Relocation

After the birth of our child, I got quite homesick and asked the husband to relocate with me.  I still remember after our short 1 month trip back when our child was 6 months old, I was so upset going through the customs in the airport.  While the husband (then, now ex) was rushing me through my food and tell me to hurry up, I was taking my time because I was so sad.  I remember saying it out loudly to him "You are returning to your home country where it is your familiar place while I am leaving my home country, my family and my familiar place".  Upon returning to NZ, I was clutching to my son and feeling so miserable.  After that, I have repeatedly asked my husband for relocation for at least until the child is older.  But it is always met with a simple answer " NO".  Being Asian, we were told to follow your husband...  If he says NO, it's a NO.  So I accepted that NO and asked not to return to the workforce because I really just want to be there for our son.  At least I thought that will be a compromise since he wont relocate and I find tremendous happiness just being with my son.  Unfortunately, it is a NO again and I am labelled being over possessive and protective of the child.  Soon after, the husband also walked out of the marriage.  


This time, I asked again to relocate but it was again a NO.  Stupidly, I still respect his decision and stayed on.  But as life gets harder when I have to move out of the family home, I thought I will do it legally and asked my lawyer to write to him a letter asking his permission to let me relocate.  Unexpected to me, his lawyer took the letter to the court and filed it saying that I had always wanted to return home and now with this letter, it is enough proof that I will kidnap our son out of the country.  


Honestly, what did I learn from this?  When I am married, we cannot relocate because I have to respect my husband's wishes and his business.  After separation, I cannot relocate because of the Law.  On top of that, because of the Non-Removal Order, I dont even have the freedom of travelling home for a holiday without getting the court's approval and paying a bond!  That would cost me a lot of money which I do not have.  So in short, I am stuck in this country for good or give up my son which I cannot do.  


On the topic of relocation, I was told that it is an expensive (over $20k) and long process with no guarantee because the best interest of the child is paramount.  Here again, I have an extensive research which says otherwise!

A "child's best interests" is NOT a "compelling reason" to micromanage childrearing in the absence of serious neglect or imminent physical harm of a degree that would warrant institution of dependency proceedings, and it is NOT a "compelling reason" to restrict a parent's freedom.

PERSONAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-ADJUSTMENT: The most well-adjusted group in this category were children who remained with their mothers whose fathers moved away.


GENERAL LIFE SATISFACTION: Children in the custody of their fathers scored lowest on general life satisfaction. Children of divorce whose fathers moved away and left them with their mothers were the most satisfied.\


HOSTILITY: Children who moved with their fathers, or who remained behind in the custody of their fathers had significantly more hostility than children in families in which neither divorced parent moved, or who either moved with their mothers or remained behind with their mothers.


However, the group of children who moved with their mothers or stayed with their mothers when their father moved still had less inner turmoil and distress than children who either moved with their fathers or stayed behind with their fathers when their mothers moved.


PERCEPTION OF PARENT AS "SUPPORTIVE": Children across all categories tended to perceive the parent they lived with as more supportive. However, in general over all categories, children had a higher opinion of their mothers.


"GLOBAL HEALTH": Children who moved away with their fathers reported significantly lower "global health" than children whose parents did not move, and also lower health than the remaining three groups.


Fairness requires us to take these adult interests seriously for three reasons. First, relocation doctrine should try to allocate fairly the personal hardships of divorce. Second, it should not exacerbate gender inequality. And third, it should not involve the law in unjust coercion. These conclusions do not provide simple solutions. But I will argue that they counsel against using conditional custody changes to deter relocation.


These laws tie women to the location of their marriage, which often was chosen by their husbands, and therefore often keeps them far from family. It also limits their mobility to seek better jobs or new relationships, either of which may be important to raise their standards of living.


As to children's interests, a large body of research suggests that children do well when their primary caregiver does well (both financially and in other ways). Until the harms of relocation are demonstrated with greater certainty, we should not put custodial parents and children at risk by limiting relocation for those who need it, either by coercive threats to change custody or by costly and time-consuming legal proceedings.