NCP's do not have "standing."

This is a second type of case showing that NCP's do not have a legal right to even file due to not having an interest in their own children's lives...because of a "standing" requirement.

If only we could get some sovereign case law...

Eric

Divorced father without custody not entitled to hearing

PAUL ELIASAssociated PressSAN FRANCISCO -

A divorced father isn't entitled to a court hearing to prevent his ex-wife with sole custody of their 14-year-old son from moving to another state, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In the unanimous decision, the state high court said Anthony Yana presented no initial evidence that his ex-wife's move from San Luis Obispo to Las Vegas would irreparably harm his son Cameron.

A trial court judge in 2003 denied Yana's attempt to gain joint custody of Cameron to stop his ex-wife's move with her new family. The judge also denied Yana's request for a hearing on the matter where he intended to argue that his son would suffer in Las Vegas because of that city's high crime and school dropout rates.
"Like the trial court, we conclude this was insufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing given the record as a whole," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the entire court.
Yana conceded that his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, did not intend to move to deprive him of visitation rights or that the move would traumatize Cameron any more than other such "move away" divorce cases.

"There was no issue of any bad faith on Brown's part, and no concern expressed that she might use the relocation to limit Yana's contact with Cameron," Baxter wrote.

Brown's attorney, Jeffrey Doeringer, said the ruling clears up an unsettled area of divorce law where many judges were automatically granting requests for hearings that were expensive and emotionally taxing on children who had to testify.

"The cost of such litigation was very significant," Doeringer said. "This shows that noncustodial parents will need some juice behind their claims to warrant a hearing."

Yana's lawyer could not be reached for comment.
email thisprint thisreprint or license this

Your review of that article completely misses the boat.

The article and the case have nothing to do with the legal issue of "standing." Instead, the Court determined that an evidentiary hearing was not required if the person seeking to prevent the move did not demonstrate a prima facie case as to why the relocation should be denied.

The standard (which in and of itself is wrong) is whether the move would cause irreparable harm. That standard is reduced if teh parties share custody. Irreparable harm acannot be shown by simple general disagreement with the new area where the person will move. It must be an endangerment issue specific to the child.

[David Merrill]

Dear Zander;


I agree with your first post here. Welcome, (whether I agree with you or not). The husband above has standing in the court but has just been denied a hearing.

Unfortunately this probably testifies to the modern streamlining and pruning of parental rights to expedite the court system/maching in the State of XXXXX. You must convince a judge to even hear the matter in the request for the hearing.

But speaking to Eric's intended point: Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph Vining is all about standing in judicio.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[charlesa6]

Zander, welcome to the forum!

[wargamez102]

...from http://www.Krightsradio.com

Heard they just obtained web forum status, and I think that I will check em' out... interesting bunch!

I had read a longer article on this subject that I posted, but it was too long to post here.

If you are taking the information only from the article presented, you are correct. But, the longer one and an investigation into this case, will reveal that the NCP does not have standing to pursue his case.

I only posted it to show that this is a second case of recent attempt that bars NCP's (mostly men) to pursue their rightful parenting position by most thoughts outside the legal arena, but not per their law...in addition to wanting someone to show me where and how sovereign law has been succesful in cases like these. Heck! I'd like to see ANY case that has been successful utilizing sovereign law as espoused on this site.

Eric

[David Merrill]

Thanks for explaining that. It makes more sense now.

[wargamez102]

Code: sign of the times

Give Me What I Want And I'll Go Away...