If custody order says mother and child are not allowed to leave the state, is there any chance the court would allow them to go on a vacation to another country if the father says no?
I cannot speak for all jurisdictions, but I can answer the question based upon the law where I practice divorce and family law (Utah):
First, if the court were to order a parent not to leave the state (just the parent, not the parent with the child), that would likely be held unconstitutional, as a civil court does not have the authority to infringe upon an individual’s right to travel without a compelling reason.
Second, if the court were to order a parent not to leave the state with the child, that may be within the court’s authority to do so, especially if:
there were evidence that you have tried to abscond with the child to a foreign country (whether the foreign country is beyond the reach of the Hague Convention) or are at risk of absconding with the child to a foreign country.
the custody award, such as a joint physical custody award, was conditioned upon the parties residing within a certain geographical distance of each other.
That stated, if:
there is no concern about you absconding with the children to a foreign country, never to return;
the foreign country to which you want to travel on vacation is not a dangerous place (i.e., a place where Americans are routinely kidnapped or killed and/or where there are wars, insurrections, and/or dangerous natural disasters occurring);
there is no harm that a child would suffer by traveling with you internationally (such as a certain health or medical or mental health condition that makes international travel a serious danger to the child), I cannot see any reason why a court would deny you the right to travel to a foreign country on vacation; and
there is no other compelling reason to deny you and the child(ren) the opportunity to vacation internationally,
I doubt that any court would bar you from travelling internationally with the child(ren).
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What would you do if your child’s father who is only entitled to supervised visitation filed for a modification of a court order so a family member you don’t approve of could supervise visits?
Here’s what I would do:
First, remember that merely claiming that the proposed visitation supervisor poses a clear and serious danger to the child’s mental or emotional health without having proof or some highly credible evidence does not simply make for a weak argument, it could call your credibility into question.
I would first ask: if you have proof or highly credible evidence that there anything about this proposed visitation supervisor that poses a clear and factual (or at least credible) danger to the child’s life, safety, or health.
If the answer is “yes,” then you probably have at least one very good argument against having this person approved as a visitation supervisor.
If the answer is “no,” then I would ask if there anything about this proposed visitation supervisor that poses a clear and factual (or at least credible) danger to the life, safety, or health of the other parent or of anyone else?
If the answer is “yes,” then you probably have at least one very good argument against having this person approved as a visitation supervisor.
If the answer is “no,” then I would ask: if there anything about this proposed visitation supervisor that poses a clear and factual (or at least credible) danger to the child’s mental or emotional health?
If the answer is “yes,” then you probably have at least one very good argument against having this person approved as a visitation supervisor.
If the answer is “no,” then I would ask if there is anything about this proposed visitation supervisor that poses a clear and factual (or at least credible) danger to the mental or emotional health of the other parent or of anyone else?
If the answer is “yes,” then you probably have at least one very good argument against having this person approved as a visitation supervisor.
If the answer is “no,” then I would ask if there is anything about the proposed supervisor that indicates he/she is not available to provide supervision as needed and/or cannot provide supervision responsibly and reliably.
If the answer is “yes,” then you probably have at least one very good argument against having this person approved as a visitation supervisor.
If the answer is “no,” then I would likely see no point to objecting to the proposed supervisor because I would have no valid argument against the appointment of this supervisor.
When did you know that divorce was the option you were going to choose?
First, make sure that if you reach the conclusion that you need a divorce that you really do need a divorce. Clearly, a marriage that, through no fault of your own, threatens your life, health, or safety is a marriage you don’t have wonder is worth staying in another moment. But in every other situation, divorce is not a decision to take lightly.
Some people think they need a divorce when they do not. They mistakenly believe that a divorce will be the solution to problems that the marriage is not causing or a solution to problems the marriage is causing when there are better solutions than divorce (many people have told me after their divorce that they wish they had not taken such drastic measures and had tried harder to save their marriage because they realized that 1) the marriage was worth saving and they didn’t “know what they got till It’s gone” and/or 2) divorce only made matters worse).
Even if you do not believe that individual counseling or therapy and/or marriage and family therapy will work for you and your spouse (or your whole family, if that’s a concern), you do not want to live with the regrets that come from wondering “what might have been”. Start reading the scriptures and going to church. Seek wisdom, guidance, and help beyond your own abilities (even if you think it’s a stupid idea, try it before you reject it out of hand). Before taking the drastic, painful, scarring, costly, and permanent step of divorce, try to find out whether the problem(s) in your marriage and family lie(s) with something than your spouse. Try to find out if the problem(s) can and should be solved without divorce. If, after taking these steps, you honestly conclude that your marriage cannot be salvaged, that is when you can and should file for divorce confident in your choice.
What would happen if an individual gets a second job after child support has been determined? Would the individual be forced to go back, or would it change anything?
In Utah, the answer is found in the Utah Code at section 78B-12-203(2).
(2) Income from earned income sources is limited to the equivalent of one full-time 40-hour job. If and only if during the time before the original support order, the parent normally and consistently worked more than 40 hours at the parent’s job, the court may consider this extra time as a pattern in calculating the parent’s ability to provide child support.
If it were not clear from the language of the statute itself, here is what it means. If the parent:
has a full-time 40-hour per week job;
is not working overtime regularly; and
has a second job, then child support is calculated based upon one full-time 40-hour job. The second job cannot be included in the child support calculation.
If the parent:
has a full-time 40-hour per week job;
does not have a second job; but
is “normally and consistently working more than 40 hours at the parent’s job, then child support may(not shall) be calculated based upon both the 40-hour job and the overtime, but the court is not required to include the overtime in calculating child support (although in my experience the court usually will include the overtime in calculating child support). The second job cannot be included in the child support calculation.
If the parent:
has no recent work history; or
a parent’s occupation is unknown, then that parent may be imputed an income at the federal minimum wage for a 40-hour work week. To impute a greater or lesser income, the judge in a judicial proceeding or the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding shall enter specific findings of fact as to the evidentiary basis for the imputation.
Income may not be imputed if any of the following conditions exist and the condition is not of a temporary nature:
The reasonable costs of child care for the parents’ minor children approach or equal the amount of income the custodial parent can earn;
the parent is physically or mentally unable to earn minimum wage;
the parent is engaged in career or occupational training to establish basic job skills; or
unusual emotional or physical needs of a child require the custodial parent’s presence in the home.
If the parent: does not have a full-time 40-hour per week job; and has a second job, then income might or might not be imputed to that parent.
Under Utah Code § 78B-12-203(8), Income may not be imputed to a parent unless:
the parent stipulates to the amount imputed, the parent defaults; or
a hearing is held and the judge in a judicial proceeding or the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding enters findings of fact as to the evidentiary basis for the imputation.
If income is imputed to a parent, the income shall be based upon employment potential and probable earnings considering, to the extent known:
employment opportunities;
work history;
occupation qualifications;
educational attainment;
literacy;
age;
health;
criminal record;
other employment barriers and background factors; and
prevailing earnings and job availability for persons of similar backgrounds in the community.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277