Told not to contact while away

[Nanodust]

I'm currently away on business. This is the first time I've ever been away my DCs are 3 and 4. I will be away for 12 days
As you can imagine I will miss them a lot. I Skyped last night to say i had arrived safely and to say hello. My DH was at his parents so skyped there.
The conversation on lasted about 5 mins.
I've now been told by my DH that because my DS were sad and down after that he and his parents think it is best that I don't contact again and just see them when I return.
I feel very sad about this. I could understand a compromise, say once every 3 or 4 days, but not at all seems very harsh to me.
What do you think? Am I being unreasonable?

Are you reading totally different posts to the ones I am actual making?

It might well be reasonable for the dh to suggest not calling if the children are upset. However in his place I would be very supportive and reassuring of the parent away for the first time - promise to send photos and a message etc and consider it again in a few days because I would want them to have contact. An arbitrary no contact decision without seeming to care about my dh's feeling would be horrible of me and I wouldn't do it!

Re the parents in law, in the ops place I would tell the dh that they didn't belong in this decision and if they think they can make parenting decisions like this I won't be trying to forge a good relationship with them myself, they can butt out or expect alienation of their dil.

stopping I've done a lot of work surrounding attachment theory. Some of it has since been critiqued due to Bowlby's focus on the mother figure. Bear in mind that Bowlby's early work was with traumatised children who had experienced severe emotional disturbance. This is not the same as a temporary separation. It's also comparing apples and oranges when you talk about hospitalisation because the children are not currently ill or being subjected to traumatic medical procedures. Children make multiple attachments; it is highly likely that they have an attachment to their father. So, if they experience distress, they will seek him out.

Stoppingbywoods, bad idea to quote or reference Bowlby. He made up his data so whatever he found was actually just conjured out of thin air. Bear in mind too that the time he was investigating was post-war and many women who had had jobs during the war were being encouraged to give them up in order to ensure there were enough jobs for the returning soldiers. He was actually just a stooge for the Government of the day.

Bowlby may be out of fashion now but he's made a massive contribution to the area we're discussing (as shown in hospital visiting policy for children now) - the central findings are still there, especially in this in this area. You are wrong in thinking that he only worked with children experiencing severe emotional disturbance. The truth is, we have no idea about these children and their bond with their father. We're certainly not in a position to advise the OP not to contact her children.

Sock -

You made a sweeping assertion and when asked to justify it, you could only talk about court orders, as if the decisions that are made in court are self-evidently right for children. When I asked about the judge's knowledge base, you implied that it was far better for the decisions to be made on a case by case basis than having a judge using some rigid ideas about best practice (related to positive outcomes for children). You seemed to imply that it was better for a judge to make decisions on a case by case basis without being informed by research about what's best for children.
Well that's the beauty of how a system that makes decisions for individual children on a case by case basis works really...e can say in general xyz is better based on xyz research however treating every child and every situation like that would not be ideal, I would go as far as to say doing so could be incredibly damaging and has the potential to leave many children (all those whose situations mean they require different approaches) would be at risk of emotional harm.

Where is the part where you agree that a judge should have a knowledge (that you clearly lack) about what's best for children? He can't know everything and research is done into these issues for the purposes of affecting policy, you know! It's not being done to make nasty rules for a judge to be bound by.

It can actually be quite normal for children of seperated or divorced parents to have no indirect contact in between contact. It's a very commen arangement and is often in the best interests of the children

'Normal' doesn't mean 'right' unless best practice is being carried out and influenced by hard evidence about what has been shown to be in the interests of children. Otherwise, you are behaving in exactly the same way as a nurse in the 40's telling you not to visit your child because it will only make them cry. Don't you see? Just because it's commonly done, doesn't make it right.

You said that contact orders are the best decision for children because they're tailored to the child - and by implication, you said that the person best suited to make the decision is a judge. It's reasonable to ask about the judge's knowledge base about what is psychologically best for children, then.
'Court orders are decided on a individual basis and tailored to the childs needs...it may be best for some of them and this is why it gets ordered for those children.

