Should The Mother Of A Broken Marriage Be Allowed To Live On The Other Side Of The World, Taking Her Children With Her, Thus Separating Them From Their Father And Grand Parents?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3077461/The-long-distance-grandparents-dared-fight-son-s-ex-decided-Australia-grandchildren-adored-Chris-Dawn-staked-life-savings-battle-stop-her.html

[-Talbot-]

I would say no. If it happened to me I would follow and buy the nearest house possible. (Haven't read the article yet)

[ummmm]

I don't think the grandparents should have a say. Potentially that's 4 extra people trying to make life changing decisions. It's between the parents.

The mother is Australian. It's not like she split with her partner and decided to emigrate. She just decided to go home.

[ummmm]

Sorry...I just realised it said she was a Brazilian beauty. Either way...she's not from the UK.

[New Judge]

Quite so, ummm.

Had it been reversed and the father had decided to clear off to Oz (leaving the lone mother with the children) not much would be said. He would be "entitled" to his new life, having abandoned the children and their mother.

Couples need to realise when they split up that there will be casualties and it is foolish to believe otherwise. If they want all the advantages of being together they will have to stay together.

[Sqad]

Yes......of course the mother should be allowed to take HER children wherever she wants.........the clue is in the detail......she is the MOTHER.

Yes, I do feel sympathy for the grandparents.........but i have seen many "grandparents" sell up their home in the sun abroad to be next to their grandchildren and then the parents move with the children miles away fro the grandparents.

[woofgang]

Silly behaviour by the grandparents if they want to stay on good terms with the mother of their grandchildren.....

[THECORBYLOON]

Thee eldest wee one was born in Australia in December 2008 and the family moved here in May 2012.

[andy-hughes]

As a granddad to five grandchildren, I have every sympathy with this couple but -

children as a rule go where their mother goes, and if she has chosen to emigrate, that is her choice.

It is very sad if grandparents lose touch with their grandchildren, but it is a sad fact of life, and trying to force the mother to stay by legal means will only strengthen her resolve to do as she wishes - which is her right after all.

Our children do not belong to us, they are loaned to us for a short time.

That applies even more to grandchildren - and again, although I sympathise, I do not feel that the grandparents have any moral right, and certainly no legal right, to compel this lady to keep her children where they can see them.

[atalanta]

Just imagine the result of giving grandparents the right to say where their grandchildren should live. Should grandparents be able to decree that the children should live in the next town, the next village, the next street ? Of course not. In many cases a mother wants to get as far as possible away from a violent ex-husband, so giving grandparents the power to say where she should live would be to trap her within easy reach of the abuser.
These grandparents would have been far better advised to use all that money on long-distance visits.

[New Judge]

Absolutely, Andy.

There seems to be an increasing notion of "ownership" exhibited by grandchildren. As you have rightly said, grandchildren are even less in the possession of grandparents than children are of their parents.

[trt]

## I would say no. If it happened to me I would follow and buy the nearest house possible.

Not everybody has the money to do that Talbot.

[naomi24]

Yes.

[chelle7272]

It's not clear if the grndparetns still have any relationsship with their son, the father. The article says the mother must visit the UK with the girls at her own expense and Skype the father once a week. So it's not as if they'll never see them again....

[maggiebee]

Love this poem:

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.

Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so he loves
also the bow that is stable

[THECORBYLOON]

Reading what the Grandparents say, the impression is they will never see the wee ones again but the Court Order says the mother must visit the UK with them annually at her own expense.

[wolf63]

maybe its the grandparents that she is trying to get away from.

The children's happiness should be the most important consideration.

[grasscarp]

The 30,000 wasted on a court battle would have paid for a few trips out to see them. I had my daughter living in Chicago for a couple of years. Thanks to Skype I kept in close touch and flew out to stay from time to time. She had two children in that time. I did not mind her being away because communication was free, easy and face to face and air fares are not that expensive. So my opinion on this story is that the mother should live where she wants to.

[Old_Geezer]

I don't have the enthusiasm to read through the article, for which I apologise, but generally speaking I think it is very sad for grandparents but unless there is a question on the parents being unsuitable guardians, they don;t have a say. These days there is internet connections / Skype / etc.. so there need not be a total break.

As for the parents, I don't see it is automatically right for one gender to take priority over another. There are complaints enough when Arab countries give priority to the father, there should be the same complaints when western society gives priority to the mother.

It seems to be that parental responsibilities should take priority over careers, and if both parents are taking a keen interest in their offspring, neither should be allowed to take the children to another country against the wishes of the other. Bad enough when moving from one part of the country to another ! Kids don't remain kids for long. A couple of decades and both parents are free to go where they wish. Until then I suspect it is in the best interests of the kids to have both parents available and within reach.

[hc4361]

I'm in this situation, twice. Two ex daughters in law have moved far away with the children and there is no contact at all. Our hearts our broken but there is nothing we can do.

[ummmm]

OG...they split when they were in the UK. The fact that the mother had custody was probably decided at that time, before she decided to go back to Oz.

I just skimmed the article and couldn't see if the father objected.