He can always ask the courts to stop you from moving, however you are under no obligation to do something just because he asks. The court must agree with him and give the mandate that you remain in your state. If you have legitimate reasons for wanting to move to another state and are not just trying to get the children away from him the court will most likely not award his request. However, if you are just being vindictive against him, or the court believes that you are, you might be prevented from moving.
AnswerYes, and it depends on the judge and your state how they handle it. It is usually allowed if it is for a valid reason such as new and BETTER employment or if, married again, your spouse has to relocate.However, if the court views it as an attempt to move as far away from their Dad as possible, his injunction will be approved.
AnswerIf you have full custody of the children you must notify the court where the custodial order was issued of you intention of moving. The father will be notified and if he so chooses he will be given the opportunity to present arguments as to why the move should not be allowed.It is very rare for a judge to refuse a custodial parent's request to relocate.What generally happens is, visitation arrangements will be modified to allow the non-custodial parent equal opportunity for seeing the children. For example, rather than weekends the order might be changed to holidays, birthdays, school vacation (if applicable) and so forth.
The burden of visitation will still remain on the non-custodial parent as to travel expenses and related issues unless the couple agree otherwise. Any relocation will not change the terms of an existing child support order.
It is not likely that a court would issue such an injunction without some overriding justification. The visitation order may require modification.
Generally yes. If the custodial parent moves away from the non-custodial parent, the custodial parent is ordered to make up the extra travel costs the non-custodial parent must now pay. The principle gives freedom to move, but discourages long-distance moves. In particular it discourages moves that are designed to deny access to the non-custodial parent.
There is no need for a law to prevent such behavior. The non-custodial parent has no right to prevent the child from participating in activities without the backing of a court order. the custodial parent should consult an advocate at the court or a private attorney to expand their knowledge of their rights.There is no need for a law to prevent such behavior. The non-custodial parent has no right to prevent the child from participating in activities without the backing of a court order. the custodial parent should consult an advocate at the court or a private attorney to expand their knowledge of their rights.There is no need for a law to prevent such behavior. The non-custodial parent has no right to prevent the child from participating in activities without the backing of a court order. the custodial parent should consult an advocate at the court or a private attorney to expand their knowledge of their rights.There is no need for a law to prevent such behavior. The non-custodial parent has no right to prevent the child from participating in activities without the backing of a court order. the custodial parent should consult an advocate at the court or a private attorney to expand their knowledge of their rights.
It's up to a judge, but most likely he would just order regular reviews.
Absolutely. A minor child cannot be taken legally from the U.S. without a valid passport. The custodial parent or guardian must, under oath, in person agree to allow the child to accompany the non custodial parent before a passport is issued. Likewise, depending upon the custodial order, the custodial parent may need the non custodial parent to present a sworn affidavit that he or she is allowing the minor to obtain a passport and travel outside of the U.S.
If you can legitimately claim the child, do so. Let the IRS worry about whether the NCP is claiming the child.
A noncustodial parent can prevent the custodial parent from leaving the state with a baby or child. The court will decide if the custodial parent has just cause to leave the state.
This is hard to answer because there can be many variables involved. The noncustodial parent may contest the move and take the custodial parent to court to show cause. But it may not be possible for the noncustodial parent to actually prevent the move unless the move is out of state.
Generally yes. If the custodial parent moves away from the non-custodial parent, the custodial parent is ordered to make up the extra travel costs the non-custodial parent must now pay. The principle gives freedom to move, but discourages long-distance moves. In particular it discourages moves that are designed to deny access to the non-custodial parent.
Yes. The issue is enforcement. Bankruptcy doesn't make debt disappear. Instead, a discharge operates as an injunction against collection efforts. If the foreign creditor tries to enforce the debt against you here in the states, that would be a violation of the discharge injunction. Of course, U.S. law wouldn't prevent the creditor from enforcing the debt against you in the foreign jurisdiction, unless there is a U.S. treaty with that jurisdiction providing otherwise.
There is no need for a law to prevent such behavior. The non-custodial parent has no right to prevent the child from participating in activities without the backing of a court order. the custodial parent should consult an advocate at the court or a private attorney to expand their knowledge of their rights.There is no need for a law to prevent such behavior. The non-custodial parent has no right to prevent the child from participating in activities without the backing of a court order. the custodial parent should consult an advocate at the court or a private attorney to expand their knowledge of their rights.There is no need for a law to prevent such behavior. The non-custodial parent has no right to prevent the child from participating in activities without the backing of a court order. the custodial parent should consult an advocate at the court or a private attorney to expand their knowledge of their rights.There is no need for a law to prevent such behavior. The non-custodial parent has no right to prevent the child from participating in activities without the backing of a court order. the custodial parent should consult an advocate at the court or a private attorney to expand their knowledge of their rights.
A super injunction was granted to an English footballer to prevent the media from reporting on an affair that he had. However, many users on Twitter spread the news of who the footballer was making it public knowledge despite the super injunction being in place.
Not really the Judge will decide this matter for you.
No legal injunction is required. Until they reach the age of 18, they remain the responsibility of the parents.
A home owner may apply for a court injunction for that purpose. However the injunction may or may not be granted depending on the circumstances of the case.
Maybe, if the absent parent does not share custody in any manner and there is not a visitation order in place, a custodial parent can take whatever action he or she chooses in regards to a minor child. However, courts do not look favorably upon any parent who does not allow the other parent to have a relationship with his or her minor child/children unless there is substantiated reasons (child abuse, endangerment, etc.) for the action. A parent who is being denied access to his or her child/children can file suit for visitation and/or custodial rights if they so choose.
A Court Injunction is an order issued by the High Court to prevent action being taken by an individual or an organisation that could prejudice the outcome of a trial from being impartial and fair. For example, the High Court might impose an injunction upon the media from issuing details of a particular case in progress that might damage the verdict by creating bias or prejudice amongst members of the jury. Or an injunction might be issued against one or more individuals linked to the case from talking to the press about details of the trial, or to prevent them from releasing certain information, that might have a similar effect.
It's up to a judge, but most likely he would just order regular reviews.