a fathers responcibilty to his kids

Tiddlywinks

killiebabe wrote: »

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.

This makes it even worse then, in my opinion.

The primary carer CHOSE to leave his child and move hundreds of miles away.

Why did he move so far away? Why did he not seek residency at the time?

Surely he could have left the relationship without leaving the geographical area? That way, he would have been able to start a new life on his own but have ready and regular access to his child for things like school parents evenings, when son gets ill (even with snuffles), starts a new club etc.

Again, he CHOSE to move away from the area. Why move so far away and leave the child when he had been primary carer?

FatVonD

killiebabe wrote: »

My partner was his childs primary carer.. The one who brought him up from birth...

That's what makes it even more unfathomable to me that he would move 6 hours away from his son.

killiebabe wrote: »

Well in this case that emotional bond was to his father.
.

It may well have been but he has spent the last three and a half years with his mother and grandparents as his primary carers.

euronorris

Marisco wrote: »

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!!

It's not 'pie in the sky' yet, because he hasn't tried. He hasn't researched that option, looked for (let alone applied for) any jobs. So, it is still a possibility. And not one that should be dismissed, IMO, simply because it wouldn't be easy or convenient for him.

I don't think that anyone should put their lives on hold. BUT, when you have children, you've made a choice and committed to something that carries a lot of responsibility. Part of that responsibility, IMO, is always being close enough to that child to maintain very regular contact and a solid relationship with them. Sometimes, that involves having to make sacrifices like not moving a 6 hours drive away.

That's just my opinion.

euronorris

killiebabe wrote: »

You say the child will have emotionally bonded with his mother... Well in this case that emotional bond was to his father.

I'm even more uncertain of why he chose to move so far away in that case? It baffles me.

Anyway, has he responded to the grandparents at all yet?

Dontknowanymore

Let the courts decide?

POPPYOSCAR

Dontknowanymore wrote: »

Let the courts decide?

Yes it could well come to that I imagine.

Would it not be best though for them to try to reach an amicable solution for all ,if possible, first?

FatVonD

Marisco wrote: »

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!!

I don't think anyone (many?) is/are 'demanding' that he relocate (nor are the majority gloating, as has been said by a previous poster, that it might mean the end of the OP's marriage) but moving closer is an option that the OP and her husband could be exploring as is her husband staying locally to provide some respite which is all that has been asked for at this point by the Grandparents.

Unfortunately the OP doesn't seem to respond other than to those in total agreement with her or in an attacking stance towards those who aren't. She would go up in my opinion were she even to say 'with hindsight, maybe moving 6 hours away from a child my husband was previously the primary carer for wasn't such a good idea but what's done is done and now we have to find a way to work out how my husband can a) have more regular contact with his son and b) provide some respite for his son's grandparents'.

Dontknowanymore

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Yes it could well come to that I imagine.

Would it not be best though for them to try to reach an amicable solution for all ,if possible, first?

Of course but if the mother wont even speak to him, how far will they get?

I personally think that it sounds like the best interest of the child to be with his father full time and visit the mother and grandparents.
If the mother cannot look after the child on her own and the grandparents seem to be finding it a struggle, how do you think that is reflecting on this young boy?

He needs a stable home, one that can provide stable, safe and continuous care, if this means sending him to live with his father in Scotland then I don't see the issue.
Yes he knows his home/mum etc but plenty of children have to be uprooted for various reasons, it's not easy but with the right support it doesn't have to be as bad as everyone makes out!

Ok so the father maybe shouldn't of moved away, but he did, and it's done now. is tearing another family up just so he can live near the child in a bedsit with no job really the right way forward?

POPPYOSCAR

Dontknowanymore wrote: »

Of course but if the mother wont even speak to him, how far will they get?

I personally think that it sounds like the best interest of the child to be with his father full time and visit the mother and grandparents.
If the mother cannot look after the child on her own and the grandparents seem to be finding it a struggle, how do you think that is reflecting on this young boy?

He needs a stable home, one that can provide stable, safe and continuous care, if this means sending him to live with his father in Scotland then I don't see the issue.
Yes he knows his home/mum etc but plenty of children have to be uprooted for various reasons, it's not easy but with the right support it doesn't have to be as bad as everyone makes out!

Ok so the father maybe shouldn't of moved away, but he did, and it's done now. is tearing another family up just so he can live near the child in a bedsit with no job really the right way forward?

I agree with all you say but an attempt has to be made be it through the grandparents/other family members or failing that perhaps some outside intermediary?

Then when all avenues are exhausted take the legal route.

And no I do not think he should upsticks and move away from his family in Scotland to live in a bed sit.What is done is done, move on from there with what is possible.

POPPYOSCAR

FatVonD wrote: »

I don't think anyone (many?) is/are 'demanding' that he relocate (nor are the majority gloating, as has been said by a previous poster, that it might mean the end of the OP's marriage) but moving closer is an option that the OP and her husband could be exploring as is her husband staying locally to provide some respite which is all that has been asked for at this point by the Grandparents.

Unfortunately the OP doesn't seem to respond other than to those in total agreement with her or in an attacking stance towards those who aren't. She would go up in my opinion were she even to say 'with hindsight, maybe moving 6 hours away from a child my husband was previously the primary carer for wasn't such a good idea but what's done is done and now we have to find a way to work out how my husband can a) have more regular contact with his son and b) provide some respite for his son's grandparents'.

I think some have said that he should move back etc, but I take your point about the rest of your post.