My XH and I also have it in our divorce agreement that we will both remain living within 5 miles of the schools our children attend. I would be free to move elsewhere, but then I lose my 50% custody arrangement.

The kids maintain their stability with their schools, and friends, and activities -- no matter what.

I feel lucky that both my XH and I have both put the kids needs and want first.

I think Mothers are very important. But I also think at many stages of development their Father is even MORE important than their Mother.

MLHB -- I think you have a different issue in the fact that you are not in a location you want to remain in. I am fortunate that I would have no desire to move elsewhere.
I want my kids to go to the schools they attend, to grow up in this area, all of their extended family is close by.

Newly;

Your friend seems to be making some judgements about her XH.
How does she really doesn't "know" the emotional content of their relationship? -- that he is only "functional" is HER opinion, and he may not be terribly interested in impressing her. So is she only basing that on her observations or her recollection of past history?

If he is an "angry" man -- that is probably more directed towards HER than the children. He may be bitter towards her for the divorce he didn't want.

Well, my agreement makes no stipulation about what the parents can or cannot do - you are right, it is not possible to control their behavior. But it does say that the kids are to remain in the present school district until 18 (I guess the courts do try to put the kids' interests first, which is kind of amusing given how easily they are willing to grant no fault divorce <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />).

So, either parent can move, but not take the kids with them. It really does make things much more stable and safe. Like I said, I'd be losing sleep if I knew that any day my X could say "AGG, I am moving to Bumbleflock, and taking the kids with me - but no worries, you'll see them most Thanksgivings and summers".

AGG

Newly, while I hear you, I will say my usual thing - what if the tables were reversed? What if the friend's X said, "Friend, I got a great job offer in CA, with a huge raise, benefits, etc - the kids will be able to live in a mansion, go to beach, great schools, etc - so sorry, but I am taking them with me - but you can see them occasionally". Would that pass the "it's a great opportunity" test in your eyes? If not, then the same should hold true in reverse.

Now, you are right, 20-25 miles may not be too bad, depending on traffic. My ex lives half an hour away from me, and it's a non-issue. So I am not arguing specifically about the distance, more about the general idea of a woman moving her kids to another place because she found a new life and wants to be happy. I know you are not pushing that idea, so no worries <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

My family is 600 miles away and lives in a much lower cost area. I sometimes think my kids would have a better life if we lived nearby and they had the family support of cousins, sports, church, etc.
Here they only have me and dad, and grandma. They have two cousins who live 10 minutes away from them that they see 2-4 times per year. My kids see their cousins who live 600-800 miles away far more often - because I make it a priority.

My X is also alot like friend's X, angry men with a great deal of emotional abuse in each marriage (likely the source of the disrespectful judgements noted above). I find it funny that both of these men have alienated family members (sister & parents) who in close proximity. To me, that speaks volumes about the people.

I honestly think friend didn't look at AGG's flip side of what if he moved. Her X wanted full/primary custody, and will certainly fight this.

Newly -- another thing I would ask your friend is why she supports fathers rights in the case of her fiance, but doesn't extend the same to her XH?

She seems willing to support her fiance in his role as father -- even to the detriment of her own kids losing the day-to-day interaction with their own dad....

I think she needs to put her own judgements of XH aside, and try to look at this from a fresh perspective.

Lexxxy, it really is more a case of economics than protecting fiance's father's rights. This is the east coast. Homes there are so much more affordable. And even a halfway solution would result in a more expensive home (in a less desireable area), which would cause 4 kids (not 2) to change schools.

I do share these comments with her, and I don't think she saw everything from X's perspective. Her X has been afraid to make a move because he hasn't wanted to uproot the kids.

So, what are the thoughts on maintaining two separate households if married (to maintain stability)? Doesn't that erode the benefits of marriage? Living separate lives?

Newly -- I can see there are many benefits to this move (for her).

But ultimately what is her reason for moving?
Boyfriend?
More nurturing home environment?
Part-time?
Bigger house?

OK -- who is benefitting from that list?
Its either her alone, or her + kids. And that can be subjective. The kids may or may not agree that living with 2 new kids and a stepdad is better.
The size of the house may or may not be important to the kids. So some of those benefits are really only hers.

Where in that list is any benefit to XH?
How does she plan on selling that to him?
He is going to view this move as nothing but LOSSES for him. Is she offering to compensate him for his loss?
Is she willing to give up Christmas vacation with her kids?
Is she willing to give up Summer vactions?

Any negotiation should be approached with a win-win strategy. How can she make this a win for XH?

Is she offering to compensate him for his loss? Yes, she proposes to do more of the transportation.
Is she willing to give up Summer vactions? Yes

Any negotiation should be approached with a win-win strategy. How can she make this a win for XH?

Funny that you use those terms. I tried to use mediation with my X and the name was "Win Win mediation". X is uncompromising. Mediator said it wouldn't work in our case. Friend's X is also not willing to negotiate or compromise.

You have certainly painted a clearer picture for me. In my case, I don't believe my X capable of caring for my children. They would go to school and home with no activities, no one to check their homework, and no sports if he had custody. It appears I'd have an easier sell than she would.

This thread got my blood boiling, too, and made me feel like YELLING!

Count me in the camp with the XHusband. Put lipstick on this pig as much as you want, but such a move will errode the amount of time he spends with his children and make coordinating activities more difficult. I bet XH realizes how valuable time is.

It was for this very reason that I insisted on being the Primary Custodian. XW has the kids 50% of the time, but it's considered visitation. If she moves out of the school district her visitation then we'll have to readdress her visitation.

HL