Interstate Visitation Questions

[gabes_mom]

We can't afford to see the Sk's any weekend in their location. We can barely afford our bills at the moment.

I am glad that your hubby got an agreement that works for ya'll it's nice when you can spend more time with the children.

Unfortunately my sk's schools are nowhere near as convenient as attaching fall and thanksgiving. In fact their school only offers a Thanksgiving break they have no fall break.

[lilywhite]

You seem to be laboring under some false impressions.

First, the mother of these children got the judge's agreement in North Carolina in 2003 that she could remove the children from the state of North Carolina.  She's done that.

She is no longer subject to the laws of North Carolina.  She's not a citizen of North Carolina, and the judge cannot by law make any decisions regarding her.  She is a citizen of somewhere, although I'm not sure where that is.

As far as the children go, they also have not lived in the state of North Carolina in three years.  They are also no longer subject to the laws of North Carolina because they don't live either.

These things are a matter of law.  If the mother is smart, she won't submit to North Carolina jurisdiction.  

North Carolina still has jurisdiction over child support because the payer still lives there.

Now, the point is, this issue has been decided.  The mother has removed the children from North Carolina with the court's okay.  You have no standing to sue her wherever it is that she is living now because you are not residents of that state.  You can't sue her in North Carolina because she is no longer a resident of that state and the courts there have no jurisdiction over her OR THE CHILDREN.  

This is the way my attorney explained it to me.  In fact, she told me that I could move to New Zealand if I wanted to and take the children with me as long as I complied with the visitation schedule.

You can't keep challenging a judge's decision about out of state moves.  Once the decision is made and 30 days has passed, it's over.  If your order says that she is not meet you halfway, then she has to do that.  If it says she has to meet you in Staunton, Virginia then she has to do that.

I think it would be best if you tried to work this out amicably with her, because the only option open to you is to file for custody in the last place the children have lived for six months.  Your chances there would seem to be nil.

[gabes_mom]

I understand NC law where as you apparently do not.

I have taken care of these matters, we have resolved whatever "conflict" we thought may arise out of this and have moved forward. Read everything that I posted before assuming you know what is going on.

NC still holds jurisdiction over the case it is stated in the court order and she has complied with that over these years. She acknowledges the fact that NC still holds jurisdiction it doesn't matter to me whether you or your lawyer acknowledge it.

[mistoffolees]

>I understand NC law where as you apparently do not.
>
>I have taken care of these matters, we have resolved whatever
>"conflict" we thought may arise out of this and have moved
>forward. Read everything that I posted before assuming you
>know what is going on.
>
>NC still holds jurisdiction over the case it is stated in the
>court order and she has complied with that over these years.
>She acknowledges the fact that NC still holds jurisdiction it
>doesn't matter to me whether you or your lawyer acknowledge
>it.


Lilywhite was correct.

It doesn't matter what NC thinks, nor does it matter what you and your ex think.

According to the national Uniform Code (UCIJTA or something like that), jurisdiction falls where the child has lived for the most recent 6 month period.

Granted, unless she tries to change it, the rules laid out by the NC court will continue to apply. But as soon as she challenges it, UCIJTA will take precedence - and the relevant court appears to be PA in this case. If she continues to abide by the NC rules and doesn't fight them, then you may get a break. But there's no guarantee of that.

More importantly, you're missing the gist of Lilywhite's message. Even if you accept the NC rules, she has followed them. The rules allow her to move out of state. So you don't have any grounds to challenge her action on that basis.

[gidgetgirl]

the original court maintain jurisdiction, then that holds until BOTH parties agree to have it changed.

My divorce decree has that language and even though XH nd I not longer live in that jurisdiction, we have all court matters handle through that court system.

[gabes_mom]

I am not trying to challenge her actions based on anything.

If you look at my original post all I asked was what the standard interstate visitation schedule would look like

And who would be responsible for the financial burden of the added distance. That is all that I asked about.

The issue of jurisdiction is irrelevant the BM agrees that the jurisdiction continues to be NC. At this moment in time it is not a problem, if it ever becomes a problem then we will worry about it at that point.

