to request my daughters dad visits her during term-time instead of her travelling 500miles every other week

[LexyLea]

I am currently in dispute with my ex-husband who insists that our daughter travels to his home every other week. I believe this is unreasonable towards our daughter for 3 main reasons 1) the distance, my ex-husband lives 250 miles away and I believe driving there & back every other week would be unfair on our daughter, 2) her age, at 3 years old I believe the distance and the length of time in the car (not to mention dangerous moterways etc) would not be fair, and 3) the fact that she gets travel sick, to make her conduct this long journey would, has and continues to make her ill, usually at least once per journey.
It was my decision to relocate after our divorce in order that I return to univeristy to retrain so that I can properly support my daughter and I, and I can understand that my ex-husband feels angry about this, however I have invited him to visit our daughter as much as he wishes, and have asked that this be the arrangement during term-time so that her education does not suffor from tiredness / inconsistent parenting / instability etc, and I have even offered to give him a bed for the night as is it such a long journey. However, he refuses to make the journey and insists that I take her to his home, where I have been uninvited from entering and would have to drive straight back to my home, only to return a day later to pick her up (a round total of about 1000 in a 36 hour period). This is also a bone of contention for safety, time, cost isuues etc.
Please tell me if I am being unreasonable in requesting (in these circumstances) I request that my ex-husband visits our daughter during term-time.

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

Neytiri - I was thinking about that too.

I wish the OP would come back to this thread.

I thought (maybe) that the big family could be DSC's of the XH? In which case, then it would be quite difficult for the XH to travel 250 miles with potentially more than one child in his car already??

But, since the OP isn't coming back, we have no way of knowing.

[neytiri]

wow lexylea, hope you get this situation sorted. do these problems extend to the rest of your dc's from the large family you have?

[violethill]

Exactly.

Some people are trying to make this into a black and white issue - "the mother had the choice to either move 250 miles to do that particular course at that particular University, OR... she's condemned to a life of being chained up, no life etc"

Bollocks.

She could attend a different University, do a slightly different course... blimey, there are SO many options out there now in higher education. And if it means compromising a little then so bloody what? That's real life as a parent. If I suddenly decided I wanted to do a University course 250 miles away, I'd damn well expect to do the travelling involved to see my family! They'd think I was a screw loose if I took off and did that and that made it into their problem!

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

HG - you said that so much better than I did

[historygirls]

All this talk of sacfrificing herself, putting herself last, chaining herself to the spot, having no financial security is totally OTT.

There is a huge difference between telling someone that they can't move for work and education at all and telling them they can't move for work and education and not expect to do a certain amount of inconvenient and tedious travelling.

She doesn't have to give up on going to university or getting a job. She doesn't have to live in the same town forever.

She does have to acknowledge that moving 250 miles away from her childs father is going to result in a certain amount of travelling and some of it will need to be done by her.

Why can't she go to university and compromise on travelling ?

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

Spero - I'm in the same situation.

I am separated from my husband and returning to university.

I made a different set of choices from the OP.

Does not mean I put myself second to him though.

[Spero]

bootyburp, I would also die to save my daughter if the circumstances demanded it - for eg pushing her out of the way of a car.

But I would not sacrifice my financial security or peace of mind to 'put her first' as in the end that would not be 'putting her first', it would be creating a situation where she was parented by a mother who was unhappy and stressed.

If we bring children into this world, we have a responsibility to keep them safe and bring them up as well as we can. I do not agree however that this means as parents we cease to exist as human beings with needs and aspirations of our own. The key is surely to try and find a way where benefits for everyone are maintained as much as possible. This means taking a long term view - it could be better in many circs for chldren to see less of one parent for a year or two if that meant in the future the situation could change for the better, and that change could be sustained.

both parents in this kind of situation need to try and help each other to do the best they can and make the best of a difficult logistical situation. But the solution is not, in my view, to tell a mother she can't move for her work or education because she should be 'putting her children first'.

