Judge sends children to Australia with mother and tells father to talk to them via th

metrovelvet

James Jones wrote: »

No doubt you'll be able to quote from the Convention?


The important thing to consider when Courts are involved is that they don't really care for emotions. Both courts would try and get the other to take responsibility so the legal argument would win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_on_the_Civil_Aspects_of_International_Child_Abduction

The Convention mandates return of any child who was “habitually resident” in a contracting nation immediately before an action that constitutes a breach of custody or access rights. The Convention does not define the term “habitual residence,” but it is not intended to be a technical term. Instead, courts should broadly read the term in the context of the Convention’s purpose to discourage unilateral removal of a child from that place in which the child lived when removed or retained, which should generally be understood as the child’s “ordinary residence.” The child’s “habitual residence” is not determined after the incident alleged to constitute a wrongful removal or retention. A parent cannot unilaterally create a new habitual residence by wrongfully removing or sequestering a child. Because the determination of “habitual residence” is primarily a “fact based” determination and not one which is encumbered by legal technicalities, the court must look at those facts, the shared intentions of the parties, the history of the children’s location and the settled nature of the family prior to the facts giving rise to the request for return.[8]

So... what exactly are Ireland's terms for Habitual Residency? Should we ask social welfare?

James Jones

metrovelvet wrote: »

James Jones wrote: »

metrovelvet wrote: »

The Hague convention rests on residency. It would depend on how long Poland requires one to be there before residency is established.Chances are he would not be successful with it under the Hague convention

No doubt you'll be able to quote from the Convention?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_on_the_Civil_Aspects_of_International_Child_Abduction

The Convention mandates return of any child who was “habitually resident” in a contracting nation immediately before an action that constitutes a breach of custody or access rights.

In the scenario I created, the child was conceived and born in Ireland and did not go to Poland until after an action that constitutes a breach of custody or access rights so chances are he would be successful.
I also notice that there is no mention of the mother-child bond.

metrovelvet

James Jones wrote: »

In the scenario I created, the child was conceived and born in Ireland and did not go to Poland until after an action that constitutes a breach of custody or access rights so chances are he would be successful.
I also notice that there is no mention of the mother-child bond.

No it wouldnt unless residency was already established in Ireland. But can anyone tell me what is the length of time required to establish habitual residency in Ireland?

Where the child was conceived has nothing to do with anything. Where the child was born does only inso far as citizenship entitlements. You might have two foreign nationals with a child born here and one goes abroad with the child and the other stays here. Ireland is in the EU now, with lots of different nationalities, you have to start thinking outside of what you are used to as the normal IRish family. Its not like it was in 1964 when the act was created.

No breach of custody without a custody order either.

The mother child bond has nothing to do with the Hague convention, never said it did. I was referring to Irish courts.

January

James Jones and metrovelvet, could you please take this to PM. I don't want this thread going around in circles with a debate which eventually ends in it closing because it's turned into the same old fathers rights debate thread.

OUTOFSYNC

Metrovelvet is right

It is not about where the child was conceived or born it is about where the child was habitually resident.

Also Even If a child is deemed habitually resident under Irish law - BUT the Hague convention trial is taking place in another country (e.g. Australia) then the Australian judge hearing the case might likely decide that Australian Habitual Residency rules apply which are probably different to Irish rules.

James Jones

OUTOFSYNC wrote: »

Metrovelvet is right

in your opinion.

OUTOFSYNC wrote: »

It is not about where the child was conceived or born it is about where the child was habitually resident.

So where is the habitual residence of a child born in Ireland to a Polish mother and an Irish father who both lived in Ireland at the time of the birth?

OUTOFSYNC wrote: »

Also Even If a child is deemed habitually resident under Irish law - BUT the Hague convention trial is taking place in another country (e.g. Australia) then the Australian judge hearing the case might likely decide that Australian Habitual Residency rules apply which are probably different to Irish rules.

It seems you haven't read the excerpt of the Hague Convention posted by metrovelvet:

The Convention does not define the term “habitual residence,” but it is not intended to be a technical term. Instead, courts should broadly read the term in the context of the Convention’s purpose to discourage unilateral removal of a child from that place in which the child lived when removed or retained, which should generally be understood as the child’s “ordinary residence.”

OUTOFSYNC

Metrovelvet was right in relation to the Hague convention [where the child LIVED is the most important consideration].

It can be tricky to define habitual or ordinary residence for infants. In my opinion an Irish man and polish woman who have a baby while both habitually resident in Ireland would have an child that is habitually resident in Ireland.

