DivorceNet®

"I understand he was trying to prevent me from relocation"

I doubt that he cared you moved. His concern was with the children moving.

It IS almost impossible to move children out of my state. From what you wrote, you would have never been allowed to take the kids out of MN. To do so here, you have to show an employment opportunity that is outstanding, with extensive reports on the school the kids will be attending along with a great area to live. A parenting plan would have to be 100% set up beforehand, with the move away parent absorbing all costs. Beyond that the NCP would have either be a child molester, or not paid CS or seen the kids for at least a year. Let it be known that if he did move to MN, you will never be allowed to take the kids from here.

Beyond that, my concern lies is you are coming to MN without a job and going to school....which most probably means you will be on the public dole.....and in MN, that means around $40K in benefits/cash/vouchers a year. I hope you take full advantage of it. If I were him, I'd move to Minnesota a few blocks away. It's the only way to remain a parent.

I have been stewing on your post for quite some time. I am going to say what I think the others may be hinting at...

But first off, I do not know where everyone is getting their information, but my husband went through a relocation case just last year when his ex tried to relocate his kids out of town. This is what we learned after being educated by one of the best family law attorneys in our city: the state of Washington by default assumes that relocation for CP is permissable as long as the child is considered to have as good of a parent and environment in that home, as they would by staying with NCP. Even out-of-state relocations are default permitted unless the NCP can show cause. There are strict criteria in which an NCP must appeal a relocation, and the odds are 50/50 for both the CP and NCP in most cases.

With that being said, I am still surprised that you won a case for going to SCHOOL in another state. Did you get a major scholarship to an ivy league? Is this why you won? I can see why the attorneys told you it was an unlikely success, but not because of the state's default assumptions. Simply because it's an insane justification.

Personally, I am deeply saddened for your children.

You make a lot of statements that throw up red flags that you and your ex aren't even close to done yet healing from the divorce. Which means you are still viewing the situation through the perception of pain from this event. My husband's ex and him are still going through the healing process, and as a result, they still fight ugly.

I do not mean to point fingers at you, but I am very certain that if we asked your ex about the case, he would say you were just as nasty as he was in the fight. I understand divorce, and how skewed perceptions can get. I have been through a nasty divorce, but fortunately never had kids with the ex. Also, my husband's ex is frankly pathological in her lying (she will even lie about little stuff that means nothing), and tries constantly to poison the kids against their dad - even now. But in spite of her issues, my husband chooses to not fight her custody, or stop the kids from seeing or loving her.

Frankly, your wording and desciption of the case sound like a revenge. Maybe it's not, but from an outsider's perspective, your justification sounds pretty weak. You could have found a very good school to go to in Washington that would have allowed your kids to be at least in the same state as their dad, but you instead are moving your kids to the middle of the continent. How are you managing out-of-state tuition? Or is this a private school? I pray that you aren't getting the money from your ex through support. That would just be salt in the wound. Maybe you got into an ivy league school that will allow you to find a six figure job? That at least would explain why you are choosing a path so damaging to the parent-child bond between your ex and his kids.

In the end, it your kids that are going to lose.

I agree with Astro. I hope the father finds a way to move to the same area as you, or hope you will try to find a local alternative.

It would be great if he moved to MN to be closer to the kids. I am not on any "public dole". School is not the only reason the Commissioner and Judge let me leave...all 11 criteria were considered and STBX was unable to prove cause for any point. We both need time to heal but I don't regret my decision. You are right that he would say I was also "nasty" or "mean". I made this decision with the help of our children's and my therapists. It was not done lightly. As angry as I may be towards him at times, screwing up my children's relationship with their father would be selfish and petty. A CP being able to move to benefit from family, schools, costs etc. should be considered but done with sound judgment. Without giving every detail and boring all to tears... He went too far in painting a smear campaign that backfired on him when the court was presented with actual proof of the opposite. You are correct that the children lose...but I firmly believe children need predictability, consistency and unconditional love. Sometimes that environment is best provided by not remaining close to the other - but what one does when granted relocation about fostering a relationship with the NCP is solely placed on the CP. I think about the soldiers in Iraq that are gone and not see their kids for months on end...would you say the soldier made a poor choice to leave his family to serve our country? It's sometimes about the greater good and finding clever solutions to keep relationships close. Reading a book to your children over a webcam is still better than being in the same room with your children and ignoring them. These are just my thoughts and I remain a work in progress...

[quote]. My children are very young 5 and 7...they can not fly unaccompanied. He will have to travel to see his kids... [/quote]

FYI: at five years of age, a child CAN fly unaccompanied. (UM)There is typically a fee (Alaska Air charged fifty bucks each way. SW has been free in the past...)

When they are 12, they are no longer considered a UM, but you, as the parent, may accompany them to the gate and wait till they board (and vice versa)

I agree with newsmom 100%.