if your SO's visa was denied...

[Jenn! 918]

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

No, I mean that I think it's probably better for the child ultimately if the mother is in a healthy relationship where she is happy even if that means that the children get to see their biological father less often. I think that having to sacrifice a good relationship solely to stay in closer proximity to the kids' father might build resentment, which is obviously not good for kids anyway. In an ideal world. both parents can be happy in their new lives while also being close to their kids, but if that's not always a possibility. I think if it were me, I would "let" my ex take the kids away. Kind of the "ultimate sacrifice" in a way, no?

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

You have been to my fiancée's flat in Russia have you Alex? You have seen the way she lives? You have seen the four beds in one tiny room? I think I would be a better judge of her living conditions than you. No woman should have to sacrifice finding a better life for herself in favour of a former husband she no longer has any feelings for. I cannot believe you actually feel this way.

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.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Now this I can support.

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

No, I mean that I think it's probably better for the child ultimately if the mother is in a healthy relationship where she is happy even if that means that the children get to see their biological father less often. I think that having to sacrifice a good relationship solely to stay in closer proximity to the kids' father might build resentment, which is obviously not good for kids anyway. In an ideal world. both parents can be happy in their new lives while also being close to their kids, but if that's not always a possibility. I think if it were me, I would "let" my ex take the kids away. Kind of the "ultimate sacrifice" in a way, no?

[chri'stina 190]

It would be hard for me but yes I would live in India. I love Sujeet, how could I not do anything to be with him even if it means making myself uncomfortable?

I don't at all mean to come across offensive, so I am sorry if it sounds that way, but I am just going to say what I think about this subject. I don't understand someone starting a relationship with someone from another country when their only option is living together in the US. I know sometimes matters of the heart can't be explained/understood but still...why pursue something that has such a condition of "it's here, or it's over..."? I really don't understand it. I can't imagine being in that position. I think if I had a child before meeting Sujeet, I would have had to consider that if I wanted to be with him no matter what, it could mean taking or leaving a child, and I don't see how I could have pursued a relationship where only living in the US was the choice. Talk about a road to heartbreak if it doesn't go as planned! I think I would not want to be in an international relationship unless I knew I could definitely move out of the US if necessary to be with the person I loved. Just saying what I think...it's always been something I can't understand.

[rebeccajo 14]

Stina.....

Can we do a hypothetical?

Let's just say (God forbid) that something happened to Suj and you were left on your own to care for Kavi. Later on, you met another guy from another part of the world. You fell in love with him.

Who do you think would be moving where?

[almaty 19]

It would be hard for me but yes I would live in India. I love Sujeet, how could I not do anything to be with him even if it means making myself uncomfortable?

I don't at all mean to come across offensive, so I am sorry if it sounds that way, but I am just going to say what I think about this subject. I don't understand someone starting a relationship with someone from another country when their only option is living together in the US. I know sometimes matters of the heart can't be explained/understood but still...why pursue something that has such a condition of "it's here, or it's over..."? I really don't understand it. I can't imagine being in that position. I think if I had a child before meeting Sujeet, I would have had to consider that if I wanted to be with him no matter what, it could mean taking or leaving a child, and I don't see how I could have pursued a relationship where only living in the US was the choice. Talk about a road to heartbreak if it doesn't go as planned! I think I would not want to be in an international relationship unless I knew I could definitely move out of the US if necessary to be with the person I loved. Just saying what I think...it's always been something I can't understand.

excellent post and thoughtful sister stina....

[Alex+R 0]

You have been to my fiancée's flat in Russia have you Alex? You have seen the way she lives? You have seen the four beds in one tiny room? I think I would be a better judge of her living conditions than you. No woman should have to sacrifice finding a better life for herself in favour of a former husband she no longer has any feelings for. I cannot believe you actually feel this way.

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.

