|
Bear with me, I'll try to be brief...here's a nutshell history of my
dilemma:
I filed for divorce in 2006 after ex had an affair and chose to stay
with her.
I was a stay-at-home mom for 6 years, never having been away from my
children over 24 hours until they were six. Ex worked 16+ hours/day.
At separation, after a domestic violence incident which resulted in a
restraining order on ex, I lived in marital home with children, ex was
under order to continue mortgage payments, child/spousal support.
Ex never paid any spousal, discontinued child support and mortgage
after 8 months.
I began working full time, and paying full cost of child care so I
could work (which almost zeroed each other out!).
House went into foreclosure - ex wouldn't allow me access to any
mortgage information as it was all in his name.
When a sign was posted on house that it was going to auction, there
was a 30 period in which to get it sold.
A lien was currently on house for $110,000 for child support
arrearages from ex's older son of a prior relationship.
A new lien was calculated at $54,000 for arrearages owed to me.
I was able to miraculously get the house sold, with proceeds of about
$180,000. Rather than the proceeds being split 50/50 according to
California law, the liens were paid off, and the remainder was put in
escrow.
After trying to negotiate a way to stay in the marital home, whether
by buying out ex's half, keeping his half as an investment, etc, to no
avail, I was forced to sell.
Holding down the fort 100% on my own (no financial help from ex) left
me almost penniless by the time I had sold the house, packed and
stored everything we owned, paid attorneys, etc., and I had nowhere to
go.
I filed an OSC with Los Angeles court to relocate with the children.
I am from Atlanta, with friends and family there, Mother and
Stepfather, job opportunities, lower cost of living.
At the time, ex was unemployed, living in his brother-in-law's house.
Ex responds to OSC saying he opposes the move and wants a custody
evaluation.
In the meantime, I have no where to go other than to Atlanta, to move
in with parents.
Judge decides that during custody evaluation (which is now nearing one
year, and $15,000 which I have paid for), children are to remain in
California a la "status quo".
My first problem:
There was NO status quo, other than a geographical one. The children
had to move out of the only home they had ever known and move to
another area of Los Angeles.
They had to change from being in my primary care (their whole lives)
to that of their father's.
They moved into a home that was undergoing renovations in order to be
sold. A majority of their time spent there was with no furniture other
than what was in their bedroom, a torn-out kitchen, and a layer of
drywall dust inside the whole house.
Since I had to relocate to Atlanta, I have found a job and bought a
home which the children love. I have maintained daily contact with
them via telephone, and have managed to have monthly visits, the
majority of which have been the children coming to Atlanta (all at my
expense and with ex being extremely difficult).
The conundrum here is that in all of the research I have done, I have
never come across any cases in which the Custodial Parent requests
permission to relocate the children, but actually has to personally
relocate before the decision can be made. I'm wondering how this is
going to bear on the judge's decision. My attorney has frequently said
"it sure is a shame you couldn't stay here with the children during
the custody evaluation". It certainly is.
Our hearing is in June, I have flown the custody evaluator out to
Atlanta for a home visit while the children were visiting me, but the
visit has not been conducted on the ex's home yet.
My main concern is that the children have been "successfully" living
with their father for 9 months now.
Let me rephrase: he finally rented a home for them, although it is on
a busy street. He began working again, is up and gone before they wake
up, and not home until sometimes after dinner. During that time they
are under the care of a babysitter that "he found online" according to
my son. They spend almost all of their free time playing video games -
violent ones, mostly (they're under 8 years old). He does not read to
them. They have not yet had their 6 year doctor check ups (nor 7).
They are overdue for a dental appointment, the last one they had was
when I was in town visiting them 8 months ago (I took them). He does
not have booster seats for them, and lets them both ride in the front
seat of his pickup truck. I could go on and on.
But he can also show that they have a comfortable home, and are
healthy and happy. Which is true.
