Child moving away, reduced contact

clearingout

tattycath wrote: »

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

Yes, I'm sure it is sometimes. Although to be fair, it 's an awful lot of hassle to go to just to stop contact...moving house is about the worst thing I've ever done! My ex is an idiot but there are other things I could do to mess about with contact other than move (assuming I was that way inclined!!)

kevin137

FBaby wrote: »

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.

And this is the whole point...!!!

Sorry what was that... the usual weekends... oh no, it is only every other weekend...???

Isn't that an antiquated notion that the father only sees his children part time...???

And so the discrimination continues with peoples notions that it is ok that one parent is better than 2...

And you seem to forget the OP had 40% of care...? So this would of been a big deal and if ordered i could not see a court agreeing to such a change...!!!

FBaby

Kevin you are aiming that all nrp would want shared care. That's fast from being the case I believe. My ex certainly didn't he wouldn't have coped. He wouldn't even take them overnight for a few years that is until they were old enough to entertain themselves at 6 am!

kevin137

And you are assuming that many don't...!!! Many don't even consider it as it is just not possible in there eyes because the mother would never agree, the courts wouldn't order it etc etc etc...

this is where culture and society lets people down in the UK, it would be frowned upon for a woman to give up a child and let the father have custody in the UK and for this reason it makes it very difficult for a father to get custody as it is just not the right thing there...

You do understand that don't you...??? So the UK stays stuck in the middle ages...!!!

And if fathers or NRP's knew that shared care was normal, don;t you think they would want it then...??? Because that is what society says is normal and it would be frowned upon not to do that...??? You see my point...???

We can talk about normality and the rights and wrongs all day long. We already know from research that a child performs better at school at home, in activities in most things when both parents are present in the home environment, we also know this is the case when a father is consistently and regularly in a childs life, and by that it was almost shared care, and this slides down significantly when a parent is removed from the care cycle...

Now i know this is not always the case, but as a whole this applies... So why such a battle for fathers if it is known to be in a childs best interest to interact with both parents...???

FBaby

kevin137 wrote: »

And you are assuming that many don't...!!! Many don't even consider it as it is just not possible in there eyes because the mother would never agree, the courts wouldn't order it etc etc etc...

this is where culture and society lets people down in the UK, it would be frowned upon for a woman to give up a child and let the father have custody in the UK and for this reason it makes it very difficult for a father to get custody as it is just not the right thing there...

You do understand that don't you...??? So the UK stays stuck in the middle ages...!!!

And if fathers or NRP's knew that shared care was normal, don;t you think they would want it then...??? Because that is what society says is normal and it would be frowned upon not to do that...??? You see my point...???

We can talk about normality and the rights and wrongs all day long. We already know from research that a child performs better at school at home, in activities in most things when both parents are present in the home environment, we also know this is the case when a father is consistently and regularly in a childs life, and by that it was almost shared care, and this slides down significantly when a parent is removed from the care cycle...

Now i know this is not always the case, but as a whole this applies... So why such a battle for fathers if it is known to be in a childs best interest to interact with both parents...???

It is not a battle, that's the point. In my environment (middle class white), most fathers don't show a huge interest in being as much involved with their babies as the mum. They are quite happy to leave the feeding, getting up in the night, changing nappies, comforting etc... to the mum. As a result, it is not surprising that the child grows more used to being cared by his mother than his father. In couple who don't separate, the key role that dads hold come later, when the child is more independent. Unfortunately, a lot of separations happen when the child is still more used to being cared by his mum and this is why judge favour mothers to have residency. It is not because it is 'mum' vs 'dad' but 'direct carer' vs 'not so direct carer'. I believe that cases of residency ones by fathers are not so uncommon when they have been able to show that they were the primary carer.

What is sad is when as a result of the primary carer getting residency, the relationship with the other parent doesn't develop as it should.

You go on about what is best for the children and assuming quantity is everything. Well I grew up with divorced parents (since I was 2), in a very traditional arrangement (seeing my father every other week-ends, half holidays, living at times 300 miles away), but I can sincerely say that I don't recall my childhood at feeling I had a stronger relationship with my mum than my dad. It was different, my relationship with my dad growing as a got older, actually leading to him becoming my main carer at 14. It was just a natural progression when my moved miles away again and I decided I didn't want to any longer. As an adult, I would say I am closer to my dad than my mum. I certainly don't feel that I have missed out of my relationship with my dad because of spending less time with him than my mum.

