In this case the best interests of the children come into play with a myriad of voices. Teachers could substitute other cases that they know about in order to make similar points.
Gomez v. Gomez
In this case the plaintiff is a Hispanic and is just about to finish his Ph.D. dissertation in New York City. The defendant, a European woman, is pregnant with second child and wants quick changes. She makes, what seems to the plaintiff, unreasonable monetary demands. To make things worse, the family is supposed to go to Latin America in order for the child to be born. They had agreed before marriage to do this whenever a child was to be born because they planned to live in that part of the world permanently, after completion of degree. The marriage is not strong enough to survive this situation. The defendant refuses to go to Latin America and leaves the house and goes to another state. After three days the plaintiff finds her pregnant wife at her mother’s house with her first child. She refuses to let the daughter go with father alleging that he is going to take her away to another country. A battle begins: the plaintiff tries to compromise in order to bring the family together again. The wife refuses to let father see the child freely.
The father, who has been working part time at her daughter’s nursery school, and who has been the primary caretaker of the child, takes wife to court in the new state, giving up jurisdiction in New York, out of deference for pregnant wife. He has two lawyers who encourage him to get legal representation for children.
30
Judge allows plaintiff to take child to New York, from Monday to Wednesday, and weekends, but gives custody to wife. Visitation rights and the court situation get wife very angry and chances for reconciliation fade away. She provokes husband again and again. The first day of school for first child, on a Monday, according to the plaintiff, pregnant wife fakes falling on the sidewalk when plaintiff was taking daughter from her premises for visitation. Family comes out and accuses him of pushing her. Police comes and take father and daughter into custody inside the officers’ car. After this mother refused to allow child to go anywhere with father and visitation is imposed by her to premises. By this time plaintiff has stopped working on his degree and is holding two jobs. Sudden changes of visitation force him to maintain two apartments, with two sets of bills, in two separate states. He is not allowed to take her daughter out of the town where she lives.
To summarize all, in ruling of the divorce the plaintiff is not allowed to take her daughter out of the town, the state, or the country. Second daughter has been born already and visitation rights with her are to be only in premises of the mother. The Honorable Judge ruled that plaintiff had to deliver passport every time he went for visitation for more than twenty four hours. At this time, plaintiff is holding five jobs in order to support all expenses. He has to pay all lawyers fees. And is order to pay, what he considers to be, an exorbitant amount of money for alimony, child support, insurance, tuition for school of children. The reason for this is that by virtue of his education he is considered capable of earning more money than what he gets in his five jobs.
Ten years after all this happened, and after several court appearances initiated by ex-wife in search for more money, the children feel that their best interests were not taking into consideration by the court. They want to go to Latin America to visit. They know their father well and think that the system has failed them. They believe that their father will never kidnap them. In one of the appearances judge ordered to allow children to travel in the United States, but they are not allowed to go to Puerto Rico because it is not considered to be the United States in this case.
