Dad is the main carer - relationship break-up

[ohnobaby]

Hi, a friend of mine is married to a Romanian woman. He lost his job about 6 months ago and since then his wife has worked full-time and he's been the main carer for his son who is now 13 months old. They're not getting on too well and she's talking about divorce and taking their son back to Romania. Can this happen? I was under the impression that if he was the main carer he would have the same rights as the 'mother' so to speak? Surely she can't just take their son when he's been the main carer for 6 months? Would he not be entitled to custody? Thanks guys

Yes, but by circumstance rather than choice?

EleanorRigby, that website you linked gives plenty to support the mother's case (if she is getting one together).

eg, her motives for moving are genuine (returning to her home country) so that would be a tick.

her plans are well thought through, moving for support and family reasons - tick.

plus, there is a list of reasons for which mother's application to leave might be granted..

number one

it can be demonstrated that refusal of leave will be sufficiently emotionally or psychologically harmful to the resident parent that it impacts on the care of the child.

That website is misleading. There was a time when judges applied the Hague convention without a thought. But they are now distinguishing between a mother emigrating off with a new lover to his country and a mother returning to her home country following a breakdown.

Yes but you could argue with maternity leave, lower paid jobs etc the women are the main carers by circumstance rather than choice...

Libra, what a ludicrously disingenuous comment.

Many fathers bond with their children but it's not as strong, or as quick, and if it were then you would not have millions of women chasing their x's through the CSA, millions of lone parents trying to explain to their children why Daddy didn't come (again).

Men can walk away, and a fairly significant percentage of them still do. A woman doesn't give birth and then walk off. She can't. It's SO much harder to do that.

Durr.

Just because a women CANT walk off doesn't mean she doesn't want to.
I am sure many women on here could tell you the bond between them and their babies wasn't quick or particularly strong just as I could find many men who would lay down and die for their children from the second they were born (and probably sooner).
You are just making these sweeping generalisations that mummy must be better than daddy and it's not always the case.

I am not sure why I am having a conversation with someone who actually types durr.

quite right bramshott

But Maggie what about the father? Are the mothers rights to familial support considered so great that the childs needs to be close to its primary carer and long term half of its family just ignored?

Of course women can, and do walk away from their DC - I know one who walked away from six of her own children, abandoning two at a time with their respective fathers. This isn't about anyone walking away from a child - it's about doing what is best for this child. Sadly, the parents are, as yet, unable to agree, but the father wants to make sure reasonable arrangements are put in place, rather than the mum maybe running away with the DD.

Libra, women statistically don't walk away. Arguing that that isn't the case is just pointlessly argumentitive.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to have this conversation with somebody who has never faced losing her kids herself and who seems to doubt that men let their children down (by not being around) more than women do. And the reason for that is because they don't have the same bond. It's just so obvious, that is why I said durr.

Maybe the reason you're having a conversation with me is because I've actually been through this situation that is being discussed on this thread?

Just a thought. It's not just words or theory for me. I have faced losing my children. My x, interestingly enough, who fought me like a derranged mad man has now faded into the background and decided that he only wants to see the NT child and not very often, and he'd rather not see our sn child. He bought a flash car when we left. He could get to the children quicker than he could get to Scotland. He doesn't have the same bond with our children that I did. He never did.

And I am not bitter before you throw that in to the ring from your position of never personally having faced the risk of losing your children.. I feel safe now, supported, relieved stronger, wiser.... definitely not bitter. (cos I know what comes next in these conversations). I've had these conversations before with people who've never faced losing their children and it's tediously predictable.

Snorbs, "there is no malicious intent in my words, I understand what it feels like to face the prospect of a court case which may or may not rule in your favour."

Me too. Well, in my case, it was a Social Services Child Protection case conference. Luckily the people on that panel didn't automatically assume that children should always stay with their mother regardless of circumstance. If they had, my kids would be stuck with their unstable, alcoholic mum rather than having a stable and loving home here with me.

"It's fight for the rights all the way. Collateral damage (the mother) is incidental."
You got that right. Fight for the rights of the child. Adults have choices in these things, children don't.

To clarify my last point - I don't believe that the mother's demands should trump everybody else's just because she's got two X chromosomes.

Yeah, I was lucky too, or my children would be under the influence of a controlling, negative, bad tempered narcissist who was damaging his children so severely that his four year old was having nightmares and had regressed to wetting her knickers again.

