Ex doesnt like CAFCASS recommendation.

Judges generally go with CAFCASS reports unless there is good cause not to. If the concerns were raised after sight of the report they are likely to be seen as "sour grapes."

I wouldn't be filled with anxiety or remorse. In our case it made far more sense for me to live in Europe because that's where most of my clients were. In the end I didn't move because for various reasons it wasn't a good time to uproot the children and then my ex moved 400 miles away!

The Australian case U v U highlights a lack of "reciprocity" between mothers and fathers both in terms of legal rights and caring responsibilities in that contact parents are left free to relocate even if they have successfully applied to restrict the relocation of the parent with the majority of care. It was said there is a lack of reciprocity between mothers and fathers both in terms of legal rights and caring responsibilities and "it must not be assumed that one parent (the father) cannot move and that the mother must, in every case, subordinate her ambitions and wishes, not to the needs of the child, but to the wishes of the father to pursue his life in a place of his choosing. It is the interests of the child which are paramount, not the interests or needs of the parents, let alone the interests of one of them."

If an LTR applicant were to say ‘yes I know removing my child from his dad is devastating, for both them, but hey my selfish needs come first’ at least that’s honest. It’s the hyporcritical self deceit I can’t stand.

Zonked, you dont know all the circumstances, and I dont have to explain them to you. Suffice it to say that I am not being hypocritical in the slightest. My reasons are sound, and I know the ex doesnt like it, but you know what? He doesnt come first, my children do, they both want to move (that ought to tell you something) and as long as they are happy, so am I.
You sound very bitter. Have you had counselling?

Guys can we avoid making judgements on each other please? It's not why we're here and it's not helpful.

In responding to forum posts, can we please remember that, whilst challenge is healthy and debate interesting, this is - first and foremost - a support community. If we are unable to post sensitively, it's worth considering to avoid posting on that particluar thread.

Shezi

If the children's wishes are paramount, then why Poel vs. Poel ???

The moving parent does end up with a whole new set of priorities in the new country, and you will soon discover that fitting in Dad's visits will not figure in it, no matter what you currently say.

How old are the children? So if they said they didnt want to go to school or wanted to try drugs, that would be ok then?

You would do well to read some articles on the effects of fatherlessness on children - I can email you some if you like.

I agree with Shezi about being judgmental and too quick to jump to conclusions. We don't really know that much about why NRPs loose contact when LTR is granted - it could equally be that some NRPs have new priorities.

Every case is different and sadly sometimes LTR cases are fueled by the NRP's desire to control the PWC rather than contact being of primary importance. In this case the Father removed himself by moving 500 miles away first and I believe he chose not to let regular contact figure but doesn't want the children to move from the UK.

Shezi, you are right. My apologies.

Fiona, your comments are always interesting to read. Thank you.