Ex wants to take DS on holiday!

DUTR

ViolaLass wrote: »

I give in. You're the one who first brought up the 5th commandment in post 47. I don't/didn't see the relevance.

Well read post #55 again.

duchy

ab.da54 wrote: »

Yet the son is fine to go to his father's and no harm is done to him.

Surely, by using the violent ex partner words in the opening post, this will cloud many a judgement of people on here.

If there was any risk to the son, the father wouldn't be having visitation, would he?

So every father who has visitation access is never violent to any of their children....ever ? Access is never revoked after "incidents" by courts ?

It's a nice thought...but not wholey realistic

DUTR

duchy wrote: »

I can think of all kinds of reasons why it might be OK for someone to have a child for the day but a week might not be suitable. In this instance I'd be asking what the sleeping arrangements were as I don't think a young child would do well seeing Daddy in bed with a woman he barely knows in the same room so I'd want to know the child had a seperate room. I'd also want to know how well he knows the other adults apart from Dad who will be there and if he's comfortable around them. Does the hotel have age specific activities so other kids to play with -that kind of stuff before blithely saying -Oh they share genes so naturally the holiday will be successful regardless of the fact they never spend more than 8 hours together usually.

Of course daring to want to know such things would automatically get me labelled as a man hater (by some) ....... but do you know what -I don't care-a child's welfare comes first !

I hope you don't mean me? you raise some good points, some may see some of the concerns as over protective or even irrational. Earlier in the thread someone came up with the conspiracy theory that the holiday may have been mentioned in passing and indeed there was no plan ultimately for the child to accompany on the holiday. With all the fors and against and undue stress, a simple NO from the OP would/should suffice, there isn't even any need to explain the reasons just now (unless the holiday is not in the near future).

Bluemeanie_2

pimento wrote: »

As Judge Judy is prone to say "You picked him!"

Completely agree. I don't often feel sorry for men, but I really do where child contact cases are concerned. I see it over and over again, the PWC using the child as a weapon under the guise of "he's incapable of this etc". Shame they didn't consider this and made better choices or exercised better judgement before they laid on their backs.

Bluemeanie_2

duchy wrote: »

I can think of all kinds of reasons why it might be OK for someone to have a child for the day but a week might not be suitable. In this instance I'd be asking what the sleeping arrangements were as I don't think a young child would do well seeing Daddy in bed with a woman he barely knows in the same room so I'd want to know the child had a seperate room. I'd also want to know how well he knows the other adults apart from Dad who will be there and if he's comfortable around them. Does the hotel have age specific activities so other kids to play with -that kind of stuff before blithely saying -Oh they share genes so naturally the holiday will be successful regardless of the fact they never spend more than 8 hours together usually.

Of course daring to want to know such things would automatically get me labelled as a man hater (by some) ....... but do you know what -I don't care-a child's welfare comes first !

In other words of Judge Judy, "it's none of your business what goes on in the other house while he has the child".

It's amazing how many women think it's ok that their new boyfriend plays Daddy, but have problems with the Ex's girlfriends.

ViolaLass

DUTR wrote: »

Well read post #55 again.

I gave you the context! It's your post 47, where you first mentioned it!

Let's try again, my question is this:

What caused you to mention the 5th commandment in post 47? I cannot see the cause, hence I am asking.

Carl31

duchy wrote: »

So every father who has visitation access is never violent to any of their children....ever ? Access is never revoked after "incidents" by courts ?

It's a nice thought...but not wholey realistic

But is it ok to then assume that if an adult is violent/aggressive in one situation, they are violent in all?
I am a placid person, but rub me up the wrong way and I am sure I can lose my rag as much as anyone, that doesn't automatically mean that based on that circumstance that is how I behave in all situations, and especially towards my children
As someone has mentioned, its ok for the child to spend weekends with the Father, but not extend that by a couple of days? I think this really comes down to a power struggle between the parents, and the OP not wanting her childs father taking him on holiday, as she is not able to, maybe in case he prefers his father to her - of course this is not the case, and never will be, but it wont stop the OP worrying about it

FBaby

I can really understand both sides of the coin. As a pwc with an ex who wasn't violent of neglectful, I would still have been very uncomfortable with him taking the kids away when they were very little and I had to take a big breath and deal with my anxiety when he finally did. The reason was that although he wasn't a lunatic, he just wasn't committed to looking after the kids as I was. He was in many ways a upgraded baby-sitter without the qualifications! I always had the reins on the responsibility part, which suited him very well because let's face it, it is the part about parenting that is most demanding and least rewarding.

So I can understand that having not been involved with the responsibility part of parenting and therefore the experience, the prospect of letting your children go is a very scary prospect for a pwc who hold all the responsibility role.

Saying that, I do believe that it doesn't take a genius to pick this role up and most non so involved dad do manage it amazingly well when they have to do so. And of course, it is only by finding themselves do so that they will gain the experience, which will then provide the reassurance to the pwc that it is ok to let their kids go on holiday.

I found that the only way to make it happen is by respecting each other's position. I accepted that my ex had a right to take our kids on holiday and that my anxieties were not a good reason alone to stop it happening. In return, he accepted that as their main carer, it wasn't easy for me to do and the only way it would work is by providing me the reassurance I crave. So despite the fact we didn't get along too well and that we avoided contact as much as possible, he texted me the second he had reached his destination to let me know they had arrived and then let me talk to the kids whenever I wanted, which was mornings and evenings the first couple of days, then only evenings, and the last days I told them to call me when it was convenient to them, knowing that my ex would let them do it whenever they asked. After this positive experience, I was fine (even if always a little anxious) about them going away with him.

DUTR

ViolaLass wrote: »

I gave you the context! It's your post 47, where you first mentioned it!

Let's try again, my question is this:

What caused you to mention the 5th commandment in post 47? I cannot see the cause, hence I am asking.

I'm not sure why you could not see the cause, I was responding to Floss2 's post which included " because obviously your offspring would be disappointed!"

I'm not sure if you are aware, but you didn't get to choose your parents , just like your children didn't get to choose their parents, I could never be dissapointed with my parents, they have done what they deemed best within the constraints of their ability and time.

So while it seems you are trying to have a pop (which is not working) there is logic in the 5th commandment (after all I didn't make it up), absoulutely none of us would be here without the input of a female and male, so one is not better than the other, EVER.

Lunar_Eclipse

DUTR wrote: »

there is logic in the 5th commandment (after all I didn't make it up), absoulutely none of us would be here without the input of a female and male, so one is not better than the other, EVER.

I don't think she was trying to have a pop, I didn't see its relevance either.

OP: I would also simply tell your son you have no idea what holiday he is referring to, because his dad hasn't mentioned it to you. I suspect your ex is intentionally being naughty to some degree (unless he genuinely believes he has mentioned it more than once to you directly which seems unlikely to me, but you never know ...) either because he simply doesn't want to discuss it with you himself, because he has no intention of taking your son, or perhaps because he's going on an extended holiday and this is his bizarre way of letting you know he won't be around for a while?

Please try not to worry about it.