Neither gender has the monoply of bad behaviour but in my experience a vicious cycle of provocation and retaliation is usually driven by anxiety and anger.
Yes Fiona....these emotions are certainly evident in this thread.
I don't have the energy to generalise about gender specifics or shout down other peoples opinions on this site, as all my energy is focused on my own pursuit in obtaining a fair settlement for me and our children ...Every single set of circumstances are different.....and oh, by the way, I am not a legal aid STBX wife, I pay my own legal fees from my bl**dy hard earned salary......
As far as I,(simple layperson, stereo typical male that I am) is concerned I still believe that the "majority" of cases where a NRP is not having contact with the child is as a result of the withdrawal of financial support from the ex spouse.
"If he wont pay, why should he get to see them"
"If she wont let me see them, why should I pay?"
Sound familiar anyone?
If it is such a rare occurance and not one of the main factors rather than the 99 or so other reasons then why are there groups such as fathers for justice?
Note, typically I say, there are of course exceptions to every rule, otherwise rules would be boring.
Funnily enough, any solicitor you go to will want to separate the two, ie: all problems regarding child contact and the financial side are two completelyy separate aspects and will be addressed so, and courts dont like you to mix the two!!! Thats one of the most contradictory terms I have ever heard.
I would like to meet ALL of the solicitors that reckon cases are going 45:55 rather than 70:30, 80:20 90:10 or even 100:0.(god i wish my wife's sol was one of them). That must be one of the best kept secrets in Scotland, cos in my case and in the case of soooooooo many others on here, it does not appear to have filtered down to England just yet.
If it is deduced that SM isn't awarded in a lot of cases, then why are there so many SM requests??? Almost EVERY financial post on here has a regard to SM in it (typically male/husband). There are many many posts, which you yourself Fiona to name but one, have advised that SM is VERY possible indeed.
And your point about the "CM shenanigans" rings an ever so familiar bell with me. My wife also wanted our son ready for bed in his PJ's at 10pm every nite, so I could drop him off at hers on my way to do a nite shift, then pick him up at 7am the next morning in order that she too COULD and DID dispute that I was in fact PWC (appeal date against this also Sept, so looks like I will be very busy) in order to continue receiving CB, tax credits for him.
There are several people on here that seem to be under the illusion that just because it is said (posted) it has to be true, and Im sorry, I just dont buy into the Fiona fanclub even tho I already got the t shirt.
Liago, emotions are good, it show that you are alive and not dead from the ankles up, so free speech and heated debates? bring em on is all I say, you gotta love em Participation, of course is personal choice.
And finally (feel like (Sir) Trevor McDoughnut here) no, it is not my first appointment, it is my FDR which will no doubt follow with a FH.
Aah well ,lets hope the judge knows all about the new trend of 45:55 and so on, then maybe the wife wont get away with her 90/10 80/20 offers.
And my legal fees for this?? oh well never mind, at least I haven't been scraping the legal aid barrell of representation so I deserve my huge bill dont I?.
PS. Viscous circle of provocation?? It appears you really do have first hand experience in your 4 year amicable divorce settlement and the "new" girlfriend getting involved in CM payments.