For those of you still interested in debating who is or is not the state who holds jurisdiction then check out this website:

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uccjea/chldcus2.htm

Pay close attention to Section 202

IMO I highly doubt a judge would be so willing to change jurisdiction since the BM is bouncing around the US.

[mistoffolees]

I'm not an attorney, but I don't think that's correct. Basically, you're saying that you are able to override Federal Law.

You can easily agree to that. But if one person changes their mind, they are free to do what the legal system allows them to do - petition a different court for jurisdiction. I can't see any way in the world you can stop that.

You COULD, however, sue them for violating your contract, but I doubt if you'd win that one. Yes, she would clearly be in violation, but since she's simply exercising her legal rights to peitition the court for jurisdiction, it would be considered acceptable per public policy.

Basically, looks to me like an unenforceable clause. if you're both happy with it, that's great, but that doesn't mean it would hold up in court.

Just MHO.

[mistoffolees]

>I am not trying to challenge her actions based on anything.
>
>If you look at my original post all I asked was what the
>standard interstate visitation schedule would look like

I already commented on that. I am now commenting on more recent posts.

>
>And who would be responsible for the financial burden of the
>added distance. That is all that I asked about.

See above.

>
>The issue of jurisdiction is irrelevant the BM agrees that the
>jurisdiction continues to be NC. At this moment in time it is
>not a problem, if it ever becomes a problem then we will worry
>about it at that point.

And I'm simply explaining to you that BM's agreement is completely revocable. If she wants to have a fight, then she can simply petition the PA courts as they would have jurisdiction under Federal Law.

Whether that's likely or not is something I can't comment on since I don't know the people involved. But you need to factor it into your thinking process because it may affect your negotiating position. Simply saying that she CAN'T change jurisdiction is wrong - and may lead you down a path you don't want to go down.

>
>For those of you still interested in debating who is or is not
>the state who holds jurisdiction then check out this website:
>
>http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uccjea/chldcus2.htm
>
>Pay close attention to Section 202

I did. Did you bother reading 202.a.1? It says that a state retains jurisdiction only so long as the child has a continuing relationship with that state. Infrequent visitation does not generally count.

So your own source confirms what I said. Once the child has been out of state for 6 months, that state no longer has jurisdiction.

>
>IMO I highly doubt a judge would be so willing to change
>jurisdiction since the BM is bouncing around the US.

Judges change jurisdiction all the time. And what you've described is not 'bouncing all around the US'. Families move all the time. It's a fact of life. Your agreement specifically says that she's allowed to move. As Lilywhite says, you don't have much grounds to complain here.

[MixedBag]

yes, but 202(a)(2) plays into this since dad still resides in the original state.

Then there's 207 too.

Yes, judges change jurisdiction all the time, and I'll admit, I just went through this in Aug/Sep.

I don't live in the home state anymore that gave us our divorce and custody of our son to the father.  

But in August, we went to court because our son wants to live with me, mom.

Dad brought up the fact that he wanted jurisdiction to stay in our original state.  

Based on 202(a)(2), I thought jurisdiction would stay in the original home state until both dad and son no longer lived there.  THEN jurisdiction would follow the child (son).

The judge disagreed with me....and since our son was "concerned" that jurisdiction should stay in the home state (convenient forum for dad), I told the judge that I would not request jurisdiction be moved.

In September, the same thing came up and I once again reassured the judge and EX#2 that I would not request for jurisdiction to be moved MAINLY because the original court knows the history.

I wish I could have quoted it by section -- which is why I'm printing the darn thing off tonight to keep it handy.

Even for EX#3's situation.  He lived in Ohio and filed.  EX moved away with the kids.  Jurisdiction stayed in OH and could not be moved until EX#3 left the state too.  Then she asked for it to be moved.  EX#3 could have asked for it to stay since there was "continuous open litigation" for 3 years....but we decided to let it move.  There wasn't 30 days that went by before EX#3 could file something else in court because his EX wasn't abiding by the order -- contempt for not sending the children.

[MixedBag]

207 (b) (5) comes into play.

Jurisdiction stays in her case because it's in the decree and they agreed to it.

Yes, IMHO...