advice needed on travel costs for access

Gooey

We've had a very similar problem that unfortunetly lead to contact not being established. It is down right disgusting how mothers can get away with this and use they poor child like this. My husband spent years fighting through the courts to just see his son (having not seen him before) and was given contact straight away to which she didnt stick to so was reverted back to court which again he was given contact to and again she didnt do it. Finally it was decided it should be at a contact centre so the mother couldnt come up with more lies of what happened during contact and my husband agreed to pay half the travel costs to the contact centre from her house at an estimated cost of £15 by train (the usual mode of transport for the mother and only a 20 min train journey). The very next day she demanded he pay ALL the travel costs and that she would only take the child by taxi at a cost of £60 round trip!!!! My husband already had to travel over 100 miles to the centre at a cost of at least £50 but was more than happy to do this as we had had to move for him to get a job. We worked out an easier route for her to take him by taxi to the train station and then even a taxi from the station to the centre (although this is a 5 min walk) at a cost of around £20 however she refused to do this as well.

In the end my husband stop persuing contact as he had only seen his son a handful of times and we felt it was just wrong to muck the poor little boy around seeing his dad once then not again for another 4 months! The mother has seen 'offered' contact at a centre however as soon as we put things in motion she will come up with another excuse or 'hoop' to jump through.

It is just disgusting how these women can use their children like this just to hurt their ex as the only person getting hurt is the child! Like someone has said everyone assumes the PWC is 'doing their best' and the dad must be a deadbeat but i have spoken to sooooo many where this just isnt true.

kelloggs36

Gooey wrote: »

We've had a very similar problem that unfortunetly lead to contact not being established. It is down right disgusting how mothers can get away with this and use they poor child like this. My husband spent years fighting through the courts to just see his son (having not seen him before) and was given contact straight away to which she didnt stick to so was reverted back to court which again he was given contact to and again she didnt do it. Finally it was decided it should be at a contact centre so the mother couldnt come up with more lies of what happened during contact and my husband agreed to pay half the travel costs to the contact centre from her house at an estimated cost of £15 by train (the usual mode of transport for the mother and only a 20 min train journey). The very next day she demanded he pay ALL the travel costs and that she would only take the child by taxi at a cost of £60 round trip!!!! My husband already had to travel over 100 miles to the centre at a cost of at least £50 but was more than happy to do this as we had had to move for him to get a job. We worked out an easier route for her to take him by taxi to the train station and then even a taxi from the station to the centre (although this is a 5 min walk) at a cost of around £20 however she refused to do this as well.

In the end my husband stop persuing contact as he had only seen his son a handful of times and we felt it was just wrong to muck the poor little boy around seeing his dad once then not again for another 4 months! The mother has seen 'offered' contact at a centre however as soon as we put things in motion she will come up with another excuse or 'hoop' to jump through.

It is just disgusting how these women can use their children like this I agree - but it is also downright disgusting how some parents of either gender refuse to pay for their children just to get back at their ex's - it happens so often and they too are using their children as pawns in a very selfish gamejust to hurt their ex as the only person getting hurt is the child! Like someone has said everyone assumes the PWC is 'doing their best' and the dad must be a deadbeat but i have spoken to sooooo many where this just isnt true.

There are good and bad on both sides, we mustn't forget that and end up tarring all with the same brush.

Gooey

absolutely kelloggs! I know plenty of people that would never do this and of course there are plenty of women or men who would be more than justified to not allow contact. Thats my point exactly so many people do tar everyone with the same brush which is why people often side with the PWC before knowing the true facts. Similarly women in particular who do the above insult those women who actually have every right to not allow contact or those who have had awful experiences. I think the whole thing is just disgusting when small children are involved and are the only ones truely getting hurt.

saintknoxmissus

We will be finding ourselves in a similar situation very soon, although things are a little different for us as the PWC is male. He has over the last 4 years had his payments cut due to his ex having 2 further children, fair enough she is entitled to move on and have a new family, however she has now decided to go part time at work. She moved out of the home to a friends about 30 miles away from my partner, he then moved in with me making the journey about 50 miles, she then moved a further 20 miles away making the journey about 70 miles each way. My partner has always taken the kids to her on a friday and she brings them back on the sunday, there is no court order for this, he just sees it as fair, however with her going part time, the money he receives will not cover his travel expenses each month and i don't see why money for the rest of our family (we have a further 4 dependent children on top of his 2) should go on taking the kids to her when it is her choice that is cutting her help towards the childrens upkeep. we are a low income family and need every penny we have.

FBaby

I'm a pwc and I consider it is the responsibility of whoever is moving away (even if for very genuine reason) to be responsible for transport (assuming the nrp hasn't moved). I think when the nrp is prepared to arrange and pay for half the journey, that is to be grateful for. I find it really pitiful to say that it is the nrp responsibility to arrange visits and all the pwc has to do is to allow the child to go with nrp.

Saying that, I do agree that if the nrp gets a reduction of maintenance pay due to costs of travel to pick child up, then it is reasonable that the nrp then pays for transport. In this case, I think it is fair the pwc continues to do the travelling (because they moved), but the nrp pays for the cost (assuming the reduction is close to the cost of the travel in the first place).

gratefulforhelp_2

FBaby wrote: »

I'm a pwc and I consider it is the responsibility of whoever is moving away (even if for very genuine reason) to be responsible for transport (assuming the nrp hasn't moved). I think when the nrp is prepared to arrange and pay for half the journey, that is to be grateful for. I find it really pitiful to say that it is the nrp responsibility to arrange visits and all the pwc has to do is to allow the child to go with nrp.

Unless there is a court order in place, however, it is the legal position.