Why are NR Parents allowed to refuse contact?

[AmICrazyorWhat2]

Bear with me as I have no personal experience of this, but I heard something this week that's been niggling at me and I want to understand the reasoning behind it (if there is any).

A friend told me this week that her ex husband has informed her that he's going abroad for a month (holiday) and obviously won't be able to have his children during this period. Their agreement gives him access EOW. She's annoyed because she'd made plans for those two weekends and will now have to cancel them. She suggested that he arrange a babysitter for at least a few hours, but he's refused.
He also pays no maintenance (no idea how he wriggled out of that).

Anyway, my question is, what's the "legal logic" behind giving the NR parent regular access, but then allowing them to simply not take it and also fail to make alternative arrangements for their children?

I can't understand why one parent is expected to do perhaps 95% of the actual parenting while the other does just a few days every year. How does this make sense? Add in the financial component and it makes even less sense to me!

I agree that NAMALT because I know a couple personally. And you know what? They dont go on about it. They just did what they needed to to ensure contact. They dont go on forums slagging off their exes, they dont dress as batman and slag off dead celebrities, they just get on with it.

One in particular had a very hard time of it, and ended up representing himself as a PP's son did, when he ran out of money. He now has good regular contact and his ex has finally accepted the situation. Sometimes you have to keep going and stop bleating about it.

Really interesting post, Pyongyang.

They may say it does not damage the kids but do they actually ask the kids now grownup? Contact with feckless, unwitting and uncaring parent does damage a child. They don't suddenly turn into engaged, active and reliable dads.

It damaged me and I would not inflict that on my kids. Having a parent who never turned up when he said he would, who went months and years not visiting, who forgot what age I was, who had other children who he spent more time with etc damaged me.

If my now ex husband was like this I would limit and end contact with him to protect my kids. (However I limit contact with him because he's abusive to me and my kids but that's another story.)

I agree with you op - it's shit. So many of my friends are in exactly this situation.

Strangely I don't know, or have never heard through friends of a man being prevented from seeing his kids by the bitter ex. Funny that considering there's thousands on FB

Parenting shouldn't be optional and I think as a society we should be much more judgy and disapproving of a man that doesn't pay CMS or parent his kids. Like drunk driving - make it socially unacceptable.

The reason that there isnt a "three strikes and you're out" rule with contact is because it has been proven through countless research that children who have even only very sporadic contact with a NRP have better outcomes overall than those who have none.

There is no huge body of research to say that any contact has better outcomes. That is a myth. Please link to this @PyongyangKipperbang

Parenting shouldn't be optional and I think as a society we should be much more judgy and disapproving of a man that doesn't pay CMS or parent his kids. Like drunk driving - make it socially unacceptable.

Yes to this! Social pressure is very powerful. And stopping any bullshit too - no one contradicts my Ex for example as he complains loudly to his family, his friends, his colleagues, his gf, his gf family about how difficult I am and how he’d love to be more of a parent but cannot. Not one of them asks why he only sees DS once every two months and skips maintenance. Not one!

I'll show you mine if you show me yours @Coolcucumber2020

I have an ex who just drops contact and makes other plans. To be honest of all the people I know with ex partners that's pretty normal. But then I guess being failures at parenting or being unsupportive or unreliable like that is likely to make them an ex isn't it.

It is fucking infuriating but it is what it is.

One of my exes picked and chose according to where he was on holiday with his new wife it was crap as I couldn’t plan my own life and the arguing made the kids feel like shit (I am not the innocent party here).

He was self employed too so paid me fuck all while laughing at me from a beach in Thailand no doubt.

They have a very odd relationship with him now.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170705095332.htm

It's the conflict between parents that harms children, not the number of parents they have (or don't have).

I'd be interested to see the research you referred to PyongyangKipperbang. I know a couple of families where the mothers are desperate to cut contact with the fathers because they think that the sporadic and half-hearted nature of their relationship is damaging for the children, but are stuck with court orders that allow their feckless exes to drift in and out of their kids' lives whenever it suits them. (In one particularly odious case, that's whenever he gets a new girlfriend who he wants to show off to, bringing her to the house and strong-arming my friend into a 'polite' conversation so that the kids aren't upset by a scene.) It might help to give them some hope that the experience isn't entirely negative from the children's perspective.

