Sorry for long post. My friend and I are discussing a scenario, and would like other parent's input on it to see how this stance is seen...
The first viewpoint is that it is always best for any child (unless specific/harmful/legally ordered circumstances) to have contact at least once a month, say every other week by both biological parents, this is irrespective of whether there are new siblings, new step parents, or if both biological parents are single.
A scenario we both know about was then discussed. A couple casually dating for a few months realise they definitely don't want to pursue a relationship. The woman realises that she's pregnant, and four months after that gets in touch to inform him he's having a child. He then attends scans, visits after the birth and sees the child. The mother is not English and moves back to her own country when the child is ten months old, knowing that the father will follow the child anywhere, spend fortunes on monthly flights, missing work, plus significant voluntary maintenance on top. Although she would have still left if she thought the father couldn't afford the visits. She'd never deny access. But certainly not any regard given to the father's life, or access to his child when she moved the child out of the country for her own benefit.
Now. Whilst the father was single with no other responsibilities, this was something that was juggled. People have had the view "my god you've been done up like a kipper" on hearing what he does, which partially he doesn't want to hear, and partially doesn't care because it's access, at any cost.
The father is now in a new relationship, as is the mother. The father now has two newborns with his current partner and a step child. The mother is yet to have a second child, but is likely.
The father has told the mother that he will force her back to England. She's sighed at this. She's got her new life now. His own family are tired at being left every month so he can go off on his trips and leave the newborns without dad for days at a time. They are tired of the four figured expense that goes along with this trip.
So. (Sorry again for the essay didn't want to drip feed). In this instance, the child in a different is only 1.5yrs.
My view is that it's often better for children to have both biological parents actively involved. Say those from a ten year marriage who only know "mum and dad" together. But in this instance, maybe it's better given the situations of both the mother and the father, that the child is left to be in a loving family unit with his mother and stepfather while he's too young to know the difference. Does the child actually benefit from being whisked away on his own every month, from the family (away from any future siblings that may be arriving soon) or should, whilst he's never going to be any wiser, he be left to grow being loved by two parents in his country. Does the father's children benefit from him leaving country for several days every month, also considering the chunk of that family income he uses for that purpose.
My view is that the only person truly benefiting is the father, at quite a lot of other people's expense. I think the child when older, could be flown over to spend half terms/summer holidays etc at his house. He'd not lose his child, just things would be on a basis that suited everyone in the situation better.
My friend stands firm. Doesn't matter the effect of the regular absence from the country to his children. Doesn't matter the cost involved. Doesn't matter that the child is being very well looked after in his own country by two parents and being removed by the biological father. Her view is very rigid, that's what's best for the child.
But is it in this case? Is it actually best for that child, or any of the children involved? Or are there cases when taking a back seat is doing the right thing, because there's a bigger picture.
If you're still awake...thoughts please? X