a fathers responcibilty to his kids

POPPYOSCAR

Marisco wrote: »

Where does it say that?? I can't see anywhere in the op's posts where she said she cannot walk!

I seem to remember someone earlier in the thread bringing up things from other older threads?

More than likely yet another case of putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5 as so often happens on here.

As I understand it the OP was off work but is now back working so presumably she can walk.

Anyway, in any event, she would not be the only one looking after the child, presumably the father can walk.

Some people seem to hate the idea of anyone looking after a child other than the mother.

Dontknowanymore

What does it matter? Who was sleeping with who 4/5/6 years ago has no bearing on whats best for this child.

FBaby

In theory, it should matter an iota, in practice, of course it does because people will act on their feelings no matter how much they try to put these aside. What is considered best for the child is a subjective matter as shown here. If strangers can differ in their views as to what is better, how is this not going to be the case when you add to it some potential serious emotional baggage? You can't erase the baggage because it is there even if it means making decisions even more difficult.

FatVonD

Dontknowanymore wrote: »

What does it matter? Who was sleeping with who 4/5/6 years ago has no bearing on whats best for this child.

I agree but I think it's become an issue because of the OP's reluctance to say anything that shows herself/her husband in a bad light. You don't need to be a mathematician to do the sums though!

The only way I can see it has any bearing is if it explains why the mother doesn't want to speak to the father (but as someone else has already said, if things aren't going to be civil then maybe it's best there IS an intermediary) but I don't buy into the bitterness theory (on the mother's part), she is happy to let her son stay for extended periods with the OP so how bitter can she be?

There are many things about this story that don't add up, not least of all the level of the mother's disabilities, she's supposedly too incapacitated to care for her child yet has full powers of speech. IMO the OP bends the story to suit.

Dontknowanymore

Yes but it's done now. it is an issue between parties, I think we just have a few armchair detectives trying to dig out things that happened a long time ago.
Try and go to a court and bring this sort of stuff up, they won't have a bar of it, because it has no bearing on what is best for the child at this time.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

In theory, it should matter an iota, in practice, of course it does because people will act on their feelings no matter how much they try to put these aside. What is considered best for the child is a subjective matter as shown here. If strangers can differ in their views as to what is better, how is this not going to be the case when you add to it some potential serious emotional baggage? You can't erase the baggage because it is there even if it means making decisions even more difficult.

I think the reason that there are so many differing views that are so opposed to each other, is that none of us know the full story. We each read things differently, for example, I think a few posters think the father was a right scumbag to leave a sick woman and child, and move so far away. But we don't know (and I'm not saying this is the case!!) what kind of life he had with the mother! It could have been untenable and if he had stayed, she might have made his life a total misery, so maybe he had to get as far away as possible.


She could have been a right harridan and impossible to live with. That is the thing, we just don't know! And TBH, there is no need for us to know! IMO where he went wrong was not fighting harder at the beginning for custody, but what is done is done, but I don't buy into the "feeling" that a child has to stay with the mother every time. Men are just as capable, and in some cases better, than the mother. If it's better for the child to go to his father, then that is what should happen.

esmerelda98

killiebabe wrote: »

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 .

My apologies, you did say that, in response to FBaby (I think) saying that a judge would be reluctant to remove a child from their long-term carer, who she assumed to be the mother. It seems I missed out a page or two by mistake.

I made the same assumption, based on the father working full-time and moving far away from the hometown, leaving the child behind. I understand that this is what the grandparents wanted, but it does seem quite astounding that having been the child's primary carer when not in work (who had the baby then?) he would yield so easily to the grandparents wishes. He wanted to take the child with him, he would easily have gotten residence at that point, but he just went along with the grandparents, didn't modify his plans at all so he could still have a lot of contact with this toddler who had been almost solely dependent on him? My honest thoughts are that this scenario is unlikely to be true in its entirety.

I must say that your posts do follow a pattern I have seen many times before. I know it is impossible to give all the relevant information in the first few posts, but when later posts start picking up on comments and suggestions by other posters that put them in a positive light, I start throwing lots of salt about.

Tiddlywinks

killiebabe wrote: »

Yes sorry my bad way of writing ... It means my partners ex had moved on to other relationships before her health deterioated

So, as you've said previously, your partner was the primary carer of the child when the relationship with his ex was ongoing.

The relationship broke down and then your partner left the home without the child he had always cared for.

Then his ex started a relationship with someone else and then had a stroke.

When in all of this did your partner think it was a good idea to move hundreds of miles away from his son? The child will have seen his dad (primary carer) leave him, his mum bringing someone new into his life (or at the very least, being at home less in order for her to see her new man) and then see his mum get so ill that they had to move in with his grandparents.

I'm not playing 'armchair detective' but I am saying that the timeline doesn't fit with the dribble of information from the OP.

Which was it - man wanting to leave with his child but grandparents stepping in - in that case, why? If mother was in good health then why the need for them to step in?

If they or he felt the mother couldn't cope then why did he move so far away leaving his son in such a situation?

In this case, distance really does seem to matter - relationships break down BUT children still need their parents (particularly at such a difficult time).

Why is all this relevant now? Well, it demonstrates the 'values' of the father and his decision-making processes. If he felt it was OK to move and leave his son with either a sick mother, an inexperienced mother or one embarking on a new love so soon after the break-up then why would he choose to move so far away that he would be unable to see his very young son regularly enough to support him through the changes in his life?

It's also relevant because those decisions will still be remembered by the mother and her parents and they will be considering this timeline of events as part of how they see the father and his current intentions.

So, OP, please just let us know this: At what point did your partner move away - how long after he had left the relationship and how long before the mother got sick? Plus, why did he choose to move to a location so far from his son?

Marisco

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Plus, why did he choose to move to a location so far from his son?

Well I'd have thought that was patently obvious!! From reading the posts the op lives in Scotland, therefore he moved up there to be with her. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter, but that I should think is the reason.

Could someone please change the "c" to an "s" in the title, the dammed thing gets me every time I see it!!:D

FBaby

esmerelda98 wrote: »

but it does seem quite astounding that having been the child's primary carer when not in work (who had the baby then?) he would yield so easily to the grandparents wishes. He wanted to take the child with him, he would easily have gotten residence at that point, but he just went along with the grandparents, didn't modify his plans at all so he could still have a lot of contact with this toddler who had been almost solely dependent on him? My honest thoughts are that this scenario is unlikely to be true in its entirety.

This certainly is the part that I just cannot comprehend. Having been my children primary carer since birth, I know there is NO WAY and I mean NO WAY, I would have taken any decisions that meant relinquishing this role.

Not only has become obvious that the OP has offered information as it suited her story, but I suspect it is very likely her husband has also been shy of the complete truth in relation to what has happened before he moved in with her.