snowbunny

Austin is losing its high tech jobs.

I can't move *anywhere* and take my kids. My best friends in the world live in Saratoga and Los Altos. I'm stuck.

Michael

Those are very nice cities.

Why can't you take your children with you?

I'm suspect that you may always have a problem finding good jobs if you can't move. No matter where you are in the world, certain jobs in quanities are generally located in certain places.

Elvira

How old are your kids, Amy?

I know in the UK, kids' views re. preferred domicile are taken into account from around the age of 14; definitely from age 16. Is this not the case in the US?

Sorry to hear you are having such a tough time...

Tracym

I would imagine she cannot move because the courts will not let her take the children more than 'X' miles from their father, so that the children can easily and frequently visit him.

Often courts impose a limit such as 100 miles.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It really is irrelevant whether one labels the current economic downturn as a "recession" or not. With rising unemployment and budget deficit, and the banking system in crisis, the situation is bad enough as is.

For one, you previously overstated the degree to which oil contributes to the trade deficit. The US imports about 10 million barrels per day, not 14 million, and the average price of oil has typically not been $125/bbl.

Much of the US trade deficit comes from consumer goods and inputs that end up in consumer goods. We have traded GDP growth for our trade deficit. That is not a sustainable position to take over the long run.

The US has the benefits of a legacy reserve currency with no viable competition. The EU will never become a military superpower, so the likelihood the euro gaining full reserve status seems unlikely. The real issue is China, which will eventually arm up and at the current pace will achieve reserve status, because they actually create GDP growth through production instead of through credit, as the US has.

Your window is too narrow. The issue isn't whether the US weathers the current recession -- it will -- but how it will fare decades from now. At the current pace of debt growth and consumption-oriented GDP growth fueled by a growing trade deficit, it is a matter of a few decades before the fit hits the shan. The next generation and the one that follows will pay dearly for our mistakes, as it is obvious that nobody wants to fix it.

AmerLisa

SB, couldn't you argue your case in court? Surely a judge might see things differently if you were looking at a permanent job?

Tracym

Unlikely I would think, espec. in Texas.

Unless there is some reason a parent is unfit, Texas almost always goes for joint custody.

And she is currently employed. To take the children away from their father would probably need a stronger reason than a better job.

AmerLisa

But these aren't young children. At least I'm pretty sure her oldest is a teenager. What a shame they don't take all that into consideration. I'm all for children being with both parents, but it isn't always feasible for one to stay in the same vicinity as the other.

RoadWarriorFromLP

The courts aren't particularly interested in one parent's career advancement. As long as she could work somewhere with her skill sets, there is an expectation that custody rights will be respected for the sake of the kids.

Tracym

She said she had nine years before she could leave the country - so my guess is that one child is 9.

I don't know that it's a shame. I am of course sorry snowbunny is unhappy - but I think most courts (and probably myself as well) feel that kids being with parents is more important than the career advancement of one parent.

Assuming the other parent is actively participating in the kids lives of course.

AmerLisa

I think allowing courts to make this kind of decisions has a lot of pros and cons. Certainly in my case I would have been extremely angry at being tied to a parent that wasn't worth the spit to spit on.

Tracym

Ok... if not the courts, who would you have make the decision?

It's not that I am unsympathetic - far from it. But it's an unfortunate consequence of divorce.

I guess I don't think fathers have less rights than mothers - unless of course a parent (either one) is unfit.

AmerLisa

I don't think fathers have less rights than mothers either.....but nothing is ever just black and white. I have no suggestions on who should decide this matter. Only that it should never be just because you're divorced you are forced to either give up your children or live in close proximity to the person you've divorced for the sake of the children. Both things aren't realistic in my opinion.

Tracym

Unfortunately, I can't think of an alternative.

Either the two divorced parents live in close proximity - or one essentially gives up the children.

So you say "It should never be..." - but it would always be for one parent.

Of course, I have no better idea myself.

AmerLisa

It isn't always a black or white situation. Children of divorced parents usually live with one or the other parent, with the other parent having visitation rights. Whether it be in one city or two States across. Forcing two parents to live in one city is pretty cruel and not considering what's right for everyone.

Anyway, its neither here nor there, I'm just sorry SB has to live her life like that. But you do what you have to do.