I have a friend who is the mother and primary custodian of a 3 month
old baby. The baby's father is listed on the birth certificate, but
there is no formal custody agreement, nor were the two parents ever
married. My question: Is it legal for the baby's mother to change
her state of residence (taking the baby with her) without informing
the father or his family? I understand that Google Answers cannot
advice me in a legal capacity; I would be satisfied with web sites
that list the information I need in an easy to understand fashion. |
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
03 Jan 2004 14:18 PST
Laws governing questions like these are usually at the state level (in
the US, where I'm guessing your friend resides). Can you let us know
what state and city she lives in.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
tutuzdad-ga
on
03 Jan 2004 18:37 PST
Is the father paying support and are there, or have there been, any
visitation at all between the father and the child or the father's
family and the child?
Regards;
tutuzdad-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
angely-ga
on
03 Jan 2004 20:51 PST
Pafalafa-ga, may I send the information about the pertinent states via
email? (Yes I am paranoid but the situation warrants it.)
Tutuzdad-ga, yes there has been visitation between the baby and the
baby's father, as well as two other family members. If this is not
enough detail, may I send more thorough information via email?
thanks to both of you-Angely
|
Clarification of Question by
angely-ga
on
04 Jan 2004 20:19 PST
The states involved are as follows: the baby's father is in the army
based out of Fort Campbell, KY, but is a legal resident of California.
The baby's mother is a current resident of TN (greater Nashville
area) and wants to move to Oregon. The baby's uncle is roommates with
the baby's mother, and the baby's father often spends his nights in
their apartment. He has contributed baby-sitting, and very
occasionally has purchased necessities such as diapers or formula.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
serenata-ga
on
05 Jan 2004 14:51 PST
Hi Angely ~
Here are the pertinent statutes concerning Paternity & Legitimization:
Tennessee Code : Title 36 Domestic Relations : Chapter 2 Paternity :
Part 3 Paternity and Legitimation
Tennessee Code §36-2-303. Custody absent an order of custody.
Grants custody to the mother if the child is born out of wedlock.
§36-2-304. Presumption of parentage.
Covers establishment of parentage and under what conditions the
father is considered the father.
§36-6-110. Rights of non-custodial parents.
Covers rights of the non-custodial, with the the presumption that
paternity has been established and arrangements for child support,
either voluntary or by order of the court, are in place.
The statutes can be found on Lexis/Nexis here:
- http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
Those should help you get started. It does not appear that there is a
prohibition against moving when any of those conditions are absent.
Hopefully this is helpful.
Serenata
|
Clarification of Question by
angely-ga
on
05 Jan 2004 15:27 PST
Thank you serenata for the information concerning Tennessee Code. I
am also concerned with the other states involved: Kentucky,
California and Oregon. Would it be the laws of the state of residence
that apply or the laws of the state of birth and so forth.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
serenata-ga
on
05 Jan 2004 16:47 PST
Hi again Angely ~
Tenneessee's Jurisdiction/Venue statutes:
36-2-307. Jurisdiction - Venue
Take a look at paragraph (b):
"(b) Any minimum contact relevant to a child being born
out of wedlock that meets constitutional standards shall
be sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the courts
of Tennessee over the parents for an action under this
chapter. Any conduct in Tennessee that results in conception
of a child born out of wedlock shall be deemed sufficient
contact to submit the parents to the jurisdiction of the
courts of Tennessee for action under this chapter."
- http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll/Infobase/163b2/1680e/16831/1686f?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates
Given the facts you've presented, that would pretty much put
jurisdiction in Tennessee.
Hope this helps,
Serenata
|
Clarification of Question by
angely-ga
on
06 Jan 2004 13:08 PST
Thank you serenata, that does seem to cover all my points. Are you
submitting the information you've given me as an answer?
|
