Article Source : http://www.article-content-king.com

Grab source for this article (If republishing, you must publish all the links in the code below to comply with republishing rules).

<h2>WHO PAYS FOR TRANSPORTATION WHEN THE CHILD MOVES ACROSS COUNTRY?©</h2><br />James D. Scott<p> BY JAMES D. SCOTT, CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALIST<br /><br />COPYRIGHT 2007<br /><br />When the parent with the most child sharing time moves across the<br /><br />country, extra efforts must be made for the child or the children to<br /><br />keep frequent and continuing contact with the parent and other family<br /><br />members who remain behind.<br /><br /><br />A move-away by the custodial parent  diminishes the percentage  of calendar time spent<br /><br />by the child with the parent who remains behind.  This has the<br /><br />double whammy or triple whammy of causing an increase in the child support payment when<br /><br />the parent left behind has been ordered to pay support.  A second<br /><br />unfortunate effect of the move-away is the negative hit to the amount<br /><br />of time that the child is able to spend with the parent left<br /><br />behind.  The frequency of those periods of access to the child<br /><br />diminishes and the stability of the parent/child relationship is<br /><br />jeopardized.  The third negative impact of a move-away is the cost<br /><br />of transportation.  When the parent moves two thousand or three<br /><br />thousand miles from the west coast to the mid west or from the west<br /><br />coast to the east coast, round trip tickets to fly frequently cost<br /><br />hundreds of dollars for each visit.  If the children are grade<br /><br />school age or younger, the parents may reasonably resist allowing them<br /><br />to fly alone and thus, the cost of a round trip ticket is doubled or<br /><br />tripled for the escort.  Even when the move is regional and a two<br /><br />hundred mile to four hundred mile distance with a lack of airport<br /><br />access may make driving more practical, the cost of gasoline and the<br /><br />use of an automobile are significant deterrents to visitation.<br /><br />THE GUIDELINE<br /><br /> <br /><br />In 1992 the infamous Guideline of the California Family Code became<br /><br />effective.  It mandated adherence by the courts.   In<br /><br />the early years following the implementation of the Guideline, the<br /><br />courts tended to follow the mathematical formula almost with a lockstep<br /><br />procedure.  As a point though, relief for transportation costs may<br /><br />be found in California Family Code §4057(b)(5), which says,<br /><br />“Application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate due to<br /><br />special circumstances in the particular case.  These special<br /><br />circumstances include, but are not limited to the following:”<br /><br />The special circumstances listed do not include sharing the costs of<br /><br />transportation in a move-away case, but appellate courts have<br /><br />recognized that code section as providing just this kind of relief.<br /><br />In the appellate case of Wilson v. Shea (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 887 the<br /><br />trial court was found to have discretion to reduce Guideline support to<br /><br />allow the creation of a travel fund to be managed by the paying<br /><br />parent.  To do this, the trial court had to compute the regular<br /><br />Guideline amount first, take evidence of the cost of the<br /><br />transportation, and then note the special circumstance.<br /><br />In Wilson the court found that given the importance of contact to the<br /><br />child with the parent left behind, and the practical necessity of a<br /><br />travel fund when a case presents the special circumstance of<br /><br />out-of-state visitation, the promotion of frequent and continuing<br /><br />contact with both parents after the parents have separated is certainly<br /><br />a factor that may mean the rote application of the Guideline formula is<br /><br />unjust or inappropriate in some cases.<br /><br />This has nothing to do with another sort of case where the parent<br /><br />moving away has some kind of malicious intention to disrupt the<br /><br />relationship of the child with the parent left behind.<br /><br />This is not to say that one hundred percent of the travel cost should<br /><br />be paid from the child support that would otherwise be ordered. <br /><br />It simply gives guidance to parents in an unfortunate move-away<br /><br />situation that they should try to be creative and reasonable and<br /><br />flexible with each other while using the child support as a resource to<br /><br />help cover the costs of transportation.  In a case with a shorter<br /><br />distance, it could mean that each parent would travel halfway to hand<br /><br />off the child to the other parent.<br /><br />When faced with a move-away decision, both parents would be encouraged<br /><br />to use reasonableness and to look at the unfortunate situation from the<br /><br />eyes of the child who will certainly want to maintain the stability of<br /><br />the relationship that the child has enjoyed with the parent left behind<br /><br />and with the other members of the family left behind.<br /><br />Auther profile:<br><br /><br />The law firm of <a href="http://www.scottfamilylaw.net/">James D. Scott</a><br /><br />is a <a<br /><br />href="http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=11584">Certified<br /><br />Specialist of Family Law</a><br /><br />and practices Divorce and Family Law in San Diego, CA.http://www.scottfamilylaw.net/   <br /> Article Source : <a href="http://www.article-content-king.com/pro/?member=8012">http://www.article-content-king.com/pro/?member=8012</a></p>