Recent Posts in Initial Custody Determinations Category

Parental Relocations and Move-Away

In response to a recent article I posted about the case of F.T. vs. L.J., the mother of the Mother in Mark T. vs. Jaime Z. submitted a comment about a new reversal of a case involving Judge Lisa C. Schall, in San Diego, on this Blog - for which I thanked her. I am grateful that family law litigants in these published appeals are increasingly airing their side of the experience here, and I invite you to as well!

The decision in her daughter's case was published on Friday, last week, so I now understand what the maternal grandmother, "Shelly," was referencing.

My sense is that appellate courts are expecting more out of trial judges, like never before, and lawyers too, to be sure, and therapists and court services personnel and litigants themselves! An interesting footnote is that the father's attorneys in this case were certified family law specialists, and (presumably) local San Diego heavyweights, and the mother represented herself and yet succeeded "against all odds." Is this an Elkins Aftermath, leveling the playing field for unrepresented parties against experienced adversaries?

Mark T. and Jamie Z. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1115

Judge Lisa C. Schall doesn't like move-aways, it appears. These applications challenge the non-moving parent and can negatively impact a child's access to that parent, and disrupt parent-child bonding, if a holistic parenting plan under the move-away regime is not developed. 

Judge Schall bears the indignity of being reversed twice now in less than 30 days in a reported appellate decision - quite a scolding. Family law is damned tough for judicial officers, who are doing their best to protect children and weigh in consistently with the cutting edge policies of current mental health science as well as their in-house (FCS) advisors. The problem at present is that the opinions of MHP's (mental health providers), and the wisdom of the reviewing courts, are in conflict. The science of move-away as it affects families from the MHP perspective is still developing, and it collides with certain cherished assumptions the law makes about the rights of Americans, and specifically parents in California under our current statutory scheme (see Family Code section 7501 and the Burgess case) to move freely. 

In both cases Judge Schall accepted (mostly) the independent opinions of outside, court-appointed, mental health forensics and ignored the opinions of the Family Court Services mediator - here the very same Lynne Waldman who made recommendations in the F.T. case. FCS mediator Waldman's belief was that Jamie's move away request should be granted, noting that Jamie had been L.'s primary caretaker since his birth, that Jamie had been unable to find a job in San Diego and was "living in poverty," and that Jamie appeared "to have a clear plan for the move."

Judge Schall now has two strikes against her for using judicial body language to create a result that she felt was fair and appropriate, and her findings on the record illustrate her dilemma. I'm reminded of my early youth playing pool (not so much) and hoping if I twisted my body hard enough, the ball would fall in the pocket. Most of us are doing the best we can. Trial judges, however, have a script they must follow.

In effect, Judge Schall's mistake was to refuse to permit a move-away by a Mom with a 22 month old child who had indeed been the child's "primary caretaker since birth." By effectively coercing Mom not to move by denying her move-away request, and by ignoring the question of "in whose custody" the child's best interests were served" or what arrangement should be imposed were Mom to move, Judge Schall committed reversible error. The justices ruled:

"The court must decide de novo what physical custody arrangement would be in the child's best interests, assuming that the requesting parent will relocate ." Therapist Dr. Lori Love (we can't invent this name stuff) was appointed to evaluate the family for the Court and opined that "[t]his examiner understands the importance of having extended family around for support however this cannot be justified as being in [L.'s] best interest[s] when it means removing him from a loving and capable father. Jamie stated that she did not have an active father in her life and very much wants that to happen for [L.] It would be virtually impossible for Mark to be an active father from across the country." Dr. Love urged the child was too young for the move and went on to recommend that Mom not "be permitted to move out of the County of San Diego. At the same time, this forensic therapist was unwilling to recommend a primary change in custody and assumed that the mother would in fact remain the primary caretaker in San Diego county. She made no recommendations about what custodial arrangement should become effective when or if the Mother moved.

The appellate justices ruled: "Where, as here, a parent who shares joint custody of a minor makes a request to relocate the child in the context of an initial custody determination, the trial court must decide de novo what physical custody arrangement would be in the child's best interests. In making its custody determination, the court must proceed on the assumption that the parent who is making the request will relocate his or her own residence, regardless of whether the court grants or denies the request. In this case, the court erroneously failed to conduct its best interests analysis based on the presumption that Jamie would be relocating to Minnesota."

The trial court adopted the recommendations of Dr. Love, even though Dr. Love failed to address what should happen if and when Jamie relocates out of state. "The very issue that Dr. Love was supposed to address is what parenting plan would be in L.'s best interests, given that Jamie intended to move to Minnesota .... The court misapplied the law in adopting Dr. Love's recommendations, because in making those recommendations, Dr. Love incorrectly assumed that preserving the status quo parenting arrangement was an option, even in the face of Jamie's expressed intent to move...."
 