However there is legal argument in some jurisdictions to say that when two parents cannot agree on the habitual residence of an infant then no habitual residence exists (for the infant) so therefore the Hague convention does not apply.

If this is how a Polish Judge sees it (if an Irish man made an application for his child to be returned from poland after his wife left him and took or retained the baby there) then the Hague convention would not apply.

Orion

James Jones: Replying to another poster to try to bypass a mod instruction isn't fooling anyone. Final warning.

You are also habitually using this forum to soapbox on a specific issue and offer very little other input apart from derailing threads into father's rights debates. This is now becoming a short fuse.

metrovelvet

OUTOFSYNC wrote: »

Metrovelvet was right in relation to the Hague convention [where the child LIVED is the most important consideration].

It can be tricky to define habitual or ordinary residence for infants. In my opinion an Irish man and polish woman who have a baby while both habitually resident in Ireland would have an child that is habitually resident in Ireland.

However there is legal argument in some jurisdictions to say that when two parents cannot agree on the habitual residence of an infant then no habitual residence exists (for the infant) so therefore the Hague convention does not apply.

If this is how a Polish Judge sees it (if an Irish man made an application for his child to be returned from poland after his wife left him and took or retained the baby there) then the Hague convention would not apply.

It would really depend on what Ireland's residency requirements are. For example, if it takes a year to establish residency in Ireland and the custodial parent relocates before a year sets in after the child is born [as the child's residency has not been established at that point], then the Hague convention does not apply. It would get tricky with married or cohabitating parents since there are no custody assignments as such and they are both assumed to be custodians so in that case I think there could be a possible case for calling on the Hague convention.

rolly1

metrovelvet wrote: »

Except rolly that Ireland has signed up to international agreements, unlike those countries under Sharia Law.

See the thread on abduction. Once that child is removed and taken to one of those countries, no one can do anything about it.

If the children too are citizens of other countries, than there's no reason to believe that the Irish courts can force them to live in Ireland. Also remember that Ireland's citizenship laws are all over the place.

Just as much as that father could move to Australia, and then she could leave again, she could be forced to stay in the UK and he could bunk off.

If you are correct rolly about guardianship, being a citizen of another country as is my son, there would be no way in hell I would agree to being trapped in this country by way of some outdated guardianship act.

I'm not talking about the criminal act of child abduction which carries the following penalties under the 1997 Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act:



(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.


I'm talking about law abiding citizens going through the court process.

I'm also talking about the vast majority of cases which concern Irish citizens, or more importantly where the child is an Irish citizen. I don't know what the situation would be where the child is not an Irish citizen.

The act is current law, regardless of your opinion of it.

metrovelvet

Aside from all the legal theory, I find the disturbing part of this judgement [even though I do think the kids are better off in Australia, and certainly think an Irish child would be] is that SKYPE is now an accepted substitute for a real relationship. Do people really believe this?

rolly1

metrovelvet wrote: »

Aside from all the legal theory, I find the disturbing part of this judgement [even though I do think the kids are better off in Australia, and certainly think an Irish child would be] is that SKYPE is now an accepted substitute for a real relationship. Do people really believe this?

Does it really matter when you believe that the children are better off nearly 10,000 miles from their father?

The disturbing part of this judgement is some people's response to it.

Splendour

James Jones wrote: »

T

See report by DR. ANN EGAN who observed 158 cases in all in the District and Circuit Family Courts for the purpose of a PhD:


It is important to be aware, when reading about so-called "Joint Custody" in Ireland that it is always followed with the rider "with main care and residence to the mother", which means that, following separation, children live with mum while dad moves out and pays maintenance.

I don't need to read any reports; I'm divorced and my ex husband has custody of one of our sons.

metrovelvet

rolly1 wrote: »

Does it really matter when you believe that the children are better off nearly 10,000 miles from their father?

The disturbing part of this judgement is some people's response to it.

Well, what do you expect? Im a single parent. I have to believe that they will be ok, regardless of his distance, especially as he doesnt have much of a relationship with his kids in the first place.

Klingon Hamlet

We don't know the reasoning behind his limited relationship with his children. For all we know, he could be a deviant, or he could have been blocked from access.

So to comment on that aspect of the case is pointless.

The reason I posted this thread was simply because I do not believe it fair to grant one parent the right to head half-way across the globe with children and leave the other to resort to webcam contact and a few weeks a year.

I also wanted to gather the opinions of fellow Boardsies to see what you felt about it.

