a fathers responcibilty to his kids

coolcait

Quick thought:

A number of the posters who have been very critical of the OP and her husband have been involved in the biggest contradiction on this thread by far.

the one which runs:

- the child should stay with his mother,
- the father should move back to the area he came from

killiebabe

Coolcait ... I understand what you have said .. I admitt i tend to write the same way i write in tx language ... And yes i prob do get myself in a muddle occasionally .. The dates iv giving on past events are nearly all accurate iv rounded them off in years rather thn months. But thanks once again for your help and understanding in this matter .

FBaby

that's fair enough coolcait, the intention of my posts was not to point where I felt your made wrong assumptions, but to the fact that it was easy to draw assumptions from the OP's post because of the inconsistencies. I sincerely had no interest in being nasty to the OP, but it is difficult to consider such an emotional thread, which everyone can probably relate to to one extent or another, when the facts are so fuzzy. Although I agree that in a perfect world, everyone should focus on the present time, it is inevitable that events that took place in the past will affect how each react to the present situation.

esmerelda98

I have no exes with whom I've had children, so I can't be put me in the bitter mother category. I just wanted to make a few points which I don't think have been made prominently.

I'm not sure some people are aware of the long-term emotional and behavioural difficulties that can occur when a child is removed from a maternal figure with whom they have formed a bond. It's usually the mother who is the primary care-giver in the early years and at the very start, so the maternal figure is usually the mother. I expect that if for some reasons the roles were reversed, these problems could also occur with separation from the father.

Of course, sometimes separation from the mother-figure is the best option available. If the mother figure dies, is severely or consistently neglectful or is seriously mentally ill, for example. But being a mother is so much more than doing the practical things like washing, feeding and ferrying about. Any competent person can do those things under the supervision of the mother. The emotional bond with the mother/ primary care-giver cannot easily be replaced. That is why I am shocked at the idea that because the mother and her parents are struggling with practical things, some think the solution is to pack the child of to a different country to be cared for primarily by people the child is unfamiliar with. I assume that when the father lived locally to the child he was able to provide crucial 'little and often' help, but even then he worked full-time and wasn't the major influence in the child's life. In Scotland this situation will continue, but with relatively unfamiliar people providing the bulk of care. Whether or not moving closer to the boy is practical for the father and the OP, I cannot comprehend how anyone can come to the conclusion that it would be in this boy's best interests to remove him from the stable influence in his life.

I understand his mother is disabled, but how disabled I don't know. As long as she still has the majority of her cognitive function and is able to communicate reasonably, it is worth striving to preserve the status quo, not because she is the mother, but because she is, and has always been, the primary care-giver, even if she has been providing that care with other people's practical help.

It is unfortunate that the father chose to move so far from his disabled ex-partner and son. Children, boys moreso, generally benefit from having their father in their lives. I am choosing to believe that though he did work fulltime, when not working he was able to provide invaluable practical help. So it must have been obvious that moving so far away would create difficulties. Okay, maybe he thought the practical side of things had been taken care of. It is now clear that the mother and grandparents are struggling somewhat, how much is not exactly clear. I tend to think it is the relentlessness of having a young child living with you. If moving closer to be more involved in his son's life seems too difficult at the moment, how about contributing financially towards some practical help, a regular babysitter/au pair type person to give the grandparents some 'little and often' respite. I think that would be more useful than taking a little child off for weeks at a time, breaking established routines.

esmerelda98

coolcait wrote: »

Quick thought:

A number of the posters who have been very critical of the OP and her husband have been involved in the biggest contradiction on this thread by far.

the one which runs:

- the child should stay with his mother,
- the father should move back to the area he came from

I see no contradiction.

And by the way, not communicating directly with an ex could be the best thing for one's sanity and be better for the child's relationship with the non-resident parent. There is a line of communication available, and the father and the OP should use that.

Tiddlywinks

OK - as I have said before, this issue has no personal relevance to me other than the fact that I was once a child, had a mum and a dad and am now an adult with views of my own which I like to express from time to time. For the record, I am also not a 'man hater'.

There is a child here that has been living with his mum for the whole of his life - mum is now disabled and has looked to her extended family for support.

Father has chosen (and it was his choice - I'm assuming no-one used force against his will) to move a significant distance from his child.

Yes, fathers do sometimes need to be away from home for long periods of time for work, illness etc. I'm from a forces background and so is my OH so I know about work related absence and how it can impact on the children.

However, this is different - the child knows that the parents are not together, he has no expectation that his father will be 'home soon' and will know that his father is not just around the corner for a quick meet-up. So, please do not make a comparison with other types of long distance enforced absence as this is not the case here.

The father has chosen to remain a significant distance from his child even though he now is fully aware that his ex is disabled and struggling to cope alone and that her parents are looking for more input from him.

The father's new partner has come to seek opinion on options - one of which is to remove the child from his primary carer and take him hundreds of miles away from her.

The majority of posters feel that the child should not be moved - why do the minority then insist on writing essays on the subject; seemingly on some kind of crusade whilst calling others bitter and man-haters?

We are all allowed an opinion and should not be negatively branded for giving our views.

I believe the father chose to live some distance from his child which would not have been the best option for his child. I believe that moving the child now will still be for the 'convenience' of the father with little regard for the child or his mother - why is my opinion not valid?

euronorris

I agree with Tiddlywinks. This issue has no personal relevance to me either, other than OH's experience of his father who was mostly absent (contact was far less than in this case).

And I am certainly no man-hater!

Tiddlywinks

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

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

Hm, I expect we won't have long to wait for another 'detailed response' to show us how wrong we are!

Marisco

I also have no personal issue with it, however IMO I find it equally unrealistic to "demand" that the op's oh move to where his son lives!! In an ideal world that could happen, but the way the jobs and housing market is at the min, it's "pie in the sky"! Of course he could move and be unemployed and live in a bedsit, and be 2 mins away, would that satisfy some? Yes, he chose to move, but from what I can gather from the posts, everything was fine, everyone could cope etc. It's only further down the line that things have gone pete tong! Are folk supposed to put their lives on hold "just in case"? If so, then no one would do anything!! Now that would be unrealistic!!

killiebabe

Esmerelda

My partner was his childs primary carer.. The one who brought him up from birth... Not the other way round as you presume! And others on here.. Iv already stated in earlier post this was the case... But when my partner decided to move WITH his child , he was shot down in flames by the grandparents..... You say the child will have emotionally bonded with his mother... Well in this case that emotional bond was to his father.

I really wish some people would read all the facts and not just certain sentences .