As for the rights of the child, the child will suffer if it's kept from its mother because ...... she lost a court case because she had a job

Snorbs, you're seeing it through a father's eyes obviously. It's not about HER rights trumping the fathers. The bond is stronger due to biology. You'll never be able to convince me otherwise. there are excellent fathers and there are crap fathers BUT statistically MORE mothers are involved and more fathers walk. This is because women DO have a stronger bond especially with a six month old child.

If your children's mother was an alcoholic then they are better off with you and that was a good reason for a judge to rule in your favour because it IS in the children's interests.

But ruling against a mother who has no 'issues' because she had a JOB... that is totally different and it is disgraceful. +My heart goes out to that woman. I hope she is lining up her ducks.

Maggie you might not be bitter but there is no way you can say your situation doesn't affect your point of view.

"I'm not sure why I'm bothering to have this conversation with somebody who has never faced losing her kids herself and who seems to doubt that men let their children down (by not being around) more than women do. And the reason for that is because they don't have the same bond. It's just so obvious, that is why I said durr."

This is just such a blanket statement you are tarring every single man with the same brush as your ex and that is just not true. Some women let their children down, some women abandon their children, some women don't always have their childs best interests at heartbut you seem to have elevated all women to saint status.

The case here isn't the father keeping the child away from the father it is a father wondering if he could get custody as the main carer. If he has been fit to look after the child the last 6 months then why shouldn't that continue?

"This is because women DO have a stronger bond especially with a six month old child."

Are you even reading our posts?

Of course personal experience affects my view - in the same way that your views are affected by personal ignorance. I don't mean that rudely.

There was a time when I would probably have said 'yes fathers have equal rights' blah blah blah. But now I know that shit happens and you can't divide children in two.

Women have over the centuries statistically proved themselves more committed to parenting than men have. You can't argue with that. It is statistics. There are some crap mothers out there and some excellent fathers and I'm not disputing that, but in order for the legal system to protect as many children as possible as much of the time as possible then the law should be stacked in favour of mtohers (unless there are issues such as neglect or alcoholism). Obviously no fahter is going to agree with that.

Maggie, this isn't about many men who walk away, or even many men who don't. It's about one, specific couple, both of whom love their child and presumably want the best for her. It's about that mum, and that dad, and that 13 mo baby, whose main carer for the last six months has been her dad. In many cases, mum stays home while dad works, and in those cases often mum would "win" custody. Is this the same as ^punishing" dad for having a job?

sigh

You'd all be cool about losing your own kids I bet?

Hiding this thread. Can'st stand it any longer.

As far as residence orders, think it's more a case of women/moms being the main carer, not that there aren't equal rights. If a father has been the one who has been caring for a child(ren) over a span of time, then it's a matter of keeping the status quo irrespective of gender.

However, in this situation, the child is 13 months and the father has been caring for him for past 6 months since being made unemployed. Tricky if this is the status quo or not...

The legal system doesn't favor women, but the main carer.

No maggie - women have over centuries been placed in the role of caregiver and nurturer which has only recently changed in society - hence why the ops friend is at home looking after his child whilst his soon to be ex is at work. I notice you are only arguing the points that relate to you, your situation and your children - none of which seems beneficial advice to this situation. I am afraid that I think this is a lose lose all round. She stays - she is unhappy, she goes child loses primary caregiver and half its family to satisfy the mothers needs, father goes he is in the same position as she is now and his needs are no less equal than hers. What a nightmare.

You can't read anything into the motives of either parent when you don't know them.

I would suggest that, all things being equal, neither parent should have the right to remove the child to another country without the other's consent. This woman moved to the UK and gave birth here and made a life here. She can't just take the baby and run because the relationship has run its course unless there are justifiable reasons for doing so like;

the father doesn't care,

the father is abusive or presents a risk to either mother or child

she has no money and can't survive without help

wanting to be in the bosom of her family is not sufficient to deny the child a relationship with its father and vice versa.

excuse me ladies and gents

THE CHILD IS NOT SIX MONTHS!

ahem thanking you

Maggie, in the event you come back, no, of course I wouldn't have been happy to "lose" my own kids. But my DS2 has a son of his own now; he and his GF are a loving couple at present, but if something should go wrong he would be devastated if the mum upped sticks and went to live in another country, taking the child.

Every bit as devastated as she would be if he did the same thing.

Men have feelings too.

13 months, but father has been caring for him for past 6 months.

"Hiding this thread. Can'st stand it any longer."
That's probably the best for all concerned, but especially for the OP.
Well Done You x