Wanting to move away - ex will try and stop me

maisie_cat

When my sister got divorced many years ago she had a relationship for 3 years with a single dad who lived 100 miles away. Neither was prepared to move their children from the area they lived because they both wanted to maintain the relationship the children had with their respective other parent. Eventually the relationship failed, largely because both of them put their children first.

Spendless

I do know of a case where child lived with Dad in Yorkshire and wished to move to Scotland (where Dad was from). Mum went back to court saying that the contact (mid-week) was being broken.

Court ruled that not only could Dad not move to Scotland, he could only move within a 25 mile radius. Contact was to go to half of all school holidays plus alternate weekends. Each year Christmas was to be spent with one parent and New year with the other and the following year the opposite way round.

Just making you aware of something that did happen when a parent wanted to move away and the other objected.

Detroit

Doodles wrote: »

As I am reading it, the OP has thought continued contact is the right thing to do. For the last 2 and a half years (at least) the father is having regular contact. She has not expressed any concern about violence or undesirable behaviour towards their son in this thread. I'm sure she wouldn't allow contact if he had.

While there is no suggestion that the current contact arrangements are harmful to the child, the point of debate is whether they are BEST for the child.

The OP is being accused of selfishness towards her child for considering changing them, with the automatic assumption that a biological relationship supersedes other considerations.

Controversial I know, but in reality, there are countless examples of a child's circumstances being significantly improved by the parent 'trading up' as it were, in partners; and I'm not referring to financial matters, but to attitudes, behaviour, capacity to care etc.

(Seriously, does no one know of a situation where a step parent provides a higher standard of parenting than a natural one?)

As unfair to the biological parent as this may be, when objectively considering the child's best interests, there are many factors to weigh up, part responsibility for the child's existence being just one of them.

Marvel1

Let's say you do move away, would you be happy if for example the child stayed with his dad for the whole 6 weeks during simmer when off school?

FBaby

(Seriously, does no one know of a situation where a step parent provides a higher standard of parenting than a natural one?)

The issue here is that OP doesn't know that it would be the case. How can she make a reasoned decision when she's only had a distant relationship with her son and partner hardly knowing each other, ie. beyond just him spending a few days with him and enjoying some day out.

It's so easy when you're in love and desperate to share your life with that person to assume that because you feel that way now with that person, not only will you continue to do so, but your children will do to.

I don't think anyone would judged OP if she said that her partner was planning to move in with her and child, if he did and it didn't work out, the disruption to the child shouldn't be too traumatic, however, it's a very different situation when OP has agreed to be the one moving with him.

OP was taken to court, so surely if she was so concerned about her son's care with his dad and could have evidenced her worries, the court would not have awarded her ex husband with what is standard visitation rights.

FBaby

Let's say you do move away, would you be happy if for example the child stayed with his dad for the whole 6 weeks during simmer when off school?

That's assuming though that he is able to have his child for 6 weeks which if he works FT is very unlikely.

Fosterdog

Detroit wrote: »

While there is no suggestion that the current contact arrangements are harmful to the child, the point of debate is whether they are BEST for the child.

The OP is being accused of selfishness towards her child for considering changing them, with the automatic assumption that a biological relationship supersedes other considerations.

Controversial I know, but in reality, there are countless examples of a child's circumstances being significantly improved by the parent 'trading up' as it were, in partners; and I'm not referring to financial matters, but to attitudes, behaviour, capacity to care etc.

(Seriously, does no one know of a situation where a step parent provides a higher standard of parenting than a natural one?)

As unfair to the biological parent as this may be, when objectively considering the child's best interests, there are many factors to weigh up, part responsibility for the child's existence being just one of them.

In this case the court has decided that continued and regular contact with his father is what is best for the child. Nobody is disputing that sometimes step parents can be better parents than the biological parent but it doesn't mean they are always better. All too often children are left with a mother who is less fit as a parent than the biological father just because she is the mother, the whole family court system is completely biased towards the mother.

