DivorceNet®

Plus, just to add that me moving was not whatsoever in bad faith. I'm getting married out of state. The children's father and I were never married to begin with thus I left him because he refused to legitimize our relationship after our girls were born.

Here's a few things. Attempting to move children out of state because of a new marriage is probably the most denied reason there is. There has to be compelling evidence on how it helps the children. Even then, court allowed moveaways are very uncommon.

Reading between the lines, it appears you repeatedly denied parenting time because he wasn't paying support. Perhaps you left with the kids for a significant time out of state to your fiance. Whatever it may be, as you've learned, they are separate issues and you can and will lose custody if you deny parenting time.

How well you can financially provide for your children has nothing to do with custody. For example, studies show that 98% of stay at home parents become the primary parent, and they are earning $0.

Once he has custody, you will eventually be ordered to pay him support. And, govt. assistance is based on being the primary parent. If he has little or no income, he can get welfare cash, medical assistance, the EIC, food stamps, etc.

From reading your posts, I understand why custody was changed. You have done wrong by family law, but you justified your actions here, just as you probably did to those that determined the change.

If you want to have any chance of custody, you need to study long and hard the family law statutes so you understand them, and hire an attorney to explain how the system works.

You used a key word in one of your posts: logic.
Throw it out the window. Logic does not apply in most of family law.

I have never took my children and left the state with my kids nor have I ever denied him visitations ever since he filed for custody. He always had joint legal custody and visitation rights with minimum financial support.

I don't understand if the welfare of the children is in their best interest, how would a parent with $0 income be given custody. In my case, we've already established it years ago and there just needs to be a change. Then in that case, does it mean I can move away without establishing a job in the new residence and if I give him more percentage of visitation rights, then I'm all good??

So frustrating! This system is not fair! I've raised my girls and provided everything for them for the last decade. Not once in their life has their father ever taken them to the dentist or doctor. He never has health/dental insurance. He expects me to get by with $500 a month and he does not even pay consistently. He has two other mouths to feed from another relationship. Just because I'm moving on with my life, the intimacy of my relationship with my daughters get chopped up by the system. California is in a poor economy state, my job is getting furlough, my rent went up, and I don't even get help from him raising my girls. I move on to survive. I'm barely making it and my kids get taken away just cause I'm trying to better my life. I figure by marrying having 2 income is better than one and cost of living where I'm going to is cheaper. Besides, my girls and I, we have very close mother and daughter bonding.

"I don't understand if the welfare of the children is in their best interest, how would a parent with $0 income be given custody"


That would be the doing of NOW (National Organization of Women) and other groups, that have pushed through legislation to greatly slant who gets custody. They had to make monetary concerns be irrolevant for those that were stay at home moms or worked part time, and made much less than their spouses. Otherwise, the higher wager earner would get custody. If you look at cases, it is by far the lower wager earner that has custody. There are other reasons, but income has been eliminated as a factor.

I don't know why you don't have custody now, but it normally takes something major to change it. You posts implies you may have denied visitation until he filed for custody, and because he owed support. One of the most important aspects they look at is how well you facilitate the relationship with the other parent. If you bad mouth them to anyone in the family law system (some will even bait you to see what you will say), it is very highly frowned upon.

How hypocritical is this! Then why would the court frown upon me that I have yet to get employment in my new residency?
LOL omg. This is how he did a knock out on me in mediation: bad mouthed me and the mediator took his word for it and censored my defense. Then she finalized and closed the mediations session.

I'll tell you why I don't have custody now, cause law is not logic. LOL

Do you have an attorney? If you want any further information, you would have to give detailed information of exactly how things have come to be as they are.

Moving children is dependent on many factors. One is a detailed plan of employment elsewhere (usually), detailed information on the neighborhood (crime rates, etc.), quality of education, how the children will maintain the same amount of contact with the other parent and relatives, etc. Without these in place, there is no chance of a change. And, as touched on before, if the only reason you gave for the move was to live with a new husband in another state, that would be about 2 strikes in itself. The court would look at that as being only in your best interest, and not in the best interest of anyone else.

Even with everything in place, the courts still rule far more than a majority of the time to keep the children in the jurisdiction they live in. With the "best interest of the child doctrine," they want to leave them in their current school and with friends and family.

This person's case is more complicated. Their ex has temporary custody, so the OP isn't the custodial parent, although they had been in the past.

I am seeking an attorney.
Since my research on the net, yes I have read about the LaMusga case. I also read about the Burgess case. The Burgess case indicated that as long as the custodial parent's motive to move was not in bad faith, then it was allowed for the custodial parent to move. Of course, the LaMusga case occured after the Burgess case. In comparison, the rulings of both cases are very inconsistent and unfair because of the broad and undefined law that is at the mercy and interpretation of authorities and judges.

BTW, what is the meaning of a temporary custody? Does it mean everything in regards to our case is up in the air until it is finalized and adopted as a court order in the trial? I do have a fair chance, do I?

"Does it mean everything in regards to our case is up in the air until it is finalized and adopted as a court order in the trial? I do have a fair chance, do I?"

I would think it really depends on the judge's reasoning for giving your ex temporary custody.