>But would a judge think it would be okay for 2 children that
>young to move TWICE in so short a time with so much distance
>involved? That's what I really question and why the
BM thinks
>it has to be done this way.
>
>Personally, I would put the concerns up first and if the judge
>seems to think that it's okay for 2 young kids to move that
>far that often, THEN offer the proposed visitation schedule.
I don't see how the judge can prevent it.
The kids have moved once and are now at some distance from their father. The mother wants to move again. The judge has several options:
1. Allow the kids to move with their mother. Kids would stay with their current CP but would have to move.
2. Change custody and have the kids live with their father (but they would STILL have to make a second move).
3. Allow mother to move but make the kids stay in current location. Obviously not going to happen.
4. Force mother to stay in state. Again, not going to happen.
5. Allow mother to move, let kids stay, force father to move to town with the kids. Again, not going to happen.
There is no plausible scenario where the kids don't have two moves in a relatively short time.
If the father can make a reasonable case that the mother will simply continue to move at short intervals, I guess it's possible to get #2, but I certainly wouldn't be on it. But even if he did get that, the kids are going to have a second move, so I wouldn't make 'two moves in a short time' the issue. Instead, I would try to make the case that the mother is unstable and has demonstrated a lack of stability for the kids. IMHO, it's unlikely that he'd win that argument, but it has a far better chance than 'two moves are bad for the kids' for the reasons given above.