I know myself that if my son were whisked away and I was to resort to the screen of my PC to see him, I'd be devastated beyond words.

What do these children do when they want to hug their dad? They learn to do without his affection. And that's plain cruel.

metrovelvet

Kingon,

I tend to agree with you, once a relationship is formed that its not right to break it up like this. IMHO if both parents are to take this seriously, they should both commit to living in the same city. But if no relationship has been formed, then really what is the point of keeping them there?

Saying that, what is your opinion of dads who move ten thousand miles away themselves to reduce it all down to SKYPE? Do you think they should be court ordered to stay in the same proximity as their children?

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Kingon,

I tend to agree with you, once a relationship is formed that its not right to break it up like this. IMHO if both parents are to take this seriously, they should both commit to living in the same city. But if no relationship has been formed, then really what is the point of keeping them there?

Saying that, what is your opinion of dads who move ten thousand miles away themselves to reduce it all down to SKYPE? Do you think they should be court ordered to stay in the same proximity as their children?

Sometimes relationships don't form because the custodial parent blocks the other parent or parental alienation comes into play. If that's the case in this instance, then using that emotional distance to justify a real-world distance is simply making a bad situation far worse.

The point of keeping them there is keeping them closed to their family. Family comes first.

Ordering a parent to stay close to a child they don't love is an exercise in futility. Because a parent fleeing abroad doesn't love their child and is a coward. As is a parent that flees with a child. Obviously there are exceptions in times of danger---and these should be dealt with accordingly---but frankly webcam relationships are a joke, and I hope I never face the day when that's all I have.

padr81

Macros42 wrote: »

I don't know. tbh I don't think there's enough information (typical Daily Mail). Is the mother Australian? The fact that the rag doesn't say where she's from leads to believe she is.

There's another factor at play here - the right to travel. I think a judge would have to seriously think long and hard before restricting that right. If she has custody then the children would travel with her. You could look at it from another perspective - the judge is not allowing her to take them - he is reversing a previous decision to restrict her right to travel with her children - a decision that he says is "plainly wrong". imo he's right in this regard.

He also said that he believes it is in the best interests of the children and he may be right. If the mother is depressed that would not be in the childrens' interests either.

As a father myself, I can empathise and sympathise with this man but the mother is not deliberately cutting him out of the childrens' lives. He can keep in touch with them and will get 1 month a year. This is not the 80s - with modern technology they can talk face to face regularly. It's obviously not ideal but it's still possible to keep up a relationship with them.

Based on the information given and trying to think objectively I have to side with the mother & judge.

People might say im wrong but had the shoe being on the other foot, theirs no way in HELL, the father would be allowed to move the kids at the mothers objection. This decision harks back to bad times when parenting was mainly the "job" of the mother.

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Sometimes relationships don't form because the custodial parent blocks the other parent or parental alienation comes into play. If that's the case in this instance, then using that emotional distance to justify a real-world distance is simply making a bad situation far worse.

The point of keeping them there is keeping them closed to their family. Family comes first.

Ordering a parent to stay close to a child they don't love is an exercise in futility. Because a parent fleeing abroad doesn't love their child and is a coward. As is a parent that flees with a child. Obviously there are exceptions in times of danger---and these should be dealt with accordingly---but frankly webcam relationships are a joke, and I hope I never face the day when that's all I have.

I agree webcam relationships are a joke. You wouldnt accept it from a lover why a parent?

OUTOFSYNC

WebCam interactions form an important link between myself and my 3 year old.

She is in North America with her mother, who did not return to Ireland after a holiday, 2 years ago.

I've made 17 transatlantic trips and have been to court numerous times which is still ongoing. The bond has been maintained with my daughter and she is still delighted everytime she sees me [much to her mothers annoyance].

I do webcam 3 times a week - Its been a success in that the visual connection with the regular physical contact have maintained the relationship thus far despite what Ive been lead to believe by child psychologists. The mother co-operates in that she switches the computer on but still occasionally sabotages the calls - I also worry as the kid grows how to maintain her interest.

That said I am very glad that skype exists.

metrovelvet

OUTOFSYNC wrote: »

WebCam interactions form an important link between myself and my 3 year old.

She is in North America with her mother, who did not return to Ireland after a holiday, 2 years ago.

I've made 17 transatlantic trips and have been to court numerous times which is still ongoing. The bond has been maintained with my daughter and she is still delighted everytime she sees me [much to her mothers annoyance].

