Ex won’t let me move away

[Fomo41]

I’ve always wanted to live in the countryside-always. I’d love to move just over an hour away from where I live now. Problem is, my ex says he’ll stop me as we have 2 DC together and says ‘he has things in place legally to prevent the move’. Can he actually stop me? It would be England to wales but only an hour or so drive

The advice you are given about a judge not being able to order you to move back is misleading. A judge can most definitely order that the children move back. Depending on the circumstances this might result in you losing residence of them. There are many instances of a parent moving without telling the other parent and the Court ordering the immediate return of the children. Each case turns on its own facts.

[quote saladcreamandegg]@nugget396 so you all but removed your kids from their fathers life. Brilliant. [/quote]
That’s an enormous assumption to make. Let me clarify things for you.

I was in severe financial hardship living in London covering rent and bills totalling £2k+ per month alone. Financially he was not contributing. I had no support network nearby - friends and family are in my hometown 1.5hrs away. He was unsupportive, dropped into my house as and when it suited him around his social life (a few hours here and there a week).

Since moving, not only have our living costs decreased by over £1k, but our quality of life has improved dramatically. My son has more time with his family, he attends a brilliant nursery a few days a week so I can work part time, and I can now afford social and educational experiences for him.

Since moving away from my controlling ex partner, I have actively encouraged and facilitated access. I’ve provided suggestions for activities they can do, I have given him a key to my home so they can come and go as they please for the day (I leave the house for the day so that he has quality time with him) and as his father is still unwilling to contribute fairly towards him, I leave lunch and snacks prepared as he does not wish to buy him lunch. In fact he has spent MORE quality time with our son since we moved.

I stand by my decision to move away from an emotionally and financially manipulative situation for the well-being of myself and my son. He still has a relationship with myself and his father, it’s just that his father now has to drive a little further to see him.

In future perhaps you might be more mindful of making frankly rude and spiteful comments about situations you have clearly no knowledge of.

@DDIJ

The controlling aspect comes from telling the OP he already has something in place. This is a lie.

He does have something in place. The fact he shares 50:50 custody.

Practically, the judge can only order that the children move back if the other parent is willing to care for them full-time. In this case, though, that's a real possibility whereas an EOW dad might be less willing to have them.

[quote PurpleOkapi]@nugget396

No one's being required to live in any particular location. But why should one parent's desire to move far away be more important than the other parent's desire to see their own children? Should Parent A be required to follow Parent B around the country - or the world - just to see their children regularly? And if so, isn't that requiring them to live in whatever particular location Parent A has chosen? I just don't see how that's better.[/quote]
If a judge grants a prohibited steps order, this can stipulate the resident parent cannot move from the location they are currently living in. This has happened recently with a Mum (resident parent) wishing to move from Gloucester to Cambridgeshire to be closer to her family, and a judge granted a prohibited steps order that she must remain living in Gloucester.

But presumably the judge can't order that the resident parent stays living in a particular place, only the children. So an NRP who is unwilling/unable to care for their DC full-time is in a much weaker position if the mother says they'll move anyway.

@nugget396

I understand that, but it doesn't really answer my question. If you believe it's wrong for Parent A to be forced to live in a particular area to facilitate Parent B's access to their children, the alternative is to allow Parent A to take the children wherever they want, without regard for Parent B's access to them. This effectively forces Parent B to live wherever Parent A chooses if Parent B wants to see their children. I don't understand why, in that situation, you think forcing Parent B to live in a place Parent A chose after their split is more fair than forcing Parent A to remain in the place they'd both chosen to live when they were together.

He can try to stop you moving, as in, take this to court and argue his case. When I announced I was moving with the children I also had a plan that was as fair as possible regarding contact. My solicitor said that as long as contact arrangements were kept to, the judge wouldn’t stop me moving with the children, in her (solicitor’s) experience and our personal circumstances. My ex is an abuser and the children reside only with me and had contact with their dad. I don’t know if that makes a difference.

