Read full transcript Tap to expand
Introduction & Case Overview
Narrator / Intro: Today kicks off our first-ever three-part series on one of the hardest questions family courts face: What happens when one parent wants or needs to move away with the child? Carlos Tavares: Mom shouldn't be rewarded for sneaking away in the night with the child. Tim Miranda: The best interest of this child—a 3-week-old newborn—with mom is all you need to know. Narrator / Intro: This is Split Decisions, where veteran family law attorneys go head-to-head over the toughest custody disputes facing today's families. Every trial has two sides; which one wins, you be the judge. Over the next three episodes, we'll debate three very different moveaway cases: a military transfer, a career opportunity across the country, and today, a mother gives birth then disappears overnight with her newborn to move in with her parents hundreds of miles away without telling the baby's father. Was she protecting herself and her child, or did she unlawfully cut a father out of the child's life before it even began? Carlos Tavares: I'm Carlos Tavares, and I represent the father. Tim Miranda: I'm Tim Miranda, representing the mother. And after the debate, we'll have a discussion and give you some insight into how we make these arguments and what we really think about these types of court-ordered measures. Let's make our case. Father's Opening Argument (Carlos Tavares)
Carlos Tavares: All right, good morning, Your Honor. Today we're here on father's RFO, and I've read mother's responsive pleadings and we'll address some of that as well. But the bottom line is quite simply: the parties dated, got pregnant, broke off their relationship, and she then gave birth. Father has been participatory in the entire process. So while they stopped dating, he was still supportive of mother, went to all her appointments, the sonograms, was in the hospital every day, and for two weeks was a participating parent with this child. So child's born, he's there every day, he's bonding with the child, and then up and out of nowhere, mother just leaves and he gets a text saying, "Hey, I'm safe, I'm in Stockton with my parents." So we're here today because father wants that to be undone. He wants to continue being participatory in the child's life as he always has been. And mother simply moving away because she now states she was having a hard time says, "My client wasn't supportive." That's simply highly in dispute. Working 60 hours a week—that's not really true; he did work and has to maintain finances, but the reality is he was there participatory at every step of the way. And ironically, they had discussed ever since she became pregnant, even though they weren't together, that they would work together on parenting. And then with no communication whatsoever, she just takes the child out of town and lets him know, "Hey, I'm staying up here now." So there's a couple of problems with this. We want the court today to order that the child be returned to San Diego, and I'll discuss my client's availability to receive that child in a moment. Clearly, we want the court to make some custody orders regarding dad having equal time with mom. Obviously, we seek joint legal custody; there's a Voluntary Declaration of Paternity (VDOP), so paternity should not be an issue, and he'll clearly stipulate to that at the onset and fill out and execute the forms necessary to make that happen. And we want the court to make a parenting schedule that continues father's active participation in the child's life. Now, mom in her pleadings made a lot of accusations against dad regarding his working, inferring that he was somehow not available. She doesn't dispute that he was there all the time. She does sort of dispute maybe it was less than 90 minutes or whatever, but that's a dispute. Dad has gone through great lengths: he's created a nursery in his house, purchased cribs, bottles, diapers, everything. Mom was aware of all of this and encouraging, so he's done this. He now qualifies as a parent through his employment for 12 weeks of leave. Dad's very clear in his moving papers: "I do work more than a 40-hour week, but I have the ability not to and I will, and I will amend my schedule because I have that sort of control over my employment to provide a more reasonable schedule that can accommodate a mutual parenting schedule with mom." Mom shouldn't be rewarded for this thief sneaking away in the night with the child, making it all about her needs when it's really about what's best for the child. So I don't want to downplay mom's needs, but they shouldn't be the primary focus of this, ignoring what's best for the child. Now, I understand mom is alleging that she has postpartum depression or postpartum anxiety. I think that's all the more reason not to let her run away and sequester herself behind closed doors hundreds of miles away. All the more reason for dad to be present on a frequent and continuing basis so we can deal with that in its own course. She wasn't very clear if at all that she was having a hard time other than the standard things that come with a pregnancy and a birth—you're going to be tired, up late, feeding, with a certain amount of exhaustion built into that formula. Mother never communicated that her exhaustion was at a higher level, because father has already arranged for a nanny to help and had someone lined up; had he been aware, he could have taken active steps to address what she is now alleging is her basis for the move. So on that, we would ask the court to enter the paternity orders that dad is the parent (he signed the VDOP and stipulates to that), that the parties should have joint legal custody, and that the child be returned to San Diego so we can work out financials. My client has a good job and has never been hit up for financial issues. We're just left with mom who in the night took the child and went hundreds of miles away, and is now claiming to have postpartum. Thank you, Your Honor. Mother's Opening Argument (Tim Miranda)
