"The child's perception, she continues, has more to do with whether he or she has a stable, happy home than it does with the social norms that adults contend with."

having been a child of divorce, i can say that this statement isnt true no matter how stable the household is, In my instance anyway.

I just think moving across the country from your child is pretty crappy, regardless of whether you are the mother or the father.

aww, chouette, i wouldn't be so quick to judge. they don't really explain the exact situation (i.e., why UC berkeley and not elsewhere).

Anonymous, moving to Berkeley wasn't the cross country move. They all originally lived in Santa Monica, then the mom went to school in Berkeley (which isn't that bad IMO and the husband probably should have been willing to go with her while she finished school), but then after she finished school she moved to New York.

Never speak on these things until you have to live it. My sons both have lived with their father for the last few months and will for the rest of the year. They are in better financial and geographical places than I am. My son's get a chance to see more than just one city and I get a chance to focus on paying my hospital bills and student loans. They are happy and healthy.

I was raised by my father and saw my mother during summers breaks from school. My dad was way more financially stable than my mom and my dad lived close to his family while my mother didn't. It didn't affect the way I grew up, I grew up in a very stable loving home.

And also moving across the country is not selfish, if that's what you need to do work and support yourself or be happy, then so be it.

My mother gave up custody of my two younger sisters and I when I turned 11. She had some issues and I ofcourse was furious with her. Our paternal grandparents we're given custody and even though our mother realized what she had done and wanted us back a few months later, we had no contact with her for almost 8 years. Because I was a child at the time I did not see the benefits of her actions. My mother is now the most loving, supportive mom I could ever ask for. She accepts the past but she has not forgiven herself - I do.

Its fine as long as she pays child support.

my mother leaving me and giving up custody was probably the most traumatic experience in my life. I have never been able to form any lasting relationships with women because of it. But I guess her happiness before the kids right.

Well, it's obvious that the child (and the marriage) was less of a priority. Given that this woman was in her early 20's, and was going through a dynamic phase in her life, was this a big surprise? Being a mom and wife got in the way of her goals, so she shedded those roles.

This is WHY most people should marry and have children LATER in life, as opposed to 18 years old. Life be may less messy that way.

Basically, I have mixed feelings about this situation. While lessons may be taken from this, I think she made the decision that was right and good her. With that said, I don't envy her.

Well in a divorce, one of the two parents has to get the kid. Duh. I think that the parents should agree on who could provide the better, more stable home. This is almost sounding like a feminist argument that the women deserve to keep custody since the woman gave birth to the child - which is ridiculous. If the father can provide a better home, then he should have custody. If the mother can provide a better home, then she should have custody. End of story. Ideally they should both spend the same amount of time with the kid(s) but we all know that's not always possible.

"psychologist Judith Sills explains why this is unfair and acknowledges that sometimes these decisions are best for the children"

That's what I thought custody decisions were about, what's best for the children.

My parents divorced when I was four, thank God. I remember them every morning in the laundry room my father banging on the washer and my mother banging on the dryer. After they divorced the property was put up for sale. It was a shame really we had a nice little set up. My maternal grandmother lived to the right of us, my aunt lived to the left of us and my baby sitter lived to the left of my aunt.

Anyhoo my mother the mother of six definitely needed to restructure her life so in the mean time my parents shared custody k-2 then they made the decision to ask me if I'd like to go live with my older brother and his new family for a school year. I didn't know what was going on on their end while I was away but they would always come visit together and it seemed as though they were still a couple. When the school year was over I flew back to L.A. to find both of them there waiting for me and as it turned out they go back together and we all went home together.

They still argued a lot but more often than not it ended with my father trying to give my mother a smooch. They eventually remarried two years before my mom past on.

This totally reminds me of Kramer vs Kramer. When the mother wanted her son back, it was partly because she felt it was what she *should* do because she was the mother. I think that whichever parent is most fit to have primary custody should, and that can be the mother or the father.

