A query...

Loopy_Girl

chriszzz wrote: »

I dont think it really matters if its the majority or minority of PWC blocking contact, its the fact that they can and some do.

In the meantime and for their own selfish reasons they damage any decent relationship between the father and child.

I will agree with speedster on this because it is reality it does happen, but speedster you should not be using words to suggest all PWC are the same, there are PWC out there who do put their childs interest first and foremost as their are NRPs who do too.

I wouldnt rise to the bait when some dont understand what your saying but you dont help yourself in these situations, respect is the key word.

I agree with all that you say - it's shocking that it happens and even 1 case is too much. However it does seem odd that Speedster is so vocal and distasteful about PWC who do the blocking and yet if an NRP does the contact blocking then that's understandable - must be the PWC's fault?
An NRP doesn't choose not to have anything to do with a PWC - they choose to walk away from a child. Contact can be maintained without either party having to speak to each other. And since Speedster has said on several ocassions that he 'understands why NRP's won't speak to PWC (that he doesn't like obviously) then it makes his stance as a parent who fights for the good of children rather laughable and embarrasing.

And if it was myself you were referring to in your last paragraph about not understanding him then I understood quite clearly. I know there are shocking cases of PWC contact blocking and it makes me sick. However Speedster was quite vehement that these cases WERE NOT a minority - and then he had to confess that he didn't have any figures so he is as much in the dark as anyone else. Perhaps because he seems to speak to many NRP's who are in that situation that he thinks it is - and maybe it is. I don't know and I said that however he knew best (or thought that he did as usual) and when challenged on this reverted to the vile outpourings which you have read.

I have never said there aren't crappy cases like BB's and bdt's - I just said I would like to think they are in the minority/

chriszzz

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

I agree with all that you say - it's shocking that it happens and even 1 case is too much. However it does seem odd that Speedster is so vocal and distasteful about PWC who do the blocking and yet if an NRP does the contact blocking then that's understandable - must be the PWC's fault?
An NRP doesn't choose not to have anything to do with a PWC - they choose to walk away from a child. Contact can be maintained without either party having to speak to each other. And since Speedster has said on several ocassions that he 'understands why NRP's won't speak to PWC (that he doesn't like obviously) then it makes his stance as a parent who fights for the good of children rather laughable and embarrasing.

And if it was myself you were referring to in your last paragraph about not understanding him then I understood quite clearly. I know there are shocking cases of PWC contact blocking and it makes me sick. However Speedster was quite vehement that these cases WERE NOT a minority - and then he had to confess that he didn't have any figures so he is as much in the dark as anyone else. Perhaps because he seems to speak to many NRP's who are in that situation that he thinks it is - and maybe it is. I don't know and I said that however he knew best (or thought that he did as usual) and when challenged on this reverted to the vile outpourings which you have read.

I have never said there aren't crappy cases like BB's and bdt's - I just said I would like to think they are in the minority/

I wasn't referring to you personally, I have overtime read many posts and sometimes have found both male and female being biased.

I agree with speedster on the pwc contact blocking and yes some females are contact blockers, so I completely understand were speedster is coming from, where speedster lets himself down is when he speaks about his ex with such venhom, ok she has been an awful ex, he needs to move on and change the attitude.

I think sometimes we all get carried away with our own personal experiences and forget to see outside the box.

Am a pwc and I have always put my son first and I believe I have no right as a parent to stop contact just because I can or because the ex wont do what I want him to and for some pwc this is how they behave and i can completely understand where the man is coming from when he just wants to be a dad he pays his maintenance and he wants to be able to see his children and for some it doesn't work that way, now if the system was fair and they understand that some pwc abuse their power and they have something in place which doesn't cost the man to gain contact and maybe penalise the pwc for blocking contact for unfounded reasons then that may sound fair.

Not all men walk out on the relationship and kids, some men have to leave the home and the kids because the woman either doesn't love him or wants to move her new partner into the home that her ex took yrs to put together.

The whole system is unfair and there will always be a bitterness if both female/male don't get it right for the children s sake.

chriszzz

Speedster should come on here and share how hard it is for dads when they have an ex who blocks contact for no other reason than they can.

To share such venom is not constructive and will be looked upon as that his ex may have had reason to block contact.

clearingout

I've not had a look at the Women's Aid forum website but can we be clear what it is that that organisation actually does?

