[svenej]

If a father has custodial custody of his child, and he moved to Illinois from another state just to get custody and wants to move back, how can he do this if the non custodial parent does not agree to it? He has already mapped out a visitation schedule for the mother which is fare. She does not work or provide any type of financial reponsibility for the child. He really wants to move back to where he was before he moved here for custody. Is it possible for him to appeal to the courts with out a lawyer? Or would a lawyer be best for him? Thank you.

[George_1950]

The mother and father 'share' the right to custody of a child equally. This will continue until someone petitions a court with jurisdiction to make a ruling on which parent or third person will have custody in the future; the noncustodial parent is generally awarded visitation and pays child support.

[excon]

Hello svenej:

Even with a lawyer, I doubt a judge will let him leave if the non custodial parent doesn't agree. That's the way it should be too.

excon

[svenej]

Hello svenej:

Even with a lawyer, I doubt a judge will let him leave if the non custodial parent doesn't agree. That's the way it should be too.

excon

I don't agree that that is the way it should be. If he can provide a better life for the child in a different state, then he should be allowed to move. With some of the stuff that she has done, she shouldn't even have visitation. He had an order of protection and a restraining order against her as well. She also cannot get a drivers license as it has been revoked in 2 states as well. So if the rolls were reversed, he would never see his kid at all. Why is that fair?

[ScottGem]

excon is right here. The issue here has nothing to do with the type of life that can be provided by moving. The issue here has to do with the non custodial parent having court ordered visitation. ANYTHING that results in a change in that visitation has to be approved by the court. Generally if the non custodial parent won't agree, then the court won't allow a change.

If you want a change, I suggest getting a lawyer familiar with Family Court, who knows what will sway the judges.

[GV70]

Where the relocation distance is small, there might not even be a material change in circumstance upon which a parent could move the court to modify an existing custody and visitation order. Since typically a material change of circumstance is required before a court will modify an existing custody or visitation order, a move across town ordinarily is an insufficient basis upon which the existing order would be changed. Although the relocation may make the visitation exchange more difficult, it may remain practical to comply with the existing order, so no change would be made.

Where the relocation distance is great, the case becomes more complex. The primary factor of best interest of the child continues to be considered along with facts such as (1) the existing custody and visitation arrangement, (2) the attachment and support of the non-custodial parent and other relatives, (3) the child's ties to the community, school, church or synagogue, and friends, and (4) the child's desires and wishes. Only a small minority of states require a custodial parent to get the written consent of the non-custodial parent or a court order based upon a finding of the court that it is in the best interest of the child to allow the move. In many states, a custodial parent can relocate if there is a valid reason for the relocation and the move does not result in harm to the child.

The ability of the child to have continuing and frequent contact with both parents, without a detrimental effect due to the relocation, is the primary consideration for a court in modifying an existing order to allow the relocation. The modified order of the court could provide additional time with the non-custodial parent during summer and other school recesses and the obligation of the custodial parent to pay the additional transportation expenses incurred in facilitating the visitation exchange. In California, the impact of a planned long-distance move on a noncustodial parent's relationship with his children may be considered before the children can be moved out of the state. If the moveaway will detrimentally harm the relationship between a child and a parent, together with other factors, it may be sufficient to justify a change in custody to the other parent.

Custodial parents who move away with the child without providing notice to the other parent may not only face a change in custody to the other parent but also criminal charges of kidnapping. Before any move is entertained, the non-custodial parent should be informed of the impending move and an effort made to reach a mutually acceptable parenting plan based upon the proposed location of both parents.

A relocation by the custodial parent requires careful consideration of the non-custodial parent's rights as early in the planning process as possible. Move-away cases can become very difficult to resolve and court involvement can be both costly and time consuming. Thus, leaving in the dead of the night without leaving a forwarding address could have very detrimental effects to the custodial parent.

[GV70]

The court set forth six factors for consideration in each case:
1.Whether the move would be likely to improve the general quality of life for both the primary physical custodian and the children.
2.Whether the motive for seeking the move is for the express purpose of defeating visitation.
3.Whether the custodial parent, once out of the jurisdiction, will be likely to comply with any substitute visitation arrangements.
4.Whether the substitute visitation will be adequate to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the children and the noncustodial parent.
5.Whether the cost of transportation is financially affordable by one or both of the parents.
6.Whether the move is in the best interests of the child. (This sixth requirement we believe is a generalized summary of the previous five).

[GV70]

Many states require the relocating parent to prove that the move is in the child's best interests without the benefit of any presumption. Often, the child's best interests must be determined with reference to specific factors. States following the best-interests approach include Arizona, Illinois, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Missouri.


Illinois also follows this approach. In In re Marriage of Eaton, 269 Ill. App. 3d 507, 646 N.E.2d 635 (1995), a mother with sole custody sought to relocate to Florida to marry an attorney with an established practice in that state. The father opposed the move. The Illinois Appellate Court first noted that under In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316, 518 N.E.2d 1041 (1988), a custodial parent seeking to relocate bears the burden of proving that the move is in the child's best interests. Factors for consideration include: (1) whether the proposed move will enhance the quality of life for both the custodial parent and the child; (2) whether the proposed move is a ruse designed to frustrate the other parent's visitation rights; (3) the motives of the other parent in resisting the move; (4) the visitation rights of the other parent; and (5) whether a reasonable visitation schedule can be achieved if the move is allowed. A "reasonable visitation schedule" is one that preserves and fosters the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent. The court in Eaton then held that the factors should be weighed and balanced, rather than being treated as separate prongs of a test.

[afitz]

An attorney would be your best route, with anything having to do with custody. What part of the state are you in? Our Attorney was great with the issues at hand and custody.

[JudyKayTee]

I don't agree that that is the way it should be. If he can provide a better life for the child in a different state, then he should be allowed to move. With some of the stuff that she has done, she shouldn't even have visitation. He had an order of protection and a restraining order against her as well. She also cannot get a drivers license as it has been revoked in 2 states as well. So if the rolls were reversed, he would never see his kid at all. Why is that fair?

If she shouldn't have visitation, petition the Court, take your proof and she will lose visitation. Whether she has a driver's license is immaterial.