Who decides the 'rules'?

[happy2bhomely]

Ok, this is a 'who is being unreasonable?'

My Dsis has just called from work to tell me that she is fuming with ex for letting their 7 and 8 yr old boys go to the park alone. He has them for the day because she is working. He normally has them overnight every other Saturday.

The park is next to a block of maisonettes where he lives. He lives with his mum, dad and brother and his 'new' girlfriend (of 4 years) is visiting with their baby. The children cannot be seen from the windows.

Dsis has told him that the kids are too young to be playing out unsupervised, and she wants him (or his girlfriend or family) to go down and watch them or she wants them indoors. She doesn't let them play out at home. I don't let mine play out either. We live in London in an area that many would call rough.

Ex has said that his family and girlfriend are in agreement with him that the children should be allowed to play in the park unsupervised. The kids are loving the freedom they are getting.

Who gets to decide? My idea of shared parenting (whether together or separated) is that you make decisions together, compromising and respecting each others opinions. It is not about each parent making up their own rules, so they contradict each other and confuse the kids. I don't think that Dsis should be laying down the law (ex doesn't have PR but they are both their parents!) but ex shouldn't disregard her concerns and do what he likes!

So, who is being unreasonable?

With all that going on and her ex not having PR, I would immediately stop unsupervised contact. He is putting his children in danger, and it is her responsibilty to stop that.

The mother, IMHO. Here, certainly, she is being respobnsible and her ex an arse. My response would be simple - that he goes to supervise or brings the DC in immediately or he does't have unsupervised access to them again. A Londoner myself, there's no way my DC would have been unsupervised there when they were 7 or 8.

In general, the mother still, particularly if she's the main carer and in most cases regardless of that.... she's the poor cow who carried the child and who went through hell to give birth to him/her!

I would be stopping unsupervised access too. The sooner the better though as if it went to court the judge would wonder why you dsis let them have unsupervised access this long if it was that bad.

I think that he is in charge when he has them and therefore the mother would have to prove that he is irresponsible. Best to try and solve amicably.

pointydog- Not at all. He has been their parent for 7 and 8 yrs,(obviously!) so there are a lot of things that have happened over that time that are not immediately relevant, but I am using them as examples to try and explain why my sister is finding it so hard to trust his judgement.

My advice has been to restrict access. If she was putting her kids in danger then the school or doctor or whoever would be right to suggest to SS that her access was limited, so why should it be any different for him? Parents don't automatically do what is best for their kids, as we all know.

I agree that she can't dictate what he feeds them, what they wear, where he takes them etc, so does she. She is happy for them to spend time with Dad's girlfriend and their baby and agrees that sometimes she will have a say wrt their kids. So she is not a completely controlling, paranoid woman!

I understand that some of you might not appreciate the difference between kids playing in a safe park across the rd in a 'nice' area and playing in a rough area amongst people who really are a danger to young boys.

She wants her sons to have a relationship with their Dad. They love and miss him terribly and if they didn't I'm sure she would have stopped access by now. It just breaks her heart when they are crying that they miss him. What is she supposed to do, look after them and then every 2 weeks just accept that they are none of her business.

Those who are saying the mother gets the final say are wrong. Just because she's the main carer, doesn't mean she gets final say.

During his time, HE gets the final say. During her time, she does. It's obviously best if they can both agree and parent consistently but it sounds like they can't. Therefore if it went to court, that's pretty much how the courts would look at it.

Now ok, the concerns mum has I would say are valid. BUT what can she prove? Not much. His mum smoking Cannabis? So what. The kids are not in her care, they are in his care. You can't prove it anyway. Ditto with car seats. He'll just say they do and your sis pressured the kids into saying it.

The whole PR thing is bollocks anyway. It means very little in practice and you can assume that if he'd get this as a matter of course if the matter went to court.

Do I personally think he was being sensible. No. But the point is that it's not my opinion, yours or even their mums which matter. It's his.

Yes, mum can and should withhold contact if she truly feels the kids could be in serious danger. But frankly nothing here is serious enough that a court would restrict contact. So pushing the matter in my opinion is unwise because if the matter went to court, he'd get PR, a court order which may be different to what OP's sister wants and cost a few thousand.

Plus I bet if you were to ask the dad, he could probably name a few things he doesn't like with his ex's parenting style as well.

The bottom line is his time, his rules.

I would be divided on this. It does seem a bit too young to me - though I bet most of us remember 'playing out' at that age, I certainly do! And I would normally say the resident parent gets to impose their rules for their time - but of course it's different if their 'rules' mean putting the child in danger.