I don't think shared cared is automatically best for every child. It depends on so many factors. Things change all the time and what makes a great parent is one who is prepared to adapt to these changes to suit the child best. It might mean the mother having full care, then maybe shared care, then accepting dad to have full care, or any other combination depending on the circumstances. I totally agree with you that the most stable children are those whose both parents are in their lives in a constitent manner, but I don't agree that shared cared is the only way to reach this. I was a good pupil, happy child seeing my dad every other week-end and hols. My kids are both excellent pupils and very happy children, having had limited contact with their dad when they were babies and toddlers, but now seeing their dad every week-end, yet only a few days during the holidays. I have always told them that if they wanted to see their dad more, i would be fine with it, but they seem happy as things are for the time being.

kevin137

And you make some valid points, i grew up with both parents and sometimes wish my parents had divorced, maybe i would of seen more of my dad...

The problem lies with the fact that it is very one sided to begin with and this is where the problems start. Shared care will not suit everyone, that is for sure, and in the UK probably less than here in Norway, the difference is simple, the way life is lived, life here is about family and family time, in the UK life is too fast and family is not so important and that is a sad part of a fast moving country.

Slow down and enjoy things more, you will live longer and enjoy so much more...

But getting back to the subject in hand, until it is offered or seen as normal then it will remain as it is, which is something that is not good...!

How many times do the government go on about children from under privileged broken homes, which makes up for a large chunk of single families, and how they need a father figure for discipline etc... And that this would make things better and children happier, and as such reduce crime and so on...

Yet when a father applies for access he gets every other weekend if he is lucky...! And if the PWC claims anything is wrong then even that will be supervised...

I fully understand that protecting the children is the right thing to do. I had a year of supervised visits for 2 hours a fortnight...!!! Why, because i was apparently a violent person and i might abduct my own child...!!! And this was believed regardless of me never being arrested or charged with anything, and i left the home because i was attacked... Yet the police would not arrest my ex, they told ME to leave... Yes this was 16 years ago , but it still happens now...!

SingleSue

kevin137 wrote: »

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...!!!

My ex husband is informed about every important (and most not so important) things in the children's lives.

I would also like some NRP's to know what it is like as a PWC when the absent parent couldn't give two hoots about seeing their children and the fall out from it.

kevin137

SingleSue wrote: »

I would also like some NRP's to know what it is like as a PWC when the absent parent couldn't give two hoots about seeing their children and the fall out from it.

And some absent parents just don't have a choice about being absent...

I understand this is always going to be personal opinions, i am just pointing out that it is a very biased pone sided system that decides to start with...!

And if this was not the case then you may just find more involved with decent contact and the NRP would be recipient to paying with no problems...

Can no one see what i am saying...??? Or is it always going to be this way...

Mojisola

FBaby wrote: »

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.

I would also feel morally obliged to pay for the travelling if I took the children so far away from their father - especially if he had been having the children for 40% of the time.

Marisco

kevin137 wrote: »

And some absent parents just don't have a choice about being absent...

I understand this is always going to be personal opinions, i am just pointing out that it is a very biased pone sided system that decides to start with...!

And if this was not the case then you may just find more involved with decent contact and the NRP would be recipient to paying with no problems...

Can no one see what i am saying...??? Or is it always going to be this way...

Yes, I can see what you are saying (I think!!) You're saying that both parents should have equal access to the kids, it should not be taken as read that it's the mother the kids live with? That the father should have access as and when he wants, and he'd be more likely to not rail against CSA payments, have I got that right?

And I would agree with you totally, however I do take issue with the moving away bit. Sometimes people have no choice but to move, and no one should have the right to stop anyone from moving. People move for a variety of reasons, and to ask folk to put their life on hold for 16/18 years is unrealistic, and would IMO, do the kids no good as it could lead to a lot of resentment.

Imagine a scenario where the parents have separated/divorced, the mother has the kids, she then meets someone, and for whatever reason (it's usually work/family related) they want to move. The father then puts the blocks on it, can you imagine the resentment that would cause? It wouldn't make for a very good atmosphere for the kids.

It means the ex would still have power over your life, and if I'm totally honest about it, if that happened to me, I'd be making things as difficult as I could for the NRP, for ruining a chance of a new life. Whereas if I moved I'd pay for him to have contact.