dozens of family law authorities who submitted friend-of-the-court briefs. Their reactions to the decision were divided. The Association of Certified Family Law Specialists expressed "a lot of relief" at the opinion's emphasis on the real consequences for children, but leading family law professors predicted an increase in litigation that will tragically impact kids' lives. The National Organization for Women said the decision "binds the lives of many women and men, for that matter, who are trying to provide safety and economic opportunity for their families." The justices voted 6-1 to uphold a Contra Costa County judge's order switching primary physical custody of two youngsters - now 9 and 11 years old - to their father, Gary LaMusga, if their mother, Susan Navarro, followed her new husband to Ohio, where he worked and she had other relatives. "The primary importance ... is to be able to reinforce what is now a tenuous and somewhat detached relationship with the boys and their father," said the local judge, Terence Bruiniers, in ruling in LaMusga's favor. The state Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Navarro. Its interpretation of the Supreme Court's 1996 landmark was codified by the Legislature. But now the Supreme Court's majority has restored Bruiniers' decision and said its own 1996 opinion did not give appellate judges authority to second-guess Superior Courts on what's best for kids. Bruiniers had concluded that the children's "best interests" would be violated by weakening their relationship with their noncustodial father. Justice Joyce Kennard, the sole dissenter, said Bruiniers "never mentioned the potential harm to the children from losing their mother as their primary caretaker, despite undisputed evidence that this harm would be significant." Although the family's circumstances reportedly have changed since the initial ruling in 2001, and the outcome of the case may not be decided until the local judge reviews the current situation, the Supreme Court decision alters the ground rules for all such cases in the future. Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the court's majority, set forth a list of factors that judges "ordinarily should consider when deciding whether to modify a custody order in light of the custodial parent's proposal to change the residence of the child." Those include stability and continuity in the custody arrangement, the relationships of both parents with the children and with each other, the distance of and reasons for the proposed move, and the children's wishes. The decision changes the focus in move-away cases "from a parent-centered to a child-centered analysis," said Garrett Dailey, who argued on behalf of LaMusga in the Supreme Court. Dailey predicted that in most cases custodial parents will still be able to move and take the children. To assure that they don't lose that right, he said, "the best thing they can do is to be a good parent and foster their children's relationship with the other parent." The evidence indicated Navarro had failed to do that. On the other side of the case, Tony Tanke, who argued for Navarro, called the decision "fundamentally lawless." It gives local judges the power to forbid custodial parents from relocating "because they were not sufficiently friendly toward an ex-spouse," he said. "The Supreme Court decision has muddied the waters," said Leanne Schlegel, who was appointed by Bruiniers to represent the LaMusga children and had recommended that Navarro be allowed to take them and also be required to assure frequent contact between them and their father. The California Women's Law Center called the decision "a huge step backwards." "A tragic day for children, a tragic day for the rule of law and a tragic day for scholarship," said Carol Bruch, a University of California, Davis, law professor. She said the decision continues a line of recent state Supreme Court decisions giving more power to trial judges and removing effective appellate review. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Try this.....
Court: Closer scrutiny in custody case moves By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, April 30, 2004 SAN FRANCISCO - In a decision that will shape thousands of California families, the state Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for custodial parents to move away and take the children with them. The court retreated from a landmark ruling, followed by lower courts for the past eight years, that stressed "stability in custody arrangements" and freed most divorced custodial parents - usually mothers - to move to new lives and new jobs. The new ruling puts the focus on children's "best interests," and it gives local judges wide discretion to determine what's best. Disruption of a child's relationship with a noncustodial parent may be sufficiently harmful that it justifies a change in custody, the opinion says. The case was closely watched by the dozens of family law authorities who submitted friend-of-the-court briefs. Their reactions to the decision were divided. The Association of Certified Family Law Specialists expressed "a lot of relief" at the opinion's emphasis on the real consequences for children, but leading family law professors predicted an increase in litigation that will tragically impact kids' lives. The National Organization for Women said the decision "binds the lives of many women and men, for that matter, who are trying to provide safety and economic opportunity for their families." The justices voted 6-1 to uphold a Contra Costa County judge's order switching primary physical custody of two youngsters - now 9 and 11 years old - to their father, Gary LaMusga, if their mother, Susan Navarro, followed her new husband to Ohio, where he worked and she had other relatives. "The primary importance ... is to be able to reinforce what is now a tenuous and somewhat detached relationship with the boys and their father," said the local judge, Terence Bruiniers, in ruling in LaMusga's favor. The state Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Navarro. Its interpretation of the Supreme Court's 1996 landmark was codified by the Legislature. But now the Supreme Court's majority has restored Bruiniers' decision and said its own 1996 opinion did not give appellate judges authority to second-guess Superior Courts on what's best for kids. Bruiniers had concluded that the children's "best interests" would be violated by weakening their relationship with their noncustodial father. Justice Joyce Kennard, the sole dissenter, said Bruiniers "never mentioned the potential harm to the children from losing their mother as their primary caretaker, despite undisputed evidence that this harm would be significant." Although the family's circumstances reportedly have changed since the initial ruling in 2001, and the outcome of the case may not be decided until the local judge reviews the current situation, the Supreme Court decision alters the ground rules for all such cases in the future. Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the court's majority, set forth a list of factors that judges "ordinarily should consider when deciding whether to modify a custody order in light of the custodial parent's proposal to change the residence of the child." Those include stability and continuity in the custody arrangement, the relationships of both parents with the children and with each other, the distance of and reasons for the proposed move, and the children's wishes. The decision changes the focus in move-away cases "from a parent-centered to a child-centered analysis," said Garrett Dailey, who argued on behalf of LaMusga in the Supreme Court. Dailey predicted that in most cases custodial parents will still be able to move and take the children. To assure that they don't lose that right, he said, "the best thing they can do is to be a good parent and foster their children's relationship with the other parent." The evidence indicated Navarro had failed to do that. On the other side of the case, Tony Tanke, who argued for Navarro, called the decision "fundamentally lawless." It gives local judges the power to forbid custodial parents from relocating "because they were not sufficiently friendly toward an ex-spouse," he said. "The Supreme Court decision has muddied the waters," said Leanne Schlegel, who was appointed by Bruiniers to represent the LaMusga children and had recommended that Navarro be allowed to take them and also be required to assure frequent contact between them and their father. The California Women's Law Center called the decision "a huge step backwards." "A tragic day for children, a tragic day for the rule of law and a tragic day for scholarship," said Carol Bruch, a University of California, Davis, law professor. She said the decision continues a line of recent state Supreme Court decisions giving more power to trial judges and removing effective appellate review. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Try this.....