Now you're just making stuff up. I already told you that I thought if living conditions could seriously improve, it might be agreed upon by both parents that the child is better off in another place. In fact I also already told you that specifically if "your Alla" were without a lot of financial resources, I could understand moving the kids to the US.

That said, finding a better life doesn't always mean moving miles away. Being happy and finding a loving partner doesn't always mean moving miles away. In fact, it usually doesn't. You make it sound like those things are always somehow linked.

You keep saying "in favor of a former husband" and things like that as though the children are a house or set of expensive china that the couple once shared. They're people! It's not about the ex as an ex; it's about the ex as the parent of your children! Why can't you understand that?

[Krikit 1,165]

You have been to my fiancée's flat in Russia have you Alex? You have seen the way she lives? You have seen the four beds in one tiny room? I think I would be a better judge of her living conditions than you. No woman should have to sacrifice finding a better life for herself in favour of a former husband she no longer has any feelings for. I cannot believe you actually feel this way.

Given the above, and in response to the original question, if Alla's visa were denied, would you still move to her country and leave behind your kids?

[Alex+R 0]

You have been to my fiancée's flat in Russia have you Alex? You have seen the way she lives? You have seen the four beds in one tiny room? I think I would be a better judge of her living conditions than you. No woman should have to sacrifice finding a better life for herself in favour of a former husband she no longer has any feelings for. I cannot believe you actually feel this way.

Given the above, and in response to the original question, if Alla's visa were denied, would you still move to her country and leave behind your kids?

You know, he did already for a year or something. It's all for love! -- just not for love of his children, I guess.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

Well, I just know it would break my husband's heart to take his daughter away from him. At the same time, I am not ready to make the sacrifice of giving her completely up to be with someone a million miles away either. I would feel I would be doing the same thing to my daughter that my father did to my siblings and I, dumped us when the new lover came along. Sure, probably better without such a person in my life, but it still bothers all of us even 9 years later. Other reasons might be acceptable, but only might.

That is just my opinion. Neither my husband or I come from developing nations, so I am not answering from that standpoint.

[chri'stina 190]

Stina.....

Can we do a hypothetical?

Let's just say (God forbid) that something happened to Suj and you were left on your own to care for Kavi. Later on, you met another guy from another part of the world. You fell in love with him.

Who do you think would be moving where?

I know what you mean, but my issue is more of...why get into that kind of relationsip to begin with? If the hypothetical happened, I would have a hard time letting myself fall in love with someone from another part of the world again(assuming I even wanted another relationship). I would fight myself about it and would try to avoid that situation happening unless I knew for sure that Kavi and I could move if needed. If we absolultey couldn't move, then I wouldn't want to enter that kind of long distance international relationship. Me and Kavi would be a combo deal, you get both of us or neither of us, and if you can't move here and I can't move there, then we aren't even going to start a relationship.

[Krikit 1,165]

You have been to my fiancée's flat in Russia have you Alex? You have seen the way she lives? You have seen the four beds in one tiny room? I think I would be a better judge of her living conditions than you. No woman should have to sacrifice finding a better life for herself in favour of a former husband she no longer has any feelings for. I cannot believe you actually feel this way.

Given the above, and in response to the original question, if Alla's visa were denied, would you still move to her country and leave behind your kids?

You know, he did already for a year or something.

Yes, but that was for another reason and he's back here petitioning for her. I'm just wondering if he would move to Russia if her visa to the US was denied.

Kazan, I don't have an ulterior motive in asking you this.... just in case you're thinking this is a trick question. I do not judge. I'm honestly interested in the answer because of your comment on the living conditions. But if you don't respond, I understand.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Crikey, I will answer you. Alex has just never liked me (perhaps because I post with raw feeling on issues I have passion for) and loves to pick apart every detail of my posts when she disagrees with me (almost always) until one of us quits. She can win, I'm done with her on this thread.