At trial the Father's attorney asked Mother whether she would move if the court were to deny her request to relocate, and Mom's response showed she was tortured by the question. The appellate court ruled that this question by counsel was improper - courts cannot consider whether the primary parent might alter their plan of relocate depending upon how the court rules. As a trial lawyer this is interesting to me, because this question is often used to telegraph a message to the Court that implies it can deny the move because the moving parent evidently doesn't want to move 'badly enough.'

Apparently the trial court suspected Mother's motives for moving might include frustrating Father's access, but the court did not actually make such findings. "The court's comments regarding Jamie's reasons for moving to Minnesota appear to constitute second-guessing as to the wisdom of Jamie's decision to move (i.e., questioning the "necessity" of the relocation), as opposed to a finding that her decision to move was made 'simply to frustrate the noncustodial parent's contact with the minor child.'" There is no requirement that a parent who has the right to custody of a child establish the necessity of a proposed move. "[E]ven where the court finds that a move away request is being made in bad faith, the court must view this finding as only one potential factor in deciding whether to allow the child's residence to be moved; it does not permit the court to deny the move away request on the presumption that in denying the request, the court can assure that the requesting parent will not in fact move, and that the court can thereby maintain the status quo parenting arrangement. That one parent may have been motivated, in part, to relocate the child's residence by a desire to lessen the child's contact with the other parent does not mean that the court should apply any standard other than what would be in the best interests of the child."

The Bottom Line

F.T. vs. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1

F.T. v. L.J., case number D057493, is an important opinion for move-away applicants and their attorneys not just because it clarifies existing law and provides guidance on a host of issues commonly encountered in litigation over these arguably unfortunate situations, but it is going to be widely talked about by the mental health community and will influence how  Evidence Code 730 and Family Code section 3111 evaluators report to the courts because of this appellate court's attention to the details for what various FCS ("family court service" employees) and MHP's ("mental health professionals") opined. It appears that some of them, including the court mediators, took their eye off the ball as established by earlier legal precedent on this topic and the information presented to them.

The parties in this case dated for five or six months and this brief time together produced a bouncing baby boy in January, 2006. For the first thirteen months of his life, the child lived with Mom. On February 17, 2007, however, Mother burned her baby's arm with a hot curling iron "apparently to each him a lesson by showing him how hot it was." Father picked the boy up that evening, saw the injury, and took him to the hospital. Hospital staff called CPS and the police. Criminal charges were filed against the mother.

The child was placed with Dad and Mother's visitations were ordered supervised. Two weeks later he filed a petition to establish paternity and an OSC requesting orders for sole legal and physical custody. The parties were directed to attend custody mediation through Family Court Services but were unable to reach agreement, and so the mediator recommended that the child's primary residence be with Father and that Mother have supervised visits. In April, 2007, the parents stipulated to the recommended order "without prejudice to either party."

Five months later Father filed an OSC request seeking an order allowing him to move with the child to Texas. The parties were ordered back into mediation. At that time following a custody review hearing, the trial court removed the supervision requirement for Mom's visitation. Once again (surprise!) the parties could not agree in mediation, and the mediator recommended that Father have primary physical custody and that he be allowed to move, noting that in November, 2007, Mother had pleaded guilty to one count of simple battery on the child and was given four years' probation, and that she had an eleven year old child from a previous relationship who lived with the paternal grandparents.

For unknown reasons Father's request went off calendar at the time of the scheduled December, 2007, move-away hearing. In February, 2008, he refiled his application and psychologist Yanon Volcani, Ph.D., was appointed to conduct a psych evaluation of the parents and child. He issued a report in September, 2008.

Volcani recommended against the Father's proposed move to Texas, believing that it would interfere with this 2 1/2 year old's bonding with Mother because of the distance (based upon current best mental health opinions on the developmental stages of children). Volcani concluded that telephone, webcam, and other means of contact would not be well suited for a child this age, and had concerns whether Father would "enthusiastically" support the child's relationship with his mother. He also felt that mother had learned from her experience of burning the child, and while her action was 'rash, impulsive, and insensitive' the data did not suggest a "broader abusive intent." He recommended that Mother's timeshare be incrementally expanded.

On September 18, 2008, the trial court adopted Volcani's proposed parenting plan as a temporary order pending an evidentiary hearing, without prejudice, based upon findings that this was in the best interests of the minor. The matter was then lost in the limbo of hearing continuances and further court services mediations ultimately until March 5, 2010.

