After finishing a tough court case I want to to ask you guys what you think should take precedent.

1) A custodial parent has the right to move with the children. Financial stability for the parent is financial stability for the child(ren).

2) The child(ren) deserves the right to see both parents regardless of what is in the best interest of the custodial parent.

A lot of political grudge matches have been showing up between Father's Rights groups and NOW(Nation Organization of Women) fighting over this very issue.

My case is finished and I won. So I am not looking for legal advice but it was an interesting journey to get knowledgeable enough to win in family court.

That's kind of a tricky one.

When I was young my mom moved across the country. My dad was a little upset that I could only visit a few times a year instead of every other weekend, but he knew that it was a good career move for my mom and that it would benefit me to see more of the country.

He didn't complain, and just bought me plane tickets when I wanted to come back to visit. TBH, I have no idea how it would have played out if he tried to get an injunction from her moving me away.

IMO, it's normal for people to move around, and as long as the move isn't too extreme (out of the country) I don't see a problem with it as long as there is still regular visitation. It's best for parents to work together and consult each other for this kind of stuff, but that doesn't always happen.

Too often, kids end up being used in shoving matches between ex's. My parents despise each other, but I was lucky enough that they both had the good sense to communicate and it never went to court. It takes two to tango though, and a one sided dialog go's nowhere, so unfortunately not enough situations are like mine was.

Tough one to answer.  I know you can't just up and move, or you can risk the ire of Family Court. 

And number two is a non-sequiter to me.  It is not at any point nor should it ever be about what is best for either parent.  It is about what is best for the children.

Congrats on your win though.  It seems like it was a long time in coming, and a far tougher battle than it should have been.

I am not an expert on it. But I would say a court would like to see the two scenarios happen without mutual exclusivity.

That is to say, they would like to see the custodian parent making financial progress(because as you say it will benefit the child) but they would like the child to be able to see the other parent as well.

I think it just comes down to reasonabless and common sense in the end.

I think filing for a divorce is proof that both partners are equally unsuitable to be parents.  Legal rights over one's children are a legal privileged that ought not to be considered 'inherent'.

Divorce is harmful to children.  End of sentence.

If the marriage has no minor children, it is a non-issue.

Yes, but doesn't that show that the one non-deep end parent was chosen by the other?  Does that not show really bad judgement unsuitable for raising children with?

Statistically speaking, divorce with children under 12 is harmful to children.  They end up with significantly statistically higher lifetime rates for alcholism, drug abuse, prison, suicide and their own divorces.  This is caused by witnessing their parent's divorce.

I'm only floating an idea here.  I'm not married and I have no children (I am a child of divorced parents).

Too often divorce is spoken of as something that is only of concern to the two people in a marriage and those people speak of what is "good for the children".  That's bullshit.  Statistically speaking, most children are better off remaining with fighting parents than with divorced parents.

Ergo, I conclude that divorce is done by adults who put their needs ahead of the needs of their children.  That is disreputable in my books.

Indeed, it is to be noted that my viewpoint cannot be expressed in the poll choices. 

Statistically speaking?  Yes it is.

I'm just approaching the topic rationally.  The longterm statistics say that divorce (any and all of it) is quite harmful to young children.

That's a fact.  You can deny this fact, or ignore it like everyone else who wants to justify their own divorce, but I choose not to overlook this inconvenient fact.

I'm not preaching anything and I'm not campaigning to ban divorces.  I'm just calling a spade a spade.  Pretending that divorce is not harmful to children is just silly.  I'm not going to help salve anyone's conscience about their own divorce by going along with "everyone's doing it these days" bullshit.

Adults are seeking their own interests even if it harms their own children and I don't see why I should have to ignore that or pretend otherwise.

No one has a right to live a guilt free lifestyle.  All actions have consequences.