Sacks, Allred Debate New CA. Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

In relation to the post below, Glenn Sacks debated attorney Gloria Allred last Friday about this case and move away cases in general. What follows are verbatim excerpts from an email. You can visit GlennSacks.com or His Side with Glenn Sacks for more information or to sign up for email updates.

Excerpts:

California Supreme Court Rules Against Dad in New Move-Away Decision

From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, in which a custodial mother was allowed to move her two children 40 miles away from their father. Burgess was disastrous for children because it was interpreted by California courts to permit moves of hundreds or thousands of miles. In some cases, courts have even allowed children to be moved out of the country, as far away as Australia, New Zealand, and Zaire.

In 2004 the California Supreme Court decided the LaMusga case in favor of the father, Gary LaMusga, who sought to prevent his ex-wife from moving his two young boys from California to Ohio. LaMusga, who is unable to follow his children because he operates a small business and is tied down by weighty child support obligations, had fought the move for eight years. In siding with the father the court explained that "the likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether the move would cause detriment to the children."

Soon afterwards a handful of extreme feminists prevailed upon former California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) to introduce SB 730, which would have abrogated LaMusga and given custodial parents almost unlimited move-away privileges. We organized to fight the bill, and generated thousands of calls and letters in opposition, as well as a lot of media attention. To everybody's surprise, Burton withdrew SB 730, and LaMusga was preserved.

Fortunately the new decision in Brown vs. Yana will not have the impact of Burgess or LaMusga--it is more technical and limited in scope, and the father's underwhelming legal effort and behavior hurt him. To learn more about the new ruling, see Court Rules Parents With Custody Can Move (Los Angeles Times, 2/2/06).

To learn more about California move-aways and the LaMusga case, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and read my LaMusga radio commentary here. To read a feminist view of the move-away issue, see Allred's column "Moving Matters in Custody" (Los Angeles Daily Journal, 10/3/02).

I discussed how this issue would be viewed if we switched the genders in my column California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04), and argued in favor of a current Wisconsin move-away bill in my co-authored piece AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce (Wisconsin State Journal, 12/3/05). I clashed with feminist law professor Carol Bruch, who authored the mother's brief in LaMusga, on PBS's Los Angeles affiliate KCET last year--to watch, click here.

Sacks, Allred Debate New California Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

For example, Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways unfairly restrict custodial moms from moving, while not restricting noncustodial fathers. I answer that in these cases both parents are free to move wherever they want--it is the children who may not be moved if a court determines that it is against their best interests.

Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways keep custodial parents "held hostage" in their neighborhoods, and that they should be able to "move on with their lives." I respond that both parents retain responsibilities to their children after divorce which are sometimes inconvenient or limiting, and ask "Would we argue that noncustodial parents' responsibility to pay child support holds them 'hostage?' Do we condone the behavior of divorced parents who decide to drop out of their children's lives or stop paying child support because they've decided to 'move on with their lives?'"

Another Bizarre Father Screwing

According to the article Not guilty, but not off the hook (2/6/06):

"A man who spent 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murder faces a debt of more than $38,000 in child-support payments that started accumulating while he was locked up...

"A federal judge released Souter last April 1.

"In 1987, before his conviction, [Larry] Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995.

"Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25.

"Federal law prohibits judges from retroactively wiping out such debts...

"David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client 'has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support.'"

I love the quote from his ex-wife's attorney. Yes, he didn't pay child support because he was in prison framed on a murder charge. I guess we should be grateful the lawyer didn't refer to Souter as a "deadbeat dad." That'll probably be next. One would also think that after seeing her ex-husband rot in jail for 13 years for a crime he didn't commit, she would feel so damn sorry for the poor guy that she would back off. I guess not.

In the article Wrongly convicted man tries to move on after prison (Flint Journal, 1/7/06), Souter had discussed putting his life back together and his plans. Now he may be headed back on the road to jail.

I wrote about California legislation designed to deal with the problem of ex-offenders and child support in my co-authored column Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bill to Reduce Prisoner Recidivism (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 9/21/05). The Bradley Amendment, under which child support arrearages cannot be retroactively forgiven, is the cause of countless bizarre injustices, and often hurts deployed military personnel. In my co-authored column Laws must protect the rights of military dads (Army Times, Marine Corps Times, 3/28/05) family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"[Child] support orders are based on civilian pay, which is generally higher than active duty pay. When reservists are called up to active duty they sometimes pay an impossibly high percentage of their income in child support.

