Child moving away, reduced contact

PreludeForTimeFeelers

wayne0 wrote: »

i thought that csa was england and wales only... isnt it a different system if in scotland?

It's Scotland and NI too.

shoe*diva79

Its never to late to get a contact order if you want to have something formal.

clearingout

kevin137 wrote: »

That is really not good news... And unfortunately not an awful lot you can do apart from try to get the costs reduced...!!! And that means a variation for travel...

This is one of those situations where if you had had contracted or ordered contact, then the move would not of happened. As an application would of had to be made to the court for it to be changed and as it would not be in the interest of the child to be moved so far from one parent it is unlikely it would be granted...

Shame and i feel for you...

See if you can contact your MP or Citizens Advice to find out what you can do or if there are plans to change how this works to bring some fairness to the NRP

that's not the case - not automatically anyway. The PWC could simply have applied to court to be 'allowed' to vary the Order and move away. It is rare that an application fails - and I believe that applications fail generally as a result of a history of stopping contact or by moving to a difficult part of the country to get to. If the OP has been able to book flights several months in advance, this would not indicate a problem with contact and if accessible via planes, then that's something. Much would have depended on the PWC's motives for moving - and that is something which has been omitted from his posts. As such, I wouldn't make any assumptions.

FBaby

Gosh, incredible how some pwcs react. I pay for train tickets every week-end for my children to go and see their dad. That despite the fact that I moved only 1/2 hour away, 5 years after we separated, and he doesn't pay a penny in maintenance and hasn't done so for the vast majority of the 8 years since we've separated (and when it did, it was only token).

His view is that I moved so I pay... I feel that it would be fair if he paid at least half, especially since he doesn't pay maintenance (which even on JSA, he would have to pay £20 a month, which would pay for the transport), but it is not worth the battle. I don't pay for his convenience (even if it is one of the outcome) but so my children can see their dad regularly and grow up well-adjusted.

I can't imagine moving so far away that my kids needed to fly to see their dad and not feel an obligation to be the one paying for the journey. There is of course two sides to all stories, but as it is, it doesn't sound one bit morally right.

hairbrain05

i am not the actual nrp but a supporter... trying to support him through tough times

there are two sides to every story, and the reasons apparently were that pwc decided to make the move with her husband to try to make them financially better off. i can understand her wanting to try to make a better life, but it seems a big price to pay, both for the child and nrp. (i will refrain from commenting that it would have better for them to hold down jobs and commitments in situ rather than drag the child away.. ooops).

nrp has consistently paid for and been there for the child and even supported pwc during times of crisis. he has a a step child and a baby who was born around same time his oldest had to leave - nice timing, since then x5 return flights and chaperones have been arranged & paid for in full & maintenance has been continued to be paid.

I guess he will need to wait to be contacted by csa

Thanks all

x

wayne0

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

It's Scotland and NI too.

ahh right, just different laws for them then, not different agencies?

PreludeForTimeFeelers

wayne0 wrote: »

ahh right, just different laws for them then, not different agencies?

Yeah, same agency (although it's called CMED in NI), the only real differences are once a case gets to the legal enforcement stage.

kevin137

clearingout wrote: »

that's not the case - not automatically anyway. The PWC could simply have applied to court to be 'allowed' to vary the Order and move away. It is rare that an application fails - and I believe that applications fail generally as a result of a history of stopping contact or by moving to a difficult part of the country to get to. If the OP has been able to book flights several months in advance, this would not indicate a problem with contact and if accessible via planes, then that's something. Much would have depended on the PWC's motives for moving - and that is something which has been omitted from his posts. As such, I wouldn't make any assumptions.

Any application to a court has to be heard, and if access is already granted through an order, then while it may be granted for a parent to move, then the NRP could claim hardship through the choice and continued payment for access to see the child as a result, and the court can and do now order for the parent moving to subsidise any travel costs...

I think it is very wrong that 1 parent can move and impose costs and loss of contact without financial implications to themselves but lots to the NRP...! This is something that is never considered and most often not fought until it is far too late....!!! And at that point can do nothing about, and again, it comes back to what is right...

@clearingout i know you know i live in Norway where 50/50 shared care is the norm, and here you cannot just up and move, like you cannot just change the childs school, it has to be agreed, and if not, then a judge decides and it is very likely not allowed... They do not like children losing out with contact and changing schools is frowned upon for a simple move by one parent... Although many parents do move a short distance and it is agreed by both, that is normal, as you have to live in a school district to attend so that does happen in some circumstances where the name of primary carer changes from mother to father to keep the same school as the mother moves but the father doesn't, i am talking well after the split here, parents generally live in the same area for some reason...

clearingout

So.... a person who has re-married, child lives with them 80% of the time, shouldn't follow their new spouse to whereever it is there is a job opportunity (particularly in the current climate)? Are people not allowed to move on because they have children and therefore need to anchor themselves to a particular area for the rest of their lives? It may be desireable (and I acknowledge that) but it's certainly not realistic. Life moves on. People have to make difficult decisions, regardless of their marital status or the number of children they have. It is not unreasonable that a married couple make a move that gives them a better standard of living, particularly in a climate of redundancy and huge economic uncertainty. The assumption that it's done to deliberately upset or cause problems for an NRP is entirely unreasonable, particularly as so many NRPs would make the same move themselves if circumstances forced it.

Nevertheless, I take the point about the cost of contact and no, it shouldn't be up to one party to bear the cost of that for the forseeable. It is unreasonable but the cost of a court order (thousands if represented by a solicitor) likely makes is unfeasable to obtain one in terms of the potential (and it is potential) money saved through shared travel costs. It would take years to re-coup, if at all.

Johnny_Barnes10

If the PWC chooses to move, so far away then I think it's only fair that they foot some (at least half) of the bill for the NRP to travel to and from to see/have the child. After all if they're moving to better themselves they should be able to afford it.