Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Unmarried fathers rights, custody and visitation.
Options
Comments
-
the guardianship counts for nothing at all that is correct, but once its signed you can just agree on terms, get it signed by your professional and he can forward it to the court, than it only takes 10 minutes to have a judge acknowledge it although one parent has to be there. My ex didn't even come.
Can't you see that this is an issue that will never be 'won' by either side, on the inernet specifically. I've seen it time and time again.
Women (like me) have no experience of men (like you) who actually WANT a relationship with your children. There are many women who would go to the ends of the earth to facilitate men like you - men (fathers) who will love and cherish our children, the way they should be loved and cherished.
It will always be opposing sides of this argument that are online. ALWAYS.
Because we are all fighting for the rights of our kids to know their fathers...or the fathers rights to know their children.
The OPPOSING side of this argument - the absent dads who actually don't care, and the mothers who will do anything to stop their ex partners seeing their children - ARE NOT ONLINE. Because they are battling with no one.
They have somehow just gotten on with their lives, without the battle that parents like you and me feel daily. They think it's ok to reject their child, (the absent parent) or to deprive the other parent of their children (the ex partner).
They still have to battle with their own conscience...:rolleyes:...but they don't do that online.0 -
Can't you see that this is an issue that will never be 'won' by either side, on the inernet specifically. I've seen it time and time again.
Women (like me) have no experience of men (like you) who actually WANT a relationship with your children. There are many women who would go to the ends of the earth to facilitate men like you - men (fathers) who will love and cherish our children, the way they should be loved and cherished.
It will always be opposing sides of this argument that are online. ALWAYS.
Because we are all fighting for the rights of our kids to know their fathers...or the fathers rights to know their children.
The OPPOSING side of this argument - the absent dads who actually don't care, and the mothers who will do anything to stop their ex partners seeing their children - ARE NOT ONLINE. Because they are battling with no one.
They have somehow just gotten on with their lives, without the battle that parents like you and me feel daily. They think it's ok to reject their child, (the absent parent) or to deprive the other parent of their children (the ex partner).
They still have to battle with their own conscience...:rolleyes:...but they don't do that online.
yup i sure can and I can agree with you entirely. My post was more shock at how long it was taking for the person I quoted to get things sorted (through no fault of their own I might add).
I must have misread the post by wolfpawnat as the way I read it she/he and their ex had agreed terms, were getting on and it was still taking a year to just get things in black and white, which is the complete opposite of my experience and most couples I know who are in a simular situation (maybe things are far quicker in the west though) and I was just letting him/her know how quickly it can be sorted. All too often I take things up arseways though so my apoligies if I got it wrong.0 -
Actually, I'd disagree with this. I think you get both groups online quite often, it's only that you don't see them portraying themselves as such.They still have to battle with their own conscience...:rolleyes:...but they don't do that online.
A common phenomenon on Personal Issues type threads (not just in parenting, but also other aspects of human relationships) is that of the validatory thread. These are threads (or sometimes claims made in single posts) that are presented with a bias, designed to elicit advice meant to validate the actions or preexisting choice of the original poster. Typically only the facts that would support this bias are presented. Sometimes these facts are amended or even invented.
However, always the purpose of it is to receive validation for the OP's choice; to salve their conscience and tell them that they are doing the 'right thing'. Perhaps a father will claim that he is being blocked, when in reality he is not. Perhaps a mother will claim that she has done everything to encourage contact, when in reality she has done everything in her power to discourage it. I personally suspect in such discussions, a lot comes down to the conditions laid down by the custodial parent on the non-custodial parent. These may be perfectly accommodating and reasonable and the non-custodial parent may simply seek to find excuses to reject them. Other times they may effectively be ultimatums specifically designed to be rejected by the other party. Either way, one is seeking to shift the blame on the other, but will often also need to seek validation from third parties that they're "doing the right thing" because, down deep, they know or doubt their own intentions.
In the end, such validatory threads are often exposed, as people begin to spot holes in what is said and question the OP. Almost without exception, the reaction by the OP to this is negative and defensive, not having received the advice they sought, and they typically abandon the thread to seek out a friendlier audience elsewhere.
