OK, this is not about me (since I haven't been dating).
My best friend and key divorce support has recently become engaged to a great guy who loves her children.

Ultimately, she'd like to move out of state (30-45 minutes away) near where he lives and the cost of living is cheaper and she could work part-time. So his kids would not change schools. Tween & teen.

Her X is adamantly against this move, and will fight to the end to keep her in this state. Her DD is in tears about moving. X had told kids she wanted to move them, and discussed it with the kids before they discussed it as adults.

Has anyone dealt with moving out of state? These kids are in elementary school. My girls are worried about how badly friend's daughter is taking this.

So, we've been talking about this in my family. My girls don't want me to date, get remarried or ever move. It's actually been good to talk to them about this topic, without it being about us. Oldest insisted she approve anyone I date. So this has opened an opportunity to talk about me dating (in theory). I told them I do and can go out on dates, and don't need their approval. And if anything gets serious, I would introduce them.

It's almost as if the kids like the limboland of the status quo. No changes in their lives. Apparently, X's GF is not in their good graces this week, and they don't want dad to marry her. (this week).

So, any suggestions for my friend? Any additional advice for dealing with her kids? She really did find a great match for her personality, and he's great with her kids, especially her son.

She plans to find a family counselor too.

The status quo is not limbo land for them, though. They know what to expect in the house/town/school and with you - without someone else coming in to stir it up and make them wonder what will happen.

As far as your friend, that's tough. I'm sure legally she'd have no problem, even though it is out of state, it is not that far distance wise. Since her ex is fighting it, it will mean more drama. I take it she has primary custody? Ie a different custody arrangement would not be acceptable (with Dad during the week and Mom on weekends)?

I've not dealt with this, myself. I have a friend at work who's ex has taken a job out of state (NJ - was in MA) and is now fighting in court to move the children. He, of course is fighting it tooth and nail as it would effectively end his relationship with his kids. You're friends situation is not so bad as the distance still makes it possible to have mid-week visits and regular visitation.

Seems premature to get engaged without working out all these details.

Her daughter doesn't want to move.
Her XH doesn't want his daughter to move an hour away.
And I understand his point of view. I wouldn't want my kids moved away from me for the love-life of my X. Why is that relationship more important than the father-child relationship? Cuz lets face it, even though its not a great distance it WILL make it more difficult for him to be an involved father....

Does her fiance have custody of his kids?

Her fiance has 50/50 custody and Xwife just bought in their school district, so his kids could stay in the same schools regardless of where they lived.

Re engagement time: It's hard to work out the details with so much unknown.

Her X was engaged for 2 (almost 3) years. We think he was reluctant to move and merge those families because he suspected my friend wanted to move. So, he held up his life/future and wouldn't move on because of his fears. Although he was house hunting in a different county with his fiance, they just never bought. He also never told his kids officially that they broke up, they just don't see each other, and the kids miss ex-fiance's kids.

Friend is PPR (parent of primary residence) in our state, but close to 50/50 custody. And X is a very, very involved father. Attends all sports, school events, etc. Currently, they live 3 miles apart (different towns, different schools). He fought in court to get the kids into his schools for kindergarten, and it's likely he'll fight tooth & nail to keep his kids stable. He even joined the church friend joined (changed religions) which I thought was very extreme behavior.

So, what are the thoughts about moving on? Is it truly about a parent's love life, or could it be about creating a good loving family environment? I truly believe that friend and fiance are well suited, and have a loving, functional and emotional relationship in which the children would benefit through a stable supported home.

Her X is very much like me in that he's functional, not emotional. He's already upset he didn't get PPR. He is a good, functional dad who truly believes he is doing the best for his children. He is a well paid executive who uses his flex time for the kids. He would have continued to live in an unhappy marriage, just to keep the family together for the kids.

Your comments are much appreciated so that I can give my friend another perspective beyond my purely functional one.

Granted that my XWH is not the best father, but nonetheless, he is my children's father. We have 50/50 custody and he is some what involves with the children. (Mainly the boys.)

I cannot think about moving the children away from my XWH. When my fiancé and I were getting serious, this topic was discussed. I made it point clear that moving was never going to be an option until my children are out of high school.

We both have found a house 3 miles away from my XWH, so the children can stay in the same general neighborhood where they go to school with their friends.

My fiancé does not have any children, so my circumstance is easier to handle. But I agree with Lexxy, all of this should have been worked out before getting engaged.

I hope it all works out for your friend.

To me, it depends on how involved both parents are.

There are many situations where dad has his one night and every other weekend. In those cases, if the kids are an hour away -- no big deal. Its not going to cause a big disruption in their relationship. It wouldn't be difficult to maintain status quo.

But thats not the case here. You have 2 parents equally involved.

It seems pretty hypocritical to me to say that FIANCE can't move because he is an involved parent -- but its OK to move your kids away from the X who is also an involved parent!

I don't think she has any right to move those kids away from their dad.