@Clymene that is my understanding too. It is higher conflict and low incomes that are the main factors in adverse experiences and outcomes for children from separated families. Not amount of time of parents.

I have to say in my experience, although sad, my Ex only seeing DS once every two months now is much less traumatic for DS than when he was for shorter periods but letting him down more. It is DS also who now does not want more contact with his DF than this, so perhaps he knows what is best for him.

@PyongyangKipperbang
However, there is no empirical evidence showing a clear linear relationship between the amount of parenting time and better outcomes for children.
academic.oup.com/lawfam/article-abstract/25/3/318/970306

Thank you, you've proved my point.

I would be interested in the research behind that as I’ve always been told that an absent father is better than an inconsistent one, who picks the kids up and drops them when he feels like it.

@Heymacarana My ex-husband took me to court and was awarded 50:50. Even though he was an abuser his "equal rights as a parent" pretty much over-rode every other consideration. The children were just 3 and 6 and I had always been the primary care giver.

So don't always assume the courts are biased towards the mother - they were biased towards the father in my case IMO! Might be worth looking into court? You sound like you really want the kids more which is fair enough.

@PyongyangKipperbang go read the full research and while you are at it, link your own now that I have given you the curtesy!

Honestly... lazy posts making up ‘facts’ are not helpful. Citing research and not backing it up is doubly unhelpful.

It isn't usually phrased as contact or resident/non-resident parent these days though; if you go to court they generally say the child "lives with" one parent at X time and the other at Y time. Even if it is heavily weighted towards one parent.

I have my daughter 80% of the time on paper. But she "lives with" both of us. Even though my ex forgot to take her for Easter one year, and some weekends he was supposed to be having her, and went to America for 8 months last year (failing to adjust the maintenance to account for the increased number of nights I had her). And he doesn't even have a home here; he stays with his mum (on an over 50s caravan site, so that's not his official address) when he takes our daughter.

But yeah, she "lives with" him 20% of the time...

@RainMinusBow sorry to hear that. The link I posted above cites Australian research which highlights just that, how detrimental 50/50 can be if it comes with conflict and especially for children under 4.

Conflict includes an ex who cancels frequently contact. This has the most detrimental affect on outcomes.

@PumpkinP I think much of this comes under conflict. Conflict includes being unreliable and lacking cooperation.

I had also read American research which did indicate that no contact was better than high conflict contact for children. The articles did say that this was not politically palatable at present as both parents are seen as having ‘rights’ - but the evidence does not support this.

I agree that nrp should be made to pay for their child. Unfortunately "how much does it cost to raise a child" is not a set amount & 2 people can have very different views on an acceptable lifestyle or how much is "enough".

Unfortunately you can't force someone to see their child & do wonder if that contact would be good for the child if it was forced.
The court system is pretty bad as you get nrps who spend £1000s to get minimal access or abusive exs who are given a free for all!

I'm surprised that so many on here haven't experienced any male rps as in my close circle of friends I know of 4. 2 of which I know receive no money from the nrp & 1 of them has very sporadic contact with their child.
I know 3 female rps & 1 where nrp contact was more often cancelled than taken & they didn't pay.

Well I’m glad the legal system doesn’t force nrps to see their children because there would be some very unhappy children out there if they had to spend time with someone who doesn’t want to see them.

It would be awful if contact arrangements were all forced just to try and make the nrp have their child for the sake of it. If they don’t want to be an active parent in their child’s life then forcing them will just make them all the more resentful.

its correct that NAMALT, however the gender of the parent is irrelevant in this thread.. we're talking about RP vs NRP

@funinthesun19

What I found annoying in this case though is that the Dad made a big thing about wanting to see the DC EOW and insisted on a court-approved agreement to this effect. He's even taken his ex to court when one of the DC missed a couple of weekends due to illness.

But now he's decided not to have them for a month - and that's fine! I don't understand why he can do this, but she definitely can't change the agreement without being hauled into court. It seems like he has choices, but she doesn't.

But now he's decided not to have them for a month - and that's fine! I don't understand why he can do this, but she definitely can't change the agreement without being hauled into court. It seems like he has choices, but she doesn't.*

I have never heard of a court agreement that doesn’t allow the resident parent a set period of days they can halt contact for something like a holiday. She will almost certainly have this in the court agreement meaning she can take the kids away and him not see them smile a few weeks. She probably just hasn’t mentioned that to you