Is a Pool More Important than a Dad?

Is a Pool More Important than a Dad?

May 5, 2004



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
by Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

For eight years California courts have permitted children of divorce to be
moved hundreds or thousands of miles away from the fathers they love and
need. Last week the California Supreme Court issued an historic opinion
which clarifies current case law and reaffirms the importance of both
parents in a child's life.

Since 1996, move-away determinations have been based on the Burgess
decision, in which a custodial mother was allowed to move her two children
40 miles away from their father. Burgess has been disastrous for children
because it has been 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 LaMusga, a Contra Costa County custodial mother sought to move to Ohio
with her two young boys. The father fought the move, arguing that moving
would be harmful to his children because it would damage their relationship
with him.

The trial court decided in the father's favor. However, the First District
Court of Appeal reversed, declaring that as long as the move-away is not
done in "bad faith," the custodial mother has the right to move with her
children unless the father could prove that, in the event of a move,
awarding him custody was "essential" to his children's well-being.

In LaMusga, the Supreme Court ruled that "essential" is an unreasonably high
standard and that lower courts have been misinterpreting Burgess by placing
their focus on the custodial parent's perceived rights instead of on the
well-being of children. The Court wrote:

"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 and.may be sufficient to
justify a change in custody."

During oral arguments the Court appeared concerned about the distance issue
in move-aways, particularly after one of the mother's attorneys told the
Court that while the Burgess case involved a move within the same county, he
believed the custodial parent's right to move remained the same when applied
to interstate or even international moves. In strengthening the ability of
trial courts to restrain move-aways, the opinion lists distance among the
most prominent factors to be considered.

One reason California move-aways need to be reigned in is the strong
financial incentive for California custodial parents to move. California has
a high child support guideline, a high cost of living, and high wages. Thus
custodial parents can often live better by moving to other states (or other
countries), which have a lower cost of living, because they will still
collect child support awards based on California wages and support
guidelines.

Beyond the harm done to children by separating them from a loving parent, it
is also a terrible injustice to noncustodial parents who often must stay
behind to work to pay child support for children who have been moved out of
their lives. Move-aways highlight the hypocrisy of the current public policy
and discourse on fatherhood, wherein men are lectured to take responsibility
for their children while at the same time courts and lawmakers frequently
disregard their right to remain a meaningful part of their children's lives.

At the heart of many move-away decisions is the question "do fathers matter
or not?" Research overwhelmingly demonstrates that they do: the rates of
school dropouts, teenage pregnancy, juvenile crime, and teen drug abuse are
more tightly correlated with fatherlessness than with any other major
socioeconomic factor, including income and race.

The custodial mother in LaMusga has emphasized the economic advantages of
her move, and newspapers report that she is happy that the new home she was
able to purchase after moving her children out of state is spacious and has
a pool. But is a bigger house and a pool more important than a father?

Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks

This column first appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle (5/4/04).

REFERENCES:

The LaMusga opinion--click on [PDF].
News Stories on the decision: "A legal boost for noncustodial parents"
(Christian Science Monitor, 5/2/04)
"Court: Kids' benefit primary" (Los Angeles Daily News, 4/30/04) and "Child
Custody Rights Refined" (Los Angeles Times, 4/30/04).
Opinion columns: California NOW Spits on My Wife (Sarasota Herald-Tribune,
2/23/04), California Senate Leader to Family Courts: Don't Consider
Children's Best Interests (Daily Breeze [Los Angeles], 4/6/04)
News article on move-aways: Divorced parents visit their kids over the
Internet (Oakland Tribune & others , 5/3/04)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Jeff Leving is one of America's most prominent family law attorneys. He is
the author of Fathers' Rights: Hard-hitting and Fair Advice for Every Father
Involved in a Custody Dispute. Visit his website at www.DadsRights.com.

Glenn Sacks is a men's and fathers' issues columnist and radio talk show
host. His columns have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers.
His radio show, His Side with Glenn Sacks, can be heard every Sunday in Los
Angeles and Seattle. Glenn can be reached via his website, at
www.GlennSacks.com or by e-mail at .

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the courts enforced parenting time with the
same vigor that Child Support was enforced?

I guess that's politically incorrect.

b.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the courts enforced parenting time with the
same vigor that Child Support was enforced?

I guess that's politically incorrect.

b.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the courts enforced parenting time with the
same vigor that Child Support was enforced?

I guess that's politically incorrect.

b.

wrote in message
...
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the courts enforced parenting time with the
same vigor that Child Support was enforced?

I guess that's politically incorrect.

b.

Indeed it would be wonderful if they did. But "family" law isn't about
anything lawful. It's all about perpetuating the grab for more and more
money from those that rarely, if ever, have it.

wrote in message
...
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the courts enforced parenting time with the
same vigor that Child Support was enforced?

I guess that's politically incorrect.

b.

Indeed it would be wonderful if they did. But "family" law isn't about
anything lawful. It's all about perpetuating the grab for more and more
money from those that rarely, if ever, have it.

wrote in message
...
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the courts enforced parenting time with the
same vigor that Child Support was enforced?

I guess that's politically incorrect.

b.

Indeed it would be wonderful if they did. But "family" law isn't about
anything lawful. It's all about perpetuating the grab for more and more
money from those that rarely, if ever, have it.

wrote in message
...
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the courts enforced parenting time with the
same vigor that Child Support was enforced?

You're referring to legally requiring the NCP to actually spend the
parenting time with the child instead of declining to use it?

wrote in message
...
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the courts enforced parenting time with the
same vigor that Child Support was enforced?

You're referring to legally requiring the NCP to actually spend the
parenting time with the child instead of declining to use it?

wrote in message
...
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the courts enforced parenting time with the
same vigor that Child Support was enforced?

You're referring to legally requiring the NCP to actually spend the
parenting time with the child instead of declining to use it?