moving w/ child before custody arrangements established?

[bluekiwi]

Mary and John have a child, Tim (now 3 yrs old). Never married. John marries Cathy when Tim is 2 1/2 yrs. During child's life primary care for child fluctuates between mother and father with mother having it majority of time. During last year mother has child 5 days a week with dad having him weekends. They never have any legal proceedings for custody. No child support ever exchanged. Mother single and struggling financially. In a few months she will be in situation where she will need to find place to live. With no family in state to help she is wanting to relocate to another state (2 states away) with Tim. She has family in this state that will house her and help with child care. Mary and John have always been fairly amicable in working out custody arrangements. Mary asked John how he would feel about her taking child and moving. She offered summers and half holidays. He said no.

Question: What would happen if she moves anyway taking Tim with her?

Additional info: Mom has no money for lawyer; Dad also struggles financially; Dad has history of violence, alcohol abuse and trouble w/ law but has not had any major problems in couple years.

 

[Proserpina]

Since there is no custody order in place, Mary is free to move with Tim.

HOWEVER.

John is absolutely entitled to immediately rush to court and file to have Tim returned to Utah. Because he's been a consistent and regular part of Tim's life, he'll likely be successful UNLESS Mary can show that the move is in TIM's best interest.

Since John is apparently a fit parent - why doesn't Mary simply allow John to be the residential parent? Failing that - is Mary willing to bear ALL of the costs of transporting Tim to and from John? With a VERY generous long-distance parenting plan?

Has Mary filed for child support?

 

[bluekiwi]

Calling John a "fit" parent is using the term very loosely. He has had fairly serious anger issues and has been witnessed by family members being on the border abusive to Tim verbally and physically (as well as to Mary). In other words enough that Mary would stay in Utah rather than have him have any more parent time, but probably not enough to hold any weight in court. Mostly because difficult to prove.

So she has been cordial with him as much as possible, not just for this reason, but because it is better for Tim and to avoid lengthy and expensive court battles.

Since we don't know what a court would consider the best interest of the child when moving, it sounds like it would be good to come prepared with a generous long distance parenting plan and offer to pay for all travel costs?

Mary also has never asked/filed for child support. Perhaps use it has a bargaining tool? Considering Mary cannot reasonably bear the burden of all travel costs, take the cost of travel out of the child support, or in exchange for no CS he helps pay for some travel cost?

 

[bluemann33]

Usually the judge will not allow an out of state move without a great reason as proserpina stated. Your best bet is to try and do as you stated and try and bargin with your childs father. Good luck.

 

[army judge]

John won't bother filing suit.

He has shown little interest in being a father.

If it were my decision, I'd simply move.

John is a deadbeat.

He has no interest in visiting Tim.

John will move on to his next victim as soon as Mary disappears with little Timmy.

 

[Proserpina]

Calling John a "fit" parent is using the term very loosely.

No, it's really not - I understand (having read the rest of the post) where you're coming from, but it's really not using the term loosely at all. It's using the term legally.

John is, legally, a fit parent.

He has had fairly serious anger issues and has been witnessed by family members being on the border abusive to Tim verbally and physically (as well as to Mary). In other words enough that Mary would stay in Utah rather than have him have any more parent time, but probably not enough to hold any weight in court. Mostly because difficult to prove.

Without proof, the abuse is - legally - non-existent and cannot be used against John. Plus, despite the alleged abuse, Mary still lets John have Tim every weekend...see how that looks?

So she has been cordial with him as much as possible, not just for this reason, but because it is better for Tim and to avoid lengthy and expensive court battles.

That's absolutely correct and Mary is doing the right thing. Co-parenting is essential - even when you hate the other parent. A very wise friend of mine frequently says, "Love your kids more than you hate your ex". It goes a long way.

Since we don't know what a court would consider the best interest of the child when moving, it sounds like it would be good to come prepared with a generous long distance parenting plan and offer to pay for all travel costs?

Mary will have to show the court - this assumes John simply isn't going to agree - that the benefits of Tim moving outweigh the loss of his father.

This is not an easy burden to meet and for this reason alone, Mary needs an attorney.

Mary also has never asked/filed for child support. Perhaps use it has a bargaining tool? Considering Mary cannot reasonably bear the burden of all travel costs, take the cost of travel out of the child support, or in exchange for no CS he helps pay for some travel cost?

John sees Tim every weekend, correct?

That is more than most non-custodial parents and it actually makes Mary's job that much more difficult.

While I do feel for Mary, given the circumstances, I just cannot see the court allowing her to relocate Tim. Mary's best bet is to negotiate with John.

 

[Proserpina]

John won't bother filing suit.

He has shown little interest in being a father.

If it were my decision, I'd simply move.

John is a deadbeat.

He has no interest in visiting Tim.

John will move on to his next victim as soon as Mary disappears with little Timmy.

AJ, he sees Tim EVERY WEEKEND.

That's a whole lot of interest....

 

[mightymoose]

Considering that the two have made it this far without any legal action for custody or support, it seems very unlikely that John would suddenly run to the court for help. There is nothing in place to prevent the move and the burden will be on John to get the child back.
Mary's legitimate purpose for moving is that she is broke and can not afford to stay. She has family willing to help out of state. Unless John is willing to start paying support or take primary custody, which includes a whole lot more responsibility than he likely wants, then he will likely do nothing more than jump up and down and whine about it.

 

[army judge]

Considering that the two have made it this far without any legal action for custody or support, it seems very unlikely that John would suddenly run to the court for help. There is nothing in place to prevent the move and the burden will be on John to get the child back.
Mary's legitimate purpose for moving is that she is broke and can not afford to stay. She has family willing to help out of state. Unless John is willing to start paying support or take primary custody, which includes a whole lot more responsibility than he likely wants, then he will likely do nothing more than jump up and down and whine about it.

Damn, MM, that part about jumping up and down and whining, that was FUNNY.