As such, I'd tend to disagree that you don't see them online. You do, but they camouflage themselves as victims so as to avoid detection.0 -
I must have misread the post by wolfpawnat as the way I read it she/he and their ex had agreed terms, were getting on and it was still taking a year to just get things in black and white, which is the complete opposite of my experience and most couples I know who are in a simular situation (maybe things are far quicker in the west though) and I was just letting him/her know how quickly it can be sorted. All too often I take things up arseways though so my apoligies if I got it wrong.
We are on good terms! We are actually on great terms. We still live in the same house and go to the cinema and stuff together! Alas that is why I complained on other threads about how come it takes so long and costs a day in court for my ex and I to sort out his rights to being half guardian!
And we arranged it all through the Ennis District Court! So I don't think it was the location! We got the date in March and it was for Sept!0 -
wolfpawnat wrote: »We are on good terms! We are actually on great terms. We still live in the same house and go to the cinema and stuff together! Alas that is why I complained on other threads about how come it takes so long and costs a day in court for my ex and I to sort out his rights to being half guardian!
And we arranged it all through the Ennis District Court! So I don't think it was the location! We got the date in March and it was for Sept!
its good that you got it sorted anyway. Around here (Mayo) it only took 3 weeks and my ex didn't even have to go, just me a solicitor and the agreement signed by us both. Judge just looked over it and said sound. so I guess we're just blessed lucky.0 -
Advertisement
-
its good that you got it sorted anyway. Around here (Mayo) it only took 3 weeks and my ex didn't even have to go, just me a solicitor and the agreement signed by us both. Judge just looked over it and said sound. so I guess we're just blessed lucky.
Fella in Ennis is very particular!!!! He wants both parties in so he can see that it is not the dad going behind the mothers back and doing this! Meant both of us had to fork out (only thing I am annoyed about really) we went out for lunch afterwards to celebrate!0 -
wolfpawnat wrote: »Fella in Ennis is very particular!!!! He wants both parties in so he can see that it is not the dad going behind the mothers back and doing this! Meant both of us had to fork out (only thing I am annoyed about really) we went out for lunch afterwards to celebrate!
You didn't need to pay though, you can represent yourself for free. Kudos on coming to an amicable arrangement.0 -
Article hereStatistics tell only one side of the story
Until the in camera rule is reformed, getting an accurate picture of how marriage breakdown is treated in the family law courts is impossible
ANY JOURNALIST writing about family law receives reports of perceived injustices in the family law system, some of them shocking.
In recent months I have been told of one man who had to go to court 73 times in order to be able to share fully in the care for his daughter; and of a woman in her 70s facing eviction so that the house she has lived in most of her life can be sold to pay her husband his court-ordered share, now amounting to almost the total present value of the house, thus rendering her homeless.
Because of the in camera rule - whereby the media cannot report details - neither I nor any other observer was in court when these matters were decided. Neither have I been able to obtain the views of the other parties. Therefore it is not possible to have a comprehensive view of what these and many other cases involved and how and why the courts behaved as they did.
In the absence of comprehensive reform of the in camera rule a small number of academic studies of the family courts are under way or have been completed, and these throw some light on this hidden area, mainly by way of statistics. I carried out one such study of the 2006/2007 legal year for an MPhil degree.
Statistics, while extremely useful, do not tell the whole story and can even be misleading if they are incomplete or not placed in context.
For example, I found that about two-thirds of contested cases involved dependent children. However, only 9 per cent of all cases are contested, and only 37 per cent of all separations and divorces involve dependent children.
Where there were dependent children about 60 per cent ended up, either by agreement or by court order, living most of the time with their mother, either under a "joint custody" order with "primary care and control" granted to the mother, or with her having custody. The remainder was made up of fathers having sole or main custody; the care shared equally; or no order being made, which is often the case with older children.
However, when children lived mainly with their mothers it generally reflected a pre-existing reality where the mother was already the parent spending most time caring for the children.
This was hardly surprising. Recent studies from both the CSO and the ESRI have found that the majority of married women with children of primary school age or younger do not work full-time outside the home.
This was usually combined with the father paying maintenance for the children, leaving him with financial responsibility but without the comfort of his children's company on a daily basis. However, in only a small minority of cases did the father seek a radically different outcome.
It is a sad reflection on society that our working patterns are still such that most fathers of young children work long hours outside the home, though the recession may change that. Men are still generally the primary bread- winners and women the primary carers, and while this continuing division of labour may work when families are intact, is not necessarily a good starting point for dealing with broken families.
