Mum jailed for three months after refusing to let ex see their daughter

blimey40

Thats the main issue.

Not all NRP's are the same#
Not all the PWC's are the same

The system in place presumes you are.

kelloggs36

Feline_friendly wrote: »

Oh dear..some people do live with their head in the sand.

There are girls out there who do not want to work and do see men as a meal ticket. With income support, CB, free rent and CSA they do not have to work. No they dont have a good standard of living, but they dont work. Just look around you to see how many young girls are pregnant.

As my post about my hubby has been referred to alot you have no idea the true cicumstances in the same way you dont know most people on here..and yet you judge.

My hubby was silly not wearing a condom...but he was young and stupid and very niave (he did believe her when she said she was on the pill)...and he has paid the price.he also learned a very valuable lesson. The ex did not want to work...didnt get on with her folks...and yes she saw my hubby as a meal ticket. My hubby has paid maintance from before the CSA even came into force...and now pays through them. Regarding seeing the child...well his ex made that very difficult and nasty....and stops him from seeing the lad unless she wants more money. You would not believe how nasty it has got...put it this way sadly police were involved.By the way the day she found out she was pregnant she gave up her p/t pub job and has never worked since. This ex has now had 3 more children by 3 differant men and is still a single parent.

You should not judge all NRP as something that need locking up and throwing the key away.....so many men want to see their children but cant thanks to nasty PWC....this is true and all support (including free legal advice/support should be given in cases like this to ensure that the PWC has no incentive to withold contact from the other parent. This is equally as abhorant as any NRP choosing to walk away. my hubby felt it best not to pursue it as each time the child was bought into the middle of it all like i said..you do not know the full situation and what has gone on..and i will not discuss it all here.

Oh and i am also a PWC so see things from both sides.

.......................................................................

kelloggs36

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

debate time, can I ask though. lets ignore condoms and rights and wrongs for a minute. you meet a bloke your having sex with for a week because it suits both, for whatever reason its now finished after only a week. but shes pregnant, only SHE has the choice weather to KEEP the child or not. I wonder if it was the men who got pregnant by accident would they have an abortion rather than keep a child from someone they no longer have contact with. plus if a condom does split you can get a pill or something to take, morning after pill is it. I havent been in this situation so its hard to say what I would do. For myself i'm not keen on abortion but its an option. If I got pregnant in those circumstances I think I might go the abortion morning after pill rather than have a child with some bloke I barely knew, I think there is only one reason a woman would do that, we all know it goes on:D

Yes it goes on, but think for a second. Any bloke willing to sleep with a girl after a week is clearly taking a risk and will have to weigh up the options available to him - take a chance that after a week things will be fine and go for it, or think sensibly that actually, there is a chance that a baby could result from this. If they thought like that, then there would be a hell of a lot less 'accidents' out there. Thing is, people just don't THINK. They take a chance. Some you win, and some you lose. If you expect to win every time, you will be disappointed.

lolaj

Hi everyone, newbie here.....

With regard to what the thread was initially about, I have to say that I wholeheartedly support the Court in their decision for this PWC persistently evading the call of the law. However the way they've dealt with it leaves much to be desired given the effects it would have on a child or the children.

A much better approach would have been for the Court to award residency to the NRP (provided the situation was suitable i.e. no abuse etc etc) given that the PWC was clearly acting irresponsibly by being quite content to leave her children for a few months whilst in jail!!!

Any takers?? :beer:

mgardner

hamstercheeks wrote: »

this is interesting


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/06/06/mum-jailed-for-three-months-after-refusing-to-let-ex-see-their-daughter-86908-21419103/

Justice, yes, but oh poor kid first no contact with Dad now no Mum, who is she living with now I wonder

hamstercheeks_2

mgardner wrote: »

Justice, yes, but oh poor kid first no contact with Dad now no Mum, who is she living with now I wonder

i would guess with her dad

but then who knows

courts/social services are totally whacky n unpredictable:mad:

LizzieS_2

Feline_friendly wrote: »

My hubby was silly not wearing a condom...but he was young and stupid and very niave (he did believe her when she said she was on the pill)...and he has paid the price. The ex did not want to work...didnt get on with her folks...and yes she saw my hubby as a meal ticket.

Personally I would be more concerned over the numbers of non-pregnancy relationships where a condom was not used, especially when you are aware of one where a pregnancy did occur. There are some very nasty STD's out there!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Another couple of hundred thousand to go!

Blonde_Bint

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Another couple of hundred thousand to go!

So who were you before your name change:D

Zara33

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

So who were you before your name change:D

Funny you should say that, that's exactly what i was thinking about you.