Help The GAL says change of jurisdiction is impossible

[Family Court Strategies: When Your Partner Has BPD OR NPD Traits.]

Hi all!

As many of you know, DH and I have been talking about trying to get jurisdiction changed to our state, as BPD mom lives three states away and we don't want to have to go running back up to where she lives every time she decides to play her games. We have a meeting with an L in our area scheduled. But before we even spend the money for the (not even close to free) consultation, I wanted to see if I could get any feedback from the group on this.

Essentially, the GAL told me today that because the first parenting plan was done in the BPD mom's state, and all of the custody and support orders have been done there, that is considered the "home state" regardless of where the children live. If we didn't have a parenting plan and custody order already in place, then we would be eligible to move jurisdiction after the first six months the kids have lived with us. But since orders were already created up in that state, moving everything will not be possible and it's a giant waste of money to even try. She said that the county the BPD mom lives in is under no obligation to give up jurisdiction.

So... .has anyone had an experience that is counter to what the GAL says? Because over the phone the L we are talking to said that it is possible to move jurisdiction since the kids live here and attend school here. While the L here has practiced a very long time, I know this GAL is one very smart cookie. So I don't want to waste money and I don't know who to believe.

[Nope]

Hi all!

As many of you know, DH and I have been talking about trying to get jurisdiction changed to our state, as BPD mom lives three states away and we don't want to have to go running back up to where she lives every time she decides to play her games. We have a meeting with an L in our area scheduled. But before we even spend the money for the (not even close to free) consultation, I wanted to see if I could get any feedback from the group on this.

Essentially, the GAL told me today that because the first parenting plan was done in the BPD mom's state, and all of the custody and support orders have been done there, that is considered the "home state" regardless of where the children live. If we didn't have a parenting plan and custody order already in place, then we would be eligible to move jurisdiction after the first six months the kids have lived with us. But since orders were already created up in that state, moving everything will not be possible and it's a giant waste of money to even try. She said that the county the BPD mom lives in is under no obligation to give up jurisdiction.

So... .has anyone had an experience that is counter to what the GAL says? Because over the phone the L we are talking to said that it is possible to move jurisdiction since the kids live here and attend school here. While the L here has practiced a very long time, I know this GAL is one very smart cookie. So I don't want to waste money and I don't know who to believe.

[livednlearned]

Can you look up case law in your area using Google Scholar? There is an option to search only for case law.

Another option is to call the clerk of court and ask how many cases that request to change jurisdiction are successful, if there is data anywhere about that.

[PinkieV]

My DH and I were told by a clerk at the court that we couldn't move the case - which is resolved, and SS14 has lived here for 18+ months.  DH contacted a lawyer, and she said we could.  We're waiting for a certified copy of all the court documents and then we'll go in to see her.  We'd like to have everything moved before he visits BM this summer.

[Nope]

LnL, it's a good thought to look up case law. Part of me wants to believe that there is some loophole I don't know about that local Ls do. Unfortunately when I looked up the Uniform Child Custody Act on Wiki, it was pretty clear on the subject. If there is ever a custody order made in a state, that state has continuing jurisdiction unless *both* parties move out of the state.

My DH and I were told by a clerk at the court that we couldn't move the case - which is resolved, and SS14 has lived here for 18+ months.  DH contacted a lawyer, and she said we could.  We're waiting for a certified copy of all the court documents and then we'll go in to see her.  We'd like to have everything moved before he visits BM this summer.

Sounds like you are in the same boat as we are. That's now three Ls I know of saying it can be done. So now I'm really confused.

[FamilyLaw]

The UCCJEA is the law that usually applies. Definitely talk to a lawyer in your area about this.  Oftentimes, when the custodial parent and the children live in a state other than the state where the original order was instituted, you can get permission to change jurisdiction to the state where the child now primarily resides.  Usually the two judges will discuss the situation and determine which state it makes more sense to have the case reside.

[rarsweet]

Uccjea section 207,  inconvenient forum, lists the criteria for a change in jurisdiction without agreement.

[Sunfl0wer]

This is probably not helpful at this point, however, we did mediation, and our PP issued that all issues were to be delt with in OUR state even though child moved out of state to mom.  That way she was not as likely to try to harass us as it would mean a flight and hotel stay each time.

[ForeverDad]

As I recall, it's still joint custody for them, I think the dad is considered the "primary parent" now.

Really, though, one would think that the court would be happy to wash their hands of the mess and dump it on the other state.

[Nope]

Uccjea section 207,  inconvenient forum, lists the criteria for a change in jurisdiction without agreement.

Thank you for giving me a starting point to look!

The UCCJEA is the law that usually applies. Definitely talk to a lawyer in your area about this.  Oftentimes, when the custodial parent and the children live in a state other than the state where the original order was instituted, you can get permission to change jurisdiction to the state where the child now primarily resides.  Usually the two judges will discuss the situation and determine which state it makes more sense to have the case reside.

This is going to be an interesting case then. Because the BPD mom makes very little money so it can (and wouldl) be argued that forcing her to come up with the money to come to our state for court is too much of a financial burden. But we can (and would) argue that she was already given a downward adjustment on child support to help with her travel expenses to come see the kids since the majority of her parenting time granted in the order is required to take place in our state. (So theoretically she should be traveling down here anyway.)

As I recall, it's still joint custody for them, I think the dad is considered the "primary parent" now.

Really, though, one would think that the court would be happy to wash their hands of the mess and dump it on the other state.

It's still joint custody, but each state looks at what that means in a slightly different way. So it'll depend almost entirely on the view of whatever magistrate we end up in front of. As for the thought that our current county should be glad to wash their hands of this, I've found just the opposite is true. The magistrates don't like losing their control. Especially where they may feel that the economic disparity between the parties is being used to beat the poorer party into submission. Which always seems to be the court's take on these things.

