Child Support-Please read

Nevyn

Fittle wrote: »

She indulged in Parental Alienation? Another americanism to make it easy for fathers to abandon their chilren - that's the best I've heard yet:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I have seen it used on mother and fathers alike by the custodial parent,
it is something I consider utterly abhorrent.

Fittle wrote: »

How do you know he didn't want to distress the child? If he actually cared about the child, his instinct would have been to stick around to potentially protect her from her mother who was doing what she was doing.

Any how do you know the mother is not just a thunderous controlling bitch who wants to white wash him out of his child's life now she has a husband and just wants to play happy families with the picture perfect family rather then face up to her mistakes and responsibilities like an adult?

Fittle wrote: »

If he actually cared about the child, his instinct would have been to stick around to potentially protect her from her mother who was doing what she was doing.

It is very, very hard to do when there is that level of manipulation and machinations going on. If the visitation is bringing out the worse in the mother as she can not be an adult for the sake of the child then I can understand rather then making the child's life harder that the other parent would back off.

I have seen child who have had the custodial parent be in a foul mood all day and snapping at the child and being utterly unreasonable as the child has to see the other parent, working the child up into a right state so the child associates that stress and upset with the other parent and the same being done when the child came home from the visitation the custodial parent would be in such a mood that it got to the stage where the impact was making the child miserable.

When this has happened I have seen the non custodial parent back away as the custodial parent's emotional and lack of awareness and control due to their anger/resentment of the other parent made them irrational when it came to anything to do with the other parent.

Personally I think that any custodial parent who mentally and emotional abuses the child in such a manner should not have custody, neither should any parent who refuses visitation cos they can't handle it should got to counselling and sort them selves out rather then take it out on the child by denying them access to their father/mother.

Fittle wrote: »

And being able to pay maintenance etc - he was ordered by a judge to pay maintenance!!

Plenty of parents are, it's how maintenance orders work, that does not mean that parents who have a maintenance order made out against them are reluctant to pay it in the first place.


noel123ie if you know who the account was with and can ring the branch and find out what is the status of the account, if it's closed then I would suggest starting with solicitor letters and then proceeding with what ever other steps you need to take to find out the where about of your child.

Fittle

Ok thaedyl, I've a couple of questions for you.

How many women do you personally know who are parenting alone with no input from the father? (my answer to this is 4, including myself - and of those 3, I'd say they each know another two, so that's about 10 ).

My next question is how many of these women are 'thunderous controlling bitches who want to white wash the father out of the child's life now that she has a husband and just wants to play happy families with the picture perfect family rather then face up to her mistakes and responsibilities like an adult?'.

My answer is none. None of the ten women that I know (some by default) are thunderous controlling bitches. All of the ten women I know want what's best for their child and at the start of the pregnancy or the childs life, WANTED the father of their child involved in the childs life.

metrovelvet

Do you not consider that a non custodial can use all sorts of manipulations, threats and blackmail to stress out a custodial parent in the first place? Everything you say about a custodial parent can apply to a non custodial parent too.

Seriously, your advice to call in courts and social workers without more information is unbalanced and you should rethink it.

caseyann

Fittle wrote: »

Ok thaedyl, I've a couple of questions for you.

How many women do you personally know who are parenting alone with no input from the father? (my answer to this is 4, including myself - and of those 3, I'd say they each know another two, so that's about 10 ).

My next question is how many of these women are 'thunderous controlling bitches who want to white wash the father out of the child's life now that she has a husband and just wants to play happy families with the picture perfect family rather then face up to her mistakes and responsibilities like an adult?'.

My answer is none. None of the ten women that I know (some by default) are thunderous controlling bitches. All of the ten women I know want what's best for their child and at the start of the pregnancy or the childs life, WANTED the father of their child involved in the childs life.

As a woman i can tell you i know at least five women who are manipultive and use the child as a emotional weapon.Be it if the ex has moved on with someone new to not allowing access or bad mouthing the father in front of the child.
I even know some girls who tell the guy if not with them they will never see that child again.
It works in so many ways.
From this case she has shown imo of what op has said malicious intent to turn a child against the father and to block him from even knowing if the child is healthy or safe.
While there is men who dont partake and are lazy useless bums so is there mothers who are just as bad.
And we are giving advice to the man who wishes to give his child something,outside of that we cant assume anything.

Nevyn

I am glad that you only know such good women Fittle.

