Relocation - PA statute 5337

[mcspgh]

I am involved in a relocation case. MGM has primary custody. Trying to relocate. Claims a whole slew of things - birth mother homeless even though she lived with her until she got housing, MGM claims sole primary care - mother was there with child from birth (Nov. 2008) until Dec. 2009, even though MGM gained custody in Oct. '09. Mother and father saw child frequently from this point until July 2011. 4-7 days per week and freq. overnights, though no visitation order existed. MGM and mother got in fight. MGM threatened TPR. parents filed for primary. Nov. 2011 - parents granted 1 day a wk. visitation. MGM went to TN on business in Dec. 2011. MGM files for emergency relocation to TN April 12. Claims her fiance got job offer from VETERANS ADMIN. No knowledge of this before April 4. Must leave before May 6. April 19th hearing results in conciliation on April 25. At this plaintiff, in desperate attempt, brings up prior TPR of mother and another child. Judge recuses herself and moves it to tpr judge. Sends notice on May 3 of trial on May 22. Defendants file motion for continuance May 6. Scheduled on May 17. Filed pretrial statement May 16. Judge rejected continuance and said trial has been changed to conciliation. Defendants are pro se. Cannot afford counsel. We have proof against claims that we never financially, emotionally, or physically provided for our child. We have two witnesses that we want to call that will offer testimony to emotional connection and frequent visiting prior to July '11. We have video of our son emotionally distraught after two visits. He is three now and says he doesn't want to go home. He wants to go home with mommy and daddy. I don't know what to do. Going into this pro se. Any advice? They want to reduce visiting to 4 or 5 days a year in TN with parents paying expenses and NO overnights. What can we expect in conciliation. Can judge grant it without a trial? Can he do anything without a pysch evaluation of parents, child, MGM? Can I call my witnesses in conciliation or evidence or these videos? Or is this just a way for the judge to get a feel for everything? Also anyone know any attorneys that would do pro bono in Pittsburgh? THANKS.

 

[army judge]

Just let them have the kid, he's safe, right?
You'll probably lose anyway, going pro se!

 

[Proserpina]

WHY don't the parents have custody?

 

[mcspgh]

Just let them have the kid, he's safe, right?
You'll probably lose anyway, going pro se!

I'm expecting the worst but we've been advised that the law is on our side. This statute is brand new. JAN. 2011. Superior Court overturned a case because the couny court used only one of the ten factors and was very vague on that one. They have to weigh in on this and give a reason - pro or con - on each factor. One is which, whether one or both parties attempted to promote or thwart visitation.

 

[mcspgh]

WHY don't the parents have custody?

We voluntarily did this because MGM lied and said that CYF was going to come after us. She claimed that this was only going to be temporary and that she didn't want to break our family up. She is twofaced. We started realizing this after we moved into section 8 housing and she pulled him from daycare because of mersa and refused to put him in a different one. She demanded that myself or mother take him during the week because no one in their house could. Mother was working part time and I had to quit going to temp service to take care of minor child. MGM would repeatedly throw in my face that I didn't want to work and denied our repeated attempts to try and get him back in daycare. We trusted a bad person... very manipulative. She has already flipped in front of the custody mediator back in Oct. '11 and in front of the judge in April. She has gone as far to claim that I may be the father of mother's first child (born Dec. '06) even though practically everyone knows that we never started dating until Nov. 2007. And she got pregnant by the father in Philly who told her it was her problem. So much half truth or lies put out as being fact. So much discountable. CYF opened and closed the case within two months of birth. No concerns. We are on the verge of losing housing because apt. is for child as well. Been lucky to keep because we were seeing him regularly. He leaves and we are homeless. And he is traumatized.

 

[mcspgh]

I'm expecting the worst but we've been advised that the law is on our side. This statute is brand new. JAN. 2011. Superior Court overturned a case because the couny court used only one of the ten factors and was very vague on that one. They have to weigh in on this and give a reason - pro or con - on each factor. One is which, whether one or both parties attempted to promote or thwart visitation.

Give them the kid? He's safe? I bet you don't have kids... if any patent chooses ANYTHING over their children, then they are NOT a parent. ANYTHING! MGM has chosen her ex AND her fiance over her own children. I've told both mother and MGM that I will choose NOTHING over my son.

 

[army judge]

Give them the kid? He's safe? I bet you don't have kids... if any patent chooses ANYTHING over their children, then they are NOT a parent. ANYTHING! MGM has chosen her ex AND her fiance over her own children. I've told both mother and MGM that I will choose NOTHING over my son.

You say you're almost homeless. The kid isn't homeless, he's living the high life. Kids love that high life, not being with broke, homeless parents. Besides, those drugs are still calling, right? Naw, let them have the kid, he's happier there.

 

[mcspgh]

You say you're almost homeless. The kid isn't homeless, he's living the high life. Kids love that high life, not being with broke, homeless parents. Besides, those drugs are still calling, right? Naw, let them have the kid, he's happier there.

So you are one of those ones who assume ANYONE who has EVER been homeless uses drugs... The MGM's fiance is a recovering addict. He used as recently as like eight years ago (that we know of). Happy there? He was fine with being there as long as he saw parents on a frequent basis. When MGM started denying him seeing his parents, he's NOT happy. All that is needed is a court ordered psych eval. What state are you living in...? Secondly, I thought this was a place for legal advice and support. I feel that I'm surrounded by social media trolling. Look, I got you saying... LET 'EM HAVE THE KID, HE'S LIVING THE HIGH LIFE, and I've had five lawyers and two mental health pros tell me that this is cut and dry. The judge even said that the weakest part of the Plaintiff's case is she is still ONLY grandma - we are his parents. The judge said the weakest part of our case is that we haven't seen him regularly... this can be countered because mother was w/ him from Nov. '08 till Dec. '09, we saw him 4-7 days per week (overnight at least 7 nights a month) from Dec. '09 until July '11. After this it's been hindered by MGM or the court system. I'll just let 'em have my son and go be homeless and use drugs... based upon what someone says in some forum. You should move here to Pittsburgh... you'd fit right in with the yinzer crowd. Go to work at mindcrushing office job... go to stillers game, go to saufside and get drunk and eat a primantie's... and look down your nose at every one who is not like you. Every one who is some kind of bigot should all wear a sheet.

 

[Proserpina]

Five lawyers, huh? I doubt that. But, let's get back to it.

Grandma has had CUSTODY - not guardianship, but CUSTODY - of this child. You only have visitation 1 day per week according to your original post. And the child is only 3, yet has spent the majority of his young life NOT living with his parents.

That actually gives grandma a better-than-good shot at not only retaining custody, but of getting the relocation approved - despite your protestations to the contrary. Of course the child cries - he's as confused as heck. Grandma has raised him (essentially), and now he has to spend time with two virtual strangers.

Unless you get an attorney on board - and I doubt anyone would take this pro bono - I can see you being terrifically disappointed once you get to court.

(Btw - the judge told you all that too? Really? An ex parte communication? That's more than a tad naughty....)

 

[army judge]

Ahh, come on, kids love LIVING THE HIGH LIFE.

I polled 50 kids today and everyone said they'd rather live with a rich stranger than broke parent.

So, I can safely say, that ALL KIDS agree, RICH STRANGERS are better than BROKE parents!!!