a fathers responcibilty to his kids

coolcait

*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.

Re the point in bold, here's a Devil's Advocate question:

So, is possession really nine points of the law?

Is it really OK for the parent with care to move away and move on with their life (taking the children with them), no matter how far away they go, and no matter that a new relationship may be involved?

But it's not OK for the other parent to do the same?

That sounds like a double standard to me.

Whilst I agree with your final paragraph to a certain extent, I do think that it is incumbent on both parents to facilitate contact with the children.

Putting the onus entirely on the person who moved away could lead to the parent with care stating that they wouldn't be taking the children over the threshold of their home because 'it was the other parent who left'.

*max*

coolcait wrote: »

Re the point in bold, here's a Devil's Advocate question:

So, is possession really nine points of the law?

Is it really OK for the parent with care to move away and move on with their life (taking the children with them), no matter how far away they go, and no matter that a new relationship may be involved?

But it's not OK for the other parent to do the same?

That sounds like a double standard to me.

Whilst I agree with your final paragraph to a certain extent, I do think that it is incumbent on both parents to facilitate contact with the children.

Putting the onus entirely on the person who moved away could lead to the parent with care stating that they wouldn't be taking the children over the threshold of their home because 'it was the other parent who left'.

Nope, I never said it was. The parent who moved should make the most effort to organise regular contact with the children, regardless of who has care though. After all, why should the parent who stayed put be the one who is most inconvenienced by the new distance? It isn't fair, it wasn't their choice to have geographic distance put into the equation. So no, no double standards at all!

Either parent is free to move away, with the children or without depending on who has care, but then they have to shoulder the consequences IMO - be it by being more flexible, more willing to accomodate visitation/holiday requests or by being willing to absorb most part if not all of the cost of travel for contact to happen.

RacyRed

coolcait wrote: »

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.

But is that accurate coolcait?

The couple had a child and within a year of the birth the mother had a stroke leaving her partially paralysed.

The child's father then moved to another part of the country to begin a new life with the OP.

Whatever the reasons for the breakup of the relationship this guy left his children, one of whom was an infant at the time, in a situation where he must have realised the mother would really struggle to cope.

He CHOSE to move away and that choice has created the current situation. His actions have called into question his level of commitment to his children, in that he has not, historically, put them first.

The easy and obvious solution may not be the right one in this very, very difficult situation.

coolcait

*max* wrote: »

Nope, I never said it was. The parent who moved should make the most effort to organise regular contact with the children, regardless of who has care though. After all, why should the parent who stayed put be the one who is most inconvenienced by the new distance? It isn't fair, it wasn't their choice to have geographic distance put into the equation. So no, no double standards at all!

Either parent is free to move away, with the children or without depending on who has care, but then they have to shoulder the consequences IMO - be it by being more flexible, more willing to accomodate visitation/holiday requests or by being willing to absorb most part if not all of the cost of travel for contact to happen.

Looking at the part of my post you have put in bold, and then looking at your reply, something seems to have gone amiss...

We actually agree that either parent is free to move away etc.

Our point of disgreement appears to lie around the amount of effort that each parent should put into facilitating contact, should one of them move.

I don't think that it is necessarily as clear cut as 'the parent who moves needs to shoulder the consequences'. Not least because the parent with care has more power in terms of how, when and where they 'allow' access.

So, it is easier for a parent with care to move away - but refuse to even meet the other parent half-way. If the other parent balks at that, then they won't see their child(ren). Win-win for the PWC in that case.

Other than that, we seem to be pretty much in agreement about the issues.

coolcait

RacyRed wrote: »

But is that accurate coolcait?

The couple had a child and within a year of the birth the mother had a stroke leaving her partially paralysed.

The child's father then moved to another part of the country to begin a new life with the OP.

Whatever the reasons for the breakup of the relationship this guy left his children, one of whom was an infant at the time, in a situation where he must have realised the mother would really struggle to cope.

He CHOSE to move away and that choice has created the current situation. His actions have called into question his level of commitment to his children, in that he has not, historically, put them first.

The easy and obvious solution may not be the right one in this very, very difficult situation.

I don't know any of the parties involved, so I don't know the actual dates.

But, it is possible for a couple (however long they are together) to conceive a child, and then break up before, or just after that child is born.

In fact, those are a couple of critical periods for relationships breaking up.

It is, therefore, within the bounds of possibility that the OP's partner had split from his ex before she had a stroke.

It is not clear how old the child was when the father moved to live elsewhere. Having re-read the OP, he may have been five years old then. I had somehow gained the impression he was five years old now. Those two interpretations give very different pictures of the circumstances, then and now.

From what we are told, at the time the OP's OH moved away from the place his ex lives, he had wanted to take his child with him. Commitment. However, that option was rejected by his ex and/or her parents.

When the OP's OH moved away, he knew that his ex, and his son, were in the care of adults who were clear that they could cope with the caring responsibilities they were taking on. Although his request to have main care of his son had been rejected, there was an assurance that proper care arrangements were in place.

That has now changed.

The current situation is down to that fact. The difficulties may be aggravated by the fact that the OP's OH does not live around the corner. However, his location is not the root cause of the problem.