Statistics show that where the family home was at issue, it was more than twice as likely to be transferred to the wife as the husband. Here again we must be cautious with bald figures, as normally this was in return for a financial consideration. Either she bought out the husband's share of the equity, or this was transferred to her in lieu of future maintenance, or traded off against other family property.
If the wife had no income, she might have been given the right to live in the family home while the children were school-going, with the house to be sold and and the proceeds split when they grew up, but this occurred in less than three per cent of cases.
Injustices do exist, and working men on low incomes are particularly vulnerable to unfairness within the family law system. Civil legal aid, which provides legal aid in family law cases, is strictly means-tested. The cut-off point (after allowances for mortgage repayments, etc) is €18,000.
This mean that dependent women, or those who work part-time, are likely to qualify for legal aid. Their husbands, if they work for the average industrial wage of €31,000 or more, are not and may not be able to afford a private solicitor. They have no option but to seek to represent themselves, facing an experienced professional in negotiations or in court. In such circumstances it is easy to see how they may not have the tools to express their own wishes and needs within the framework of the law.
At the other end of the social spectrum women who have worked for years within the home and are married to wealthy men can be vulnerable as they are faced with an army of highly expert lawyers seeking to protect the husband's assets from the demands of "proper provision" in the family law system.
At every stage in the family law process one thing is glaringly obvious - this is not the best way to settle family law disputes. That is why the forthcoming report of the Law Reform Commission on alternative dispute resolution, with its thorough examination of mediation for family law, is eagerly awaited.
I wonder will the In Camera Rule change? Or will we adopt the same system being introduced in the UK, where journalists are allowed in to report on cases without using names...
There is great anticipation ahead of the LRC's release...0 -
-
Article in the Herald recently...Sinead Ryan: Now Deadbeat Dads are sorted, deal with Mean Mum
This week's closure of a loophole in the law will result in so-called 'Deadbeat Dads' facing jail if they don't pay child maintenance.
I know one of these. He is a mean-spirited, nasty man, intent only on hating his former spouse more than he loves his kids. They do without, so he can make a point. What a man!
I also know of a good, kind dad who loves his kids very much. He pays money every month to his former partner so that his kids can be fed, sent to school and bought small treats from his meagre income. He doesn't however, know if any of the little gifts he sends them ever get passed on. He spent last Christmas day alone, in a park overlooking the house where his children live, trying to see if, perhaps, this once, his ex girlfriend had passed on his presents.
He can't ask them himself, because she won't allow him to see them, so consumed by hatred is she. And, with our wonderful legal system, she has right on her side.
The Constitution gives marriage a special emphasis in our society. An unmarried father has virtually no rights whatsoever.
So, while Minister Ahern busied himself urgently with this new, and welcome amendment, he missed a golden opportunity to ensure that the good dads, whose only crime is not marrying the mother of their children, get to at least see their precious little ones.
For the thousands of single mothers who cry in anguish every time their kids come home from a visit with dad wearing a new pair of Nike trainers, while she struggles to pay the bills, the rush through of legislation will be welcomed. In de-coupling civil from family maintenance debt, Mr Ahern has at least ensured that Deadbeat Dad gets his priorities right.
But what about Mean Mum? She's the one who constantly changes access arrangements because 'something's come up', and who uses the kids as a weapon in the war against her former partner. She tells the children all the nasty things he did to her, and considers it a victory if they no longer beg to see him by the time they're 10.
Kids are clever. If he really is a deadbeat, they'll find that out by themselves, but to deny them the access should be the real crime.
Balanced
What about a law under which good old biology confers the rights? What about making every parent meet their responsibilities by ensuring their children get as balanced an upbringing as possible?
In some towns in Ireland, where the ratio of single mums to married ones is growing ever wider, little boys are in danger of becoming more feminised than might be good for them.
Psychologists agree that having a male influence around boys, in particular, is vital as they grow up.
Denying a child his father's influence, even if he rejects the opportunity, is simply not fair. While the courts take care of the bad ones, organisations like Treoir look out for the good and loving, but currently unequal fathers.
Never mind Deadbeat Dads getting their priorities screwed up -- isn't it the case that our laws can be accused of exactly the same thing?
