Tweet
Hudson:
I apologize fo the long post. She has been in the country since March, 2004 and she came without a visa (Canadian citizen). She had been in the country a long time (20 years ago)
The marriage deteriorated the moment she got her conditional. She wanted to take our child to Canada for his nephew's wedding; I refused since he had just started a new pre-school and had had ear and adenoid surgery. She said she was going to take him nevertheless. The only way to prevent her from taking him from the country was the automatic restraining order that comes with the petition.
We had had earlier conversations about the imminent breakdown of the marriage. I offered to file the I-751 (through her relatives, the Church and a court approved mediator), if she agreed to split physical custody. Her response was that the court would award her sole legal and physical custody and that she did not need me for immigration purposes.
3 weeks after my filing the divorce petition, and after stealing my wallet, passport and causing $1000 worth of damage to my separate property house, she kidnapped the child and headed to a shelter, She filed a TRO, which was denied by the family court. She is claiming child abuse in the TRO, which was invalidated by the police, the child's doctor and the pre-school. She is also asking for sole legal and physical custody, and is likely to be claiming physical and mental cruelty as the basis for that. In that scenario, the family court will rule on the validity of the claim,
In terms of a "different standard for immigrants" California Family Code § 3048(b)(1) contains the following factors that a court must consider in determining whether there is a risk of abduction: whether a party has previously taken, enticed away, kept, withheld, or concealed a child in violation of the right of custody or of visitation of a person; whether a party has previously threatened to take, entice away, keep, withhold, or conceal a child in violation of the right of custody or of visitation of a person; whether a party lacks strong ties to the state; whether a party has strong familial, emotional, or cultural ties to another state or country, including foreign citizenship, which is considered only if evidence exists in support of another factor specified in the section; whether a party has no financial reason to stay in the state, including whether the party is unemployed, is able to work anywhere, or is financially independent; whether a party has engaged in planning activities that would facilitate the removal of a child from the state, including quitting a job, selling a primary residence, terminating a lease, closing a bank account, liquidating other assets, hiding or destroying documents, applying for a passport, applying for a birth certificate or school or medical records, or purchasing airplane or other travel tickets, with consideration given to whether a party is carrying out a safety plan to flee from domestic violence; whether a party has a history of a lack of parental cooperation or child abuse, or there is substantiated evidence that a party has perpetrated domestic violence; and whether a party has a criminal record.
This is the argument that we are asking for supervised visitation, and joint legal custody. The best interests of the child is the status quo, which is to continue to stay in California, which cannot be guaranteed when he is with her, given the fact that she has already demonstrated her penchant for kidnapping; further the enforcement arm of the Family Court, the DA considers her enough of a flight risk that they made her surrender her passport (which they would not have asked of an USC). Also, her current argument is that she has permanent resident status in the country; other than using VAWA, that will not happen until post divorce decree and that said decree will not happen until the custody is determined. If she does suddenly have status, we will ask that argue that she got it by falsely claiming VAWA, which the court will already have proven unfounded...
I will be in full compliance with the family court decisions – I live here.
By definition, once I filed for divorce, filing I-751 would be perjury. There is adequate evidence – from unbiased third parties – that I offered to do the I-751 so the concept of "using immigration status as a control mechanism" is just nor the case.
I apologize fo the long post. She has been in the country since March, 2004 and she came without a visa (Canadian citizen). She had been in the country a long time (20 years ago)
The marriage deteriorated the moment she got her conditional. She wanted to take our child to Canada for his nephew's wedding; I refused since he had just started a new pre-school and had had ear and adenoid surgery. She said she was going to take him nevertheless. The only way to prevent her from taking him from the country was the automatic restraining order that comes with the petition.
We had had earlier conversations about the imminent breakdown of the marriage. I offered to file the I-751 (through her relatives, the Church and a court approved mediator), if she agreed to split physical custody. Her response was that the court would award her sole legal and physical custody and that she did not need me for immigration purposes.
3 weeks after my filing the divorce petition, and after stealing my wallet, passport and causing $1000 worth of damage to my separate property house, she kidnapped the child and headed to a shelter, She filed a TRO, which was denied by the family court. She is claiming child abuse in the TRO, which was invalidated by the police, the child's doctor and the pre-school. She is also asking for sole legal and physical custody, and is likely to be claiming physical and mental cruelty as the basis for that. In that scenario, the family court will rule on the validity of the claim,
In terms of a "different standard for immigrants" California Family Code § 3048(b)(1) contains the following factors that a court must consider in determining whether there is a risk of abduction: whether a party has previously taken, enticed away, kept, withheld, or concealed a child in violation of the right of custody or of visitation of a person; whether a party has previously threatened to take, entice away, keep, withhold, or conceal a child in violation of the right of custody or of visitation of a person; whether a party lacks strong ties to the state; whether a party has strong familial, emotional, or cultural ties to another state or country, including foreign citizenship, which is considered only if evidence exists in support of another factor specified in the section; whether a party has no financial reason to stay in the state, including whether the party is unemployed, is able to work anywhere, or is financially independent; whether a party has engaged in planning activities that would facilitate the removal of a child from the state, including quitting a job, selling a primary residence, terminating a lease, closing a bank account, liquidating other assets, hiding or destroying documents, applying for a passport, applying for a birth certificate or school or medical records, or purchasing airplane or other travel tickets, with consideration given to whether a party is carrying out a safety plan to flee from domestic violence; whether a party has a history of a lack of parental cooperation or child abuse, or there is substantiated evidence that a party has perpetrated domestic violence; and whether a party has a criminal record.
This is the argument that we are asking for supervised visitation, and joint legal custody. The best interests of the child is the status quo, which is to continue to stay in California, which cannot be guaranteed when he is with her, given the fact that she has already demonstrated her penchant for kidnapping; further the enforcement arm of the Family Court, the DA considers her enough of a flight risk that they made her surrender her passport (which they would not have asked of an USC). Also, her current argument is that she has permanent resident status in the country; other than using VAWA, that will not happen until post divorce decree and that said decree will not happen until the custody is determined. If she does suddenly have status, we will ask that argue that she got it by falsely claiming VAWA, which the court will already have proven unfounded...
I will be in full compliance with the family court decisions – I live here.
By definition, once I filed for divorce, filing I-751 would be perjury. There is adequate evidence – from unbiased third parties – that I offered to do the I-751 so the concept of "using immigration status as a control mechanism" is just nor the case.
Comment