AITA for stopping the mother of my child from moving?

A 24-year-old man is in a difficult situation with the mother of his 2-year-old son. After a brief casual relationship in university, she became pregnant. She initially refused contact and denied him involvement, but after the baby was born, he went to court to establish paternity, parental rights, and contact. The court granted him rights, and he now sees his son regularly.

Recently, Amy (the mother) told him she’s moving 40 minutes away by train for an exciting new job at a financial firm in the capital city. He was unhappy about the extra travel and worried it would make future shared custody harder. When she refused to discuss it, he went back to his solicitor and asked the court for a “specific issue order” to prevent the baby’s address from being changed outside his city. Now Amy’s mother is calling him selfish and saying he’s ruining Amy’s future. He feels guilty — is he the asshole?

‘AITA for stopping the mother of my child from moving?’

The OP and Amy had a casual relationship in university:

He sought legal advice and waited until the baby was born:

Amy didn’t contest, and he started seeing his son regularly:

Now Amy wants to move for a better job only 40 minutes away by train:

He went back to court to prevent the move:

This is a difficult co-parenting situation where both parents have valid concerns. The father has established legal rights and has been consistently involved, which is commendable. His worry about the move affecting future shared custody (especially if travel becomes unreliable) is reasonable — 40 minutes by train can become complicated with strikes, delays, or bad weather.

However, courts in most jurisdictions (including the UK) prioritize the child’s best interests. A better job for the primary caregiver often means a better standard of living for the child, which can outweigh a 40-minute commute. Blocking the move could be seen as prioritizing the father’s convenience over the child’s financial and emotional stability.

Family law experts stress that co-parents should try to negotiate and compromise first. If the move truly benefits the child (better income, better schools, etc.), courts are likely to allow it with adjusted contact arrangements.

Practical advice: The father should focus on what’s truly best for the child, not just his convenience. He could propose compromises (e.g., longer visits on weekends, video calls, shared travel costs). If the court allows the move, he should adapt — 40 minutes is manageable for most parents. Going to court is his legal right, but it risks escalating conflict and damaging the co-parenting relationship. He’s not wrong to want involvement, but blocking a better opportunity for the child’s primary caregiver may not be in the child’s best interest.

These are the responses from Reddit users:

The Reddit community overwhelmingly judged the OP as the asshole — most said 40 minutes is nothing and he’s being selfish by trying to block Amy’s better job opportunity.

Almost everyone called him the asshole — prioritizing his convenience over the child’s future:

A few commenters were more balanced, acknowledging his concerns but still leaning YTA:

A small minority supported him, focusing on his right to involvement:

This is a tough situation — the father wants to be involved and fears the move will make it harder, but 40 minutes by train is a very short distance in most places. Blocking a better job opportunity for the child’s primary caregiver could be seen as putting his convenience above the child’s long-term well-being (better income = better life for the child).

He’s not wrong to want regular contact, but going to court to stop the move may come across as controlling, especially since Amy is the primary parent and has been supportive of his involvement so far. The real solution is compromise — not prevention. What do you think — is 40 minutes too far, or should he adapt? Would you have gone to court, or tried to negotiate first? Share your thoughts below!