I do webcam 3 times a week - Its been a success in that the visual connection with the regular physical contact have maintained the relationship thus far despite what Ive been lead to believe by child psychologists. The mother co-operates in that she switches the computer on but still occasionally sabotages the calls - I also worry as the kid grows how to maintain her interest.

That said I am very glad that skype exists.

Wouldnt you be even gladder if your daughter was in the same city or country as you?

I know with citizenship problems this may be impossible.

How did life get so sad?

Call me old fashioned but people should work it out for the kids, bar cruelty. If you dont get on, work it out. It's worth it and the kids are worth it. Not lecturing you specifically, but seriously I dont think people have notion of what the consequences of their decisions like this do to their kids.

Your post makes me sad.

OUTOFSYNC

metrovelvet wrote: »

Wouldnt you be even gladder if your daughter was in the same city or country as you?

I know with citizenship problems this may be impossible.

How did life get so sad?

Call me old fashioned but people should work it out for the kids, bar cruelty. If you dont get on, work it out. It's worth it and the kids are worth it. Not lecturing you specifically, but seriously I dont think people have notion of what the consequences of their decisions like this do to their kids.

Your post makes me sad.

I would love if we could work it out....all attempts thus far have failed. I focused on the kid in the short term and it has worked [for her]. However I am exhausted and pursing it through court was my last resort.

metrovelvet

OUTOFSYNC wrote: »

I would love if we could work it out....all attempts thus far have failed. I focused on the kid in the short term and it has worked [for her]. However I am exhausted and pursing it through court was my last resort.

I don't know if you are talking about Canada or the US when you say North America but in the US the courts are never a last resort. Without the courts, no one has any rights at all so you have to get the courts to back you up. Thats just how its done, even if you get it done through mediation or whatever, the agreements still need to be backed by the courts, they are always a direct part of the process and not a last resort.

polly78

I completely agree with this judgement. Unless someone can prove that the mother is unfit to be a mother then she is the most beneficial carer for the child. If her life takes her into another country so be it. I think men are sometimes a bit naive or choose not to think about this when they have children. It's ultimately a girls choice to have a child, she controls most of the planning and production of (sorry that that sounds cold). I would stand by this opinion regardless if it were my brother or my own son in a similar position.

BTW I would always insist on a child having a relationship with his/her father ordinarily.

Klingon Hamlet

polly78 wrote: »

I completely agree with this judgement. Unless someone can prove that the mother is unfit to be a mother then she is the most beneficial carer for the child. If her life takes her into another country so be it. I think men are sometimes a bit naive or choose not to think about this when they have children. It's ultimately a girls choice to have a child, she controls most of the planning and production of (sorry that that sounds cold). I would stand by this opinion regardless if it were my brother or my own son in a similar position.

BTW I would always insist on a child having a relationship with his/her father ordinarily.

Why is a mother automatically the most beneficial? Surely that's sexism at it's worst?! I love my son to bits and I care for him just as well as his mother does.

Are you saying gender defines ability to parent?!

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Why is a mother automatically the most beneficial? Surely that's sexism at it's worst?! I love my son to bits and I care for him just as well as his mother does.

Are you saying gender defines ability to parent?!

Its also sexism that the woman has to carry and nurse the child? Is it sexism that she has to give birth to the child? Is it sexism that she takes all the risks to do so?

Surely that's sexism at its worst.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its also sexism that the woman has to carry and nurse the child? Is it sexism that she has to give birth to the child? Is it sexism that she takes all the risks to do so?

Surely that's sexism at its worst.

Are you for real:rolleyes::P

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Are you for real:rolleyes::P

Just because something is sexist doesnt make it inaccurate, the same can go for any IST comment, like the Irish like to drink. Racist, but true.

Orion

Time to get a room you two. Take it to PM and get back on topic please.

I think this thread has a limited lifespan due to it being dragged off topic too often. OUTOFSYNC has brought a new perspective to the thread - let's go with that instead of man vs woman debates.

thebullkf

Macros42 wrote: »

Time to get a room you two. Take it to PM and get back on topic please.

I think this thread has a limited lifespan due to it being dragged off topic too often. OUTOFSYNC has brought a new perspective to the thread - let's go with that instead of man vs woman debates.

one of the reasons i stopped posting here- that and metrovelvets refusal to answer certain questions,or respond to certain queries but instead make wild generalisations..
On topic- OUTOFSYNC all i can say is fair play:):):).

