| Loving parents faced with a dispute over child | | | | move away motion so she could take the child with |
| custody have occasionally used tactics that the | | | | her to Arizona. Her timing was excellent, from a kick |
| Courts did not favor. While it is impossible to describe | | | | your opponent when he is down perspective, since |
| all the things that should be avoided when seeking to | | | | the father could not complete the 52 week program |
| secure time with your child(ren), a few examples of | | | | before the move away hearing, and therefore, she |
| what not to do may be helpful. A good divorce | | | | argued under the custody language in the CLETS |
| attorney will counsel their clients that they should | | | | Order which could not be changed until after the 52 |
| focus every argument and tactic on the best interest | | | | week program was completed, she had sole custody |
| of the child(ren). Sometimes parents forget this basic | | | | and father could not show a change in circumstances |
| point, and their over the top tactics have not | | | | to allow him to dispute the sole custody, and |
| worked out very well. | | | | therefore he could not dispute the move away. |
| In Keith R. v. Superior Court (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th | | | | Unfortunately for mother, the Appellate Court ruled |
| 1047, the mother alleged Domestic Violence, got a | | | | that a Domestic Violence Order is not a final custody |
| CLETS Order, and then, while the father still was | | | | determination. Going back to basics, the Appellate |
| working on completing his 52 week | | | | Court wanted an actual weighing of the best |
| battererâs intervention program, filed her | | | | interests of the minor child before the move away. |