Ex wife trying to move daughter to Port Charlotte, Florida...any advice? (homes, YMCA)

[MB2]

Originally Posted by kristall

I NEED YOU HELP!...ex-wife is planning on moving 9 year old daughter to Port Charlotte, Florida in the very near future(within the next 2 months.) I am 100% against the move and would appreciate any assistance from you if you live or have lived in the Port Charlotte, Florida area. Please forward any information, articles, statistics, personal experiences etc. that you have; that would benefit me in my legal attempt to keep her here with me in Minnesota. Please make sure that the information you give is verifiable as it will be submitted as evidence in court hearing. Your assistance is most appreciated. Thank You.

Well, I am trying to get BACK to the original concern....a relocation/ custody change.
The court DOES NOT LOOK at which state is "bad", which county is "bad", because it's personal preference, opinions, and what one makes out of it.
There are very good schools out there EVERYWHERE!!! If not public, then Private ones for sure.
Court is looking closely at the overall situation immediately affecting the child....family, friends, schools.......
And, what most people seem to forget is the fact that when the custodial parent lives good (better work/ pay) etc. the child IS BENEFITTING from that as well.

Well...I relocated (primary physical parent)...but I was on the other end then you, because my ex had the visitation.
I agree and know, that every state has different laws and regulations.
But, in MOST STATES you can't block the custodial parent in a relocation case, if it can be proven, that it is in the best interest and benefit for the child.
Yeah, sure...you can go to court and all....spend money over money to lawyers, mediation conferences and such....you can basically stretch the whole thing out, only to be told, that she is granted a relocation.
I went trough that with my ex, living in PA and moving to FL as well. I had to spend a lot of money for my legal defense, but, I was able to proof, that my son would have a better life, since I was able to secure a better paying job.
Plus, my son was questioned as well (child psychologist at the office of his guardian ad litem), which was then giving his recommendation to the judge/ court.
The court just had to re-issue and work out a new visitation schedule for the non-custodial parent.
Until a court decision is made, she is NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO TAKE THE CHILD OUTSIDE THE STATE/ JURISDICTION!
She could be charged with abduction, interference with custody etc.
Another interesting fact: My husband had the same thing going on, his ex relocating not to FL, but to NC instead.....with the same results. She was granted to relocate with his child, and his visitation schedule got newly arranged. In his case he saved money, however, because he had good lawyers (his friends) telling him he is going to waste his time AND money, and to just work out a better visitation schedule.........which worked out way better, because he had his son ALL and EVERY holiday, and the entire summer, creating a more quality time for both of them.
Either way.....it sucks to be in a situation like this for everyone involved, especially the child!
Good luck to you!

[Ten]

Originally Posted by SuzieQFL

Regardless, just make sure you put your daughter's welfare FIRST.

Statistics overwhelmingly show that single-parented children lead heavily in all dysfunctionalities: Drop-outs, teen pregnancies, runaways, crime, you name it. A move-away is a recipe for failure...but alienations serve "uncooperative" ex's agendas 24/7 so move-aways happen like clockwork.

The "child's best interest" as a court's opinion and ruling is usually complete folly. Witness those statistics; they're the work of a 50%+ divorce rate and that rate makes people wealthy. The child's genuine best interest, meanwhile, is two regular parents.

Putting a child's welfare first means successfully opposing a hostile, alienating parent with your own right to parent, such as that divorce may grant it. A father and his daughter have no real constitutional rights in family law unless they're demanded. There they have the overwhelming belief that mom = welfare, dad = trouble. Their interest is to separate you and pocket their matching child support funds.

Remember: Solid research, demand those rights, professional help willing to actually fight, and never, ever give up. It's the only language the malcontents in family law understand.

[Ten]

Originally Posted by MovingBack2PA

And, what most people seem to forget is the fact that when the custodial parent lives good (better work/ pay) etc. the child IS BENEFITTING from that as well.

Untrue on it's face. Children want, need, and statistically benefit from co-parenting. One isolated custodial parent "living good" helping the child is myth. One move-away parent as often as not means one alienating parent, and one alienating parent is a guaranteed problem.

Aside from abject poverty (which is about security and not money) kids don't notice cash. They notice the lost security of the missing parent and it's a devastating hole in their lives.

[Ten]

Stephen Baskerville

[novanative75]

Originally Posted by Ten

Untrue on it's face. Children want, need, and statistically benefit from co-parenting. One isolated custodial parent "living good" helping the child is myth. One move-away parent as often as not means one alienating parent, and one alienating parent is a guaranteed problem.

So, to clarify, you are saying that children living in a single parent household are a 'guaranteed problem?' Hmmm, that is a sad way to think.

[Lindsey_Mcfarren]

Originally Posted by novanative75

It might be nice to go to the beach once in awhile in the winter months but that is not worth a terrible education and temperatures and humidity that are so bad in the summer, playing outside probably results in heat stroke. As for the wildlife, if you consider an enormous amount of lizards, a higher possibility of snakes and bugs wildlife, then come on down.

