Trapped and don’t know what to do

You need to stay where you are. It's not viable for you to move. He's entitled to 50/50 access and your child needs a school. Your sons going to have to come first.

There are after school and breakfast clubs for child care so that you can work full time.

I have said a few times I will move home if I split with my husband but after seeing what's been said on here now I know I wouldn't and I was being selfish. The distance is far less for me to but the schooling would be an issue and he's a good dad so he deserves 50/50 if we did ever split.

You will have to wait until your sons grown up to move back or until something changes.

There is no solution to this where everyone comes out fully happy and content. So all you can do is put the child first and do what would be best for him.
Personally I can't imagine that means removing him miles from his dad, I think there would have to be some significant mental gymnastics to be done before you could look in the mirror and say that was the best outcome for him.
But even if you do stay in the area and you have to build a life where you are, it doesn't mean you don't deserve recognition for your situation being tough on you.
Hopefully you would end up building a good life and be content and once your son is grown up you wouldn't need to be so tied.

Realistically surely, the only position in which the other parent can challenge a parent moving away is if they're prepared to be the primary carer (and then the moving parent will have EOW/holiday contact). Because if they take it to court, the court will be deciding - should the child live with Parent A in location X or Parent B in location Y? It's not open to the court to decide that Parent B should remain in location X and parent 50/50 with Parent A. That's not an option open to them, though they can make an order 'in the alternative', as it were - i.e. if Parent B decides to stay, then the child should split their time 50/50 (or whatever an appropriate split is) between Parent A and Parent B.

No, he won't.
It's such a bad living situation.

Financially I'm screwed.

Unlike the op I don't think that he'd want 50/50 (maybe 70/30) one of the major things that we argue about is how un proactive he is about everything apart from his job.

There's no abuse or anything - he just has no get up and go and is so bloody selfish. Our second is a terrible sleeper snd it's broken me, the lack of support I've had from him has made me resent him so much.

He's made zero effort to make any friendships (we met in London and moved here together)

It's all just a bit shit really.

I hope the thread has helped you work some things out in your mind op. It's a very lonely place to be x

Option 3 is the only realistic answer. If your STBX cares for your DS 50% of the time, it will be easier to take regular trips back ‘home’ on your own. You will also be able to visit family during school holidays with your son. I believe you would feel more settled once you have your own place to live in your current area away from an unhappy relationship.

Apart from being highly unfair on both the child and his father that would be really risky. If OP did do that and a court ordered her to return the child it would be immediate, and she would risk making it practically very difficult to have access to her son unless she could find housing and a job and move back very quickly.

It won't get that far

That's a terrible idea.

I would go for option 2 and deal with whatever happens next.

The main avenue you'd have to pursue would be to be willing to look after the kids full-time as primary carer.

It's amazing how many men fall at that hurdle, in which case they really don't have a leg to stand on in terms of stopping their ex relocating.

However, it does sound from the OP that this might be one of the good ones who, regardless of the relationship breakdown, might not just be spouting empty words.

If I was male and someone tried to take my kids hundreds of miles away from me like this, I would pursue absolutely every avenue to stop you.

Can't believe so many are saying "move home". Outrageous.

This happened to a friend and she ended up with Option 3. Her parents eventually retired and moved to be closer to her. I think she would have preferred to live if she could but 50/50 custody made it impossible.

That is really stupid advice!

How's it going to work for school?!! Quite apart from everything else...

"be difficult" ie wanting reasonable access to his own child?!!!

You need to make it work where you are. Is it possible to move to a location with batter transport links to get to your parents? For example, being on the right side of a city near a motorway junction might knock half an hour or more from the journey to your parents, which could make a difference to how often and how easily you can visit them or they can visit you, but you're still close enough for your DS to stay in the same school. Presumably you will be selling the house to get your share of the money out?

It will be tough for you to win permission to remove your son from jurisdiction - courts will rule in what is the best interest of the child. They will take into account the fact that you will be happier and more supported closer to home, but ultimately, I think they'd rule to stay... but I only know of my own situation. There might be intricacies involved here that mean your request will be approved.

Worst 'advice' I've read on mumsnet!!

Idiotic !

You're an adult and want to be close to your parents and you think your 5yo not seeing his dad will cope better?

This is a very good point.

Split and stay in the area.

I think you'd be bang out of order to move.

option 3. You don't get to take DS away. It's not like you're the main carer and he's a deadbeat dad. This is your DS's home and 50/50 will work in this set-up. It will also give you more time so you can work full-time and also see your parents more in the time that you don't have DS - and indeed when you do. You're a grown woman and have lived in that area for 10 years already, 25-35, there's no reason you'll suddenly need your parents locally especially not with your ex having 50/50 and his parents also being there to help out. I think you're (understandably) panicking and wanting to run home for support - and I hope your parents will come and visit and give you support - but you don't need to live there, and haven't for most of your adult life, and all of your son's life.

To prioritise moving back there would be the wrong thing to do right now and only for your own fears. Better to keep some stability for your son and take a couple of years at least to get re-settled there or somewhere in that area, and find out what life is like as a solo parent there. You could find things open up to you in a way that they haven't in this unhappy time and with a young DC. You aren't trapped, that's the bottom line. You're just seeing it that way because what you want to do isn't reasonable, but option 3 is totally viable and the fairest thing to do.

But what about their jobs? In the scenario of both parents moving 170 miles ( seperately) they would both have to find new jobs as that's too long to commute

Surely after 10 years in an area you should've made local friends erc

What a horrible attitude. This would only be justifiable if there was abuse. OP accepts her child's Dad is good, involved and would want 50/50. Even if the drive is 80 odd miles for each adult that's still 170 each way for the young child.

She doesn't "need" to be somewhere where she has support, she's an adult and can cope. If her ex is offering 50/50 then she'll have plenty of time to get out there and make connections where she lives now.

This is really bad advice. It is definitely not true that a court will always side with the mother, and she could easily be made to return him. The father would have the benefit of being able to keep the son in familiar surroundings with people he already knows and loves, and wouldn't have to change his school/clubs etc. As long as he would have his son (and from what OP has said he would) there is no reason a court would allow her to take him away. You are suggesting she takes her son from an involved and loving parent to satisfy her urge to be near her parents. Do you really believe that she would suffer more from being apart from her parents than her son would from being separated from all the adults (excluding op) he knows and relies on?

I completely disagree.

If OP is choosing to leave then she should leave her son in his current home.

She doesn’t get to trump everyone else simply because she’s the mother.

The son and his dads feelings should also be taken into account.

I think OP should live locally for a while and then decide what’s best for her son.

Right now moving him far away from his support system is not the best thing for him.

Me and DP split up and I move out in this area on my own, we share childcare 50/50 but I continue to be far away from my support network and family.

I would choose option 3.

Its not fair to take your child so far away from his parent and school but also because his dad is going to be more support than your family will be (or he should be).

If you stay local then he can have him 50/50 or close to it, meaning you have lots of free time which will make working easier your son will have the support of both parents.

If you move back to your family, then you will have to facilitate contact and spend a lot of your free time driving back and forward.
And realistically how often will your family look after DS compared to his dad.

I would definitely stay in the area for at least a year and see how you get on.
It maybe that you struggle and need to reconsider or you may get on absolutely fine.