It would be ideal obviously if separated parents could work everything out and make amicable joint decisions - but obviously it doesn't always work out that way in practice. If they could get along nicely and agree on everything, they probably wouldn't be separated in the first place!

Have to agree with niceguy though - if the ex is not going to stop allowing this when asked, then there's not that much the mother can do about it, other than going down the route of withholding contact and trying to get access arrangements changed. She has to decide if she really feels they're being put at risk to the extent that it would be worth doing that.

Don't drip feed OP - bad form. Moving on....

She can want whatever she likes - he is who he is - she knows how he will behave and he has no incentive to change. If DC are at genuine risk this should be addressed legally and she could ask for supervised contact. Of course he agrees when they talk, why shouldn't he? Agrees then does WTF he likes without consequence. FWIW if my DC were exposed to cannabis and not kept safe he would not be having unsupervised access.

The 'his time/his rules' idea is childish to say the least. The DC are a joint responsibility and the parents should be adult enough to respect each others wishes and opinions. Playing out unsupervised at that age depends on a lot of factors- location, maturity- it is not as clear cut as he or she is right, but adults should be able to discuss and agree. Also, I would not give a shiney shit about his P or GF opinions.

Sorry, didn't mean to drip feed......I'm new around here, so please forgive me.

Dsis and ex get on well the majority of the time, but they obviously have very different parenting styles. I agree that he should have as much say about their care as she does, but I do think that there is room for compromise on both sides. I also think that the children's safety is more important than either of their wants or right to parent their way.

My sister's point is that he is not involved on a daily basis. She is the one that cares for them every day (since they were 3 and 4)and so knows them better. She is worried about how they might respond if approached by a stranger or if one of them got hurt. He gives them credit for being more mature than they are. He only spends 24 hrs with them every 2 weeks,(his choice)so doesn't know them very well imo.

Again, I will say that I think parenting should be done as a team whether you live together or not. I live with my DH and we don't always agree, but I would never go ahead and do something that he wasn't happy with, just because I can. I assume that he will always have an opinion on anything to do with raising the kids, so I ask. He pays me the same respect.

"I also think that the children's safety is more important than either of their wants or right to parent their way."

Absoultey! That is the one and only thing that matters.

Well, if he's choosing to only spend 24 hours with them every two weeks, then I don't think his opinion should count for jack shit. That's not parenting, it's babysitting and not very well

Don't think you are being unreasonable at all.

Normally, I'm a big fan of letting children play outside unsupervised. But I certainly wouldn't want kids of 7 and 8 out in the area you've described - in fact I get quite frightened wandering around 'rougher' areas of London by myself and I'm 27! (am a wimp though!)

Unfortunately, I don't know if there's anything you can do about it as they are his kids too.

You would think actually that if he only sees them for one day every two weeks, he'd want to actually spend that time with them, not send them off on their own?

I don't think your sister is being unreasonable. And I agree that there should be room for compromise. But if they cannot agree about it like adults then the rules are simply, his time his rules. And vice versa.

I also think that the children's safety is more important than either of their wants or right to parent their way.

The problem is that safety is relative isn't it? I mean you can go to the absolute extremes of locking them up and wrapping them in cotton wool all under the guise of "safety first". But that's no good for the kids anymore than letting them roam the streets ala Jeremy Kyle style. The best is somewhere in between and unfortunately there's a huge grey area here and it has to be left to each parent to judge what's best.

I bet mum isn't perfect. Hell I've let my kids go out and they've wandered further than I thought was safe. I've made more than my fair share of mistakes. But isn't that part of parenting? If you want dad truly involved as a parent then he needs to be able to make parenting decisions himself.

If he has to abide by a certain set of rules which are laid down to him then all it does is reduce his role to that of a babysitter. And that's no good for anyone is it?

He already is a babysitter, because he sees his children once every two weeks for 24 hours. Hardly active parenting. And when he does have them, he can't be arsed to actually spend time with them, but just lets them out to play unsupervised. Niceguy, you are thinking about what you would want in this situation, if you were the nrp, but you are a fully involved parent. I think maybe you are crediting him with better qualities than he actually possesses. He isn't a father who simply has different 'standards' to the mother. He sounds to me like a lazy arse, who doesn't care enough about his children's safety to actually look after them.

Letting them play in the street is the easy option - minimum effort required from him.

All I know is that if I saw my DC as little as he does, I'd actually want to see them.