A custody / contact time one

[Waveafterwaves]

Going to try and be impartial and vague to get a true idea of who is in the wrong / right by public opinion!

Parent A and Parent B share a child .

Parent B moved away through choice.

The ‘non resident’ parent pays towards the child - not through csa as decided between the two as the amount currently paid is admittedly more than would be through csa. There are no arguments between parents about finances .

Due to Parent B moving away , the logistics of handover are hard so usually both meet halfway. Contact time with non resident parent is 2 days and nights per week. In holidays it is shared.

Parent A has been offered an extra shift and could do with the money . On this day the child is handed over to the other parent at the meeting point at 12pm . Both parents would set out at around 11am. Due to the work , Parent A would need this handover to happen at 1030am. A family member can do this for them at 1030am- but can go direct to Parent B - meaning that although this handover would be earlier ( 1030am instead of 12pm ) Parent B would not have to travel so instead of leaving at 1030 am for a 1.5 hour journey to the meeting point - the handover would happen at the time they usually leave and save the travelling.

It just means that one parent is losing 1.5 hours of contact time and the other is gaining that.

Parent B is not willing for this to happen nor willing to change their contact times to another day.

Is anyone being unreasonable here ?

I don't think I understand why parent B wouldn't agree to less travel and more time with the child.

Is the family member taking the child from parent A straight to B, or from the handover point to B?
If the former, could family member just take to handover for the normal time then nothing changes for B?

You have caught me out , I have to give more information now 🤣

family member is taking child from parent a to parent b. They can only do it at this time due to their own plans.

This means parent B will be getting more time and not have to travel. Child will have a less stressful travel too as family member drives. It’s quite a way with buses and trains so will also be saving both parents money on travel. It means child will arrive with parent B earlier, but they would not have to travel 3 hours round trip.

Parent B would be travelling from their house - this has been asked in case they were elsewhere and that’s why they were saying no .

There are no reasons other than “ it’s not my time with the child until 12 “ - I am involved in the situation by knowing parent B .

But I think from this post you can now see that I think it is parent B who is being unfair .

Parent B might have plans. They might not want to change them.

I think if Parent B is saying no just to be difficult, they are bring unreasonable.

There are no reasons other than “ it’s not my time with the child until 12 “ - I am involved in the situation by knowing parent B .

Nah, there'll be more to it than than that you're not privy to.

On the face of it of course they're being unreasonable but they'll have a reason no matter how weak or strong it is.

On a slightly different note, I wouldn't be taking on extra shifts if it meant relying on someone else to keep driving my child for contact.

What if they change their mind or let the parents down at the last minute?

Just wanted to confirm, parent B would normally leave their house at 10.30am to get the half way point for 12?
But instead child would arrive at their front door at 10.30am instead?

Unless the family member causes issues, or for some reason parent b doesn't want anyone knowing their address for safety reasons... yeh parent b is weird. It saves the. Money with travel, it saves the fuss of a 3hr round trip for the parent, and they get more time wjth the child. Sounds like a win, win and win for them...

I think Parent A can ask, but if Parent B doesn’t want to change the routine, then that’s it.

Ime one parent won't ever be helpful if they thinks it actually benefits the other parent.... The dc never comes into it..

It doesn't matter who the person in the wrong is. You can't change it.

I would seriously start looking at every alternative child care / family to enable you to take on the shifts you want.

It's hard to know without details but some people, some men will purposely obstruct just to exercise control.

On the face of it parent B is being difficult out of spite, so parent A is unable to work. There is usually two sides to everything, so possibly something you have not been told, but if it is person B you are friends with, I'm not sure why they wouldn't tell you their reasoning, unless they know they are being unreasonable.

As it was person B who moved away, I'd say that person A is already doing them a favour by doing half the travelling (and offering to arange for all of the journeyto be covered), as that is usually the responsibility of the person who moved. In their position I'd consider stopping any favours to a person who wasn't reciprocating the same level of flexibility and goodwill.

On the face of it B is being weird. Not sure why they wouldn't agree to have their child dropped at their door and not have to travel. It's hardly an inconvenience to them!

If you know parent B tell them to stop being a weirdo and agree to it.

Most of you are saying what I think. I wanted to post without revealing who is who to get an idea of opinions without it being based on stereotypes of mothers / fathers.

So, Parent B is the mother. Child is due to return to mother , usually at 12 , father has asked if child can be dropped to mother at 1030 as a family member can take them to her , this allows him to pick up the extra shift. It means he has an hour or so less with the child , but means that mother has the child back at the time she would usually leave the house - therefore , not in her ‘free time’ and she has said no.

Father is a good father and she is a good mother. Mother moved away to be closer to her family, father was a bit sad at this but understood. Father always sees child, doesn’t mess around with that and pays. Father used to share a flat with a friend but mother was not happy about this and said he should have a proper home so father saved to get a 2 bed place so child could have their own room . He works and the rent is not cheap - he obviously doesn’t get any financial support , so extra shifts really help him to pay rent and pay maintenance. At pickup time, father travels all the way to Mother to collect and it’s on the return they meet halfway- father covers the cost of travel for the child for the full journey ( so the half travelling back with mother ) admittedly it’s not a huge amount .

I am related to mother so really my loyalty I guess should be with her but I know him too ( through her ) and he’s a good man. There is no other reason other than “ it’s not my time “ . I have a relationship with her where she would tell me if there was another reason - there is no real bad blood between them so if , for eg , she was seeing someone and he might be there etc, he wouldn’t kick up a fuss. I know this isn’t the case though due to my relationship with her.

Its genuinely just making a point of “ this is dads time , he’s not having less so he can work that’s not my problem” . She can be a bit like this, he’s asked to swap around before ( he has child every weekend ) so he can go out or something - which I think is acceptable because he works full time so is also entitled to a life - and she will never be open to that. In the holidays he has them part of that so will sometimes have a weekend night off and she says he should make his plans on these weekends .