By Rob Hagy, Law Offices of Rob Hagy, P.C., 154 Hansen Road, Suite 202B, Charlottesville, Virginia. Call (434)293-4562 for more information or email for more information at email@example.com. I look forward to helping you!
The information provided on this web blog is public information and is not individualized legal advice. Do not take any legal action on any information contained in this blog!!! Always consulting with an attorney in your state about your legal issues. The presentation of information on this blog does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with my firm or with me. While I have attempted to maintain the information on this blog as accurately as possible, this information may contain errors or omissions, for which I disclaim any liability. Case law from other jurisdictions discussed here are discussed for comparative purposes only. The author is licensed to practice only in the Commonwealth of Virginia and not in any other state.
Despite the foregoing, this material could be considered to be ADVERTISING MATERIAL. The responsible party for this blog is Robert R. Hagy, II Esq., an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia, of the Law Offices of Rob Hagy, P.C., whose address is 154 Hansen Rd., Suite 202-B, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911.
Mother's relocation inside the Commonwealth causes change in custody. In the case of Turpin v. McGowan, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, held that a trial court properly changed custody of child from mother to father where mother moved with the child from Stafford County to Sterling, Virginia and then again to Vienna, Virginia without a court order or without consulting father.
-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Custody Lawyer. I have represented fathers and mothers in relocation cases. If I can help you with this issue, please call me at (434)293-4562.
In the case of Seamans v. McClure, the Roanoke Circuit Court held that a mother could keep primary custody of 9 year old child in 100 mile move from Roanoke to Bluefield where child has strong bond with dad, mom's financial situation will improve and father's interests were more self serving. Court specifically held this was not a relocation case.
In the case of Judd v. Judd, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, ruled that a mother could relocate with her two children to Wisconsin. The move did not substantially impair the non-custodial parent's relationship with the children where the father exhibited little to no interest in spending time with his sons until he learned wife was keeping a detailed log of his behavior toward the children and was planning to file for divorce. The other kinds of things that father did with the children could be arranged in expanded visits that would take place on a less frequent basis. The children were 4 and 6 years old. The move was necessitated by a possible job loss by mother and would actually result in mom spending more time with the kids. The cost of living in Wisconsin was significantly lower than in Virginia and that mother would more easily be able to earn enough money to support herself and the children there than in Virginia. The evidence supported a finding that wife's extended family, including her parents, three brothers, one sister, and their families, all resided in Wisconsin. The trial court also found that the children were of an age and stage in life where they had not developed ties to friends and places in Virginia such that a move would be difficult for them. Wisconsin was a familiar place with familiar people.
In the case of Masters v. Sutton, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court did not err in granting a motion for modification of child custody and visitation filed by mother. Mother filed her motion after remarrying and accepting a job in Pennsylvania. Father counter-filed seeking a change in custody. The child was nine years old. The trial court found that, although both parties had loving and strong relationships with the child, mother had been the child’s primary caretaker throughout the child’s nine-year life and she was better able to assess the needs of the child. In addition, the court found that father had mental health issues, employment issues, and an upcoming possible change in residence that prevented him from providing the child with stability and structure. Furthermore, mother’s relocation was not motivated by a desire to reduce father’s time with the child. Moreover, mother was relocating to an area that was less than three hours’ drive from father’s residence.
In the case of Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court improperly adjudicated the parental rights of a lesbian couple who were joined in a Vermont civil union . The parties separated. One party stayed in Vermont. The other moved to Virginia with the parties' daughter. A Vermont court issued an order concerning the parties' parental rights concerning the child. After that order was entered, the Virginia trial court entered another order covering the same matters. The trial court should not have entered the second order because, the Court of Appeals ruled, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1738A, prevented the trial court from exercising jurisdiction in the first place. The Vermont, and not the Virginia orders, are entitled to full faith and credit.
In the published opinion of Surles v. Mayer, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that a man who lived with and had a daughter with a woman could petition the court for visitation with the woman's son from a previous marriage. However, the Virginia Court of Appeals denied the request for visitation as the man failed to show that the boy would suffer actual harm if the man was not allowed visitation with the boy. Significantly, the mother objected to allowing any visitation between the boy and the man. In addition, the Court ruled that the trial court properly permitted the woman to take the parties' daughter and move to Florida.
Virginia Code Section 20-108.2 This provision of Virginia law sets forth the child support guidelines-a table of reference for determining the base monthly child support obligation.
Virginia Code Section 20-124.3 This statute sets forth the factors that a court will consider in divorce proceedings, temporary proceedings, or modification proceedings to determine what custody and visitation arrangement would be best for the child or children involved.