{"id":4820,"date":"2004-05-08T18:39:33","date_gmt":"2004-05-08T22:39:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/05\/08\/mothers-moving-day\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:48","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:48","slug":"mothers-moving-day","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/05\/08\/mothers-moving-day\/","title":{"rendered":"Mother&#8217;s (Moving) Day"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name='a1456'><\/a><\/p>\n<p><P align=\"right\"><SPAN><FONT color=\"#000000\"><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\"><FONT size=\"2\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/ethicalesq\/motherchild.gif\" alt=\"mother child\" \/>&nbsp; <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/P><br \/>\n<P><SPAN><FONT color=\"#000000\"><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\"><FONT size=\"2\">In 21st Century America, most&nbsp;skirmishes in the <STRONG>Gender Wars<\/STRONG> are merely humorous or&nbsp;tedious &#8212; but, sometimes they&#8217;re dangerous.&nbsp; The batttle&nbsp;cries shouted in the wake of the California<EM> <\/EM>Supreme Court&#8217;s <STRONG>child custody relocation<\/STRONG><EM> <\/EM>decision last week <EM>&#8212;&nbsp;<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><A href=\"http:\/\/www.courtinfo.ca.gov\/opinions\/documents\/S107355.PDF\"><EM><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">Navarro v. LaMusga<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">&nbsp;(04-29-04) &#8212; suggest that some advocates are willing to sacrifice the interests and needs of children to the supposed &#8220;rights&#8221; of one gender over the other.&nbsp; <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/P><br \/>\n<DIV dir=\"ltr\"><br \/>\n<UL><br \/>\n<LI><br \/>\n<DIV style=\"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px\"><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN>Having represented hundreds of children in custody cases, and mediated many divorces, I believe the <EM>LaMusga<\/EM> Court&#8217;s <STRONG>emphasis on the<\/STRONG> <STRONG>child&#8217;s right<\/STRONG> to have an ongoing,&nbsp; meaningful relationship with <EM>both<\/EM> parents is not just eminently reasonable, it is <EM>mandated<\/EM> as <STRONG>the core mission of family or marital courts<\/STRONG>.&nbsp; The child&#8217;s relationship to the other parent&nbsp;<EM>must<\/EM> be a significant part of&nbsp;any decision whether to move away,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV><br \/>\n<LI><br \/>\n<DIV style=\"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px\"><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN>To the extent that the California decision eight years ago in the <EM>Burgess<\/EM> case gave the impression &#8212; adopted thereafter by many other states &#8212; that the custodial parent has the <EM>presumptive right<\/EM> to move away, the <EM>LaMusga<\/EM> &#8220;refinement&#8221; or clarification is late but welcomed.<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/LI><\/UL><\/DIV><br \/>\n<DIV dir=\"ltr\" style=\"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px\"><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">Shrill statements like those from Kim Robinson (attorney for the mother in <EM>LaMusga<\/EM>) are far more inflammatory than enlightening.&nbsp; Lawyer <\/FONT><A href=\"http:\/\/ktla.trb.com\/news\/la-me-move30apr30,0,3255664.story?coll=ktla-news-1\"><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">Robinson is quoted<\/FONT><\/A><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"> saying&nbsp;&#8220;Fathers can move away with kids, mothers cannot,&#8221; and that &#8220;By giving trial judges so much discretion, the court permitted &#8216;any reason at all, no matter how whimsical or flimsyi to stop a mother from moving with her children.&#8221;&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><br \/>\n<BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<DIV dir=\"ltr\" style=\"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px\"><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">Robinson seems to have forgotten that the trial court had in fact permitted her client&nbsp;to move to Arizona (where the father was able to maintain frequent physical contact), but concluded that a move to Ohio was simply too likely to harm the children relationship with their father&nbsp;&#8212; especially given the mother&#8217;s antagonism toward the father.<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<DIV dir=\"ltr\"><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/ethicalesq\/exit.jpg\" alt=\"exit\" \/>&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN>An article in&nbsp;<\/FONT><A href=\"http:\/\/www.law.com\/ca\"><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">The Recorder<\/FONT><\/A><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">&nbsp;notes that the <EM>LaMusga<\/EM> decision &#8220;sharply divides children&#8217;s rights advocates&#8221; (<SPAN><A href=\"http:\/\/www.law.com\/jsp\/article.jsp?id=1083328797176\"><STRONG>Divorced Parents Must Consider Ex if Moving Away<\/STRONG><\/A>, 05-03-04):<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><br \/>\n<BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<DIV dir=\"ltr\"><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN><EM>While some children&#8217;s advocates hailed the ruling as a victory for kids and a reaffirmation of trial court judges&#8217; broad discretion, opposing groups, such as the California Women&#8217;s Law Center, called it &#8220;a huge step backwards.&#8221; <\/EM><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN><EM><\/EM><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<DIV><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN>Davis, Calif., solo practitioner <STRONG>Tony Tanke<\/STRONG>, who represented the mother in the case, went as far as calling Thursday <STRONG>&#8220;the worst day for children in the history of California.&#8221;<\/STRONG><EM>&nbsp; &#8220;California&#8217;s custodial parents &#8212; most of whom are mothers,&#8221; Tanke said in a prepared statement, &#8220;have lost the presumptive right to make decisions to better their lives and the lives of their children.&#8221;<\/EM>&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN>Judges can deny relocation, Tanke added, if the moving parent wasn&#8217;t &#8220;sufficiently friendly toward an ex-spouse.