his wedding, my son is barely invited.

13Kent

I read that post as the father should facilitate ALL contact not just on that one occasion.

Yes, he is the one getting married and it is his son, but it's her son too, why should the responsibility of picking up and dropping off the child fall to the father, and why should she ask for petrol money if she has to do this?

13Kent

So MrsE you feel that if the father wants to see the child he must pay for that privilege? Sorry guys but I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about this issue - in your case if he didn't pay child support then I can see your point, but in my husband's case it was not his choice to leave the family home in fact he did his best to keep his family together despite the PWC having more than one affair. Eventually he had no choice but to move out.

In more than 10 years of contact the PWC has never made any attempt to get the children to him or even meet him half way, the CSA have not acknowleged the high contact costs even when it was a 4 hour round trip to pick them up on a Fri and drop them off on a Sun despite numerous attempts and variation applications. Our car has to be a reliable car in order to facilitate this journey - more expense for us than just needing a cheap runaround, as we are on CSA 1 the pwc gets nearly £600 per month in maintenance. On CSA 2 based on their calculator and also what a CSA worker told us (thanks for that it made us feel much better!!) we would pay about £250. So on top of that ALL the contact costs have fallen to us - how is that fair?

viktory

I've read the first page and can't stomach such bitterness and hatred. The child has absolutely not got a chance in hell of a decent relationship with his father.

Emmzi

LolaLemon wrote: »

Update.
Said to sons father that I am struggling to get child care for son at the times he has suggested, he has said he will see what he can do at his end.
An ex employee was in the pub tonight, who has said she might be able to come in at 10pm and work til closing, she will let me know. It's not the best but at the moment its the only option available, and if it is, the I'll ask the new guy to take me in his car.


The allergies is not an issue, we have previously stayed in hotels and son is fine. most hotels use the sensitive type washing powders to suit everyone.
Son asks before he eats anything that I haven't given him if it contains milk and does not touch it unless the answer is no. So very proud of him that at his age he realises that a yummy looking cake can put him in pain.

This is sounding more hopeful. I know it is a PITA but I am also sure you are doing the right thing. xx

MrsE_2

13Kent wrote: »

I read that post as the father should facilitate ALL contact not just on that one occasion.

Yes, he is the one getting married and it is his son, but it's her son too, why should the responsibility of picking up and dropping off the child fall to the father, and why should she ask for petrol money if she has to do this?

13Kent wrote: »

So MrsE you feel that if the father wants to see the child he must pay for that privilege? Sorry guys but I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about this issue - in your case if he didn't pay child support then I can see your point, but in my husband's case it was not his choice to leave the family home in fact he did his best to keep his family together despite the PWC having more than one affair. Eventually he had no choice but to move out.

In more than 10 years of contact the PWC has never made any attempt to get the children to him or even meet him half way, the CSA have not acknowleged the high contact costs even when it was a 4 hour round trip to pick them up on a Fri and drop them off on a Sun despite numerous attempts and variation applications. Our car has to be a reliable car in order to facilitate this journey - more expense for us than just needing a cheap runaround, as we are on CSA 1 the pwc gets nearly £600 per month in maintenance. On CSA 2 based on their calculator and also what a CSA worker told us (thanks for that it made us feel much better!!) we would pay about £250. So on top of that ALL the contact costs have fallen to us - how is that fair?

I never took a pound note off my ex. But I certainly wasn't going to pay his petrol when he did decide to visit my DD. The least he could do was put his own hand in his pocket fir that. I paid all her other life expenses.

3v3

Zoetoes wrote: »

But that is proving my point........??

It's completely different.

1) I am female: the thread is about the father's perspective of his two children; each born under two completely different circumstances - one he didn't actively choose to conceive and which he took time to adjust to the idea of, the second of which he sees 24/7, which he presumably had more choice over as he is now marrying the mother.

2) I raised all of my children on a 24/7 basis: the thread refers to a father who's contact with one son equates to approx 4hrs out of a 168hr week and another he has contact with 24/7.
Even if the father had seen his first son every week of his life for all 4yrs at 4hrs per week, his overall "contact/bonding" time with that child would equate to an average of 832hrs or, put another way the equivalent of, roughly 5wks of 24/7 contact over 4 years.
Second son is approximately 1yr old. His contact/bonding hrs with this child would equate to 8736hrs in just one year! Significantly higher.

So, all things are not equal. It is not as simple to say he should feel the same about both of them when a) they were born under different circumstances b) the contact/bonding opportunities were not equal and c) the obligations/responsibilities differ between the two situations. Nor is it possible to treat them both equally when they are being brought up in two different places and two differing lifestyles.

princessdreamer

13Kent wrote: »

So MrsE you feel that if the father wants to see the child he must pay for that privilege? Sorry guys but I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about this issue - in your case if he didn't pay child support then I can see your point, but in my husband's case it was not his choice to leave the family home in fact he did his best to keep his family together despite the PWC having more than one affair. Eventually he had no choice but to move out.

In more than 10 years of contact the PWC has never made any attempt to get the children to him or even meet him half way, the CSA have not acknowleged the high contact costs even when it was a 4 hour round trip to pick them up on a Fri and drop them off on a Sun despite numerous attempts and variation applications. Our car has to be a reliable car in order to facilitate this journey - more expense for us than just needing a cheap runaround, as we are on CSA 1 the pwc gets nearly £600 per month in maintenance. On CSA 2 based on their calculator and also what a CSA worker told us (thanks for that it made us feel much better!!) we would pay about £250. So on top of that ALL the contact costs have fallen to us - how is that fair?

Failing to see the issue here you pay the amount the law says you have to for the CHILD, you pick the child up and drop them off when YOU want contact. So why are you (ok your partner) trying to get the amount reduced ie taking money away from the child.
It is fair because you chose a man with kids. The CSA is a mess though it is time all calculations were based on the total household income of the NRP rather than the new loophole they have where the man becomes a househusband while the new partner works and the first family get screwed over. Now that is unfair.

FatVonD

globetraveller wrote: »

Are we in the last century here?? If he was going to be a reluctant father then he should have put something on it. Are all men who suddenly find out they are going to be fathers to children they never want numpties????

According to the OP he DID use a condom which split, since the OP knew this she knew that he was actively taking steps NOT to become a father, she could have taken the morning after pill *cue reasons why she couldn't take morning after pill from OP* but she had apparently warned all boyfriends that if she got pregnant she would not have a termination so didn't and went ahead and had his child presumably against his first intentions.

FatVonD

princessdreamer wrote: »

It is fair because you chose a man with kids. The CSA is a mess though it is time all calculations were based on the total household income of the NRP rather than the new loophole they have where the man becomes a househusband while the new partner works and the first family get screwed over. Now that is unfair.

I'd (genuinely) love to join you in that debate because I could argue that form the other side but I think that's a whole other thread in itself!

gillypkk

IMO the father should be bending over backwards to have his eldest child there to share in his special day. he cannot reasonably expect the mother to chance her work schedule and uni classes to suit him when the existing arrangement has been in place for a long long time. why should she have to run around like a headless chicken trying to accomodate him?