You know, I'm sorry you don't like living in Florida, I think its time to accept not everyone has the same perception. It might not be the place for you, but alot of us like it here. I have family that live in Colorado and LOVE it, you couldn't pay me money to live there. Clearly, your life might be better if you choose another place to live, some place you find more pleasant.

I hardly think a judge is going to decide custody or where someone should be able to move their child based on the issues you lay out.

This thread isn't about bashing Florida, its about a man with custody problems with his ex-wife.

[Huckleberry3911948]

Originally Posted by kristall

I NEED YOU HELP!...ex-wife is planning on moving 9 year old daughter to Port Charlotte, Florida in the very near future(within the next 2 months.) I am 100% against the move and would appreciate any assistance from you if you live or have lived in the Port Charlotte, Florida area. Please forward any information, articles, statistics, personal experiences etc. that you have; that would benefit me in my legal attempt to keep her here with me in Minnesota. Please make sure that the information you give is verifiable as it will be submitted as evidence in court hearing. Your assistance is most appreciated. Thank You.

games people play---

kids, a frequent weapon used in the battle between adults. moving the kids out of state is a great way to hurt the ex, also getting a boyfriend works good too. both usually done with utter disregard for the kids. its all bout me me me, huh?
3rd game, kids are often used as hostages to extract things from the other players esp in laws and grandparents.
you know we talk a lot about the mideast and the dirty games they play there, but we do it here, don't we?
the sky is cryin
(sing it)
wow strong opinions i am getting worse and worse.
i will go take a break.

[Ten]

Originally Posted by novanative75

So, to clarify, you are saying that children living in a single parent household are a 'guaranteed problem?' Hmmm, that is a sad way to think.

You tell me. Did I say that?

What I said was, one move-away parent as often as not means one alienating parent, and one alienating parent is a guaranteed problem.

Rational readers naturally see that this way:

1. One move-away parent as often as not means one alienating parent;

2. One alienating parent is a guaranteed problem.

That's a sad condition to put the nations kids through to make money for the divorce and custody industries.

Stopped kicking your dog yet, novanative75? Familiar with strawmen?

[novanative75]

Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren

You know, I'm sorry you don't like living in Florida, I think its time to accept not everyone has the same perception. It might not be the place for you, but alot of us like it here. I have family that live in Colorado and LOVE it, you couldn't pay me money to live there. Clearly, your life might be better if you choose another place to live, some place you find more pleasant.

I hardly think a judge is going to decide custody or where someone should be able to move their child based on the issues you lay out.

This thread isn't about bashing Florida, its about a man with custody problems with his ex-wife.

There are a million threads and posts on here about people who do not like living in Florida, it is called O-P-I-N-I-O-N, why is everyone attacking me, my gosh! But, at least on here, there is a trend with the posts and threads when it comes to THIS PART of Florida. I would love to live in other parts.

I am sure there are people that like living here, and good for them but I am not going to lie on a Forum, people want to know peoples' honest opinions and then they can decide for themselves. My best friend here loves it, and I am happy for her but we are two different people. I loved living in Northern Virginia but if you visited the forum there, there are a lot of people who do not like it, each to his own, I know that.

I realize this thread has taken away from the man's original post and I apologize for being one of many that have done that. I sincerely hope he can find a solution.

[novanative75]

Originally Posted by Ten

You tell me. Did I say that?

What I said was, one move-away parent as often as not means one alienating parent, and one alienating parent is a guaranteed problem.

Rational readers naturally see that this way:

1. One move-away parent as often as not means one alienating parent;

2. One alienating parent is a guaranteed problem.

That's a sad condition to put the nations kids through to make money for the divorce and custody industries.

Stopped kicking your dog yet, novanative75? Familiar with strawmen?

I disagree with you, that is all, no need to attack and no, I am not familiar with strawmen and I would never kick my dog. Apparently I don't understand your attempt at attacking me or humor whichever it is.
I am a guidance counselor and have been for years and have worked with several, several, several kids who are from single parent homes, some are co-parented, as you say, with the other parent living in the area and being somewhat a part of their life. Others, and most, do not have another parent in their lives, an 'alienating parent' as you call it, and you know what, they deserve the same opportunties and support and optimism about their futures that their 'happy family' classmates get; and them having problems, although it may be a higher risk is certainly not 'guaranteed', that is not fair to say, THAT is a strong statement. Sure, there are problems in kids from a one parent home but there are problems in kids from two parent homes.
I know the statistics and you are right, they are probably out there. But, this poor man, who may have not control over whether his daughter is taken away or not, certainly does not need to be told that his daughter's future will be doomed if this happens, right?

I am only trying to stand up for kids here, no matter where they come from, and what their family situation is, they deserve the chance at a future without being labeled. I wish no one got divorced and I wish all kids had two parents but it is not the way it is. Would you tell a child who's parent passed from cancer that him having problems was a 'guarantee'? I doubt it.