By now Father was requesting permission to move to Washington instead of Texas, and was intending on marrying a woman living there. Mother had married. Lynn Waldman, a Family Court services counselor, reported to the Court that she had learned that the minor child in 2009 began exhibiting rage, temper tantrums, and other behavioral issues at school and that this three year old was seeing a counselor who couldn't explain "where [Child's] anger is coming from. She interviewed Dr. Volcani but developed incorrect impressions about whether he'd last met with the parents over the two ensuing years after his initial report, and other misconceptions. She recommended against the move to Washington, but stated that Father should remain in his role as the primary caregiver.

In February, 2010, Volcani issued a report supplementing his opinions from September, 2008. Father by then had married his fiance, who herself had two teenagers. Volcani had re-interviewed the parents, the new spouses, and the minor's preschool teacher and therapist. He noted that since the initial evaluation that the parents had been co-parenting in a "relatively cooperative and stable manner." The minor was continuing to have rage issues (e.g., throwing a chair and punching another student) but these were improving. Still, because of the child's age it was difficult to know what was causing it.

On March 5, 2010, the trial court held a hearing but did not permit live testimony and denied the Father's request to move. The court made a number of findings which were not supported by the record. Chief among them was the conclusion that the parents "are not communicating" - when in fact Dr. Volcani actually stated otherwise and that their communications had vastly improved over the two years that had passed. Moreover, without any rational MHP support, the trial court concluded that the evidence proved the child's rage, speaking out in his sleep, and bed wetting all had to do with the parents' lack of a meaningful dialog. The court stated it "feels that the anger is coming from the tension between the two parties."

Maybe, but the court didn't pull this conclusion from any evidence before it in terms of an expert assessment and conclusion that this was the case (the child's own therapist couldn't explain the child's behaviors). Some conclusions apparently exceed what common sense would otherwise suggest.

By the way, what is a three year old doing with a therapist?

Anyway, the Court adopted Volcani's conclusion that the child's healthy development was being impeded, although on different grounds than Volcani had expressed. The court concluded "Father's reasons for the move, that is to join a new wife and family, are not sufficient and a new wife and family in Washington is not a sufficiently necessary reason to move the residence of [Child] to Washington...."

Huh?

Moreover, the Court implied that if Father decided to move anyway that the Court would take custody away from dad and give it to mother, a really bad idea under existing caselaw because of its coercive overtones.

Enter the Established Law of Move-Away

This is what makes this case important - a judge that was justifiably bothered by the impact that the relocation would have on the relationship between a parent (mother) and child understandably struggled not to permit the move. But she was wrong and the appellate court scolds her harshly for it. Her decision was not an exercise of informed discretion.

At the same time, some of the Father's arguments were off-track as well. For instance, he argued that he had a presumptive right to move under authority of Family Code section 7501 which states: " A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child." The Fourth Appellate District ruled that 7501 only applies to "final" custody determinations, and not those that are "temporary," following the case of Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249. Here the parties had lived under a "stipulation" for two years, but had never reduced it to a final agreement and no court had ever ruled as to any contested matter within the context of an evidentiary hearing. This is a rule that most family law attorneys already know well (which is why the smart ones write their orders to declare the custody agreements favoring their clients as "final" orders). The practical effect of this fact in this case was that "Mother did not have an initial burden to show [that] Child would suffer detriment were he to move with Father to Washington." 

Father also argued that because Mother had been convicted of battering her son, a presumption arose under Family Code section 3044 that she should not have custody of the boy that was possibly "conclusive" if not merely rebuttable. While the idea that the presumption might be conclusive based evidently upon the appalling seriousness of intentionally burning a child is ... creative ... it doesn't track in the slightest what California law says on the subject, and was quickly disposed of by the appellate judges. The justices ruled that "[a] section 3044 finding of domestic violence 'in a family law case changes the burden of persuasion as to the best interests test, but it does not limit the evidence cognizable by the court, and it does not eliminate the best interest requirement."  "Nor does the statute establish a presumption for or against joint custody; again, the paramount factor is the child's health, safety and welfare. And where the section 3044 presumption has been rebutted, there is no statutory bar against an award of joint or sole custody to a parent who was the subject of the order. This is particularly important in move-away cases." In this case the trial court had not made any express findings under section 3044 anyway, so on remand that is a subject the court is directed to pick up.

