I was told that to move out of the state with my unborn child I will have to leave at least 6 months prior to the child's birth to establish residency so the father will not have the legal right to keep the child in the state

While true, moving does not negate your obligation to comply with any visitation ordered including paying for transportation, if so ordered.

I know of no practice in family law anywhere in the US that would enjoin a pregnant woman from leaving a state merely because of being pregnant. Nonsense.

Any trial judge who would order a pregnant woman not to leave the state merely because of her pregnancy and of an anticipated claim to custody rights by a dad would be acting in excess of his authority and would be reversed on appeal.

I know of no practice in family law anywhere in the US that would enjoin a pregnant woman from leaving a state merely because of being pregnant. Nonsense.

Any trial judge who would order a pregnant woman not to leave the state merely because of her pregnancy and of an anticipated claim to custody rights by a dad would be acting in excess of his authority and would be reversed on appeal.

That brings up an interesting question. In CA you can file for parental rights as a father before the child is born. How does that affect the mother's ability to leave the state before birth?

That brings up an interesting question. In CA you can file for parental rights as a father before the child is born. How does that affect the mother's ability to leave the state before birth?

She is free to go but it doesn't release her from her parental obligation to visitation.

That brings up an interesting question. In CA you can file for parental rights as a father before the child is born. How does that affect the mother's ability to leave the state before birth?

It does raise a very interesting question and one I've mentioned before on other threads where this same question has been asked. I don't think there is a clear answer it. My feeling is, however, that pre-birth custody orders, which are effective upon the birth of the child, would be void if the child perchance is born in another state (because the birth in another state would deprive the CA court of child custody jurisdiction). Further, I do not believe a pregnant mom can be constitutionally enjoined from leaving the state merely because of her pregnancy. Hence, the CA court could make orders but the mom, in this particular situation, could circumvent the court's jurisdiction by leaving the state to give birth thereby legally avoiding application of court's orders. This is what makes this sort of scenario so interesting and unique.

It does raise a very interesting question and one I've mentioned before on other threads where this same question has been asked. I don't think there is a clear answer it. My feeling is, however, that pre-birth custody orders, which are effective upon the birth of the child, would be void if the child perchance is born in another state (because the birth in another state would deprive the CA court of child custody jurisdiction). Further, I do not believe a pregnant mom can be constitutionally enjoyed from leaving the state merely because of her pregnancy. Hence, the CA court could make orders but the mom, in this particular situation, could circumvent the court's jurisdiction by leaving the state to give birth thereby legally avoiding application of court's orders. This is what makes this sort of scenario so interesting and unique.

Makes a case for a federal law on the topic.

But we are hijacking...

My question is this:

Why are YOU trying to deprive your child of a father?

I was told that to move out of the state with my unborn child I will have to leave atleast 6 months prior to the childs birth to establish residency so the father will not have the legal right to keep the child in the state

Getting back to you. Who told you this? What state are you in now? Go back to the person who told you this and ask them to cite the law that justifies what they said.