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.

[hairytriangle]

Yabu. You moved you deal with it. You sound very selfish and should not have moved her so far from her dad.

[WibblyBibble]

YANBU. People who are saying you are are being ridiculous- of course you have to go to where you can study for your career. They'd be complaining just as much if you said 'oh, can't be bothered with a career if I have to move' and claimed benefits instead. He is a dad, and he needs to take responsibility for maintaining his relationship with his daughter- that's for him to do, not for you to be responsible for as he's an adult and presumably not disabled or ill so perfectly able to travel more easily than a 3-year-old. It makes me sick that people want to put all the responsibility onto the mother in these situations.

[violethill]

I think the OP has just gone to check how many children she actually has

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

I think, from what I have gathered from the OP's other post, that she works as well? How does this co-ordinate with going to university?

Lacey - how long ago did you move away? Maybe its all still a bit raw for your XH?

[HappyMummyOfOne]

violethill

[brassband]

You don't have a god-given right to go to university.You can put that on hold and do what's right for your child at the moment or at least study nearer to the dad.
I don't really se thie travelling as a problem for your DD.Set off at 7 o clock when your DD is in her PJs and she can sleep the whole journey ,then carry her to her bed at the other end.a pain in teh butt for you of course but you chose this

[LadyLapsang]

A practical thought. If your DD is car sick, could you not travel by train? Three year olds travel free and you could use a student railcard & book in advance to get a discounted ticket. Then you could use the journey to read and play games with her and get some of your coursework reading done on the journey back. A journey of 250 miles might only take two hours each way on the train.

Also, think you need to address the maintenance issue. What reason has he given for not paying?

[BoneyBackJefferson]

LexyLea Sun 29-Aug-10 23:06:52
I am putting my daughters interests first. As her father refuses to provide any maintenance for her
-----
interesting how this turns up in most of these threads.

--------
Altinkum Mon 30-Aug-10 00:02:46
Im sitting here thinking the OP is not BU.

1, she is supporting her dd financially herself.
-----
Her choice
------
2, she is making all the trips, providing clothing etc...
--------
she decided to move away
----
3, she is spending HER money and time, so her dd can have a relationship with her father.
--------
again she chose to move
------
4, she is perfectly entitled to follow her career path, and if that means to re-locate, then so be it, it is only for a few years.
--------
yes she is but what about the fethers rights to see his child.
---------
5, she gets the aftermath of a poorly child to deal with.
-----
she says that the child get travel sick we have no proof.
------
Why is the OP being blamed here she is the one PROVING EVERYTHING, paying for EVERYTHING.
------
she moved and we only have her word for it
-----
Her Ex should take responsibility for HIS child, and that means making provisions for her, instead of expecting everyone else to do it for him
-------
from 250 miles away? easier said than done.



that bein said he should if he is able do his share of the traveling.

[msrisotto]

"You don't have a god-given right to go to university.You can put that on hold and do what's right for your child at the moment or at least study nearer to the dad."

Good lord! So because they have split up, the OP has to sacrifice the rest of her life?

Genuine question - if you split up from your DP and you have a child, are you now glued to the spot? It may have been both of your plan to move somewhere but now your split up, of one changes their mind, this dictates the life of the other?

OP, I think YANBU.

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

msrisotto - in my case its maybe different, but it is part of the separation agreement that we both live close to where we are now so that the children don't have to change schools.

We have shared custody though.

[booyhoo]

boneyback. it isn't actually OP's choice to support her daughter financially by herself. her ex is refusing to pay maintenance. this has left her with no choice but to support her dd herself.

[booyhoo]

and of course we only have OP's word for it. very rarely on MN do we ever have both sides of the story. what a ridiculous thing to say.

[violethill]

I don't believe anyone has a godgiven right to attend a particular University at a particular time to study a particular course! And it certainly doesn't mean you are sacrificing the rest of your life if you can't do it! You just choose another option, like we all do.

I've seen jobs I would have applied for had we been childless, or if I were single and didn't have DH's career to consider as well. Once you enter into a partnership with someone, or have children, then you are making the decision to take other people's position into account.

It seems the OP conveniently forgot this when deciding to move 250 miles away!

