Child moving away, reduced contact

kevin137

The whole problem with the moving part is the affect it would have on the children, and this is primarily the problem that the UK in regards to access and contact.

It is EVRY biased. And if it even gets close to the shared care level, it is never a level playing field...!!!

So imagine now, that you have an order for shared care. You pay half the money required to the CSA as a result of the shared care, and the PWC applies for the right to move. And the reason given is simple, i earn £20,000 a year now, but i will earn £25,000 a year after i move... So the + is £5,000

And now we can break it down in real terms, the true cost is that the child has reduced contact with a father/nrp he will now pay double what he had been paying and would be responsible for the travel costs as it stands...

So the PWC is £400 a month better off, potentially the NRP is going to be a lot more than that worse off... So An application to the court for financial recompense would not be wrong, and if ordered could actually mean the PWC is worse off... So no benefit financially would the move still happen...???

The UK is frightened of upsetting people in any way. They will always take the easy solution or the solution that has always been rather than challenge and make change... I know it does happen, but way to slowly i think...

So i guess what i am trying to say is, if 1 parent makes that choice ALL costs should be born by that person until a time when the child is no longer a claim through the CSA contact exists. Contact is and always has been the number one priority of what is in the childs best interest... And as a result because of the childs best interest and paying for this care the CSA was born and this is the mess we find ourselves in....!!!

I would love for any PWC to change places for a month and just see how YOU would cope with all the stress, the worries, the not knowing etc that any normal father does on a daily/weekly/monthly basis without knowing because they have no rights...!!!

I used to hound everyone over my son, the doctor, the school, anyone who would NOT give me the information they gave the mother as a right. And i would recommend any NRP does the same, they are legally obliged to notify you you of everything, and once this has been made clear they will albeit reluctantly...!!!

hairbrain05

thanks all...

everyone's input is very much appreciated.

Of course people are allowed to move, and better themselves and families if the opportunity arises - but it's an enormous decision to move a child who spent 40% with nrp hundreds of miles away.

The impact on the nrp, the child and associated families is far reaching. In this scenario, the child has already been moved schools and locations 4 times in his childhood. Despite promises it wouldn't happen again, it has.... and this timing involving so many miles. Not only does the child and nrp suffer, but so does the family of nrp. Emotionally it's like losing a wheel from the family.... the logistics are hard due to the english/scottish difference in holidays, finances are horrid and also affecting the family. And despite all this the NRP and family need to try be positive for the sake of the child & encourage him to settle in....

kevin - nrp is doing just that, been in touch with school, dentist etc etc. and completely agree re a role swap, wouldn't that be good...



x

kevin137

I think it is just sad when it is assumed that a mother will do what is best and the consequences to a child and the relationship with a father can be ignored.

I also know that there are many !!!! PWC as there are NRP's probably more NRP's as they can quite easily not pay, so i do understand that this is a concern, but lets be honest, my 1st thought in your circumstances would be, sod them they are not gonna have the benefit of all my hard earned money when i cannot see my child because they wanted a better life with no thought for my relationship with my child...!!!

However that said, you do have a financial obligation, albeit a hard one, but i would try to use any agreed upon contact as the starting point, and then move from there...!!! You have had 40% contact, so use this with the CSA, then when they reject that use the travel... Then apply for a variation, then complain to your MP then complain to anyone else that will listen, it will do you no good whatsoever, but it may make a difference to others in the future...!!!

hairbrain05

thanks Kevin, will share this all with nrp and he'll have to wait for the contact from the csa i guess - in the meantime he's continuing to pay the previously mutually agreed payments

FBaby

I agree in theory with you Kevin, but there are circumstances where this wouldn't be fair.

Take a couple with one young baby living in town X. They have both always grown there and all their family is there. nrp is offered a job in town z and he insists they move there as it will more money. They do but after 12 months he has an affair and leaves pwc. PWC is depressed through the whole situation, can't find a job and desperately need the support of her family. She decides to move back home. In the meantime, nrp decides to give up his work and look after the children of his new partner and so pays no csa. Is it really fair in this instance that the pwc should bear all the costs of travel? For how long, the next 18 years?

