Originally posted by Links17
View Post
If the standard of living of the children's lives would be greatly increased by a move, than the courts would likely allow the move as it would be in the children's best interests. That does happen. But what makes you believe that having joint, or even shared custody, would prevent the same thing from happening given similar circumstances? Having joint vs sole is no magic wand that can prevent the kids from moving if it is found that such move is in their best interests.
My ex has sole. I have input, she has final say. To be honest, that is no different then others here that have joint with one parent having final say. Also, my ex is restricted by our custody agreement that she cannot move more than 100km's from her current residence without my consent. Should she try, I'd take her to court to prevent. And then she can argue why it is in the kids best interests and what concessions she is willing to give me should the move be permitted.
Comment