Sums up how even now, there are dads doing their best to be dads and being pushed away... No one wants to see mums go to jail. What can be done to stop this? Any ideas??0 -
Advertisement
-
There needs to be supervised drop off centres for parents who are not on talking terms and who deny access or don't avail of it. The kids can be dropped off and signed in and the other parent can come and sign them out. If either one doesnt' bother then there are records, it could also be a place were non custodial parents can hand out with thier kids and spend time with them if they don't have a home big enough.0
-
There needs to be supervised drop off centres for parents who are not on talking terms and who deny access or don't avail of it. The kids can be dropped off and signed in and the other parent can come and sign them out. If either one doesnt' bother then there are records, it could also be a place were non custodial parents can hand out with thier kids and spend time with them if they don't have a home big enough.
I never understood why this is a problem. When I was growing up among tons of divorce, it was simple. When the kids were young, pick/up drop off at the door. No talking no nothing. Thats it. When they were old enough, they went themselves.
Why is this so hard?
Ok I only knew a couple of cases where dads abducted their kids but generally speaking it was not a problem.
I didnt know of any cases where access orders were ****ed around with. Dads and mums stuck to them. Mums complained of having all the dirty laundry to do when the kids came back. Now mums are complaining that the dads are keeping the clothes and the kids are coming back with no shoes on, blah blah blah or they aren't turning up at all for their access.
Why does it have to be so hard?0 -
Because people are selfish.
If they gave a rats arse about the child/ren then they would really grow up,
swallow thier pride, check thier ego, learn to share and to be civil.
Children are entitled to know both thier parents and form relationships with them.0 -
metrovelvet wrote: »I never understood why this is a problem. When I was growing up among tons of divorce, it was simple. When the kids were young, pick/up drop off at the door. No talking no nothing. Thats it. When they were old enough, they went themselves.
Why is this so hard?
Ok I only knew a couple of cases where dads abducted their kids but generally speaking it was not a problem.
I didnt know of any cases where access orders were ****ed around with. Dads and mums stuck to them. Mums complained of having all the dirty laundry to do when the kids came back. Now mums are complaining that the dads are keeping the clothes and the kids are coming back with no shoes on, blah blah blah or they aren't turning up at all for their access.
Why does it have to be so hard?
Parents putting themselves ahead of children. I think non payment of maintenance is usually selfishness whereas denial of access tends to be mother knowing best, though scratch under the veneer and it often is the same thing.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Parents putting themselves ahead of children. I think non payment of maintenance is usually selfishness whereas denial of access tends to be mother knowing best, though scratch under the veneer and it often is the same thing.
Fathers deny access too ya know, to themselves.
Yes non payment of maintenance is selfish but if someone is broke they are broke and if they are trying to get out of being broke then slack can be cut, but being stingy with your time, is not ok and that goes for both the non custodial who wont give the the time, and for the custodial who takes all of it.
*Obviously there are very exceptional circumstances where the one size fits all doesnt work/apply.0 -
It also goes for the custodial parent who constructs rediculous demands and sets the other parent up to fail even before they get to see thier kid or refuses to accept that the care the other parent can provide is never going to be 100% what they want.0
-
It also goes for the custodial parent who constructs rediculous demands and sets the other parent up to fail even before they get to see thier kid or refuses to accept that the care the other parent can provide is never going to be 100% what they want.
Yes. And the non custodial can also set up ridiculous demands which are impossible to fullfill.0 -
metrovelvet wrote: »Fathers deny access too ya know, to themselves.
Yes non payment of maintenance is selfish but if someone is broke they are broke and if they are trying to get out of being broke then slack can be cut, but being stingy with your time, is not ok and that goes for both the non custodial who wont give the the time, and for the custodial who takes all of it.
*Obviously there are very exceptional circumstances where the one size fits all doesnt work/apply.
Exactly, talking about fathers or mothers is in this kind of misses the point. Both sexes are capable of selfishness. When people start talking about Dads and Mums, it usually gets side tracked into a battle of the sexes.It also goes for the custodial parent who constructs rediculous demands and sets the other parent up to fail even before they get to see thier kid or refuses to accept that the care the other parent can provide is never going to be 100% what they want.
