shybaby, over here(10 Posts)
contact opinions were introduced as once again misinformation by disinterested in the childs actual welfare parties were suggesting that mybump's ex was saying he wanted shared residence and mybump had interpretted this or had been told that this meant shared care too. I can read from her OP that she is hurting and confused and upset, so the last thing she needs is people to be telling her to don't give him anything, and basically telling the ex to F off. this suits no-one. mybump needs to be in control, she says she still loves him so emotions will be running high, start on the road to denying anything and you end up with one depressed, stressed and even more upset new mum, just what her new baby needs? if mybump goes down the route that many have suggested, she is opening up a wound for herself and the baby that will be hard to heal for many years if at all. whatever some mothers think, a child has a right to contact with its father and by going down the route many suggested, that child will suffer. contact is the most important issue mybump has to solve, shared res is nothing really in legal terms in relation to actual care arrangements and rights. PR sorts out the rights part for virtually every situation that may arise. what mybump needs to do is to take control and not be dictated too by her ex and his solicitors. there is a probability that his sols are telling him that he will get shared res so they can maintain their money stream. sols do not act for the child, they act for the parent so when 2 parents go to court, the child who is the most important one out of the lot is the only one not heard or represented. sols make more money from confrontation. if a case goes to mediation and gets settled quickly they don't get money, if a case lasts for years through this confrontation, they make a bundle, my sol made £50k out of me and exs sol made £32K out of her. if on first meeting my exs sol had not told her to stop all contact and deny me PR, but to assign PR voluntarily (the court ordered PR in the end as she refused and the court caned her for it) then mediation may have worked and instead of spending 18 months back and forth in court racking up those £82K of costs, the sols together may have got a few thousand out of it. working out contact NOW will save a whole lot of trouble ahead, right when mybump don't need it. with reason and thought, mybump can put a tentative arrangement in place on her terms. it is probably the case that her ex and his new G/f don't actually want shared res/shared care and if the new G/f is only 17 she aint gonna want to spend time round someone elses baby and probably wont be happy for dad to be spending that much time either. if you don't give dad a chance to be a dad, he will more than likely not want to be a dad, involve him and he will more likely be amenable in the future and co-operative and more supportive both in time and money.
if she doesn't try, she may end up with a court enforced order that she does not want or like and that dad doesn't really want either, and what about the child? parents warring around him, tension, stress, just what a baby needs to thrive.
at this stage, contact is the only thing that needs sorting, and she can with forethought, leave that quite ambiguous until after the birth if she is seen to be reasonable now.
a baby needs contact with its father even in the very first few hours after birth otherwise it can be estranged somewhat. mybump may or may not allow him at the birth but she needs to make arrangements as to when contact starts now so that it is not something she has to think about at a very traumatic time that is the birth of a baby and the following hours, days and weeks.
mybump introduced contact in her OP by saying the baby would spend as much time with fathers new G/f as with her, I bought it into the open as the topic that needed sorting amicably now so it will be on mybumps terms and no-one elses. as solidbrass says, sort it now amicably and if dad feels he is being treated fairly, he will be amenable to whatever mybump proposes and will settle for increasing contact as time goes on and on mybumps own schedule, not one enforced by a judge who does not live in the real world and mostly do not have a clue.
confrontation and denial only benefits the legal profession, it only does harm to mum, dad and most importantly, baby. mybump can take what I say or ignore, its only suggestion, but if I can help I will do, if you read some other posts on that thread you will see that there have been people telling her what to do, and in her vulnerable state, thats the last thing she needs
Amen. Avoid confrontation and courts like the plague if at all possible.
I took my ex to court after she denied contact. And she refused to talk to many times. And she refused professional mediation twice.
I had (and still have) no faith in the courts, but being backed into a corner by my ex and had nothing to lose. Courts only increase acrimony and strife and are the `nuclear button' of post-relationship relationships.
I don't think anyone was saying she should tell the x to fuck off. I think the point people were trying to make was that the OP was looking for people to sympathise with her, not throw a load of legal info at her.
