By -


CHILD CUSTODY - What constitutes a "Move Away"?

              Some litigants, and judges, have a hard time with determining whether a move constitutes a "move away" in a family law proceeding.  We have found that often judges are reluctant to deem a relocation as what it often is, a "move away."  This often has a very serious, and negative, impact on the non-moving party. 

               Relocation out of state is not necessary for a relocation to be considered a move away. In re Marriage of Burgess, (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 25, 28. The court in Burgess held that a mother's move from Tehachapi, CA to Lancaster, CA, approximately forty miles away, constituted a move away, requiring court determination that such a move would not "prejudice the rights or welfare of the children." Id. 

              Although the best interest standard applies to move-away requests dealing at the temporary stage, said standard must be applied in the right manner. The "best interests of the children" analysis requires the court to consider the request for a move-away in a calm, dispassionate manner and ONLY after the parties have had an opportunity to be meaningfully heard. In re Marriage of Seagondollar, (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 1119-20. 

            A meaningful hearing is a critical requirement of California law before any judicial determination regarding a move-away request for parents who share joint legal and physical custody following a final judicial custody order. Id. 

         A party cannot move-away with children and ask questions later i.e. grant me orders to establish permanency. Parties must adhere to case law and statutory authority on this issue, namely, Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 917.7. Any move-away order, even if denominated as "temporary" or "without prejudice," is subject to the§ 917.7 30-day automatic stay. 
Andrew V. v. Super. Ct. (2015) 234 Cal. 4th 103, 109 (rejecting Mother's contention that§ 917.7 applies only to "appealable judgments and orders" and not to "interlocutory" orders made without prejudice)]. In Andrew V, the Comi of Appeal held that the 30-day stay in section 917.7 applies to all move away orders, including temporary orders. The court noted "children live in the present tense, and 'temporary' relocations may have a severe and pernicious impact on their well-being and sense of security." 234 Cal.App.4th at 109. 

                The procedural safeguards regarding a move-away are meant to protect the relationship between parents and children, and the enormous effect that a move-away has on custody and visitation. Consider the following fact pattern: pending a Request for Order hearing, one parent relocates with the minor children from Lancaster, CA to Seal Beach, CA. Both cities are located in Los Angeles County, notwithstanding this fact, however, they are almost 100 miles apart. 

                There is nothing in the holdings of Andrew V. or Seagondollar that limits the public policy principles and statutory rules solely to situations involving "post-judgment out-of-state" move away requests. The law is clear under the standards articulated within those two cases that the public policy of the state does not allow for temporary move-away orders as this drives an instability in the relationship between the parents and the children and cause serious, potentially unnecessary disruptions in the children's lives, while the move-away motion is still pending and a final custody order has yet to be determined. See In re Marriage of Seagondollar, (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1116; See Andrew V. v. Super. Ct. (2015) 234 Cal. 4th 103. 

  Our advice, if you are facing an potential "move away" immediately consult with a Certified Family Law Specialist.  Time is not on your side!

 Patrick Baghdaserians, CFLS

Family Law Attorney and Expert Located in Pasadena, CA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

California Statutory Criteria For Determination of Custody Disputes

By -
Family Code § 3022 provides the court with authority to make an order for the custody of a minor child that seems necessary and proper during the pendency of a proceeding or at any time thereafter.    California family law courts use Family Code § 3040 to establish the order of preference in granting custody in divorce actions.  The first section of this code section provides that “Custody should be granted in the following order of preference according to the best interest of the child as provided in Sections 3011 and 3020.” Parties involved in a custody dispute would be wise to review Family Code §§ 3011 and 3020.  Since these two sections outline the criteria that California judges use to determine custody disputes, parties to such actions should address these factors in their declarations when providing testimony and argument.  Successful litigants spend time addressing facts that directly address these factors.  Spending too much time on fact...
Read more
By -
Image
BEYOND GUIDELINE CHILD SUPPORT           For nearly 100 years, California courts have consistently maintained and fostered the  principle  that the duty of a parent does not end by providing mere necessities of life if he is able to afford more.  Bailey vs. Superior Court (1932) 215 Cal.548, 555. On countless occasions courts have explicitly established that the child has a  right “to be supported in a  style and condition that is consonant with the  position in society of its parents .”  Kyne vs. Kyne (1945) 70 Cal.App. 2d 80, 83.          The California  Family Code  provides specific code provisions in regards the   establishment of child support orders in the state by trial courts.  Said code sections demonstrate a very clear intent and objective of the legislature to ensure fair and  appropriate child support orders are rendered for children with parents from...
Read more
By -
Image
         Paying too much in Spousal Support? Call us! Modification of a spousal support order is a matter for the exercise of the court’s discretion, based upon a showing of a change of circumstances since the last spousal support order.  In re Marriage of Meegan  (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4 th 156, 161;   In re Marriage of Stephenson (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4 th 71, 76-77. “In determining whether a change of circumstances has occurred, the trial court is required to reconsider the same standards and criteria set forth in . . . now Family Code section 4320 it considered in making the initial long-term order at the time of judgement and any subsequent modification order.”   Marriage of Stephenson (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4 th 71, 77. In other words, in considering a spousal support modification request - … given the predicate of a change of circumstances – the trial court looks at the various factors bearing on spousa...
Read more