a fathers responcibilty to his kids

POPPYOSCAR

coolcait wrote: »

That's an almost Solomonic solution, Euronorris!

The main difficulties I see are:

- the OP and her OH work in local government, not national government. Are there the same possibilities of transferring from one local authority to another, while retaining seniority etc?

- if so, then it is definitely an option worth looking at

- if not, then it could be risky. If the OP and her OH both go back to 'zero' in terms of how long they've been employed (as part of losing their 'seniority') then they have no protection against unfair dismissal in the first two years.

- what employment opportunities actually exist in the area which is halfway between the two locations? From the OP's location, as shown on here, we're looking at areas where employment opportunities are very limited.

- the child's mother can still talk, but refuses to talk to the OP's husband. I completely agree with the advice which the OP has been given about putting things in writing.

- the grandparents did state that they want the child's father to take him more for 'holidays etc'.

Devil's advocate question -

if it is unfair to uproot a five year old child from the school and friends he knows, and move him away from his grandparents and mother...

why is it fair to suggest uprooting other children, moving them away from the schools and friends that they know, and moving them away from their grandparents and other family - perhaps including a father?

there are a lot of people involved in this scenario, and decisions taken will impact on them all.

More than we probably even know about.

FBaby

I have only reacted because coolcail seems on a mission to show that everyone else but her (I assume her rather than he?) is correct when her statements are also very much based on assumptions. Of course my points were assumptions, but I never denied that they were.

We all agree on one thing, what matters is what is best for the child and what can't be denied is that the decision the OP's husband made to move to hers, whatever the reasons, was not in the best interest of the child at the time. What most agree would be best for the child from the information that has been provided, would be for the OP's partner to come down to the family and visit his son there, rather than expecting the child to travel up or move there definitely.

BTW, if the reference to men hater posters was addressed to me, all I can say is that it couldn't be further away from the truth. I have been the most understanding pwc a nrp could dream of...that includes being totally flexible with access, not taking my ex to csa despite working and paying no maintenance for most of the months since we've separated, finally coming to a private agreement when he got a very well paid job again for him to contribute about half what he would have to pay if through the csa and doing all the travelling since I moved 1/2 hour away 18 months ago. I think I have quite a good record!

POPPYOSCAR

FBaby wrote: »

I have only reacted because coolcail seems on a mission to show that everyone else but her (I assume her rather than he?) is correct when her statements are also very much based on assumptions. Of course my points were assumptions, but I never denied that they were.

We all agree on one thing, what matters is what is best for the child and what can't be denied is that the decision the OP's husband made to move to hers, whatever the reasons, was not in the best interest of the child at the time. What most agree would be best for the child from the information that has been provided, would be for the OP's partner to come down to the family and visit his son there, rather than expecting the child to travel up or move there definitely.

BTW, if the reference to men hater posters was addressed to me, all I can say is that it couldn't be further away from the truth. I have been the most understanding pwc a nrp could dream of...that includes being totally flexible with access, not taking my ex to csa despite working and paying no maintenance for most of the months since we've separated, finally coming to a private agreement when he got a very well paid job again for him to contribute about half what he would have to pay if through the csa and doing all the travelling since I moved 1/2 hour away 18 months ago. I think I have quite a good record!

I have not said anyone is a man hater, just picked up on some rather attacking posts, I cannot even recall who posted what TBH.


I think that is great that you have behaved as you describe and no doubt your child/children will be all the better for it. I have the utmost admiration for those parents who may be screaming inside with hurt and rage(not saying you are) but manage to put it aside for the sake of their children.

coolcait

FBaby wrote: »

I have only reacted because coolcail seems on a mission to show that everyone else but her (I assume her rather than he?) is correct when her statements are also very much based on assumptions. Of course my points were assumptions, but I never denied that they were.

We all agree on one thing, what matters is what is best for the child and what can't be denied is that the decision the OP's husband made to move to hers, whatever the reasons, was not in the best interest of the child at the time. What most agree would be best for the child from the information that has been provided, would be for the OP's partner to come down to the family and visit his son there, rather than expecting the child to travel up or move there definitely.

BTW, if the reference to men hater posters was addressed to me, all I can say is that it couldn't be further away from the truth. I have been the most understanding pwc a nrp could dream of...that includes being totally flexible with access, not taking my ex to csa despite working and paying no maintenance for most of the months since we've separated, finally coming to a private agreement when he got a very well paid job again for him to contribute about half what he would have to pay if through the csa and doing all the travelling since I moved 1/2 hour away 18 months ago. I think I have quite a good record!

