Ex picking up children query

FBaby

It's a difficult moral one. My initial reaction is she moved, so it is more than fair, but then if she trully moved out of choice as a direct result of his own actions, then it is a bit different.

I moved after I met my partner. Only 1/2 hour away and I probably would have moved anyway because I was relocated with my job AND the secondary school in our town was bad and I would have wanted our kids to go to another one (which they now do thanks to the move).

Still, as I am the one who moved, I accepted that I would do all the travelling, that is every week-end as that was our previous arrangement, so 1 hour Friday evenings and same Saturday evenings. Thankfully, the kids are now old enough to go on the train, but I pay for them going there and back, even though he either contributes very little maintenance or none at all. He has made it clear he will not do any of the travelling. I thought about suggesting every other week-end, but that would penalise the kids, so I do it for them.

CL

A friend recently was in court about access arrangements for her ex to see the kids. He doesn't drive and was trying to have the court make her continue to drop the children off and collect them (which she had been doing for 6 months).

The judge said the normal arrangement is the NRP goes to get the children and the RP collects them. i.e. you want to see them you go get them, you want them back, you collect them.

tattycath

CL wrote: »

A friend recently was in court about access arrangements for her ex to see the kids. He doesn't drive and was trying to have the court make her continue to drop the children off and collect them (which she had been doing for 6 months).

The judge said the normal arrangement is the NRP goes to get the children and the RP collects them. i.e. you want to see them you go get them, you want them back, you collect them.

Yes, but had the PWC moved miles away with the child/ren in question. IMO it's unreasonable for PWC to move miles away and then expect NRP to travel the whole distance to see the children

themull1

lazer wrote: »

and why not?

A - Because I can't drive
B - Because in that situation if me and my ex had split up and i had to move away near my mams to get help towards my children because of him leaving, and he earned more than me, tough, he would be footing the costs of the travelling.

DVardysShadow

Nicki wrote: »

DVardysShadow wrote: »

On the meeting half way, I agree with the others.

On him turning up late, I think the understanding has to be one consistent venue and time, no chopping and changing - I know it is a rod for her own back too. And if he is more than 30 minutes late, she should turn straight back home and done with it.

So long as she is happy to be without her children for a week if she gets stuck in traffic one day on her way to pick them up and her ex leaves again with them and refuses to hand them over for another week to teach her a lesson. I'm not sure being a smart aleck and playing tit for tat with an ex to teach them a lesson is ever a good idea either for OP's sake or the children's.

I take the point, although in this case, I wonder if the ex would really be able to carry it off and keep the kids for a week - I imagine the new Mrs ex would not be happy

This appears to address both meeting half way and changing arrangements.

CL wrote: »

....
The judge said the normal arrangement is the NRP goes to get the children and the RP collects them. i.e. you want to see them you go get them, you want them back, you collect them.

Fire_Fox

tescovaluecrisps wrote: »

If she cannot afford it due to being on benifits she should just refuse if he wants to see his kids he will have to come and get them. If its a also a power trip, something he has over her she needs to be strong snd nip it in the bud right now. He can't be that bothered about his kids or he would be there ever week to get them (especially as he has the means to do it) I know i'll get crap for saying what I think but if my kids were 100miles away I would go every week because I love them so much and I never even drive out of my city. Your friend should NOT do what he wants.

Bit it's not just 100 miles, it is 400 hundred miles (there and back twice). That is not just a financial commitment but a time commitment and there is the issue of the stress/ tiredness/ being able to drive safely. Depending on the amount of stress and driving in the rest of their life, this can genuinely be too much for some people.

Sambucus_Nigra

ginsterman wrote: »

Thanks to all replies, the reason she moved is she couldnt afford to run the family home which he then sold, he moved in with the woman he left her for leaving her in a big house with all the bills, as the kids were under school age at that time, she was looking after them. She moved away to be with her parents to cut down on accomodation costs while she got herself sorted, she is getting a part time job. The ex will be providing a home for her and the children. My own personal view is that he wants his cake and wants hers too, he left her for another woman, he wants to dictate to her when and where they meet. It was his decision to leave the family unit, he should not be able to pull all the strings now he isnt part of it. Yes, i know he is still the childrens father and i agree that he should be a full part of their lives but i dont agree it should be on his terms.

But that is just my view and i can appreciate all sides. I know that if i didnt have any spare money i wouldnt spend it making his life easier!!

What do you mean the ex will be providing a home for her.

And why isn't she going through CSA to get maintenance, then she may get a higher amount that will cover the cost of the travel.

Carl31

I love how these situations generally end up as a power battle, not an amicable arrangement

if you choose to bring children into this world, then you make sacrifices, think before you act.

Earnings doesn't come into question, what one side earns over the other is irrelevant. The children need to be provided for, if that's not happening,then theres a problem.

It sounds more to me that the op's friend is the problem here, trying to make the dad pay for his wrong doing.

NewKittenHelp

She chose to move 100 miles away, and presumably she's getting more than £10,000 each year from him in maintenance. Child benefits are about £4000 per child these days, and she has no accommodation costs so that's at least £18,000 she's getting for spending money, but she can't afford the fuel that her decision is costing her?

There's definitely a power game being played here, but I'm not sure it's by him.

Sambucus_Nigra

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

She chose to move 100 miles away, and presumably she's getting more than £10,000 each year from him in maintenance. Child benefits are about £4000 per child these days, and she has no accommodation costs so that's at least £18,000 she's getting for spending money, but she can't afford the fuel that her decision is costing her?

There's definitely a power game being played here, but I'm not sure it's by him.

It wasn't her decision to end the relationship - that's been explained. If you get together with someone not from the same town, and things go awry, and you leave your partner and 2 kids and they can't afford to keep a house going - there's always a chance that the ex partner might move to get support from family.

We don't know how much she is getting in maintenance; if she really can't afford the money for transport then I assume this non-CSA agreement is not in the region of £10k.