Ex picking up children query

BobQ

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Since she moved away she should be willing to do half the travelling to ensure her children have a relationship with their father, her personal reasons for moving are not relevant.

.

A lot of posters are sayin the OP chose to move away. The OP chose to live somewhere different to where her other ex lives. There is no obligation on a separated could to live where they both once lived. What matters is where the children live

I think the father should pay to pick the children up from their home.

Fire_Fox

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

This isn't to do with me - it's about typing things based on the information provided.

We don't know how much she gets but from what has been typed, we know that he left her and the kids. She didn't move to Australia, she moved to be with her family as she couldn't afford to stay where she was. If she genuinely can't afford the travel, she needs to go to the CSA [as mentioned in my first and second post on this thread].

The 'you' in my earlier post was the generic/ plural you!

tescovaluecrisps wrote: »

I agree because I would hate to have to drive that far because I hate driving BUT he chose to end it knowing that her family lived miles away. Thats the trouble with people today, they want to do what they want AND they also want others to do what they want too. The money she is using on petrol could be used for winter coats, food and things that her and the kids need. She doesn't have to meet him and she shouldn't he is an adult he has made his choices

We don't know what relationship issues there were prior to him ending the relationship, the fact that he did should not be used as a weapon or point scoring exercise against the father. This is, or should be, about what it best for the children and only rarely is that making it difficult for them to spend quality time with their father.

What about the time investment and the safety of the father doing all the driving? No use having dead children because you wanted to save money for winter coats.

BobQ wrote: »

A lot of posters are sayin the OP chose to move away. The OP chose to live somewhere different to where her other ex lives. There is no obligation on a separated could to live where they both once lived. What matters is where the children live

I think the father should pay to pick the children up from their home.

The OP chose to live somewhere different to where the father of her children is based, he is not simply her ex. This is about continuing to put 50% of the effort in for the sake of the children's relationship with the non resident parent, which is something that should be a priority/ seen as a personal obligation by any loving resident parent. Once again there are wider issues than just cost: there is the time, stress and safety implications of driving both ways twice in one weekend.

Rebecca01

50 k after tax as some have pointed out would be no where near 10 k. At the most it would be about 7k . Then he has the children for 1/7 of the time. Then he would get a further reduction. So the CSA probably would only assess him for approx 6k, and thats without travel. Though that wouldnt be much. However its been said they have a private agreement, so who knows what that is.

I am in agreement with others that have said it, and the court would look at in the same way. No blame, who left who, who chose to move where!

Just hard facts. The mother lives in one place, the father in the other. Now what is the fairest way for access?

I think half way.

However we were in a similar situation years ago. My partners ex moved away three hours drive and refused to meet half way. So we drove six hours on a Friday and six on a sunday every other weekend for two years.
Things finally became better and she met us halfway. It was fairer and easier all round.
However then we chose to move 4 hours in the other direction to be near my family . So now I wouldnt dream of asking the childrens mother to meet us half way. Though nowadays she probably would. Instead we go and visit them for the weekend , and have even stayed at her house. Its nice how things can change for the better. She has parents in London so she has on sometimes met us there.
Its not easy but I think holding old resentments and recriminations is not the best way forward.

tescovaluecrisps

Fire_Fox wrote: »

No use having dead children because you wanted to save money for winter coats.



QUOTE]

you are sick!

DUTR

tescovaluecrisps wrote: »

Right so every man that has ever left anyone it's always been the wifes fault. They have strayed because the wife isn't making them happy. Ok I get it know. To be honest the OP asked for peoples veiws and I gave mine I have been shot down on every single veiw that I have had. So I won't be commenting anymore. You are obviously right about everything I would watch out cause if you don't let your other half have there own veiws they might become unhappy at home and leave you too. I'm alright cause me and my husband are happy. :A

I never said that though did I? However you should accept that sometimes it's the womans fault too, having children is not a passport to bully and treat people like rubbish and expect them to stay, I'm not right about everything, however as said at least twice in my posts the whys and wherefore are irrelevant the consequences are the same .

ginsterman

Can i just reply to a few of the comments on here:

1. Nowhere has it been stated by myself that my friend is in receipt of benefits, the facts are that she is receipt of ONE benefit, child benefit which contrary to an earlier post does not amount to £8k for 2 children per year! I believe trhat at current rates of £20.30 per week for the eldest and £13.40 per week for the youngest amounts to £1752.40 per year, a difference of over 6k

2. The ex has a very good relationship with his children and thats the way it should be, he loves them, they love him. He is allowed to see them whenever he wants but the agreement set between themselves at present is he sees them every other weekend from the friday evening until the sunday evening.