'And that given that on the scale of life it is a very short period of time it is unlikely to have much of an impact on anybody other than the op;
You have no evidence for this. This is another person's child you are talking about. If you're going to make a decision like that you need to have a rationale for why. A few days is a very long time for a child.

Have you seriously just asked me to provide research to back up that many different situations may be in the best interests of some children and one of those situations may be not having indirect contact inbetween regular direct contact?
Of course! This is exactly the kind of research that benefits children and needs to be applied!

I think you are complacent and need to lose the idea that what happens in court must be right because it happens in court.

I am shocked that Bowlby's made up data is still being used to form public policies. Made up data. Made up for political purposes.

Made up = pretend.

The bits in between the quotes of my posts where you guess what I was meaning, are just your guesses nothing more.

I'm not even going to attempt to further clarify what I was meaning given that you clearly have decided in your own head that you know what I was meaning better than I do.

The implication you have made about the op's DH and his attachment to their children being akin to a total stranger working in a hospital is quite frankly shocking. This is an equal parent you are making assumptions about!

Saying you have no way of knowing anything about his attachment then comparing the situation to a child in hospital with no parental carer is not that different to saying it should be considered that he has none, yet you didn't make the same comparison about the mother.

The inference that a capable parent whom the mother has felt safe leaving their mutual children in the care of is less able to make a decision based on those childrens welbeing than the mother when she is not even there is piss poor.

I intentionally did not comment on the knowledge base of collective judges. Because they make their decisions based on the evidence they have in front of them that evidence would usually include recommendation reports from various professional agencies and often reports from qualified experts in the relivant field. The decision they make has to be in the best interests of the child it is the law, A huge principle within the children's act is the childs right to an equal relationship and that no order should be made unless it is in the best interests of the child. Obviously our understanding of best interests change as we learn more.and we learn more due to good quality none made up research.

Are you saying that you think it would be a good thing or desirable for a child that had a SAHD who was a loving caring parent where no issues exist with the mother to end up with exactly the same child arangements order as a one whose dad was a violent abuser or the mother was a drug addict? Because by refusing to acknowledge that different children in different situations (not withstanding that's an extream example) will have their best interests met with different approaches, attempting to ridicule or belittle someone who points that out is rather odd indeed.

No, I didn't mean to suggest that the OP's DH is anything like a hospital. The bit of the situation that is similar between the two situations is the absence of a parent and the issue of whether a child is better left to get on with things. It doesn't matter who else is there or not, it's still an absence that the child has to cope with. Surely you think the hospital issue (and what it has taught us about how children process separation from a parent) may have something to teach us about how children process separation from a parent generally?

I don't know why you feel that being directed by appropriate research conflicts with a tailored approach. I just can't see it at all.

I've also seen parents ticked off in court when criticising the other parent for not having indirect inbetween.

What did this mean, exactly? Does it mean that parents are criticised by the judge for complaining that they cannot contact their child when they're with the other parent? Or something else? Because it's difficult to see how any psychology expert would say it is best for a child not to speak to their parent when they like.

A child in hospital would previously have been seperated from BOTH parents it is a compleatly different situation to a child having one parent their.

It's not usual for a child in hospital to have both parents with them it's usually just one of them and they tend to swop over a fair bit if the child is there for any length of time.

I've also seen parents ticked off in court when criticising the other parent for not having indirect inbetween

Are you determind to misunderstand things you read?

I will try and make it clearer

Parent A " she is shit because she does not ring the kids inbetween her EOW and one weekday contact this clearly means they are not a good parent"

Judge is not impressed by this.

Obviously that is not a direct example or a sweeping statement it is just a example used in order to highlight what I am meaning.

I've travelled a couple of times with work for 7-9 days. I've found it's better not to call too often - or not to call at all. I sometimes do an email - telling them what I'm up to. If they're getting upset, then calling is definitely counterproductive.

Can I just say one thing? Not bitchily but because I cannot stand it when you do this?