"For example, a California naval reservist who has three children and who takes home $4,000 a month in his civilian job would have a child support obligation of about $1,600 a month. If this father is a petty officer second class (E5) who has been in the reserves for six or seven years--a middle-ranked reservist--his active-duty pay would only be $2,205 before taxes, in addition to a housing allowance. Under current California child support guidelines, the reservist's child support obligation should be $550 a month, not $1,600."

A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the wonders of the child support system would probably think 'OK, but the courts would just straighten it out when the reservist gets back--certainly they wouldn't punish him for something that happened because he was serving.' However, the federal Bradley Amendment prohibits judges from retroactively modifying child support beyond the date which an obligor has applied for a modification. Reservists can be mobilized with as little as one day's notice. If a reservist didn't have time or didn't know he had to file for a downward modification, the arrearages stay, along with the interest and penalties charged on them.

"When the arrearage reaches $5,000--a common occurrence during long deployments--the father can become a felon who can be incarcerated or subject to a barrage of harsh civil penalties, including seizure of driver's licenses, business licenses and passports."

This is a particularly long newsletter so I am going to cut the excerpts here. However, Glenn also discusses child abduction, the campaign against PBS "documentary" Breaking the Silence, Newsweek coverage of The Trouble With Boys, domestic violence laws, Italian custody laws, and female inmates - amongst other topics. Visit his site to read the newsletter here.

'Move-Away' Parents Get Green Light

This is regarding the recent California Supreme Court decision in the case of Brown vs. Yana. What is so sick here is that while the boy was already living with his father as he was so unhappy living with his mother out of state, the Court still found reasons to make it easier to for custodial parents to move. The experiences of this boy were completely ignored.

'Move-Away' Parents Get Green Light

Excerpts:

The California Supreme Court on Thursday shifted the balance in fights between divorced parents with a ruling that eases the way for a parent with custody — usually the mother — to move away over her former mate's objections.

Brown, who has two other children with her second husband, argued that Cameron would suffer if he was separated from his half-siblings. She also offered Yana more time in the summer with their son.

Yana argued that moving would put the boy in a community with poor schools and more crime. He also moved for joint custody. A lower court ruled that a judge should have held a full hearing on Yana's objections before the mother could relocate.

The high court disagreed, in Brown vs. Yana. The court ruled that a parent who lacks custody, usually the father, would have to show that the move would harm the child before he would be granted a hearing.

A hearing "in a move-away situation should be held only if necessary," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the unanimous court.

Thursday's decision will not affect Cameron's current custody arrangement. After moving to Nevada with his mother, Cameron decided he would prefer to be with his father, and his mother eventually allowed the child to live with Yana in Santa Maria.

At a court hearing in November, "the boy testified unequivocally how unhappy he was with his stepfather and his mother," Helbert said. "He wasn't doing well in Las Vegas." (emphasis mine)

The court refused to rule that a child's unhappiness about moving could never be a sufficient reason for changing custody status. The court also said that regardless of custody status, any parent can try to stop a relocation if that parent can make a sufficient showing of potential harm to his or her children.

"Even a parent with sole legal and sole physical custody may be restrained from changing a child's residence if a court determines the change would be detrimental to the child's rights or welfare," Baxter wrote.

More on Indiana Senate Bill 0040

I just received the following via email:

Indiana Senate Bill 0040, which requires 90-day notice of relocation to all persons with court-ordered parenting time, passed out of committee today to the floor of the Senate. Presently, Indiana law only requires notice of a move of the "custodial" parent if moving more than 100 miles or out-of-state, and notice only needs to be given to the court (not the other parties) prior to the move. There are many other provisions in the bill concerning filing of motion for hearing, proposed parenting plan changes due to the move, etc. I encourage you to read it via the link below.

Testimony was taken on this bill's behalf by Senator Ford (the bill sponsor, divorce atty from Hartford City), Bruce Pennamped (Indpls atty, non-custodial representative to the Indiana Child Custody & Support Advisory Committee), Drew Soshnick (chairman of Family Law Section, Ind State Bar Assn), and me. Several members of PACE were in the audience in support of the bill, and there was no opposing testimony.