Would be interesting to hear the ex's side of the story. "My wife moved 250 miles away with our child....."

Anyway, in view of the contradictory posts given by the OP, I'm not convinced this is all true.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

booyhoo Mon 30-Aug-10 12:22:10
and of course we only have OP's word for it. very rarely on MN do we ever have both sides of the story. what a ridiculous thing to say.
-----

not redicuous at all, it wasn't mentioned in the OP, and like so many only brought up later.

As to the Ex refusing to pay maintenace, go to the CSA, if the Ex is working it will be taken straight out of his wages.

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

Violethill - I agree. I would love to go to a particular uni to do a specific course - I have made the decision for the good of my kids to go to a local uni.

And I also think there are a few contradictions in the OP's statements.

[msrisotto]

I never thought that being in a relationship with a man meant prioritising his career over your own. Andf anyway, he's not doing much considering of her as he isn't supporting his child financially.

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

Msrisotto- in my case, it isn't about prioritising his career, its about giving the DD's continuity of schooling and putting them first.

I do agree that if he isn't paying maintenance then Lacey needs to go to the CSA

[violethill]

"I never thought that being in a relationship with a man meant prioritising his career over your own. "

Neither do I.

DH both have careers, and we have both had to compromise at various times because a) we are married and b) we have children.

There have been some plum jobs I would have liked to go for if I were single, and vice versa for my DH. It doesn't mean either of us have 'sacrificed' our lives. We have compromised, and realised (as most adults do) that you can still have a perfectly fulfilling life like that.

[violethill]

DH and me

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

Violethill - again I agree (this is getting to be a habit lol)

It's about looking at the right thing for the family as a whole - and I still do that even though me and he are separated

[ChaoticAngel]

OP YANBU

I get the impression there are posters on here who think you should just get a minimum wage job* and live in poverty just because you're a woman. There are men who uproot their families because of their jobs, take them away from families and friends, but that's okay.

You haven't moved just for the fun of it, you've moved so you can get an education and support yourself and your daughter. We're talking a few years, not forever.

For a man who doesn't pay maintenance, therefore making sure his daughter is financially okay and is willing to put her through such a long car journey for so short a time (surely longer periods less regularly would be better) when she gets car sick, says to me that he's more concerned about his rights than the welfare of his daughter. If he wants to see his daughter on a more regular basis maybe he could think of moving closer, if it's feasible.

• I am not saying there is anything wrong with minimum wages jobs before anyone thinks I am.

[bottyburpthebarbarian]

Chaotic - surely if a man does this when he's married he has a discussion with his wife about it?

Maybe I'm wrong (and I am more than happy to admit if I am) but I got the impression that the OP hadn't discussed her move with her XH?

[ChaoticAngel]

Botty, I'm sure that sometimes they do and I really should have added 'sometimes' to my post. There have been times though, on here and in rl, when I suspect that hasn't really been the case or even when it has been 'discussed' it's been more a formality than a real discussion.

I think what got to me is the implication in some of the posts that she's a woman she must put herself last.

I don't know if she discussed it with him, or even if she could discuss it with him. He may not be the type you could discuss this with, then again he maybe is. I do think though that he could do some of the travelling, even if he takes the petrol costs out of the (non-existent) maintenance, if only for the sake of his daughter.

I have to go out so am not ignoring anyone if they reply to any of my posts.

[sloanypony]

I dont think the OP is being unreasonable.

Under the circumstances, I feel that she is entitled to retrain in her chosen field. It does make access difficult but there are certain situations where unless one party makes a complete sacrifice to their future, then can't be overcome.

If I were to split from my husband, I would almost definitely be moving back to Australia where the rest of my family are. I would probably be vilified for that but I'd be looking at the bigger picture.

Someone generally gets screwed in these break ups, it doesn't ALWAYS have to be the woman. As long as it isn't the kids. The child doesn't travel well at this point - therefore it should not be her getting in the car. The mother may or may not be U for having moved in the first place, but her intentions were good, so now that the move has taken place, the only U person is the person insisting that child make the journey every fortnight. And he's not even willing to pay for her upkeep. I can't help but see it from the OP's angle on this one.