Calif. Custody Law-Very good change

Your bias is showing...they didn't prohibit the CP from moving away from
the children.

I'm curios - why is it more important to force the NCP to remain where
the children are? Is this your admission that fathers are more
important to kids than mothers are?

Mel Gamble

Indyguy1 wrote:

Dave I too think this is a good thing. However they didn't go far enough. They
should also prohibit NCPs from moving away from their children.

Mrs Indyguy

Mel wrote:

Your bias is showing...they didn't prohibit the CP from moving away from
the children.

I meant that the same rules should apply to the CP AND the NCP, and that
NEITHER should be allowed to move away.


I'm curios - why is it more important to force the NCP to remain where
the children are?

It is equally important for the CP to remain where the NCP is, as every child
should be able to see both of their parents on a regular basis.

Is this your admission that fathers are more
important to kids than mothers are?

More important? No. As important as the CP? Yes.

Mrs Indyguy


Mel Gamble

Indyguy1 wrote:

Dave I too think this is a good thing. However they didn't go far enough.
They
should also prohibit NCPs from moving away from their children.

Mrs Indyguy

Mel wrote:

Your bias is showing...they didn't prohibit the CP from moving away from
the children.

I meant that the same rules should apply to the CP AND the NCP, and that
NEITHER should be allowed to move away.


I'm curios - why is it more important to force the NCP to remain where
the children are?

It is equally important for the CP to remain where the NCP is, as every child
should be able to see both of their parents on a regular basis.

Is this your admission that fathers are more
important to kids than mothers are?

More important? No. As important as the CP? Yes.

Mrs Indyguy


Mel Gamble

Indyguy1 wrote:

Dave I too think this is a good thing. However they didn't go far enough.
They
should also prohibit NCPs from moving away from their children.

Mrs Indyguy

Mel wrote:

Your bias is showing...they didn't prohibit the CP from moving away from
the children.

I meant that the same rules should apply to the CP AND the NCP, and that
NEITHER should be allowed to move away.


I'm curios - why is it more important to force the NCP to remain where
the children are?

It is equally important for the CP to remain where the NCP is, as every child
should be able to see both of their parents on a regular basis.

Is this your admission that fathers are more
important to kids than mothers are?

More important? No. As important as the CP? Yes.

Mrs Indyguy


Mel Gamble

Indyguy1 wrote:

Dave I too think this is a good thing. However they didn't go far enough.
They
should also prohibit NCPs from moving away from their children.

Mrs Indyguy

Fido wrote:

This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very
closely by many groups.


The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the
child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with
circumstance.

Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups"
bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the
interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent -
who in 85% of the cases is a woman.

So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights".


Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see.

Best - Fido


The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California
Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals
because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision.

In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the
CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP
to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed
by the new case.

LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court
telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial
court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and
the Appeals court reversed that.

What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that
the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the
burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best
interests of the child".

BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child
with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should
consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and
should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and
still might) recommend that the child go with the mother.

My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that
the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced
against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one
should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an
appeal and use it for your kid's college education.

All that glitters is not gold.


Best,

Bob


Robert A. Fink, M. D., President
California Parents United, Inc.

"The best parent is both parents...."

Fido wrote:

This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very
closely by many groups.


The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the
child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with
circumstance.

Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups"
bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the
interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent -
who in 85% of the cases is a woman.

So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights".


Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see.

Best - Fido


The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California
Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals
because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision.

In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the
CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP
to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed
by the new case.

LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court
telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial
court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and
the Appeals court reversed that.

What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that
the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the
burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best
interests of the child".

BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child
with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should
consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and
should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and
still might) recommend that the child go with the mother.

My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that
the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced
against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one
should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an
appeal and use it for your kid's college education.

All that glitters is not gold.


Best,

Bob


Robert A. Fink, M. D., President
California Parents United, Inc.

"The best parent is both parents...."

Fido wrote:

This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very
closely by many groups.


The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the
child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with
circumstance.

Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups"
bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the
interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent -
who in 85% of the cases is a woman.

So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights".


Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see.

Best - Fido


The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California
Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals
because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision.

In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the
CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP
to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed
by the new case.

LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court
telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial
court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and
the Appeals court reversed that.

What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that
the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the
burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best
interests of the child".

BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child
with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should
consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and
should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and
still might) recommend that the child go with the mother.

My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that
the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced
against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one
should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an
appeal and use it for your kid's college education.

All that glitters is not gold.


Best,

Bob


Robert A. Fink, M. D., President
California Parents United, Inc.

"The best parent is both parents...."

I've had only a quick scan through this 44-page Supreme Court of
California opinion, which is available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S107355.PDF. From this
quick read, I would endorse the view expressed by Robert Fink below.

This court decision IS a step forward for fathers. However, the
question is, how much of a step forward is it? We shouldn't be distracted
by the comments of the National Organization for Women on the court
decision. NOW can be expected to set up an outcry any time any sops are
thrown to fathers. However, a quick read through the opinion seems to
indicate that: (1) a major influence on the court was the mother's
determination, expressed in several ways, of blocking the father's access
(she was talking about moving to Arizona OR Ohio -- anywhere to make it
difficult for the father to have access to the children); and (2) there are
references in the court decision to the importance of not interfering with
mothers' ability to take the children with them when they move.

As far as I can see, there's no reason for fathers to break out the
champagne, in celebration of this decision. Nevertheless, California is a
large state, and there may be ways of building on this precedent in the
future -- even if it's only in situations where mothers have a history of
trying to interfere with visitation. So far as moveaways by mothers are
concerned, this is not the beginning of the end, but it MAY be the end of
the beginning.

