Custody agreements can dictate residency

This week, I continue to look at common issues regarding child custody.

Absent an agreement between the parties, a relocation dispute may arise if the noncustodial parent objects to an intended move based on its potential effect on custody and visitation. When disputes like this come up, courts are often left to decide whether child custody relocation is in the best interest of the child and, if not, they can require the custodial parent to remain in the state.

Many states only allow child custody relocation if there is an agreement in place that contains a provision expressly consenting to relocation and to a proposed visitation schedule. This typically takes place during the original child custody proceedings and is usually contained within a clause in the child custody plan.

Some states require a custodial parent to give notice in writing to the noncustodial parent of an intended move within a specified time period. Some states determine whether to allow a child custody relocation based on distance. For example, if the new location is within a certain distance, or within the same state, a court may factor that in its determination.

In addition to looking to the best interest of a child, some states require the relocating parent to provide a statement describing a good faith reason for the move especially where it would disrupt the child’s school schedule or emotional and social stability.

Good faith reasons for a move could include the opportunity to live in an area with a better cost of living, live closer to family who can help with child care responsibilities, start a new job or continue one’s education. Conversely, a court may object to a move based on bad faith reasons, such as wanting to move far away from an ex-spouse in revenge or retaliation.

Some states may also consider the noncustodial parent’s reasons for objecting to child custody relocation. For example, if an objecting parent is one who did not regularly exercise his or her visitation rights or who was otherwise an absent parent, a court may likely find in the custodial parent’s favor and allow the move.

Jan. 23. Traffic: The subject figures (incorrectly) that it’s acceptable to travel 83 mph in a 55-mph zone at 3:39 a.m. in the area of Veterans Memorial Drive and Boulder City Parkway.

Drugs: The vehicle is parked the wrong way and the driver is driving on a revoked license and can’t seem to keep his pants on at 10:45 a.m. in the 500 block of Avenue G.

Thought for the day: Not saying the use of drugs is unintelligent but it shows a clear case of bad luck when it comes to thinking.

Jan. 24. Family disturbance: The male half and the son are not in agreement about the treatment of mom at 12:36 p.m. in the 500 block of Fir Street.

Minors in consumption: The caller reports multiple young-looking subjects that appear to be under the influence at 5:11 p.m. in the area of Buchanan Boulevard at Interstate 11.

Thought for the day: Parents are contacted and the subjects are turned over to their care and custody. Sometimes that’s punishment enough.

Jan. 25. Theft: The caller states they have surveillance video of a theft in progress at 1:33 p.m. in the 700 block of Nevada Way.

DUI: The impaired driver doesn’t want to go through the sobriety rigmarole and gets to visit the crossbar hotel the hard way at 11 p.m. in the 100 block of Ville Drive.

Thought for the day: All tests are voluntary but come with consequences.

Jan. 26. Destruction of property: The love may be gone but the vehicle gets the brunt of it at 6:35 a.m. in the area of Wyoming Street and Avenue K.

DUI: The traffic stop takes a distinct turn when the driver is wearing a familiar “perfume” at 9:51 p.m. in the area of the overpass and U.S. Highway 93.

Thought for the day: It’s not playoff time yet but the drinking and fighting are in full-blown training mode.

Jan. 27. Family disturbance: The family dynamics are not working and the kids are confused at 7:37 a.m. in the 600 block of Mount Blackburn Lane.

DUI: The suspect has eluded police numerous times after incidents involving the ex, but not today at 4:33 p.m. in the area of the south city limits on U.S. Highway 93.

Thought for the day: You may get away with misdeeds for a minute but not forever.

Jan. 28. Wanted: The nature of the call began as a prowler, became a break-in, escalated to obstructing an officer and ended with a warrant arrest at 10:22 a.m. in the 900 block of Adams Boulevard.

Disturbance: Reports come in about a “chubby” and a “skinny” suspect throwing rocks at a residence at 6:04 p.m. in the 1100 block of Endora Way.

Thought for the day: This is a good example of how a civil eviction becomes a criminal matter.

Jan. 29. Destruction of property: Now the rock throwing has escalated to damaging property at 7:51 a.m. in the 600 block of Sixth Street.

Auto theft: An enclosed trailer has been taken by unknown persons at 9:39 a.m. in the 1500 block of Boulder City Parkway.

Thought for the day: There are some young folks who are about to learn the age-old lesson about throwing stones. I hope they have jobs to pay for damage.

Call of the week. Found property: The elderly resident is ecstatic about Boulder City Police Department’s efforts to get his phone back to him after it was found at a local park. Dispatch used the internal phone book to contact a family member, who advised the owner’s name and address. Officers attempted to deliver it but the subject was out searching and found the message on the door when he returned home shortly thereafter. The two were reunited and the resident was relieved to have it back safely at 1:45 p.m. Jan. 28 in the area of Veterans’ Memorial Park.

Tina Ransom is a dispatcher with Boulder City Police Department. She is coordinator of the Boulder City Citizen’s Academy.