lies by omissions

[Mess]

The kids don't want to be an hour away from their friends, playgrounds, sports, recreation, school, church etc. The idea would be to have both parents living within easy reach of the same neighbourhood so that the kids are "home" at either house.

Moving away from the neighbourhood means when your children are with you they are visiting, not at home.

It's not the end of the world, but it is a decision that takes you away from your kids and makes the situation more difficult for everyone involved.

It's fine to say that many *but by no means all* adults live an hour away from work. Children don't typically live an hour away from their friends' houses and have to drive or take a train to play ball or read comic books together. You are also going to run into issues spending an hour taking them to school in the morning and then another hour going to work?

This choice basically sets up the situation where one parent is primary, one home is principle residence, and the other parent has "visits". This is fertile ground for alienation.

Is it better to live near family and church and away from your children, or close to your children and drive an hour to church once a week? It is each person's choice, and we all have to set our priorities and tend to our needs, but the reality is that this choice has possibly led to the current negatives you are facing and certainly it has exacerbated them.

[dadtotheend]

I agree. No matter how you slice it, living an hour away effectively removes school overnights from him.

And as to being near his family, his closest family are his kids. No two ways about it.

I don't mean to be harsh, but as Mess says, he's basically given up on primary residence.

[karmaseeker]

Thank you all for your posts. I value the feedback and you have very valid points. These choices were not mine to make I wasn't on scene when they were made. I do however see both sides to the point and understand why he choose what he choose. He was in a terrible place at the end of the marriage and made the best choice he could make at the time. May not have been your choice but everyone is different.

Perhaps in the courts eyes it was the wrong decision that has led to such an inequality in access time. However, that doesn't justify alienation, manipulation, or discounting his ability to be a good father.

The children have family in both towns, they have friends in both locations too. the have access to activities, and are loved. I highly doubt most people when the separate move within 2 min of each other so the kids play at the same park, but I could be wrong as I have no statistics on the subject.

I have no doubt that the living situation has exacerbating the problem but we are here and she is there. It is what it is. So are you saying that means that a visitation schedule that is reasonable and fair can't be reached? We have proposed many parenting plans that doesn't upset the childrens routine and everyone has been rejected. We know we won't get primary residence, we know we won't get sole custody, we know we won't get 50/50 access but we are asking for an assessment, we are asking for a parenting plan than stops the banter the spells it out in black and white times, weekends, and holidays. We want to be able to take the kids to a child psychologist cause they are being hurt (and not by the location of the houses but by the cruel brain washing that is going on). We are trying with the best we know, and the best we have.

[billm]

Originally Posted by karmaseeker

...discounting his ability to be a good father.

...I highly doubt most people when the separate move within 2 min of each other so the kids play at the same park ....

A good father? He lives an HOUR away - he's just a visitor. And making the kids drive 2 hours to visit his town on a regular basis (ie weekly), is not in their best interests - it separates their daily life and friends and activities from where they really live with mom - and he can't really be part of that because he is so far away.

I'm in the house the kids were born in, my ex bought a house 1 km away. Neither of us will move until the kids are adults. Simple.

Your thread is about his ex, but for me this issue out weighs anything you have mentioned. He simply can't be a parent and live that far away in my opinion. If he wants to be a parent, he needs to move as close as possible to his kids, to be part of their life, not force them to live his - it will only be harder when the kids get older and do more activities locally.

As a side note - if I hear the skype/computer as a solution for long distance parenting one more time, I'm going to really lose it!!

IMHO

[karmaseeker]

I have said now a few times that the living situation is not ideal and have agreed that it has exacerbated the issues.

Billm, I am happy for you that you got the house, that you have the kids 50/50, and that your ex moved within 1 km of you. Sounds like a great set up.

Not all of us are perfect people and people on these sights are here for support and help are they not?

To say that a living situation outweighs fraud, adultery, alienation, over discipline, lies, and emotional abuse is a tad harsh IMHO.

Also, Skype is a resourse no different from a telephone or mail to promote communication. But I'm sure by your opinion, you would have felt I should have stayed in Europe until my child was grown. My ex (we never married) left me 2 weeks before I gave birth. I stayed 10 years in his country 3 min walk from his house - so that my son would have a father. I was adopted and I wanted my son to know he was loved. After 10 years alone away from any support I choose to come home. My son is happy well adjusted and knows he is loved. His father and wife are welcome in my home any time and I will make any concessions I can to keep communication and relationships thriving. But according to you, I suppose I am a bad parent.