How come she is so understanding of Fiance being an involved father....but ready to yank that status away from her kids dad? If you are supportive of an involved father, wouldn't it be most important to you that your OWN KIDS benefit from that????

Why would you bend over backwards to make sure Fiance and kids remain close -- and take that benefit away from your own children???

Makes no sense to me.

Why doesn't she let XH have custody and she can have one night per week and every other weekend? And if she balks at that...why doesn't she understand that she's what she is expecting of XH? Why should he accept that deal???

Thanks. I think it's important that she hears the views of other women here.

The proposed move out of state is due to the much lower cost of living, which would likely result in her working part time, vs. full time (and travel), so ultimately, a better standard of living for the family, and a mother with more time.

Newly --
I think those are added benefits.
But lets face it, if not for "Guy" this wouldn't happen.

You can dress it up in all kinds of costumes, but the bottom line is she wants to uproot her kids for a man.

So is a mother with more time a greater benefit than being involved with their father? That becomes an awfully subjective choice. Who gets to decide which is more important?

Since she isn't expecting to pay any of these sacrifices why does she get to choose? She is only asking OTHERS to sacrifice for HER benefit.
There is nobody on the planet LESS WILLING to sacrifice for me than my X husband. Why on earth does she think hers will do this for her?

newly, i answered this on my "me" thread for you...

lexxy

i see what you are saying but mom deserves to have happiness too and she happened to find it with a man who lives an hour away in another state. so why shouldn't she get to do this? yes, i thought about my kids when i thought about moving and you know what? they would have adjusted. i deserved to have a chance at happiness. a mate is forever, children do not stay at home forever. i would not have given up on the chance for happiness for myself and a good life for my children just because they would have had to adjust. they would have still seen their father, just on a different schedule. i don't think newly's friend is doing anything bad or that she wants to remove the kids from dad. they will still have time with him. is she supposed to just stay put til they graduate or hope to meet someone in her same town? it didn't work out that way so sometimes compromises have to be made. you make it sound like "moving for man" is a bad thing. she would be moving to marry the man she loves and make a good future for her and her children.

mlhb

No one said the friend can't move - I am sure the X would have gladly helped her pack her bags and move to her new beau - but what right does she have to think that the kids should go along with her? Let me guess, it is because she is "the mother"? Nonsense like that makes my blood boil.

From what newly posted, the father is as good (if not better) a parent as the mother is, spends as much time with them as the mother, and is thoroughly involved in their lives. WTF does the mother think she gets to yank the kids away from that? "She deserves to be happy" has nothing to do with it - no one is asking if she deserves to be happy, the question is does she have the right to take her kids away from their dad in order to achieve that happiness. Oh, and the "kids will adjust" is the lamest excuse in the book - guess what, they will also adjust if the mom went alone to find her new love and left the kids with the father, who appears to be more focused on their happiness than the mother is.

In my case, we wrote into our divorce agreement that while either parent can move wherever they wanted to, the kids were to finish school in their current school district, and if either parent chose to move more than 20 miles away, they would lose their custody. This clause really helped me sleep at night.

I wish the world had more dads like this guy, and fewer mothers who think that just because they are "the mom", they are the #1 parent.

Oh, and Lexxxy, kudos to you for standing up for the dad's rights in this case!

AGG

If you have a father who is not involve with their children, like not seeing them for over 2 years, in that circumstance I would say it's fine to relocate. But if you have a father who are involve in the children's lives, relocating is a bad idea.

A mother's happiness is important, but if we are talking about moving the children away from an involved father, perhaps that happiness should be delayed until the children are out of school.

My XWH was a real jerk during the separation and divorcing period, I honestly felt hatred toward him. Since then I've healed and I don't hate him, I dislike him at times. BUT looking past all he has done, he still is my children's father and I can never consider taking the children away from him. I know fiancé would be a better father figure for my children, but he is not their dad.

When I was dating, I had a LDR, we're talking about 4 hours away, I can tell the guy was never going to reconsider of relocating, and he didn't even have children. I ended the relationship early on to save myself from any heartbreak later on.

we are feisty today agg...
i like it when you are feisty <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> lol

i see what you are saying. and i did not mean to attack lexxy in any way either. i do feel however that life happens and it may mean mom or dad meets someone who does not live locally (in my case, it is DOUBTFUL i will meet anyone locally who is anywhere near my snobby standards). when a marriage ends things do change, and part of that change could mean that kids have to move. if mom has placement, and dad does do his part and is an active dad, i would try to come up with a solution with him if it is mom who is going to remarry and move. give him just as much time as he is getting now with the kids, it will just be in different ways. for example, what i had planned to do was move my kids with me, and let my ex have most of the major holiday vacation times and the whole summer. and, when my kids were old enough, i would have allowed them to make the choice of where they wanted to live. if, at that age they decided they wanted to live with dad (which my son may very well have chosen to do, probably not my daughter though) i would have had to deal with that. and that is something i may have to deal with no matter where i live. even if i stay living locally, my son may choose to live with his dad when he is old enough in the eyes of the court to make that choice. i will have to accept that.

