On home moving frequency

[DecentDad]

Hi Soc,

In 2001, upon separation, I moved into home #1, a private guest house on someone's lot.  A year later, homeowner was cited for having an illegal residence on her property (i.e., unbenownst to me) because the guest house was built without proper permits.

As a result, in 2002, I moved into home #2, an apartment.

In 2003, I got married and we moved into home #3 (current one), a single family home.  We've been planning to stay in this home until we were ready to buy our own in the same neighborhood (planning on approx 2007/08 to purchase).

All three of these homes have been appropriate for young daughter-- she's had a private bedroom in each one.

Current landlord recently apologetically informed me that at the end of our 2-year lease in spring 2005 (at which point it goes to month-to-month), he's going to sell the house and needs us out.  He's willing to write whatever note/affadavit we want (he knows of my custody situation) stating that we wanted to sign another long-term lease with him but that he's unable to do so.  Though he offered to sell to us without listing it, we can't afford to purchase anything at this time.

We're intending to sign a 3 year lease with our next landlord.  We've just been trying to find some calm and stability for us (and daughter) in our home.

Biomom has previously made an issue out of what she calls my frequent moving, since she's lived in the same place since 2001.  Against her, she has a small one-bedroom apt into which she's recently moved a man.

1.  If I'm intending to move to modify the parenting schedule within a year or so, does any of the above have a true impact on it?

2.  Does the above outline someone who frequently moves?  It's frequent in my eyes (when looking at my past), but I have no idea if it's frequent by a court's standard.

DD

[socrateaser]

>1.  If I'm intending to move to modify the parenting schedule
>within a year or so, does any of the above have a true impact
>on it?

Doubt it. You've been given a notice to quit, under circumstances entirely beyond your control. It's not as if you provoked it. My counterargument to mother would be, that you were offerred an opportunity to purchase the residence, but you couldn't afford it because you must pay CHILD support, so if mother is so concerned about your being forced from your residence, then the appropriate remedy is a deviation from the guidelines sufficient to enable you to afford the monthly payments on the residence that you're being forced from.

Now that's a novel notion, huh?

>
>2.  Does the above outline someone who frequently moves?  It's
>frequent in my eyes (when looking at my past), but I have no
>idea if it's frequent by a court's standard.

The IRS seems to find that a move every two years is sufficient to maintain a person's right to defer the profit from the sale of their principal residence, so, in as much as the Federal government has expressed such a tremendous interest in the welfare of children, and their obtaining adequate and timely child support, if the Feds believed that moving once in two years was a problem, then they would lengthen the required residency period, so that homeowners who moved, say in less than 3 years, would not be able to exclude their profits from their move, and those profits WOULD BE CONSIDERED INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING CHILD SUPPORT, and children would therefore receive more money.

But, as the federal government has not seen fit to do this, then it can safely be assumed that moving once every two years is not a substantial burden on a child's best interests, therefore mother's argument is without merit, absent some specific facts that evidence that the child is suffering under father's rather localized moves.

I think that about covers it. You worry too much.

[DecentDad]

> then the appropriate remedy is a deviation from the
>guidelines sufficient to enable you to afford the monthly
>payments on the residence that you're being forced from.
>
>Now that's a novel notion, huh?

Love it.  :)


>The IRS seems to find that a move every two years is
>sufficient to maintain a person's right to defer the profit
>from the sale of their principal residence, so, in as much as
>the Federal government has expressed such a tremendous
>interest in the welfare of children,

Good' nuff.


>I think that about covers it. You worry too much.

I've also seen a custody evaluator and past judge influenced by biomom's hysteria about her own deluded perceptions and assumptions about me... rather than simply looking at evidence.

I was much more "hakuna mattata" before discovering the glorious family law system.  But, I also appreciate every time you tell me to quit worrying about non-issues.

DD