[rarsweet]

I would make a list of all your expenses related to the kids. I'm not sure how many times you have had to go back to biomoms state for court, but really figure out exactly what your costs have been. Get your receipts and bank statements that support your list. Make a list of all the financial obligations she has dropped the ball on. I would figure out what it costs you to support the kiddos. My though is to show that you and hubby are responsible about supporting the children, she isn't, and any costs you incur from having to travel for court is money that basically takes away from going for the kids support. If that makes sense. I apologize for not knowing your full history, but if she has a history of using the court system to file things needlessly, some states have vexatious litigant laws. You could argue a change in jurisdiction could curb her frivolous use of the system. As to the GAL, I wouldn't listen to anyone who says something is impossible.

[Elizabeth22]

Hi all!

As many of you know, DH and I have been talking about trying to get jurisdiction changed to our state, as BPD mom lives three states away and we don't want to have to go running back up to where she lives every time she decides to play her games. We have a meeting with an L in our area scheduled. But before we even spend the money for the (not even close to free) consultation, I wanted to see if I could get any feedback from the group on this.

Essentially, the GAL told me today that because the first parenting plan was done in the BPD mom's state, and all of the custody and support orders have been done there, that is considered the "home state" regardless of where the children live. If we didn't have a parenting plan and custody order already in place, then we would be eligible to move jurisdiction after the first six months the kids have lived with us. But since orders were already created up in that state, moving everything will not be possible and it's a giant waste of money to even try. She said that the county the BPD mom lives in is under no obligation to give up jurisdiction.

So... .has anyone had an experience that is counter to what the GAL says? Because over the phone the L we are talking to said that it is possible to move jurisdiction since the kids live here and attend school here. While the L here has practiced a very long time, I know this GAL is one very smart cookie. So I don't want to waste money and I don't know who to believe.

Hi, I am sorry you are going through this. By GAL, I am assuming you mean Guardian ad Litem? Is this GAL a lawyer? If not, s/he should not  be giving you legal advice. Even if this GAL is a lawyer, they are working in the capacity of GAL and not your counsel.  If you change venues, would that mean a change in GAL? Because they don't like to lose a case and the money that comes with it (I am assuming this GAL is being paid).  It's not hard to apply for a change of venue, you just file a motion and the new court can accept or decline and the old court can agree or not.  I've seen entire final divorces moved to new jurisdictions and all that is required is a certified copy of the decree, which is then registered with the new court.

I would think jurisdiction would be where the child lives if you meet the residency requirement. That being said, GAL sounds a bit shady to me now and I wonder if s/he would file a motion opposing your change of venue. I would listen to the lawyer, but that's just me.

As for your question about anyone having an experience counter to what a GAL has to say? YES. What GAL is saying doesn't make sense to me. Venue is never changed? How about 2 years from now? Five years from now? It's just a matter of moving your orders to the new court. If the court agrees to accept jurisdiction and it seems it has enough reason to, with the children  being there. It's their home state. Also, you said visitation takes place in your state? Not the state where the orders originated? Seems the child no longer has a connection to the state where the orders originated, except having a parent there, which I believe is probably not enough to keep the  case there. If visitation took place in the state in which the orders were issued (vacations, summers) then there might be enough of a connection to keep the case there... .but that doesn't sound like what's going on, unless I misuderstood something.

Good luck and keep us updated!

[Nope]

I think what the GAL was trying to say is that the court would not be willing to release jurisdiction. *Most* of the BPD mom's parenting time afforded to her in the order is to take place in our state, though so far she has refused to use any parenting time not in her state. Even though she got a break on child support to be able to afford the trips, she'll still cry poverty. The magistrate we see in that state is very sensitive to BPD mom's financial well-being. So I guess the concern is that if we didn't follow the order, there would be no way for poor BPD mom to come down here, hire an L, and fight us in court. So the court up there simply won't release it.

As for the GAL, she is only on the case for as long as we are willing to foot 100% of the bill for her. (We were ordered to pay all of it when we asked to have the GAL extended through this last visit. BPD mom was ordered to pay only 15% of the bill for the initial custody evaluation and hearings.) So the GAL was aware she would soon be off the case anyway.

We've decided our best bet is to wait until they've been here at least a year. That way we can show a year of following the order while she hasn't done so at all.

[livednlearned]

I wonder if the home state court would see how bio mom has not used her parenting time in your state, and use that to justify keeping it status quo?

In effect, you have to follow the order to the letter of the law, whereas she does not. And by not complying with the order, she makes a case for herself to have things stay in her home state. I must be getting cynical because that seems like perfect family court logic. Punish the family that follows the order, and reward the one that doesn't comply.

In fact, following the order and having everything so together might even work against you, because it shows you have the means and stability to comply, whereas biomom does not.

I hope that isn't the case. 

[Nope]

LnL,

That's probably exactly the case. When it came time for the Child Support and expenses hearing, DH was ordered to pay 85% of the filing fees and other direct court costs. Leaving BPD mom to pay 15% of the costs. However, even though the exact amount of those costs was spelled out in the order, the magistrate didn't split the costs 85/15. Instead, she ordered DH to pay the full amount directly to the court and then seek reimbursement for the 15% from his ex!

Why didn't the magistrate come right out and say, "I know darn well she won't comply and pay a penny of this, so I'm making you pay all of it. That way the court gets the money, she won't be made to suffer any consequences for her non-complience, and the only one who gets screwed is the guy following the order, since it isn't enough money to justify dragging her back to court since she doesn't make enough money to be forced to pay L bills anyway." Because just saying that would have at least been honest.