California “Move Away” Bill Defeated By Massive Opposition
MND NEWSWIRE – In a stunning victory for children of divorce, yesterday California Senator Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) withdrew SB 1482, a bill which would have granted custodial parents an almost unlimited right to move children far away from their noncustodial parents. Romero withdrew the bill in the face of over 4,000 opposition calls, letters and faxes. It is the second time in less than two years that a California bill designed to permit unrestricted move-aways has been defeated.
The California Supreme Court addressed the problem in the LaMusga decision in April of 2004 by making it clear that courts can prevent children from being moved when it is detrimental to their interests. Among the factors deemed important were the relationship between the child and the nonmoving parent.
In the summer of 2004 then Senate President John Burton introduced SB 730, a bill which would have abrogated LaMusga. Burton withdrew the bill a few weeks later in the face of massive opposition organized by ACCAMA, CAFC and others, just as Romero did yesterday with SB 1482. According to newspaper columnist Glenn Sacks, the founder of ACCAMA, SB 1482 would have led to numerous abuses. He says:
“The Traub case is a good example of the problem with the Burgess decision. A divorced California custodial mother remarried and sought to move with her 13 year-old daughter. The mom had previously moved several hundred miles away, and dad had uprooted himself and moved to be with his daughter. Then mom moved several hundred miles away again, and dad again uprooted himself and moved to be with his daughter. Then mom decides to move again–to Costa Rica! They have no ties in Costa Rica, the girl doesn’t speak Spanish and doesn’t want to go, but mom remarried recently and her new husband lived in Costa Rica 58 years ago and wants to go back. Believe it or not, under Burgess the court actually granted the move-away request. The court gave the OK to throw away Eric Traub’s 13 years of loving fatherhood the moment the strong, loving bond he shares with his daughter became inconvenient for mom.”
Sacks added:
“The facts of the LaMusga move-away case are another good example of the abuses under Burgess. In that case the mother insisted that she be allowed to move her two young boys from the Bay Area to Ohio because, she claimed, she wanted to attend a law school there. Apparently none of the eight law schools in the Bay Area sufficed. Later she moved to Arizona because, she explained, her new husband needed work. His job? Selling cars. And with the blessing of the courts, Gary LaMusga’s sons were moved out of state for this nonsense.”
In opposing SB 1482, Mary C. Molinaro of the California State Bar’s Family Law Executive Committee warned that “a bad motive of a moving parent must be considered in a move away analysis. A purposeful move on one parent’s part to frustrate the relationship that another parent has with the child is a necessary consideration in whether to allow the move. The specific language in the bill would seem to indicate that the court could deny a parent’s request objecting to the move and relinquishing a change of custody without an evidentiary hearing even in the situation… where the parent exercised a true shared parenting arrangement or where a parent truly had a bad motive for failing to show substantial detriment.”
SB 1482 would have specifically prohibited a parent seeking to prevent his or her children from being moved far away from citing most of the evidence that could provide a basis for restraining the move. Under this bill, nonmoving parents would be prevented from citing the move’s impact on their children’s relationships with them or the effects on the children of losing their schools and friends. Sacks noted:
“If you can’t cite the impact on the children of them losing their noncustodial parents, losing their school, losing their neighborhood and losing their friends, how exactly are you supposed to demonstrate the move’s detriment? Unless the moving parent planned to relocate to Baghdad or Beirut, it’s impossible.”
| More from MNDwire
Stumble It!
May 10th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
This is the `corporate’ sponsored, movie or Hollywoodified
version of things, I hope everyone realizes.
It’s indeed fortunate the bill hasn’t passed so far—it
may yet return—but the status quo that it leaves in place
still leaves much to be desired; we should be _passing_
postive, reform bills: success at that would be a victory.
It’s also worth noting that Mens News Daily has declined
to publish submissions attrmpting to inform Californians
of this bill and the continuing issue it’s part of.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:50 am
[...] California “Move Away” Bill Defeated By Massive Opposition [...]
May 13th, 2006 at 12:52 am
Wow, Big surprise that Sen. Gloria Romero would persue radical extreamist social activisim and self promotion at the expense of children. The only decideing factor in custody issues should be whats in the best interest of the children. Every case is different and should be treated as such.
Of course Sen. Romero should be excused for her radical Feminist ideals. Obviously her views have been shaped by the Men She chooses to associate with, Mostly poor oppressed career convicts and preditory gang members, That She hangs around with like a groupie in various Correctional institution visiting halls, Buying into their con games and swooning over their plight.