While some suggestions for amendments to the bill were made from the Committee members themselves, no amendments were added meaning that a vote on it could be taken today. The bill passed from the Committee to the Senate by a roll-call vote of 8-0.

I spoke with Senator Bray, the long-time chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, before the meeting began. He is very interested in seeing this become Indiana law. I strongly believe that through his influence, as well as requests that you can make of your Senators and Representatives, that can be accomplished. Please take a few minutes and write a brief letter to your elected Senator and Representative asking for their support. The General Assembly web site provides a means of sending an email to them, but frankly, email is not yet seen as valuable in securing support. I believe it is the casual nature of most emails, as well as the ease of communication, that results in less respect for the medium. If you can write or call, please do so!

More information on this bill and its progress can be found here.

Indiana Child Custody & Support Advisory Meeting

Again, this is copied verbatim from an email (with certain omissions):

There will be a meeting of the Indiana Child Custody & Support Advisory Committee (ICCSAC) this coming Wednesday, 10/12/2005, at 1:00 pm in room 431 of the Indiana State House.

Representative Phyllis Pond is going to speak on the topic of child support for post-secondary education (college students). Presently, Indiana Child Support Guidelines specify that child support is not to be calculated (paid) for the weeks that students are living away at college. It resumes when the child returns "home". This change was enacted in the latest Guidelines revision because parents were paying for housing, food, transportation and other expenses for their college children in BOTH locations: "home" and college!

Attorneys have been trying to get that changed back to something much closer to the "dark ages" since the change was approved by the Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana Code says simply that "there shall be no duplication" of such expenses.

Another agenda item is "relocation issues in child custody matters". In recent cases, it is becoming more common for judges to permit a parent to move, but stipulate that custody will be changed to the non-moving parent if such takes place. That TENDS to reduce the move-aways as you can imagine. Why the moving parent thinks that the noncustodial parent can maintain an adequate relationship, but they could not, could be an interesting topic for discussion!

If these topics concern you, I encourage you to attend the meeting and signup to SAY SO! Let the committee members know how much you value the ongoing contact and relationship with your child.

If you would like to attend this meeting and need additional info please email me.

An unusual decision in custody case - New York

Newsday.com: An unusual decision in custody case

Even though this mother has previously demonstrated that she could not be expected to fully comply with her custody arrangement and that the parents have joint custody - this judge decided she could move the child out of the country provided she put up a bond guaranteeing monthly visitation.

The judge said, "Visitation with a parent is not the privilege of the parent but the right of the child. Both [the father and the boy] must have this right preserved by maximizing defendant's opportunity to maintain a positive and nurturing father-son relationship.” Which can apparently be accomplished through a monthly visit. Right.

Why not leave the child in New York and provide the mother with as liberal of a visitation schedule as she desires. Then she doesn’t have to come up with huge upfront costs, can elect to pay for her own travel expenses and the child does not have to be removed from his father and community simply since Mom’s new husband works in Canada…

Move away cases drive me crazy – if one parent wants to move there is certainly no compelling reason to keep them from doing so. However, their elective choice should not be an excuse to disrupt the parent/child relationship with their ex. If you want to move – go for it – but don’t expect to be able to take your child. Part of having children is sacrifice – you may have to sacrifice your desire to go wherever in order to support your child in the most loving and stable manner possible. Eventually the child will be old enough and out of the house where you can move wherever your little heart desires. In the meantime, deal with the fact that you have already handicapped your child by divorcing their other parent and try to do the best thing for them considering.

These remarriage move away cases are the epitome of selfish.

Excerpts:

Jodi Ann Fischtein wanted her 11-year-old son to move to Canada with her.

But she and her ex-husband had joint custody of the boy, and the father wanted him to stay in New York.

After a 28-day trial in Central Islip, State Supreme Court Justice John Bivona made a rather novel decision.

The boy could go with his mother and new stepfather, who had been commuting to New York from Toronto. But Fischtein had to put up a $60,000 bond ensuring the father's visitation at least once a month, and pay his travel and hotel expenses.

