Question: Should a parent who has custody of a child be able to move far away from where the other parent lives if they want to?  Please comment

Within reason ... say, the child has to be close enough to move back within a day.

It's legally the persons son/ daughter so they should be able to do whatever they want with the kid.

Only if the other parent is a drug addict or alcohol addict or they did anything to harm the child I think it should be OK to move.

That's not fair if the child has a close relationship to both parents.

If a parent has custody, then they get to choose.

No, that's mean to not let the child see the other parent.

Yes, they should, because they have rights to do that.

They have the right to move wherever they please.

That would be unfair and irresponsible.

Because every child deserves to be with both parents when they want to.

One parent loses ability to watch their own child grow.

They are free to do as they please.

Does it matter?

It's their choice, you cannot expect your parent to give up their life for you.

A parent that has custody of a child should only have to right to move away with the child if the child approves it. It isn't the child's fault if the parents couldn't stay together.

The child should choose who he/she wants to stay with and visit the other parent on the weekends or whatever.

Parents should be able to move far away if they want to but the child should still be able to have some form of contact.

Pro-choice.

If the parent has custody the other parent should be able to see their child.

It's their choice and if they have to move for work then they have to.

They should be able to do what they want, they are adults. Although, if the child chooses to stay with the parent that is not moving, even though they don't have custody, they should have that choice.

If a child is willingly living with one parent over the other it is perfectly okay to move away. It's not like they can't come back for holidays and the like.

I think that it wouldn't be fair to the Parent not with the child.

How would you feel if you were taken far from your mother or father?

It's the parent's right.

If the other parent is violent or not providing a good environment for the child they should be able to move away.

It could be very beneficial to the child!

Well in a way they should be able to, but it's good for a child to have both parents, unless one of the parents has a drug or alcohol problem.

Never.

This is good.

A parent should have the right to move if they have a good reason. It's a free country.

Not if the child wants to be able to see the other parent often.

If the parent has custody of the child, there is nothing the other parent can do to stop them from moving.

The parents are responsible for working out the distance issues.

If the child agrees.

If they do move they should let the child go with the other parent.

Why not?

People should have the freedom to live where they want.

If that parent has full custody then he or she does have the right to do that. But I think it's best to live in the same area as the Ex for the kids' sake.

It is very inconsiderate to the child's feelings to not be able to see their other parent.

Unless under extreme circumstances (drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.) it's just not fair to the other parent and cruel to have the child live without one parent.

if they want to move they have the right to do that. if they have split custody, they should have to pay for the transportation of the child to the other parent's home.

A child has a right to the guidance of both parents unless one of the parents is harmful to the child.

Only if whichever parent will be able to care for them independently.

If they have full custody of the kid then there is probably a good reason. Also the kid could have summers at one house.

Parents should not be able to move out of reach of the other parent because in most cases that time spent with the other parent is usually special and not often so it is not fair to move that far away and not let the child see the parent.

Of course. What if the other parent was abusive or the divorce ended badly? You don't need to keep children in that situation.

We need to stick around our family.

If the child and both parents give consent, it is ok.

If both parents have custody, it isn't fair to do that to the other parent.

Because it's bad.

It depends. If the reason the one parent has them was because of abuse, but otherwise, no.

Should coordinate with other parent.

I believe it is a good survey because there are many kids that have parents or guardians that are going through or have been through a divorce.

If the kid is going there every other weekend or whatever, then no.

No, because the child is going to be the one hurt by the distance and the parents should be adults and suck up their pride and deal with it.

Every situation is different. If a parent needs to move away for a job, that's different than moving away just for spite. If it's an emergency situation, that should be allowed.

It is unfair for children not to see both parents.

They have to listen to the kid's wants too.

Kids should still be able to see the other parent.

That's not fair to the child or the one parent.

They have custody so why does it matter? They should be able to move if they want.

Maybe the child can miss 1 parent and want to go back to them.

Only if they have full custody.

That would be horrible for the kid.

If they want to live somewhere they should just as long as they understand the child needs to see both parents.

Parents should not put the emotional stress of traveling or picking sides on a child.

It's their personal choice.

They should be able to move, but discuss it with the other parent first. Especially if the other parent has visitation rights and all that.

Most of the time, kids still love the other parent, and want to see them.

Well if a parent wants to get away from bad memories then they should not be tied down because of their divorce.

The parent might want their child to grow up in a better area so they have every right to move.

That's not fair to the child if they enjoy spending time with their other parent too.

Why should I comment?

Like this survey!

Because the father/mother is still the parent of the child. Whether you go away or not, is not going to change the fact. The other parent deserves a chance to participate in the kid's life.

I think that people should wait and pray through God to find the right one.

The parent has the right to move if they want to, but I wouldn't recommend it because it creates a lot of stress and difficulty for the child.

Both parents should have opportunities to keep in contact with the child/ren unless one or both of them were abusive.

It wouldn't really be fair to the other parent.

They have legal custody ... but they also need to consider the child's needs.

It's the parents' choice, not courts.

That's what my mom did.

I think that they have the right.

I don't think this is fair, as one parent will have to do more travelling than the other when parenting should be an equally split job.

They should stay in a trading-off distance.

Because they have custody of the children. If they want to move away with them they can.

My dad lives in Texas.

So not right. What about the other parent?

That's harsh, man.

I think it's only fair if they stay close.

It's their choice to live where they want. Perhaps the other parent is violent and abusive so ... yeah.

It's their choice, they have them so they should be able to.

I don't think unless there's a good enough reason the child should have to be separated from both parents. They should be able to have both parents involved in their life if they want to. They need them.

I think that it's wrong to even have custody. A child should pick who he/she wants to spend time with.

It's their decision and if work took them there ...

They should stay close.