And it would help if you put a few more paragraph breaks in your posts
if you have people telling her to not ''don't give him shared residence'' its a pointer towards telling him to F off. its her pregnancy but their baby.
if mybump does not have the legal stuff pointed out to her now when she has a chance to sort it before the very busy and traumatic time of birth, then she will not get it sorted in time and will suffer more stress and heartache in the long run. some of the posts on her thread were saying things that were totally wrong and misleading for her, not what she needs as this may cause her to do something that backfires on her and her baby at a later date. surely if the contact etc is sorted now, it will give mybump the chance to enjoy and bond with baby without fear or stress of court battles?
I apologise if I am not articulate enough, but in the grand scheme of things, paragraghs hardly rate as an importance surely?
my thoughts and suggestions are with baby and mother in mind and what may be best all round for everyone involved. I have no hidden agenda or motives nor do I involve my own experiences in what I suggest.
I have offered mybump an alternative to confrontation and acrimony which she is free to ignore or pursue at her discretion.
sometimes, when someone cries for help and appear to need sympathy, the worst thing you can do is to feed that need. if no-one else had offered sympathy, I would not have made my suggestions as I did but as others had posted, I offered a different view. some people when offered sympathy, false hope and wrong advice, head into a downward spiral that is hard to get out of in the long term, I have suggested a way to avoid confrontation, and set the base for a co-operative parenting plan that will benefit all. by doing this, mybump will be in control ,not the courts because as I said and lostdad says as well, courts offer acrimony and strife, and often they throw up judgements that do not suit either parent or baby, why go down this route if you can avoid it?
the clues are in the post, 17 year old new g/f, new baby, dad going to sols, mum confused and hurting because of the separation, think about what was written and how it was written, I did and my extensive investigative training led me to summise certain things, which I tailored my suggestions to.
It's got nothing to do with being articulate - I just find really long passages of text hard to read. Surely you want people to read what you've written?
I don't know the legal ins and outs and so I'm sure your advice is very useful. Shared residence does seem to imply that the baby should spend 1/2 its time with its dad which may not be the case (I think that's what you're saying). I don't think that's very realistic with a newborn, sorry. I don't think it's good for the baby. Women bear children, give birth and breastfeed them. While I agree fathers are important, if they are not resident for whatever reason, then I think they need to accept that primary relationship is going to be with the mother in the first few months.
I'm not trying to exclude fathers but I think accepting that would go a long way to help in these sorts of situations which are obviously very difficult for all concerned.
as gilly and myself have said, shared residence does not mean shared care, never has done, it is a common misconception by solicitors to enforce a state of animosity. shared residence means equal parents only, nothing else. residence and care are 2 separate issues when going through a court. if you read what I have said many times, I have never suggested that dad takes baby out of mothers home for more than a quick walk, and have said that even a court will not sanction overnights but may sanction days and tell mum to express milk so dad can feed, which you will agree is not a suitable experience for either baby or mother?
my suggestions are for mum to be in control of when, where and how dad sees baby, something she will loose control of if she listens to some of the 'advice' on here and ends up in court with dad.
It's a really crap term then isn't it?! It's bloody confusing. I didn't mean to suggest that's what you were saying, just that it is what the term 'shared residence' implies.
I think we're in agreement
Yep - it is a crap term!
Shared residence has nothing to do with the amount of time a child spends with each time. It is a legal recognition that the parents are of equal status (which quite frankly is what should be the case if both mum and dad have PR.
Maybe 50/50 care does suit some children - but each case should be treated on its own merits and being dogmatic about the time a child spends with each parent is not the way forward.
I've never understood why my ex cannot see that I am an ally of hers - someone who loves our son as much as she does and someone who will move heaven and earth for him.
unfortunately lostdad, some people treat children like possessions
yes spicemonster, we are allies as we both want what is best for baby and mybump alike.
shared res is a totally useless term but is being used more and more within the legal profession as a ''bone'' as in ''throw the dog a bone and he will be happy'' type of way. whatever some people think of my suggestions, my only concern is for the baby's welfare and therefore that of both parents. lostdad has it in one, each scenario is unique and individual and should be treated as such. if you don't explore the possibilities but go for the one size fits all solution, then you have unhappy mothers, children, fathers and a society full of confused mixed up kids.
Join the discussion
Please login first.