Opinion ID: 2181602
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The mother's Motion for Temporary Relocation.

Text: In January 2000, the mother filed a Motion for Temporary Relocation, requesting that she and Myriam be permitted to move to Portland, Oregon, because the mother's own mother and stepfather (Myriam's maternal grandmother and step-grandfather) were about to return to their home in that city. A hearing was held on the mother's motion on February 17, 2000. The father filed an opposition to the motion, but he did not appear at the hearing; he later explained that his plane from Dubai was delayed. The mother took the stand and described her extensive family connections and support in the Portland area, where she had lived since she was three years old. Although the motion was styled as one for temporary relocation, the mother made it clear during her testimony that she proposed to live in Portland indefinitely. At the February 17 hearing, the father's attorney, who had previously filed a motion to withdraw, elected not to cross-examine the mother. The attorney did ask the court to take into consideration [that] Oregon is a substantially longer distance from the District of Columbia than Fayetteville, North Carolina, and also [to] take into consideration the visitation. Counsel pointed out that, under the prior order, the mother was to bring Myriam to Philadelphia, where the father was apparently residing at the time, and she inquired how the court intends to deal with that issue. The judge responded that I'm going to vacate it, evidently referring to the visitation order, but she provided no further elaboration. [4] As events turned out, this cryptic exchange between court and counsel has resulted in the end of all contact between father and daughter for more than four years. The judge formally ruled, inter alia, that plaintiff may temporarily relocate to Portland, Oregon[,] with the minor child, M[y]riam Sampson, and that all previously scheduled visitation is hereby suspended. A brief written order implementing these rulings (Order No. 1) was issued later on the same day.