Soul Mate In Aristotle, Kant, And Mills

The choice of either living a content life with a wife, 2.3 children, and 1.4 pets or leaving everything behind to take the once in a lifetime opportunity to be with my soul mate is a difficult decision to make. However through Aristotle, Kant, and Mills I can determine the most ethical decision.
I could not make a decision on staying with my current family or leaving for my soul mate based on happiness. Aristotle stated that true happiness cannot be determined by yourself or how you feel. True happiness itself is living a complete life while fulfilling a broad range of requirements ranging from physical well-being to mental well-being and peace of mind. Yet a single individual cannot determine if those requirements are met, it takes a larger third party group and even then they cannot determine if
The sense of duty is only heightened since I need to provide for my 2.3 children and 1.4 pets. Assuming my family is traditional in the sense that my wife stays home to watch the children while I go to work, my wife could not provide for them while trying to watch over them. Especially since we have .3rd of a child he requires a bit of extra care due to his disability, and our .4th of a dog is on his last leg, so we may need to put him down soon. With these circumstances, leaving would put my family in a state of disarray, so it is my duty to stay and provide for them. Applying my situation and making it a universal law, leaving for my soul mate would mean that everyone in the world should leave their duty and responsibilities behind to leave should they find their special someone. Yet if I stayed with my family it would mean that everyone would stay with their families should this situation arise. The more ethical of the two choices is to stay with my family as that creates the better, more acceptable universal