Sacks, Allred Debate New CA. Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

In relation to the post below, Glenn Sacks debated attorney Gloria Allred last Friday about this case and move away cases in general. What follows are verbatim excerpts from an email. You can visit GlennSacks.com or His Side with Glenn Sacks for more information or to sign up for email updates.

Excerpts:

California Supreme Court Rules Against Dad in New Move-Away Decision

From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, in which a custodial mother was allowed to move her two children 40 miles away from their father. Burgess was disastrous for children because it was interpreted by California courts to permit moves of hundreds or thousands of miles. In some cases, courts have even allowed children to be moved out of the country, as far away as Australia, New Zealand, and Zaire.

In 2004 the California Supreme Court decided the LaMusga case in favor of the father, Gary LaMusga, who sought to prevent his ex-wife from moving his two young boys from California to Ohio. LaMusga, who is unable to follow his children because he operates a small business and is tied down by weighty child support obligations, had fought the move for eight years. In siding with the father the court explained that "the likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether the move would cause detriment to the children."

Soon afterwards a handful of extreme feminists prevailed upon former California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) to introduce SB 730, which would have abrogated LaMusga and given custodial parents almost unlimited move-away privileges. We organized to fight the bill, and generated thousands of calls and letters in opposition, as well as a lot of media attention. To everybody's surprise, Burton withdrew SB 730, and LaMusga was preserved.

Fortunately the new decision in Brown vs. Yana will not have the impact of Burgess or LaMusga--it is more technical and limited in scope, and the father's underwhelming legal effort and behavior hurt him. To learn more about the new ruling, see Court Rules Parents With Custody Can Move (Los Angeles Times, 2/2/06).

To learn more about California move-aways and the LaMusga case, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and read my LaMusga radio commentary here. To read a feminist view of the move-away issue, see Allred's column "Moving Matters in Custody" (Los Angeles Daily Journal, 10/3/02).

I discussed how this issue would be viewed if we switched the genders in my column California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04), and argued in favor of a current Wisconsin move-away bill in my co-authored piece AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce (Wisconsin State Journal, 12/3/05). I clashed with feminist law professor Carol Bruch, who authored the mother's brief in LaMusga, on PBS's Los Angeles affiliate KCET last year--to watch, click here.

Sacks, Allred Debate New California Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

For example, Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways unfairly restrict custodial moms from moving, while not restricting noncustodial fathers. I answer that in these cases both parents are free to move wherever they want--it is the children who may not be moved if a court determines that it is against their best interests.

Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways keep custodial parents "held hostage" in their neighborhoods, and that they should be able to "move on with their lives." I respond that both parents retain responsibilities to their children after divorce which are sometimes inconvenient or limiting, and ask "Would we argue that noncustodial parents' responsibility to pay child support holds them 'hostage?' Do we condone the behavior of divorced parents who decide to drop out of their children's lives or stop paying child support because they've decided to 'move on with their lives?'"

Another Bizarre Father Screwing

According to the article Not guilty, but not off the hook (2/6/06):

"A man who spent 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murder faces a debt of more than $38,000 in child-support payments that started accumulating while he was locked up...

"A federal judge released Souter last April 1.

"In 1987, before his conviction, [Larry] Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995.

"Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25.

"Federal law prohibits judges from retroactively wiping out such debts...

"David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client 'has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support.'"

I love the quote from his ex-wife's attorney. Yes, he didn't pay child support because he was in prison framed on a murder charge. I guess we should be grateful the lawyer didn't refer to Souter as a "deadbeat dad." That'll probably be next. One would also think that after seeing her ex-husband rot in jail for 13 years for a crime he didn't commit, she would feel so damn sorry for the poor guy that she would back off. I guess not.

In the article Wrongly convicted man tries to move on after prison (Flint Journal, 1/7/06), Souter had discussed putting his life back together and his plans. Now he may be headed back on the road to jail.

