a fathers responcibilty to his kids

coolcait

balletshoes wrote: »

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.

On this one.

Regularly.

That's why I was so surprised to see a complete lack of that type of comment on this thread!

the_cat

coolcait wrote: »

why so much anger towards the OP and her partner for even thinking of taking on the parental responsibility which having main custody entails?

.

As one of those displaying 'anger' I strongly feel that no parent, male or female, has the right to deprive their child of a meaningful relationship with the other parent.

The father in question has done so by moving hundreds of miles away. His 'solution' to the problems that he has created by putting himself and his new relationship ahead of his kids is to uproot the poor child and now deprive him of his mother instead.

The child should come first. I would be as angry at a mother moving herself and her kids away from the father. Despicably selfish imo

thatgirlsam

coolcait wrote: »

On this one.

Regularly.

That's why I was so surprised to see a complete lack of that type of comment on this thread!

Isn't this thread a bit different in that the parent without custody (who has moved a long way away, not taking the children) wants to remove the child from the parent with custody as she is disabled and unable to care for child (he says) and take the child a long way from the parent who doesn't want to give up custody?

Sorry, I've made a right meal of that! Dunno how to simplify it!

I would be one to say its best to stay in a reasonable proximity to both parents

I have often dreamed about emigrating but I would never, ever take my children so far away from their Father - Not for him, for them!

*max*

coolcait wrote: »

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.

I think the difference is that in those cases, the parent with care would move WITH the children. Here, the parent with care was the one staying put with the children while the other parent moved away and on with their life. Very different situation.

In both scenarios, I think the parent who moved should be the one doing their utmost to facilitate contact with the children regardless of who has care, for what it's worth.

thatgirlsam

*max* wrote: »

I think the difference is that in those cases, the parent with care would move WITH the children. Here, the parent with care was the one staying put with the children while the other parent moved away and on with their life. Very different situation.

In both scenarios, I think the parent who moved should be the one doing their utmost to facilitate contact with the children regardless of who has care, for what it's worth.

Ah, thats what I wanted to say

*max*

thatgirlsam wrote: »

Ah, thats what I wanted to say

It took me a while to put it into words and I'm still not sure it worked!

coolcait

OP, as you'll have gathered from my other posts on this thread, you've been slightly unlucky with the responses you've received to your thread.

If you had been a mum who was proposing to move her child(ren) to the other side of the UK to be with a new man, you would probably have had lots of responses just like the ones directed at you tonight.

But, you would probably have had a lot of responses supporting your right to move, and to move on, and assuring you that children can adapt to that kind of change - especially when they're only five years old. You would have been told that the dad has no right to hold you back. That if he really wants to be a father, and see his child(ren), then it is his responsibility to make that happen.

OK, so you've been told the last bit!

I'm not sure what it causing people to see things differently on this thread. Is it simply because they are different people from those who have taken the 'mum's rights' view on other threads? Possibly. Even so...

Are opinions being affected by the fact that you are suggesting that the father should have main custody of the child? That's clearly the case for at least one response. Is it because the other parent is disabled? That is definitely a factor in some responses.

But, let's focus on the 'what's best for the child?' part of the issue.

His mother can't care for him. Her own carers have stated that explicitly. His grandparents - his mother's carers - have stated that they are finding difficulty in caring for him.

You have been told that the answer is for your OH to give up his job and his home; find a new job and home near his child, his ex, and her parents, and take up his share of looking after the child. You can go with him if you want/can. If you don't want/can't, then tough, That's what happens when you take up with a man who has a child with another woman.

This, you have been told, is what's best for the child.

Is it?

Is it better for the child to have a father who is moving location and finding a new job in a difficult market, starting from scratch in terms of probation periods, length of time he needs to serve before he is free from the threat of an employer simply dismissing him and taking on a new member of staff?

Or, a father who is in settled - relatively secure - employment, and with a settled place of residence?

We are told that the child's mother refuses to speak to the child's father. Posters have empathised with why she might feel that way.

Yet, those posters, and others, are stating that the child's father should return to whence he came, be close to his child and his ex, and take care of his child on a daily basis.

If the child's mother going to allow that? Not based on her behaviour to date.

And, if she allows her ex to have unrestricted access to their child once he's living close by, that does risk making her look manipulative and selfish.