The decision to move to Russia, for a year, was not made lightly. First my children are not babies. My youngest is 12. and my oldest 27. I warned them 9 months in advance of the possibility. We discussed the situation as a family and made the decision together as a family. They understood the reasons I needed to go there and be with Alla and her family. If they would have had a true problem with it, I would have not went. We kept in contact often and used video conferencing to be together on special days. It worked out better than I thought it would. My children have a lot of love for Alla and anxiously await the day they can see her for real.

As for the future, we have talked about the chance of her being denied. My children would permit me to return and I would. As I said earlier in this thread, that is how I feel, my love for Alla is not determined by a country's border lines. I don't take the proposal of marriage lightly. I didn't ask her, will you marry me only in the US and if you are denied entry we are finished. That for me is not love. Living apart would, and did not priorly, lessen my love for my children. My children love me, and I them, no matter where we are geographically.

As a matter of fact, the first woman (an American) I dated, following my divorce, had a former husband that moved to South America to marry and live with his lady. I asked her how this affected the children and what she thought about it. She said it was no big deal. He flies up a couple times a year and spends a month with them. The children miss him, but they know dad still loves them. This is what I found for us as well.

My problem with the way this thread twisted, was with the belief that divorce should and must be fair for the children. I'm sorry, it isn't. My fiancée should not have to live poorly with her parents in a two room flat for the next 9 years because her former husband wants to see his child every weekend. He is the one that did her wrong. Alla wanted to find love again, improve her life and her children's future. We both feel ever fortunate we somehow found each other and mesh so well. When there is an international relationship, someone is going to have to move! In our case, it is best if Alla and the children come to me, but if the government were to say, "denied", I would have to take the plunge because I made her a promise.

You have been to my fiancée's flat in Russia have you Alex? You have seen the way she lives? You have seen the four beds in one tiny room? I think I would be a better judge of her living conditions than you. No woman should have to sacrifice finding a better life for herself in favour of a former husband she no longer has any feelings for. I cannot believe you actually feel this way.

Given the above, and in response to the original question, if Alla's visa were denied, would you still move to her country and leave behind your kids?

You know, he did already for a year or something.

Yes, but that was for another reason and he's back here petitioning for her. I'm just wondering if he would move to Russia if her visa to the US was denied.

Kazan, I don't have an ulterior motive in asking you this.... just in case you're thinking this is a trick question. I do not judge. I'm honestly interested in the answer because of your comment on the living conditions. But if you don't respond, I understand.

[sj5 4]

no, there is no reason to get denied.

[rebeccajo 14]

Stina.....

Can we do a hypothetical?

Let's just say (God forbid) that something happened to Suj and you were left on your own to care for Kavi. Later on, you met another guy from another part of the world. You fell in love with him.

Who do you think would be moving where?

I know what you mean, but my issue is more of...why get into that kind of relationsip to begin with? If the hypothetical happened, I would have a hard time letting myself fall in love with someone from another part of the world again(assuming I even wanted another relationship). I would fight myself about it and would try to avoid that situation happening unless I knew for sure that Kavi and I could move if needed. If we absolultey couldn't move, then I wouldn't want to enter that kind of long distance international relationship. Me and Kavi would be a combo deal, you get both of us or neither of us, and if you can't move here and I can't move there, then we aren't even going to start a relationship.

Stina -

I understand about NOT looking for another relationship of this kind. I mean - the paperwork alone is a nuisance! LOL

And I understand what you mean about you and Kavi being a combo deal.

I guess I think it's important for kids to have roots. They need their friends; their same school; their same room. Some kids are more flexible than others. My son is, was and always has been a homebody. I think his psyche really requires a physical home base and he gets highly agitated if that homebase is upset. Other kids - not so much.

It's my thinking that it's not necessary to put a 'qualifier' (for lack of a better word) on a relationship that BOTH of the parties have to be willing to move. I personally don't believe that needs to be part of the equation that proves the parties in the relationship are equally committed to each other. WHERE the couple lives usually has to do with several practical concerns - one of which is children (if there happen to be any in the picture).

What do you think?