KICKASS! LaMusga prevailed!!

[DecentDad]

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S107355.DOC

New move-away precedent established in California!

[kiddosmom]

OK, I read it, or most of it, and have no clue what is is.

Anyone speak ENGLISH care to translate?

[mango]

I read it too, confused.

[DecentDad]

Hi,

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't quite know what the implication of this case will be on move-away orders in California.

But... here's the basic history of the LaMusga case and what the Supreme Court ruled about.

1.  Parents divorced, biomom is ordered primary custodial parent.

2.  Biomom's new husband gets a good job in Ohio.  Biomom asks trial court to let her move.

3.  Biofather (also remarried) says the move will be detrimental to the children's relationship with him.

4. Trial court said that biofather had presented enough evidence that a re-evaluation was warranted before ruling on the move-away.

5.  Custody evaluator said that move would be bad for kids' relationship with dad, that mom has a history of contributing to alienation.  Evaluator said that if mom moves and kids stay with dad, that would also be bad for them because they have good relationship with mom, stepdad, and half-sister.  Evaluator said that both parents were "good enough" parents, but they have high conflict between them.

6.  Trial court weighed all evidence and said that mom will remain primary custodial parent unless she moves to Ohio, in which case custody will switch to dad, as that would be in kids' best interest.

7.  Mom appealed.  Appellate Court found that trial court abused discretion and didn't follow Burgess (i.e., case law regarding move-away).

8.  Dad asked Supreme Court to review.

9.  In meantime, Mom decided she wanted to move to Arizona instead of Ohio.  She asked the Supreme Court to drop the case, since the original orders were about moving to Ohio.

10. Supreme Court denied Mom's request, saying that the ruling on this case could have public benefit.

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

12.  Today, Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court's ruling.  Supreme Court found that Appellate Court made inaccurate presumptions about intent of Burgess, and aside from custodial parent's presumed right to move, that trial court still has obligation to use discretion and rule in best interests of the children.

So... it's a very interesting case because the primary parent was not allowed to move away with the children at the trial court level, and the Supreme Court found that the trial court was acting within its discretion for the best interest of the children.

The LaMusga parents/kids may still have unresolved issues on their hands, because the kids have been in Arizona for 8 months now, and now it's a new examination of what's in their best interest (i.e., bounce them back to Dad in CA?!  Their situation has changed since the original ruling).

However, it would appear that this ruling makes it easier to argue detriment to kids on move-aways without having to prove a very narrow "bad faith" cause for the move.

But again, I'm not an attorney, so I really don't know how this will have an impact on move-away custody rulings.

DD

[antonin]

My God! How much did all this cost! Did you see the lists of attorneys for each side!
(It looks like she got alot of free assistance from NOW)

[tryingtohelp]

what is NOW?

[hskrstepmom]

Check out Socrateaser's interpretation. Looks like it could be much more difficult for CPs to move children away.

[antonin]

The National Organization for Women

[3wishes]

Link?

[olanna]

the Court there could very well take jurisdiction. Most any atty on the mother's side would advise her to take that route.