I know of lots of women who have reared thier child without a father, my cousin who grew up with me and my sibling was such a child so I know what that is like and how hard it can be but I know of 5 women who have done thier utmost to make life for the father of their children hell because the see them as thier ex who they are still angry with rather then just as the co parent.

And some of them will give lip service to wanting the father in their kids life, yes but only wanting it on extremely limited ways and in ways that they can control to the smallest iota and if the other parent doesn't complies then there are reasons and excuses, and emotional blackmail until the other parent despairs and gives up, and then they blame the non custodial parent for not trying.


Given in this case noel123ie was cut out of his child's life and made to feel that it was for the best, and there is a new father figure who has married the mother and the phone number has been changed and the bank account is defunct it looks like they have left the country or are organising it so that the mother can say in court there has been no contact or payment from the father to say that he has no intrest so that her husband can adopt the child.

Give this and lack of response from the custodial parent, I would be pulling out all the stops to find out what the hell is going on.

Both parents can act like utter arsebags in the years after a break up/separation but we all hopefully grow and mature and learn to be civil for the sake of our children.

caseyann

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am glad that you only know such good women Fittle.

I know of lots of women who have reared thier child without a father, my cousin who grew up with me and my sibling was such a child so I know what that is like and how hard it can be but I know of 5 women who have done thier utmost to make life for the father of their children hell because the see them as thier ex who they are still angry with rather then just as the co parent.

And some of them will give lip service to wanting the father in their kids life, yes but only wanting it on extremely limited ways and in ways that they can control to the smallest iota and if the other parent doesn't complies then there are reasons and excuses, and emotional blackmail until the other parent despairs and gives up, and then they blame the non custodial parent for not trying.


Given in this case noel123ie was cut out of his child's life and made to feel that it was for the best, and there is a new father figure who has married the mother and the phone number has been changed and the bank account is defunct it looks like they have left the country or are organising it so that the mother can say in court there has been no contact or payment from the father to say that he has no intrest so that her husband can adopt the child.

Give this and lack of response from the custodial parent, I would be pulling out all the stops to find out what the hell is going on.

Both parents can act like utter arsebags in the years after a break up/separation but we all hopefully grow and mature and learn to be civil for the sake of our children.

Totally agree with you,if he didnt give a toss he would be on his way and not on here asking for advice,and as i see it trying to do it as diplomatically as he can.

metrovelvet

Fittle wrote: »

She indulged in Parental Alienation? Another americanism to make it easy for fathers to abandon their chilren - that's the best I've heard yet:rolleyes::rolleyes:

How do you know he didn't want to distress the child? If he actually cared about the child, his instinct would have been to stick around to potentially protect her from her mother who was doing what she was doing.

And being able to pay maintenance etc - he was ordered by a judge to pay maintenance!!

http://batteredmomslosecustody.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/falsely-accused-of-parental-alienation/

Parental alienation is also being abused in the courts. It's become a handy little weapon for abusive parents.

From the above link:

Expert Dr. Robert Geffner: Courts Under the Thrall of Dangerous “Parental Alienation Syndrome” Myth Award Custody to Violent, Abusive ParentsChild abuse experts Dr. Robert Geffner warns that “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) is junk science – a psychiatric “disorder” that isn’t recognized by any mental health or medical association, isn’t supported by research, and hasn’t even been published in established peer-reviewed professional journals. But PAS has been used by the courts to award sole custody of hundreds of children to the parents accused of sexually or physically abusing them.Worse is a process that turns justice on its head by demonizing the parent who is trying to protect their child and has made statements about them being abused. “Many professionals connected with the courts are operating under the influence of and acting on a dangerous myth. PAS is fictitious, but the life-long damage it has inflicted on countless children is only too real,” Geffner says. Both children who are exposed to intimate partner violence and those who are physically or sexually abused often are affected throughout their life span if the abuse is not recognized and treated. Many adults experience symptoms ranging from anxiety, sleeplessness, and panic attacks to a recurrent inability to trust other adults and form stable relationships but don’t connect those problems to their childhood history of abuse.


And there are countless studies done on this.

Fittle

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am glad that you only know such good women Fittle.


Given in this case noel123ie was cut out of his child's life and made to feel that it was for the best, and there is a new father figure who has married the mother and the phone number has been changed and the bank account is defunct it looks like they have left the country or are organising it so that the mother can say in court there has been no contact or payment from the father to say that he has no intrest so that her husband can adopt the child.
.

