to think mothers who stop contact with their fathers for no good reason other than they need to control are sad jealous manipulative f*ckers who need to get a grip and move and stop giving every other mother who have moved on a bad name

[jojostar]

it makes me so mad AAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH

sorry new here what does OP mean?

well you know my thoughts

An application to court for a defined contact order + shared residence would sharpen the mind and force co-operation with this incalcitrant parent jo...

My poor friend's exW is like this. For no reason she stopped him seeing his son. They didn't see each other for nearly a year until my friend went to court, at which the exW said she was scared he would kill her son (that man had just pushed his kids off a balcony, she got the idea from there). She made up a lot of other stuff which was demonstrably untrue, but it has delayed things hugely and my friend has been quite passive over it all, as he doesn't want to upset his son, so things are really dragging. He does see him now for about 3 hours every other week, which is about to go up to 6 for a couple of weeks, and he will then be back in court where they will be mental if they don't grant him unrestricted access. As far as I'm concerned the woman's a bitch of the first order and shouldn't really be allowed near children, let alone bring them up.

The sad manipulative cows the OP (and others) have referred to really do exist and I am so pleased to have known 1 of them because it's grounded me to being a reasonable pleasant ex to my XH.

If a man is out of work, and geniunely cannot earn for a period, how would you feel if the 'cow' tells you quite plainly that unless you pay, you're not seeing your son ! When did we sign up for renta-kid ?? The only thing, at the time, we had to give was time and attention and that was refused.

"If you don't mind I won't try that website - I imagine that members share personal experiences on there? - if so, how is one to tell if they are giving a balanced version of events and not a one sided argument omitting certain important facts? "

surely you could say exactly the same thing about this website and the apparently countless stories that have lead so many to believe that deadbeat dads is a far greater problem than controlling manipulative mums?

both exist. both are a significant problem.if you choose to ignore one of them that doesn't mean they are not there.

It does happen not all single mothers are like that thou but some are and please can I point out that some fathers are like that as well

But always 2 sides to every story I suppose

Echoing UmSami's point.

Sorry you had such a bashing Jojostar. Unfortunately this seems to be an area where lots of people immediately apply things to their own circumstances and take very personally.

You weren't posting about useless fathers who walk out on their commitments - or claiming they're not a serious problem. You were just posting about your and your partner's own problems.

Yes, it's awful to deny any parent contact with their children without good reason.

Hi.
There are good and bad parents, male and female. I've been divorced 11 years, never stopped access, except when exH was drunk and my DCs were too scared to go with him. I was called the usual names, gossiped about, etc. ExH chose not to come to get DCs, went to see his mates, drinking instead. I know this for a fact as we live in the same area.

Once my DCs got older, they made the decision not to see him, as he had ignored them in the past and been violent to them.

I had lots of aggro from him, up until last year, then he stopped. It wasn't about seeing the DCs, he used to accuse me of having loads of men, wanting to know how I could afford things, etc. The truth is, I work, and don't have loads of men.

Today, he's started again, wanting to search my house for something he says I have belonging to him. I don't have anything of his in my house and he knows it. He's been back with his mates (all drunk), but they got nothing. He never even asked how the DCs were.

When will it stop? He's always tried to control me, even told me that if I got pregnant or remarried, I would face dire consequences, yet he's allowed to do as he likes.

I plan to leave the country in the next 2 years, (my DCs will be adults and want to leave) but for now, I'll just live with it.

I agree that some resident parents do try to stop the other parent from seeing their kids - I've seen it happen with a male resident parent (the mother killed herself) and also with a female resident parent (the father killed himself).

Sadly, the ones affected are the children.

As I understand it OP's partner is a good Daddy and reliable.

thats right he is super and everyone who has ever seen him including the girls teachers at school agree....

"If a man is out of work, and geniunely cannot earn for a period, how would you feel if the 'cow' tells you quite plainly that unless you pay, you're not seeing your son ! When did we sign up for renta-kid ?? The only thing, at the time, we had to give was time and attention and that was refused."

Precisely the same here. OK, contact wasn't refused but it was made bloody difficult and, as I said earlier, DH's kids were told he didn't care about them because he wasn't giving his ex as much money as she wanted. The sad fact is that love and attention are not what women like that want for their children. They simply see their ex as a walking wallet.

AND we had to keep hearing of things that we did manage to buy for the girls being sent off to car boot sales. Birthday presents, nice books, you name it. Presumably they weren't as valuable as money towards the ex and her DH's own living expenses.