This is not a nuclear family. It hasn't been a nuclear family for a long time. There is rancour and game-playing between the parents - to the extent that in-laws are acting as go-betweens.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of sense in having the father give up his job and home (and, as an added bonus, perhaps, from some points of view, his new woman) and going back to 'help' - especially when there is no guarantee that he would even be allowed to do so.

Far better, IMO, for the dad and the OP to write to the in-laws to accept, with alacrity, the opportunity to have the child as frequently as possible. After all, this is something they have been asking for for a long time.

Not a good idea, however, to push for full custody at this stage. If the carers are able to keep looking after the child on a more limited basis, then that seems like the best of both worlds.

And, OP, best not get hung up on the distance you have to drive to collect and return the child. His mother is disabled. Her carers (and the child's carers) are not getting any younger. That is going to make it difficult for them to get access if you did ever get full custody.

So do make it clear that you are willing to go the extra mile -literally and metaphorically - it will not only make you better people, it will make your OH's son's life that much easier in terms of seeing all the important people in his life.

If you're not willing to go that extra mile, then ask yourself why your OH wants to have custody. If it's just to make his life easier, then he should never, ever get custody.

coolcait

the_cat wrote: »

As one of those displaying 'anger' I strongly feel that no parent, male or female, has the right to deprive their child of a meaningful relationship with the other parent.

The father in question has done so by moving hundreds of miles away. His 'solution' to the problems that he has created by putting himself and his new relationship ahead of his kids is to uproot the poor child and now deprive him of his mother instead.

The child should come first. I would be as angry at a mother moving herself and her kids away from the father. Despicably selfish imo

I don't disagree with your points in principle. But, I'm not sure that I see this situation in the same stark and 'angry' terms that you do.

When parents split up, it is a sad fact that their children cannot live with them both all the time. They have to split their time between the two parents.

Luckily, those relationships with both parents can still be 'meaningful'. Both parents will be 'deprived' of their children to some extent - although that is the result of their own choice to split up.

The children will also be 'deprived' of one parent or other at all times. Sometimes it will be the mother, sometimes it will be the father.

If the child is already splitting his time between the two parents, why would a shift in emphasis, in terms of custody, mean that he was being 'deprived of his mother'?

The current problems are not as a result of the father moving away, for whatever reasons.

They are as a result of the fact that the current primary caregivers (the grandparents) are no longer able to care for the child and his mother in the way that they did previously.

The only way that the current situation might have been avoided would have been if the the couple had not split up, and the child was living with his father and mother.

That didn't happen, and the split does not appear to have been amicable. The mother doesn't speak to the father. How would any of that change if he lived closer?

coolcait

thatgirlsam wrote: »

Isn't this thread a bit different in that the parent without custody (who has moved a long way away, not taking the children) wants to remove the child from the parent with custody as she is disabled and unable to care for child (he says) and take the child a long way from the parent who doesn't want to give up custody?

Sorry, I've made a right meal of that! Dunno how to simplify it!

I would be one to say its best to stay in a reasonable proximity to both parents

I have often dreamed about emigrating but I would never, ever take my children so far away from their Father - Not for him, for them!

I don't think we actually know what the child's mother wants. All the discussion appears to be between the grandparents (who seem to be the primary carers) and the father.

What we have been told is that the primary carers have asked the parent without custody to 'take' the child more often.

The OP and her OH have taken a leap forward from that point, and are talking about having main custody.

We don't actually know if the primary carers would reject that option now. They did previously - but that was at a point where they felt they could cope.

There is a huge difference between emigrating and moving to another part of this island nation. We tend to forget that. Just as we tend to forget (or never knew) that people in larger countries would roll about laughing at the idea that a few hours travel time was an insurmountable obstacle.

*Robin*

I wonder if Grandma consulted her disabled daughter before writing to the child's father? She must feel desperate to have done that when relations between the parents sound strained, at best.

Saying the father must give up his job and move back to the place his Ex lives is all very well, but even if he had work and accommodation to step into, it would take weeks at best (serving notice at his current job, making arrangements, etc). By what we've been told, Grandma needs help now. So would it be possible for Dad to take some leave from work and go down next week - as soon as possible, to spend time with the boy and see for himself the problems with the current situation?

Most of all, he needs to develop an amicable relationship with the boy's Mum; listen to her and take in the particular reasons she is upset (maybe obvious to many posters here, but there has clearly been a breakdown in communication between OP's H and his Ex). Once she's put her viewpoint across then they need to work together to do the best for the child. It may be she now feels so ill and overwhelmed that it would be a relief to pass responsibility for their son to his father, at least for a while.