3. She has been living with her parents but the ex is in the process of buying a house for the children, the house will be bought in cash (no mortgage), no bills will be paid by the ex, and it will be able for the ex and the children to live in until the youngest leaves full time education.

4. Whilst she has been living with the parents, she has been paying them a sum for "lodging" and paying for the extra food for herself and the children.

5. She has found herself a part time job which will be starting in a few weeks to go to while the youngest is at pre-school, once the youngest starts full school then she will be able to increase the hours she works.

6. The private agreement for maintenance is quite a bit below the 10k quoted by a previous poster. The reason the CSA havent been involved is due to the ex being very clever (and also very legally) doing a "Jimmy Carr" regarding his tax liabilities.

These are a few of the facts which i realise would have been handy to include in my original post however there have been a lot of assumptions especially regarding benefits which arent fair.

I havent attributed fault to the ex for the split but set down the facts i.e he left for another woman who he is now living with and she is now expecting a child with him. I do not know the facts behind why he had the affair, neither do i care to, but its irrelevant to the case. At the end of the day i asked for peoples opinions on whether she should meet him halfway or not and some people have replied yes and some have replied no. Thank you all for your opinions though, clearly a divided subject!

daska

It's ever to easy to say 'well she moved away so she should pay her share' but if she ended up in the position of not having a choice about moving then that's hardly her fault and shouldn't be her responsibility. And in my experience it's the NRP who is expected to foot the bill, not sure where this sharing idea has come from or how common it is.

During the residency case after DSD came to live with us we had to pay it all because she was on benefits - and yes, I do mean literally every penny of the contact costs was paid by us: travel, phone bills, hotels, contact centre, the lot. And more often than not our money went straight in the bin because she didn't bother. On weekends when DSD had to travel to her mother I would drive 103 miles each way, twice a weekend, it's not dangerous but it is time consuming and expensive, many reps drive well in excess of 1000 miles a week. When residency was finally granted to us she became responsible for all the costs - not that I think she's actually paid a penny towards them, she still gets us or her dad to pay it all.

balletshoes

I get what you're saying daska, but its not always cut and dried that its the NRP who pays for all travel costs for access, even through the courts.

And in this case, its not gone through the court anyway, the OPs friend has been paying half up til now, and its worked out well for the kids that way.

Mojisola

ginsterman wrote: »

the ex is in the process of buying a house for the children, the house will be bought in cash (no mortgage), no bills will be paid by the ex, and it will be able for the ex and the children to live in until the youngest leaves full time education.

Is she sure this is the best way forward? Whose name will the house be in? The ex may be happy for her and the children to live there now but how will he feel if she wants to move a new man in? What if she decides to move in with someone else?

Is she going to be homeless without any capital when the children leave full-time education? Many adult children live at home well into their late 20s. Is the father going to sell the house when the mother still has the "children" living at home with her?

I think it's always better to separate finances as much as possible so that the resident parent has some independence and flexibility in the future. If the house where they live is controlled by the ex, that may not be the case.

daska

Mojisola wrote: »

Is she sure this is the best way forward? Whose name will the house be in? The ex may be happy for her and the children to live there now but how will he feel if she wants to move a new man in? What if she decides to move in with someone else?

Is she going to be homeless without any capital when the children leave full-time education? Many adult children live at home well into their late 20s. Is the father going to sell the house when the mother still has the "children" living at home with her?

I think it's always better to separate finances as much as possible so that the resident parent has some independence and flexibility in the future. If the house where they live is controlled by the ex, that may not be the case.

Doesn't sound like they were married though, so it may be that she's lucky to be getting as much as she is.