Court: Closer scrutiny in custody case moves By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, April 30, 2004 SAN FRANCISCO - In a decision that will shape thousands of California families, the state Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for custodial parents to move away and take the children with them. The court retreated from a landmark ruling, followed by lower courts for the past eight years, that stressed "stability in custody arrangements" and freed most divorced custodial parents - usually mothers - to move to new lives and new jobs. The new ruling puts the focus on children's "best interests," and it gives local judges wide discretion to determine what's best. Disruption of a child's relationship with a noncustodial parent may be sufficiently harmful that it justifies a change in custody, the opinion says. The case was closely watched by the dozens of family law authorities who submitted friend-of-the-court briefs. Their reactions to the decision were divided. The Association of Certified Family Law Specialists expressed "a lot of relief" at the opinion's emphasis on the real consequences for children, but leading family law professors predicted an increase in litigation that will tragically impact kids' lives. The National Organization for Women said the decision "binds the lives of many women and men, for that matter, who are trying to provide safety and economic opportunity for their families." The justices voted 6-1 to uphold a Contra Costa County judge's order switching primary physical custody of two youngsters - now 9 and 11 years old - to their father, Gary LaMusga, if their mother, Susan Navarro, followed her new husband to Ohio, where he worked and she had other relatives. "The primary importance ... is to be able to reinforce what is now a tenuous and somewhat detached relationship with the boys and their father," said the local judge, Terence Bruiniers, in ruling in LaMusga's favor. The state Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Navarro. Its interpretation of the Supreme Court's 1996 landmark was codified by the Legislature. But now the Supreme Court's majority has restored Bruiniers' decision and said its own 1996 opinion did not give appellate judges authority to second-guess Superior Courts on what's best for kids. Bruiniers had concluded that the children's "best interests" would be violated by weakening their relationship with their noncustodial father. Justice Joyce Kennard, the sole dissenter, said Bruiniers "never mentioned the potential harm to the children from losing their mother as their primary caretaker, despite undisputed evidence that this harm would be significant." Although the family's circumstances reportedly have changed since the initial ruling in 2001, and the outcome of the case may not be decided until the local judge reviews the current situation, the Supreme Court decision alters the ground rules for all such cases in the future. Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the court's majority, set forth a list of factors that judges "ordinarily should consider when deciding whether to modify a custody order in light of the custodial parent's proposal to change the residence of the child." Those include stability and continuity in the custody arrangement, the relationships of both parents with the children and with each other, the distance of and reasons for the proposed move, and the children's wishes. The decision changes the focus in move-away cases "from a parent-centered to a child-centered analysis," said Garrett Dailey, who argued on behalf of LaMusga in the Supreme Court. Dailey predicted that in most cases custodial parents will still be able to move and take the children. To assure that they don't lose that right, he said, "the best thing they can do is to be a good parent and foster their children's relationship with the other parent." The evidence indicated Navarro had failed to do that. On the other side of the case, Tony Tanke, who argued for Navarro, called the decision "fundamentally lawless." It gives local judges the power to forbid custodial parents from relocating "because they were not sufficiently friendly toward an ex-spouse," he said. "The Supreme Court decision has muddied the waters," said Leanne Schlegel, who was appointed by Bruiniers to represent the LaMusga children and had recommended that Navarro be allowed to take them and also be required to assure frequent contact between them and their father. The California Women's Law Center called the decision "a huge step backwards." "A tragic day for children, a tragic day for the rule of law and a tragic day for scholarship," said Carol Bruch, a University of California, Davis, law professor. She said the decision continues a line of recent state Supreme Court decisions giving more power to trial judges and removing effective appellate review. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Cloaked wrote:
Try this..... Looked exactly the same to me in his original posting and your "try this" posting. Perhaps it has to do with the settings our prospective computers? -- Miss Kristie remove clothes to email ;-) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Cloaked wrote:
Try this..... Looked exactly the same to me in his original posting and your "try this" posting. Perhaps it has to do with the settings our prospective computers? -- Miss Kristie remove clothes to email ;-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Calif. Custody Law-Very good change
Cloaked wrote:
Try this..... Looked exactly the same to me in his original posting and your "try this" posting. Perhaps it has to do with the settings our prospective computers? -- Miss Kristie remove clothes to email ;-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | April 17th 04 12:26 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | April 17th 04 12:24 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | April 3rd 04 12:36 PM |
A Good Man | chillin' | Child Support | 83 | September 28th 03 05:37 AM |