By your argument of step parents being better role models, who's to say that this child wouldn't be better off with his biological father and a step mother instead of with the biological mother and a step father?

We only have the drip fed information from OP that he was ever actually violent and controlling, in access cases such things are fully checked out with the police, CAFCASS and social services, they obviously didn't determine the father to be any risk whatsoever to his child otherwise he would be getting no contact or only supervised contact.

You'd be surprised at how often mothers falsely accuse the father of things like this just to lower contact. That's not saying domestic abuse isn't real and doesn't happen, but there can be regular contact for a long time without problems until suddenly the mother meets somebody new and it's inconvenient to her to keep up the contact arrangements, that's when all sorts of accusations come out. When she needed a local babysitter the father was perfect for the job but when she wants to move on suddenly he's a monster who doesn't deserve to have anything to do with his child/ren.

Detroit

FBaby wrote: »

The issue here is that OP doesn't know that it would be the case. How can she make a reasoned decision when she's only had a distant relationship with her son and partner hardly knowing each other, ie. beyond just him spending a few days with him and enjoying some day out.

It's so easy when you're in love and desperate to share your life with that person to assume that because you feel that way now with that person, not only will you continue to do so, but your children will do to.

I don't think anyone would judged OP if she said that her partner was planning to move in with her and child, if he did and it didn't work out, the disruption to the child shouldn't be too traumatic, however, it's a very different situation when OP has agreed to be the one moving with him.

OP was taken to court, so surely if she was so concerned about her son's care with his dad and could have evidenced her worries, the court would not have awarded her ex husband with what is standard visitation rights.

I agree with much of what you say Fbaby. I also think the advice in your previous post about not rushing is sound.

My point was only to challenge the view that the current arrangements for contact with the father MUST be best for the child, simply because he is the father. There seemed some reluctance on the thread to even consider any other possibility.

If the only viable option is for the OP to move, and the court does not prevent her, it may be best to find another place for herself and her son in the new partners area rather than move into his home.

Detroit

Fosterdog wrote: »

In this case the court has decided that continued and regular contact with his father is what is best for the child. Nobody is disputing that sometimes step parents can be better parents than the biological parent but it doesn't mean they are always better. All too often children are left with a mother who is less fit as a parent than the biological father just because she is the mother, the whole family court system is completely biased towards the mother.

By your argument of step parents being better role models, who's to say that this child wouldn't be better off with his biological father and a step mother instead of with the biological mother and a step father?

We only have the drip fed information from OP that he was ever actually violent and controlling, in access cases such things are fully checked out with the police, CAFCASS and social services, they obviously didn't determine the father to be any risk whatsoever to his child otherwise he would be getting no contact or only supervised contact.

You'd be surprised at how often mothers falsely accuse the father of things like this just to lower contact. That's not saying domestic abuse isn't real and doesn't happen, but there can be regular contact for a long time without problems until suddenly the mother meets somebody new and it's inconvenient to her to keep up the contact arrangements, that's when all sorts of accusations come out. When she needed a local babysitter the father was perfect for the job but when she wants to move on suddenly he's a monster who doesn't deserve to have anything to do with his child/ren.

Fosterdog, I deliberately and carefully made my posts non gender specific, as I was in no way suggesting that this applied only in situations where the mother meets a new partner. In fact, a situation I had in mind when posting concerned a resident father and his new partner as step mother.

I also at no point suggested step parents are ALWAYS better, that would be as ridiculous a generalization as saying biological parents are always better.

Each situation is different, and that is completely my point. No assumptions should be made as to what is best.

As for the contact decision of the court in this situation, is this not the same system that you believe all too often leaves children with a mother less fit to care for them, therefore accepting there can be errors in judgment?

Pollycat

lynseydee wrote: »

I'm currently living an hour away from him as I moved back to be near my family as they helped me out at the time I moved out of the house with no notice.
He's refusing to sell the house and wants to stay where he is.

Have you been through mediation as part of the divorce process?
Whereabouts are you in the divorce?
Have you had any legal advice about the divorce and division of marital assets?