Tim Miranda: Thank you, Your Honor. If my client had left during the day, would that have made a difference? This came to the court on the back of an ex parte application; there's no emergency here. There are no facts for an emergency that were pleaded, no Family Code 3064 reason to do anything. And what would you do, because there are no operative custody orders today? My client left to another part of this state with the child; she has a right to do that, and there's no order that prevented her from leaving. What we do agree with—my client would agree to stipulate to paternity; there is a VDOP, so that's not in dispute and one issue is resolved. What I heard was a lot of mother-victim bashing. She's got postpartum anxiety—who diagnosed her with that? So what, she's got a three-week-old infant, so maybe she does have some residual from childbirth. But we're going to bash her then and say this is her fault, that she's got anxiety and shouldn't sequester, so she has to come back? Father is supportive—I heard that a lot. Is that supportive, to insult her and kick her when she's down? We know why she left: her family is up in Stockton, where she has a support base. And father was abusive; she believes he was abusive, which is why she texted him, "We're safe, we're away from you." If she was abducting or absconding with the child, why did she text him anyway instead of leaving and never being heard from again? This court is not a punitive court; this is family court. If you want punitive measures, you're in the wrong building. "The thief rewarded"—there is no reward. The child is 3 weeks old, and where would the child go—50/50 with father? Maybe if he moves up to Stockton, that would be an opportunity when it's right, but he hasn't had 50/50 in the 3 weeks since birth. He has been working, and that's great—he needs to keep working because now he has a mouth to feed since we stipulated to paternity. I don't understand why this would ever be an emergency or why the court would think it's best to extract the child and have the child be with father. How is he going to feed the kid? Where does the breast milk come from—is he going to squeeze really hard? What are we going to do about the fact that father outfitted his house and bought bottles? Great—if he goes to Stockton, then he's going to have those things that he can pack in the U-Haul and be an appropriate father. But right now today, the child's best interest—a 3-week-old newborn with mom—that's all you need to know. Rebuttals
Carlos Tavares: Your Honor, alleging abuse to cover up what mother did in swiping the child and heading to Stockton is a bit of a stretch when it's really just what she's doing to try and justify her bad behavior. We do have federal statutes prohibiting kidnapping, though that's not generally the nexus of the case, but it really is the essence of what's happened. Mother's move was to exclude father from parenting without so much as a text or communication. The only thing stopping her from returning to San Diego is potentially finances, and dad has already registered a willingness to provide additional nanny-type support. Saying "he's abusive" is convenient with not a single ounce of evidence to support it. We ask that the court order mom and child to be returned, and meet and confer on financial issues and whether mom's move was legitimate or really just to divest dad from parenting. If it's really driven by postpartum depression, all the more reason to get that worked out before moving kids in and out of counties. Thank you, Your Honor. Tim Miranda: Now my client has depression, postpartum depression, and she's a kidnapper. She's here in court today appearing virtually, of course—how many kidnappers show up in court when they've kidnapped a child? Maybe he should have spent more time working on the relationship; if keeping his ex-girlfriend around was so important, maybe he should have been a better mate. But I don't care, because that's not the thrust of the issue. It's the child: the child is with mother, the child is safe, and there is no basis today to order that child back to San Diego. Thank you, Your Honor. Candid Counsel (Post-Debate Analysis)
Carlos Tavares & Tim Miranda: Legal Advantage: Tim notes that Carlos faces a significant disadvantage because the child is only three weeks old and there was no existing custody order in place. Technically, the mother did nothing legally wrong by moving, even if it might be perceived as morally questionable. Role of Family Court: Family court exists to assess the best interests of the child, not to punish parents for moving. Developmental Needs: Judges struggle with moveaway cases, but for a newborn, courts heavily weigh the bonding and physiological needs between mother and infant (such as breastfeeding and postpartum support). Mother's Support Network: It is a common and normal human occurrence for a new mother who cannot work to return to her parents for support. Father's Strategy: The attorneys agree that the father's strongest strategy—if feasible—would be to temporarily or permanently relocate to Stockton to establish active parenting time nearby. Interstate Jurisdictional Issues: If a parent moves across state lines without a custody order, cases become far more complicated and costly under interstate jurisdictional laws, often requiring multiple attorneys across jurisdictions. Impact of Existing Orders: Had a formal custody order been in place prior to the move, the court would actively enforce it, giving the father substantial leverage to compel the child's return. Conclusion: The hosts invite viewers to vote in the comments on who won the debate and subscribe for upcoming episodes covering military relocation and career-driven moveaway battles.
