Making it work involves coming to an agreement with the other parent.
Taking a job and moving the child(ren) some great distance without the means to facilitate visitation with the other parent, or leaving it to other parent to make their own arraingments is kind of a fucked up thing to do barring some special circumstance.
It did say something about states too for the jurisdiction reason stated and because by law I have to live within the state while I have my job. It’s not an option for my to leave the state.
The mileage was also needed. At the time we lived about 2 miles from the Pennsylvania border. Pennsylvania is big. If all she needed was approval to move into Pennsylvania that could mean a couple miles into Bucks county or it could mean moving 300 miles to western Pennsylvania.
In our case, this was very similar to the situation, with some differences. The judge asked the kids what they wanted, with the predictable answer that they wanted to remain home, which meant with dad. The dad part wasn’t the primary deciding factor for them, the home part was (school, friends, extended family, etc).
The difference was we had the financial resources to handle flights for visits. Mom flew back frequently. Travel for the kids was school breaks and summer travel to mom, with holidays (Christmas, Thanksgiving) traded every other year. Eventually, dad remarried, to a troublesome individual, and the kids chose to relocate to live with mom. Then the travel was back to dad instead.
All of these arrangements were agreed to in court, and adjusted over time by the judge.
Yes, here’s a story about just that happening in TX.
Not sure what the problem is. The custodial parent has a choice - career or family. Surprisingly, many people have similar choices, just not as stark. It’s what happens when you have split priorities. Why should one parent suffer because the other wants to change things? The one wanting the change should have to make the choice.
Sometimes life isn’t fair.
Millions of children are being raised in circumstances that are nowhere near ideal. Having two parents acting in concert improves the chances of a favorable result, but for most kids, they will just have to deal with imperfect upbringing.
If you double the number of households in which they are being raised, you are doubling the chances that in one of the other, they will be emotionally abused, neglected, or at the very least, misdirected, especially if the two parents are manipulating the children to spite each other. No, children do not need two parents, especially if there is a tangible acrimony between them. More often, a child needs one parent able to raise the child in a secure home without routine disruptions and an atmosphere of tension.
Parents who genuinely care about the welfare of the child will quietly step aside and yield custody to the parent in the best position to give the child consistent and uninterrupted care. A parent who say “I want my child” is starting out from a position of selfishness, and no good will come from that.
Not saying that the case with you, but parents can be oblivious. A childhood friend of mine did the same thing and he hated it. His parents were “shocked” to learn that this was the case, recently. I mean, I knew then. As did all his other friends. And their parents, plus teachers. But not his.
The article states that Mom agreed to a temporary move for Dad’s career. 2 years became 3, then 4, then another 14 if she wanted to be with her kids after the divorce. The whole reason she was in TX was for her now-ex’s career, not hers.
So I’ll ask your (bolded) question back to you; why should Mom suffer because Dad decided to change things & not move back to the NE?
There are valid arguments on both sides; just glad that situation doesn’t affect me.
For the people I know who’ve done it, they mostly make reasonable decisions, and that has included sacrifices on all parts. One friend moved to the UK from Finland and his son lived with him here, going home for every school vacation (school vacations are much more frequent in the UK than the US, so this was a week or more every six weeks or so). That meant my friend missed out on all the fun stuff you do with your kids when they’re off school - weekends aren’t the same - but his ex also missed out on seeing their son every day. But for work and personal reasons the move was important, his ex couldn’t move with him, and there was no way they could continue as a couple, so both agreed to it. My friend had to pay all the travel costs. I’m not sure if courts were involved but since both parents agreed they wouldn’t have done anything except get out their rubber stamp.
Another friend has done an even more drastic move, from Texas, funnily enough, to England, but they seem to manage with school holidays too and in this case the split was more amicable so the parent in America stay with them when she visits too. Again it means the UK-based parent misses out on some of the fun stuff but it wasn’t just for job reasons but residency reasons that my friend couldn’t continue to live in the US once they were separated.