He wasn't cut out of his child life and made to feel that it was for the best. He never said that - he said he chose to walk.

She changed her mobile number (Ive done that bout four times in the past four years) and perhaps the maintenance issue is a technical issue with the bank. The OP doesn't say how long it's been going on - why on gods earth would you assume they have left the country and are considering adopting his child, because she has changed her number??? Assumption much

It's been six years. The child was four when he last saw her. She's now ten. Do you honestly expect the childs mother to hang around in the vain hope that her daughters father might grow a pair after six years - when she can offer her daughter what appears to be, another family set-up? I'm not saying the husband should or could, become the childs 'new daddy' but a male role model can only be a good thing, when her real father abandoned her six years ago.

Six years ago.

metrovelvet

I think in general the advice on this thread has been both abominable and dangerous.

To advocate calling the police and the social workers after a six year absence without having all the FACTS is so outrageous it's hard to believe what I am reading.

To advocate re-entering a child's live like a bomb after a six year absence with no advice on the shock and effect this could have on her and the potential fallout if the OP walks out again on her because of whatever reason, is callous and irresponsible advice.

To assume and accuse parental alienation, also to reinforce a PURE FANTASY about the case at hand, without knowing the FACTS, is also irresponsible, unjust, prejudicial, and just plain cuckoo.

*TO add you might be right, but you could just as easily be VERY WRONG.

Nevyn

Ladies can ye not get the basic facts right?

noel123ie wrote: »

I have not seen my daughter for 4 years as the mother was telling my daughter this I will evil and turning her against me so I thought it was in the best interest of my daughter to cut contact.

Noel again I suggest to start with a solicitor and a registered letter, if that comes back return to sender then do what you have to to track your child down.

Gordon

Fittle wrote: »

Do you honestly expect the childs mother to hang around in the vain hope that her daughters father might grow a pair after six four years - when she can offer her daughter what appears to be, another family set-up?

I don't think that point has been argued to the contrary, but I would expect the parent that looks after the child to forward any change of contact details to the other parent that is paying child support. I would expect change of contact details from either party to be forwarded to the other party, no matter how many times one has to change their telephone number in a year. Adult parents need to inform each other of new contact details so that they do not make a situation where the child loses means of contact with the other parent.

It is extremely disheartening to see that there apparently comes a point in time (4 years) that it becomes acceptable for one parent to be completely cut off from their child no matter what the circumstances (bar danger and harm obviously). The poor wee child, one day they'll get to an age where fault turns into blame, and the wild animal of blame takes no prisoners. It'll just end up with the wee one being hurt. And the parents, but in fairness, the parents caused this mess, not the child, so that's their problem to sort out in private. It's not the childs fault.

Good luck OP, I hope it works out for you all.

Fittle

Thaedydal wrote: »

Ladies can ye not get the basic facts right?



Noel again I suggest to start with a solicitor and a registered letter, if that comes back return to sender then do what you have to to track your child down.

Right so I got the length of years wrong. But 4yrs, 6yrs, doesn't make much of a difference to a young child.

And I don't know why you continue to advise the OP on an issue he didn't ask about? He didn't ask how he can track down his child.
He asked if he should keep a record of the fact that his maintenance is being refused. That's what he's interested in.

And I agree with gordon - none of this is the childs fault but I imagine the mother assumes that having not had contact in 4yrs, he's just not interested, so why would she advise him of her number number?

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

Clever use of words there.

And I suppose that because it is clever it's not true?

The OP never said he was being 'denied access' or being 'frozen out'. He said his ex was often an hour late. And that she was calling him evil. And so, he CHOSE to walk away and that it's 'great' that another man is raising his child.

You forgot to mention that he also said that she would also not simply arrive late, but not at all. Another interesting selective rendition of his account.

When a parent becomes so obstructive, that regular access is impossible (maybe she'll turn up and maybe not, or maybe she'll turn up late so as to limit the access period), when she actively indoctrinates the child into believing that the other parent is 'evil' so that the child ends up rejecting them, then that is an active strategy of denying access and freezing out.

Continuing access in such a situation becomes difficult to impossible and even arguably no longer in the child's interest, as regularity and frequency is irrevocably destroyed. This is before one considers the social, psychological and financial toll of an endless and losing battle, where even successful court orders are ignored because the law never bothers to enforce them.

