A stuck mum who is now in the awful position of having to return home without her children has requested we post her commentary. She would like your views and ideas please... IF a family court system deems that both Mother and Father have exactly 50/50 importance in a childs life, and 50/50 rights, Joint Custody, regardless of childs age, life circumstance or family history. Then WHY is it acceptable for a Father to to go abroad for work and income opportunities for several years, leaving the child of Joint Custody behind, BUT, a Mother who must return home because life in the foreign country is untenable; financially, emotionally, linguistically, thereby forced to leave the child of Joint Custody behind due to Court order preventing their removal, can then be further condemned by the Father and system for having abandoned them and awarded Sole custody? This would seem to mean that either the mother IS considered of greater importance in the childs life that of the father, in which case she SHOULD be awarded the children and permitted to leave the country with them, or she is considered an absolute EQUAL and therefore is not abandoning the children but going where there are real sustainable opportunities. It cannot be both ways.
Posted on: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 06:33:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015