[happyL]

I would like to move to Ohio from Idaho with my 15 year old son. My ex will not give his consent. He has not had visitation since 2004. I am filing a motion with the courts now. What do you think the chances are that we will be able to move?

[ScottGem]

Hard to tell. If he has not exercised his visitation rights in more than 3 years, a judge may allow it. Or they may say, you can't go now, but if he doesn't resume visiting you can go.

[JudyKayTee]

I would like to move to Ohio from Idaho with my 15 year old son. My ex will not give his consent. He has not had visitation since 2004. I am filing a motion with the courts now. What do you think the chances are that we will be able to move?

You also may be allowed to go BUT if your ex wants visitation you have to pay for your son's travel.

[Fr_Chuck]

Yes, if your ex fights it, expect a lot of lies from your ex most likely and perhaps him saying he sees the error in his not visiting,

The court may award him longer visits in summer, at your expense, they may do a lot of things including telling you no you can't go.

Family court judges are really , really hard to guess, common sense and what seems right to you and mean often mean little in family court

[happyL]

Hard to tell. If he has not exercised his visitation rights in more than 3 years, a judge may allow it. Or they may say, you can't go now, but if he doesn't resume visiting you can go.

In the divorce decree it says that there will be visitation only if mt agrees to visit his father. My son refuses to see him or accept anything from him. He is 15 years old.

[ScottGem]

If the decree leaves it up to your son and he refuses, that should leave you free to move. I would still make sure the court agrees.

[happyL]

In the court order it states that visitation will happen if it is agreed upon between the and the father. The child does not have to go if he chooses not to. He is 15. There has been no visitation in almost 4 years because the son does not to be with his father. What are the chances to get to move to Ohio from Idaho.

[JudyKayTee]

In the court order it states that visitation will happen if it is agreed upon between the and the father. The child does not have to go if he chooses not to. He is 15. There has been no visitation in almost 4 years because the son does not to be with his father. What are the chances to get to move to Ohio from Idaho.

I think you have already posted this and got some comprehensive answers - was your question not answered?

[GV70]

In the court order it states that visitation will happen if it is agreed upon between the and the father. The child does not have to go if he chooses not to. He is 15. There has been no visitation in almost 4 years because the son does not to be with his father. What are the chances to get to move to Ohio from Idaho.

I have a lot of doubts of that court order... I would agree if there was a clause saying the father would pay CS only if he wants to.
This is the first time I have read about such a decision for 20 years.
This court decision is versus the Constitutional Rights of Parents.
Relocation cases may be filed either by the custodial parent seeking permission from the court to relocate or by the noncustodial parent in an attempt to block the proposed relocation. In resolving these disputes, jurisdictions often differ on the burden of proof involved and which party bears that burden. Generally, these jurisdictions all agree that a determination of the best interests of the child is essential; however, the states vary as to whose burden it is to establish whether a proposed relocation is in fact in the best interests of a child. Due to these differences, the outcome of a relocation case could fluctuate wildly depending on whether the burden is on the custodial or the noncustodial parent. In recent years, there has been a trend toward the application of a best-interests standard in resolving relocation cases, either by a court decision or by the enactment of a statute setting forth the applicable relocation standard. It should also be noted that the restrictive approach discussed in the 1996 article has been abandoned by all jurisdictions. See Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 665 N.E.2d 145, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575 (1996) (abrogating need to show "exceptional circumstances" before allowing relocation and adopting best-interests standard instead); Latimer v. Latimer, 2004 WL 1822753 (S.C. 2004) (abrogating presumption against relocation); cf. Ala. Code 30-3-169.4 (2004) (establishing rebuttable presumption that change in child's residence is not in the child's best interests).