Must be extremely tough:( but you've made trojan efforts thus far to stay in touch. One hopes the mother realises this,and hopefully you can bring her over here for an extended holiday?

padr81

polly78 wrote: »

I completely agree with this judgement. Unless someone can prove that the mother is unfit to be a mother then she is the most beneficial carer for the child. If her life takes her into another country so be it. I think men are sometimes a bit naive or choose not to think about this when they have children. It's ultimately a girls choice to have a child, she controls most of the planning and production of (sorry that that sounds cold). I would stand by this opinion regardless if it were my brother or my own son in a similar position.

BTW I would always insist on a child having a relationship with his/her father ordinarily.

Its nothing to do with the mother being unfit its to do with the father being equally fit to raise the child and not getting his fair chance. Are you for real that a fit mother is a more beneficial parent than a fit father?

No man with custody of a child would be allowed to bring them away from a fit mother with normal access so why should a woman? No I'm afraid when you have a child your life should become secondary to theirs and maybe i'm old fashioned but dragging them away from another fit parent isn't in any way beneficial. I know plenty of fathers who've had to turn down jobs in other countries, so they could be with their kids. I know 2 Polish dads to irish kids, who'd love to go home "where their life takes them", but they put their kids first.

As for its ultimately a girls choice well I'm afraid its not. In fact i'd say most children are either the choice of both parents or on occasion the choice of neither.

And how exactly does she control the production?

polly78

Yes I am for real in my opinion a fit mother is without doubt a more benficial parent than a fit father.

It is ultimately the girl who controls whether or not to have a baby. It develops inside her and this, imo creates a bond far stronger than that of a man with his children.

Klingon Hamlet

Would you reckon there's a possibility of the father getting his children back? By applying to the Australian courts for full custody.

metrovelvet

Based on the minimal info we have, no I wouldnt. I could see a court order for her to bring the kids back for visits or for her to be open to him visiting the kids in Australian or when they are old enough for them to travel as unaccompanied minors to Britain during school breaks. But full custody, sincerely doubt it.

polly78

Lets not forget that the children wanted to go with their mother.
Also a year is not really that long and the guy would probably have more quality time with the kiddies in a whole month than in weekend visits. I would think a man is better equipped to deal with this than a girl would be.

Klingon Hamlet

polly78 wrote: »

I would think a man is better equipped to deal with this than a girl would be.

You would be wrong. Being a dad's the same as being a mum in every way, seriously. It's a shame they can't all be close:(

polly78

Of course it is, as all relationship breakdowns with kids involved are.

I don't think you can categorically state that what you quoted me on is wrong as you do not know the feelings of a mother (I also don't fully know a guys) I am fairly confident though and would, I suspect, be backed by the majority in that a girl having carried and given birth to the child feels more.
My own ex partner would have loved to have had full custody of our son but he would never have separated me from my child (this guy is no pushover either) and would agree with you on how strong a fathers feelings are. I have always respected and admired him for recognising that difference. I also believe that if I wanted to leave the country for very real reasons he would not prevent it.

rolly1

polly78 wrote: »

My own ex partner would have loved to have had full custody of our son but he would never have separated me from my child (this guy is no pushover either) and would agree with you on how strong a fathers feelings are. I have always respected and admired him for recognising that difference. I also believe that if I wanted to leave the country for very real reasons he would not prevent it.

I wouldn't bet on it. Having spoken to many men who have gone through this, most of whom who would have had a reasonable relationship with the mother beforehand, everything changes and the battle lines harden very quickly once as this form of parental terrorism is visited upon them.

I hope you succeed outofsync, best of luck.

OUTOFSYNC

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Would you reckon there's a possibility of the father getting his children back? By applying to the Australian courts for full custody.

I dont know the circumstances of the case but even if the fathers relationship wasn't embryonic I very much doubt it. Although things are changing (very slowly) it is still rare for courts to remove children from their mother. The mother has to really really mess up for the father to get custody.

I dont know whats going to happen in my own case, my daughter is still close to me (loves when I am there with her). Webcam works in that she sees me - sometimes she loves it - sometimes she is distracted. Longer term - I worry especially as her mother is still so resistant.

metrovelvet

At least North America isnt Australia. Assuming its the east coast, its a five or six hour trip.

Why is her mother resistent?

How often can one do the Australia trips realistically speaking? Its expensive and its a HUGE trip. Once a year? The rest is SKYPE?

I wonder if judges and emmigrants would think twice about these things if SKYPE didnt exist.

OUTOFSYNC

metrovelvet wrote: »

At least North America isnt Australia. Assuming its the east coast, its a five or six hour trip.

