Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Relocation for family support

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Relocation for family support

    I am going through mediation with my husband. I have requested to move myself and the children to an area 100Km away from our current matrimonial home. My reason is for family support as well as a closer proximity to my work. My parents, two sisters, his parents and sister are all in this area and would love to be more involved in our lives. He is resisting this because his job is 20 minutes from where we live now and would be 40 minutes from my desired area. He claims he would have to quit his job to follow us if he wanted be involved in our children's lives. He works 10 hour days.

    If we sell the house, we may both have to move. This will end up with the children changing school districts no matter what. If all of that is going to change, why can't we go to where there is family support?
    Can he claim any kind of undue hardship for having to travel that far for work?

    Looking for any information anyone can offer here.

  • #2
    If you don't have his support to make a motion on consent, good luck with that.

    You will need an lawyer experience with mobility issues. This will not be an easy fight.

    Imagine how you would feel if he proposed moving to an area that is closer to his place of work?

    Comment


    • #3
      Unfortunately - Its an uphill battle... good luck. The reasons you mention are valid, but not enough if you have 50/50.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Natureluv View Post
        I am going through mediation with my husband. I have requested to move myself and the children to an area 100Km away from our current matrimonial home.
        So, you want to move from say... Scarborough, ON to say Innisfil, ON. You want to uproot the children's schooling, relationship with the father, for occasional visits of a 100Km drive?

        Suffice to say... The 400 highway is filled with people driving the 100km to and from work every day. The distance isn't far enough to justify it... The court won't go for it... You are wasting your money.

        If you want support you have it and its only 100km away. Suffice to say, this is modern living and modern times. Maybe if you go in horse and buggy this distance would matter but, it doesn't in today's time.

        Don't waste your money... Accept reality and plan your time on weekends to visit family and your commute to work properly with no disruption to the current access schedule or jurisdiction of the children.

        Mobility stuff is upwards of 150,000 in legals or more...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Brampton33 View Post
          So you want to diminish the time between your ex and his children because you want to be closer to your extended family? Your sister spending time with your kids does not take priority over an actual parent. This will get shut down pretty quickly in court.

          Easy. Working families are struggling to find child care especially now that many are closing due to costs. It may be a case that she is looking for a solution to have no additional supports for child care.

          There are plenty of people who have had to move to support one parent’s career and struggle to find community supports. Many depend on family members to assist with emergency care, pick up and drop off and home schooling in the event of a pandemic. Not to mention other costs have increased too which makes it more feasible to depend on family. She didn’t say she wanted to take the kids away from dad. She could be isolated and alone with their primary focus being on dad’s job and moving closer would provide support to both of them after they split. Note too that she said HIS parents were closer too.

          Before you jump to conclusions…remember this isn’t your ex making a post and you have no idea what her situation is.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tayken View Post
            So, you want to move from say... Scarborough, ON to say Innisfil, ON. You want to uproot the children's schooling, relationship with the father, for occasional visits of a 100Km drive?

            Suffice to say... The 400 highway is filled with people driving the 100km to and from work every day. The distance isn't far enough to justify it... The court won't go for it... You are wasting your money.

            If you want support you have it and its only 100km away. Suffice to say, this is modern living and modern times. Maybe if you go in horse and buggy this distance would matter but, it doesn't in today's time.

            Don't waste your money... Accept reality and plan your time on weekends to visit family and your commute to work properly with no disruption to the current access schedule or jurisdiction of the children.

            Mobility stuff is upwards of 150,000 in legals or more...

            By using your example of location you prove a really interesting point that would come into play in court.

            Based on what she provided they live closer to HIS work than hers. They will not be able to afford a house where they are now. She needs additional supports since her soon to be ex works 10 hour days.

            Let’s consider this in the current situation they are in. If he works ten hour days and has a 20 minute commute, she is on duty for before and after school plus dinner/homework. How involved is he at this schedule during the week when heavy lifting is required? What kind of an impact is there on the kids should mom have to work late or gets stuck in traffic? How much is childcare for a split family with limited funds because they have to now be in two houses? Where are they going to find housing for what they can afford?

            In her scenario, they are equal distance from both their employers, dad is still working ten hour days and is still not available to help. Mom can use family to assist with before/after school care reducing the amount of child care costs on both of them and they both could possibly find new housing they can afford.