Even now that DH's ex is extorting huge "arrears" payments out of him (which she is entitled to only in the CSA's perverse version of the law) the money is not being seen by DH's grown-up children, despite an express request. Presumably it's paying for her home extension.

I totally agree she is very unhappy with the amount she receives which now we have gone through the csa is lower than before...I got dd some lelli kellis which she loves and also got a pair each for my dsd's only for them to be told not to wear them and that we must have lots of money etc to be able to get them all a pair...imagine if i had only got my dd a pair i would have been wickedsm for not getting them any... i guess she will never be happy unless we split up of course and that would be short lived cos she'd find something else to whinge about some people not everyone have gotten to in the habit of being miserable...

I wish my kids' dad would even acknowledge them. my twin ds's are now ten and my dd is nearly twelve. He's seen them once in the last six years....It's such a shame but I now accept it as part of life....

Twinklemegan, your post made me think.

Ds's dad used to pay me £27.00 a week, had a huge strop about it one day and said he had no evidence that I was spending it on ds. I just wonder what kind of evidence fathers would like to see? Because surely they must realise that money goes towards paying the bills (kids use water, gas and electricity do they not?) Kids also eat. Kids need uniform, clothes, money for school dinners and hobbies, days out and pocket money.

What would have proved it to my ex I wonder? If I had spent that money on new clothes for ds every week (that he would ruin or lose, but that's another story) then wouldn't that just make me wasteful?

So I said if he was so bothered then forget the money and just pay for ds's Karate lessons (£30.00 a month). It would be taken out of his account by direct debit to the Karate club. He wouldn't do it!

How is a mother supposed to prove what she spends the money on? Not a dig, just a question.

You know ShyBaby, without wanting to pass the buck I think yet again it's the fault of the CSA. Certainly in our case anyway (not sure if you're with them or not). The old system CSA letters were all about the money the PWC needs to live on, with barely a mention of the children at all. Then you have a situation where the PWC and her husband go on benefits and the NRP finds themself footing the bill, not just for her income support but her husband's as well - again barely a mention of the children. The children's money is last on the list - money is only paid for the children if the NRP can afford to pay the whole whack the CSA say is needed (which at £95 a week was not the case for us).

This breeds massive resentment which it is very hard to shift, especially in a case where the PWC left the NRP, got married and chose to have more children. An NRP starts to wonder exactly who is benefiting from the money.

In our case now with the arrears, proof would be the money being split between the two grown up children, both of whom could do with help (which we can't afford to give because the ex gets all our spare money). They aren't getting the money directly, so what are we supposed to think?

And I think the other difficulty is when the children are not being brought up how the NRP would like them to be. Not being encouraged or helped to do well at school for example. Or being used as the household skivvy to do all the chores/babysitting in the evening when they should be doing their homework. Or when you see that they have the latest plasma TV, playstation etc. and yet your DD/SD has no dressing gown and slippers. And, as I said before, when you see things you've bought for the children being "car-booted".

It is very hard to trust an ex to do the right thing in those circumstances. And at the end of the day all of this boils down to trust and respect, which is often sadly lacking on both sides.

If you are a good dad and parents have split up and mum says dad can only see dad on certain days....(ie once a week etc) that sucks. I am sure their are reasons esp if mum (or dad as some dads have full care of kids) or partner splits. Slightly agree.

There are many parents like this sadly and unless and until we start jailing mothers or saying if the mother denies contact the children automatically go to live with the father the law will have no teeth and women will continue in effect to put two fingers up to court orders. There is no enforcement power so anyone who wants to deny contact to another parent really has carte blanche to do that.

there are plenty of women though who want their children's fathers more involved and the men won't be. My children's father hasn't contacted the older 3 children for five years and sees the others for at most 2 hours a week. And there isn't even a legal right to force him to help or see them. In other words the father has a right to a court order for contact but the child has no rights whatsoever.

But there most definitely is a legal (I use the term loosely) power to force fathers to help financially (whether or not that helps the child is a different matter). The law treats even honest and good NRPs worse than it treats many criminals. But the law so badly needs to move on from just seeing fathers as a ready source of cash.

