Cyclone Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 No only the person who an realy stop it and be reasonable is the guilty parent Yep. Except they aren't necessarily guilty of anything except wanting to get on with their life, which might involve going back to their home town, or getting a new job elsewhere. I suppose at the end of the day, since they've got custody they have no obligation to do any of the running about involved in the access, although if they want to remain on good terms then they probably should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 See this is the sort of logic I am not very good at that you seem to like using, and it generally slips by because people do not even attempt to figure it out. On the one hand we are talking about mothers/fathers not being allowed to move their children an unreasonable distance from the other parent who wants contact. And on the other hand you are talking about parents who do not want any contact with their children. And somewhere the one has to justify the other. If a father or mother does not want contact with his or her children then he or she can move anywhere they want. You cannot take someone to court because they do not want contact with their children. This is completely different to the first instance where contact is desired. Or am I missing something? You probably could separate it like that, so let me change the scenario a little. Parents have split, one has custody, the other has regular visits which the child enjoys and all is good. The one without custody is offered a great job, but somewhere far far away. It's now definitely not in the childs best interest for that parent to move away. Should they have to stay because they wanted access to the child and it's now in the childs best interest, or should they at that point be allowed to say "no thanks" and walk away to their new job? If the non custodial parent can always walk away then there's a complete imbalance of power. One parent has to stay and the other is free to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I'm not sure he is, he just doesn't think she should have been allowed to move to wherever she is now. I expect he'd be a bit more upset if he'd been the one planning to move for a new job or something and had been told that he wasn't allowed to go. What if the non resident parent lives around the corner from the resident parent, and the non resident parent moves to kazakhstan. Do you think the resident parent should be forced to also move to kazakhstan in order to maintain contact with the non resident parent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I'm not sure he is, he just doesn't think she should have been allowed to move to wherever she is now. I expect he'd be a bit more upset if he'd been the one planning to move for a new job or something and had been told that he wasn't allowed to go. See your assumptions are getting the better of you. Not solely anything to do with my case. I can accept a parent moving 200 miles away in order to be with her family and for the father to still have contact. What I cannot accept is a parent moving 200 miles away for no reason other than what appears to be to make things difficult for the non-custodial parent. What I can accept is that a parent would move for the child to be with other family members - but not at the expense of the child's larger family - including the childs siblings, by making the distance too great for such contact to take place, or for imposing limitations on contact to make it impossible for the child to associate with his or her siblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 You probably could separate it like that, so let me change the scenario a little. Parents have split, one has custody, the other has regular visits which the child enjoys and all is good. The one without custody is offered a great job, but somewhere far far away. It's now definitely not in the childs best interest for that parent to move away. Should they have to stay because they wanted access to the child and it's now in the childs best interest, or should they at that point be allowed to say "no thanks" and walk away to their new job? If the non custodial parent can always walk away then there's a complete imbalance of power. One parent has to stay and the other is free to leave. Are you saying the other parent moves away and is unable to maintain contact with the child? For instance - the parent moves to greenland making contact with the child in Britain unworkable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 What if the non resident parent lives around the corner from the resident parent, and the non resident parent moves to kazakhstan. Do you think the resident parent should be forced to also move to kazakhstan in order to maintain contact with the non resident parent? it all depends on whether it's north or south kazakstan and whether they'll own over 7 goats once they've settled in. It gets very complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Are you saying the other parent moves away and is unable to maintain contact with the child? For instance - the parent moves to greenland making contact with the child in Britain unworkable? yes exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Are you saying the other parent moves away and is unable to maintain contact with the child? For instance - the parent moves to greenland making contact with the child in Britain unworkable? My friends husband took a job in Dubai for just over a year, no one batyted an eyelid. When my friend was offered a job in Scotland she was accused of trying to stop her ex seeing the kids. It wasn't even a consideration, it was a great job in a great place, where she'd got friends. Talk about double standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 See your assumptions are getting the better of you. Not solely anything to do with my case. I can accept a parent moving 200 miles away in order to be with her family and for the father to still have contact. What I cannot accept is a parent moving 200 miles away for no reason other than what appears to be to make things difficult for the non-custodial parent. I was just guessing, I'm not that surprised if I got it wrong. I agree that it's harsh, but there's no legal way to restrict one without restricting the other. And AFAIK no legal way to restrict either in reality. Which was my entire point that I made on page 2, that legally it's just tough luck. I didn't say that I agreed with it, that it was a good or bad thing, just that there was no way for the law to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 My friends husband took a job in Dubai for just over a year, no one batyted an eyelid. When my friend was offered a job in Scotland she was accused of trying to stop her ex seeing the kids. It wasn't even a consideration, it was a great job in a great place, where she'd got friends. Talk about double standards. Exactly the kind of imbalance that I was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.