First, there is nothing she can do about her ex’s allowing his parents to see the child. However, she whould be requesting through the motion, supervised visitation based on his past record. I would also tell her to inform the attorney to plea for monthly drug testing for BOTH parties.

As for the relocation clause, tell her to never sign such a stipulation and her response to any such petition on the matter should be :

Plaintiff denies all claims of defendent, furthermore;

Plaintiff prays the court order an immediate 730 evaluation regarding the best interest of the child and the environment supplied by Defendent, his relatives and any and all persons who may come in contact with the subject child during custodial periods, furthermore;

Plaintiff prays the court stipulate as to relocation under provisions of California case law In re Marriage of La Musga, 32 Cal.4th 1072, 12 Cal. Rptr.3d 356, 88 P.3d 81 (2004), and dismiss defendent’s motion to include such arbitrary stipulations as not contained in the above decision.

"The noncustodial parent bears the initial burden of showing that the proposed relocation of the children’s residence would cause detriment to the children, requiring a reevaluation of the children’s custody. The likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent’s relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether the move would cause detriment to the children and, when considered in light of all of the relevant factors, may be sufficient to justify a change in custody.

If the noncustodial parent makes such an initial showing of detriment, the court must perform the delicate and difficult task of determining whether a change in custody is in the best interests of the children. In re Marriage of La Musga, 32 Cal.4th 1072, 12 Cal. Rptr.3d 356, 88 P.3d 81 (2004)."

This should give your attorney reason to go back to law school.

My older sister went through this over years and years and is still fighting the battle. At one point she only had her son during the week and one weekend per month because his grandparents had visitation every other weekend and his dad had visitation one weekend a month!

Basically she got remarried and her second husband joined the military. They are now based in Germany. This was a HUGE legal battle. In the end she was allowed to move and has worked out visitation agreements with her ex-husband. Basically she agrees to pay for her son to visit his dad once a year (which means she must pay to fly her son and herself or her husband, or herself, her son, and her 3 year old if her husband can’t get leave.) Any visitations beyond that are my nephew’s dad’s financial responsibility. The grandparent claim was just thrown out the window because it was ridiculous.

Basically if the child has never been in the custody of the grandparents (the grandparents were never the one ‘raising’ the child) then they don’t have a leg to stand on. If they were caregivers for the child then they still probably don’t as long as the mother is fit. If she wants to move and wants to make it easier on herself she might offer an agreement with the grandparents that if she does move she will still have the child visit them on a scheduled basis with a shared expense.

So yes, she can fight, but she might lose. But she isn’t stuck living where she lives. She just may have the extra expense and hassle of having her daughter travel to see good ole’ grandma and grandpa or paying for grandma and grandpa to come see her daughter.