@nugget396 so your ex wasn't involved in 50/50 custody in the first place then? Again very different to what the op has stated about her circumstances.
But still I do think that both parents should have consultation when there is regular contact. It is unfair on the other parent to just up sticks and move and no, I don't think it should be allowed.

[quote PurpleOkapi]@nugget396

I understand that, but it doesn't really answer my question. If you believe it's wrong for Parent A to be forced to live in a particular area to facilitate Parent B's access to their children, the alternative is to allow Parent A to take the children wherever they want, without regard for Parent B's access to them. This effectively forces Parent B to live wherever Parent A chooses if Parent B wants to see their children. I don't understand why, in that situation, you think forcing Parent B to live in a place Parent A chose after their split is more fair than forcing Parent A to remain in the place they'd both chosen to live when they were together.[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying, and I think whatever way you look at it there’s an argument that its not fair on someone. Though nobody would be forcing Parent B to live where Parent A chooses to move, but I don’t agree with stipulating that a resident parent must remain living in a specific town/city/area for the best part of 18 years, for a variety of reasons. It can limit opportunities, prevent the resident parent from providing a better quality of life for the child/children, it may mean that the resident parent is isolated from support network perhaps following the breakdown of a relationship.. yes, children ALWAYS come first. My son always comes first, but I also knew I could not continue be the best mum I can be and provide tor him in the way he deserves if I remained in a position of severe financial hardship, isolated from any form of support network etc etc.

I don’t dispute it’s a very difficult situation for all involved.

If he has 50/50 and doesn’t agree to the move he can contest it and a judge will go with what is best for the children. In this case, to go from 50/50 to far less a judge is unlikely to agree to when it’s just a wish to move to a nicer area. The new baby is another dimension.

@saladcreamandegg apology accepted for your judgemental assumption.

I agree to an extent in that I know there are bitter parents out there who would move/take children to spite the other parent.

But then you also have parents wishing to move for genuine reasons (which the courts do not always take into account as they are there to make objective decisions and they do not know the children). The law permits people to move within the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

How do you propose having a “consultation” with the other parent who thus far has been unreasonable, controlling, etc etc? I attempted this and was threatened when I mentioned it. I went through mediation to try and work on fair access arrangements..

My exdh took me to court to get a PSO , I was moving an hour away . We had 50/50 shared care .

The order wasn't granted but only because I had already thought though the plan and could offer reassurance that it wouldn't change the status quo .

I knew the move would be temporary (18ms or so) I had to agree to keep the DC's in their schools (which was fine as I would be commuting to my local place of work everyday) and agree to doing all the travelling .

The LA of my new area were to be alerted of my DC's names and to report to exdh solicitor if I tried to apply for school places .

The judge grilled me hard about my plans and I was told that my agreements had be noted officially and if their was any deviations , exdh could pull me back into court and it would be likely that he would be successful in an Child arrangement (new style custody) order being granted in his favour .

The reality of it was it was fine , hard work on me and the kids with the daily motorway commute but knowing it wasn't forever helped . As it goes, We were back home in 16 ms , 5 mins away from exdh address .

The judge might take a different approach if your ex doesn't have that much involvement but I got the impression they don't take mothers moving away from committed fathers lightly (quite rightly so) so if you ExDh has all his ducks in a row and you don't have the right answers a PSO could very well be granted .

My exdh is a loving and committed father and it was done because he thought I would take the DC's away from him ( despite me giving him the same answers I gave the judge prior to court), I can only imagine I would have felt very different if I knew it was because he was an controlling arsehole .

My solicitor recently experienced a case where the mother wanted to move from Gloucester to Cambridgeshire to be closer to her family and support network, the ex husband/father applied for a prohibited steps order and it was awarded, meaning she couldn’t move. It doesn’t happen all too often but it can and does happen.
Yes, I have a feeling from own experience and that of friends that everything that is further than a normal "commute" distance (say, up to 30 minutes) would not fly in the court.
The ex moved 5 hours away himself and voluntarily has very low contact (say once or twice per quarter) but I still cannot move out of London without his permission, or without going through the full contested process again. It is bonkers.

He’s a parasite and is nasty toward me now.

