Divorced/Separated Parents, access.

[scoop]

Not personal.

 

You happen to believe that a mother can do anything she wants. I happen to believe that she should not be allowed to do anything she wants.

 

You are saying that the child's interests are of no concern. I am saying that the child's interests should be taken into consideration.

 

On this you and I are never going to agree - but then you and I rarely agree on anything anyhow so makes no difference.

 

I have noticed your freedom of people's rights and how far they extend, and it is fine for you to have your own ideas of what is and what is not. Sorted.

 

That says it all about your position in this debate.

 

If we're going to make generalisations:

 

I think for alot of men this argument is about loss of control over women, more than loss of contact with kids.

 

Maybe men should think more carefully about their behaviour in marriage and the effect of the resultant breakdown of the family before it gets to a point where he has to start bleating about how unfair it is when his ex wifes new life takes her and ultimately their children away.

Maybe if men thought less about their personal needs and more about the needs of their family in the first place, they wouldn't find themselves in this position.

[tezza86]

Tezza86 - I agree there are some father's out there who are totally out of order. But I do not see this as a reason to tar all fathers with the same brush.

It shows that you care about the welfare of your child and you should be commended on your attempts to maintain at least some degree of contact.

Not all women are set on causing disruption to their ex's or their children. Unfortunately I know a lot who do.

 

Thankyou,

I certainly don't tar all fathers with the same brush I have some friends that are brilliant fathers where they lived with their partner and child/ren and when the realationship broke down the mothers stopped all contact out of spite. It certainly hasn't put me off having more children in the future as if i tarred all fathers with the same brush i would never want another child ever. I genuinely feel for all the fathers that do want contact with their chidren and whose ex will not let it happen women can be just as bad if not worse than men when it comes to kids but its always men that are portrayed as the bad guys never the women.

[DragonofAna]

No, your references to the mother are irrelevant, what's relevant is the parent with custody, which is not always the mother.

 

 

Is 'leaving town' to abstract for you, it's a common phrase (more in US cop shows than the UK I suppose).

 

So you want to specify that the parent with custody cannot move beyond some determined distance as agreed somehow between the two parents and possibly some 3rd party. It's all a bit vague because you refuse to say exactly how this might work.

 

The relevancy of my references to the mother is that mothers generally do have priority in cases of residency of children. It is not always the mother - but more often than not this is the case.

 

You just keep hanging on to the mother being right in doing anything she wants and I'll keep on viewing things from the other side of the fence.

 

Nothing is going to change your views on this as nothing is going to change mine.

 

I do NOT think it is right that a mother takes the children to the opposite end of the country making contact nigh on impossible for the father.

I do NOT think children should be denied access with the father.

 

I have nothing more to say to you on the matter so post away and be ignored.

[DragonofAna]

That says it all about your position in this debate.

 

If we're going to make generalisations:

 

I think for alot of men this argument is about loss of control over women, more than loss of contact with kids.

 

Maybe men should think more carefully about their behaviour in marriage and the effect of the resultant breakdown of the family before it gets to a point where he has to start bleating about how unfair it is when his ex wifes new life takes her and ultimately their children away.

Maybe if men thought less about their personal needs and more about the needs of their family in the first place, they wouldn't find themselves in this position.

 

Where is the control in wanting to see ones children? Where is the control in not being able to see them because the mother decides to make such contact all but impossible?

 

It is nothing to do with control. It is to do with parents being reasonable and considering what is best for the children.

[Cyclone]

Not personal.

 

You happen to believe that a mother can do anything she wants.

No, I believe that she can do anything that any other adult is allowed to do. The specific example you've chosen is living where she likes.

I happen to believe that she should not be allowed to do anything she wants.

More specifically, you don't believe that she should be able to choose where she lives, you're trying to fudge the issue by pretending it's 'anything she likes'.

 

You are saying that the child's interests are of no concern. I am saying that the child's interests should be taken into consideration.

Nope, I've not said anything about the childs interests. The childs interests should be considered by the parent with custody, unless it's shown that they aren't being then no action is neccessary.

Does anyone check that the childs interests are being considered if a family decides to move?

 

On this you and I are never going to agree - but then you and I rarely agree on anything anyhow so makes no difference.

Only because you refuse to look at this from anything but your own specific perspective and example.

 

I have noticed your freedom of people's rights and how far they extend, and it is fine for you to have your own ideas of what is and what is not. Sorted.

 

You won't explain how you see this working or being fair to either adult or indeed within the law. You must have some ideas or you wouldn't be proposing it.

[scoop]

Where is the control in wanting to see ones children? Where is the control in not being able to see them because the mother decides to make such contact all but impossible?

 

It is nothing to do with control. It is to do with parents being reasonable and considering what is best for the children.

 

How is it reasonable for the resident parent to be expected to live near to the non resident parent?

 

What if the resident parent has children with different parents who live in different places? I have an aquaintence who has children who's fathers live in sheffield and australia respectivly. Where do you think she should live?

