GeoffM

Which is why I suggested trying to reach 50:50. Not 100:0 to the father as you seem to be suggesting.

scrubbedexpat099

I was thinking the same, how would you feel if your ex was taking them to live on another continent?

JAJ

It's your ex-husband forcing this into court with (at least based on your account) unreasonable behavior and demands.



It sounds like the house needs to be sold. It will sell if it is priced at its real value.

materialcontroller

But the move to the USA isn't a 50:50 thing is it? It's 100:0 to the mother and her decision alone. It's actually quite decent of the father to agree to let the kids leave, so why should he have to pay for visits?

By agreeing to removal, the father has already paid his "share" of the 50:50 as far as I can see.

JAJ

Because one of them is age 15 and staying behind, and the other is 14 and old enough to stay behind too if he or she wanted.

Michael

That is very true but the reason he may be doing it is very important. If he is doing it out of concern for his the children, then that is a very good reason. If he is doing it because he can, then that is not a very good reason.


If he is doing it out of concern for his children, then he should also offer to pay child support since she will be taking care of two children and he will only be taking care of one child.

Oregon Bound

I have offered to pay for the kids to visit him in the summer, I will pay for the oldest daughter to visit me too. I know it must not be easy for him to see his children move away and it's not easy for me to leave my eldest behind but I am trying to make arrangements that suit the kids. He has refused point blank to contribute to any visits whatsoever and even wants me to pay his costs if he comes to the US to visit the children. I guess I realy just don't know what's right and what's fair. We will not have the best of incomes after we first move but the income should substantially increase as we get the ranch running again but for now and possibly a year, we will have enough but not a lot spare.

GeoffM

Agreed. I understand why - who wouldn't try? But you (OP) shouldn't suffer all of his demands which is why I think you need a mediator of some sort. If it takes a court to become that mediator... well, it's not nice and it might even backfire badly. But do you give in without a fight? No!

Nonsense. They have agreed to separate, at least as far as living is concerned, and the mother has chosen where to live. The father has equally chosen where to live. That they are thousands of miles apart is irrelevant. Remember that he wants to dictate exactly when they will visit, and that the mother will pay for everything. We're only hearing one side but so far those demands are completely unreasonable. They are both the parents and they should be equally responsible. The mother will have her own costs to bear including moving, visas, setting up home, etc. Most of us know that living in the US is not necessarily any cheaper than the UK.

GeoffM

So he gets free holidays too. No, it's not right or fair!

Michael

That may seem to make sense but US courts many times won't even allow a parent with custodial rights to move more than a few miles away without the other parents consent even if there isn't any jobs in the area. However once the parent without custodial rights moves away, then the courts generally side with the parent that has custodial rights.

The courts generally makes it determination as to what is best for the child and not what is best for the parent.

materialcontroller

I don't think the father is being unreasonable at all. Had this been a joint decision, then the idea they should both be "equally responsible" would be valid. But that's not the case.

GeoffM

I understand what you're saying but this isn't a US court - and the OP would prefer to agree outside of court.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. The separation is a joint decision: what happens after that, well of course the father won't agree so your point is moot. But that doesn't give him the right to screw over the mother for every penny she has - and from what she says, she doesn't have much, at least initially anyway.

Michael

I suspect the systems are similar where the court tries to decide what is best for the child and not what is best for the parent. Just because someone wants to settle outside the court does not necessarily mean they are right.

In my case, my ex wanted to temporarily leave the US (several years) with the kids and I agreed since I thought that was best for the children even though my lawyer said I could stop her or if I agreed to allow her to take the children out of the US, I could probably get my child support reduced to $0. However I decided I wanted everything to be fair so I allowed her to leave with the children.

I suspect the lawyer had ulterior motives since he probably saw big $$$ if a long court trail dragged on.

Oregon Bound

OK thank you for the interesting perspectives. I do feel obligated to pay for the children's visits and am prepared to do just that. I did hope that maybe he cared enough about his children to come visit them in the US at his expense, we even offered to have them stay with us in another building on the ranch where we will be living.,or maybe help with the cost of christmas visits or something like that. he isn't prepared to do that. I guess one visit per year is enough for him. Both him and his wife work, he managed two foreign trips last year so money is not his issue.

materialcontroller

You seem to have done as much as you can do.

Where your ex is being unreasonable is in expecting you to shoulder the burden for his costs. It's right that you've drawn the line at that.