Court Ruling in Custody Relocation Cases

The California Supreme Court has dealt a crushing blow to the rights of children to have their fathers involved in their lives (“Justices Ease Relocation of Children in Divorce Cases,” April 16). By so greatly expanding the powers of the parent who has primary physical custody, this ruling will surely do the following:

It will impair the abilities of parents to make appropriate choices when taking initial steps toward separation as their marriage comes to an end. Both parents would and should be reluctant to move out of the family home, knowing that this point is where the initial status quo is set with regard to primary physical custody. It will also ensure the exponential expansion of the number of bloody custody battles waged in the family courts. Finally, and most tragically, it will ensure the propagation of fatherless homes and children.

This ruling comes in a state where the percentage of time a parent (read: father) spends with his/her children is directly used in the calculation of child support to be paid. I will leave it up to readers to ponder the possible effects that this ruling, in concert with current child support laws, will have in terms of a child’s ability to have an ongoing, day-to-day relationship with his/her father.

GEORGE BULLOCK

Los Feliz

* “The best interest of the child” should not mean the best interest of the mother or the father. There is ample evidence now that indicates children need the influence of both parents in their development even though they might grow up in a divorced environment.

The ruling easing move-away in divorce cases tears at the balance of this relationship, and will adversely affect our children and society. A mother should not be allowed to move a child away from the father, and the father should not be allowed to move a child away from the mother. When we finally understand and recognize this concept, we will find in our society well-adjusted adults.

GENE DORIO MD

President, Mr. Mom

Inglewood

* Regardless which parent should have custody of the children, the justices laid down some serious law. Women still get physical custody of children most of the time.

This decision says no matter how many Little Leagues Dad coached, PTA meetings he attended or whether he waived a custody fight in favor of a visitation agreement, Mom can move to Eureka and only have to prove it’s not to “frustrate the father’s contact.” With this decision, the only “notice” Dad is likely to get is the new address to send the support checks.

ROBERT C. UNETIC, attorney

Santa Ana