I apologise if I'm repeating myself, or, if I say anything which isn't directly relevant to Hells' situation. However, I would like to say that what a number of people seem to be forgetting in situations like these is that the most important thing is for children of separated parents to maintain a relationship with them both (apart from genuine exceptions such as violence, drug use etc).
It is NOT about who moved first, who moved where, who was responsible for the marital breakdown and so on ... it's about trying to keep a vitally important relationship going .... and that should supercede the gripes the parents have in respect of each other.
I've seen this from both sides. I was also a single parent for 9 years until I moved in with my DP, and my ex also moved about 60 miles away when we split up. I don't believe this was done out of spite, or in order to shirk his parental duties though obviously, him living a distance away did mean that it wasn't as easy for me to ask him to care for our son when either he or I were ill, and contact did become a weekend and/or school holiday thing as weekday evenings were out. Believe me, I had a LOT of reasons to be very angry with my ex, but above and beyond that, I wanted to minimise the effect of our split on our son as much as possible - regardless of who was right or wrong. That meant encouraging the relationship between him and his dad and, to that end, I used to meet my ex at a halfway point to hand over our son for contact because the alternative, if my ex had had to travel all the way to my doorstep, would have meant my son walking back to the station with his dad in all weathers, hanging about on cold railway platforms waiting for connections, and getting back to my ex's much later than his bedtime. I didn't like to think of him in that position so I used to drive ..... did I like doing that ? No - of course I didn't, I could have done without 2 hours (plus 2 hours on the return leg) being taken out of my precious child free time but it was the best thing to do for my child .... it wasn't about what was best for me, or for my ex. Obviously, I did do my ex a "favour" in as much as I saved him travel time but in fairness, he was very grateful and used to give me money to cover my petrol. Therefore, I wasn't out of pocket, my ex saved time, and our son wasn't out late - wins all round IMO.
So many people can't see past their own bitterness when it comes to contact. When the absent parent complains about the time, money, upset & stress consumed by a difficult contact situation, a common response from a selfish ex is "not my problem" or even "good, I'm glad you're suffering, you deserve it". That attitude is so bloody selfish and it's also highly irresponsible because it shows no regard whatsoever for the child. They are the ones who suffer most when contact is obstructed, or when no help is offered (be it financial or practical) towards the logistics of maintaining contact. What is more important ? ...... scoring points off an ex you despise, or putting your child's feelings before your own ?
Okay ... it's not ideal, but I accept people want to move for all sorts of reasons. If you have children and are separated from their father, you have a moral obligation to factor that in to your move. You need to ask how contact will be maintained and think about what you may need to do to ensure your children don't miss out. Ideally yes, you should discuss moving with your ex, so they are prewarned and so they can also give some thought to the new circumstances. People may need to adjust their working hours for example, or change the pattern of contact so it's less frequent but as long at a different time - e.g. in the school holidays - so long journeys are minimised. But it's NOT acceptable - morally - to simply sit back and say "tough, you want them, you come and get them". It's NOT acceptable to say your ex "has" to pay the fare. For some people, they simply DON'T have that money ... so they must either go into debt (and many absent dads do do this, but there comes a point where you simply can't take on any more debt), or forego seeing their children.
Too many women have children without thinking how things might be if the relationship doesn't work out. If it breaks down, the man with whom they were once more than happy to have a child(ren) suddenly becomes (in their eyes) irrelevant as a parent. Morally, you just can't (or shouldn't) do that .... he may well have turned out to be a crap partner, but, (except in extreme circumstances where children might be in danger), why does he suddenly become a crap father too just because you don't like him any more ? You shouldn't just be able to airbrush a man out of his kids' lives and that is, in effect, what you do if you move a distance away but refuse to co-operate with the logistics of continuing contact and place ALL the onus on him. In some individual circumstances, it genuinely isn't possible for decent (or even semi-decent) contact to continue unless BOTH parents help to make it happen. If one refuses to do this, you end up not only with a distraught, frustrated and (often) depressed absent parent but even more importantly, a child (or children) who lose out on something which can't ever be replaced. Many women are more than happy to tell these children that their father doesn't see them because he "can't be bothered" (omitting of course the fact that they refuse to help facilitate this in any way) .... can you imagine the self esteem of a child who grows up believing that ? Even if they're not told that directly, lack of contact is likely to have them reach that conclusion anyway ..... and it's doubtful that a parent who refuses to help with contact would explain why daddy is unable to see them.
Unless you've been in this situation you have no idea how damaging it is. The effects can be significant and long lasting. And all born out of spite ..... heaven forbid that an embittered woman do her ex a "favour". Far far better that she tells him where to go which is quite clearly far more imoportant than the long term emotional well being of her children, who of course won't be missing their dad one little bit.