Personally for me, my child is my life and I work towards her happiness before my own even if that means admitting my husband is a better caregiver. My father "raised" us kids to the best of his ability which is still 100 times better than my mother could have done. I know she loved us but she has mental health issues so we lived with my father... simple.

Its strange that it seems people still believe having a child means your life is over. You still get to/have to do whats best for you, as well as the child. Its not JUST the child that dictates everything forever and ever.

I can't judge anyone for such a huge decision without having been in the situation myself. I agree with the statement that a child's perception of a happy home is more important than social norms - my own parents divorced when I was 7 and sure, it was hard at first, but they're so much happier apart and I now two amazing stepfamilies. I think that the resentment that would probably have built up had these women stayed would have been incredibly obvious and had more of a negative affect on the children than having a mother who made the decision to give up custody.

I think it's interesting that people make comments like "if that's what you need to do work and support yourself or be happy, then so be it" (not trying to pick on you, simplyfab) on an article like this, but as soon as there is a post about Jon Gosselin moving to his NYC bachelor pad and dating a new woman, everyone calls him a douche. It just seems like if the genders were reversed in this article, people would be calling father who gave up custody a deadbeat or an absentee father. (I am talking about the first woman who moved away from her kid, not the second woman whose child died of cancer and had mental health problems).

I agree that your life isn't over when you have kids, but they HAVE to be a priority. It's just part of the responsibility of being a parent.

And yes, I speak of this from experience (as a child, not a parent).

I have very mixed feelings about this. I have a great, loving mother who has alway put the interest of her children ahead of her dreams and aspirations. I have a hard time understanding mother who give up there kids. I understand that sometimes mothers have to separate themselves from their child for the benefit of the CHILD, but for a temporary period of time.But doing it because your child is on the way of your dreams and is better for you to be away from he or she, that's a bad mother to me.

I ment their

Geez, there should be some sort of rule about having kids. Clearly having kids before you're ready implies that you already don't care about what's best for them, so why are parents going to start looking in their best interest after a divorce? This is a load of crap article.

A good mother will do what is best for her child and be selfless in that decision.

I have mixed feelings about this as well. I just hate to see such harsh judgments about these things when nobody knows the whole story. While I admit to reading these stories and having strong opinions about it, I would never go so far as to call this woman selfish or a bad mom just because she isn't the primary custodial parent.

And if the gender were reversed, I would say the same thing.

"I agree that your life isn't over when you have kids, but they HAVE to be a priority. It's just part of the responsibility of being a parent."

I agree, but as most people know, this sadly isn't always the case. Irresponsible people have kids all the time (not calling this woman irresponsible).

Its not so bad what she did. Her husband was the better parent and she got a chance to improve her life and in a sense she can give more to her son that way. She sees him regularly, and so I'm thinking the boy is going to be fine. I have a little boy and went through divorce and I have shared custody. That's a pain because you have to live near your ex husband for the rest of your life. By law I can't move very far. In order to get full custody I would have to go to court and spent my life's savings on a attorney. Many women know that going into a divorce and if the kids are old enough they just leave the kids with the ex and move where they want to. That way your not bound by law to be near your ex and you can start your life over. Then you just have the kids for the summer or holidays and weekends. Otherwise if you take custody the ex moves nearby and calls you every week about this day or that day or this weekend or that. It's a miserable existence for the kids and the parents in my opinion.

I think that as long as one of the parents has custody it's ok. What I don't agree with is moving to the other side of the country without your child.

You made a choice to have a child and that means you have to sacrifice things for that. It's like Nicole Kidman living in Australia while her children are in the US.

My parents divorced when I was nearly 2 years old and I think that was definitely the best. My Mom had custody of me my whole life and when I was younger I would see my Dad every other weekend or so. To this day my Dad hasn't grown up, he's still as selfish as he was 20 years ago and so my Mom having custody was without a doubt the best situation for me. My Dad lived around the corner from me until I was 8 and then he moved away and naturally I didn't see him nearly as much which I hated. So for that reason, and in my own personal opinion, this woman moving to New York while her kids are in California is not the right thing to do. Even if they don't say it I'm going to guess those kids would prefer to have their mother close by.