How is moving 1 hour away going to change this? I mean, are you 'forced' into seeing him and you think 1 hour's distance is going to change that? Because pick ups/drop offs wouldn't change, would they? And chances are you'd be the one doing both. If he harasses you by phone/email that's not going to change, either. Or are you hoping that his interest in seeing the DC will lessen with 1 hour's distance so you won't have to see him so often? If he does 50/50 that's a father who wants to be involved with his children and 1 hour's distance isn't going to be some insurmountable object. It wouldn't be for me and I daresay it wouldn't be for you, either.

The only thing I can see changing is if he parks up by your house and sits there, follows you around town, or somehow walks into your house. And if he does any of those things, that's stalking/harassment and you need to speak to the police.

Obvs you need to seek legal advice as far as being able to move and if the neighbourhood is as bad as you say, I don't blame you for wanting to move for that reason alone. Just don't think that moving 1 hour away is going to solve your problems. It won't and may even exacerbate them.

If he's nasty to you now, how much nastier is he going to be when you 'take the children'. I think along with taking legal advice on the move, you need to research ways/take advice to lessen the amount of time you have to be in contact with him, such as third party picks/drops or in a public place, conversations by text/email only, no admission to your home whatsoever.

@nugget396 I'm not sure where you saw an apology, just stating that your situation is different to ops and I still don't agree that you moving with no consultation should be allowed.

[quote saladcreamandegg]@nugget396 I'm not sure where you saw an apology, just stating that your situation is different to ops and I still don't agree that you moving with no consultation should be allowed. [/quote]
You are not privy to the many ins and outs of the arguments in the case.
If the rp wanted to move purely to reduce the nrp access or just because they ‘fancied it’ the nrp would have a good a chance for an order.

The op hasn’t gone into detail. I wanted to move to my home town before we had my youngest and could produce emails dated from over 10 years ago saying I was miserable and wanted to go home.

My ex can move with work. He had nothing to anchor him to that area - no family,no university ties, no girlfriend etc children were in outstanding schools but it was a commute of 1 and half hours each way (very rural) to get them to school. We left at 6.45 am and got back at 5.45 pm the fees for breakfast and after school club were £500 a month.

I mentioned to my ex a number of times that I wanted a better quality of life for us. I wanted to live a walk from an outstanding school and near family, bus links etc all done in writing - he just said ‘no go and I’ll go for custody’

Meanwhile I had laid the ground offering more holiday contact and facilitating as much face to face contact as possible.

I applied and got a super job in my home town and all the kids got into outstanding schools. No need for breakfast clubs etc as they all walk to school together.

The judge ordered the relocation. She said it was in their interests to leave at 8 am and back at 4 pm and it has changed our lives.

If you have GOOD reasons such as a new partner, new job etc they are all considered. The main thing is to see what you can facilitate with the ex. Investigate schools and houses and put your case - try to compromise. Etc but your ex is lying currently and when men do this (in my experience)they are controlling and courts don’t like that. They accept people like to move etc

@MaryTalbot If you have GOOD reasons such as a new partner
Can this always be seen to be as a GOOD reason for the child's benefit? That the parent is in a new relationship and is moving to be with them?

@MaryTalbot unless there is abuse and risk to the child, regardless of how much happier the resident parent will be the other parent should be consulted and considered if the resident parent wants to move away, especially where contact is 50/50 as resident parent is just something on paper if the child spends 50% of the time with the other parent.
I'm not saying that the parents can never move away if both have prior discussed how they will work out child contact, however just to up sticks with children that have regular normal contact with the other parent is a horrible thing to do.

OP is pregnant, so I suspect this has more to do with new man, than what's best for the kids.

Exactly @AhNowTed

If she stays, the new baby will be living apart from it's dad too though...

@LeonieSims

If she stays, the new baby will be living apart from it's dad too though...

New man and as yet unborn baby will just have to fit in with 2 children with a school life, friends and an active father who has them 50/50 then, won't he.

This wouldn’t be happening I guess for another 2 years when the oldest is starting high school.

Nothing to do with ‘new’ man. He’d be moving with us if it were to happen