"Robert A. Fink, M. D." wrote in message
...
Fido wrote:

This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very
closely by many groups.


The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the
child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with
circumstance.

Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups"
bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the
interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent -
who in 85% of the cases is a woman.

So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights".


Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see.

Best - Fido


The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California
Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals
because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision.

In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the
CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP
to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed
by the new case.

LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court
telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial
court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and
the Appeals court reversed that.

What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that
the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the
burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best
interests of the child".

BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child
with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should
consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and
should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and
still might) recommend that the child go with the mother.

My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that
the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced
against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one
should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an
appeal and use it for your kid's college education.

All that glitters is not gold.


Best,

Bob


Robert A. Fink, M. D., President
California Parents United, Inc.

"The best parent is both parents...."

I've had only a quick scan through this 44-page Supreme Court of
California opinion, which is available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S107355.PDF. From this
quick read, I would endorse the view expressed by Robert Fink below.

This court decision IS a step forward for fathers. However, the
question is, how much of a step forward is it? We shouldn't be distracted
by the comments of the National Organization for Women on the court
decision. NOW can be expected to set up an outcry any time any sops are
thrown to fathers. However, a quick read through the opinion seems to
indicate that: (1) a major influence on the court was the mother's
determination, expressed in several ways, of blocking the father's access
(she was talking about moving to Arizona OR Ohio -- anywhere to make it
difficult for the father to have access to the children); and (2) there are
references in the court decision to the importance of not interfering with
mothers' ability to take the children with them when they move.

As far as I can see, there's no reason for fathers to break out the
champagne, in celebration of this decision. Nevertheless, California is a
large state, and there may be ways of building on this precedent in the
future -- even if it's only in situations where mothers have a history of
trying to interfere with visitation. So far as moveaways by mothers are
concerned, this is not the beginning of the end, but it MAY be the end of
the beginning.

"Robert A. Fink, M. D." wrote in message
...
Fido wrote:

This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very
closely by many groups.


The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the
child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with
circumstance.

Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups"
bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the
interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent -
who in 85% of the cases is a woman.

So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights".


Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see.

Best - Fido


The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California
Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals
because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision.

In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the
CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP
to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed
by the new case.

LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court
telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial
court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and
the Appeals court reversed that.

What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that
the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the
burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best
interests of the child".

BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child
with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should
consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and
should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and
still might) recommend that the child go with the mother.

My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that
the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced
against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one
should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an
appeal and use it for your kid's college education.

All that glitters is not gold.


Best,

Bob


Robert A. Fink, M. D., President
California Parents United, Inc.

"The best parent is both parents...."

I've had only a quick scan through this 44-page Supreme Court of
California opinion, which is available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S107355.PDF. From this
quick read, I would endorse the view expressed by Robert Fink below.

This court decision IS a step forward for fathers. However, the
question is, how much of a step forward is it? We shouldn't be distracted
by the comments of the National Organization for Women on the court
decision. NOW can be expected to set up an outcry any time any sops are
thrown to fathers. However, a quick read through the opinion seems to
indicate that: (1) a major influence on the court was the mother's
determination, expressed in several ways, of blocking the father's access
(she was talking about moving to Arizona OR Ohio -- anywhere to make it
difficult for the father to have access to the children); and (2) there are
references in the court decision to the importance of not interfering with
mothers' ability to take the children with them when they move.

As far as I can see, there's no reason for fathers to break out the
champagne, in celebration of this decision. Nevertheless, California is a
large state, and there may be ways of building on this precedent in the
future -- even if it's only in situations where mothers have a history of
trying to interfere with visitation. So far as moveaways by mothers are
concerned, this is not the beginning of the end, but it MAY be the end of
the beginning.

"Robert A. Fink, M. D." wrote in message
...
Fido wrote:

This is good, good news in a landmark case that was being watched very
closely by many groups.


The decision simply allowes the court to consider the relationship of the
child to the parents when considering change of custody requests with
circumstance.

Of course, the National Organization of Women and other "women's groups"
bitterly opposed this concept in cases like this - because it puts the
interest of the children ahead of the interest of the custodial parent -
who in 85% of the cases is a woman.

So, they consider this ruling to be an "erosion of women's rights".


Pretty transparent agenda, as you can see.

Best - Fido


The decision is not as "good" as it seems. What the California
Supreme Court did is to slap the wrist of the Court of Appeals
because the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's decision.

In "Burgess" (the prior such case), the trial court had said that the
CP could move with the children and that it was the burden on the NCP
to prove that such a move was detrimental. That has not been changed
by the new case.

LaMusga is another example (they are consistent) of the Supreme Court
telling the Appeals Court that they should not reverse the trial
court's decision. In LaMusga, the trial court agreed with the NCP and
the Appeals court reversed that.

What the Supreme Court is saying, according to a legal friend, is that
the trial court is the "finder of fact" (???) and that it remains the
burden of the NCP to prove that a moveaway is not "in the best
interests of the child".

BTW, the LaMusga decision does not necessarily mean that the child
with stay with the father. It just means that the trial court should
consider the proposed moveaway as a "change in circumstances" and
should then order a new "evaluation". The "evaluator" could (and
still might) recommend that the child go with the mother.

My legal friend said, essentially, that what this all means is that
the trial court determines the outcome, the system is still prejudiced
against fathers, and that if one loses at the trial court level, one
should "suck it up" and save the money that one would spend on an
appeal and use it for your kid's college education.

All that glitters is not gold.


Best,

Bob


Robert A. Fink, M. D., President
California Parents United, Inc.

"The best parent is both parents...."