The other parent should be able to see the child unless the other parent is abusive.

How is the other parent supposed to see the child?

Of course they can. The only exception would be if the child didn't want to.

Why should they move so far away? They uproot the child from his/her surroundings each and every single time he/she has to shift places, it's not fair for the child.

I think that would be difficult for the child to see the other parent.

That's not really convenient, for people that are supposed to be sharing.

The family can live in peace and not in a tense situation.

I just think that's wrong ... Both parents should be involved in a child's life.

That's not fair to the child, it would be as if they had to choose who they love more.

As long as they give the child plenty of opportunity to visit the other parent (if the other parent is safe and sane).

It's their choice and as long as it doesn't affect the child it should be allowed. Some children lose contact with one of their parents after a divorce.

If it's to spite the other parent, it's wrong. It can be traumatic and lead to children disliking one parent for no real reason.

Cool.

Parents have the responsibility to make sure that their kids have the necessities of life, and every child needs and deserves two parents.

It is not fair to the child, who has no control.

They need to stay close so that the kid can know their mom and dad.

I think it's stupid.

Maybe the other parent is treating the child badly.

If the other parent does not have custody, then they shouldn't worry about it.

I think parents shouldn't get divorced, period.

It's their choice.

I think if the kid wants to stay near both parents then the parent should respect that.

The child should decide.

It's unfair.

It's their right to do so.

I dont think that that is fair to the parent who does not have custody of the children.

If it's full custody, yes.

It's that parent's choice if they don't want to see their child. It's sad but it is their choice.

The child needs their parent near them in case something happens or whatever.

The other parent should still be enabled to see their child, rather than be separated from them. Clearly if both parents agree then this won't be a problem for them, but the feelings of the child in question should be taken into consideration too.

If the parent has custody then they should remain close by.

That would be mean.

Even though that parent has custody of the child it would be unfair for the child to not see their other parent because they live so far away. After all, he or she is their child too.

It would prevent the child from seeing the other parent even if they don't have custody because of travel costs and vacation.

The child should have access to both parents if necessary. Unless, the parent without custody has issues (anger management, drugs, etc.)

That would be really unfair to the child who wants to see both of their parents.

If they have legal custody of the child, then yes.

Their choice.

If they have custody then yes.

As long as they provide transportation for the child to see each parent.

As long as the child can see the other parent when they want, then the parent with custody should be able to move where they want to.

I don't think a parent who has custody of a child should be able to move away because then you are not allowing the parent to see them at all, and that isn't fair.

It's unfair to the other parent. Just because they don't have custody doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to see them.

Not fair to kid.

It is a free country as long as the child's well being isn't being threatened, then they should be able to do what they want.

The other parent has a right to see their children.

Both should have a say.

If they got full custody it means that the other parent wasn't able to keep the child so it wouldn't matter.

I don't think they should because depending on what the mom or dad has done, they should be able to see their child.

They shouldn't because you should be still able to see that child. But unless you want to see your child and still move away that's fine.

I think the parent can do whatever they feel is the best for their child -- if that means moving then so be it.

It really depends.

That's perfectly fair.

A person has the right to live wherever they wish.

Well its their choice but there could be a restriction of distance in certain cases; not suggesting a relationship between a child and a parent should change the distance but it should be down to accessiblity.

Because every child should have the right to see both parents on a regular basis.

It's not fair to child or parent.

Only if the child agrees too or if they separated because he was abusive or something.

It wouldn't be fair on the child or the other parent if they couldn't see each other.

I mean if they have a good reason for doing it then why not.

Only if the child agrees.

THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR FOR THE OTHER PARENT BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THE CHILD.

The child should be able to get to choose.

If they agree it should be okay.

The parents should be able to move on with their own lives.

They should be together.

That is unfair to the child.

Because it is not fair to the child. We have a say in it too.

It's torture on the child if it is not discussed with them and if they're not for it, ESPECIALLY if they still have to go from home to home.

It would be unfair to restrict the right to move freely.

If they have custody then they have the right to make the decisions ...

I still think it should be easy for the child to see the other parent. It makes it easier then getting on a plane too.

Both parents should live near each other because both parents have the right to see their child if they want.

Even though the parents are divorced, they shouldn't tear the kids away from each other. That's like "taking sides" with the parents.

The other parent should be able to see the kid.

Children should be able to see both parents.

If the parent is granted custody of a child, they should be able to make executive decision for his/her child due to legal custody.

You never want to separate the child from their parent.

A parent should be able to move away, but only after clearing it through the judge who gave them custody, and clearing it with the child, (they should have a say no matter what) and the other parent.

They have that right.

Their lives, their choice. Child shouldn't have to go.

It's not right.

Whatever makes them happy.

Only if the child gives consent.

Sometimes the other parent isn't active in the children's lives so the parent with custody should be able to make decisions not based on if the other parent is near.

The child should still have a relationship with the other parent.

I believe that despite relationship problems a divorced couple may have, they can live apart, but it is not necessary to live really far away, especially if the child wants to see his/her other parent.

I think it's mean.

If they don't want to be near that person for whatever reason, they should be able to move, only if they have full custody.

The parent who has custody is generally the better parent and can be trusted to make decisions that promote a healthy environment for the child. If that means moving away from the other parent, so be it.

Since they are divorced it's up to themselves what they do.

The parent should be able to live where they please, and the child can fly when visiting.

It's really mean to do that.

It is not fair to the child.

In most cases the presence of both parents within a child's life is essential for the healthy and well-adjusted development of that child. If one of the parents moves away, it will inevitably affect that child's future negatively.

They have a right to live where they want.

I think that even though the parents may have problems the child should not be punished ... and I also believe that at any age a child needs both parents in their life ... so both parents should be nearby.

The judge gave them custody so they can do as they wish.