Unfortunately, there are different situations that means that one rule fair for one circumstances won't be for the other. In my circumstances, I moved 5 years after we separated and insure that his weekly access to the children was unchanged (so they go every weekend rather than every other week-end). It is only 1/2 hour away and he will himself admit he is pleased that as a result the children are in a better school. He pays no maintenance at all. Would it really be so unreasonable to expect him to pay half of the travel?

clearingout

or indeed, those NRPs who get a new partner and move to be nearer her family when they have children....should his new partner be denied contact with her family because of his 'first' family?

or an NRP who fails to pay maintenance causing serious difficulties for a PWC keeping roof over their heads and looking to move to somewhere cheaper/down size as a result... should the PWC be getting deeper and deeper into debt when moving 100 miles could make a huge difference?

or the PWC who meets someone new who works in a very specialised industry - earns a fortune but loses job. Needs to move 300 miles to get a smiliar job as there simply aren't the jobs in the area they used to live in. Not his fault, just the way his qualifications and work experience took him...should the PWC have to give up her relationship to stay close to the NRP? Or the new partner just sit on the dole for the rest of his life? Or take a minimum wage job when he could be earning so much more?

what is best for the children in these situations? It is far better to accept that sometimes life changes and that a snowball of cause and effect can lead people into situations they didn't intend to be in and work with it, rather than assume it's all about being difficult and contact blocking and game playing.....

tattycath

clearingout wrote: »

or indeed, those NRPs who get a new partner and move to be nearer her family when they have children....should his new partner be denied contact with her family because of his 'first' family?

or an NRP who fails to pay maintenance causing serious difficulties for a PWC keeping roof over their heads and looking to move to somewhere cheaper/down size as a result... should the PWC be getting deeper and deeper into debt when moving 100 miles could make a huge difference?

or the PWC who meets someone new who works in a very specialised industry - earns a fortune but loses job. Needs to move 300 miles to get a smiliar job as there simply aren't the jobs in the area they used to live in. Not his fault, just the way his qualifications and work experience took him...should the PWC have to give up her relationship to stay close to the NRP? Or the new partner just sit on the dole for the rest of his life? Or take a minimum wage job when he could be earning so much more?

what is best for the children in these situations? It is far better to accept that sometimes life changes and that a snowball of cause and effect can lead people into situations they didn't intend to be in and work with it, rather than assume it's all about being difficult and contact blocking and game playing.....

Even thought there are many occasions when that is exactly what it is.

kevin137

the whole point is "agreed contact" if it is agreed, then you have to unagree it...!

I know there are always going to be reasons for a move, but lets be honest, what is more important, YOU can drive or travel to see family...! But when a partner moves and it becomes financially impossible, then that has an impact... And as everyone always says, it is supposed to be 'what is in the childs best interest" and as having more money is NOT in the childs best interest at the cost of half of the childs family this should be refused or argued..! And i thin kin this case had a court order been in place this would not have happened...!

But hindsight is a great thing...!

There are always going to be issues, we can ALL find issues with any system...! But for it to be fair it has to have a fair starting point. And the UK does not have a fair starting point...!!! So get that right, and see how quickly attitudes and problems disappear from what you have now...!

You may also find that everybody pays there way more... I am all for shared custody, it works very well where i live. That is not to say that the father does not contribute or the mother in some cases due to a higher income.. They do, but the attitude is less about money and more about what is right for the children, and as people are not normally allowed to move such a distance from what they know without agreement from the other party, then the child normally has the same school they where already in, the same applies for friends after school clubs etc, and parents get along so much better after a split... Yes people still argue, but not in the same way...! And this is the norm here...

I have seen both sides, and let me tell you, i am glad i am never going to have to deal with the UK system again...!

Marisco

kevin137 wrote: »

and as people are not normally allowed to move such a distance from what they know without agreement from the other party,

I normally agree with what you post and you usually give good advice, but this is outrageous!! I know you didn't make the law, but you do seem to be agreeing with it! As someone pointed out, what would happen if an PWCP was made redundant and had a specialist job, say something to do with windfarms, and the only job they could get was in say, Northumberland and they lived in say, Cornwall. You think it's acceptable that they couldn't move without the say so of a NRP? (This goes for reverse as well )

I do agree that the person who moves should bear the contact travelling cost though, but to not allow folk to move is way over the top!! I wonder if anyone has challenged this in court, especially the much maligned ECHR? Because TBH that would be my first port of call if I was in this situation!!

FBaby

I don't think we can consider cases of shared care with other where access is the usual every two weeks in the same way. I do agree that shared care makes moving away much more of an issue because both contact and finances are significantly affected.

But that's why shared cared should be seriously thought of before being considered. Will both parents accept never to move away no matter what?

However, restricting this when the usual arrangement of every other week-end is in place doesn't hold if both parents can insure that contact can continue as it is, which in most cases can be arranged on this basis. The issue is indeed the costs and csa should take these into consideration.