Trial over. Thanks, Soc, for all your help over past year.

[DecentDad]

Hi Soc,

Just a note to thank you for all your insights and suggestions during the time I've been posting here.

Three years after paternity petition was filed, the final judgment largely followed the evaluator's report.

Judge put it back on mom to decide if she was moving away, as he can't stop her.  When she said, yes that she is planning to move immediately, judge said that it's now on him to decide which home is best for the primary residence of the child.

Opposing counsel noted that while evaluator recommended against the move-away, he also included a recommended schedule if the move-away occurs.

Judge said he saw that but doesn't agree with the move-away schedule.

He told both attorneys that because mom is moving, it puts him in a position that 400 mile distance between parents is already not in the best interests of the child, so he needs to make some dramatic orders on this case that neither side will like.

He then took a recess, strongly suggested that parties should work it out and return to him to let him know the outcome.

Both attorneys took the hint, and it took a full day to convince biomom to just follow the evaluator's recommendations as a fair way to settle this (i.e., that both parents should remain local, with a nominal increase in my custodial time to 35% but with such frequency that daughter is in my home 6 out of every 14 days).

So, the move-away was blocked though not through a judge's ruling per se.

Attorneys wouldn't agree on calling this "joint custody" (i.e., my attorney wanted to set the stage for going back to modify to 50/50 when daughter starts school, and her attorney probably wanted to call it sole for a future move-away attempt).  Evaluator recommended joint, due to his perception that parents have a mutual desire to minimize each others' role with child.

That issue was left open for judge to rule on.  After explaining that it's just terminology that doesn't mean much to him, he said he'll call this joint custody.

Opposing counsel wanted biomom to be labeled "primary custodial parent" but that didn't happen either.

The End.

Certainly not the outcome I had hoped for.  But certainly not devastating either.  Both parents are "good enough" despite biomom's unemployment, small 1 bedroom apt, history of allegations against me, elevated psych test results; and so the status quo was largely maintained... as you explain on this board time and time again.

After 3 years of hearings, building evidence, doing evaluations, jumping through hoops, modifying temporary orders... I can finally have some resolution and permanancy to a schedule and parenting plan.  What relief in that regard.

Best wishes to you, and thanks again for all your help.

DD

[socrateaser]

I wonder what dramatic order the judge would have made that neither parent would have liked?

[DecentDad]

Me too.

The evaluator had recommended two weekends per month of travel if move-away was ordered (despite that he recommends against move-away), but judge said that child didn't start school for over a year, so he's inclined to disagree with evaluator about so much back and forth right now.

Given that the judge said neither side would be happy, my attorney was guessing that the ruling would include larger chunks in each home if mom moves.

In any event, "best interest of child" was to stop the move-away to avoid that 400 mile gap, and that was accomplished.  I'm still not tickled with the outcome, but the most important "best interest" goal was nailed.

Thanks,
DD