There is so much to unpick in those kind of statements. Life can only be understood backwards but must be lived forward. As long as you try your best, try to be kind, think things through and are honest with yourself and others about your real motivations behind your decisions, then I don't think any decision you make as a parent can be validly criticised by others who don't have to live your life.

[historygirls]

Its nothing to do with her 'daring' to move away. What is not reasonable is 'daring' to move away and refusing to facilitate contact at all. Its fairly obvious she doesn't want her dds father to have any sort of regular overnight contact. She is not offering a compromise, only a no staying at dads, no homelife with dad, dad can be a 'visitor' which most parents would find unacceptable.

She could put her child first by getting the best education she can get in order to support them in the future, plus support her dd in having a normal relationship with her father by putting herself out a bit and doing something like Fri-Sun every 3rd week plus longer in the holidays rather than 'I'm not bringing her you can visit if you want'.

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

And I think my children will be better served by me retraining and getting a degree, no questions.

I don't think they will be better served by me retraining and getting a particular degree at one particular university which is 250 miles away from where I live now.

The OP said that the degree was taught to a particular standard at 2 universities in the country, not that it was ONLY taught at particular universities.

I am going to study Law. I am not going to the BEST university in the country for Law. I am going to a good university, which will get me a more than adequate degree.

Parenthood begets compromises.

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

Spero - to be honest, I think there are a number of questions that it would be helpful to have the answers to before I make any further comment on this thread.

And for the record my children come first. All the time. Every time. I would lay my life down for them. End of.

[Spero]

I think it depends on what you mean by putting your child first.

Do you mean first, all the time, everytime?

There is surely an argument that if a mother wants to make a better life for herself and her child that is 'putting the child first'.

It may mean that she doesn't see her father every day. This is a difficult choice that parents have to make. But the assumption in a lot of these posts seems to be anger that she 'dared' move away.

We know nothing about him and haven't heard his side of the story. But I would imagine any woman in the op's position would think long and hard about leaving a man who was kind, loving and supportive and pulled his weight in terms of child care.

I left my ex because for the last two years we were together I felt like a single parent. He did very little to help with any domestic stuff and spent his free time on his own pursuits rather than being with his daughter. And now we are separated, he bleats that it is his 'right' to spend time with her whenever he wishes.

BOTH parents have responsibilities to do the best they can for the life they have created. The op (if she is real) may be an untter selfish bitch... but the father is highly unlikely to be blameless.

I know the law does not link maintenance to contact, but in my view, this is a big mistake as refusal to contribute financially ccauses enormous stress and heartache and if a man really loved his child he wouldn't piss about, he would put his hands in his pocket and live up to his responsibilities.

[LadyBiscuit]

Spero - I can't speak for anyone else but I can assure you that my POV has nothing to do with residual sexism. If we take the maintenance out of the equation for a moment, would you still think that it was ok for the OP to do this? To me, she's denying her daughter a chance to get to know her father which is very unfair on the daughter. And if it's ok for her to do this because he's not paying maintenance, then that's punishing him for not contributing - basically that he's abdicated his rights as a parent.

Neither of them have anything to do with a woman's right to have a career.

ps am a single parent by choice precisely because I didn't want to be tied down to another adult for the sake of my child.

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

I am not saying that as a mother she has to put herself last.

I am saying as a mother she has to put her CHILD first

I don't have a husband to help and support me as I am going to university.

I would love to go to a university elsewhere to study, but because I put my children first, I have picked my local uni.

Am I therefore giving up my ambitions and putting myself last?

I think I am putting my kids first and not being selfish?

[Spero]

I don't care if this is a made up thread, the issue it raises is very real and I am sure is impacting on a lot of people here.

Cat64, your points are all valid and very compelling. BUT (and it is a big but) you write from the perspective of someone who is happily partnered. Of course it makes sense for your husband to think carefully about decisions that would be great for him but not so great for the rest of the family.