I wrote about California legislation designed to deal with the problem of ex-offenders and child support in my co-authored column Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bill to Reduce Prisoner Recidivism (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 9/21/05). The Bradley Amendment, under which child support arrearages cannot be retroactively forgiven, is the cause of countless bizarre injustices, and often hurts deployed military personnel. In my co-authored column Laws must protect the rights of military dads (Army Times, Marine Corps Times, 3/28/05) family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"[Child] support orders are based on civilian pay, which is generally higher than active duty pay. When reservists are called up to active duty they sometimes pay an impossibly high percentage of their income in child support.

"For example, a California naval reservist who has three children and who takes home $4,000 a month in his civilian job would have a child support obligation of about $1,600 a month. If this father is a petty officer second class (E5) who has been in the reserves for six or seven years--a middle-ranked reservist--his active-duty pay would only be $2,205 before taxes, in addition to a housing allowance. Under current California child support guidelines, the reservist's child support obligation should be $550 a month, not $1,600."

A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the wonders of the child support system would probably think 'OK, but the courts would just straighten it out when the reservist gets back--certainly they wouldn't punish him for something that happened because he was serving.' However, the federal Bradley Amendment prohibits judges from retroactively modifying child support beyond the date which an obligor has applied for a modification. Reservists can be mobilized with as little as one day's notice. If a reservist didn't have time or didn't know he had to file for a downward modification, the arrearages stay, along with the interest and penalties charged on them.

"When the arrearage reaches $5,000--a common occurrence during long deployments--the father can become a felon who can be incarcerated or subject to a barrage of harsh civil penalties, including seizure of driver's licenses, business licenses and passports."

This is a particularly long newsletter so I am going to cut the excerpts here. However, Glenn also discusses child abduction, the campaign against PBS "documentary" Breaking the Silence, Newsweek coverage of The Trouble With Boys, domestic violence laws, Italian custody laws, and female inmates - amongst other topics. Visit his site to read the newsletter here.

More John Burton News

I received a link to this article in my email:

Talk Radio Campaign Blocks CA. Senate Leader's 'Stealth' Family Law Bill

Apparently Mr Burtons plan has become common knowledge. From the article:

"Hundreds of angry parents deluged the offices of California State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) with calls, faxes and e-mails yesterday, protesting a "stealth" family law bill which Burton reportedly planned to sneak through the legislature in his last months in office.

The protestors, called to action by KMPC Los Angeles radio talk show host Glenn Sacks, seek to block a proposed bill which would abrogate the California Supreme Court's recent decision in the LaMusga move-away case. Anthony Williams, one of Burton's principal consultants, has now agreed to meet with leaders of the newly formed Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways to discuss the bill."

To see what you can do link to the ACCAMA website.

Latest Glenn Sacks

I am copying this verbatim from an email I received this morning. I have previously discussed both the LaMusga case and John Burton and information on both can be accessed other places on this site:

As many of you know, during last night's broadcast I announced a new His Side listener campaign. It is the first since our consumer boycott campaign against the 'Boys are Stupid' Products, a coordinated action which achieved its
primary objectives and made newspapers all over the world.

As you know, California family law has a huge influence on other
states, and parents all over the United States have a large stake in what happens here. I have written many newspaper columns and devoted several His Side shows to the issue of post-divorce move-aways and the LaMusga move-away case in particular.

In LaMusga, a vindictive and alienating custodial mother sought to move her two young boys 2,400 miles away from their loving father. Since the 1996 Burgess decision, California custodial mothers have had the almost unlimited right to move their children hundreds or thousands of miles away from their
noncustodial fathers, who, like Gary LaMusga, are often chained in their current locale by stiff child support obligations.

I hear every day from devastated men who have lost their children in the aftermath of this misguided decision. In May the California Supreme Court finally acted to rein in these damaging and destructive move-aways, deciding In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) in favor of the father. You may recall that I co-authored a column on it, Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04).

Almost immediately Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) and his feminist allies began plotting to gut LaMusga. The result is a bill which would be far more devastating than Burgess. The bill would amend California Family Code 7501 to "abrogate [LaMusga] in its entirety" and establish that "The custodial parent has a presumptive right to change the residence of the child and does not need a court order allowing him or her to do so." The bill also states that the move-away's inevitable disruption or destruction of the
relationship between the noncustodial parent and his or her children cannot be used to restrain the move or get a change of custody.

