a fathers responcibilty to his kids

killiebabe

tiddlywinks not really how youv put it... for all concerned my partner split up wi his ex long time b4 her disability arose.

Mojisola

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Children should be kept with their mother, where at all possible.

Children have two parents and neither should have automatic precedence. The child's interests should be paramount.

Tiddlywinks

killiebabe wrote: »

my partners ex GF had a stroke over 4 years ago , n its left her disabled on 1 side... this is why wen my partner relocated to scotland he felt his son would be better with him as his sons mother, relies heavily on her parents to care for her , but at the time of the move the child was to stay in england,,, now the grandparents are complaining there not coping well with having a disabled daughter n a 5 yr old to care for, they are soley caring for my partners child....

killiebabe wrote: »

tiddlywinks not really how youv put it... for all concerned my partner split up wi his ex long time b4 her disability arose.

So, which is it?

Either way, your partner left his child and moved to the other side of the UK and is still there KNOWING that the mother of his child is struggling with ill health yet he has done nothing to assist in any practical way - I still say this is selfish.

And your only solution is to want to take the child away from his mum so your lives won't be hindered? How on earth can you really believe that you are putting the interests of the child first?

You are putting your needs first and that is dodging parental responsibilities instead you should be thinking of the child.

killiebabe

yes lunar lots of ppl have suggested we give up our jobs to move closer. its local goverment authority we both work for not overall goverment....as iv previously stated what good would be giving up a job to become unemployed ( in this current lack of jobs climate) be to his child as he would have to money to financially support him them.

killiebabe

say what u like tiddlywinks you dont no the full story n im glad iv not posted it to all.. only the very basic info needs to be explained

Tiddlywinks

killiebabe wrote: »

say what u like tiddlywinks you dont no the full story n im glad iv not posted it to all.. only the very basic info needs to be explained

So, why ask for advice based on only part of the story?

Which bit of the following isn't accurate:

- a man has left his children and moved to the other side of the UK to live with a new GF

- the mother of his child is now struggling with a permanent disability and needs support to care for the children

- man and new GF don't want to move closer to help

- man and new GF think that the solution is to move the child to the other side of the UK away from the rest of the child's family (ie his mum, grandparents and sister)

Again, which bits of this are incorrect?

coolcait

janninew wrote: »

It's really interesting reading this thread as I remember plenty of others where Mum has decided to move to another part of the Country and take the Children, meaning Dad can't see them as often. The responses were the polar opposite of this thread and went along the lines of 'Mum is entitled to get on with her life and live were she wants!'

I personally think when parents split, one parent moving far away isn't ideal and not fair on the children. If a parent does move though, they should be the ones responsible for the travel costs.

I agree with you. I have seen many a thread of the type you mention, and many a comment along the lines of 'mum is entitled to get on with her life and live where she wants'.

I have seen that type of reply in threads where the mum wants to move to be with a new man, but the children don't want to go. Even then, you get the 'mum is entitled to get on with her life' comments. With a seasoning of 'mum knows what's best for her children' and 'better for the children to have a mum that's happy'. And the occasional trenchant 'mum can't allow her children to dictate the way she lives her life'.

[N.B. None of the above is a verbatim quote - just illustrative examples of the type of views on other threads]

You do also get posters who point out that the children's needs should take priority, and that that mum needs to consider that too.

This thread, for me, is unique in not having the 'mum/dad is entitled to move on with his/her life' type of comment as a response.

I'm not sure whether that's because:

- the parent who has moved on with their life is the dad
- the parent who has moved on with their life left the children behind
- the parent with custody is disabled
- a combination of the above
- none of the above

In threads where posters have taken the view that a parent is entitled to move on with their life, and take the children with them on that journey, there is also a view that 'children adapt'.

That view is further expanded to include the theory that 'the younger they are, the easier it is for them to adapt'.

I find it interesting that neither of those theories have made an appearance on this thread.

Just wanted to post to reassure you that you are not the only one who has noted the stark contrast between this thread and others about similar subjects . I'll respond to the main topic separately.

balletshoes

is that on this forum (the relationships one I mean) you see this regularly coolcait, or another one?

Just wondering, as I tend to only read grabbit, holidays and this forum, I don't really follow the others.

janninew

Thanks coolcait - glad its not just me that had noticed! Thought maybe I was dreaming the other threads!

coolcait

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

So, which is it?

It's perfectly possible that it's both.

The couple split up some years ago, at a point before one of them had a stroke.

When the other partner was relocating to another part of the UK, one of the considerations was how to deal with custody and access (as is always the case when a co-parent changes location). There was an added consideration about whether or not the disabled parent could care adequately for the child.

However, the disabled parent did not wish the other parent to have custody, and demonstrated how the child would be adequately cared for.

However, those care arrangements are now starting to crumble. The child's main carers have asked the other parent to 'take' the child for longer periods of time, as they state frankly that they cannot cope.

The other parent has taken that request on board, is happy to comply with it, and is willing to 'take' the child for the majority of the time. The only thing that hasn't been clearly stated is how much access the disabled parent would get, and how that would be achieved.

Looked at in those terms - stripped of emotion, gender etc, why so much anger towards the OP and her partner for even thinking of taking on the parental responsibility which having main custody entails?

That is just as factaul an account of the situations as the one you have put forward. Perhaps less emotive.