if your SO's visa was denied...

[jundp 191]

I don't know the laws... *Can* the ex-husband stop the ex-wife from moving overseas with the kids? Can he stop them from moving across the country?

Depending on the laws of the state of residence, yes the ex (husband or wife) can stop the ex spouse from moving overseas with the kids, or cross country.

For example, in Washington, except in cases of alcohol/drug abuse, mental or physical abuse, there is no "full custody." It is always joint custody. My ex could prevent me from moving to Germany with my children unless the courts found that it would be in the best interests of the child. For example, a better job opportunity for me or my SO and therefore a better opportunity for my children.

The thing is that I will never take my daughter away from my ex (my son is almost a senior in h.s. so it won't be an issue soon). He was a crappy husband, but he's a good father.

So to answer the OP, if P's visa was denied I would not move to Germany now, but our relationship would not be over. We would deal the way we have for the last two years. It would suck, but my children must come first. And I do truly love P as well.

[Alex+R 0]

I don't understand how you wouldn't care if you would never see your kids again if it only made your ex happy to do so. That is bizarre. They are your children.

Right?

I was wondering when someone was going to say that.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Who would not care? Who says it is never? When Alla gets here, eventually, we would return to visit Russia and the children could see their father. But I don't understand how people feel divorced families have no right or it is wrong to relocate because they have children. I would miss my children tremendously, but to prevent a former spouse from starting a new life is wrong, IMHO. Why does a person have to be held prisoner by their former spouse?

I don't understand how you wouldn't care if you would never see your kids again if it only made your ex happy to do so. That is bizarre. They are your children.

Right?

I was wondering when someone was going to say that.

[Alex+R 0]

Because in this case they're not as much your former spouse as your co-parent. When you're a parent, you're tied to the other parent.

If you can live without your children better than without your SO, your priorities our out of whack.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

So all the women with children that are in the US from other countries have former spouses that are "out of whack" because they allowed their former spouse to come here?

Because in this case they're not as much your former spouse as your co-parent. When you're a parent, you're tied to the other parent.

If you can live without your children better than without your SO, your priorities our out of whack.

[Bassi and Zainab 1]

I would move to another country and take my daughter with me. I have sole custody and her father couldn't legally stop me. They would visit each other across the seas. And she would also have her stepfather. It's a personal decision. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer if you are trying to make the best decision for your life.

[funkyab 0]

If visa were denied would be a tossup between Sweden, Norway or Denmark. She has suggested Holland but we already lived there and i prefer Scandinavia.

[Alex+R 0]

So all the women with children that are in the US from other countries have former spouses that are "out of whack" because they allowed their former spouse to come here?

Because in this case they're not as much your former spouse as your co-parent. When you're a parent, you're tied to the other parent.

If you can live without your children better than without your SO, your priorities our out of whack.

I said 'out of whack' in relation to this sentence: "If you can live without your children better than without your SO, your priorities are out of whack." I've already told you what I think of parents who let their children go very far overseas and I've even given examples. If it's a few states or just one country over (like from Ontario to Pennsylvania) you can make that work. Or if the father has the means to visit the children every other weekend, then OK. I've already said what I think about other situations so I don't understand what you're asking.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

I would miss my children tremendously, but to prevent a former spouse from starting a new life is wrong, IMHO.

So it is wrong for her not to pursue her dreams, but it is right for her to destroy your relationship with your flesh and blood in order to do so. OK. I think children have a right to their parents and until my child is 18, it is my responsibility to foster that relationship, like it or not, if the other parent wants to actually be a parent. So if that means I am stuck with locals for awhile, well, that's life.

[Alex+R 0]

I would miss my children tremendously, but to prevent a former spouse from starting a new life is wrong, IMHO.

So it is wrong for her not to pursue her dreams, but it is right for her to destroy your relationship with your flesh and blood in order to do so. OK. I think children have a right to their parents and until my child is 18, it is my responsibility to foster that relationship, like it or not, if the other parent wants to actually be a parent. So if that means I am stuck with locals for awhile, well, that's life.

Exactly. Parenthood is 18 years of complete duty to your child. You can have your own life until it seriously infringes on your kid's wellbeing. Separating them from an active, involved parent infringes on their wellbeing.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Well, it comes off as if you are saying my fiancée should have to remain a prisoner in a unhappy living situation in Russia if her former husband did not want the children to come to America. (Her punishment for giving birth with his child.) Further, she should be closer and feel an obligation to her former husband more than I, for the same reason, until the children grow into adults. Likewise, I am somehow an uncaring father if I permit my former spouse to move abroad if she wanted.

So all the women with children that are in the US from other countries have former spouses that are "out of whack" because they allowed their former spouse to come here?

Because in this case they're not as much your former spouse as your co-parent. When you're a parent, you're tied to the other parent.

If you can live without your children better than without your SO, your priorities our out of whack.

I said 'out of whack' in relation to this sentence: "If you can live without your children better than without your SO, your priorities are out of whack." I've already told you what I think of parents who let their children go very far overseas and I've even given examples. If it's a few states or just one country over (like from Ontario to Pennsylvania) you can make that work. Or if the father has the means to visit the children every other weekend, then OK. I've already said what I think about other situations so I don't understand what you're asking.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

So a woman should remain in a miserable living condition and not seek happiness for herself and her children as punishment until those children grow up?

I would miss my children tremendously, but to prevent a former spouse from starting a new life is wrong, IMHO.

So it is wrong for her not to pursue her dreams, but it is right for her to destroy your relationship with your flesh and blood in order to do so. OK. I think children have a right to their parents and until my child is 18, it is my responsibility to foster that relationship, like it or not, if the other parent wants to actually be a parent. So if that means I am stuck with locals for awhile, well, that's life.

[Alex+R 0]

A place does not dictate a miserable living condition. You're exaggerating, I think, because you don't want to just say that you feel it's OK to put a romantic relationship before what's best for your children.

Yes, you are bound more to your children than to a whim you get to move abroad (even if it's for the love of your life), and being bound to the children means being bound to their other active parent, should there be one, who is also important to their lives. So yes, because of the children, a mother has a certain obligation to a child's father, and it's greater than anyone she might fall in love with.

[Jenn! 918]

It's a very touchy subject, but I'd say that as a child of parents who got divorced at an early age, I would say that a happy custodial mother and a father far away is worth more than an unhappy custodial mother and a nearby father. FWIW...

[Alex+R 0]

You mean if the mother does not want the father to see the children, Jenn?