Why is her mother resistent?

How often can one do the Australia trips realistically speaking? Its expensive and its a HUGE trip. Once a year? The rest is SKYPE?

I wonder if judges and emmigrants would think twice about these things if SKYPE didnt exist.

Its the east coast but realistically it takes 24 to 36 hours to get there - and about 18 hours to get back [Theres always an over night on the way over and I sleep on the plane on the way back].

In terms of skype - I can glad it exists (and face time) and whatever else will become available over the next few years, however it is no substitute for a real relationship. A Regular physcial presence is essential.

I dont know why the mother is so resistant ? Malice? Difficult family background? she has no relationship with her father? Its inconvenient....I dont know I can only guess.

I dont want this for my kid.

metrovelvet

No body wants this for their kid. But you may have to accept it, like we all do for the cards dealt to them.

I feel for everyone in these circumstances.

Its exhausting and painful for the dads.

The kids are missing out.

Its disruptive and painful for the mother [you know.. the tear wiping and acting out after daddy leaves...]

It sucks. Everyone is a loser.

I knew a guy a flew to London from NYC every weekend to see his kid. He would have emigrated if he could have, but its not that easy, [US isnt on the former colony list of citizenship entitlements]

rolly1

metrovelvet wrote: »

No body wants this for their kid. But you may have to accept it, like we all do for the cards dealt to them.

I feel for everyone in these circumstances.

Its exhausting and painful for the dads.

The kids are missing out.

Its disruptive and painful for the mother [you know.. the tear wiping and acting out after daddy leaves...]

It sucks. Everyone is a loser.

I knew a guy a flew to London from NYC every weekend to see his kid. He would have emigrated if he could have, but its not that easy, [US isnt on the former colony list of citizenship entitlements]

Back up the truck there a minute. From what OUTOFSYNC has posted his daughter was taken without his consent and without any court process to live permanently in another country.
I assume from his posts that he is now going through the courts to prove that she did in fact commit the criminal act of child abduction.

My level of acceptance of what is potentially criminal behaviour is zero.

If someone, for the want of a better word, robbed your child would you just accept it too? This thread gets more jaw dropping by the day..

metrovelvet

It takes two years to establish habitual residency in Ireland. If she was under two the custodial parent can take her back to North America especially if the custodial parent was already a resident of North America.

For all you know she went back when she was pregnant.

polly78

rolly1 wrote: »

This thread gets more jaw dropping by the day..

I said in an earlier post that men are naive or don't stop to think before the child is born of these possible scenarios.

K-9

polly78 wrote: »

I said in an earlier post that men are naive or don't stop to think before the child is born of these possible scenarios.

Obviously women don't either!

Orion

metrovelvet wrote: »

For all you know she went back when she was pregnant.

She went two years ago and the child is three. I'm not a maths professor but I can work that one out.

polly78 wrote: »

I said in an earlier post that men are naive or don't stop to think before the child is born of these possible scenarios.

K-9 wrote: »

Obviously women don't either!

Enough.
I really am loathe to close this thread because there is some value in the debate and some good points made.
So the next "boys rule girls drool" argument is going to result in a vacation from this forum. No more warnings.

rolly1 wrote: »

This thread gets more jaw dropping by the day..

I can't agree more. While loathe to close the thread it's dancing on the line and as I said earlier it's lifespan is ticking away. It's just taking up too much time now.

K-9

Macros42 wrote: »

She went two years ago and the child is three. I'm not a maths professor but I can work that one out.




Enough.
I really am loathe to close this thread because there is some value in the debate and some good points made.
So the next "boys rule girls drool" argument is going to result in a vacation from this forum. No more warnings.


I can't agree more. While loathe to close the thread it's dancing on the line and as I said earlier it's lifespan is ticking away. It's just taking up too much time now.

Apologies, I was being too flippant, generalising about a generalisation.

It's just a very sad case all round and an example of unfair life can turn out, not much else though!

deceit

I was in the same situation as this with my ex but I decided too let her go as it was only germany as she was unhappy here and I still get too see him for about a week every 1-2months, (its heart breaking everytime I have too leave and it upsets him also, he's nearly 3).
If she was from australia I would never let her go unless I was able too move over and get a job and think it would be a stupid decision by the judge too let this happen
(but only if the father is actually participating in the childs life, like seeing him every weekends, but from the story you never know it could just be that he never deals with the kid and they just want too make a story out of it).

tenchi-fan

That's a disgrace. He's their father, not a tamagochi.