|
Article
Index
A CRITICAL EVALUATION
OF THE OBJECTIONS TO CALIFORNIA CHILD RELOCATION LAW IN THE
LIGHT OF BURGESS AND ITS PROGENY
A PATHFINDER SUBMITTED FOR LL.M PROGRAM AT
ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW BY AKINDELE DAVID AKINTIMOYE
TABLE OF CONTENT:
-
PURPOSE
-
STATUTE AND CASE
LAW
-
CALIFORNIA REFORMULATES THE BURGESS
RULE
-
CRITICISM OF BROWN VS.
YANA
-
SOCIAL SCIENCE AND CALIFORNIA CHILD
RELOCATION LAW.
-
CONCLUSION
-
REFERENCES
Purpose:
The purpose of
this work is to provide a guide on how to find the law on
California child relocation issues after divorce or separation
of parents and to state them accurately. In the process of doing
that, I discovered that many objections have been written on the
current case law by California family law attorneys and forensic
child psychologists and child custody evaluators. I shall
evaluate the pertinent objections that have been made and
comment on the necessity, if any, of changing the law.
Every state in the
United States has its own separate child custody law. To find
the California law applicable to child relocation, I first
looked up a practice guide on family law in California. There
are so many of them written by judges, lawyers and professors to
provide guidance to attorneys and other professionals who are
involved in family law matters such as child custody and
visitation litigation. One of such practice guides is a textbook
called California Family Law, Practice Guide by Rutter Group. I
then looked up its table of content and index to research the
topic. Please note that this treatise can be accessed at
www.lexisnexis.com in an electronic format.
Click here to read the whole article. PDF
|