So consider yourself in a father's shoes in such a situation: The law is of no use. Your access is limited or negligible and potentially more disruptive than beneficial. The constant conflict (where you have no hope of winning) is destroying any chance at normality in your life - or even taking its toll on your health.

You're banging your head against a brick wall. You're at this stage causing more harm than good. There is no solution. What would you do in such a situation?

His concern in THIS post is that his maintenance is not being accepted, and so he is wondering if writing to his ex would be a way to keep a record of the fact that she's not accepting it, rather than him not giving it.

This is no doubt, so that should the maintenance order go back to court at any point, he will have written proof that he was still willing to give it. This isn't about him wanting access to his child. He gave up on his child years ago.

That is a perfectly rational concern. To begin with there are legal implications, because he is liable for paying, even if she obstructs payment. Secondly, having been actively obstructed from any involvement in his child's life, maintenance becomes the only way he can demonstrate parental responsibility - to show that he does care, despite maternal propaganda to the contrary, because some day he is likely to have to face his child and explain his side of his story.

Not all claims of parental alienation are real and it can be used as an excuse by some non-custodial parents. However, it does occur and I'm more than a little shocked to see you dismiss it as simply an Americanism or even your anecdotal evidence that implies that mothers are never the bad guys.

The woman changed her mobile number and is now married, perhaps she has another child/ren. The OP knows where she lives, because he said he's writing to her. He hasn't been in contact with his daughter for SIX YEARS. And 6yrs later your advice, as the moderator of the parenting section Thaedyl, is to involve social workers and the courts????

Four years (as Thaed already pointed out). The child is ten, which means that for the first six years he fought to maintain access. Again you seem to wish to only view the facts in a skewed and negative light and only cited the empty part of the glass.

Now, given this I'm cynical enough to also feel that his story does not completely add up - or more correctly that there have been important omissions. This is because both parents in these situations will often seek to portray themselves as the victims rather than admit that they may have been in any way responsible for the situation they find themselves in.

However here, the OP has sought advice and unless it becomes obvious that he is telling porkies (and he's actually not said enough to warrant that), we should take him at his word.

Or we could just jump down his throat, presume he's the bad guy and lying about his situation. If that's the case, it's probably valid to question your own claims too.

And for the record, I agree wholeheartedly that the courts are a joke, and should at the very least, give both parents equal guardianship of a child at birth. This would be the best thing that could happen in this country, for fathers who want relationships with their children, and for children who want relationships with their fathers.

Again, it comes down to enforcement. Guardianship does not guarantee access, and is in fact a separate matter, so his situation would not have changed. And after a four year absence, he probably would have lost it too.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Ladies can ye not get the basic facts right?



.

Even four years... going in guns blazing with cops and social workers without exploring all the facts could make OP look very very stupid, obstructive, abusive, and wasting state resources.

I agree about the regsitered letter though, at least its a start and shows proof of attempting to reach out and find out what is going on.

metrovelvet

Gordon wrote: »

I don't think that point has been argued to the contrary, but I would expect the parent that looks after the child to forward any change of contact details to the other parent that is paying child support. I would expect change of contact details from either party to be forwarded to the other party, no matter how many times one has to change their telephone number in a year. Adult parents need to inform each other of new contact details so that they do not make a situation where the child loses means of contact with the other parent.

It is extremely disheartening to see that there apparently comes a point in time (4 years) that it becomes acceptable for one parent to be completely cut off from their child no matter what the circumstances (bar danger and harm obviously). The poor wee child, one day they'll get to an age where fault turns into blame, and the wild animal of blame takes no prisoners. It'll just end up with the wee one being hurt. And the parents, but in fairness, the parents caused this mess, not the child, so that's their problem to sort out in private. It's not the childs fault.

Good luck OP, I hope it works out for you all.

Yes you would assume this but at the same time she might think he doesn't care or is indifferent and may have written him off.

Especially if the maintenance is court ordered and hasnt been adjusted in four years it might demonstrate he is fulfilling a legal obligation and that is all he is doing to cover his butt.

Again, without the facts, this is pure speculation but its important to be open to all possibilities before people start bringing out hanging devices and and start a witch hunt in search for prosecution.

Do we know that OP has kept his contact details up for example? We assume he has but we dont know that yet.