"Visitation with a parent is not the privilege of the parent but the right of the child. Both [the father and the boy] must have this right preserved by maximizing defendant's opportunity to maintain a positive and nurturing father-son relationship," Bivona wrote in the recent decision.

However, he added the mother's "past conduct does raise concern as to whether she will cooperate and abide by the order of this court." Bivona directed that Fischtein post a $60,000 bond in the escrow account of the lawyer for her ex-husband, John Andrade, until her son becomes 18.

"This is very unusual," said Friedman. "I think the judge was concerned that the relocation he was allowing was out of the country and out of U.S. jurisdiction ... and there could be problems for the father jurisdictionally if there is a proceeding for enforcement."

In requiring the bond, Bivona cited instances in which Fischtein had interfered with Andrade's access to his son since the couple's divorce last year.

"Based on past history, plaintiff has dictated terms of visitation according to her whim," the judge wrote. Despite a separation agreement and both having joint custody, "plaintiff acts unilaterally."

This time, mothers score court victory - Colorado

This time, mothers score court victory

By Al Knight

The Colorado Supreme Court has chosen sides in the gender wars.

In two decisions last week, the court handed the prize to divorced or divorcing mothers who had lost at the trial court level and in the Colorado Court of Appeals.

In those two cases, the lower courts had found - wonder of wonders - that it was in the best interests of the affected children to maintain close contact with their fathers. The trial judges in those cases ruled that the mothers of the children could not in one instance continue to reside in Arizona and in the other couldn't relocate with her child to that state.

Before dealing with the court's reasoning, a little history is in order. In 1963, and again in 1980, the Colorado Supreme Court found that it was against state policy to remove a child from the state's jurisdiction without a showing that the move was in the child's best interest.

That standard was tossed with a Supreme Court decision in 1996 in which the court discovered a presumption that it is in a child's best interest to remain with the custodial parent should that parent relocate to another state.

The state legislature, for obvious reasons, didn't much like that decision and so the law was changed in 2001 to provide that a court, presented with a request of a parent to move out of state, must take into account a long list of relevant factors, including the impact the move would have on the non-custodial parent's relationship with the child.

The new law clearly had two purposes: to rebuke the court for its decision creating a presumption in favor of the custodial parent (almost always the mother); and to level the playing field to benefit the father.

So it came to pass that a trial judge had to interpret the new law. In doing so, he appointed a special advocate to look into all of the relevant relationships affecting the child. The special advocate (a woman) found that that the child would be adversely affected by the separation from its father. Before reaching a decision, the judge also asked the parties to comment on an article in a respected family journal that discussed the adverse affects on children when the parents lived in widely separated locations.

Ultimately, the judge noted that the mother, who had not yet found employment in another state, was willing to stay in Colorado and so he ruled that she could not relocate to Arizona.

The Court of Appeals, in affirming this decision, specifically noted that the special advocate had found that the significant reduction in visitation by the father would have caused "irreparable harm" to the bond between the father and the child. (emphasis mine)

The three-judge panel found no abuse of discretion by the trial judge. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial judge had abused his discretion by "prematurely" concluding there is a value to giving both parents ample access to their child. (Again the emphasis is mine - but truly, how sick is this? It needed to be in bold)

Justice Nancy Rice, who wrote the related opinions, said that the trial court should have given more consideration to the advantages the child would receive by staying with the "primary caregiver."

She went on to address whether the mother has a constitutional right to travel. She found that there is such a right, but it must be balanced against the right of the biological father to help raise his child. Then, after a wholly unimpressive balancing act, Rice and the court concluded the father's rights had to give way.

In reaching this conclusion, the court ignored the law and policy in some other states, including Texas, where the courts have said that the right of the mother to travel is not restricted in these situations. What is limited, and properly so, is the right of the mother to take the child, against the wishes of the father, to another state.

Colorado has obviously strayed from the notion that a mother wishing to move to another state has to demonstrate the move is in the best interests of the child.

Under the cases announced last week, the new standard is the best interests of the mother.

Still, as Father's Day approaches, it might be useful to note that 40 percent of America's children now live in homes without their real fathers. It should also be plain that last week's decisions will only make matters worse.

