a fathers responcibilty to his kids

FBaby

Okay, here come all the inconsistencies in OP’s posts that make it very difficult to believe OP’s account of events. !
Post 1: Op states that the move was discussed DURING the split, the daughter deciding to stay in!England!(ie. as opposed to Scotland) and partner wanted to take child with him bur decided he would stay in England too (as opposed to moving to Scotland). Partner decided to relocate to live Www with OP after split. !
Then further down, OP states that he had relocated to!Scotland!a couple of years ago. !
Child is currently 5, mum had a stroke 4 years ago adding ‘this is why when relocating he thought it would be better to take child with him’ but then post 62 ‘they split a long time before the disability’ (so before the child was one, if taking the ‘long time before’ would make it sound as if the child was only a couple of months old or so), but post 123 ‘he left when the baby was 18 months old’…
Then OP adds that she and her partner have been together for 4 years…. !
Clearly the whole story doesn’t stack up at all and funnily enough, when OP was asked if her partner had left for her, she didn’t respond. Personally, if I was in the situation and had nothing to do with the split, I would have come back right away to break down that claim. She didn’t. !
Another inconsistency ‘the grand parents won’t meet halfway as previously arranged ‘ Page1, but suddenly, they have only been driving one hour out of the 6.

POPPYOSCAR

Marisco wrote: »

Ain't that the truth!!! My oh just lived a bus ride away, and the problems he had were unreal! Even with prearranged times, she'd decide to "go out", not answer the door, cause a scene on the doorstep in front of the kids!!:mad: It was just a nightmare!!

I've been reading this thread (in bits!!) and you (and a couple of others) are the only one who is giving impartial advice. The bitterness of some posts shine through TBH, so they are probably not best placed to advise.

Yes, this is the problem as I see it.

Some may have very valid points but they are lost in all the vitriol.

If I were the OP I would more than likely dismiss them out of hand because of this.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

Another inconsistency ‘the grand parents won’t meet halfway as previously arranged ‘ Page1, but suddenly, they have only been driving one hour out of the 6.

That's not an inconsistency.

Driving 3 hours would be meeting halfway. If they drive 1 hour it is factual to say that they're not meeting halfway.

POPPYOSCAR

fannyanna wrote: »

That's not an inconsistency.

Driving 3 hours would be meeting halfway. If they drive 1 hour it is factual to say that they're not meeting halfway.

I picked up on that as well.

However, I thought Coolcait would be along any minute with their usual detailed response!

POPPYOSCAR

emweaver wrote: »

Well lets face it he can't be too bothered if he hasn't bothered asking advice and the fact he moved so far away when the mother was already incapacitated then with a toddler to look after , please come on.

I do not understand why you would even say this.

My OH would never dream of coming on here and he does not understand why I do.

The Op is perfectly entitled to ask for advice as is anyone who chooses to do so and I see no reason why personal opinions cannot be expressed without needing to resort to insults and attacks.

And Dasa is right, MSE does say "Be nice to all" and "if you do not like someone bite the bullet and think of the bigger picture."

I only wish more people would take notice of that.

Marisco

I can't understand why folk are picking on so called inconsistencies! Does it matter who left who, when and why? The fact is, they are where they are now. Personally I think the little lad would be better off living with his dad, and having visits and holidays with his mam. From the sounds of things (and we can only go by what we read) neither the mother or grandparents are coping very well, it's probably doubtful if the mother will get back to "normal", and the grandparents are getting older! If I was in the op's position, I'd go for full custody.

killiebabe

FBABY my partners relations with his ex were OVER before him n i got together... Does this answer your question?

killiebabe

Poppyoscar and marisco .. Thanks for your posts .. Your advice has been much appreciated.

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

I can't understand why folk are picking on so called inconsistencies! Does it matter who left who, when and why? The fact is, they are where they are now. Personally I think the little lad would be better off living with his dad, and having visits and holidays with his mam. From the sounds of things (and we can only go by what we read) neither the mother or grandparents are coping very well, it's probably doubtful if the mother will get back to "normal", and the grandparents are getting older! If I was in the op's position, I'd go for full custody.

I didn't mention anything until this late in the thread and only because coolcait asked me to point them. I do totally agree with you that what matter is the now and then which is what I stated in my second to last post.

I don't agree with you that being unrooted from what that boy is familiar too especially after starting school is what is best for him. What the grand parents seem to be asking for is more support, not to go for custody of the child, which is what they could have asked for in the first place if they thought that's what was best for the child.

killiebaby, I didn't ask a question. I didn't say you were lying either, but you can't deny that what you have said does not hold up ie, he can't have left his partner long before she had a stroke 4 years ago, yet discussed his moving to Scotland to be with you during the split when you have been together only 4 years. Maybe what you are trying to say is that the relationship from his perspective was over before she had the stroke, but the actual split can't have happened long before the stroke or before meeting you if he knew he was moving with you at the time of the split.

Only your partner knows all the details of the situation, and only he can decide, liaising with his ex's parents if she won't speak with him, what to do for the best. Hopefully, they will come to an arrangement that is best for the child and by which all can adhere to.

coolcait

FBaby wrote: »

I didn't mention anything until this late in the thread and only because coolcait asked me to point them.

Not quite.

The sequence of events ran:

I posted (in response to the deeply original suggestion that I must be a friend or relative of the OP :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).

Everyone igored the second two points."

Shortly afterwards, you posted to someone else:


"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."

You're not one of the posters who has posted things that were clearly wrong - for example, the poster who stated that the OP had said she is childless (untrue); the poster who stated that the Op's stepdaughter became pregnant while in the care of her father and the OP (untrue - she was in the care of her mother and grandparents), and so on.

So, I thought it was worthwhile offering:

"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."

I can still do that, if you want.

However, your post here already shows how the same idea can be expressed in different ways. And that can lead to a perception of 'inconsistency'.

I asked you to point out where you saw my 'assumptions'. You have listed where you see the OP's 'inconsistencies'. We're actually looking at the same thing, from different angles - but it looks different at first glance.

Also, whilst you may only have 'listed' the inconsistencies as a response to my post, that doesn't mean that you haven't mentioned or made note of them on here - as have many others.

Some posters were very quick to make cruel comments about the OP's way of expressing herself; her spelling; her sentence construction etc. People have been a lot slower to allow that her skills of self-expression might make her posts a bit muddled, and need further clarification.

If one post demonstrates that, it is the OP's post thanking me for giving my understanding of her posts. It has an internal contradiction! But I'm pretty sure that she meant to say that
"Everything COOLCAIT has wrote are [STRIKE]not[/STRIKE] facts . It is exactly SPOT ON AND HOW IT IS. Thank you.

(OP, I really hope that you won't be offended by this, and will understand that I have commented on your writing style with the best of intentions)

anyway, I'll have to come back to it all later.