[lacywilmerton]

My brother's girlfriend may be planning on leaving him and taking their newborn (born Feb. 2012) to Texas, but all in secret. We live in WA State, and I just found out about this. Since they aren't broken up (officially) and they live together, they do not have a parenting plan or anything to do with the courts. I want to tell my brother, but I know that will stir up a lot of trouble and stress for them. Can she legally leave without letting him know, with the baby? What can my brother do?
Were I to tell him, and he confront her, I know that she will play it off like she is staying and still leave in secret.

[lacywilmerton]

Oh, and please cite legal information, from valid resources, so that I can double check and study up myself.

[J_9]

Oh, and please cite legal information, from valid resources, so that I can double check and study up myself.

You get what you pay for ;) We are a free site made up of mostly ordinary people who volunteer their time to help others. You may get some cites, but don't be disappointed if you don't.

[JudyKayTee]

Oh, and please cite legal information, from valid resources, so that I can double check and study up myself.

I'd contact an Attorney. He/she would be happy to cite the legal information including case law.

In the meantime you have no legal standing here. This is most defintely not a legal question. You ask if you should tell your brother or not. That's a moral issue.

They have legal rights to the child unless/until the Court issues an Order to the contrary. She can go to Texas and stay there. She can go to Mars, for that matter, and stay there. He could also go to Texas (or Mars) without her knowledge.

If there's no DNA proof that he's the father he has NO standing to go anywhere with the child and she can go anywhere she wants.

Now, for the law and the cites, retain counsel.

[cdad]

If she leaves in secret and hides the child then it is parental kidnapping. If she does leave then your brother files right away and asks for custody and a dna test if he is not on the birth certificate.

[JudyKayTee]

If she leaves in secret and hides the child then it is parental kidnapping. If she does leave then your brother files right away and asks for custody and a dna test if he is not on the birth certificate.

Now I'm the one who needs case law. Until paternity is established I don't think he has any rights. OP states they have avoided the Court - I'm "assuming" that means paternity testing.

I don't see parental kidnapping. It's her ballgame until he gets an Order to the contrary. The fact that they live together gives him no legal standing.

- As I see it. What am I missing?

[lacywilmerton]

I am unsure if they have signed the paternity affidavit and had it notarized, it's not that I don't know if I should tell him, I want to know what advice I can give him when I do.

[JudyKayTee]

Again - that's a moral judgment, not a legal judgment. He needs to get advice from an Attorney after he's explained all the circumstances.

We are "guessing" with about half of what we need to know.

The moral part? He's your brother. He's your blood. This child is related to you. If your info is trustworthy, why keep it a secret?

On the other hand, if it's not credible, reliable info, I wouldn't get involved.

But, again, that's the moral question, not the legal.

[ScottGem]

First, if your brother is not officially the legal father, then he has minimal rights. He needs to sign the paternity affidavit immediately.

Once he is listed as the legal father, if she leaves without informing him, then he can file in WA courts for her to return the child.

[lacywilmerton]

I wasn't questioning the morality, I just want to know what his legal options are, and sifting through the RCW database is tiresome and tedious. I pretty much knew what you are all telling me, I just wish there was something more clear-cut for me to tell him w/o him having to go through a bunch of trouble or risk not seeing his daughter again.

[ScottGem]

I think we have been very clear cut.

[lacywilmerton]

Yes... and it continues to be complicated

[AK lawyer]

... sifting thru the RCW database is tiresome and tedious. ...

Not if you know what you are looking for:

"RCW 9A.40.060
Custodial interference in the first degree.
(1) A relative of a child under the age of eighteen or of an incompetent person is guilty of custodial interference in the first degree if, with the intent to deny access to the child or incompetent person by a parent, guardian, institution, agency, or other person having a lawful right to physical custody of such person, the relative takes, entices, retains, detains, or conceals the child or incompetent person from a parent, guardian, institution, agency, or other person having a lawful right to physical custody of such person and:

(a) Intends to hold the child or incompetent person permanently or for a protracted period; or

(b) Exposes the child or incompetent person to a substantial risk of illness or physical injury; or

(c) Causes the child or incompetent person to be removed from the state of usual residence; or

(d) Retains, detains, or conceals the child or incompetent person in another state after expiration of any authorized visitation period with intent to intimidate or harass a parent, guardian, institution, agency, or other person having lawful right to physical custody or to prevent a parent, guardian, institution, agency, or other person with lawful right to physical custody from regaining custody.

