La Musga and SB 730

Tomorrow, SB 730 will be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee. It is a labor bill amended to include move away rights/restrictions prompted by the LaMusga case.

One of my biggest irritations with this case is the fact that so many have saddled it with other causes.

First and foremost, is the stereotypical custodial mother and noncustodial father roles in the case that feminist and men’s rights groups are spotlighting. Mom wants to move away with the kids so dad gets shorted.. AGAIN.

Let’s get that out of the way first and foremost. Give me a break! This is a completely separate issue having nothing to do with male/female mother/father. It has everything to do with the CUSTODIAL parent making the decision to move with the children and the NONCUSTODIAL parent’s right to disagree. Whether mom or dad has custody and whether that was discriminatory is a separate issue altogether. If that’s your cause, fight your cause.. not the La Musga decision or California’s SB 730.

Lots of dads have custody of their kids and should a custodial dad choose to move away with the kids, lets deal with them both the same regardless of their preassigned roles as members of a particular sex. Feminists and male rights groups, while I recognize could have valid complaints against custody systems, should have no argument in a move away debate who’s grounds are solely sex. This issue is a ‘move away’ issue, not a sex role debate.

Aside from that, groups like the The Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways are in the mix because they believe that the only way to have a healthy relationship with your child is to be physically near your child at all times and a move away risks seperating one parent from the child/ren SHOULD the non-custodial parent not choose to follow them. Their site says : “… believes that children’s need for frequent and meaningful contact with both parents after a divorce is paramount. Present efforts by certain members of the California Legislature to attempt to weaken or abrogate altogether the new California Supreme Court’s decision in re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) run counter to this need.”

I beg to differ. That, in fact, is what this site is here to educate people about. Being physically apart does NOT equal missing parent. Being physically apart does not mean a lack of “frequent and meaningful contact with both parents after a divorce” Being physically apart simply means you learn a new skill set and put that much more effort into your relationship with your child.

All parents can have a good relationship with a child, no matter the distance. No, it isn’t the ideal situation for the parent. It means they will have to put far more work into the relationship. But if youc an honestly say that your child isnt worth the extra work, then maybe that’s where the problem is?

I wanted to move to San Diego, California from Memphis, Tennessee with my child for all the reasons a good parent should want to move; better schools, richer culture, lower crime, higher pay. In the process, because by default, custodial parents are not allowed to move with their children in Tennessee, my ex-husband was able to ‘take physical custody’ of my son just prior to my move date and take legal custody and there was nothing I could do about it.

My son now lives in an inferior environment than what I could offer him here, with his father’s open admission of the inferiority simply because his father did not want my son to move.

Granted, there are exceptions to every rule.. and there are always the custodial parents who would abuse SB 730 just to keep the kids away from the other parent.. BUT.. I think it’s just as much abuse of a situation for a non-custodial parent to try to prevent a good move for their own selfish reasons. THAT is what is happening now. Right now, well meaning parents like myself are struggling to have both their kids AND a decent living situation because the other parent decides they just don’t like the idea of the kids moving. Well-being or not.

That is what SB 730 does. With some minor modifications, SB 730 allows custodial parents to move into a better situation with their child/ren whether or not it’s convenient for the non-custodial parent.

If the grass is indeed greener in another city hundreds of miles away and the children will reap the benefit of higher pay, better schools, better cultural opportunities etc, the noncustodial parent should be HAPPY that the children are moving and A. do everything in their power to follow the children or B. learn to be a great distance parent! Don’t PREVENT a move that could be good for the kids! Sometimes, the reasons to move far outweigh the benefits of being within a mile or two all the time.

I am a non-custodial parent and I’m ok with that. I have the will power and the desire to be a great long distance parent and to make it work and a parenting plan that allows me to do just that. Hopefully, non-custodial parents will pick up and follow their children to this new place that offers them so much more. If that’s not possible, like in my case or in the case of so many others, you learn to be a long distance parent.

4
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
avatar
4 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
StoneLuis RodriguesCarrieMichael Robinson Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Michael Robinson
Guest
Michael Robinson

I was one of the working opposition for SB 730 and lobbied every day to defeat this bill. I am also one of the Endorser’s of ACCAMA. The very same groups supporting SB 730 were responsible for derailing HR 3073, The Fathers Count Act of 1999. With the California Judiciary Council of California, the Association of Certified Family Law Specialist, LA County Bar Association along with over 90% of the scientific experts opposing SB 730, I would say that is proof that SB 730 was seriously flawed. In fact not one Fathers Rights Group was going to testify if the… Read more »

Carrie
Guest
Carrie

Hi: > I was one of the working opposition for SB 730 and lobbied every day > to defeat this bill. I am also one of the Endorser’s of ACCAMA. The > very same groups supporting SB 730 were responsible for derailing HR > 3073, The Fathers Count Act of 1999. Nice to meet you. I’m a non-custodial parent because I needed to move myself and my child out of a bad area. > With the California Judiciary Council of California, the Association > of Certified Family Law Specialist, LA County Bar Association along > with over 90% of the… Read more »

Luis Rodrigues
Guest
Luis Rodrigues

I am a father of a 5 1/2 years old. I am in the process of loosing the physicall ongoing contact with my son after one year of litigation in court because the mother deside to move 360 miles away after she find out that social services gave both of us 50 and 50 legal and physical custody. We were marry and leaving in the SF Bay Area for 9 years and another 4 years single prior to marry. The Okland court has temporary allow the mother to move to South of California with out a stable job, no place… Read more »

Stone
Guest
Stone

The Custodial parent should be allowed to move with their children.

The noncustodial parent has the right to follow those children to where ever they may land. This will secure their relationship and satisfy the one choosing to move.

This custodial parent desperately needs to move to a better area, and absent misconduct, should not lose custody just because of a change in address.

Noncustodial Parents: move with your children!