Some statistics for you: 2 women a week in this country are killed by a partner or an ex-partner. Personally, I think that's a disgraceful figure for a so-called 'civilised' society. I have no idea what happens to their children but it's a frightening thought, isn't it, that at least some of them maybe in their father's hands (following his short stint in prison for murdering the mother)? Women's Aid is an organisation which aims to help women get themselves out of situations where they may be come another statistic. Now, given that women frequenting sites like that are likely women who perhaps have a good reason for not wanting a partner/former partner to see their children (like they have been abusive towards them (the children) in the past?), it is not unreasonable that forums and their members might dedicate some time to looking at how contact can be avoided?

I am not suggesting this is right. But it is understandable, in the given context of that particular forum. And I am suggesting that all of us, mothers and fathers, would probably get ourselves into serious trouble doing what we think is the right thing for our children if we really believed we were doing the right thing. Some of it may be mis-guided, some of it maybe malicious - but for most of us, it is genuine concern and a particular understanding of a situation that drives us.

My children see my ex for 3 days a week. This went on whilst his girlfriend was clearly being abusive towards our children - this included smacking them, leaving them in dirty nappies and making the older child change the younger, taking their toys from them because they came from my house, throwing away clothes that came from my house, telling them that the baby wasn't allowed in her house.....evntually my ex saw the light and let her go. Should I have stopped contact? i don't know, but i have to live with the fact that by not stopping contact, my children went through things that they didn't need to....

speedster

chriszzz wrote: »

Speedster should come on here and share how hard it is for dads when they have an ex who blocks contact for no other reason than they can.

To share such venom is not constructive and will be looked upon as that his ex may have had reason to block contact.

it's not venom as such.

my ex is now having to reap what she has sewn and everything has backfired on her in a BIG way. so all things considered, yes, i am bitter about the way she has been, but i giggle quietly to myself as it all implodes on her.

thing is, although she has acted appallingly, she is nowhere as bad as a lot of other cases i know of and stories i read about on here and other forums.

my beef is with the "wimmin" who think all pwc are fwuffy ickle bunny's who do no wrong, when some of the pwc i hear about make my bloody toes curl.

chriszzz

speedster wrote: »

it's not venom as such.

my ex is now having to reap what she has sewn and everything has backfired on her in a BIG way. so all things considered, yes, i am bitter about the way she has been, but i giggle quietly to myself as it all implodes on her.

thing is, although she has acted appallingly, she is nowhere as bad as a lot of other cases i know of and stories i read about on here and other forums.

my beef is with the "wimmin" who think all pwc are fwuffy ickle bunny's who do no wrong, when some of the pwc i hear about make my bloody toes curl.

Speedster,

I have agreed with some things you stand for and this is exactly what I mean when I say you let yrself down, I have just read yr post and yea it was ok until I got up to the highlighted part, am actually trying to hear what yr saying and you sound just like that cartoon character who runs after the rabbit with a gun (carnt think of his name) then I dont take you seriously!

We know some males/females are guilty of doing no wrong but you too are coming across for the nrp, like the pwc, who you say do no wrong, if you know what i mean?

They say bitter sweet, well things should be sweet for you now so you can leave the bitter behind and just help other dads who are going through what you did and without having to use the language you do, keep yr own personal feelings to yrself, it really doesnt sound nice.

kelloggs36

speedster wrote: »

there are loads of pwc in that position, but they're not the ones in the court system now, are they? Only because there is no system to force NRPs to have contact with the children they have. If there were, then I'm sure that there would be a lot of PWCs who would fight. It is a pointless battle - whilst you can't force a parent to have contact with somebody, you can certainly force them to accept other responsibilities, such as financial.

also, judging by a "minority" of the pwc i've come across, it's hardly any surprise that their exes wont have anything to do with them and have made a run for it.

That was a stupid thing to say - as you weren't in the situation with each and every one. Clearly there was a relationship of sorts, otherwise there would be no children to deal with - and they are the ones who suffer. There are lots of contact blockers, but I would say that in the absence of statitistics, and purely from my observation (from working at the CSA) - that there were a HUGE number of non-compliant NRPs who did not cite lack of contact, but because they didn't want to give the PWC money because they didn't want them to benefit from their hard work. No mention of the children in fact.

cbear47

I need some help with a CSA query too, sorry to jump on this thread but I only joined the forum this morning and can't see how to start a new conversation!

My question is...when does CSA maintenace liability end.
My daughter is currently studying A levels and finishes them this year. She turns 19 at the end of the year however she has said she wants to stay on at school to do another A level rather than go into Uni. She will also get a part time job. I know I'm liable for CM until she her 19th birthday but am I after she is 19 as she is still at school and still liable for child maintnenance.
The CSA website does state that they classify a child as someone between 16 and 19 if they are in full time non advanced education. I think liability stops at 19 but can anyone confirm this?

bdt1

CSA payment liability stops at the 19th birthday, irrespective of what studies the young person decides to do after this date