KICKASS! LaMusga prevailed!!

[Rakkasan]

11. In Aug 2003, Mom got temporary orders to move to Arizona, pending outcome of Supreme Court.

[Rakkasan]

[a href=http://www.deltabravo.net/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=1525&mesg_id=1528&page=]http://www.deltabravo.net/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=1525&mesg_id=1528&page=[/a]

[olanna]

As the federal mandates are the state where the child has lived for the past 6 months takes jurisdiction.  I do feel for this father but I also know how the family courts work. A change in custody will most likely only happen after a GAL or CASA evaluates the children *and* finds the custodial parent unfit.  While this might look like a wonderful thing, I would be cautiously optimistic.  The longer she is primary custodian, the less his chances for changing custody.  I would also be inclined to think that even allowing her to move temporarily to AZ shows the most likely way the court will rule.

:(

[SLYarnell]

The dad has already stated publicly that he doubts this will help him get his children back but he hopes in will make a BIG difference for the future.  I think he deserves our biggest thanks for his incredible effort!

[olanna]

I was under the impression that the original poster believed it would make a difference for *this* Dad...and to that end, I am sad to say it most likely will not.

[Rakkasan]

I am of the belief that the Temporary Order allowing the children to be moved to Arizona gives the California court juristiction still, as the Mother would have to have agreed to the terms that the move was allowed pending the outcome of the California case, plus I don't believe Arizona can claim jurisdiction as there are matters still pending in California.

This could be argued as forum shopping where one party knowing they are going to lose in one state moves to another in the hopes of gaining a more favorable ruling. My PBFH did this filing in Kentucky while matters were pending in Florida. Kentucky could not hear the case without the Florida judge relinquishing jurisdiction, which the Florida judge would not do.

[olanna]

What happens with one judge in one state doesn't necessarily hold up in another state. I had the only final custody order giving me custody of my kids after the divorce. The child had lived in CA for years with me but the judge in SC insisted he had jurisdiction and ordered me to send my son back. I didn't know enough to fight on the grounds that CA had jurisdiction as the child was living with me in my home.  If I had of known that, I would have thumbed my nose at the SC judge and kept him here with me.

Again I say...the longer those children remain with Mom, the less of the chance the custody will be turned over to Dad.

I guess time will prove me wrong or right...

[DecentDad]

Hi,

I'm the original poster, and in my original post that LaMusga prevailed, my comment was that a new precendent was established for California [case law].

In my subsequent post in the same thread, I clarify that it would seem it's thrown back to the trial court to determine best interest now, and the fact that the kids have been in AZ for 8 months is a new situation.

His kids are still relatively young, and there's no telling what the future will hold for them.

However, if during these past 8 months, the mother has been just as alienating and uncooperative as the evaluator in the case has described, there's no doubt that the issue will once again be addressed by the trial court-- and the trial court may still see that another one-time move back to California for the kids may be less damaging to them than losing their relationship with their father.

In any event, the Supreme Court emphasized in its ruling that the trial court is obligated to use its discretion to make judgments in the best interest of the child, weighing all evidence.

DD