Contact Arrangements

[MrsChiefTyrell]

Thought I'd post here to see if anyone has a similar situation or any knowledge of this.

My partner's kids live with us and see their mum alternate weekends. She wants more contact and he has offered her more - mid week contact. We have a final court hearing in a few weeks when hopefully this will all be sorted and a final order made.

She refuses to pay maintenance, none at all. She also refuses to contribute in any way to her own children's costs for activities, clubs, uniforms or anything. She is self employed with her unregistered small business and so CSA cannot touch her (we have tried for ages!). She has told the Judge she is unemployed and isn't claiming benefits or looking for work.

We are struggling to manage financially as we have to also pay for child care for before and after school for them, again she will not contribute.

So, what do you think of him suggesting that her contact days are arranged around my partner's working days? He works a rolling shift pattern so she'd get 50% of weekends but not alternate exactly and also she'd have midweek contact but on different days. This could be planned out well in advance for a whole year is necessary.

He wants to suggest this at the final hearing but is concerned how it will go down. He has to work as she won't contribute so i sit fair to ask she has them around his work to help us financially so we don't pay for childcare (plus then they don't have to go into childcare too!)

Whatever their gender.

IME, non-payers are usually the ones who are also totally inconsistent about contact,

Which means that trusting a non-paying NRP to be reliable enough to schedule the RP's work shifts around contact it is not a realistic solution......

That's a good point tbh.

Contact is not arranged for the benefit of the NRP. Contact is for the benefit of the child. The child has a right to have contact with the NRP (obviously as long as the parent is willing) regardless of whether or not that parent is paying the child maintenance. It's not right to keep a child from seeing their other parent simply because they are not paying the child maintenance. Yes, it's annoying when they don't pay, but that is why the courts insist these issues are kept separate.

Alice -the OP isn't suggesting at all that the DC don't see their mum because she is isn't paying, just that their dad should suggest a contact schedule that fits around his work, which seems fair enough to me.

Peruvian - the OP has said that the mum was working when they first got residence, so I would guess they'd expected they'd receive maintenance from her. She then have up her job but didn't claim benefits, meaning she pays £0. I agree though that it would be unwise in court over residency to suggest that without a certain contact schedule you can't afford to look after your child. That would strengthen any claim she was making for residency.

Thought this post was about when and how this excuse for a mother sees her children, not if she can. From what I read she has contact with them but she wants more, surely if that's the case she will be thankful for any time offered seeing as she is unemployed and not looking for work

Hopefully the courts will use common sense and it will all work out okay, I'm sure they will. It's in the best interest of the child after all.

What court could possibly give residency to someone that isn't working, isn't looking for work, doesn't claim benefits so can't afford to buy a t shirt for their children? Unless they know she is lying and actually working therefore probably not a decent human being! Surely not?

The way I see it DC have a right to contact with both parents..If you remove the gander issues...when having to share time with 2 parents seperately surely it makes sense to see the NRP when RP is working esp as RP is the only one supporting the child. rather than splitting the time when RP not working and then putting DC in childcare when RP is working..

I cannot comment on the courts opinion but it is logical to me.

Also to add I have read so many threads on here where the RP has to keep child at shirt notice as nrp has to work or contact is scheduled around rp shift patterns.

What court could possibly give residency to someone that isn't working, isn't looking for work, doesn't claim benefits so can't afford to buy a t shirt for their children?

The court placed the DCs in the OPs DPs residence despite the OP and her DP being unable to afford it either, though? So, clearly courts don't always consider the financial/working arrangements of the parents involved. Neither parent can afford these DCs, it seems. What should try court do? Place them in care?

In my own experience, I was involved in a court case in which the RP was requesting a contact pattern with the NRP that accommodated her shift pattern. The court ordered a regular contact arrangement instead, and as a result, the DCs spent more time each week in the care of extended family and paid childcare than with either parent.

That's a ridiculous outcome I would have thought?

As for the Ops situation, it sounds to me that the OP and her partner are struggling but ultimately they are managing, the children's mother is completely unable to provide for them as she has absolutely no income whatsoever it appears. I wonder how she is providing for them during contact given she has no income? She must be sponging off someone though, who keeps a roof over her head? Who buys her food and clothes? Not herself or the government it would appear. Either that or she is lying, a shite mother and isn't willing to provide for her kids. All sounds very odd to me TBH.

what should the court do?

OP has given the solution, make contact around the only working parents shifts? It's the only sensible thing to do. Not difficult I wouldn't have thought but as I've said before, there seems to be an increasing lack of common sense in the world!