The OP's OH has supported his son financially. Commitment. He has taken every opportunity to have his son stay with him - despite the co-parent's attempts to thwart this. Commitment.

I don't see any reason to doubt the father's commitment to his son. Or his capacity to care for him. I see no reason to doubt the child's mother's commitment to him. But plenty of reason to doubt her capacity to care for him.

I see a number of practical obstacles to the facile solution of 'let him move back and care for his child'. None of which involve his current relationship (sorry, OP).

sausageface

[QUOTE=

ch27 ; his son stayed with us on 7 occasions last year, for 2 + weeks or longer[/QUOTE]

So only 7 times in 12 months? And you wonder why the grandparents are saying it should be more often?!

It's not that they can't cope - it's that they expect more of the child's father than that amount of time spent. It doesn't matter that it is "2 weeks +" blah blah. For them 2 weeks they must miss the child being there so much, not to mention the Mum!

Whether the Mum is disabled or not, she will need a break more than every couple of months - I really can't see how you can take that as being "should we take the son because she can't cope?"? I am a single Mum and at the end of week sometimes I am practically shoving my kids out the door to see their Dad. They love their Dad more than anything and I admittedly love that sound of peace once a week when they are not there just to gather myself together and get ready for the next week! However, as soon as the sound of peace quietens down I miss them so much and can't wait to have them back home.

I would never up and move my children across the country for my own personal relationship and I am pretty damn sure their Dad would not either - and especially if I had just had a stroke, was partially disabled and it would mean he only seen the children 7 times a year!

I'm sorry, and it is ludicrous to me that upped and left for Scotland in the first place and now you are moaning that they won't meet you half way, can't cope... you want to have custody...


Eurgh...

coolcait

sausageface wrote: »

So only 7 times in 12 months? And you wonder why the grandparents are saying it should be more often?!

...

OP said "on 7 occasions last year, for 2 + weeks or longer"

None of us know how many days that consisted of. 2+ weeks or longer in a year? Or 7 occasions in the year, each occasion lasting 2+ weeks or longer?

Let's also look at the restrictions involved in cases where a child has to split time between parents.

There's splitting the time between parents, of course.

There's also school requirements. Children of a certain age have to go to school. Even if both parents are living roughly in the same region, there's no guarantee that they will both be living in an area convenient to the school.

Also, based on your post, the non-resident parent can't ever win. Even when the child is with the non-resident parent, the resident parent (and carers) are counting that up as time that the child is not with them.

Can the non-resident parents do the same? Would you accept that the non-resident parent can count up all the days that their child is with the other parent, and then say 'my child was kept from me for 'x' days last year'?

There's also the question of how much the mother in this case has contributed to limiting contact between the child and his dad. It does sound as if she has had a definite role to play there.

Seanymph

For my part I think I'd react differently if it was a PARENT on the boards.

The speculation about the responses is mitigated as far as I'm concerned because you respond to the poster. The poster in this case is the new g/f who he may or may not have had an affair with and certainly the women who refused to give up her homelife and job and move to where he had a family and children.

The OP isn't a parent - she is mooting 'taking another woman's child' from her but has no children herself.

I am responding to the OP - not to the overall situation, because we only have the OP to talk to.

FatVonD

Seanymph wrote: »

The OP isn't a parent - she is mooting 'taking another woman's child' from her

... only to leave him for a couple of hours each day with her own parents, who he is not related to, while they are both at work!

OP, you've mentioned that holidays in Scotland and the UK differ, why are you not arranging your annual leave to tie in with your partner's son's holidays?

clearingout

Seanymph wrote: »

The OP isn't a parent - she is mooting 'taking another woman's child' from her but has no children herself.

One of my biggest 'pet hates' is new partners posting about a situation such as this. It often involves the new partner not having children themselves (although not always) and it usually involves mum being a terrible parent (usually still single) who isn't capable of caring for....well, you know the story. Mum is always hostile, always blocking contact, always failing to turn up for parents evenings or doctor's appointments or leaving the child home alone even when they're old enough for that to happen.... My inclination is to say if dad is that bothered, why is he not posting himself?

I think, however, that this situation is slightly different in that there does seem to be a genuine problem which, long term, needs to be sorted for the sake of the child. A change of residence is a possible solution. I agree, however, that the OP has simplified the situation and appears entirely without empathy to mum's situation and I feel distinctly uneasy that if a change of residence were to be affected, this is one child who would lose his mother.

I think an attempt at building bridges with mum and the grandparents wouldn't go amiss. I think taking genuine stock of the situation by speaking with the school, health professionals, social workers or whoever is involved with the family would be very sensible as it currently sounds like a 'well, if they're going to send us letters like that we'll simply take the child and not return him and be done with it' situation. Giving serious consideration to a move is also required - I accept giving up a job in the current climate wouldn't be the best thing to do, but I'm not sure what would be stopping this couple looking for work in the general vicinity of the child and seeing if something comes up that they could make work. There is no permanent commitment just filling in a few application forms. If she works for the local authority, sending a CV to the HR department and asking to be kept on file should the same vacancy arise in the new area would at least be showing willing.