In other words, mom can move wherever she wants whenever she wants and does not even need the formality of a court order to do so. This bill would be a devastating blow to children and to the rights of fathers in California and, by extension, fathers and children in many other states. It must be stopped.

Burton, who will be termed out this fall, is reportedly planning to slip the anti-LaMusga legislation through the Legislature attached to a bill which has already gone through committee. While we do not yet have a bill number, feminist groups have already rallied support for the bill, and the bill's introduction is imminent.

The Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways(www.ACCAMA.org) has been formed to fight to defend LaMusga. The website has a lot of information about the LaMusga situation, and I ask ALL of you to take part in this campaign.
TO TAKE ACTION, click here.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com

LaMusga Case- The California Supreme Court Strikes a Blow to Move Away Parents (read: Moms)!!

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday on the long awaited LaMusga case. From the article:

"The high court ruled that trial courts should have flexibility to consider a variety of factors before allowing a move, including whether it might hurt the relationship between the children and the parent without custody.

Previously, most trial courts allowed custodial parents to move away, unless the move was intended to hurt the other parent. But recently, some trial courts were stopping moves for other reasons, and seeing their rulings overturned on appeal.

With Thursday's ruling, the high court clarified that custodial parents don't have a presumptive right to move, and that court needs to look at the interests of the child. This ruling is in keeping with a recent trend in other states."

The opinion was 6 to 1. ContraCostsTimes.com

Other Relevant Articles:

WOI-TV.com, Marin Independent Journal, FresnoBee.com, azcentral.com, ktla5

California Senate Bill 1367

While the LaMusga move away case continues to be debated in the California Supreme Court, California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton is attempting to push a bill through the legislature that will make it easier for custodial parents to move. The bill states that a parents petition to move "cannot be frustrated by undue delay," effectively eliminating the courts ability to do an thorough and in-depth evaluation as to the needs of the child. Read the entire Glenn Sacks article here: MichNews.com

Contact John Burton from his website.

Senator Burton is a democrat, as is the majority of the California Senate. The most recent bill that Senator Burton passed through the legislature was in Oct 2003 and reads as follows:
BILL NUMBER: SB 156 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT

CHAPTER 674
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE OCTOBER 6, 2003
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR OCTOBER 5, 2003
PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 9, 2003
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 4, 2003
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 13, 2003

INTRODUCED BY Senator Burton

FEBRUARY 11, 2003

An act to amend Section 7501 of the Family Code, relating to child
custody.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 156, Burton. Custody: residence of the child.
Existing law provides that a parent entitled to the custody of a
child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to
the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the
rights or welfare of the child. Existing law, as established in In
re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, provides that when a
judicial custody order is in place, a custodial parent seeking to
relocate bears no burden of establishing that it is necessary to do
so.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to affirm the
decision in the case described above and to declare that ruling to be
the public policy and law of this state.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 7501 of the Family Code is amended to read:
7501. (a) A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right
to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the
court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or
welfare of the child.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to affirm the decision in
In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, and to declare that
ruling to be the public policy and law of this state.

Obviously it is his intent to slowly erode any claim that a non-custodial parent has to their child.

You can contact all members of the California Senate on the Senate website. The following are Republican Senators: Brulte, Poochigian, Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Battin, Denham, Hollingsworth, Johnson, Knight, Margett, McClintock, McPherson, Morrow and Oller.

This is not to say that we have a preference for Republicans, only that considering a Democrat is pushing through this horrific legislation, we should expect the most support from a Republican counterpart.

LaMusga Case

This is an editorial concerning LaMusga and move-away cases in general. HeraldTribune.com

LaMusga v. LaMusga

This is a good site for all the material relative to the California relocation case LaMusga v. LaMusga. It does come from a women's movement site so be prepared. What is important is that it chronicles the case, not the authors personal feelings or intent. Lizlibrary