I have mixed feelings about this issue. I don't think it's wrong to say that most children naturally have a stronger bond with their mothers than their fathers. After all, a woman carries her child for nine months, gives birth, and basically is the primary caregiver for most of that child's life. In most cases, I think the mother having custody just makes more sense. After all, the majority of divorces are settled out of court with both parents usually deciding to give the mother custody for this very reason. OTOH, a lot of fathers may have developed a strong bond with their kids as well especially in cases where the father took over the role as primary caregiver for whatever reason. After all, if the mother gives up custody to the father because she thinks he's a good or better caregiver, I don't necessarily think this is selfish anymore than when a father does it for the same reason. After all, it's probably better than putting the kids through some nasty custody battle. While some custody battles may be necessary due to an unfit mother/father, I think the majority of them are due to a selfish parent who thinks he or she is entitled to custody of a child out of some sort of revenge even when he or she was NOT the primarycaretaker of the child during the marriage or because he or she wants to avoid paying child support. These are the cases that concern me more than whether some mother or father willingly gave up custody of their child to the other parent.

i gave my son to my aunt and uncle when he was 5 years old. its been 7 years and he's now 12. i had serious mental health issues. i never meant for it to become permanent but it did. when he left, i only got worse. he was whole life. we were never apart until then. we still talk regularly but i only see him a few times a year. he lives far away. there was no one else to take him for me. i have not had anymore children and never will. i grieve as much today as the day i sent him away. however, he is a happy, healthy, very smart little boy. he has had many experiences since being with them that he would have never gotten with me. he has been to several different countries and is very well rounded. i will never forgive myself for having the breakdown that i did that led to sending him away. i still see him sometimes, and have to take a second look. i hear his voice sometimes also. i gave him up for his own safety. i have complex PTSD and dissociative disorder from events in my own childhood. i love my little boy than anything on this planet. i want to say that for the ones that are judging really need to stop. you will NEVER know the pain of giving up a child(even if for his own safety) until youve had to do it.

I am coming very close to making this very decision. I think I had kids more because my husband wanted them than because I did. Now I get no sleep and am always stressed and unhappy. My marriage is in jeopardy because of this situation as well. I think if we got divorced he would be the better parent to get custody and I hate myself for that. But beyond that, he is also a good man and he loves his kids dearly and I couldn't bear to separate them. I would consider doing the 50/50 custody split but there is no work in my area and he doesn't get paid enough to support all of us so I would have to look for work out of state. How do you fix a situation like that?

I do love my kids by the way, so don't want to just leave them behind and I also don't want to take them from my husband, he is a good man and I'm just afraid I'll actually get a wild hair one of these days and go off the deep end, I'm so stressed. Becoming a stay-at-home mom is the worst thing I could have done. And I can't get a job over here at the moment, plus we have no one to watch the kids if we both work except for an extremely expensive daycare. I think more of the problem then is financial strain, which is no stranger these days to most of us. And to clarify, I have good days and bad days on the wanting to leave thing. I love my kids and my husband I just get absolutely no breaks and we are broke as soon as he gets paid. Guess we picked the wrong time to have kids eh? Well, I am about to do something I swore I wouldn't do, but that might save my marriage and my relationship with my kids, and take care of the financial problem all in one swell foop. I am going to join the Army...AGAIN. Yes, I said it. And I will probably get people (like my mother) who say, why would you choose the Army over your kids, and what kind of mother would be willing to leave her kids behind for months at a time? And risk her life at it to boot? I would say, one who wasn't meant for the life of a stay-at-home mom, and one whose husband actually wants to stay home with them instead of working a dead-end job. And ladies that is what made me love him so much more, to know he's willing to let me be who I need to be and not condemn me for needing a break from it all from time to time. Those who are judging moms for leaving their kids behind, please don't. Most women don't have very many options and may live in a place where there are no jobs and neither spouse can afford to pay child support.