|
Title: Help with understanding LaMusga logic - why do we have to assume a move away? Post by: calidad on January 03, 2016, 03:32:33 PM My ex uPBD/NPD wife filed for a move away but told the court and the CE that she will stay if she is denied her request to move. She has stated under NO circumstance will she accept less than 50% custody and will NEVER leave without the kids... .period. The CE, my lawyer and every lawyer I have talked to has said we have to assume she is moving no matter what due to the La Musga case.
So here's what I don't get. She has said she's not moving... .period! Why must we assume she is moving if she loses? The common sense thing would be to compare if it's more in their interest to stay here in status quo 50/50 versus change of custody with her taking the kids. Since she's said she is not moving NO MATTER WHAT if she loses the case, there's zero point in comparing whether it's better for them if they are with me and she moves versus her moving and taking them. Please help me understand the tortured logic of La Musga. The rebel in me says we need to fight the system and show the court that La Musga is a bull___ choice - we need to set a new precedent for cases like ours. Thoughts? Title: Re: Help with understanding LaMusga logic - why do we have to assume a move away? Post by: rarsweet on January 03, 2016, 06:34:53 PM I am thinking your lawyer wants a move away clause written in the parenting plan no matter what. I was born in the town I live in, all my family is here, my job and school, etc. My parenting plan still has a move away clause. If I want to move out of this school district I must give 60 days notice and have court. Same for ex of course. It's just standard.
|