Fathers Rally for Equal Parenting Rights- Wisconsin

NBC15 Fathers Rally for Equal Parenting Rights

Excerpts:

Madison: David Lewis enjoys every minute he gets to spend with his 3 year old daughter Juliana. Of course, he doesn't get all that many minutes each week.

He went to court after he was originally awarded only 7 hours of visitation each week. "The court ended up giving me 34 hours a week to see my daughter. But yet I'm a licensed foster father and I can care for other people's children, 2-4 year old girls on a full time basis."

"If we're going to expect fathers to be good role models and to be a positive influence on their children they have to have access to their children. To be there every other weekend just isn't sufficient," says WFCF Chair Brian King.

"All we're asking for is equal time with our kids," agrees David.

While changing the court's age old view of women as better parents may take time, some changes are moving faster.

Juliana's mom used to live 10 miles away from David. "Then she moved with her boyfriend approximately 80 miles so now I drive about 300 miles a week on average to see my daughter."

State law allows a parent with primary custody to move up to 150 miles away without even informing the other parent.

Assembly bill 400 would change that. "The assumption has been made that whatever's good for the primary parent is good for the child. What we're with this bill is questioning that," says bill author Rep. Steve Kestell (R-Elkhart Lake).

Representative Kestell's bill would change the boundary limit to just 20 miles or inside a school district. If a parent wants to move farther, they either need the permission of the other parent, or the approval of a judge.

Colorado's top court makes it easier for parents to leave state

This is the entire article so you can all feel as I sick as I do.... How on earth can a parent's constitutional right to move be equivalent to their child's constitutional right to two INVOLVED parents - not to mention the other parent's constitutional right to PARENT THEIR CHILD.

"Huge" rulings on divorce
Colorado's top court makes it easier for parents to leave state

By Mike McPhee Denver Post Staff Writer

In two related rulings this week, the Colorado Supreme Court significantly changed family law by making it easier for divorcing or already-divorced parents to move to another state.

Helen Shreves, a family-law attorney and mediator for 25 years, called the rulings "groundbreaking." One case deals with parents in the process of divorcing, the other with parents already divorced. Shreves said they could affect 15 percent to 20 percent of all Colorado divorce cases.

"This is a very significant change in the law," she said. "Until now, you literally couldn't leave the state while your divorce was in process. Or your spouse could get a restraining order and bring you back. Now you can leave.

"The second case protects the parent's constitutional right to travel after the divorce, saying it is just as important as the child's best interests."

Suzanne Griffiths, a family-law attorney for 25 years, called the ruling "huge."
"It not only will cause the filing of a large number of requests to relocate by parents who were told they couldn't leave, but it will also have an enormous effect on couples contemplating divorce," she said.

"This will cause many couples to think twice about getting a divorce, if they know one of them can take the child to another state for good reason such as a job or family."

In the first case, Jennifer Spahmer and Todd Gullete had a child in September 2001. The relationship ended, and during the divorce process Spahmer wanted to move to Arizona with the child to be near her family and to take a new job.

But a trial court denied her request, stating it was in the child's best interests for both parents to live in Colorado. Spahmer appealed.

The Supreme Court overturned the lower court, stating that parenting time must be arranged in the best interest of the child. But "nothing (in the statutes) authorizes a trial court to allocate parenting time by ordering a parent to live in a specific locale."

Hence, "the (trial) court must accept the location in which each party intends to live (then) allocate parental responsibilities accordingly in the best interest of the child."

In the second case, Michelle and Christopher Ciesluk divorced amicably in 2002 after seven years of marriage and one child. Five months later, the mother found a job in Arizona near her family. So she asked the court for permission to move with the child to Arizona and offered a modified plan allowing the father to have the child four times a year.

The trial court rejected her proposal on the grounds it would adversely affect the father's relationship with the child. It ordered the parents to remain in close proximity.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court hadn't protected the mother's constitutional right to travel - "the right to migrate, resettle, find a new job and start a new life."

Hence, the parents right to travel (according the Colorado Supreme Court) is more important the child's relationship with their parent. Regardless of what side of the fence you are on in reference to custody - you have to see how sick this is.