Fittle

Nowhere did I say that mothers are never the bad guys. Of course I accept that there are women out there who would rather their ex partners did not see their children. But we don't know that this woman is one of them.

I am purely dealing with this situation, in this post, where the poster walked away from the responsibility of being a father to his child. This post.
How can I speak for all mothers? I said I don't know any mothers personally who are 'thunderous controlling bitches' or 'vindictive sociopaths'. And I don't, that's the truth. any of the mothers I know personally, who are in similar situations, have done as much as they possibly can to facilitate the absent father.

And the OP hasn't come back here, to inform us of any further details of his story, so we are all surmising his situation anyway. You don't know, no more than I do, that he fought for access for all of those six years? Yes, he said she sometimes didn't turn up - we've no idea what age the child was when this happened - he said he doesn't live local. Ever thought perhaps she was up all night with a screaming toddler and couldn't get her act together the next morning to drive x miles for his access??? There were times I couldn't get out the door when my (then) 18month old was awake through the nite - times I'd have to borrow milk from a neighbour because I couldn't physically get to a shop due to my own exhaustion. These things do happen.

There were times I would have handed my toddler over to a stranger to get a break from him....(almost;)) so just because the OP says she didn't show for access, does not mean she was a sociopath or a bitch for that matter.

But no doubt you'll also question that, the way you continue to question my sanity:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

Nowhere did I say that mothers are never the bad guys.

Actually you did:

Fittle wrote: »

My next question is how many of these women are 'thunderous controlling bitches who want to white wash the father out of the child's life now that she has a husband and just wants to play happy families with the picture perfect family rather then face up to her mistakes and responsibilities like an adult?'.

My answer is none. None of the ten women that I know (some by default) are thunderous controlling bitches. All of the ten women I know want what's best for their child and at the start of the pregnancy or the childs life, WANTED the father of their child involved in the childs life.

As I said, the anecdotal evidence you put forward points to that - you were pretty clear cut.

Of course I accept that there are women out there who would rather their ex partners did not see their children. But we don't know that this woman is one of them.

Yet you are more than happy to presume that the OP is the one telling porkies? You presume he didn't fight for those six years. You presume that his ex was not obstructive and he had no good reason to give up.

I said I don't know any mothers personally who are 'thunderous controlling bitches' or 'vindictive sociopaths'. And I don't, that's the truth. any of the mothers I know personally, who are in similar situations, have done as much as they possibly can to facilitate the absent father.

Certainly, but the problem is that even the vindictive sociopaths will claim that they have done as much as they possibly can to facilitate the absent father, when in reality they only done the bare minimum so that they can save face, while acting in a calculated fashion to sabotage that same facilitation.

And how would you know the difference? Chances are you only get an incomplete picture of what has happened. You only get to hear one side of the story, which has been carefully edited to elicit validation for their actions.

And naturally the opposite occurs too. But I accept that it does, while by you pronouncing that you've never come across it, that even the term parental alienation is a cliche, you imply that it never happens.

And the OP hasn't come back here, to inform us of any further details of his story, so we are all surmising his situation anyway. You don't know, no more than I do, that he fought for access for all of those six years? Yes, he said she sometimes didn't turn up - we've no idea what age the child was when this happened - he said he doesn't live local. Ever thought perhaps she was up all night with a screaming toddler and couldn't get her act together the next morning to drive x miles for his access???

You're making excuses now. That these things happen is par for the course, but what the OP claimed was a concerted campaign of disruption to access by the mother.

Ultimately, you are viewing the OP's (and everyone else's) situation through the prism of your own personal one. I've repeatedly pointed out that he may not be telling the full truth and that there are some parts of his story that don't fully add up. You have made no such concession from your own perspective. He's the bad guy. End of story. So, who is being more objective?

All of which returns me to my question of you, in my last post:

The Corinthian wrote: »

So consider yourself in a father's shoes in such a situation: The law is of no use. Your access is limited or negligible and potentially more disruptive than beneficial. The constant conflict (where you have no hope of winning) is destroying any chance at normality in your life - or even taking its toll on your health.

You're banging your head against a brick wall. You're at this stage causing more harm than good. There is no solution. What would you do in such a situation?

Try to put yourself in those shoes, rather than your own. What would you do?

But no doubt you'll also question that, the way you continue to question my sanity:rolleyes:

Why can't I question your points? Is that not allowed?

And you can hardly accuse someone else of being disingenuous here and then get upset is someone might suggest the same of you.

