Why do some women stop their ex partners from seeing their kids?

FBaby

I think in most case it is because of lack of consistency which only a pwc can see that this it's likely to have more negative affect on the child then not having contact at all. Children need consistency. Those shouting their rights when it suit them but refusing to be responsible do themselves no justice.

In some occasions it is because the pwc considers that the child its at some short of risk with the nrp. Sometimes it is justified sometimes our is not. In that case only communication and compromise will resolve contact.

j.e.j.

alwaysasking wrote: »

Surely it is time for the law to treat mothers and fathers exactly equal and to stop allowing mothers automatic custody.

Nature didnt make us 'exactly equal'

I can't help thinking this first-time poster is someone who is familiar with this board and wants to stir up a heated debate :rotfl:

euronorris

It's not just fathers. A friend of mine's step-mum used to do it with her birthday & xmas cards. She only found out by accident on her 18th Birthday. Cue massive row!

Why - jealousy basically. She tried to insist that it was to protect her from her bio-mum, but as the only thing that she ever did wrong was to cheat on her Dad (not great I admit, but not exactly a good enough reason to cut contact with the child), it's a lame excuse at best. Especially as, even now, she's not allowed to mention her bio-mum in front of her! It's been over 25 years now!

VitaK

Shame on the woman that makes acces difficult.

Shame on the man that dosen't put up the fight of his life, when the woman makes acces difficult.

barbarawright

VitaK wrote: »

Shame on the woman that makes acces difficult.

Shame on the man that dosen't put up the fight of his life, when the woman makes acces difficult.

What if the absent parent has been abusive? Would you still say that it's shameful to deny access?

rpc

barbarawright wrote: »

What if the absent parent has been abusive? Would you still say that it's shameful to deny access?

If the child is not at risk, yes. Just because the parents had a difficult relationship, doesn't mean that the child cannot have a meaningful relationship with both of them. The child's right to a chance at that relationship should override anything that exists between the parents.

You would otherwise have to define abusive, which would be rather hard. Not all abuse is clear cut.

shortdog

VitaK wrote: »

Shame on the woman that makes acces difficult.

Shame on the man that dosen't put up the fight of his life, when the woman makes acces difficult.

I've stopped my ex having all access to the kids. However, he is an alcoholic, who, on the last occassion he had my daughter for a couple of hours, got arrested for drink-driving, at three times the limit. He refused to give the police my phone number:mad:, and my daughter (who was 6 at the time) was so distraught she couldn't remember it. Luckily, a friend of a friend worked in the police station, recognised my daughter, and told the police where we lived. My daughter had nightmares for weeks after that:(, and, for a long time, she would panic if we were out in the car and she saw a police car. That wasn't the only problem we had had, but it was the last straw, and he was told, in no uncertain terms, that he would never ever see the kids again, unless it was supervised by social services. He didn't fancy that - it meant he couldn't take them to the pub - so he's never been back.:D
However, I have all of his details (although he no longer has ours - I've moved house and changed my number), so, if in the future, the kids want to get in touch, they can. At the moment, my son doesn't even remember him, and my daughter gets really distressed if his name is mentioned in her hearing, and is adamant that she never wants to see him again.:(

(TBH, as far as I am concerned, there would be no loss to the world if he fell off a cliff, however don't tell the kids I said that:rotfl:)

barbarawright

rpc wrote: »

If the child is not at risk, yes. Just because the parents had a difficult relationship, doesn't mean that the child cannot have a meaningful relationship with both of them. The child's right to a chance at that relationship should override anything that exists between the parents.

You would otherwise have to define abusive, which would be rather hard. Not all abuse is clear cut.

If, for example, a man has beaten up the woman, frankly, even if he hasn't touched the children, I would still consider them at risk. YMMV. But I would say there are plenty of situations in which it is the duty of the parent with custody to restrict access.

go_cat

Controversial first post by newbie?

Me smells a troll

halight

Gigglepig wrote: »

Perhaps some men/women can bear having contact with their ex, or do it out of spite, but there could be many reasons. There are also exes who refuse to stick to schedules, make arrangements hard, and do not have a consistent interest in/commitment to their kids. Inconsistency can be very hurtful to the child. I think some parents find it extremely difficult to see their kids let down and for that reason try to avoid further contact?

Regarding your other point..

You cannot split a child in two - so how can you possibly treat mum and dad exactly the same?

Arrangements where kids live 50%-50% with mum & dad, although it sounds nice in principle, must be thoroughly exhausting for the kids?

Mothers and fathers will never be exactly equal as long as mothers are the ones who are pregnant.... (I only came to appreciate how much this means, this after getting pregnant myself!)

In addition to the attachment/bonding by pregnancy and breastfeeding, many mothers will also have made bigger sacrifices than fathers not only in terms of their health but also in terms of career etc.

It is quite rare in this country for mothers to go back to a career a couple of weeks after birth, and for dad to stay at home with small children.

If the mother will have been the primary carer during the marriage, so it would not make sense to change it afterwards?

Based on all these points, if you want to avoid the stress of 50%-50% moving between homes, unless the mother is proven unsuitable or it is clear that the dad has always been the primary carer, it makes sense that mother is primary carer?

I'm male I'm also a dad.
I'm not divorced from my wife. I live with my Kids and so I don't know how men who can not see there kids feel.

but i do agree that younger children are better off with there mum if that is at all possible, Yes I understand that its not. But If I and my wife split up then I would wont my Kids to live with there mum full time. I would wont access to the kids. And id like them to have a bed room at my new place if they could.

My wife dose a great job of bringing our young kids up. Better than I could do.
I wont whats best for my kids and that means if it ever came down to it I would wont them to live with my wife.

As for older kids ? Teenagers, Then I believe that its better for them to have some input in were they live. If there is space at dads place and they wont to live there then so be it. If they wont to stop with Mum then fine. And if they wont to split there time between the two then that's even better.