I keep reading articles that (in LA, at least) any effort on a
father's part to care for his children is grounds for awarding
custody. I'm terrified, if this is the case. I believe, without a
doubt, that it is in my children's best interest to live with me. I
can provide them with better education, I have proven to tend to their
basic needs and he has not, I enrich their lives rather than leaving
them with video games, etc. I also believe that they should have as
much time with their father as possible, and would promote that to the
fullest extent. But this "status-quo" thing scares me because we've
been screwed by it once already, and the fact that I had to leave
California and the children while the evaluation is being done also
scares me.
Anyone who has read this far - I am extremely grateful, and would love
any advice/comments/feedback.
|
| |
| |
In article <sv4904lmf0ni7i5dcip770m73trjc79jkn@4ax.com>,
overlooked <SpicyWeiner@gmail.com> wrote:
I was a stay-at-home mom for 6 years, never having been away from my
children over 24 hours until they were six. Ex worked 16+ hours/day.
At separation, after a domestic violence incident which resulted in a
restraining order on ex, I lived in marital home with children, ex was
under order to continue mortgage payments, child/spousal support.
Ex never paid any spousal, discontinued child support and mortgage
after 8 months.
It appears to me that you abandoned your children by moving
to Atlanta. As a result, I don't see how the court can see
you as a fit parent ready to take over full time care of the
kids. If you were ready to do that, you would have found an
apartment in the LA area and took care of the kids while
the move to Atlanta worked itself out. But if the husband
opposed the move to Atlanta, it is not very likely that
you would ever be allowed to do that without giving up
something back to your ex of value, like giving up the
right to any future support.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
On 2008-04-15 04:58:09 -0700, overlooked <SpicyWeiner@gmail.com> said:
Bear with me, I'll try to be brief...here's a nutshell history of my
dilemma:
I filed for divorce in 2006 after ex had an affair and chose to stay
with her.
I was a stay-at-home mom for 6 years, never having been away from my
children over 24 hours until they were six. Ex worked 16+ hours/day.
At separation, after a domestic violence incident which resulted in a
Unless I am mistaken, courts bend over backwards to decide these
matters on the basis of what is best for the children. If you could
show that your move to Atlanta was for an excellent job opportunity
with a higher salary that enabled better advantages for the children,
that could be a big plus.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 17, 8:20 am, Don <dwz...@telus.net> wrote:
On 2008-04-15 04:58:09 -0700, overlooked <SpicyWei...@gmail.com> said:
Unless I am mistaken, courts bend over backwards to decide these
matters on the basis of what is best for the children. If you could
show that your move to Atlanta was for an excellent job opportunity
with a higher salary that enabled better advantages for the children,
that could be a big plus.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and not familiar with California or LA
family court practices.
As I understand it, there are some general presumptions as to "what
is best for the children," particuarly if the parents don't agree on
where they should live.
Being able to maintain regular contact with both parents is generally
considered very important (unless one parent is already completely
out of the picture.) Remaining in a familiar environment (read:
in the same jurisdiction) is also considered important, so if
one parent is moving, the courts will tend to favor the parent
that isn't.
Judges tend to be skeptical of the "I'll be making more
money so the kids will be better off" argument, unless
it is simply impossible to make any kind of living at all
where the custodial parent is living. Judges also
frequently see custodial parents wanting to move just
so they can restrict their children's access to the other
parent.
It is possible to get a court to agree to a move, but the (heavy)
burden
of proof is on the parent that wants to move the children.
OP wrote:
I keep reading articles that (in LA, at least) any effort on a
father's part to care for his children is grounds for awarding
custody.
I seriously doubt that this is true anywhere in the USA.
There may be isolated cases where a father was able to
get primary custody even though an equally qualified mother wanted
it, but it's more likely that the articles aren't telling the whole
story (newspapers and magazines are, after all, in the
business of selling newspapers/magazines, and "man bites
dog" sells, even if it isn't true.)
What you may be confusing this with is "joint custody".
In most places nowadays, the courts prefer to
award "joint custody" to both parents. This doesn't mean
that the children aren't living mostly with one of the parents
(usually the mother), just that both parents have a say in
how the child is raised.
|
| |
| |
|