Custody rule changes upheld- Colorado

Rocky Mountain News: State

Excerpts:

Colorado law used to favor him moving with mom, unless dad could prove it was better for the boy to stay. Legislators changed the law in 2001, and the Colorado Supreme Court said Monday the new rules put both parents on equal footing when arguing what's best for the child.

The ruling, in In re Marriage of Ciesluk, said courts must decide such custody cases based on a set of criteria set by the legislature, including the impact of the move on the child and the "history and quality" of each parent's relationship with him.

It reversed lower court decisions that sided with Christopher Ciesluk, who argued against his ex-wife Michelle Ciesluk's plan to move to Arizona for a job and take their son with her.

The Supreme Court said the earlier rulings unfairly favored the father, essentially tipping the scales against a parent who wants to move and retain custody. The mother argued such bias violates her constitutional right to travel.

The court sent the case back to trial and instructed the lower court to consider both parents - and the child's best interests - equally.

"Though the best interests of the child are of primary importance in making this determination," Justice Nancy E. Rice wrote for the court, "they do not automatically overcome the constitutional interests of the parents."

Rich Harris, a Denver family law attorney, said the ruling makes it harder to fight parents' requests to move with a child.

"For those of us who really care about kids and how much divorce already affects kids," he said, "this is going to be a step backwards."

Montco resident seeks help in bringing son back to U.S.- PA

The Times Herald

The move away case from hell...

Excerpts below:

That is because his 3-year-old son, Nicholas, is being held by his ex-wife in her native country of Belarus, a former republic of the Soviet Union located in Eastern Europe just east of Poland, according to Kratz.

The 34-year-old computer software salesman said he last saw his only child last May 20 when, while the family was vacationing in the Belarus capital of Minsk, his wife disappeared with the toddler in the city where her family resides.

Kratz in January took a leave of absence to concentrate his efforts on having his son returned to the United States, which has no treaty with Belarus concerning child custody.

He is working with his local attorney, Charles J. King Jr. of Plymouth Meeting, and a lawyer he retained in Belarus. He is also busy contacting anyone he thinks might be able to assist him in having his son returned, from local police to the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office to the federal Department of State and the office of Congresswoman Allyson Y. Schwartz, D-13th Dist.

"I just want my son back," said Kratz. "I do not want him to grow up in a country where all his rights and freedoms are abridged. I want him to have every opportunity that the United States has to offer."

Instead, Kratz said, his ex-wife has told him that when Nicholas turns 18, he can decide where he wants to live.

Fearing she would cut him off from contact with their son, Kratz petitioned the county court for custody. Typical in many custody battles, Kratz portrayed his wife as a poor and abusive mother while she claimed he was a poor and abusive father. The courts in the spring of 2003 granted each parent shared physical and legal custody of Nicholas.

The couple subsequently reconciled in the summer of 2003 and the custody petition was withdrawn.

"I truly loved my wife and wanted things to work out," said Kratz. "I told her that Nicholas should have both parents."

When Iryna expressed an interest in vacationing in Belarus and showing Nicholas off, Kratz said he agreed.

"I had never been out of the United States and it was going to be an adventure," said Kratz, adding he took his own mother along and that, while his brother was invited, he could not make it at the last minute.

Later that day, he received a call from Iryna and her family members, telling him through a friend they had sent to him to translate that he and his mother should return to the United States and that Iryna intended to remain in Belarus with Nicholas. Iryna was not happy in the United States and wanted to remain with her family, the translator told Kratz, he said.

Later, Kratz said, he discovered that Iryna, before leaving the United States, had run up bills on their charge accounts and had packed and brought with her to Belarus most of her clothing and Nicholas' clothes. At the time, he said, he had simply attributed the large amount of luggage to gifts that his wife wanted to bring to family members.

Kratz said he moved to a hotel with his mother, contacting his lawyer in the United States, obtaining a lawyer in Belarus and all the white trying over the phone to convince his wife to return to the United States.

He flew back to the United States on May 31 to appear in Montgomery County Court to seeking an emergency custody order while also filing for a divorce. He was subsequently granted temporary full custody of Nicholas, with the provision that this order could be modified if Iryna returned to the United States with Nicholas. His divorce became final on Feb. 23 of this year, according to court records.

"If she does not want to have a relationship, that's fine but I want my son back so I can be with him, so he can have his father and so he can be raised in this country," said Kratz.