Isn’t that mostly what the article is saying, that sometimes life just isn’t fair? It’s just one person’s account of the law’s effect on her. Nowhere does she say that the law should be changed. Though this sentence, if true:
Means that perhaps the father wasn’t blocking a move for purely paternal reasons. Especially since in his addendum to the article (which I’m glad to see - he should have right of reply) he also had to refuse relocations in order to stay in Texas where his children were, even though the mother didn’t want to stay there either, and they’d relocated several times before, so it’s not as if the father had shown that he was unwilling to move states before the divorce.
Still, it’s just one writer giving her own experience and TBH ISTM a little too personal a subject to write about on the New York Post. Her newly amicable relationship with her ex might not be so amicable now and even though their kids are adults it still helps if their parents get along.
(I’m assuming we’re well out of GQ territory now btw).
Me too.
Well, when two “adults” can’t agree and have to get a court order, then they should be prepared for the consequences. I’m sure if both parents had petitioned the court - “we both want to go to New York” the court would have to agree. (I hope the court at least is that much of an adult).
But nothing brings out the nasty child in people like a divorce - except maybe an inheritance fight. Despite what the article says, presumably one or other parent refused to let the other move.
I don’t know how courts work with custody arrangements, and haven’t had to worry about that since I was 6 - but I presume two actual adults could come to a mutual understanding without court orders and sign a contract. (I hope that is the situation today… who knows).
The father said he turned down relocation options in his career - did he offer them to the ex first? (“They want me to move to Philly. Do you want to relocate to Philly too?”) It doesn’t sound like he did, so presumably he either liked sticking it to her, or was waiting for her to blink. She (I really hope) always had the option of abandoning any custody rights and leaving the kids with him. Was that what he was looking for? Or was he just enjoying torturing her? The discussion “we could move to a different state if you agree to move to the same place and same arrangement” never came up? Or did she turn him down? “No, I don’t want to move to San Diego” If you are picky then you get what you get.
methinks this story is deeper than what we see.
I know lots of parents who have moved a long ways away and are lucky to see their kids twice a year.
One of the ladies I worked with was constantly arguing with her teenage daughter. She’d split up when the kid was 2, and the girl visited her father 800 miles away for maybe a month every year. One day when she was about 15 and got particularly mouthy, the daughter said she wanted to go live with her father. Mother said “fine, call him and tell him that.” She lasted less than a week before she came home. Daddy had remarried (for the third time) and the new stepmother could not have children and deeply resented the fact that she was looking after a reminder of her husbands past life. I don’t really know the guy, I only met him briefly. Maybe he was a self-centered jerk like my co-worker said; maybe the problem was as much her as him, she could be snippy too. Maybe he really liked his kids. But, the fact is he got to see very little of his daughters because he lived 800 miles away. Life happens.
I very much got the impression that she would not have agreed to a move anywhere except NY. I could totally see the person who wrote that essay saying “You want to move to Philly? Nope, you made the kids stay in Texas even though I wanted to move so now I’m going to keep them here even though you want to move.”
Yes… methinks this story is deeper than what we see.
Well, if you’re not willing to compromise - say California or Philly not NYC, but instead of Texas - well, Texas is what you get.
“adults”?
I don’t have that impression at all given that they’d already lived together in other states than NY or Texas.
Here is the statutory procedure in my state:
Comment to (a): In other words, if you move across town, or even an hour away and your move will not affect the parenting plan currently in place, then none of the below apply…keep doing what you are doing.
I agree with this, I had a very odd family in that in a family of five kids, we all had the same mother and all different fathers.
For the divorces, my mother would ignore the decree and leave, once you’re out of state there is little in reality the judges or law will do. This is why if you think you’re shared custody partner is thinking of moving, you act, way before hand to get an injunction before anything happens. After it’s pretty much too late.
Perhaps we should limit other adult’s present in childrens’ lives to prevent emotional abuse. All children should only ever be able to see one parent, decided via coin flip. The loser can take a hike. Children don’t need more than one grandparent either. Use a four sided die to declare the winner. More siblings, more chances for emotional abuse. Separate all siblings. Too many teachers in schools, too many potential emotional abusers. Teach 'em a thousand at a time in a gymnasium using a robot. Only with blinders and headphones, so they can’t see the other kids. What a wonderful world you favor.