            In the current housing climate, it isn’t so easy to say you can’t move and if dad is holding out because he only has a 20 minute commute, how is that a better reason than “other child care and housing options that work”?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Natureluv View Post
              I am going through mediation with my husband.
              Tactically speaking, the best move would have been to get him to agree to you having the majority of the parenting time, and then springing the move on him.

              It is unlikely that he will voluntarily agree to losing his kids, I don't see how this ends up anywhere but court.

              I don't think there is a point in mediation if you plan on moving. Save your money and just file in court to get the ball rolling.

              One idea... maybe move 50km away instead of 100km? In traffic that's about one hour instead of two hours, and that could make a big difference. Also, you might be close enough at that point to enlist family support?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Brampton33 View Post
                I never suggested it was my ex making the post. Perhaps OP can move and leave kids to primarily reside with other parent. That is a possible solution/scenario that can be explored.

                Cue the sarcastic responses trying to pick that statement apart....

                And I didn’t say it was. I am sorry to say Brampton but you jump to a position that is coloured by your situation. Before you attack a poster (and you were mildly attacking her) think about where her question may be coming from.

                Not to mention she noted he works 10 hour days and her commute is longer. Inevitably, one parent bears the brunt of employment situations and that is further challenged by a split.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                  In the current housing climate, it isn�t so easy to say you can�t move and if dad is holding out because he only has a 20 minute commute, how is that a better reason than �other child care and housing options that work�?
                  The concept is habitual residential juridiction. Its not about parents its about children.

                  1. This poster needs to produce a true "material change in circumstance";
                  2. This poster needs to demonstrate that its in the best interests of the children; and
                  3. Mobility laws and changes have made it harder to move children than previously.

                  I would bet money that a court wouldn't disrupt these children's habitual residential location... Their schooling, attachment to friends...etc...

                  One only has to read my previous posts on this subject to realize that I (a) am not talking from my ass and (b) the claiming "poor" is a BS claim cause of offset CS... It should be balanced between both of the children's residences.

                  How is one parent able to make it work and not the other?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                    How is one parent able to make it work and not the other?
                    Ah but you don’t know the other parent’s situation. He could be digging in because it is better for him to live where they are because he a) isn’t responsible for the heavy lifting of child care and b) does not realize he will have to pay cs AND child care.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I am not following Tayken here.

                      The laws on this are new but just last year GoBlue lived in booniville and his ex and her boyfriend wanted to move to North Bay. The material change, his ex wanted to and her BF got a job elsewhere. He was advised to pack up and get ready to move based on the community.

                      In this case it is unknown how much support the extended family on both sides provide.
                      -the kids are losing their friends and schools anyways.
                      -It is only a 20 minute drive extra for her ex daily.
                      -The standard of living may increase.
                      -For all we know the ex works at a Walmart and can transfer. Maybe it isn't so hard for them to find a replacement job.

                      Maybe her ex simply needs some compensation or convincing and forcing the legal stuff can be avoided.

                      Tayken: what constitutes a material change here?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by pinkHouses View Post
                        I am not following Tayken here.

                        The laws on this are new but just last year GoBlue lived in booniville and his ex and her boyfriend wanted to move to North Bay. The material change, his ex wanted to and her BF got a job elsewhere. He was advised to pack up and get ready to move based on the community.
                        Go read the update. Child didn't move. Remained in habitual residential jurisdiction. I know the file well.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                          Ah but you don�t know the other parent�s situation. He could be digging in because it is better for him to live where they are because he a) isn�t responsible for the heavy lifting of child care and b) does not realize he will have to pay cs AND child care.
                          If they are in mediation as stated by the OP then he knows about (b) and (a)? Unless they have the world's worst mediator?!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Or it just started and she was thinking about presenting this. Or he is arrogant and thinks he has a solid case. Either of which are also true.

                            My husband had a great mediator and his ex felt she was a winner. It went to court and she lost.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                              Go read the update. Child didn't move. Remained in habitual residential jurisdiction. I know the file well.
                              Yes, they settled, didn't go to court. GoBlue gave up a bit by agreeing to drive to Sudbury for exchanges.

                              I recall that Sudbury and North Bay had better profiles so an opinion of the thread was that he would have to move to Sudbury.

                              What if she moved to Innisville and drove the kids to X for exchanges?

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X