Iryna filed divorce and custody petitions with the courts in Belarus but the lower court denied her request because of the similar filings in the Montgomery County Court, according to Kratz. She has since appealed that decision to a higher court in her native land and that appeal is pending, he said.

He said he also is working with federal state department officials and federal children agencies in the hope that they can convince government officials in Belarus to convince Iryna to return Nicholas to the land of his birth.

Kratz said he unsuccessfully attempted to convince local and state police to put Nicholas' picture and information on a nationwide computer system of abducted children.

One person willing to listen to his situation was county District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr., according to Kratz.

"While his wife may have deceived Mr. Kratz about her reasons for leaving the country, there was no custody court order in effect at the time," said Castor.

Rachel Leed, Schwartz' press aide, said a legislative aide has been assigned to work with Kratz "and give him whatever help we can." Leed said she did not know what assistance they can offer Kratz because the office is in the preliminary stage of researching the situation.

Captives of Colorado

Link to the Rocky Mountain News for a ridiculously biased article on moveaway cases. Captives of Colorado? Give me a break.

Both of the mothers interviewed said they would not leave the state without their child - yet they are aghast the courts will not let the children be moved from Colorado to Arizona - effectively severing the close ties they have to their father. Can you say hypocrite?

ACCAMA update on Burton's Bill

I found a few spare minutes and I got the following in an email so I am simply going to paste it verbatim:


Newsletter

Revised Draft of SB 730--Watered Down, but Still a Step in the Wrong DirectionAugust 4, 2004
A draft of the revised version of SB 730--the anti-LaMusga move-away bill now in the California legislature--has just been released. In part because of the efforts of the Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways in organizing large scale opposition to this bill, the bill has been watered down significantly from its original.

To read the new draft of SB 730, click here. To read the original, in which custodial parents were to be granted the right to move without even obtaining a court order, click here.

Nevertheless, even the revised version of SB 730 is still a significant step in the wrong direction. LaMusga is a very moderate opinion. LaMusga still puts the burden of proof on the nonmoving parent, and would still allow most custodial parents to move with their children. The revised SB 730 abrogates LaMusga, and makes it even more difficult for nonmoving parents to block a move.

As previously mentioned, SB 730 will reportedly be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on August 10. For up to date information on the LaMusga bill and information on how to take action, click here.

Chronology of events regarding SB 730 and LaMusga

August 4, 2004Revised draft of SB 730 released. To read it, click here.

July 27, 2004Letters to Sacramento by ACAAMA supporters total over 1,000.

July 26, 2004Opponents and proponents of SB 730 meet with Anthony Williams, principal consultant to California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton. Several endorsers and supporters of the Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways speak, including Garrett C. Dailey, who represented Gary LaMusga in the California Supreme Court, and family law attorney Peter M. Walzer. Dailey presents Williams with 600 letters from ACCAMA supporters expressing their opposition to SB 730.

July 25, 2004California Supreme Court denies petition to rehear LaMusga.

July 24, 2004Over three dozen family law attorneys and mental health professionals endorse ACCAMA. For a list of endorsers, click here.

July 20, 2004 Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlesinger, an outspoken opponent of the 1996 Burgess decision, endorses ACCAMA's campaign on the air. See Dr. Laura Joins Campaign Against Unrestricted Move-Aways (MND Newswire, 7/23/04).

July 13, 2004Over 300 ACCAMA supporters write to California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton. Burton's principal consultant Anthony Williams invites ACCAMA representatives to discuss the anti-LaMusga bill.

July 11, 2004Los Angeles radio talk show host Glenn Sacks announces the formation of the Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways, and calls his listeners to action.
June, July, 2004Prominent California family law attorneys write letters to Burton opposing anti-LaMusga bill. To read the letters, click here.

June, 2004Draft of SB 730 is leaked. Draft states "the custodial parent has a presumptive right to change the residence of the child and does not need a court order allowing him or her to do so." Draft is available here.

April 29, 2004California Supreme Court decides In Re: Marriage of LaMusga in favor of the father, Gary LaMusga. See: LaMusga opinion at [PDF], "Is a Pool More Important than a Dad?" (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and Court: Closer scrutiny in custody case moves (Sacramento Bee, 4/30/04).

