More questions...

[rhelle]

KittyC,

I did not know that about Utah. Great.

[Kitty C.]

Well, their adoption laws are a travesty........... single mothers go there to have babies if they don't want the father involved and the state goes right along with it. JMO and it's sad to say, but my thought has always been.....for being such a religious state, they sure know how to shaft fathers who WANT to be a part of their child's life or just want to be acknowledged as such.

[rhelle]

Well, the ex is a part of that particular religion, and it's a concern for us, a we are not.

[Davy]

Not an atty just BTDT and know zero about Utah however it is some national statutary law referred to as "Registry of Foreign (ie another state) degrees/orders" that REQUIRES the custody order to be filed in Utah.  There's probably sound reasoning behind this, as an example,  to give the new state a clue should the children need a responsible parent.  Usually this process is handled by the courts (not a parent) and is transparent to the partys.  I, as the left-behind parent in the Home state, became aware of this process when the court sheepily asked me for vital info. on the kids since they could not locate their named custodial parent (go figure).

Legally, the original Home state retains 'custody' jurisdiction as long as a party (parent) continues to reside in that state.  Otherwise Home state jurisdiction is tied directly to residency of the child(ren) and not a parent.

To compliment Kitty's post.  Had boyhood friend in a denominational church.  Somehow Spanky and his sister both moved to Utah and both gained strong ties to that particular church.  Spanky married a military widow and adopted 4 children, then divorced and remarried at least once and I think had 3 natural children.  Last time I saw Spanky he was wrapping up paying CS for 7 - 9 children.

[rhelle]

And in our case, neither parent resides in the original state. So, I guess we're stuck with Utah.

  7 to 9 kids!!!  I'll never get it.

[rhelle]

Speaking of that, though...

She remarried an unemployed man with 3 children to pay support for. She's constantly trying some angle to get more money, and cries she's "poor" for things like mediation (although, she does have an attorney on retainer. didn't know pro bono was so popular). It's getting a little old that SHE made the choice to marry a man who could not provide for his children and we're paying for it. She's constantly angry at H because SHE has to work, now. Somehow, it's HIS fault that she filed for divorce and married a loser.

Actually, I think I want to use her logic for a while..seems she's a "winner" everytime.

[MixedBag]

EX#3 dealt with "that religion" in NV.....and they stuck together like glue.

Didn't matter what his EX pulled, the judge never punished her.

Even her attorney wrote a letter to EX/Mom saying she should have lost custody a long time ago.....and the only reason we/EX#3 got a hold of it was becasue Mom used it as evidence to support her position about something that was in another part of the letter.

Peaceful people, but they sure back each other up beyond logic.

[rhelle]

That was our worry, MixedBag; however, our mediator assured us the courts do not care. Sigh. I guess we won't know until we get there.
I will say I'm not finding them to be terribly peaceful, but she happens to be the only example I have.

[MixedBag]

In EX#3's situtation, the judge was the head of the I think it was called a ward or stake or something and they (EX#3's EX and children) frequented their personal house often.

We turned it all in to be investigated, ethics board, and they started the research, but never finished because the Judge did not win re-election.

We were dealing with an extremely small town -- maybe if your town is "bigger" then the relgious effect won't be there.

And when I'm talking small.....think desert for 25 miles each way.

[rhelle]

They live in a small suburb, about 25,000 people. Hopefully, the odds will be better that way.

H used to be part of that particular religion, but left the church some years ago. So, her stance is now that we are immoral and not living by the church standards.  Um..which would be true, as we don't attend that church.  But, she then uses it as a reason to try and withhold the children.

It gets kinda old. I've told H if all of the people in that religion use it as a battering ram, I can't really see anything to recommend it.