Contact and Child maintenance

I''m aware that this already happens - so why encourage it further??

My partner''s ex is being difficult in sharing holidays. She claims the kids are not ready for 4 weeks, but they are ready for 3.

We read and asked and squeezed our brains to see how can a 4 week holiday with their father, 1-2 of these weeks somewhere nice and warm like Spain or Greece, could prove to be harmful to the children that LOVE to be with him.

And then we found out that IF she agrees to 4 weeks, then my partner can reduce CM!! Not that he would, EVER, he is already paying more than he should... but why would she take that chance, huh?

So, disguising greed for concern about the children, she deprives them to see their father one more week each summer... Cool!!

stepper wrote:

Fiona wrote:

Throughout the western world based on research it''s generally agreed that it is the best interests of children not to disrupt their sense of security and existing bonds more than necessary unless the child isn''t surviving satisfactorily

That means the biggest obstacle to 50:50 shared parenting after parents separate is working practices and the absence of shared parenting 50:50 before separation. Countries where there is more equal sharing of work/child care before separation have more a more equal sharing of work/child care after separation e.g. Sweden.

In the UK 90-95% of men with dependent children are in full-time inflexible jobs and fathers work longer hours than any other group of men whereas around 70% of women with dependent children don''t work, or work in lower paid part-time jobs to fit around commitments to children.

That should not be a total barrier to 50/50 shared care. Those parents who can share care 50/50 without detriment to their children should be legally allowed to do so. For those parents who would find this arrangement impractible or impossible, other arrangements more suitable to their circumstances would have to be put in place.

When parents share the care there would be a choice for mothers who don''t work or can only manage part time work. For those mother who have perhaps had to put their careers on hold, there would be a chance to get back into the workforce and to increase their standard of living.

Thank you Stepper.You took the words right out of my mouth.These solutions CAN work;they just need to be TAILORED to INDIVIDUAL circumstances.A legal requirement for 50-50 as starting point doesn''t MEAN parents will be forced to do it if they can''t.It only means the NRP has a fighting chance to remain in their child''s life. Why is it so hard for us to acknowledge that?Why are we soooo rigid and un-willing to accept that these suggestions are viable options that have been ignored for so long?''Oh,this won''t work,oh,that won''t work''! Why is it right for one parent to have soooo much power over contact? Power corrupts,absolute power corrupts absolutely and some RPs are living testaments to this saying in the way they approach contact.

rubytuesday,i get your point and i didn''t start this thread with the intention of heaping more harm and suffering on the children,even if only in theory.But i think the reasoning behind this idea has been lost a little. Firstly, this is not a measure that should be taken lightly or applied to all cases. A pattern would need to be established in all cases and as other posters have said,and i repeat, the stoppage of CM will probably not be long-term;only until contact is restored;maybe even before the next CM payment is due:) .

There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on this issue,but maybe at the end of the day,all that can be done is to hope that the RPs that scupper contact will one day see sense.

Chained,thank you for sharing your story.of course there are thousands of parents like you and your ex that put aside their acrimonies to cut the best deal for their children.

and no,you are not alone in thinking that if you were to cut your ex out of your child''s life,then you wouldn''t feel comfortable taking a penny in support from him. this was one of the main opinions i expressed in my original post,and the fact that i would work my finger to the bone rather than take money off of the NRP if i decided(without any expert backing)that he should have no part in the child''s life.

for me,there is no moral justification in that;no sense of fairness.it seems selfish,greedy and two-faced to say on one hand:''i don''t want you playing any part in our child''s life'',while on the other hand i''m still taking money off you,thank you very much.

and here,i am talking about RPs who deliberately and systematically try to totally cut off the NRP.I''m not talking about people who have to stop contact at one point or the other for valid reasons.it''s childish not to acknowledge that at one point or the other after a relationship breakdown, contact might prove difficult to achieve.

but again,i''m not talking of scenarios like that.am talking of scenarios where the parent with custody decides to take the other parent out of the equation completely,like my partner''s ex.let''s even say she feels justified in doing that,but surely her sense of shame,of what''s right or wrong, must also tell her that she can''t then ask him to be involved,albeit only financially. ah,maybe this is her way of punishing him,of rubbing salt into injury.

if that is the case,that is where there should be a redress in the court system.an immediate one that will act as a deterrent in future.