[Cyclone]

The relevancy of my references to the mother is that mothers generally do have priority in cases of residency of children. It is not always the mother - but more often than not this is the case.

 

You just keep hanging on to the mother being right in doing anything she wants and I'll keep on viewing things from the other side of the fence.

You've either completely missed the point, or you've just made this up.

Firstly, parent with custody, this would include the father in some cases. I'll happily concede that it's less cases, but there are definitely fathers with custody.

Secondly, the specific right in question is whether they have the right to live where they want. No amount of saying "whatever they want" will actually change what I've said, which has never been that.

 

Nothing is going to change your views on this as nothing is going to change mine.

I'm open to rational argument if you have any to offer.

 

I do NOT think it is right that a mother takes the children to the opposite end of the country making contact nigh on impossible for the father.

I do NOT think children should be denied access with the father.

Denying access is wrong, moving, to wherever, Australia even, is not wrong. They are two different things.

What law would you implement that stopped parents with custody moving? How would it work? Would it apply to the non custodial parent as well?

 

I have nothing more to say to you on the matter so post away and be ignored.

Fine, act like a child, I don't know why you even start discussions if you then refuse to discuss because you don't like what's said.

[Cyclone]

Where is the control in wanting to see ones children? Where is the control in not being able to see them because the mother decides to make such contact all but impossible?

 

It is nothing to do with control. It is to do with parents being reasonable and considering what is best for the children.

 

And how do you determine which cases are in the best interests of the child.

For example a mother who moves back to her home town, close to her relatives, friends and a support network.

What about a mother who gets a job in another city, one which has better prospects all around and is thus in the best interests of the family unit?

You aren't looking at anything except your own single case where you apparently feel aggrieved.

[DragonofAna]

No, I believe that she can do anything that any other adult is allowed to do. The specific example you've chosen is living where she likes.

 

But she is not just like any other adult - because she should take into consideration the needs of the children.

You think it is okay for the mother to have the same rights as any other adult and that is fine - but then any other adult can go our drinking until all hours of the day, and take drugs, and so on - and you would find this perfectly acceptable for a mother in care of children. Strange.

 

More specifically, you don't believe that she should be able to choose where she lives, you're trying to fudge the issue by pretending it's 'anything she likes'.

 

What she should do is take into consideration the needs of the children to have contact with their father. This does not mean she cannot move, but would suggest that a reasonable distance should be considered.

 

Nope, I've not said anything about the childs interests. The childs interests should be considered by the parent with custody, unless it's shown that they aren't being then no action is neccessary.

 

But it is fine for a mother to restrict contact between the child and its father either by imposing contact times that are ridiculous, or by moving so far away there is little chance of the father being able to maintain contact.

 

Does anyone check that the childs interests are being considered if a family decides to move?

 

Since when has it been in any child's interests to move the child so far as to make contact with the father and the child's wider family all but impossible?

 

Only because you refuse to look at this from anything but your own specific perspective and example.

 

At least I have some perspective.

 

You won't explain how you see this working or being fair to either adult or indeed within the law. You must have some ideas or you wouldn't be proposing it.

 

I admit I have no idea how this would work. I do not write the laws - I merely obey them.

[Cyclone]

But she is not just like any other adult - because she should take into consideration the needs of the children.

You can't say that moving away is always to the detriment of a child.

You think it is okay for the mother to have the same rights as any other adult and that is fine

It's not just fine, it's absolutely necessary.

- but then any other adult can go our drinking until all hours of the day, and take drugs, and so on

Well taking drugs is a strange area, the purchasing or possession of them is illegal, actually taking them isn't. But generally that wouldn't be considered a right of an adult.

What you're trying to get at though is that the mother has responsibilities, if she abandoned the child and went out drinking then social services would remove it from her care (to the father if he wanted). Moving to a different town is in no way abandoning her responsibilities to the child though, you can't even say that it's detrimental.

- and you would find this perfectly acceptable for a mother in care of children. Strange.

No, you're just being silly now.

 

 

 

What she should do is take into consideration the needs of the children to have contact with their father.

And all the other needs which you are ignoring, such as that she have an income, that she have a support network, that she be happy with where she lives.

This does not mean she cannot move, but would suggest that a reasonable distance should be considered.

And how do you prove or disprove whether someone has moved for 'reasonable' reasons after due consideration, as I already pointed out there are many valid reasons why someone might move.

 

 

 

But it is fine for a mother to restrict contact between the child and its father either by imposing contact times that are ridiculous, or by moving so far away there is little chance of the father being able to maintain contact.

No, the 1st is not fine and the law should be adjusted to stop this happening. The 2nd is just life, the parent without custody would always be free to move closer if it mattered to them.

 

 

 

Since when has it been in any child's interests to move the child so far as to make contact with the father and the child's wider family all but impossible?

For the many reasons I already listed, an existing support network, family, career, etc...

 

 

 

At least I have some perspective.

You're locked into your own perspective and won't see anything else.

 

 

 

I admit I have no idea how this would work. I do not write the laws - I merely obey them.

You're suggesting changing them, so suggest how the change would work.