When we argue,he threatens not petition for me ! I need advice..

[himher 634]

Thank you for making my point for me. I thought I was actually wrong but was very pleased to see the final disposition of this case where a USC father appealed a decision to allow his child to be relocated to Australia. After all the legal mumbo jumbo the final disposition is nicely summarized at the bottom of the order:

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with instructions it amend its order permitting Ms. Cooper to move away to Australia with her children to incorporate Ms. Cooper's concession of continuing jurisdiction in the California courts and appropriate sanctions to enforce that concession including at least those described in this opinion

Do you know what "reversed" means? This is a perfect example of a higher court overturning an order by a trial court allowing a USC child to be removed/taken overseas and sending it right back.

The reason it was reversed is because the higher court recognized that the shared custody order is unenforcable in Australia.

Once it gets sent back to the trial courts, the case basically starts over LOL. Please see the reference (in this very document) from (3) other states that also came to the same conclusion.......

As was posted earlier, this is a family and not an immigration matter. Keep researching LOL

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/caapp4th/62/533.html

Edited February 20, 2012 by himher

[Dakine10 5,452]

Thank you for making my point for me.

You asked to see a single case that a judge would allow removal. While the decision was reversed, obviously a judge initially allowed the removal. Here's another case

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/79234

As was posted earlier, this is a family and not an immigration matter. Keep researching LOL

I agree. And while this is interesting, I'm not sure what we are discussing is actually relevant to the original post anymore. Since I don't want to hijack the thread, please PM me if you want to continue the discussion.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Dakine10

[himher 634]

No need. I summarized the appeal/overturn game nicely from the beginning and no further discussion required.

Using custody/child support as a tool to force immigration is equally as and ultimately as futile as using immigration as a tool to force behavior. I condone neither and was simply offering warning on that side as to the very, very high possibility that it could backfire.

This couple needs help not available on this board.

You asked to see a single case that a judge would allow removal. While the decision was reversed, obviously a judge initially allowed the removal. Here's another case

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/79234

I agree. And while this is interesting, I'm not sure what we are discussing is actually relevant to the original post anymore. Since I don't want to hijack the thread, please PM me if you want to continue the discussion.