i never would have agreed to what is in your divorce agg. but, then again, you live in a much bigger place than i do. there is nothing here where i live and nothing for my kids. i do NOT plan to stay here forever. and where ever i go my kids will come with me and i will work out a fair arrangement with their dad.

i think we just see it differently. if a divorce had never happened, the kids would never have to move or be disrupted. by, when one does, that changes things.

there is no right or wrong here i don't think. and if the parents can't agree, then a court will have to decide. and then newly's friend will have to plan from there. if gekko and i had gotten that far, and a judge said no i could not move my kids out of state, than i would not have gone. i'm not sure what we would have done at that point, but i would not leave my kids here. plan b probably would have been to wait until they were old enough to decide who they wanted to live with and if they wanted to live with me then they would have to move. i just see it as life happening.

mlhb

I forwarded some of the excerpts to my friend.
She's feeling very down about the whole situation.
She truly feels she met the perfect man for her, and they've been dating 3 years now, and want to move ahead with life.

I don't think she realized that many women would write to voice their objection. She truly feels she's acting in the best interest of the children. Her X is an angry man type, but he is a very involved father. He's there physically, but not emotionally, and she wants the children to have a father who can also nurture they emotional side.

We have interesting discussions because I wish my X were more involved with my kids. He keeps his visitation, but won't let the kids do activities/sports on his time. My DD wishes her dad would take her to the father/daughter dance.

So, should we only date people within a 10 mile radius of us? (Between my friend, her X and I, I live 1.5 miles from each of them, and there are 3 separate school districts. So even a short move, could cause a school move.

Keep voicing your opinions on this thread. I think it is very important.

Yup, the "mom is always the better parent" nonsense always does that to me <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. Oh, and I didn't ask my ex if she would take the deal - she could have taken it, or just gone out the door, sans the kids. Not to get on my soapbox, but I do believe that there would be fewer divorces if people did not think that they could have it both ways - find a "better deal", divorce their spouse, and take the kids. Noooooot.


Reality check - would you have been happy with the reverse deal? If not, then it's not fair to make it sound like it's a No harm no foul type of thing.

AGG

well, i do not always believe mom is the better parent. in my case, i am, but that is not every case. my ex spent zero, nada, no time with the kids until about 2 years ago. i remember my son at 4 years old begging my ex to take him fishing in the summer and all he heard was "i'll try, we'll see, etc.." but the fire dept was more important, or haning with this friends was,etc..

enter ow and the fact he was going to try and take the kids from me in a custody battle so he would not have to pay child support, and all of a sudden he starts spending time with them. a father when it is convenient for him. so, yes, i think the deal i was going to offer him was more than fair considering his actions as a father. (but, no need to worry since that move is not going to happen now anyway).

i think it is a case by case basis honestly.

mlhb

AGG, I agree the mom issue isn't always clear.
My X happens to be a prime example of it though, as is MLHB's. They ignored the kids, and now just want to impress GF's.

Right, but yet you both posted that it was logical for the mom to move with the kids in the case of your friend too, where it appears to me that the father is every bit as involved as the mom. That is the "auto-pilot" "mom is best" reaction that I was arguing against.

AGG

If the move would mean she could work part time than that means she would have more free time to drive to see the kids should they stay with the Dad. She could use that free time to spend with her kids without having to uproot them.

I agree that she seems to be putting her BF's children's happiness and stability before her own children's. I also agree this is not an issue of "she deserves to be happy".

BTW AGG how were you able to put something about losing custody in your D decree? At one point I thought ex might move to Spain and wanted to stop that but my attorney said there was not way to control ex's behavior (I have primary custody). My problem was a bit different in that I wanted him to be close so he would stay involved. He's is about 45 50 minutes away in another state and it seriously interferes with "quality" time with the boys. He lives with GF and according to the boys when they are with ex they feel they are living in something between a home and a hotel.

AGG, I'm not saying Mom is Best, but I think there are distinct advantages in this case.
The economies are very different in each area, as are the job opportunities.
Home cost 1/3 to 1/2 in that area, so a larger combined home would allow mom to stay home (freelance) or work part time. Other expenses are also lower, property tax, insurance, etc. with great public parks, pools, programs.

Now, you may recall that I live 25 miles from my X, and he took me to court on this and lost. (The psych evaluator actually determined the distance I could move, and while I didn't plan to move that far, X dragged buying me out for 18 months and I lost quite a few homes in that time period).
So, friend's proposed distance is no more than my distance. And that distance occurs frequently in our bedroom community of a large metro area. (could be similar to AGG's LA distances).

These comments are much, much appreciated.

In my Divorce paper, we have down that the children are to remain in the same school district. If one of us move out of the district, then that parent would be responsible to drive the children to school or lose custody.