That's a common reason given, to me it often is a "first time mum" thing and usually passes with time. The other side is often the "demands" are reasonable enough and the Dad sees it as a control thing. Mums aren't innocent of playing the control card either though!Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
If a man doesn't pay maintenance he is a deadbeat.
If a woman doesn't allow him see the child, she is just a €unt!
Many men pay good maintenance for their children and they can't even tell you what their children look like!
As I stated in an earlier post, when getting the guardianship agreement for my son signed in court, there was a girl and a guy my sons dad knew. He was respectable, works in Galway Mon-Fri, comes home every weekend to his parents, lovely house, pays near 75 a week maintenance though he doesn't have a lot of money as he wants his kid to have a good quality of life, and has a respectable girlfriend who is educated and working.
The mother on the other hand, never worked, has a council house, is on a load of different SW payments, goes out drinking about 4 nights a week and her newest bf is a druggie. Not he looks like a druggie, he is an actual drug dealer!!!
She doesn't want him to see his child in his home because the new gf will have contact with the child there, and she doesn't want to have to get up at weekends to have to bring the child to meet him! How the hell do you deal with that seriously. He clearly is the better suited parent! He deserves full custody and she deserves to be sterilized.
Ireland is a joke, women can be drug addicts, thieves and scumbags and still have full custody of their child, a man can be everything a father needs to be, but f them, they don't matter! Makes my blood boil!!!!:mad::mad::mad:0 -
wolfpawnat wrote: »If a man doesn't pay maintenance he is a deadbeat.
If a woman doesn't allow him see the child, she is just a €unt!
Many men pay good maintenance for their children and they can't even tell you what their children look like!
As I stated in an earlier post, when getting the guardianship agreement for my son signed in court, there was a girl and a guy my sons dad knew. He was respectable, works in Galway Mon-Fri, comes home every weekend to his parents, lovely house, pays near 75 a week maintenance though he doesn't have a lot of money as he wants his kid to have a good quality of life, and has a respectable girlfriend who is educated and working.
The mother on the other hand, never worked, has a council house, is on a load of different SW payments, goes out drinking about 4 nights a week and her newest bf is a druggie. Not he looks like a druggie, he is an actual drug dealer!!!
She doesn't want him to see his child in his home because the new gf will have contact with the child there, and she doesn't want to have to get up at weekends to have to bring the child to meet him! How the hell do you deal with that seriously. He clearly is the better suited parent! He deserves full custody and she deserves to be sterilized.
Ireland is a joke, women can be drug addicts, thieves and scumbags and still have full custody of their child, a man can be everything a father needs to be, but f them, they don't matter! Makes my blood boil!!!!:mad::mad::mad:
Has he told the judge(s) about all of this? Maybe it's time to get a private investigator to watch her boyfriend. After all, it's bad enough she refuses him access to his own children in his own home,but she exposes the kids to a drugdealing scumbag too?!
Has he contacted social services? They might be interested in this too.0 -
Advertisement
-
Klingon Hamlet wrote: »Has he told the judge(s) about all of this? Maybe it's time to get a private investigator to watch her boyfriend. After all, it's bad enough she refuses him access to his own children in his own home,but she exposes the kids to a drugdealing scumbag too?!
Has he contacted social services? They might be interested in this too.
Perhaps report to the police too as their is criminality involved. If he is dealing then there is a high possibility there are poisons in the household the child could be exposed to.0 -
Klingon Hamlet wrote: »Has he told the judge(s) about all of this? Maybe it's time to get a private investigator to watch her boyfriend. After all, it's bad enough she refuses him access to his own children in his own home,but she exposes the kids to a drugdealing scumbag too?!
Has he contacted social services? They might be interested in this too.
He is a well known one in the area, the father needless to say is near bald from the stress, but he is being told there is nothing they can do, as the scumbag does not live with the mother (they dont realise he is) so they cannot guarantee the child is in contact with this man, the PI is actually a great idea!!!0 -
wolfpawnat wrote: »If a man doesn't pay maintenance he is a deadbeat.
If a woman doesn't allow him see the child, she is just a €unt!
Many men pay good maintenance for their children and they can't even tell you what their children look like!
As I stated in an earlier post, when getting the guardianship agreement for my son signed in court, there was a girl and a guy my sons dad knew. He was respectable, works in Galway Mon-Fri, comes home every weekend to his parents, lovely house, pays near 75 a week maintenance though he doesn't have a lot of money as he wants his kid to have a good quality of life, and has a respectable girlfriend who is educated and working.