She should be paying and it is wrong that she does not.

However, expecting her to exist around his work is a control mechanism, however, well meaning it would appear.

This is the flip of what so many single mums face from their errant Exs and it is extremely frustrating and wrong by whomever does it. Just not the usual scenario in your case.

Contact and maintenance should not be mentioned in the same breath, conversation etc. To with hold one either to gain the other is morally wrong.

Just a thought OP but do you think Mum might be hoping to achieve shared care at court? A 50:50 split? If so, maybe that's why she's refusing to pay maintenance. Not that it excuses it her not paying while you guys have had the majority share of care obviously.

OP has given the solution, make contact around the only working parents shifts? It's the only sensible thing to do. Not difficult I wouldn't have thought but as I've said before, there seems to be an increasing lack of common sense in the world!

have you read any of the posts on the lone parent board where they are frequently let down or messed around by an ex? Sometimes for justifiable reasons, sometimes not. The fact is, NRPs don't as a general rule consider childcare to be their responsibility and frequently change contact to suit their needs. Assuming the ex in this case is similar, ordering contact to take place when the PWC needs childcare is a disaster waiting to happen. If you are taking on full time responsibility of a child then you need to be making the necessary arrangements to ensure they are cared for - 100% of the time. If you are then let down by contact arrangements (and it happens, even with the best will in the world), it isn't going to cause you problems. It doesn't matter how much you argue 'but she's an equal parent' and 'she should be taking responsibility', the fact is she isn't and the courts can't force it or indeed, enforce it.

So-called co-parenting, in my experience at least, stops being so difficult the minute you realise you are actually on your own with it and take the necessary steps to fill in all your childcare gaps.

I have to agree with fedup - arranging contact around the RP's work schedule is likely to end up with the RP being left scrabbling around trying to sort childcare at the last minute when the inevitable happens. It's happened to me in the past (learned my lesson & have not repeated it!) & no doubt many other RPs, and no matter how reasonable anyone feels this solution is, it's foolhardy to rely on someone who does not want to help/co-parent/take responsibility, for the childcare needed to allow the RP to work. It sucks, but I'd rather chew my own arm off than rely on my ex to cover my childcare needs to allow me to work. I can't make my ex take some responsibility for the long summer holidays I'm currently juggling & if I even tried, I'd end up on disciplinary if I was unable to fulfil my contracted hours. It's just not worth the risk.

I can't make my ex take some responsibility for the long summer holidays I'm currently juggling & if I even tried, I'd end up on disciplinary if I was unable to fulfil my contracted hours. It's just not worth the risk.

In theOPs case, the risk to his job that her DP faces if his ex lets them down in relation to childcare is presumably being weighed up against the risk that they will be homeless/destitute as a family if they have to pay for reliable childcare.

It's an untenable position - one which either the courts have forced upon the OPs family, or that the OPs DP has chosen for them without thinking it through. As we won't know HOW or WHY the OPs DP chose to become the resident parent, it's difficult to predict what the courts might do in relation to this issue. Unless the mother is abusive or neglectful, then the suggestion that she might be better placed to care for the DCs than the OPs family is not unreasonable.

the OP isn't suggesting at all that the DC don't see their mum because she is isn't paying, just that their dad should suggest a contact schedule that fits around his work, which seems fair enough to me.

The OP is suggesting that as the mum isn't paying, that she should be grateful that they let her see the children whenever and that she should be grateful they allow her basically to be their childcare. It's a control issue, plain and simple. It boils down to "you don't pay, you take what we dish out and be grateful." That is NOT the way it works. The contact is for the child's benefit.

And bottom line is that it is supremely stupid to use a NRP for regular childcare anyway, as it almost always completely falls apart and the whole thing creates bad feelings and puts the children in the middle.

Peruvian the woman isn't working, she isn't claiming benifits and she is refusing to take financial responsibility for her children, but you think 'they might be better placed with her?' An absolutely shite mother who clearly doesn't care less if her children are fed and clothed?!! There are shouts on other threads thst fathers that don't oay should be arrested, clearly mothers who don't get a slightly less hard time! They aren't eitholding contact (like some 'single' mothers on here in this situation threaten to do) but still they get flamed as being irresponsible for getting residency?!

This is actually becoming ridiculous! Your saying that because the father is struggling to afford the children (because their shite mother is living off fresh air ) the children might be better off with her hope they can earn their own money for uniform and food because she had none at all!

