Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    Daryl, Sorry to say but, I believe the state of the CUSTODIAL parent is
    the state that defines the situation.  I could be wrong, but, I dont
    think so.
    
    Al

    From what I've seen, Kansas is still the state with jurisdiction since
    the Decree was issued there.  You can ask that jurisdiction be changed
    by asking Kansas to decline jurrisdiction, but it will likely be changed 
    to California since that is where the child lives now.   Federal law 
    (Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act) states that all states shall enforce 
    the Custody decrees of other states. To get the Kansas orders inforced 
    by California you will probably have to file a petition with the court 
    in California.  I don't know about outher states, but I found out that 
    in Minnesota, the only thing that is required is to *file* a certified 
    copy of the Court orders with the Minnesota court.  You'll probably have 
    to have a California lawyer look into the specifics of California.
    
    You may be able to file for Colorado to uphold the Kansas orders, then
    file for Contempt of Court in Colorado, but what will likely happen
    is that her lawyer will likely file for change of jurrisdiction to
    California.  My ex tried to get jurrisdiction changed to Minnesota,
    but failed because *she* had filed origionally in Colorado and then
    fled the state.
    
    Colorado does not specify a specific age for a child's wishes to be
    taken into account.  Age 14 is mentioned, however, in the the Violation
    of Custody Act.  However, Colorado will change custody ONLY for the 
    reasons stated in the Court order posted in 62.21.  It may be easier 
    to get it done in California. 
    
    fred();

    
    
    Not such good news folks....
    
    	I've been through it.  Court jurisdiction is based upon the state
    the CHILD (not necessarily the custodial parent.... bizarre, but it
    happens) lives in currently.
    
    	Personally, I was divorced in RI, moved to MA, while the ex moved
    (with my daughter) to CT....
    
    	Connecticut now has jurisdiction over any and all actions
    concerning child support/custody issues.
    
    	This is not my opinion, this is something I was told by my lawyer.
    Your mileage and state may vary, but I doubt it.
    
    Pissah, eh?

    re .3
    
    It may be that different states have different rules on how to do
    it.  Some may well be automatic, but federal law (Parental Kidnaping
    Prevention Act) states that (paraphrased) "all states shall uphold 
    the custody/support decrees of another state" and "no state shall 
    modify the decree of another state unless the other state *declines*
    jurisdiction".  Although getting jurisdiction  changed after both parties 
    have moved out of the state may be almost automatic.  My ex twice 
    petitioned the Colorado court to get decline jurisdiction because "that's
    where the kids live now",  she was turned  down both times because 
    1) I still lived in the state, 2) *she* had  filed the initial petition, 
    and 3) the circumstance under which she left the state.  If she had had
    a good reason the leave the state, it may have been different.
    
    I thank my lucky stars every time I think about it that that is the 
    one thing I was able to prevent her from doing during the initial battle.
    
    fred();
    

I was told that the petition would be filed in the court of continuing
jurisdiction (the court where the divorce took place, usually), then either
party could ask for a "change of venue" (sp?) to move to another court -
and it almost always is the court where the children are.

RE:  .2, I don't think he was saying anything about upholding or enforcing
visitation this time around, it was changing custody.  Did I mis-read?

Regarding age... I'm not sure that every state defines an age, but I think
that as the child gets older, the social workers assigned to make the
recommendation to the court, consider more and more the child's wishes.  At
her age my feeling is that you have a darn good chance.

Let us know how it works out!
Kristen

    Actually, ".3" is correct.  The state where the child resides has
    jursidiction.  This is to prevent the interjurisdictional squabbles.
    AS a rule, the state where the child curently resides will honor the
    decree of the "foreign" (other state) court and will not modify it
    unless it is in the child's best interest to do so.  In the case being
    discussed, California has jurisdiction over the child.
    
    The issues beocmes somewhat muddied when one parent removes a child
    from the original state to avoid the jurisdiction of that court. Even
    there, it would probably be necessary to go into the court in the new
    state and get them to refuse jurisdiction.
    
    Most courts are very hesitant to assert jurisdiction contrary to this
    rule.  There was a case here a couple of years ago where the children
    were living in Colo. with the mother but had come here to visit.  There
    were allegations of abuse by the mother and the father came into court
    here to get custody (the original order was here) and the court refused
    jurisdiction.  The children were sent back to Colo. and  placed in the
    custody of the dept. of social services -- I believe there was a formal
    accusation of abuse against the mother -- in Colo. pending
    investigation.  In the end the Colo. court gave custody of the children
    to the father and sent them back here.   I cite this case just to
    illustrate how seriously most ocurts take the jurisdictional rules.
    
    And by the way, if they assert jurisdiction improperly the decision can
    be applealed in a federal court overturned.
    
    
    I don't know if any stated age where the child is allowed to decide
    which parent they want to live with.  However, when they get up to
    the 12 and older range, most courts will take the child's wishes into
    consideration.

    
    I believe in NH that once a child reaches age 14 that the 
    default is to abide by the child's wish.  I would guess
    there is probably some provision where the Court could
    not abide by the child's preference but I'm not sure.
    
    Steve