Butterflylove

Noel

I can totally understand why you would walk away,

I have seen this from both sides both my sister and my brother are single parents,

My sister had awful trouble with my nieces father he would go out of his way to cause fights and arguments and put my niece in positions where she was been made chose sides he was a horrid man brought her to pubs etc on their 'weekends' together, he only took her because he got a council flat for her, he tried to take her from my sister as he said with delight 'so I can get more money' in the end after years of battles my niece decided to cut contact her own choice she was 6 she couldn't deal with the fighting etc anymore she hasn't heard from her dad since she is now 12, my sister still sends him a photo of her every year and is in contact with his own sister

Some men just don't care,

Then there's my brother, best father to his son you could ever ask for would do anything for him, my brothers ex was young 19 when she fell pregnant they played happy families for two years when she freaked out broke up with my brother because 'she wanted to live her life' she cut our my brother and told him he couldn't see his child he fought tooth and nail but could see the stress it was causing his child he backed off waiting for his to calm down and come to her senses instead she went off to Spain met a waiter and 'fell in love' a month later she was flying back to marry this waiter, long story short he left her once he got his visa and she was pregnant by him she went off completely, she would disappear for days yet when my brother called guards or when it was brought to court nothing was done my brother saw his son once a week if he was lucky, soon after she died and my brother had to fight the courts to have custody of his own son they wanted to place him into care,


It can happen from both sides and rather then cause more hurt and pain for a child some take a step back and some don't and cause allot of hurt and pain that the child ends up having to make a tough decision.

Fittle

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually you did:

As I said, the anecdotal evidence you put forward points to that - you were pretty clear cut.

Yet you are more than happy to presume that the OP is the one telling porkies? You presume he didn't fight for those six years. You presume that his ex was not obstructive and he had no good reason to give up.

Certainly, but the problem is that even the vindictive sociopaths will claim that they have done as much as they possibly can to facilitate the absent father, when in reality they only done the bare minimum so that they can save face, while acting in a calculated fashion to sabotage that same facilitation.

And how would you know the difference? Chances are you only get an incomplete picture of what has happened. You only get to hear one side of the story, which has been carefully edited to elicit validation for their actions.

And naturally the opposite occurs too. But I accept that it does, while by you pronouncing that you've never come across it, that even the term parental alienation is a cliche, you imply that it never happens.

You're making excuses now. That these things happen is par for the course, but what the OP claimed was a concerted campaign of disruption to access by the mother.

Ultimately, you are viewing the OP's (and everyone else's) situation through the prism of your own personal one. I've repeatedly pointed out that he may not be telling the full truth and that there are some parts of his story that don't fully add up. You have made no such concession from your own perspective. He's the bad guy. End of story. So, who is being more objective?

All of which returns me to my question of you, in my last post:

Try to put yourself in those shoes, rather than your own. What would you do?

Why can't I question your points? Is that not allowed?

And you can hardly accuse someone else of being disingenuous here and then get upset is someone might suggest the same of you.

Whatever. I can't win with you - whatever I say, you come back and shoot me down so I'm done here. But for the record - I did NOT say that all mothers are perfect - I said that the mothers I KNOW do what they can to facilitate the absent parent. And I'm not viewing the Op's and everyone else's situation through my own prism, but I've been here with you before and you will continue to rant on about this point, and copy and paste everything I say and rip it apart, so what's the point?

Cheerio.

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

Whatever. I can't win with you - whatever I say, you come back and shoot me down so I'm done here. But for the record - I did NOT say that all mothers are perfect - I said that the mothers I KNOW do what they can to facilitate the absent parent. And I'm not viewing the Op's and everyone else's situation through my own prism, but I've been here with you before and you will continue to rant on about this point, and copy and paste everything I say and rip it apart, so what's the point?

Cheerio.

Look, you entered this discussion attacking the OP, giving only examples of where the fathers are at fault and even dismissing that parental alienation is ever promoted by mothers. You may have conceded that mothers are not perfect, but you've never suggested that they can sometimes actively obstruct a father's relationship with his child.

All I've done is disagree and pointed out where what you're saying is flawed and even blatantly biased. I've even gone so far as to ask you to put yourself in the shoes of a father in such a situation, to ask yourself what you would do and you've ignored this.

Sometimes people "can't win" an argument simply because they're wrong, and walking away from it is little more than an admission that they're not really interested in having their opinion questioned.

