Colorado Relocation Prior to Hearing
My husband (Anthony) and I live in Colorado. He fathered a child out of a one night stand in 2005 out of which his son was born December 2005. He is now eight months old. The mother also lived in this same area. From the very beginning Anthony told her that the two of them would not be together but he would respect her decision to keep the baby and he would be a very involved father. Anthony always maintained he wanted 50/50 visitation with his son. She consistently wanted a romantic relationship with him and when he maintained his position that he did not want that, she became very vindictive and spiteful throughout the entire pregnancy. Once the baby was born, Anthony actively participated in visitation. He saw the child ~4 times a week. The mother continued to be spiteful toward Anthony and has done whatever she could to interfere with his relationship with his son limiting visitation, etc. Each side has had an attorney since before the birth and both sides have been building their case for an upcoming custody hearing. Due to the mother restricting visitation Anthony’s attorney drafted a letter to the mother (and her counsel) requesting increased parenting time. The letter stated that failure to agree would result in a motion for a temporary custody hearing. After receiving the letter, the mother moved the baby and her other two children (within Colorado) 5-1/2 driving hours away, within 48 hours of receiving the letter, in effort to keep Anthony from seeing his son. This move has caused a great visitation hardship due to the distance.
My question:
Since there was no custody hearing prior to the mother’s move outlining the issue of relocation what, if any, recourse do we have to get her to move back or to get the court to grant Anthony with primary custody? We have plenty of documentation (both written and audio) showing that her motives for moving were out of spite and for the purpose of keeping the baby from Anthony. In addition, we can prove that moving did not present her with ANY financial benefit that she could not have received here.
|