It's completely :)

No, it was a genuine question about the judge's criticism - I did not know what you meant.

Well, hospital is of course a different situation in that sense but it is also a similar situation in the sense that I mentioned (disappearing parent). Rather than dismissing out of hand the possibility that we have nothing to learn from this, perhaps there is a need for further research to work out the following: (it may exist in which case even better)...Was the hospital experience so harmful because (a) child was deprived of both parents with no indirect contact/direct contact, (b) child was deprived of both parents full-stop, (c) child was in an unfamiliar situation without family, (d) child was separated from primary caregiver who appeared to have completely disengaged because there was an absence of indirect contact to reassure the child.

If (d) then it would be useful to establish to what extent this is altered when the child remains with family, or when the absent parent is not the primary caregiver. It may well still have relevance because the 'disappearing parent' may well be the part of the equation that doesn't add up for a child.

I'm not the least bit impressed that a judge is unimpressed by a parent complaining that the other one doesn't bother to contact the child between access. Personally, I would like to know how the child feels about apparently dropping out of mum/dad's world according to what day it is. Surely we're all aware that children need engaged, reliable, consistent care giving? Yes, I'm sure that a regular access visit provides lots of stability but this is common sense. What close adult relationship only activates on certain days of the week?

There are other scenarios but I have studying to do....

A child being separated from the caregiver(s) whilst in hospital is completely incomparable to the OP's situation. In hospital, they are away from all their caregivers, whereas this is not the case. Therefore, if you're going to quote Bowlby in this context, you need to understand what he was saying (whether it's outdated and sexist or not).

I do understand him, and he hasn't been wholly discredited by any stretch of the imagination. Attached parenting is the antithesis of disappearing. It's consistent, engaged, not disrupted.a child may have a great bond with one parent but be adversely affected by the fact that the other parent has done a runner-as I'm sure many children could confirm.

So I'm making the point that the presence of one parent doesn't necessarily cancel out the sudden disappearance of the other. The relevance to the hospital analogy being that a disappearing parent may equal abandonment by them in a child's mind). There are two outdated ideas really- one is that children should avoid anything that causes them to show negative emotion, and the other is that a parent can disappear completely without causing harm.

do you think that when people talk about abandonment or a parent dropping off the face of the earth they are not usually terms used when describing very short separations from one carer with children from functioning loving homes?

Or do we all need to quit our jobs just in case?

Well, it depends how short, and how it's handled. A number of nights apart is obviously different from a few hours - especially for a child. Surely you see?

It's not abandonment - we know that. But children process experiences differently, and yes, abandonment may well be what they feel I'm afraid.

I often work in several day blocks or at least that's how it would appear to my children. I work away or I leave before morning and get back after bedtime.

Having a parent (one or both) who work long hours is not unusual.neither is having a parent who works away.

It is more likely than not that in a loving functioning emotionally healthy family that it would be dealt with appropreatly in a caring and supportive way.

Most parents are competent

Obviously, you can do whatever you choose, but just because you do do something, doesn't mean that it's the best course of action. With all due respect, there are some decisions that we won't really receive feedback on until our children are willing and able to describe their feelings about, perhaps not for many years. Refusing to allow a child contact with a parent is never a good idea. Most parents call to say goodnight if they can't be there.

Contact or no contact, shutting you out is not the way to go. When my husband goes away, he speaks with the children every few days, if that and we are used to that pattern. When I go away, I speak with them every day now as they are older and want to chat on the phone. When they were little, it would be every few days.

The point is that it evolved from what felt right, it wasn't a unilateral decision by one person. If my husband found it very important to speak with the children every night, I would help them to do that, even if there was a bit of upset.

It's fine to take account of the away parent's feelings too, there's no right and wrong here and so part of the decision about contact to me is about what helps the away parent, as well as the children, given the children are actually quite adaptable if things are presented well to them.

I think it is unreasonable of your DH and definitely his parents to block contact. The decision should be yours and his. You are just as much their parent whether or not you are there. His parents should keep their noses out.