However, what the trial court did wrong is this:

The father had no burden to prove his move was "necessary". When the trial court opined that "Father's reasons for the move, that is to join a new wife and family, are not sufficient and a new wife and family in Washington is not a sufficiently necessary reason to move the residence of [Child] to Washington...." it supplanted the rule of law with an understandable discomfort with the effects the move would have on Mom's relationship with her son. The issue instead was the best interests of the child, and that decision must be considered in light of the established rule that "the paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements - and the harm that may result from established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker [father here] - weigh heavily in favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements." 

Hence, Judge Schall's "order denying Father's motion reveals a misunderstanding of the determination a trial court must make in deciding a move-away motion by a custodial parent. In this case, the trial court, in effect, avoided the ultimate question whether a change in custody would be in Child's best interests were the custodial parent (Father) to move to Washington.... The question ... is not whether the parent may be permitted to move; the question is what arrangement for custody should be made [if and when the custodial parent moves]." A custodial parent is not required to show a planned relocation is necessary.

In other words, the trial court has to assume the plan for the proposed move is a serious one, and has to address the issue of custody as though the move will occur. Moreover, and this is the heart of the decision and the basis for reversal, "[t]o the extent the trial court denied Father's move-away motion with the goal of maintaining the status quo and/or coercing Father to abandon his plan to move to Washington, it erred." [Italics added].

Finally, while the effect of a move will naturally be detrimental to the child's relationship with the remaining parent, this is but one factor for the court to consider and cannot be the sole basis for denying a move. The case of Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072 (hand's down the most important move-away case to know), establishes a litany of factors for trial courts to consider in their totality - which is the subject for another Blog.

This case is reversed and remanded to the trial court to evaluate all the LaMusga factors and so exercise an informed discretion before summarily denying Father's request to move.

Okay, sorry, I'm tired now - I'll be back to add some more thoughts!

Thurman W. Arnold, III, C.F.L.S.

    "(a) At a hearing on any order to show cause or notice of motion brought pursuant to this code, absent a stipulation of the parties or a finding of good cause pursuant to subdivision (b), the court shall receive any live, competent testimony that is relevant and within the scope of the hearing and the court may ask questions of the parties.

    (b) In appropriate cases, a court may make a finding of good cause to refuse to receive live testimony and shall state its reasons for the finding on the record or in writing. The Judicial Council shall, by January 1, 2012, adopt a statewide rule of court regarding the factors a court shall consider in making a finding of good cause.

    (c) A party seeking to present live testimony from witnesses other than the parties shall, prior to the hearing, file and serve a witness list with a brief description of the anticipated testimony.

If the witness list is not served prior to the hearing, the court may, on request, grant a brief continuance and may make appropriate temporary orders pending the continued hearing."

Family Code section 217 will cause a sea-change in day to day family court proceedings across our state, unless family court judicial officers ignore it to the limited extent possible by court rules.  It will likely have immense financial and resource consequences upon not only the courts but upon parties to family court proceedings.  It will force the state government in coming years to study whole new paradigms for resolving divorce and domestic partnership dissolution outside the adversary template, including those currently practiced in New Zealand and southern Australia. 

It will also pressure parties to consider mediation, and collaborative processes which occur outside congested courthouses, much more carefully.  The costs of adversary litigation are about to sky-rocket, making mediation even more appealing from a financial perspective (I have written extensively about the emotional and psychological benefits here an elsewhere).  There simply is no governmental money available to absorb the coming Elkins Onslaught. For more information about an alternative method for resolving family disputes, please visit us at www.DesertFamilyMediationServices.com.
  
At the same time, at least in the short run taken together with some of the other revisions that become effective next month, it may encourage more people to litigate more stubbornly and so make mediation seem less attractive than it did before the changes (just the reverse will be true).  Some folks will mistakenly assume that this invites the use of court hearings as a live-testimony forum for sharing unresolved complaints relating to their marriage or domestic partnership dissolution with the other party in open court.  Instead, judges will sustain objections to such irrelevant material and parties who seek to use Family Court as a platform to air relationship grievances will find themselves alienating the trier of fact in ways that will have adverse consequences to them beyond just the time and expense of the exercise. 

The purpose of today's Blog is to introduce you to section 217 and the new changes.  I will follow up with more articles in coming weeks.  Without a doubt the new rules will make all the information I provide on my websites more relevant and timely for my readers. 

I am a mom in San Diego County. There are court orders out of El Cajon for joint legal custody and sole physical to me. The old orders said I could move anywhere within San Diego County. I just changed our son's school to north county San Diego. I want to remarry, and have been living with my fiance for 4 years. I believe the schools are better here. Now our son's father is trying to force me to keep our son in the old school south of here, or to take custody.  He says the school our son was in is better. I would have to drive 70 miles for school drop off and pickup.

