Ex husband refusing to swap contact weekends

[Flossynoodle123]

Advice needed. I'm at my wits end. My DS is nearly 7. His father left when he was a newborn. By Court Order he has DS every other weekend. Unfortunately, DS has 3 important events in June and July falling on the Father's weekends. He refuses to take him and he refuses to swap weekends. There is no reason for the refusal other than it would mean he would have 2 consecutive reasons with no contact - he can't see him on an offered "extra" weekend because he's away! He has been a complete nightmare about things like this since day 1. DS is understandably very upset and tells me to just refuse to give him to Daddy. I'm considering telling him he has to swap and i'm not going to argue about it. The continuing stress of dealing with the man is making me ill. Has anyone had a similar experience. What should I do?

In my simple view OP, your ex is just being spiteful. He is depriving your DS of fun activities because he can.

But I've got sidetracked anyway. I was only coming back to the thread in the first place to direct the OP to Coram's helpline here - childlawadvice.org.uk/clas/contact-child-law-advice/

Fathers OR mothers who think that what they want is more important than what the child wants need a fucking slap.

It's about what is best for the child for fucks sake.

Ha ha! Oh excellent, definition of rationality - paerlyman's viewpoint.

despite being factually incorrect about the existence of parents rights etc

Pearlman - instead of unhelpful posts calling me "hysterical" please state why my son should not be allowed to go to 3 events of huge importance to him when there is no reason for it. The Father can swap, he can have extra contact etc etc.
This is a forum for advice and support - not for the sort of comments you have posted. I look forward to your helpful input on this issue.

Meh, pay no heed. Pearlman just thinks we live in Victorian England where men owned women and children as property...

Usually a guide as to how sensible someone's advice is is looking at how accurate a grasp of facts they have in their argument. I'd apply that to my advice too and think you should contact the Coram helpline for proper legal advice from a qualified specialist!

But for what it is worth the answer I suspect is 'because his father says he can't'

I can "reflect" on how the conflict has increased massively while we've been in this process. You're probably the first person involved in family law that I've come across that doesn't think court = heightened conflict. Every single solicitor, barrister, CAFCASS officer and lay helper have all said it makes things worse in high conflict situations.

I just said during the process it is difficult. The whole point of going to court is to try and resolve the conflict where all other methods have failed.

My point is, until you know the outcome you simply cannot bang on about 'why do the courts get involved they make everything worse' because you haven't yet had an attempt at resolving your conflict finalised by the court.

I don't think you should have moved the swimming lessons, to me it's a little controlling and your motives are a little manipulative. You said it's to give him the opportunity to give the father an extra 30mins and it's an activity your ex can take part in. Why do you think he would want you to offer him that opportunity and make that choice for him? I'm sure as an adult he can make his own decisions as to what activities he wants to take part in, if any. You should have said to the father I'm going to move DS swimming lessons to within your time is that ok? If he said no it's not your place to do it.

I partly agree with pearlman that the father can do what he wants when he has his son but likewise when your son is with you you can do what you want and the father shouldn't be able to set up activities in your time if that's not what you want.

You also say your ex moved away but God knows why or for some petty reason, or words to that effect? Why would you know why he moved, your not part of his life and it's nothing to do with you why he moved away, the reasons matter not one jot to you.

8 weeks isn't that long as advance notice....I currently have tickets for October and December events,tucked away, based on contact continuing as scheduled. The December tickets were booked in February!!

Personally, I find it easier to stick rigidly to a schedule. I send emails about parties and other stuff to create a paper trail but ultimately, I tell the children it's up,to,dad. We all then know where we stand.

I know who I'd rather have representing me in Court in a toss up between Pearlman and Offred.

If Pearlman's attitude prevailed my children would no doubt be currently stuck halfway up a chimney with a brush in their hand. Still, much better that then twating around having a social life,cheek of them.

that is his call. That's parenting differences, not child abuse. He will pay the price for it in time.

The father will undoubtedly pay the price for his actions and decisions in time, the current issue is a distressed child who is paying the price now!

Learning that you are nothing more than a pawn (or display object) in your parent's eyes is a nasty lesson to learn, it carries a price payable over a period of years.

I think it is the father's decision how he and his family will organise their time, while he has contact. I don't think it is the child's decision, or the mother's; their preferences do not automatically take priority over his.

The child's preferences are secondary to the father's! The father's take priority. Seriously? What school of parenting is that from? The child is not a possession of the father or the mother, he is a whole distinct human being with a whole separate life, even at the age of 6. Yes the father can decide his son doesn't eat meat when he is with him, or always has sunday dinner or whatever but for a father to absolutely ignore the important content of his child's life - school, swimming etc. is awful. And yes he can do it . But it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean the mother in this situation shouldn't give her best shot at doing her best for her child.

Do you really think a father's preferences should be unquestioningly given priority over his son's actual day to day life - the content of his life, the things that form his childhood, just as they do everyone else's-friends, school, competitions. This is a chilling view of child rearing post divorce.

Yes, it does suck when courts get involved with issues after a divorce/split. It is the price you pay unfortunately. To get to the stage where a judge is deciding whether your kid can go to ballet lessons, that kid has already probably paid a much worse price than you.

And many many parents manage to organise themselves even after a split so they don't end up fighting over everything. I suspect they are parents who worry less about rights and priorities and put their children first.

If your contact dates have been set by the court then you know them in advance. So when you get told dates for events you already know which ones will fall on the father's weekends. So maybe in future you should prempt any issues for your son by checking with his father first before discussing them with your son and/or telling him that 'x' event is on the weekend you are at your dad's so you might not be able to go.

It sucks but you need to make things easier for child.

The issues is not a right to a social life. The issue is the child has 'a right' to expect the parent acts in his best interests.

The court uses the welfare principle with the following non exhaustive checklist contained in the children's act 1989;

A court shall have regard to;

the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);

his physical, emotional and educational needs;

the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;
his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;

any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.

But I might add, the op is not trying to stop contact or reduce contact, simply investigating whether she can ask the promise he made verbally in court to be included in the actual order.

There are 2 different issues here. The first issue is the regular swimming lessons during the fathers time and the second is the gala.

If we go back to the start the child used to go swimming on a different day during the week when they were with OP - OP moved those dates to the weekend to a time when the child was meant to be with the father - that's not something which was done because the child wanted to, it was Op who wanted that because it was difficult during the week. OP shouldnt have changed those dates without asking because it's not her time.

As for the gala the child should go if they want to because it's a 1 off event which isn't being held at another time.

The issue is the child has 'a right' to expect the parent acts in his best interests.

Some people might think it's in his best interests to spend time with his father maintaining their relationship because he only sees him two days a week.

The child is not missing out on contact with his father. His father has been offered other times (and increased contact) if he doesn't want to do any activities.