If that's the case with you, then I would be tempted to sympathize a little with your ex.

Fittle

I'll give you his number and you can have a little chat about me, then shall I:rolleyes: I'm not wrong - I just have a different opinion to you on the subject of THIS post.

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

I'm not wrong - I just have a different opinion to you on the subject of THIS post.

Having an opinion does not imply it's valid. Only by questioning your opinion can you determine if it is right, wrong, or very often, somewhere in-between.

And from what you've said the difference between us is I'm open to having my opinion questioned and you're not. That "my way or the highway" attitude seldom results in successful co-parenting, tbh.

Butterflylove

Fittle,

There is very little some men can do when a situution like this happens, they have no rights when it comes to enforcing the mother and child to meet at agreed times and places

It can become very easy for a mother to turn a father 'evil' if he doesnt live locally and rarely sees the child, Im not saying this man is right in the path he chose but at least his wants to make sure his child does not feel like her father didnt contributed to her life, its bad enough he's not around.

For every two bad fathers theres one who will do what ever seems like the right thing to do at the time to make sure their child is happy?

Isnt better that this man backed off when it was clear he wasnt welcome - not allowing the child to meet her father at agreed times and places made feel like he is better off just giving up and letting her live her life with her 'new' family to end her suffering of agruements?

You may not agree it was better for the child that her father take a back seat instead of constand agruements and fighting and the child having to be placed in the middle but her father did, and now all he wants to make sure she is looked after in and provided for in the only way he can through his pocket,

I dont personally think he should be ''attacked'' for that.

metrovelvet

Butterflylove wrote: »

Fittle,

There is very little some men can do when a situution like this happens, they have no rights when it comes to enforcing the mother and child to meet at agreed times and places

It can become very easy for a mother to turn a father 'evil' if he doesnt live locally and rarely sees the child, Im not saying this man is right in the path he chose but at least his wants to make sure his child does not feel like her father didnt contributed to her life, its bad enough he's not around.

For every two bad fathers theres one who will do what ever seems like the right thing to do at the time to make sure their child is happy?

Isnt better that this man backed off when it was clear he wasnt welcome - not allowing the child to meet her father at agreed times and places made feel like he is better off just giving up and letting her live her life with her 'new' family to end her suffering of agruements?

You may not agree it was better for the child that her father take a back seat instead of constand agruements and fighting and the child having to be placed in the middle but her father did, and now all he wants to make sure she is looked after in and provided for in the only way he can through his pocket,

I dont personally think he should be ''attacked'' for that.

I dont either, if in fact that is what happened. But alot of people on this thread are assuming that, based on a couple of fragments of info, and it is the assumption of other posters that is being attacked, not the OP.

Of course some mothers also give up for the same reasons that a father who walks does, too much stress, health problems, anxiety carried over to the child, and unstable parenting plan, abusiveness, etc etc.

Nevyn

Look let me make this plain, the same as PI if someone posts here looking for advnice/help/support/info we take what they as at face value and don't go hairing off with what ifs.
That is the way it works.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Look let me make this plain, the same as PI if someone posts here looking for advnice/help/support/info we take what they as at face value and don't go hairing off with what ifs.
That is the way it works.

But you went off on what ifs. Your whole advice is based on what if assumptions.

Fittle

Butterflylove wrote: »

Fittle,

There is very little some men can do when a situution like this happens, they have no rights when it comes to enforcing the mother and child to meet at agreed times and places

It can become very easy for a mother to turn a father 'evil' if he doesnt live locally and rarely sees the child, Im not saying this man is right in the path he chose but at least his wants to make sure his child does not feel like her father didnt contributed to her life, its bad enough he's not around.

For every two bad fathers theres one who will do what ever seems like the right thing to do at the time to make sure their child is happy?

Isnt better that this man backed off when it was clear he wasnt welcome - not allowing the child to meet her father at agreed times and places made feel like he is better off just giving up and letting her live her life with her 'new' family to end her suffering of agruements?

You may not agree it was better for the child that her father take a back seat instead of constand agruements and fighting and the child having to be placed in the middle but her father did, and now all he wants to make sure she is looked after in and provided for in the only way he can through his pocket,

I dont personally think he should be ''attacked'' for that.

Yes, I agree 100% that in some situations, there is little a man can do and it can be easy for a woman to tell the child he is 'evil', particularly when the man is not seeing much of the child.