The mother on the other hand, never worked, has a council house, is on a load of different SW payments, goes out drinking about 4 nights a week and her newest bf is a druggie. Not he looks like a druggie, he is an actual drug dealer!!!
She doesn't want him to see his child in his home because the new gf will have contact with the child there, and she doesn't want to have to get up at weekends to have to bring the child to meet him! How the hell do you deal with that seriously. He clearly is the better suited parent! He deserves full custody and she deserves to be sterilized.
Ireland is a joke, women can be drug addicts, thieves and scumbags and still have full custody of their child, a man can be everything a father needs to be, but f them, they don't matter! Makes my blood boil!!!!:mad::mad::mad:
I know these cases exist, but do you want extreme cases being at the foundation of law? O even the foundations of our opinions?
I could talk about other cases too where the access orders are exploited to control or abuse the mother, or crazy demands are being made [like wanting the mother to drive three hours in each direction for a drop off pick up and when she wont do it he cries that he is being denied access., or simply not fulfilling the access order and leaving the child hanging.]0 -
You and I both know the nasty fathers Metrovelvet, my father is a prime example of when men are aholes. But there are terrible sadistic women that use their children as leverage and want to prevent the men from ever having a good life afterwards, ironically I had one of those for a mother!
No, exceptions cannot make the law, but equal rights and equal judgement on parents is necessary!0 -
metrovelvet wrote: »I know these cases exist, but do you want extreme cases being at the foundation of law? O even the foundations of our opinions?
I could talk about other cases too where the access orders are exploited to control or abuse the mother, or crazy demands are being made [like wanting the mother to drive three hours in each direction for a drop off pick up and when she wont do it he cries that he is being denied access., or simply not fulfilling the access order and leaving the child hanging.]
I know someone who's ex wife moved from Dublin to Limerick on a whim cos she said the country life would be better for the child. In order for the Dad to see the son he has to drive down to get him on a Friday and then drive him home,
but some times she will do the driving when it suits her.
It's part of how it goes, it's part of the responsibility esp if the custodial parent has decided to live that far away from the other one.0 -
I know someone who's ex wife moved from Dublin to Limerick on a whim cos she said the country life would be better for the child. In order for the Dad to see the son he has to drive down to get him on a Friday and then drive him home,
but some times she will do the driving when it suits her.
It's part of how it goes, it's part of the responsibility esp if the custodial parent has decided to live that far away from the other one.
I can see that, especially as there is country life closer to Dublin too! I know someone who moved across the country with the kids too. He was resentful of that but at the same time she was the breadwinner and had a family to support so a much better job took her there and she could provide for the children whereas he could not. Luckily the two older ones were old enough to be able to travel themselves but there was a little one. He didnt visit that often or go and pick him up either. But saw him when the mom was able to drop him, which was not that often as her job made her do a lot of out of the country business.0 -
My ex says if things dont pick up here, he fears he may have to go abroad, but that leaves a situation with our son, since I am prob not going to be tied down, I said if I'm not, I will go too. All 3 of us could be heading away!
He doesn't want to leave, but if there are no jobs then we need to think of our son. Mad what the government is forcing parents to consider for the sake of their children!!!!0 -
wolfpawnat wrote: »My ex says if things dont pick up here, he fears he may have to go abroad, but that leaves a situation with our son, since I am prob not going to be tied down, I said if I'm not, I will go too. All 3 of us could be heading away!
He doesn't want to leave, but if there are no jobs then we need to think of our son. Mad what the government is forcing parents to consider for the sake of their children!!!!
I have a feeling this is going to become an ever increasing problem with the amount of immigration anticipated.0 -
I truly do believe the government wants a society where there are no families that are together or are talking. All social welfare payments are for One Parent Situation and with recent economic situations people are forced to choose between being a family or financial security!
Also, this emmigration thing doesn't help. Men having to leave to get work, or women, children in different hemispheres to one of their parents. It is very hard for them!0 -
Advertisement
-
I honestly can't fathom why people would move their child to another part of the country when the child's other parent lives where you currently do.
I could literally double my salary by moving our family to the UK but my step-son's dad lives in Dublin so it's not an option for us at all.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement