Brown v. Yana - CA move-away opinion -- pretty inconsequential?

[DecentDad]

Hi Soc,

(Mostly I ask because my ex has made move-away attempts before (buckled before any hearing on the matter) and sought sole custody last year (denied)... so I like to stay on top of the latest move-away opinions.)

I read through the Brown v. Yana opinion posted yesterday (making some news stories today), and about all I take from it is that the father failed to offer any reasonable argument as to detriment of the move-away, and hence he didn't get his evidentiary hearing.

It actually sounds pretty sensible to me (i.e., trial court gave Dad opportunity to make initial show of detriment, and Dad just said he'll do it at the evidentiary hearing to which he felt he was entitled).

About all I saw is that it clarified that the move-away hearing to examine detriment to child is not automatic, without at least a halfway decent reason to have it.

Am I missing something major about this opinion, or are the news stories just trying to sensationalize it due to the controversial topic?

DD

[socrateaser]

>Am I missing something major about this opinion, or are the
>news stories just trying to sensationalize it due to the
>controversial topic?

I haven't read it yet.

[socrateaser]

>>Am I missing something major about this opinion, or are the
>>news stories just trying to sensationalize it due to the
>>controversial topic?
>
>I haven't read it yet.

OK, now I have: Brown v. Yana, states that the non-custodial parent must show that the child will suffer a substantial (i.e., clear and convincing) detriment from the move, before the court is obliged to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter, and that the father in this case did not do so, but only wanted to show that the child's new residence environment would be inferior to the current one.

Apparently, the father should have had his affidavits and proof in order and submitted for the first hearing, so that he could overcome the burden of proof necessary to obtain an evidentiary hearing on the move-away.

That is the lesson. Don't go into court without your gun cleaned and loaded, or you're gonna get blown away.

[DecentDad]

So, to me, it's a pretty "duh" opinion.  The father was really unprepared, and only promised that he'll show detriment at the evidentiary hearing.

Both the SF Chronicle and LA Times are making it out to be a huge blow to parents who oppose move-aways, and I just didn't see that.

It also seems like it conversely supports that if one shows potential detriment may be caused by a move, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing.

Ironically, in this case, the newspaper stories report that the kid was so unhappy after the move, the father was able to get custody.  :)