I recently moved to Massachusetts with my two children. I chose not to be with their father anymore and decided to move back home with my family to have a better support system. I never told their father that he wouldn't be able to see the children anymore. But now he is taking me to court for joint custody and is telling me that I have no choice but to move back to New York. He feels that he should not have to drive 4 hours to be able to see his kids. I have no idea what to expect or what I need to do.
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Children visitation
- Thread Starter Kmello
- Start date
- Status
Gail_in_Georgia
Moderator
This man has legally been established as the childrens father, correct?
If so, you may find yourself paying for the cost of him traveling to see his children (at the very least).
gail
If so, you may find yourself paying for the cost of him traveling to see his children (at the very least).
gail
Proserpina
Moderator
I can absolutely see the court ordering the kids back to New York.
You messed up big time, Mom - you needed to have had either the court's or Dad's permission to move if you wanted to avoid this very thing from happening.
Be prepared to offer Dad a VERY generous parenting plan and for you to pay, as Gail indicated, ALL of the costs involved in getting the kids to and from Dad.
You messed up big time, Mom - you needed to have had either the court's or Dad's permission to move if you wanted to avoid this very thing from happening.
Be prepared to offer Dad a VERY generous parenting plan and for you to pay, as Gail indicated, ALL of the costs involved in getting the kids to and from Dad.
army judge
Super Moderator
Kmello said:
You only have to do what a court orders you to do.
In order for a court to order you to do something, it must first be able to exercise jurisdiction over you.
Asclong as you remain in MA, it won't be easy for a NY court to establish jurisdiction over you.
It is possible, just not easy.
So, until you have been served, very little will change in your world.
Don't make it easy to be served.
You speak as if you aren't divorced.
If you aren't divorced, all else is just talk.
If you weren't married, less for you to worry about.
If paternity was never established, even less for you to worry over.
Just stop talking to certain people.
Proserpina
Moderator
If Dad has already filed something NY will already have, and will retain, jurisdiction. Even if he hasn't, Mom and the kids will need to be residents of MA for a certain amount of time before MA will have jurisdiction for custody matters.
The interest of the children is at the fore here, and Mom has made it quite clear that she does not want Dad involved in their lives - I'm curious as to why that may be.
The interest of the children is at the fore here, and Mom has made it quite clear that she does not want Dad involved in their lives - I'm curious as to why that may be.
army judge
Super Moderator
Proserpina said:
Jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is fundamental to any case.
Notice.
Notice is another fundamental element of any case.
Family law is no different in that respect.
Jurisdiction, notice, and due process are always preserved and never trumped by statute.
Proserpina
Moderator
We've gone through this.
once more, with feeling
If Mommabear and Babybear haven't been in MA long enough to establish residency (ie, 6 months), NY retains jurisdiction over any and all custody matters (should Daddy actually bother to file anything). Once Mommabear has been in MA for the appropriate time, MA will have jurisdiction if Dad hasn't filed in NY.
I have no idea why we keep having to go back and forth about this.
once more, with feeling
If Mommabear and Babybear haven't been in MA long enough to establish residency (ie, 6 months), NY retains jurisdiction over any and all custody matters (should Daddy actually bother to file anything). Once Mommabear has been in MA for the appropriate time, MA will have jurisdiction if Dad hasn't filed in NY.
I have no idea why we keep having to go back and forth about this.
army judge
Super Moderator
You are entitled to believe anything you wish.
I fully understand the UCCJEA.
I don't dispute its validity.
I am not advising Mama to bring any litigation in MA.
I am saying, that as long as Mama is in MA, NY will have a very difficult time obtaining personal jurisdiction over her.
Well, the court doesn't care, the plaintiff does.
If a court has no personal jurisdiction over you, a lawsuit can't proceed.
And, even if criminality is alleged, the state that seeks your body; must extradite you.
I say, once more with feeling, jurisdiction.
Many good lawsuits have been (and are) stymied for lack of jurisdiction.
Proserpina
Moderator
I have to talk to Bay or someone. I need a "facepalm" emoticon.
NY ALREADY HAS jurisdiction in a custody matter until Mommabear has resided in MA long enough.
