All American law is written by government specialists who are not likely parents. They assume a very limited set of facts in order to write and then enact laws that apply to different factual events, the problem of one-size-fits-all legislation. For example, these specialists write custody and child support law for children who are born alive. No mother can get an order of custody and support for a fetus in utero. The same applies to a mother who relocates to another jurisdiction. Further, international law fits in by way of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which compels the return of a child improperly removed from a nation where there is an order of custody in effect. New York's Domestic Relations Law §76 defines under what circumstances a court can enter an award of custody. These rules are confusing and the average judge sitting on a relocation case will get it wrong more than half the time. Incidentally, Chapter 170A of the Texas Health & Safety Code prohibits abortions. However, New Mexico permits them.

Strictly stated, no unborn child has a home state until he is born alive. Where he is born alive is the child's "home state," and the courts there can enter an award of custody to the new mother. However, the word "relocation" is a bad word, and a father claiming an illegal relocation can get a lot of mileage out of a judge who does not know the rules. Such a judge can enter immediate-return orders and grant custody to the father despite there not being any legal basis for such an award. New York cannot apply "Tropea" standards that involve relocation to an initial ward of custody where a judge must consider all the circumstances surrounding a child's best interests - again, when there is a child who is born alive.

What does this kasha mean? The asker has a 50/50 chance that she can go to any state she wants and give birth there. In a principled court, there can be no "home state" jurisdiction over a fetus in utero, and any petition by the father in his state must be dismissed. Or, to the contrary, the asker can be ordered back to the father's state either before or after the baby is born, and be subjected to the wrong law being applied by an inept judge. This means there is no predictable outcome that is possible. Moreover, New York law allows a judge to enter an order of custody as paragraph 3 of the DRL §76 states: "Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination." Dad raises enough of a loud squeak, and he gets an order of custody.

Rolling the dice with government's control over a child is a mighty risky proposition. This hypocrisy is highlighted most when a Texas mother merely needs to cross over into New Mexico to terminate her pregnancy. Texas may act to take control over the mother and baby while the next state over can act to eliminate the baby. This inconsistent approach to American children plays a role in each and every case involving children when their parents petition a family court anywhere for any reason especially relocation.

There are no laws that say a married husband and wife must be in the same state, and (as far as I know), there are no laws that prevent one parent from traveling with the children while the other stays home. I know you have something different in mind than just "traveling," but from a legal perspective, as long as you are married, that's all that's going on. You and the kids are going to visit your family. Or, to visit somewhere. You can move anywhere you want, with or without informing your husband. As soon as one of you files for divorce, however, everything changes, the court will get involved, and you may be ordered to return back home. The court also might look badly on your taking the children away from their father and could order more restrictive custody against you. I don't know, but you better be careful. You should, at least, consult with a local family law attorney before you do anything.