I have no money for attorney fees because my last lawyer had only a year's experience, and she upset the judge and now I am out $10,000. We have a hearing in 3 days. Please help.

Mellissa

Attorney Fees Question/Assuming There Are Any Further Hearings

You are requesting attorney's fees because the issues involved are some of the most complex in this area of the law (parent relocation), and you are entitled to be on a parity with Mr. Tr xxx, who has been able to retain competent counsel. 

Specifically, tell the Court your request is also made under authority of Alan T.S., Jr. (4/2/09) 172 Cal.App.4 ^th 238 and In re Marriage of Keech (1999) 75 Cal.App.4 ^th 860. Tell the Court that you are in pro per but do not want to be, but that obligation of supporting the child from this marriage plus the financial burden of your other handicapped child, makes it impossible for you to obtain legal representation without an order that Mr. Txxxx pay these fees.

1)      Establish that the final, current order, is for joint legal and sole physical custody to you.  Mr. Txxxx  rights are for visitation only, but not custody, absent a modification of the current orders upon a showing by him of a material change of circumstances. Your move and the child’s new school is not presumptively, without more, a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant a change of custody even assuming he asked for it (I don’t know if he has).

2)      As the parent entitled to the day to day supervisory control of the child per FC section 3007 (defines sole custody), you had a presumptive right to relocate. This is the same right codified in FC section 7501. You have custody; dad has visitation rights.  (Btw, his visitation rights are not being negatively impacted by the move, by his own admission, since his objection only involves relative school ratings).

3)      As to the joint legal custody label, this only grants each of you the rights under FC section 3003 (decisions regarding health, education and welfare) during your respective custody and visitation times.  FC section 3083. It is does not obligate you and he to agree on schooling absent a court order saying you had to first, per 3083, and it must be specific and mention “schooling” (I assume this is not the case).

4)      Even though you were not required to do it, you gave dad notice per FC section 3024 that you were moving north and changing the child’s schooling. F’s atty intimidated you into filing a motion for permission to make the move, when they probably were the one’s obligated to file a motion to restrain the change, and so you have acted in good faith. This is particularly true given the court order from (the ealier date) stating you can relocate anywhere within San Diego County.

5)      It is very important if their responsive declaration did not check the change of custody box, and if their paperwork only asks to restrict the change in schools – you need to be sure you are right about this before making the argument - BUT if they are not seeking a modification of custody, then you have the right to move [7501] and change schools [3003/3083] and there should be no need for any further hearings and your application must be granted.

6)      Next, ONLY IF THEY’HE REQUESTED A CHANGE OF CUSTODY, then the next analysis is: That this is not a de facto joint parenting agreement. This not a Burgess footnote 12 case (which requires a “ de novo” best interests of the child hearing only where there is true parenting agreement). Here the timeshare numbers become important – you want him as low as reasonably possible without sounding incredible. This is a straight Burgess situation, and therefore you have the presumptive right to move and you do not need to show that the your move was “necessary” or even in good faith, except with the added benefit to you that Burgess involved temporary orders and so the court had to do a best interest of the child analysis, while your case involves “permanent” orders and so that is not a ground for an evidentiary hearing (best interests was previously decided in your favor and the question will be not be reviewed again absent Dad showing a change of circumstances).

7)      Changing schools is not an adequate CoC as recently held by the California Supreme Court in Brown and Yana (2006) 37 Cal..4th 947. Here, like you, a parent with sole physical custody sought to move a much greater distance from the dad – Las Vegas. Dad’s objection was that the schools in LV were inferior. He wanted an evidentiary hearing before the move would be allowed, and he sought a change of custody to himself if Mom moved anyway. The trial court correctly refused to allow an evidentiary hearing because the Father had failed to allege sufficient facts showing a detriment to the child by simply claiming the relative merits of schools. Courts won’t step into that qualitative battle. Instead, F needs to show that you are attempting to frustrate contact, which clearly is not the case, or some other “detriment” in his responsive declaration. His failure to do so means he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

8)      Since he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, even though a mediation is appropriate in the next month, it would be improper for this court to issue any orders that restrain your son’s ability to start school on 8/20/09 as planned.

9)      Father has failed to meet his burden.You need attorney fees to retain competent counsel for any further hearings.

10)    Finally, under FC section 3044 there is a rebuttable presumption that dad is not a fit person to be a joint custodial parent because of the DV orders.

Best of luck on this. If you get a court order for attorney fees, hire someone!

Thurman Arnold, CFLS