If you want to list the points where you think I have made assumptions, I'm happy to go back to the OP's posts to show where I found the information in question.

We do all agree that the important point is "what is best for the child". We also disagree on what exactly that is.

Views on whether the father's move was, or wasn't, in the best interests of the child at the time are subjective. So, it is too strong a statement to say that it "can't be denied".

I do agree that it would be a good idea for the father to make regular, short visits to the area where the child is currently living - but there has to be a decent level of confidence that the mother will allow the child to have access to his father during these visits.

I also think that - after fours years of having regular contact with the OP and her family - it is in the child's interests to be able to maintain his relationship with that part of his extended family.

Thank you for sharing your own behaviour as a pwc. This appears to be very different from the behaviour of the pwc in this thread - particularly in terms of allowing the child access to his father.

emweaver

coolcait wrote: »

Look at the dates of the OP's posts about being on the sick, and the date of the one about being signed 'fit for work'. Look at the dates of this thread.

So - WAS on the sick, WAS getting ESA, NOW back at work - apparently working shifts.

The stepdaughter may be lasihing out as a reaction to being kicked out of her home when she was still a minor. She may be telling the truth. We don't know. We do know that the grandparents' letter to the OP's partner, stating that they are finding it difficult to cope with a young child, has come very soon after the young, able-bodied sibling was no longer part of the household.

Giving up one - never mind two - secure jobs in the current economic climate would be stupid. It still boggles me that people are still suggesting that.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with paying maintenance, or about buying treats. It's about fundamentals like having somewhere to live, and somewhere which is of an adequate standard for the child to live in during contact.

Given the mother's refusal to engage with the father on matters to do with contact, will she allow her son to visit his father more often if he lives closer? Especially if his accommodation isn't up to standard. Her behaviour to date doesn't inspire optimism on that front.

Nor, given her behaviour to date, am I persuaded that she would let the father see his child if he DID take up the suggestion of staying in a nearby budget hotel (although I do think it is a good suggestion if there was guaranteed contact).

Yes I read the dates only 2 months ago and it does not state anywhere she is returning to work infact she clearly states she is going to appeal their decision.

emweaver

coolcait wrote: »

Neither :rotfl::rotfl:

I'm just someone with:

- the ability to read what's actually been written,
- experience at untangling complicated accounts of people's circumstances,
- and a knowledge of the way people talk in the area the OP comes from (based on what her 'location' says, rather than just her name).

Are you a relative or just a friend of the OP's ex?

:rotfl::rotfl:

duchy

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I take it you have been in the OPs shoes then, as you seem to saying what she/they should do.

If perhaps you had bothered reading my previous post you'd have seen I drew very clear paralles between my own personal experience and the Mother. So the answer to your question is yes -Personally though I don't believe you need to have an identical experience to be able to empathise with a particular experience--Most people can imagine what it's like to be debilitated by a stroke and your marriage breaking up soon after-it doesn't take much effort. The OP is a bit player in all this -not her child -she's just moaning because she thinks her boyfriend shouldn't take responsibility for collecting and delivering his son when he can lumber half the load on an elderly couple.

Dasa

[QUOTE=emweaver;52393385]Total crap if he was so concerned he would never have moved so far away just for a bit of skirt! For some reason your pots have really angered me.

Its none of your business get the father on here to put in HIS opinions not what he thinks you want to hear![/QUOTE]

Yea and your posts really anger me. Who the hell are you to call someone a bit of skirt and demand that she gets her husband on here, MSE Mantra BE NICE

Dasa

duchy wrote: »

If perhaps you had bothered reading my previous post you'd have seen I drew very clear paralles between my own personal experience and the Mother. So the answer to your question is yes -Personally though I don't believe you need to have an identical experience to be able to empathise with a particular experience--Most people can imagine what it's like to be debilitated by a stroke and your marriage breaking up soon after-it doesn't take much effort.

What on earth are you going on about? The poster asked if you had been in the OPs shoes not the mother. Its obvious you have an axe to grind and are blinkered to any other point of view.

jamespir

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

What you have written above is absolutely heart breaking. Children should be kept with their mother, where at all possible.

thats a rather sexist attitude both parents should have equal responsibility where possible and if not the kids should go to the person who did most of the care