Moving case to another state

[soccermylph]

Had my case in Indiana where I no longer reside.  Final ruling was given just a few weeks ago, I have custody.  Child and I have both resided in Illinois for > 1 year.  I would like to know how to have my case moved from IN to IL.

Although I got custody, the judge in the case was ridiculous.  At one point, he ordered my child into the custody of grandparents who had a restraining order against them, among other incompetent rulings.  Basically I want to get this out of his courtroom for any possible future issues.

What's involved in transferring a case to another state?  Do I need to have an intent to modify the custody order?  The father would probably not object to the case being moved, as he knows the judge to be an idiot as well.

[gemini3]

Call the clerk of court for your county and ask what you need to do to have the case transferred.

The court with jurisdiction has to agree to it being moved though.  So I would wait until there is a pending motion and then file the request for relocation reasons.

[Davy]

Whoa !  In the first place, the OP did not reveal why the child was relocated to another state and creating a reduction in the access the child has to the left-beind parant along with seriously defeating the involvement the other parent would otherwise have in that child's life.

The jurisdiction issue is not left to the discretion of idiot judges (in both states) but rather long-standing state (UCCJA) and federal (PKPA) LAWS that were enacted to help protect children.   
Moreover, sometimes relocating parents engage in "forum shopping" for their own convenience as well as another tool to defeat the child and parent relationship.

A local court clerk is not expected to provide legal advice in these matters. 

[gemini3]

She asked "what's involved in transferring...?", which is a procedural question, which can absolutely be answered by the clerks office.  Why the child was relocated isn't germane to a procedural issue.

The UCCJA itself states that the "home state" has priority jurisdiction, and should relinquish it's jurisdiction before another state could make a priority ruling.  In order for that to happen, it must be shown that the child no longer has "significant connections" to the home state.  A judge would have to make that ruling.  So it is actually up to the judges discretion, based on the parameters set by those laws.

Davy, when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  There's no reason to assume that the poster is forum shopping, or is intending to deprive the other parent of contact with the child.  If there was any inkling of that, I would (and will) be one of the first to call them out on it.

[soccermylph]

Case has been going on in Indiana for a couple years.  For the past year I have had primary physical custody and for that entire time, child and I have resided in Illinois.  Final ruling was just a few weeks ago, so it's not like I've up and moved out of state since the ruling.  IL requires one of the parties to have resided here for 6 months to qualify for jurisdiction.

A little more regarding the "judge"...he's actually not a real judge at all, he is a "magistrate" which means he has to be supervised and have all his rulings signed off by a true judge.  If you were to spend ten minutes in this idiot's courtroom, it would be plainly obvious why he can't make it as an actual judge. 
If there are any
future modifications or motions, I'd prefer they be heard by a real judge, not this idiot.

Do I approach the clerk in the existing court with jurisdiction, or the clerk of the court where I want to move the case?

[MixedBag]

Where does Mom live?

Where does Dad live?

And since at one point, because the grandparents HAD custody, they somehow fit into this picture, where do they live?

Jurisidiction will follow the child, ONLY if NO ONE lives in the original jurisdiction.  IF this is true, take the order to your new county and ask the clerk how to file it.  They may or may not be allowed to answer that question -- they can't practice law, so when you ask a HOW question, if the clerk's office had determined that's practicing law, they won't answer.  If it's determined that it's simple, a basic no brainer, they will help.  Each county in each state in this country will give their own answer.

OTHERWISE, the party who still lives there can object.....and sometimes that works, and sometimes that doesn't.

There are folks here who have seen it go either way.

[soccermylph]

I live in IL as does the child.  Father lives in IN where the case is.

Grandparents are not in the final order and are not a party. 
I know that I can file for a change of judge within 10 days of filing any motion.  But this would change it to a different judge in the same court.  Also, I have to have a reason (change of circumstances) in order to file something.

[ocean]

You probably will not be able to change it since dad is still in home state.
You CAN get your state to take over getting child support from home state for COLLECTION only, not to change the order.

How about you work with dad and keep it out of any court....if you both do not like this "judge" then you both can request to have it moved out of his courtroom and in front of a different judge.

[Davy]

I'll try to be brief while trying to answer your question :  the issue of jurisdiction is far beyond the capabilities of novice individuals and even experienced pro se' advocates.   When I was forced to deal with jurisdiction issues I only interviewed (by phone) and retained cheaper rule-of-law attorneys experienced with UCCJA/PKPA rather than expensive rum-dum child-custody status-quo attorneys.

The actual legal statues dealing with jurisdiction were initially created in 1968 under the National Uniform Standards Act (or something like that) same as other interstate commerce laws like transportation, etc.  In brief, to avoid conflict between states and to provide standards/continuity (thus preventing a court's discretion) all states were to implement the foundation statues but some state legislatures changed the context thus defeating some necessary uniformity which gave rise to the overriding federal statues appropriately named " the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA; in 1980).

In the matter you are asking about you will need legimate reasons for IL to legally accept jurisdiction and IN to relinquish jurisdiction WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE STATUES.  Exchanging an idiot IN judge for a moron IL judge won't fly.  Same with "Inconvenient forum" since you created the inconvenience and the most  "significant connection" to the child is the father's continued presence in IN.   

IMHO Indiana will likely retain "Home state" jurisdiction over you and the child especially given a recent custody decision has been rendered and Indiana is familiar with the case history and all participants.  Even a corrupt state like IL is likely to reject this case under the factors as presented.  Hopefully you will use all available moneys for the benefit of the child instead of the "rat hole" divorce/custody industry.

[MixedBag]

I agree -- IN Keeps jurisdiction.

Different judge?  I even doubt you can get that changed too.