This thread is definitely an eye opener that no matter how shite, irresponsible, selfish, nasty, devious or uncaring a mother is there are still idiots who will stand up for her over a diligent caring father!! Have a word!!

Peruvian - do you think I, or any other RP, don't have to choose work/arrange childcare or homelessness/destitution? I would lose the roof over mine & my DD's head if I lost my job, such is the precarious nature of my finances. I'm restricted in how I can change my financial position by the fact I'm solely responsible for my DD's care/welfare & have to work around her needs/care. Something I'm sure every parent is acutely aware of over the summer.

The OP & her DP have no choice but to work out how to care for all the DC in their care, and difficult though it may be, they have to do that independent of what the DSC's mum does or doesn't do. They haven't even taken steps to apply for the CB - that would be the 1st step to alleviate some of the financial burden & it's a pretty poor excuse to put the blame for that on the OP's ex. Inertia on that issue alone is not helping the OP or her DP & I cannot fathom why they'd not be more pro-active on that as a basic starting point.

I have some sympathy for their plight as I've come close to losing everything more than once since being main only carer that my child relies upon. But, the OP's plight is no more or less trying/difficult than any other RP & it's a pretty universal response to say you have no choice but to just deal/cope/figure it out. It does suck & it is a factor into why lots of lone parents/RPs do struggle financially. If I was to work out the cost to my finances in terms of lost earnings/pension/cost of childcare since I became the RP for my DD, it would make your eyes water. But what is the alternative? There aren't many 'get out' clauses other than SS & I doubt any responsible parent would go there unless there was no choice whatsoever.

tension I know you do,, that's my point. The OP has been posting her circumstances and situation as if it were unique, and as if her solution is the only reasonable one - despite thousands of lone parents being in the same situation as her - the OP doesn't seem interested in their advice.

jakie We don't know the circumstances in which the DCs changed residency. We know it was quite recent and that it is being challenged in court by the mum, who apparently wants residency back. Either the OPs DP applied for residency without thinking through the financial consequences, or there is no court order and somehow the DCs ended up with him, or the court made an emergency order and placed the DCs with them due to neglect/abuse. It is only the latter which excuses the OPs DP finding himself in a situation in which he is responsible for DCs that he cannot afford.

The OP has not indicated that the DCs mum was unable to care for them when they lived with her; their mum had a job and was supporting them.

Not paying for her DCs while they are in their fathers primary care is reprehensible, although we do not know how long this situation has been ongoing - a lot may have happened very quickly; the DCs have changed residency, their mum has changed her working arrangements, a court application has been made.......the situation is very dynamic.

Not establishing maintenance payments straight away does not justify removing a mother from being primary carer if that was the status quo and there are no safety reasons why the care arrangement had to change suddenly, against the mothers wishes.

I'd be surprised if it was abuse or neglect. How could the OP and her DP justify using the mum as regular childcare if it was abuse or neglect?? That makes no sense.

No, it doesn't, does it?

That's not how it sounds to me at all. It sounds to me like many other situations where shit fathers don't pay for their kids, are financially (apparently) unable to provide as much as a t shirt for them but he wants full residency with the mother getting contact . Sound any different that way?

How will she possibly support the children, she doesn't want to work and she won't apply for benifits to buy them clothes or is that not an issue because dad will have to pay to keep a roof over their head (their including their sponging mother) should she be awarded residency because 'that's his responsibility as their father?'

Genuinely don't understand how anyone could think children will be better off with a lazy, irresponsible unemployed parent that doesn't care enough to claim benifits to help support the kids?! I find it a very strange stance.

Genuinely don't understand how anyone could think children will be better off with a lazy, irresponsible unemployed parent that doesn't care enough to claim benifits to help support the kids?! I find it a very strange stance.

I'm trying to understand how you feel you even know enough about the situation to make this judgement based simply on what the OP has posted. We know very little about the actual situation here, and what we do know is strictly from the OP's point of view which, to be honest, is biased. We know very little about the mum at all.

My point is that she wasn't like that until recently. So she can provide for her DCs.

She is choosing not to at the moment, and that is wrong - and it is clear that the choice to cease providing for her DCs has coincided with their change of residency.

The OP says that the DCs were better off with their dad than in the 50:50 arrangement previously in place and yet she is confident that an arrangement that fits around her DPs shift pattern, including 50:50 in school holidays, is suitable for the DCs. While a NRP should be condemned for not financially providing for their DCs, it is equally reprehensible to initiate a hostile residency application without thinking through the financial consequences on everyone involved.