[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=CA renter]…It sucks that some of us sound like Debbie Downers, but it’s this sort of gut-wrenching truth that can (hopefully) help people make fully informed decisions.[/quote]yeah, donald downers too. it’s not just women who can be downers. guys can be downers…
this would freak me out. i would not expect anyone to be happier post move than premove, and if he’s unhappy now, it’s not inconceivable he’ll b e unhappier later. maybe the problem isn’t the location, he reasons later, once he’s in the new location and finds himself no happier, maybe it’s this woman. then you’re the one trapped, just like he was “trapped” in NY. on the other hand, it really is terrible to emotionally negotiate and navigate witha legal compass such matters in what is theoretically at leasta completely 100% committed relationship. plotting and thinking about your next move within a legal framework ofrights and remedies sheesh. what kind of way is that to be married? you might as well be a litigant.
on the other ahnd, you’d be a fool not to think this through.
please dont take anything im saying as legal advice. consult with your own attorney versed in NY and CA family law in particular.
screw RE websites. go on one of those divorce chat groups and see if any alarm bells go off…[/quote]
Yeah, ditto for me and make sure that chat room is a CA-based one!
I apologize here in that I DID likely sound like a “Debbie Downer.” I’ve just seen a LOT in my day, including one local domestic case that was litigated from 1999 thru 2012 and concluded two months before the subject child’s 18th birthday. One parent wanted another hearing but the judge dismissed the child’s court-appointed attorney (minor’s counsel) effective his 18th birthday. And these particular parents/parties were never married!
The truth about the CA domestic “justice” system is that it is based upon money, plain and simple. Whichever parent/party has the most earning capacity (meaning the most wherewithal to provide a stable home for their children over the long term and thus keep the children off government aid) “wins” (if one can call getting a higher percentage of child-custody timeshare away from the other parent “winning”). The higher earning party (payor of child support) is typically heavily counseled by their attorney to fight tooth and nail for as much child custody timeshare as they can get in order to avoid being ripped a new a$$hole (pardon the pun) in long-term child support obligations. This “counseling” will occur by the payor’s attorney even if the higher-earning party has never taken on any childcare duties thus far and/or travels for business regularly. The court may opine that he/she said payor is allowed to designate someone else to watch the children while he/she is away. This is more preferable to the payor than agreeing that the other parent/party can have more timeshare while they’re away because hiring temporary paid child care is much cheaper than having a higher long-term CS obligation which could be difficult and lengthy to get reduced unless their circumstances change dramatically (they lose their job, retire, become too ill to work, etc).
In short, CA child support awards are based upon the difference in the parents’ incomes in combination with the percentages awarded each parent of child-custody timeshare of the minor child(ren).
If one parent tells the court they have no income and are otherwise able-bodied, the court could very well impute an income to them and then set their CS award based upon the amount imputed against the payor’s income. More often than not, the higher-earning payor-party moves for such a ruling. In the court’s eyes, the presence of kids are NEVER an excuse for a parent not to work to bring in income if they have none of their own unless any of those kids are severely disabled and thus require constant care.
And I don’t know your state’s laws, NYMom, but CA has “no-fault dissolution” and after residing in CA just six months, your entire family will be under the jurisdiction of CA laws and CA will be considered the legal domicile of your children. In CA, either party can leave a marriage for any reason and the court will not ask and does not care. Therefore, there is no “injured party” who would be able to petition for (punitive) higher support due to the “fault” of the other party for disintegration of the marriage.
Based upon your posts, all of the above is why I think you and your spouse should both get on the exact same page and be able to stay there regarding housing choices and location before attempting to make a move anywhere.