But I disagree that it was better for the child that he chose to abandon her. In this post, his concern is that his maintenance payments are 'tracked' - that's it. He hasn't mentioned wanting to see the child again - in fact he's very happy that the child has a new daddy.

The child won't always be a child and what a waste of a father/daughter relationship for her (and him) when he tells her as a young adult 'Oh, your mam told you I was evil, so I thought it best that I just left you, for someone else to raise, even though I've always known where you live, but your mother changed her number, and I couldn't think of a way of contacting you...'

Someone mentioned William Shatner earlier - I'm sure he feels he should have stuck around all those years ago. If you love your child, you stick around, no matter how many people tell the child you're evil - you stick around so that the child realises that you're not evil at all because in time, the truth will always come out.

Butterflylove

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont either, if in fact that is what happened. But alot of people on this thread are assuming that, based on a couple of fragments of info, and it is the assumption of other posters that is being attacked, not the OP.

Of course some mothers also give up for the same reasons that a father who walks does, too much stress, health problems, anxiety carried over to the child, and unstable parenting plan, abusiveness, etc etc.

Of course sure no one really knows whats really going on and what the OP has told us,

OP came looking for advice and while people have their own opinions theres no point in attacking him over something thats done and dusted, and I also think its unfair to attack people who have giving their opinion that others may not agree,

Fittle, from personal experience Im glad my niece decide to cut contact with her father she has been very happy since and has herself a 'new daddy' she doesnt hate her father for treating her the way he did she understands that some people just arent cut out to be parents at the end of the day he will still be her father but as far as she's concerned she has a daddy at home,

It would have been a waste of a childhood if she was constandly stuck in a battle between her parents, courts and money etc, Im glad she has a chance to have a happy childhood and if she wants, get in touch with her father when she is older.

Im not saying what you said isnt true in some cases as well! Im just speaking from personal experience like yourself

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

But I disagree that it was better for the child that he chose to abandon her. In this post, his concern is that his maintenance payments are 'tracked' - that's it. He hasn't mentioned wanting to see the child again - in fact he's very happy that the child has a new daddy.

It's perfectly valid that he should ask about the legal implications.

Additionally, he stated from the onset that he had given up having access to his daughter. His attitude may have been vastly different before he had given up. All this you gloss over in your assessment.

If you love your child, you stick around, no matter how many people tell the child you're evil - you stick around so that the child realises that you're not evil at all because in time, the truth will always come out.

I think you are repeatedly ignoring the reality of such scenarios. It's not a simple question of the child being told that the father is 'evil', but a concerted and long term campaign of obstruction and separation.

Such wars of attrition pay dividends too; the more you obstruct access, delay agreement, engender parental alienation, the less likely that a court will find in favour of a father. A mother may breach a court order to the point a child will never see his child long enough that even if she is chastised (seldom if ever anything else) by a judge for doing so, the same judge will end up seeing continuing attempts at access as disruptive.

In such scenarios, a father cannot stick around. He's nowhere near the child because he's being actively been kept away and the child can never learn that he was not 'evil'. He can send gifts or cards or whatever, but the child will never receive them or learn that they came from him. So he can bang his head against a brick wall only so long before he realizes there's no hope.

Again, I would ask you to put yourself in the shoes of a man in such a situation; The law is of no use. Your access is limited or negligible and potentially more disruptive than beneficial. The constant conflict (where you have no hope of winning) is destroying any chance at normality in your life - or even taking its toll on your health. You're getting nowhere. You're at this stage causing more harm than good. There is no solution.

What would you do?

Fittle

And I can say that my own son is probably a much more well-rounded kid, because his dad isn't involved (he's never heard us argue etc). We all know cases like this, where hindsight is invaluable, but ultimately, the child has been rejected by their father, no matter how much arguing would have gone on between the parents.

I was watching Oprah yesterday (I'd a day off:)) and there was a guy on who was discussing his own, crazy childhood (beatings and abuse were the norm, his mother shot his step-dad in front of him), but he said himself that if somebody tried to remove him from the home, he would have fought tooth and nail to stay. Because ultimately, no matter how bad the arguing is - all young children have a need in them to know, and be loved by both parents (my own son included:()

This post isn't about him rejecting his child though - it's also not about him wanting to ensure the child is financially provided for - it's about him wanting proof that he's still trying to pay the maintenance.