&#8221; <BR><BR>The debate now turns toward the state Legislature, where Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco, is pushing a bill aimed at preserving custodial parents&#8217; presumptive right to move. The bill, amended Wednesday, says that courts should not frustrate that right with &#8220;undue delay.&#8221; <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\"><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><EM>The Christian Science <A href=\"http:\/\/www.csmonitor.com\/2004\/0503\/p01s02-usju.html\">Monitor <\/A><\/EM><A href=\"http:\/\/www.csmonitor.com\/2004\/0503\/p01s02-usju.html\">declares<\/A> (&#8220;<SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\" color=\"black\" size=\"2\">A legal boost for noncustodial parents<\/FONT>,&#8221; 05-03-04) that the <EM>LaMusga<\/EM> decision &#8220;is <STRONG>setting the stage for a national shift<\/STRONG> on one of the most contentious areas of divorce law.&nbsp; By keeping a mother from moving to Ohio with her children against the father&#8217;s will, the court is <STRONG>sending legal tremors<\/STRONG> across the US.&#8221;&nbsp; It continues:<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P><br \/>\n<BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\"><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN><EM>The decision comes at a time when the fathers&#8217; rights movement has been gaining momentum in state courts and legislatures. But California&#8217;s ruling stands as perhaps the strongest endorsement yet of the idea that the balance of power between divorced parents has swung too far toward mothers &#8211; and that judges and lawmakers must try to stake out a new middle ground.<\/EM><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\" style=\"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px\"><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">Legal scholars are still parsing the 6-to-1 decision to determine exactly what the court intended. The general consensus is that <STRONG>the language of the decision is far from revolutionary<\/STRONG>; the court itself says that it is merely fine-tuning the 1996 so-called Burgess ruling.<\/FONT><\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\" style=\"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px\"><EM><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">But the court&#8217;s actions tell a different story, some analysts say. By preventing the mother from moving with her children over the objections of the father, the analysts suggest, the court is essentially overthrowing a decade of jurisprudence. In general, mothers were allowed to move for virtually any legitimate reason &#8211; ranging from a new job to a new spouse. <\/FONT><\/EM><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\" style=\"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px\" align=\"right\"><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/ethicalesq\/jettakeoff.jpg\" alt=\"jet takeoff\" \/><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\" style=\"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px\"><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN>Custodial parents may indeed have to forego moves that would unduly interfere with their child&#8217;s relationship with the noncustodial parent.&nbsp; However, the <EM>LaMusga<\/EM> opinion does <EM>not<\/EM> prevent all moves (often the parties will be able to agree upon new arrangements), nor even all moves that are detrimental to the children (many noncustodial parents will not have the resources to fight a move, and others won&#8217;t have strong enough arguments to stop a move).&nbsp; <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P><br \/>\n<UL><br \/>\n<LI><br \/>\n<DIV style=\"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px\"><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN>Everyday in America, men and women decide for countless reasons&nbsp;<EM>not<\/EM> to move great distances &#8212; despite the lure of better jobs or climate, or a wish for a fresh start.&nbsp;&nbsp; Not moving because your children need a meaningful relationship with their other parent should not be thought of as an unreasonable restriction on personal freedom.&nbsp; Rather, it&#8217;s&nbsp;an obligation of responsible parenting.&nbsp;<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV><br \/>\n<LI><br \/>\n<DIV><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN>Being <STRONG>remarried<\/STRONG> should not be an automatic &#8220;get out of state&#8221; card, either.&nbsp;&nbsp; The divorced parent has &#8220;baggage&#8221; (obligations)&nbsp;that can&#8217;t be&nbsp;left behind&nbsp;by the new couple.<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/LI><\/UL><br \/>\n<DIV dir=\"ltr\"><FONT face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><SPAN><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/ethicalesq\/gavelneg.jpg\" alt=\"gavel neg\" \/> &nbsp;When divorced or estranged parents disagree about a move &#8212; whether the custodial parent is the mother or the father &#8212; it&#8217;s&nbsp;better to have&nbsp;the determination of&nbsp;its appropriateness made by a responsible court&nbsp;than by an irresponsible&nbsp;or hostile &#8220;ex.&#8221;&nbsp; <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&nbsp; In 21st Century America, most&nbsp;skirmishes in the Gender Wars are merely humorous or&nbsp;tedious &#8212; but, sometimes they&#8217;re dangerous.&nbsp; The batttle&nbsp;cries shouted in the wake of the California Supreme Court&#8217;s child custody relocation decision last week &#8212;&nbsp;Navarro v. LaMusga&nbsp;(04-29-04) &#8212; suggest that some advocates are willing to sacrifice the interests and needs of children to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4820","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1fK","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4820","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4820"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4820\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13839,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4820\/revisions\/13839"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4820"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4820"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4820"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}