However, the reason he does that is because he gains enormous benefit from being in a family; your love and support for eg.

The op, or any one in her situation, does NOT derive that benefit. It would seem that she doesn't even get any money to help raise a child. Therefore she ought to be free to make decisions which enable her to work and earn, for all the obvious reasons.

And I am sorry if you think I am being unfair, but I get a very real sense from these posts that it is because she is a 'mother' she has to put herself last. I suspect there is some residual sexism which doesn't think it is possible that a women's career ambitions could ever be as important as a man's, particularly once she has had a child. That might have some validity if there was a man stepping up to compensate the woman for what she loses in giving up her ambitions, but here there is not.

[LadyBiscuit]

Given that on another thread she's talking about her success of feeding a large family for £50 I'm not sure the OP has invented the rest of this story yet.

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

I think at this point it would be helpful if the OP could come back to clear up some points that have been raised.

[SolidGoldBrass]

Given that the father in this case a) refuses to pay any maintenance and b) insists that his DD is delivered to him for every visit and c) has forbidden her mother from entering his home, it's not wildly unreasonable to assume that he's a knob and the OP had good reasons for dumping him. Everything she has posted suggests this is not about a 'selfish' woman (how dare she think she's a person? She's a mother which means she has no life and should have stayed with this fuckwit man anyway), more about a man who thinks that women and children are property.

[historygirls]

Lots of people have been looking at it from both sides and have had their words twisted.

You say they both need to sort something out but the OPs proposal is that the father does all of the travelling during term time and doesn't get to have his dd overnight except for 7ish nights a year. I think if she had proposed sharing the travelling (even if skewed towards the father doing the bulk) or longer but less frequent access at her fathers house and cited better reasons for not wanting him to have access than "inconsistent parenting" then she might have got a better response.

Nobody has said its the mothers duty to stay put and suck up crap, just that it is the parents duty to put his/herself out a bit to help a child have a good relationship with both parents. It is not necessairaly in the childs best interest to only be able to see her father in public places, rather than a home environment for 39 weeks a year.

[Spero]

cat64, but a lot of people haven't been looking at it from both sides. They have said (I paraphrase) 'if you put your child first you wouldn't have moved' 'it is the mother's duty to stay put and suck up crap'.

Yes, we only have half a story but you can rarely say a relationship breaks down because one person selfishly and unilaterally just decides to end it. Usually, there are reasons, blame and fault on both sides.

Both need to sort something out that is good for their daughter. And given that distance, I don't think op is unreasonable to want to find some way that their daughter still has a relationship with her father that both parents will work to sustain in a way that doesn't subject her to frequent long car journeys.

I fail to see how the answer is to tell her that she is selfish and a bad mother for wanting to make something of her life, and I would say the same regardless of whether it was mother or father who wanted to make a move.

[zipzap]

How is he insisting?

What would happen if you insisted that every other visit he needs to come and pick your dd up? Is there some reason why he can't (eg no driving license or car) or just his being bloody minded about this?

What would happen if you said that you would be at your house from 10-11 waiting for him to pick up your dd (or whatever is a reasonable time) but if he isn't there by then you will be carrying on with your day together - assuming he hasn't rung to say that he is running late due to a hold up on the motorway or whatever, if he rings you are bound (initially at any rate) to wait for him to arrive.

If he isn't paying you maintenance then it isn't like you have anything to lose because he can't threaten not to pay you if you don't do his bidding.

[Spero]

If a mother won't allow a father into her home for reasons which are irrational/unreasonable, ordering her to stay put is unlikely to make that situation any better.

The courts are very reluctant, for obvious and good reasons, to say to a parent 'you can't move'. That is likely to engender bitterness and frustration, nobody wins.

If a parents is being unreasonable and obstructive about contact, the only real remedy is to transfer residence to the other parent, not mess about with orders restricting freedom of movement.