All states in the United States and the District of Columbia have passed the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). This law sets standards for when a court can make a custody decision and when a court must accept an existing decision of another state. Over time, the issue was decided by the Michigan Legislature when it passed MCLA 722.31 and essentially put a 100-mile “leash” on parents who have joint custody. The law does not apply to parents without joint custody. If you have sole custody of your child, there should be no problem getting the child out of the state. However, if you have shared custody of the children, the issue is more complicated. Custodial parents have the right to change their place of residence or neighbourhood as long as the move does not harm the best interests of the child and the moving parent gives the parent who does not move at least 45 days in advance. If the other parent agrees, the move is allowed. You may choose to develop a new custody or visitation agreement, or the other parent may also choose to move. Family courts cannot prevent parents from leaving alone, even if they share joint custody. This means you can move as far as you want. If the judge gives you a travel order, make sure you get it in writing.
Also make sure that the order includes everything you need, including travel dates and other information, so that you can travel safely with your children. Take a copy of the order with you wherever you travel. You may need to show it to the Border Patrol, airport staff, or another official who asks to see it. Parents who have joint custody share decision-making regarding the health, education and well-being of their children. But custodial parents don`t necessarily have to agree on every decision every day. If you wish to require mutual agreement for certain decisions, you must specify the circumstances in your custody agreement. When a parent sharing joint custody moves to another state, custody usually passes to the other parent because the children perform best in a place they know. In Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499 (2003), the Court of Appeal held that “in order to establish a `change of circumstances`, a person entitled to move must prove that, since receipt of the last custody decision, the conditions of custody of the child, which have or could have a significant impact on the welfare of the child, have changed significantly.” Id.
at p. 513. In the Vodvarka case, the court emphasized that time always causes changes in a child`s “environment, behavior and well-being,” but that “normal life changes” are not enough to prove a change in circumstances; Instead, “there must be at least evidence that the material changes have had or will almost certainly have an impact on the child.” Id. at 513-514. Other ways to create an out-of-state custody agreement include: In addition, jet lag and travel expenses are a major barrier to visiting or sharing custody with the parent who is not moving. The logistics of international custody arrangements may de facto result in the non-mobile parent`s access to their child being essentially cut off. There is no authority to declare that the parent who wishes to move the minor child must have sole custody. The primary purpose of judicial interpretation of statutes is to determine and implement the intent of the legislature. Gladych v. New Family Homes, Inc., 468 Mich. 594, 597, 664 N.W.2d 705 (2003). As already mentioned, Parliament`s amendment of the wording of the law as “custodial parent” and “non-custodial parent” (in D`Onofrio, loc.
cit.) to “moving parent” and “parent” means the intention that the fact that it is not a prerequisite for the trial court to be asked for permission to move. Once the intention of the legislature is discovered, it must prevail, notwithstanding a contradictory rule of legal interpretation. Grüne Eiche Twp. v. Munzel, 255 Mich.App 235, 240, 661 N.W.2d 243 (2003). Thus, we note that the legislator wanted a parent who shares joint legal or physical custody to be able to apply to the court to relocate a minor. Requests for deferral made in good faith have the best chance of being successfully resolved. Parents who communicate, cooperate and work together to put their children`s interests first will find it easier to approve their claim for deduction. The courts do not positively consider departure requests to limit the relationship of the parent who does not move with their children, especially if it is against the best interests of your children. However, changes in state may result in a change in the established deposition environment. It may be impossible to pursue “co-parenting” in a meaningful way if one parent moves away from the other parent.
In these cases, there are essentially “two steps” of the procedure. The first phase determines whether the petition meets the standard set out in MCLA 722.31. If this is the case, the second step determines whether the move would change the childcare environment established for the child. If this is the case, MCLA 722.27 requires the applicant to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed change of custody would be in the best interests of the child under MCLA 722.23. Since the resolution of parental disputes does not normally require a change in the established custodial environment, MCLA 722.27 and the threshold described in Vodvarka do not normally apply to disputes between parents with joint custody over joint custody decisions such as health care, education, etc.
Comments are closed.