Bf’s ex says she’s moving away with the kids

[toobusytothink]

So bf and his ex separated 4 years ago. They have 2 kids who are now 5 and 7. They live near each other and bf has always been a hands on dad and for the last 2 years he has had the kids 50/50 but it has just been an informal agreement between themselves. She has a bf who she has been seeing for about 18 months who lives 45 mins away and has said she plans on moving close to him and possibly buying a place with him.

Although this doesn’t sound far, my bf works and I live 45 mins in the opposite direction (otherwise he would consider moving there himself to stay close to the kids).

Bf is incredibly upset. It would mean the kids changing schools. His ex’s mum and sister are in the area so she would be moving away from them and her support network too. Plus she works locally so she would be moving away from work.
She says she now wants to formalise the childcare agreement so that he has the kids EOW and one night per week which my bf has said is not acceptable.

So she would be uprooting the kids away from their dad who they see every other day, away from their school and friends, away from her mum and sister, away from her work, so she can move closer or in with her new partner and build a new life with him ... she says she would be able to afford a bigger house.

He is seeking legal advise but it is expensive. She said she is happy to try and do it amicably but then won’t compromise on anything. I know his lawyer will give him advise but just wanted to see if anyone here had experience of it and any suggestions. Seems so unfair when you hear of mums complaining that the dad doesn’t do enough but he wants to but she won’t let him ...

Also the reason they are in the area they are in is because she chose it to be close to her family and work! He is miles away from his but is prepared to sacrifice his desire to love for the sake of keeping things consistent for the kids

@Branleuse

It seems like a good reason to me to never offer 50/50 in the first place

Another one picking up on this...both parents have equal say in where the children spend their time. Mums don't get to 'offer' dads options.

Again, mums don't own kids and just lend them to the father .

Can I just say. You, the mother and the father are all disgraceful. Do any of you actually care about these children and what they want? You're warring about what you all want and not what is actually best for them or what they want. The only way you will get this resolved is by going to Court. Your boyfriend will have to suck it up and pay like thousands of others do every single year in the family court system.

well I imagine the 5 year old hasnt actually been in school much anyway, and the 7 year old is what? Year 2 and missed most of the second year. I think if theyre going to move, then it would be less unsettling to do it earlier.
I dont think mothers have carte blanche, and dads are really important, but they dont need to live next door or have 50/50 residency to have a really important decent relationship. They need regular access and a positive relationship. What they dont need is for one parent to be able to veto basic life decisons over the other.

Im not saying this sounds like an ideal situation, but the bottom line is, its a hideous situation when a man can veto his ex moving on with her life, when shes not doing anything particularly unreasonable.

@Bibidy brilliant post!

@Pebbledashery I don’t know actually. They are really quite young. You’re right, maybe they should ask them but not sure they would understand what it would be like in reality. Either side could make anything sound good or bad to them just in their tone or how they phrase it

@Pebbledashery

Can I just say. You, the mother and the father are all disgraceful. Do any of you actually care about these children and what they want? You're warring about what you all want and not what is actually best for them or what they want. The only way you will get this resolved is by going to Court. Your boyfriend will have to suck it up and pay like thousands of others do every single year in the family court system.

How is this fair?

Their dad is wanting them to have consistency, equal time with both parents, and to be near their family (which incidentally, isn't even his own family - yet he continues to live nearby anyway). He is in a relationship and doesn't live with his own partner in order not to impact on his children. OP is supportive of all of this.

Their mum has decided to move in with her boyfriend 45 minutes away - fine! But in doing this - aside from uprooting her children from their school, family and friends - she is taking a lot of the time they spend with their dad away from them. And she refuses to agree to anything else but every other weekend and one weeknight for them to spend with him going forward.

HOW IS THEIR DAD BEING DISGRACEFUL HERE?! Their mum is literally the only person refusing to bend to make a compromise work. She is saying it's her way or nothing.

The children are 5 and 7! They are too young to decide where they spend their time - it is so important for them to have consistent and regular contact with both parents. And it is their parents' responsibility to ensure they get this.

@Branleuse but if she moved he wouldn’t be able to have the regular access. I think if she stayed in the area he would actually agree to less than 50:50 but he feels it’s important that the kids could ask to see him whenever and that he can feel a part of their whole lives by doing school run, attending plays etc which of course would be possible if she moved but a lot harder

@Branleuse

well I imagine the 5 year old hasnt actually been in school much anyway, and the 7 year old is what? Year 2 and missed most of the second year. I think if theyre going to move, then it would be less unsettling to do it earlier. I dont think mothers have carte blanche, and dads are really important, but they dont need to live next door or have 50/50 residency to have a really important decent relationship. They need regular access and a positive relationship. What they dont need is for one parent to be able to veto basic life decisons over the other.

Im not saying this sounds like an ideal situation, but the bottom line is, its a hideous situation when a man can veto his ex moving on with her life, when shes not doing anything particularly unreasonable.

"I dont think fathers have carte blanche, and mums are really important, but they dont need to live next door or have 50/50 residency to have a really important decent relationship. They need regular access and a positive relationship."