C'mon. It's Tuesday.
Tomorrow is HumpDay.
Can't we at least have an easy evening of it?! Ima off this merry-go-round. Several of us have tried, evidently to no avail.
NY ALREADY HAS jurisdiction in a custody matter until Mommabear has resided in MA long enough.
C'mon. It's Tuesday.
Tomorrow is HumpDay.
Can't we at least have an easy evening of it?! Ima off this merry-go-round. Several of us have tried, evidently to no avail.
army judge
Super Moderator
Proserpina, please do not be condescending.
I've never done that to you.
It isn't wrong to disagree.
There is no harm in people holding opposing beliefs.
I do know what I'm talking about.
It isn't focused on one aspect of a claim.
I'm trying to explain something that I've always thought to be very boring, civil procedure.
However, it is fundamental to this topic.
Jurisdiction over a matter, is different than over a person.
Yes, NY may have jurisdiction over a matter.
But, without obtaining jurisdiction over the person, the case will languish.
Why do you think wealthy people run from one place to another?
They are avoiding service.
You avoid service, you avoid the lawsuit.
A very effective tactic, I might add.
Wealthy defendants have perfected this technique.
As long as they avoid service, they avoid a verdict.
Juridiction requirements were put in place to keep parents from doing exactly what you did. Dad has the right to file for custody in NY since they retain jurisdiction. You really had no right to move the kids out of state. Try to work something out with him and BE prepared to make a more than fair offer, so he lets you stay. How is he going to see the kids? Are you willing to to do at least half of the driving? Give him travel credit towards his child support? You need an attorney in NY.
JustWantJustice
New Member
I have to agree with Prosperina here. I've got a similar situation, but my ex took my child to another state. Then he filed in our state because it's still got jurisdiction. It was explained to me by an attorney like this: Until the last person in the custody suit moves out of the state that has jurisdiciton (the home state of the children), it remains within that state's jurisdiction.
And with all that said, I would like to know WHY he was not ordered to pay MY traveling costs to see my children? He took them out of state, without even informing me, and now I have to pay my way to see them when I go there and he pays his way here? All this, and the guy makes almost $200k a year?
I'm so ticked off about this, and would really like to know what that judge was thinking.
But to get back on topic, yes, in this case NY is definitely going to retain jurisdiction. The father's already filed there, so that's where this case is going to stay.
And with all that said, I would like to know WHY he was not ordered to pay MY traveling costs to see my children? He took them out of state, without even informing me, and now I have to pay my way to see them when I go there and he pays his way here? All this, and the guy makes almost $200k a year?
I'm so ticked off about this, and would really like to know what that judge was thinking.
But to get back on topic, yes, in this case NY is definitely going to retain jurisdiction. The father's already filed there, so that's where this case is going to stay.
Do you practice FAMILY Law in any state? Do you practice in Massachusetts or New York? If so ...Please provide the State Stat's or any case law for those states to back up your "opinion" that avoiding service will "help" this OP LEGALLY.
Cause I happen to KNOW that personal service can be by Publication.
army judge
Super Moderator
BayState said:
Notice, jurisdiction have nothing to do with family law.
In the OP's case, no lawsuit was even begun.
If no lawsuit has begun, before the other person has left state A to go to state B, notice will become a problem.
Also, UCCJEA takes jurisdiction over the child, and can even have the child brought back to state A, in certain circumstances.
It can't do that to people like the OP.
You might want to review sections 108 & 205 of the statute.
It isn't as cut and dry as you think.
Service by publication can only be done, (legally) if you don't know the whereabouts of the person you are trying to serve.
Notice, jurisdiction; they aren't as easy to achieve as you might believe.
Last edited:
This is the argument that has been made numerous times in numerous threads, but you've repeatedly given advice that ignores it.
And I don't think anyone said it could. ALL the responses are about NY's jurisdiction over the custody of the children.
OP could ultimately lose custody of her children if she ignores/evades service when the father files, as OP said he is. If that happens, I suppose one can always advise her on how to live a life on the run with her children.
Not surprising... She's usually right! :angel
- Status
Share this page
