Divorced father without custody not entitled to hearing
In another California move away case, the state Supreme Court looked a a more narrow issue before, but extremely relevant. The Court decided that in cases where one parent had been awarded sole physical and legal custody after a contested hearing on the case, the other parent may not then request an evidentiary move away hearing.
The ramifications here are clear that the contested custody trial has even more ramifications then before. Should a parent not have a custody of the child, and the other parent wants to move away, the parent has little chance of stopping the other so long as the move is prompted in good faith and with proper notice.
Custody issues are complex, hearings and trials are frequent. Please visit our website for more information on child custody.
Divorced father without custody not entitled to hearing
PAUL ELIAS - Associated Press - SAN FRANCISCO
A divorced father isn't entitled to a court hearing to prevent his ex-wife with sole custody of their 14-year-old son from moving to another state, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In the unanimous decision, the state high court said Anthony Yana presented no initial evidence that his ex-wife's move from San Luis Obispo to Las Vegas would irreparably harm his son Cameron.
A trial court judge in 2003 denied Yana's attempt to gain joint custody of Cameron to stop his ex-wife's move with her new family. The judge also denied Yana's request for a hearing on the matter where he intended to argue that his son would suffer in Las Vegas because of that city's high crime and school dropout rates.
"Like the trial court, we conclude this was insufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing given the record as a whole," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the entire court.
Yana conceded that his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, did not intend to move to deprive him of visitation rights or that the move would traumatize Cameron any more than other such "move away" divorce cases.
"There was no issue of any bad faith on Brown's part, and no concern expressed that she might use the relocation to limit Yana's contact with Cameron," Baxter wrote.
Brown's attorney, Jeffrey Doeringer, said the ruling clears up an unsettled area of divorce law where many judges were automatically granting requests for hearings that were expensive and emotionally taxing on children who had to testify.
"The cost of such litigation was very significant," Doeringer said. "This shows that noncustodial parents will need some juice behind their claims to warrant a hearing."
Yana's lawyer could not be reached for comment.
Comments
I have custody of my kids.Right now it is 80/20.20% PERCENT is me the father.She is planning on moving away to another state across the country.Virginia and she is planning on taking both my kids.I have been able to bond with my kids more closely since my mother passed away and they are close to me.The question though is that I live in another city and county from my kids.I want to bring them to live with me instead of them moving away to another state were they don't no nobody.They have family were I live and friends.I live in a 4+2 home with my sister and my kids want to live with me. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS.I did leave out a few things but I didn't have time to write it all down.I l
Posted by: Jose | March 31, 2006 1:40 PM
Hi Jose,
You do have some rights and need to act quickly to make sure that those rights, and those of your children, are protected. You may be able to gain custody, or block the mother from moving, but at the least you need to know that you will be able to continue contact with your children.
Tilden
Posted by: Tilden Moschetti | April 21, 2006 2:16 PM