It's not workable in reality, although perhaps desireable for the sake of
the children.
There needs to be a clear distinction as to who
we're talking about. Are we suggesting that
PWC shouldn't be allowed to move or NRPs? Because
there's a slight difference given that the likely gender of each (I accept
it's not always the case). No one ever seems to suggest that a NRP
shouldn't be allowed to move away, but it seems to be an issue if the PWC
wants to. Equally, as a society, we accept that dads (because it usually
is the dad - I know it's not always the case) walk away from their children
when a relationship breaks down (again, I know it's not always as simple as
that) and there's nothing we can do about it (judges won't order a NRP who
doesn't want
contact to actually have
it) but a mum who wants to start her life over WITH her children in tow is
somehow doing the 'wrong thing'.
Life moves on, things happen,
people get promoted, meet other people. No body suggests that parents who
live together are not acting in their children's best interests if they
make a decision to move to the other end of the country, but suddenly it's
an issue when if the PWC wants to do that.
Violence and abuse
are a separate issue - judges ordering contact with children is one thing,
but the fact the PWC has to then see a once violent, abusive NRP on a
regular basis to facilitiate that is another. Almost as if the legal
system accepts the systematic abuse of one half of a separated couple. Not
good.
Forum 
England and Wales 
Scotland 