Now imagine your XH saying this to you whilst telling you that he's moving your kids to a new school and that you don't need to see them as much, even though you're 'really important'. Imagine how that would go down.

@Pebbledashery wow!!! Bf is actually ONLY thinking about the kids and his relationship with him AND their mum. He thinks it’s fair they have a good relationship with BOTH of them

@Pebbledashery and do you think what mum is saying is going to happen is the best for the kids? Or do you think it’s actually to stay at their current school near friends and family and both parents???

@Bibidy you are awesome 😄

@Branleuse

well I imagine the 5 year old hasnt actually been in school much anyway, and the 7 year old is what? Year 2 and missed most of the second year. I think if theyre going to move, then it would be less unsettling to do it earlier. I dont think mothers have carte blanche, and dads are really important, but they dont need to live next door or have 50/50 residency to have a really important decent relationship. They need regular access and a positive relationship. What they dont need is for one parent to be able to veto basic life decisons over the other.

Im not saying this sounds like an ideal situation, but the bottom line is, its a hideous situation when a man can veto his ex moving on with her life, when shes not doing anything particularly unreasonable.

I would agree with you if she was offering to see the children less herself in order to move, or even just open to finding a way to continue them spending as much (or nearly as much) time with their dad.

But she isn't. She wants to move - which is completely acceptable - but also wants to keep the kids with her the majority of the time, which isn't the current arrangement. And it isn't accepted by their other parent. She also has a duty to keep things amicable. Why can't she drop the children to him after school a couple of times a week? Or meet him halfway a couple of evenings?

I agree that changing their school in itself isn't a big deal at all - loads of children move schools.

@toobusytothink
Look the bottom line is, your boyfriend has to take it to Court, he has to put his case forward for still maintaining the 50/50 contact if the Mother moves. He cannot make it about her moving, and she cannot withhold him the contact he is already having.
They are BOTH going to have to make the effort. Perhaps he collects them where she is and she picks them up - I don't know. Whatever happens please just put these children first and not make it a war about what he and what she want.
I'm telling you this as someone who is actually going through the family court system themselves.
The Court will not give a toss what you, your boyfriend and the Mother want, they will act specifically in the best interest of the children.
And yes, you could perhaps ask them what they want - they aren't that young enough to not be able to form an opinion on what makes them happy.
The Mother doesn't have a right to dictate contact arrangements to the Father when they've both have 50/50 but perhaps she has assumed that the 50/50 arrangement won't work because of the distance when in fact it can if your boyfriend is willing to make that effort to collect them.
It has to be a split journey - that's what is likely to be decided by the Court, the Father does one leg of the journey and the Mother does the other.
My daughter is having interim supervised contact in a contact centre with her father (who claims to have been a massive part of her life when he wasn't at all and is nothing but a violent abuser) - I moved over 200+ miles away and the journey takes me 5 hours and my ex doesn't know where we live because we fled DV.
The Court has ordered that I do that journey every other week because I am the one that has moved away.
So it may well be that she is ordered to do the same.

[quote Pebbledashery]@toobusytothink
Look the bottom line is, your boyfriend has to take it to Court, he has to put his case forward for still maintaining the 50/50 contact if the Mother moves. He cannot make it about her moving, and she cannot withhold him the contact he is already having.
They are BOTH going to have to make the effort. Perhaps he collects them where she is and she picks them up - I don't know. Whatever happens please just put these children first and not make it a war about what he and what she want.
I'm telling you this as someone who is actually going through the family court system themselves.
The Court will not give a toss what you, your boyfriend and the Mother want, they will act specifically in the best interest of the children.
And yes, you could perhaps ask them what they want - they aren't that young enough to not be able to form an opinion on what makes them happy.
The Mother doesn't have a right to dictate contact arrangements to the Father when they've both have 50/50 but perhaps she has assumed that the 50/50 arrangement won't work because of the distance when in fact it can if your boyfriend is willing to make that effort to collect them.
It has to be a split journey - that's what is likely to be decided by the Court, the Father does one leg of the journey and the Mother does the other.
My daughter is having interim supervised contact in a contact centre with her father (who claims to have been a massive part of her life when he wasn't at all and is nothing but a violent abuser) - I moved over 200+ miles away and the journey takes me 5 hours and my ex doesn't know where we live because we fled DV.
The Court has ordered that I do that journey every other week because I am the one that has moved away.
So it may well be that she is ordered to do the same.[/quote]
I am sorry to read about your situation Pebbledashery, that must have been so awful for you.

In this situation, it's so unfair that this dad would have to take his ex to court - with all the stress and financial impact that entails - in order to maintain his existing relationship with his own children, purely because his ex has decided to move and cut him off EVEN THOUGH the move isn't even far! She still won't countenance the 50/50 continuing. It's not like he's trying to stop her moving to the other side of the country, she won't even let him have 50/50 when she's only 45 minutes away as she doesn't want to put herself out at all.

