Right.Hi all.Been away for a long time;since after my partner''s divorce went through winter of ''10. Just come back here to do a little rant.Ex is still playing games with contact.TBH,I don''t really care anymore and I don''t get involved or give two Fs as per what she does regarding his contact with her child. However,it does rankle that whilst she thinks it''s not a good idea for her daughter to see the father,she keeps taking child maintenance from him!
Left to me,if I was sooooo angry with the father of my kids after we split up,or i feel he has/is behaving badly or i have misgivings about my children''s safety with him up to the point that i stop contact,then i would NOT take his money.i would not want to have anything to do with him,that includes taking child maintenance off of him.i would work my socks off,go to the government or to family and friends to support my children.But i would NOT take a penny from him during those periods he doesn''t have contact with the children.
There is no fairness or moral justification in taking money for a child from a parent;the same parent you are denying contact with same child.It''s exactly like having your cake and eating it.
Recently,the government came out with proposals to take away passports of parents who kept breaking contact arrangements out of spite;or keeping them under house arrest or sumfink silly like that.PUH-LEEA-SE!
What they should do is tell them:''you stop contact for no good reason,you get no money''. End of. Then we''ll see how many of them will play silly games with contact.
I appreciate your need to have a ''rant'', and I guess from your tone, that contact problems are frustrating for you and your partner.
However, I disagree with your comments that Mum should go to the Government or friends and family to financially support the children. What on earth would make you think that this is right? Your partner is the father of the children, and it is his, and his ex''s responsibility to financially support their children.
Okay, contact is problematic, but that is not the children''s fault. They still need food in their tummy, clothes on their back, and shoes on their feet. And who''s responsibility is it to provide a roof over their head, make sure they are warm, generally all the things kids need to survive. Its certainly nobody else''s responsibility other than the parents.
Your comment regarding " His contact with her child "
Why should a parent pay for a child he/she is being denied contact with? Firstly,the RP IS damaging the child emotionally by witholding contact and if they are fine with that and are saying ''i don''t want you to see my child'', then they should also be ready to forgo the financial support. The first crime here is witholding contact for no good reason and surely the child''s emotional well-being is as important,if not more so,than physical things as ''putting food in their tummy'' et al. And like i wrote initially, maybe this will act as a deterrent for them stopping contact unjustifiably in the first place.
Of course it is not the children''s fault, so they should not be punished either by being cut off from one parent(for no good reason),or suffering financial hardship.However, it is the duty of both parents to put the child first,so if one parent isn''t doing that,why should the other parent kow-tow to them? If she can''t put food on the table because her money has been cut off, then she will think twice about stopping contact next time the urge grips her.
Finally,''utter disbelief or not'', I stand by my comments :'' it is HER child''. That is the way she has always put it in documents and texts. And if she truly(and other women like her)didn''t see it that way,that it is HER child, then she wouldn''t try to cut the father out of her life in the first place,just because she can''t get over the fact that her relationship with him is dead and buried.
This is exactly the reason why the family courts do not connect contact and maintenance.
The RP maybe denying contact, with or without good reason ( we only have one side of the story ). But, the child still needs to be fed everyday, and the essentials to survive. Contact or not, the responsibility falls on the parents, nobody else. Its the same as the saying " A dog is not just for Christmas ".
If your partner believes that contact is being withheld without justification, and the child is emotionally damaged, then maybe he ought to approach the Family Courts, and attempt to resolve the situation.
Child contact isn''t pay per view. That''s why contact and child support are dealt with separately under different bits of legislation.
Children of separated parents often have poor long term outcomes because there isn''t enough money so supporting children financially is one of the most important contributions a parent can make to the wellbeing of their children. IT isn''t possible to force the other parent to be reasonable, all we can do is not stoop to their level and ensure we do our bit to the best of our ability.
I agree completely with Boysmum.
The reason we have family law is to take the burden off of the tax payer/state, not add to it.
It is both parents responsibility to provide financially for their children.
Could you not go through court or mediation to try and sort out the contact arrangements£
I am on the other side of the coin. I have to hand over two children every other weekend to a father who pays not one single penny towards their upkeep. Oh, and he pulls up in his 60k private plated mercedes. Try and work that out and try and imagine how that feels!
Hope you manage to sort something out.
Permit me to say this is exactly the reason why the whole contact system is in such shambles and contact orders are so difficult to enforce. Sorry i didn''t mention he has been in and out of court for over four years just to keep re-instating the contact order he has;in the past 10 months,he has been there thrice! In every area of life, there has to be strong deterrents to prevent wrong-doing.And maybe it is high time this sort of deterrent is put into the family legislation in England.Law is made for man,not man made for law.
Also,just like ''a dog is not for christmas'', you cannot ''eat your cake and have it''.
And i''m not saying it his not his responsibility to look after the kid financially;am just saying stronger deterrents are needed to stop contact breakdowns on the whim of one parent.
And why do people always say:'' you only have one side of the story''? Sorry,but no, I have both sides of the story. Like how she stopped contact after my partner wrote to her solicitors that he wouldn''t make the next contact because we had a medical emergency,but offered to go the next weekend to make up for it. All she had to do was agree to give him the next weekend or not;not stop contact altogether and then ask for a letter from the hospital to prove that we had had a medical emergency.
What i also said about going to government for money already happens anyway;that''s why we have a welfare state.plus it was just a way of saying i would go to all lengths to support the kids if i felt strong enough to stop them seeing their father/mother.