(2) A parent of a child is guilty of custodial interference in the first degree if the parent takes, entices, retains, detains, or conceals the child, with the intent to deny access, from the other parent having the lawful right to time with the child pursuant to a court-ordered parenting plan, and:

(a) Intends to hold the child permanently or for a protracted period; or

(b) Exposes the child to a substantial risk of illness or physical injury; or

(c) Causes the child to be removed from the state of usual residence.

(3) A parent or other person acting under the directions of the parent is guilty of custodial interference in the first degree if the parent or other person intentionally takes, entices, retains, or conceals a child, under the age of eighteen years and for whom no lawful custody order or parenting plan has been entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, from the other parent with intent to deprive the other parent from access to the child permanently or for a protracted period.

(4) Custodial interference in the first degree is a class C felony."

So, if your brother were to file an affidavit of paternity, so as to get named as the father on the birth certificate, the above statute would probably apply.

[lacywilmerton]

THANK YOU... I wasn't sure if this statute applied or not because they don't have a parenting plan or court order

[AK lawyer]

THANK YOU....I wasn't sure if this statute applied or not because they don't have a parenting plan or court order

I think subsection (3) still applies.

[cdad]

I'd contact an Attorney. He/she would be happy to cite the legal information including case law.

In the meantime you have no legal standing here. This is most defintely not a legal question. You ask if you should tell your brother or not. That's a moral issue.

They have legal rights to the child unless/until the Court issues an Order to the contrary. She can go to Texas and stay there. She can go to Mars, for that matter, and stay there. He could also go to Texas (or Mars) without her knowledge.

If there's no DNA proof that he's the father he has NO standing to go anywhere with the child and she can go anywhere she wants.

Now, for the law and the cites, retain counsel.

Quote:

First, without a standing court ordered and recorded custody decision, there is no such thing as parental kidnapping. Parents are seen as having equal "rights" to the child and either can go where they want, when they want with that child at any time. If, however, one parent removes the child to a second or unknown location, the purpose of which is to deny the custody or visitation of the other parent, even without a standing custody decision, it is considered parental kidnapping. In such situations, while warrants for the arrest of the absconding parent and the return of the child are being issued, the left behind parent will also be granted emergency custody.


Ref:
http://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/what-parental-kidnapping-not-29061.html

[ScottGem]

THANK YOU....I wasn't sure if this statute applied or not because they don't have a parenting plan or court order

Subsection (3) is clear. But he has to be the legal father FIRST.

[JudyKayTee]

I believe the initial advice was correct. The OP's brother has no legal standing.

IF he is the recognized father, yes, it's a different situation but as I said from the very beginning at the moment it appears the "father" is not the legal father.

If interpreted otherwise any woman who ever had a child could be stopped from leaving her area by anyone claiming to be the father.

[AK lawyer]

I believe the initial advice was correct. The OP's brother has no legal standing.

IF he is the recognized father, yes, it's a different situation but as I said from the very beginning at the moment it appears the "father" is not the legal father.

If interpreted otherwise any woman who ever had a child could be stopped from leaving her area by anyone claiming to be the father.

Of course everything is predicated upon he being established as the legal father. That would normally be accomplished by an affidavit of paternity.

But, upon review of this thread, the only answer OP was able to give us is that OP doesn't know if an AOP was filed. If he is serious about stopping the mother from moving away with the child, he will first look into that issue.

[lacywilmerton]

Talked to him, he said he filed the paternity affidavit day after baby was born, so paternity is established. Thanks again, guys!