to think that if a couple split up both should stay nearby for the dcs,,,,,

[MrsNarcissist]

My cousin recently left her dp, he was never abusive to the children although perhaps financially controlling with her and they had a fair few problems. He offered her the house and he'd find somewhere else to live. She had lived in the town for 18 years and 11 or 12 of which were with him so her entire adult life and the life of all of her dcs, 11, 6 and 1 were in this particular town. She left him and went to live in her hometown over 300 miles away. She has only been back about ten times and her mother, who she doesn't get on with, and sister live there. So she uprooted her children from their home and father in an impulsive moment, and they are left to see him only in school holidays.

Am I unreasonable to think that if you have children, except in cases of abuse, that you must remain in some sort of area so that they can see both parents?

I know that I would not take my ds hundreds of miles away from his father if we split - do agree that abuse is a different scenario, it always is. But yes I do think ideally the child should not be uprooted hundreds of miles with the result of a completely limited and curtailed relationship with the non resident parent.

just because you make a choice doesn't mean others should replicate.everyone has different circumstances.you may not like it agree but well individual circumstances and all that

I think the different circumstances thing is a red herring that enables people to let themselves off the hook. Generally, where no abuse is involved, and where the resident parent is not so depressed they can't cope, it is going to be better for kids to remain with both parents nearby after a split, it's hardly rocket science.

similar situation to mtw here. So I think yabu I'm afraid. You can never ever know what really went on in their relationship so it isn't your place to judge.

It wasn't a decision I took lightly, that's for sure.

I spent 17 years living with my sister growing up. Doesn't mean I know everything that goes on in her life or her head. And I say that being close to her.

Various studies consistently show that, when a couple split, it is the stability of life and emotional happiness of the primary caregiver that has most effect on how well any children cope with the split as well as their life chances in the future.

I think in the ideal situation families should be near each other, but my dd quality of life is so much better and her father was fully supportive of the decision. Both if his children are now down south. DDs father did not want to hold dd back by making her grow up in a town that blights so many other lives.

I do hope he moves though.

Perhaps I find it hard to imagine a person who has many many many friends in the town in which they live would leave to go back to a place that they grew up where only a few school friends, a busy mother (who she'll hardly see) and one sister. The place she moved is more likely to see her children grow up in poverty. Maslow would be rather shocked.

I don't agree

Sometimes the party that leaves the relationship might not be able to afford to live in the same area if they are still contributing financially to the marital home.

My ex moved 200 miles away when I split with him.

For all sorts of reasons, one of which was money, it was the same price to commute into London from "up there" as it is "from down here" yet property prices are about 40% less.

He still sees the children every other weekend (he does all the driving) and has them for half the holidays.

I think it is up to the individual family involved how they work out their divorce arrangements, and not anybody else's.