February, 2004Burton introduces SB 1367, which instructs courts that a custodial parent's request to change residence cannot be "frustrated by undue delay." See California Senate Leader to Family Courts: Don't Consider Children's Best Interests (Daily Breeze [Los Angeles], 4/6/04) Burton later pulls SB 1367 in favor of SB 730.

October, 2003In his last days in office Governor Davis signs SB 156, which reaffirms the Burgess decision. See New California Move-Away Law Hurts Children of Divorce (Long Beach Press Telegram, 10/18/03).

June, 2003Arizona State University professors Sanford Braver, Ira Ellman and William Fabricius release a study which finds that move-aways are correlated with damaging long-term consequences for children. See Relocation of children after divorce and children's best interests: New evidence and legal considerations and New Study, Case May Help California Children of Divorce (Pasadena Star-News & Affiliated Papers, 6/5/03)

August 28, 2002California Supreme Court agrees to hear LaMusga. Read all briefs from all sides here.

More John Burton News

I received a link to this article in my email:

Talk Radio Campaign Blocks CA. Senate Leader's 'Stealth' Family Law Bill

Apparently Mr Burtons plan has become common knowledge. From the article:

"Hundreds of angry parents deluged the offices of California State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) with calls, faxes and e-mails yesterday, protesting a "stealth" family law bill which Burton reportedly planned to sneak through the legislature in his last months in office.

The protestors, called to action by KMPC Los Angeles radio talk show host Glenn Sacks, seek to block a proposed bill which would abrogate the California Supreme Court's recent decision in the LaMusga move-away case. Anthony Williams, one of Burton's principal consultants, has now agreed to meet with leaders of the newly formed Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways to discuss the bill."

To see what you can do link to the ACCAMA website.

Glenn Sacks on Move Away Parents

This is a reprint of an editorial written by Glenn Sacks. Mr Sacks can arguably be called the primary care-giver of his children and he proposes a scenario in which he would move away from his wife. California NOW Spits on My Wife

Marriage of McGinnis

Another relevant relocation case, summary copied verbatim from Brief Reporter.

Marriage of McGinnis
Diane M. Matsinger
Petitioner-Appellant's Petition for Writ of Supersedeas
California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Six
BrfRep-C0006699
September, 1991

After having granted joint custody of children to parents following a divorce, the court may not grant the mother sole physical custody of the children simply because she was moving to a different city and would be staying at home full time with the children. Where both parents are equally capable of caring for the children, the court may not change custody because one parent has the financial where-with-all to stay home with the children. Further, if a custodial parent chooses to move outside the community where the children have resided since birth, the court should award custody to the parent remaining in the community so that the children's lives are not disrupted. Pending appeal, child custody should remain at the status quo.

Get the entire case at Brief Reporter.

Nellis v Renwick

This is extremely relevant case law for relocation cases. I am reprinting the summary verbatim from Brief Reporter:

Nellis v. Renwick
Richard M. Bryan
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief
California Supreme Court
BrfRep-C0001035
April, 1996

In a child custody move away case, a child's mother is not entitled to take the child with her when she moves to pursue another career when the move would prevent frequent contact with the child's father. The court must determine whether the value of the woman's right to pursue a career is greater than the child's right to frequent and continuous contact with its father considering the age of the child and the distance of the move. A parent with custody of a child may move away if she proves the need for the move is compelling, essential, and outweighs the detriment to the other parent's relationship with the child.

You can download the entire case (for a price) on Brief Reporter, or you could look for the entire case elsewhere. A good place to start would be lexisone.

Articles on Relocation

This is a link to a site (it is a PDF so you will need Adobe Reader) that lists articles written specifically on relocation. AAML.org

Georgia Supreme Court Relocation Decision

Georgia overturns precedent allowing custodial parents to move out of state virtually at will. Law.com (via Yahoo)

LaMusga v. LaMusga

This is a good site for all the material relative to the California relocation case LaMusga v. LaMusga. It does come from a women's movement site so be prepared. What is important is that it chronicles the case, not the authors personal feelings or intent. Lizlibrary

California Relocation

California Supreme Court reconsidering the question of relocation. A decision is expected in the next 90 days, but you can read some of the details here: Mercury News