I do not understand your stance. It seems quite critical.

I came to these forums because I am struggling as a step mom with in part raising 2 girls that are so emotionally all over the map, because I am trying to do the best I can by them and by their father whom I love. I am trying to be supportive and find answers to problems. So, aside from up root my son again, and alter the pre-existing pattern, as well as financially ruin my partner - who can't afford to move as. Do you have any suggestions for any of the other numerous problems we are facing?

Or is your intention to just point out our failings?

[Mess]

We are all occasionally cranky and we aren't trained to write in ways that are diplomatic and politically correct. We'll step on your toes but we will give heartfelt advice and opinions.

You can't wave a magic wand and suddenly be living a few blocks from the kids. What we are trying to say is that the distances involved have magnified any problems, it didn't just come from the ex, anything the ex said or did was magnified by the distance away from dad. The distances made it impossible to deal with problems and issues as they came up. The distances make it harder to get any changes through the courts.

Living in a different town is fact you can't ignore as you are going forward. You have to include the continuing impact in your expectations and you have to consider it in any steps you take to change things.

I can't speak for everyone but I think it was the attempt to brush off the choice to move and the distance as being somehow necessary and justified that makes us react. Your husband surely had personal reasons to move, but the move wasn't for the kids, it was for him. You need to accept that and realize that the distance involved is an issue that has to be dealt with as you go forward, or you have to lower your expectations.

Look at it this way, there are people on this board who fought against an ex moving their children away to other towns, similar distances and travel times, and won in court because it would have affected their relationships with the children. For someone to choose to move away, and then complain about alienation doesn't sit well.

[karmaseeker]

Thank you Mess, I do not diminish the validity of the point that distance creates more difficulties but what I am trying to express, maybe unsuccessfully by drawing my own story into this is that if you have 2 reasonable people working as a team than it isn't a difficulty that is insurmountable.

I understand why he moved in the first place and you are absolutely correct in saying that was a decision based on his best interest. But, when on an airplane they always tell you to put on your air mask first. Emotionally, he needed to be close to support to help him put his life back together. Maybe there are others who are stronger that could recover from discovering a year affair but he was destroyed. Fine, maybe you want to call him weak for that. But, I see it as making the best choice he could at the time. If you aren't strong than you can't be strong for your children. So go get strong so you can be strong for your children.

I wonder if roles were reversed and as a woman who found out her husband had betrayed, lied, and behaved so cruelly would they be judged for needing their family to help them recover. Just a thought.

Society expects men to be strong like ox and women are given leeway. Is it only women that can be emotionally abused in a marriage? I have seen what women get away with and how they sometimes treat partners, ex's, and their own children. Women are not always the victims.

So, being in a horrible place... choices were made. Choices to get better. Be healthy, and create a life at a distance from a small town where everyone knew the story. And like all choices there are consequences. These consequences are creating new problems and these new problems we are tying to face as a team one hurdle at a time.

We are only asking to remain joint custody. We are asking for there to be a clear structure of a parenting plan so there doesn't need to be continual conflict ever single week. That won't equal 50% or any where near it. 50/50 may be ideal in theory but even that seems to still create issues and consequences. I don't think it is unfair to ask that it be clarified when exactly we have access so that there doesn't need to be a barrage of emails, texts and phone calls upsetting everyone all the time.

We don't want to upset the routine that has been established and was running fine we only want it to be adhered to and written in legal ink. for example one year we had the kids 11 days over xmas and this year she refused to give us any more than 24 hours. Clearly stating days, times, holidays, pd' days, summer schedule etc won't remove all the hurdles but it will remove some.


Also having it written which expenses above child support and how much will allow everyone to budget and hopefully not go further into debt. Private ski lessons are not in my opinion a right. Great if you can afford it but we can't. I feel bad at the inequality of financial life but I take responsibility for not being as wealthy so my son doesn't get ski lessons or equiptment, he doesn't go to Florida every year but the girls do. They are not going without and my partner makes more money than me so his CS is significant. My son is my responsibility and he gets what his dad and I can afford to give him. My partners ex makes a lot more than me too - that's good for her. My partner carries his weight and only wants to break even at the end of the month. Lesson - life isn't fair. So be it.

But we can try aim towards respectfulness and being as fair and thoughtful as we possibly can with what we have, and the choices we've made, and the consequences we have created.

We wouldn't be going to court if all members were being reasonable, willing to go to mediation, or letting the kids have access to a child psychologist so they can have there own support .