Advice needed, ex and child contact :-(

ford_prefect_3

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Intrestingly, the Courts state that should a non resident parent move away then the cost of travel to maintain contact is borne by them....

Absolute and total unmitigated !!!!!!!! of the highest order.

Having won enough court cases in the family courts for myself and others with exactly that issue I can say with absolute certainty you have no idea what your talking about.

Perhaps you can post up a legal reference to back your stance, some case law, a precedent or anything that supports your post.

ford_prefect_3

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Umm actually it was a fact. She asked again and said if he couldn't help out more then the contact visits would need to be decreased - to which he agreed to immediately.

Granted he phoned back and changed his mind but he did do what the OP thought.

I am guessing that you haven't got to that post yet as you were tripping over yourself to give the big 'children as weapons' speech.

The fact is she could not afford the visits - she was not contact blocking, she was looking for a resolution.

I really can't be arsed dealing with another idignant and tunnel visioned NRP to be honest so hopefully you will get to the part where it's all turned out well for all concerned - which is all anyone can ask for.

Funnily enough the sane approach of both parents communicating has resolved the issue.

Well go figure, no threats by the OP to block contact which she clearly has never considered, despite the best efforts of you and others and for which she should be commended in not falling for.

The real victor is the child, and he is one of the lucky ones because it does appear that both parents will compromise and have actually communicated.

The OP has my respect for dealing with it in a manner that puts there son first and other considerations second.

KiKi

I guess the way I see it is that despite who moved away from whom, both parents are responsible for keeping contact. They have equal costs of meeting halfway, therefore how much it costs them BOTH in petrol is irrelevant, as they both have to pay those costs anyway.

So petrol contact costs aside as they pay for those 50/50 already, I would see it quite simply that he contributes £100 for his child each month. That is in no way enough to pay for his upbringing, and I would be pursuing him for more.

However, if the OP feels that's not constructive, then fair enough, and all kudos to her for resolving an immediate problem in an adult way, and putting her son's best interests first.

KiKi

Wilma33

Would it not be cheaper for you to get the train? If you buy advance tickets (which can be a few hours before), buy a railcard and follow Martin's article then train tickets can be very cheap. If you post your journey on the transport board then the lovely people there might be able to beat the £100 you spend in petrol. Also might make it possible for one parents to do the whole journey one way and the other parent to do the other journey. This means it only disrupts your life once per weekend rather than twice. Plus being on a train is better quality time for dad because it's easier to talk/read/play with your son on a train than whilst driving.

Loopy_Girl

ford_prefect wrote: »

Funnily enough the sane approach of both parents communicating has resolved the issue.

Well go figure, no threats by the OP to block contact which she clearly has never considered, despite the best efforts of you and others and for which she should be commended in not falling for.

The real victor is the child, and he is one of the lucky ones because it does appear that both parents will compromise and have actually communicated.

The OP has my respect for dealing with it in a manner that puts there son first and other considerations second.

Huge amounts of selective reading there methinks.

I never once advocated contact blocking - and I never would.

Like your chum on here, done alot of blustering about but never came up with any real solution to the problem. Too busy with the speechs I expect.

And as for the 'sane communication' of both parents? I think you will find that the NRP was all too happy to cut contact (no mention of him being a contact blocker 'natch) but it took an ear bashing from Mummy and Daddy for him to see that him refusing to compromise would only be hurting the little boy.

I am still amazed that you, and others, deem it appropriate that the OP would have been getting into debt. The suggestion of every third week instead of every second was to make sure that the £80 he is sending was covering the petrol - quite why you see this as contact blocking is a bit of a head scratcher. Of course if the NRP thought that was afoot then he could have driven down every weekend to see his Son...oh no wait, he was prepared to see his Son less - for the sake of a fiver.

As for the court case boast....you can barely spell my friend, so I would doubt that you are a credible source:D

Flyboy152

I think that it is incredible that anyone would think that it could be acceptable for anyone to drive twelve hundred miles for contact.

Loopy_Girl

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I think that it is incredible that anyone would think that it could be acceptable for anyone to drive twelve hundred miles for contact.

Personally I would walk 1200 miles for contact....kinda says more about you as a parent than me:D

Flyboy152

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Personally I would walk 1200 miles for contact....kinda says more about you as a parent than me:D

Hmm...it might describe a parent who doesn't care what state they are in when they get see their children.

nannon

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I think that it is incredible that anyone would think that it could be acceptable for anyone to drive twelve hundred miles for contact.

I think that's amazing and commendable.
I did live down south for a 3 month period with my bf after residency decision for DS (ex had house so I was homeless to a point)600 mile round trip on the weekends I saw him.. but Aas soon as I got a job nearer to him I was back up north like a shot. DS comes first and I'm prepared to be here for him.

ford_prefect_3

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Huge amounts of selective reading there methinks.

I never once advocated contact blocking - and I never would.

Like your chum on here, done alot of blustering about but never came up with any real solution to the problem. Too busy with the speechs I expect.

And as for the 'sane communication' of both parents? I think you will find that the NRP was all too happy to cut contact (no mention of him being a contact blocker 'natch) but it took an ear bashing from Mummy and Daddy for him to see that him refusing to compromise would only be hurting the little boy.

I am still amazed that you, and others, deem it appropriate that the OP would have been getting into debt. The suggestion of every third week instead of every second was to make sure that the £80 he is sending was covering the petrol - quite why you see this as contact blocking is a bit of a head scratcher. Of course if the NRP thought that was afoot then he could have driven down every weekend to see his Son...oh no wait, he was prepared to see his Son less - for the sake of a fiver.

As for the court case boast....you can barely spell my friend, so I would doubt that you are a credible source:D

Lets deal with the facts first, then get onto your other "issues"

Reducing the contact levels to once every three weeks as you suggested punishes the child, you wrote and I quote your comment in post #69 (rather appropriate!) in response to reducing contact "Umm to be fair you can....if you don't take him then he won't see him - UNLESS he does all the travelling yourself." (we will deal with your inability to structure a sentence later!)

You have clearly told her she can reduce contact, ergo you are suggesting contact blocking.

With regard to your comment about blustering and offering no advice, that would be selective reading on your part and I would refer you to posts #14 and #27 as examples of advice and suggestions.

Now lets get onto your other comments, firstly about my spelling, one of the joys of mild dyslexia but thanks for your comments, I only wish I could write as eloquently as you, for example:

Your comment in post #69 (rather appropriate!) "Umm to be fair you can....if you don't take him then he won't see him - UNLESS he does all the travelling yourself."

I think you will find it should be "...UNLESS he does all the travelling HIMSELF."

or

Your comment in post #76 "Intrestingly, the Courts state that should a non resident parent move away then the cost of travel to maintain contact is borne by them...."

Now "intrestingly" is a really interesting word, but, something looks a bit off, oh, I know, you spelt it wrong !

And interestingly, do you have any legal reference to support your comment about the courts and transport or was that just another made up thing you cannot support?

But wait, just when you thought it was all over you manage this grammatical gem:

Your comment post #120 "You're right, your Son deserves the best but then so does you and your baby daughter"

"So DOES you and your baby daughter?" dont you mean "so DO you and your baby daughter"?

As for court success, whether you believe me or not is of no importance to me, what is important is that you need to either support your assertion with legal reference about the issue of transport or admit that you made it up.

Over to you Loopy Girl, its time to put up or shut up on what the courts do over transport.