I know. In a sense perhaps it needs to be so bad to deter divorce but that's the only advantage I can see. Divorce law is riddled with unfairness, a mother of five like me with a full time working higher rate tax payer husband still has to pay him more than 60% of assets just to ensure he stops his maintenance claim for life and agree he won't support the children. The higher earners are shafted and parents who choose not to help with children are almost patted on the back by the law. I don't want or need cash from my ex although it continues to surprise me he chooses to pay nothing but I would like the law to force him to spend 50% of the time with the children. Full time working mothers with resident chlidren have to organise and pay child care so I don't see why non resident fathers shouldn't. What we need is a law that forces fathers to take on the bad bits of childcare not just the fun weekend bits which says you can play with them on Saturdays if you also deal with sick in the night in the week, sorting out school uniform, picking up from child care. Not let them cherry pick those aspects they choose, say you have to take the rough with the smooth, not just dot into a child's life to play the good fairy when it suits you. If lime some countries the starting point was 50% with each parent eith erweek on week off as many parents in the UK do manage or 3 or 4 days a week with each particularly when both parents work full time as a starting point then that would solve the problems mothers like I have with exes who do zilch and help men like your other half who want to see the children more.

The way I see it there are two kinds of help that a father can give. Financial and help in kind. Both are valuable, and many fathers who really aren't in a position to do the first would be very willing and eager to do the second if only they were allowed. The law only supports the first kind of help, which is a great loss to the children IMO.

When my DH first got shafted by the CSA he was left in a position where it was utterly impossible for him to have the children to stay as much as he'd like. Children cost money to keep as we all know. Yet unless a father had their kids for more than 100 nights a year this was not allowed for at all. So a father like my DH could be left on income support levels of income, with no allowance made for the costs of looking after their children, unless they hit that magic 100 nights figures. The mother got all the maintenance, and the child benefit, and the tax credits (or whatever the equiavelent was back then). And the father just got the bill. Crazy, and very unkind to the father and to the children.

[And my DH wasn't even married to his ex. She refused point blank.]

It's very unfair. They should make parents have the children 50./50 and split all the benefits (for those lucky enough to get them I never got a tax credit in my life) and child benefit 50/50.

The law does allow a father to go to court to force a mother to let him see the children (albeit that many mothers then ignore court orders) but it does not force a father like my childrne's father to see their children or help with them at all (and our court order in effect says he doesn't pay either)

Xenia this is exactly what I have been trying to do. my ex has moved 150 miles away and then tried to reduce contact to every other weekend but instead of friday night to sunday night (so 2 nights per week) she demanded saturday morning to sunday night, (1 night per fortnight) which would take me under the 102 night thresh hold of CM reduction but at the same time increasing my costs as driving 600 miles per fortnight was still more than the 300 miles each fortnight when she was closer to me. she says that now he is at school, she wants half the quality time available, so if she agrees to me having the other half, that should mean that I have 3.5 days/nights contact per week surely? my ex sees weekends only as quality time, I see quality time as all the time, doing all the mundane day to day stuff like listening to him read, feeding, bathing, clothing him, wiping his snotty nose and washing his mud/paint/dirt splattered school uniform each day (I did attempt to iron his school uniform this weekend but I think I ironed more creases in than out )

I did all the 'bad bits' when we were together as I was main carer (long story, she rejected him at birth), it is part of the quality time with him that we both enjoy but his mother does not, but at the moment the courts and law only allows for this alleged quality time of the weekends and it is that that is divided up. I would be perfectly happy to have my son sunday night to thursday night and allow my ex to have every weekend if she wants just the law enforced quality times, but as she would loose most of her benefits, she refuses and sticks to this falsehood of quality times perpetuated by the courts.

(and personally, if there were a way to make both parents care 50-50 for the children I would be all for it but an assumption of shared care on separation would be a start and a signal to parents (fathers) that both parents were responsible for their children and cannot easily run away from that responsibilty)

I agree about the CSA too.
I have recently finished studying. I cannot afford to set up in clinic as my ex has bankrupted our joint business and left me with £60k of debts (not written off by the bankruptcy). I cannot get a job in someone elses clinic as no-one is hiring at the moment. to keep myself afloat and with a home, I signed on and get a grand total of £60 per week, of which thw CSA straight away takes £9 to give to my ex. now she is 150 miles away rather than 30, I have to drive 600 miles each week to collect and return my son costing me around £50 in petrol of which the CSA has now said I can get a reduction in CM payments for which is, 15% of 50% of total cost!!!!!!!!!!! as they will only work on the basis that I drive half the distance they work on 300 miles and then a 15% discount on that, so that works out to a whopping £3.75 per week discount even though it costs me £50 because she moved in an effort to stop contact!! therefore of the £60 I am left with £4.75 to live on, which if it were not for my family, I would not do so. when I get the 2 nights reduction in CM, I will have a further £2.58 to live on so when that comes through next year some time I will crack open a bottle of champagne sparkiling wine fizzy water a glass of tap water if its not been cut off!!