And it's also unfair that the court could decide in her favour that 50/50 is too disruptive because of the distance that she has voluntarily chosen to put between them and their father.

@Branleuse

It seems like a good reason to me to never offer 50/50 in the first place

wow, you just out and out said its not a good idea to let the other parent parent equally.

just, wow.

School consistency can be a very relevant factor for dc but not at the age of 5 &7 particularly when school has been so disrupted in the last year.

Maintenance of contact with dad is going to be a more important issue.

[quote toobusytothink]@Bibidy you are awesome 😄[/quote]
LOL thanks. It just really grinds my gears the way some posters talk about fathers as optional extras on here.

And the saddest thing is it's the children who suffer the most from not having strong bonds with their dads. So many feel unwanted or unloved and so often that isn't the case and it is actually the mother who has made it difficult for the father to spend as much time with the children as he'd like, as in this case.

Granted there are a load of bad 'dads' out there but there are a shitload more loving, committed dads who add so much to their children's lives. And some mums should remember that when they think what's best for the children is only what's best for themselves.

@Bibidy Thank you.
But I disagree in that respect, the kids are older (my daughter is a toddler) and have a more established relationship with their Father because of their ages and the fact there has already been 50.50 contact, it's probably more likely to go in his favour than hers - if he's willing to put the effort in to collect the children, I don't see how they would favour the Mother.. they will just be asked to split the journey that's all.
One of my friends is in a similar situation to OP and their final hearing has recommended that the father does one leg of the journey and the mother does the other to still maintain the 50/50 residence. They've also been given a shared lives with for Mother and Father.
Whilst I appreciate it will be expensive, I am actually inclined to say it will probably go in his favour because if the Father is willing to make the effort if the Mother moves away then there is absolutely nothing she can say or do.

@Pebbledashery

Can I just say. You, the mother and the father are all disgraceful. Do any of you actually care about these children and what they want? You're warring about what you all want and not what is actually best for them or what they want. The only way you will get this resolved is by going to Court. Your boyfriend will have to suck it up and pay like thousands of others do every single year in the family court system.

what a horrible attitude - i think its clear that op and her partner DO care about what is best for the children.

Why should he "suck it up" - why is your advice not that mum should "suck it up" and stop being so unreasonable?

@Branleuse

well I imagine the 5 year old hasnt actually been in school much anyway, and the 7 year old is what? Year 2 and missed most of the second year. I think if theyre going to move, then it would be less unsettling to do it earlier. I dont think mothers have carte blanche, and dads are really important, but they dont need to live next door or have 50/50 residency to have a really important decent relationship. They need regular access and a positive relationship. What they dont need is for one parent to be able to veto basic life decisons over the other.

Im not saying this sounds like an ideal situation, but the bottom line is, its a hideous situation when a man can veto his ex moving on with her life, when shes not doing anything particularly unreasonable.

reducing contact from 50/50 to EOW is absolutely unreasonable.

[quote Pebbledashery]@Bibidy Thank you.
But I disagree in that respect, the kids are older (my daughter is a toddler) and have a more established relationship with their Father because of their ages and the fact there has already been 50.50 contact, it's probably more likely to go in his favour than hers - if he's willing to put the effort in to collect the children, I don't see how they would favour the Mother.. they will just be asked to split the journey that's all.
One of my friends is in a similar situation to OP and their final hearing has recommended that the father does one leg of the journey and the mother does the other to still maintain the 50/50 residence. They've also been given a shared lives with for Mother and Father.
Whilst I appreciate it will be expensive, I am actually inclined to say it will probably go in his favour because if the Father is willing to make the effort if the Mother moves away then there is absolutely nothing she can say or do.[/quote]
Oh that's good, hopefully it would go in his favour then.

Tbh in this scenario I'd be inclined to say that while I do think it's unfair he'd need to go to these lengths, if he is dealing with an ex who is happy to cut his contact without any prior agreement then he is probably better off getting a court order to formalise his contact arrangements.

@TrustTheGeneGenie It's not a horrible attitude because nobody has actually asked these children what they want. 5 and 7 is old enough to be able to form an opinion.
And they should both suck it up and put these children first.. but it's quite clear they aren't going to resolve it, so unfortunately he has to pay £215, fill in his C100 form and get the ball rolling = suck it up

OR at the very least - try mediation first.

[quote Pebbledashery]@TrustTheGeneGenie It's not a horrible attitude because nobody has actually asked these children what they want. 5 and 7 is old enough to be able to form an opinion.
And they should both suck it up and put these children first.. but it's quite clear they aren't going to resolve it, so unfortunately he has to pay £215, fill in his C100 form and get the ball rolling = suck it up[/quote]
Just to add...I'm not sure 5 and 7 is really old enough to form a reasonable opinion on what is best for them.

My SD is 7 and given the choice she would say she wanted to stay with her mum 100% of the time. Not because my DP is a bad parent or mean to her or anything...just because at this time in her life she is clingy with her mum. But it absolutely wouldn't be what's best for her. Her mum and dad have to decide that.