QUESTION
pertains to custody issues, moving across the country without notification
Asked on Oct 22nd, 2011 on Child Custody - Minnesota
More details to this question:
An unmarried couple broke up, in which that relationship has produced a child. The father was given permission to move to Arizona from MN by the mother, in the form of a notarized note. I''m assuming the custody is 50/50 and visiting rights are equal as well. Can that father now move back across the country with the child, to MN but a different city still from the mother, without notifiying the court or the mother at all. And this whole time the mother is unaware of the move back to MN and still thinks the father and child are residing in AZ where she initially gave permission in the form of a notarized letter? What are the fathers rights and responsibilities? Can he move without notifying the mother or the court, and or will this adversely effect the outcome of custody battle in court which is not over yet?
1 ANSWER
William/J Joanis
This is an odd question. The couple was not married. Unless the court has been involved, the father has no rights other than to go to court and get some rights. Yes, that is correct. His right is to go to court. That is all. You suggest there is a custody battle. If that were the case, the court would have set down the guidelines for parenting time, including, either party leaving the state. You say there is still a custody battle going on. Until the court rules, all of the father's rights are whatever permission the mother gives as far as parenting time (not custody), and any other rights are all potential rights, he may get in the future. (Having fathered a child out of wedlock is quite different than if they were married, and the signing of the Recognition of Parentage - ROP, does not give the father custody rights, or even parenting time rights. It means he owes child support and can go to court to get rights with the child . The rest of what you relate is very strange. A notarized letter just means a letter where the authenticity of the signature is presumed correct. So what? The custody is not 50/50. The mother has 100% legal and physical unless the court has said otherwise. Kids are not like cars, with the title being assigned, from one person to another, even with a notarized signature. Again, how did he get the right to take the kid out of the state? If the court was not involved, the mother should not have allowed it. If the court was involved, why on earth didn't the mother's lawyer limit where parenting was to occur? This a a giant mess of a debacle.
Answered on Oct 23rd, 2011 at 5:48 PM