CMA and stopping contact

[BlindMum]

I’m just wondering how many peoples ex’s mess around with how many night the other parent can see the child.

the more I read on here the more it’s happening

I understand that some parents just don’t care about the child/ children but it all comes down to how much money they can get out of the other

so sad that money comes first for some people

The family courts and the whole process / circus to get a court order is truly shocking.

A man can go through court to get lets say every other weekend access to his own kids. Have to go through all kinds of allegations and nonesense to achieve this.

Yet if he meets a new partner and moves in with her there is no checks on the situatiin with his new partners kids. Theres no issue with him being arojnd such kids the majority of the time but cant be trusted with his own. The bemusing thjng being a step parent is statistically far more likely to harm a child.

I know it does happen but in such cases there is the power for child maintenenace service to investigate and get something out of the parent

You need to get out more. Seriously. It's a very, very common problem. The issue is that the laws around child maintenance and self employment are not a paraticulary good 'fit' so it's possible to legally avoid paying maintenance, let alone all the illegal and not so moral ways it can also be avoided.

I suspect in such cases the Mother prefers to keep the ex out of the kids lives and thats the unsaid compromise

For some, perhaps. But plenty of us have paid for everything for years and years whilst the ex enjoys whatever contact with his children suits him.

OP I think the thread and some responses kind of confirm the point that non resident parents struggling with this stuff are seen as 'collateral '

Sorry I'm confused. So just confirming that the mental damage to a child not seeing their NRP because their mother is demanding more money is collateral damage?

I'm not sure if you've read my other comments on this thread and I'm not sure you're seeing the context of my comments.

I gave a reason upthread as to why I believe NRPs struggle to get child access / contact In reference to maintenance.

I was met with a few comments of well many men play the child maintenance system to limit the maintenance they pay.

So yes in that context it appears the limiting of such contact or exclusion (which I'm totally against) is seen as collateral by a few on this thread

@Talon01
No I've read your answers it wasn't an argument against you, mine was being sarcastic along with your message. Hinting that it will actually have more impact on the children. Something that a lot of these mothers don't see as they would rather just prove a point to the NRP

I feel like this is a fairly interesting place to ask this question tbh.

I think it's quite an insensitive place to ask tbh! I'm not sure where is more appropriate but I'm suss about what the OP's angle is, even though I could chime in on this.

PPs are completely right that men not paying is a far bigger issue than women withholding contact in order to get money. Withholding contact is a tricky thing, what may seem like withholding may be putting the child's needs first because they have serious reasons why they don't want to go to their dad's.

@Talon01 really not uncommon for men to get court orders as a form of control and mind games. I know of several cases like that.

Christmas is supposed to be alternated but often there's a Uber important reason why it's not his turn to have Christmas ect it's been 4years of it not being his turn so far and it's frustrating.

@pitchforksandflamethrowers that's weird, I could swear I remember you having a saga last Christmas because your DSD was supposed to come to yours but had symptoms of covid, and your DH took her for Christmas Day elsewhere! I remember because we were having a similar situation in our house! Arggh Covid. Hopefully that won't rear its head this year.

@FabbyO 😵‍💫(jealous of your memory) apologies I should have been clearer I mean day and night Christmas (like Christmas Eve to Christmas Day), although your right (so amend previous statement) I believe DH had DSD last year from 3pm onwards Christmas Day for a bit (I think) there was some huge hoohar about it with the ex so I'm not sure on exact timing - at the point I was heavily pregnant and stressed out my little nut and trying to not upset anyone.

Sad to say but honestly Christmas is just massively painful. I'm hoping for a more joyful time this year !

Im probably being naive in hoping one day it will be our turn without drama, time parameters or some dreaded plague interfering and everyone just sticks to the offical plans.

Sigh.

Also

*I feel like this is a fairly interesting place to ask this question tbh.

I think it's quite an insensitive place to ask tbh!*

I should have put "interesting" in "". It's difficult re contact - one persons perspective of what's best for the children is can be vastly different from another's and often biased based on perspective (some reasonable perspectives some not). I suppose that's why we have judges.

I also do think that every parent should pay for their child and (safety concerns aside) have the opportunity to see their child.

Yes plenty of men go through the expense and emotional turmoil of court to simply spite their ex....

Amazes me you actually believe this nonesense

Yes plenty of men go through the expense and emotional turmoil of court to simply spite their ex

I know you don't want to believe it, but that is absolutely my experience. Or rather, he decided that the children would be better off with him with me seeing them 'as I see fit'.

You do need to accept that there are men out there who are just as capable as women at using children as pawns in their game of hurting the ex. Many men leave SAHMs with sod all and believe that this gives them an advantage when it comes to the courts.

some responses kind of confirm the point that non resident parents struggling with this stuff are seen as 'collateral'

and yet we never see struggling mum's (usually mums) as collateral? and the impact of having a struggling mum on children is deemed as non-exsistent? After nearly 15 years of no maintenance, you can't even begin to imagine that long term consequences for me - I have worked full time but I have had to reduced pension contributions to the lowest possible figure so that I can support my children on my own. I have also struggled to properly maintain my home and right now, am in desperate need of a new roof at a quote of £11k which I can't even begin to think about affording. Massive impact on my emotional and mental health. Lord only knows what the impact has been on the children.

I'm not looking to invalidate others peoples personal experiences.

Having gone through the whole court process I just find it hard to believe that many men do it with the idea of trying to control an ex. Without the court order it's the ex that gets to control whether the non resident parent sees the kids usually. 'Let's them see the kids'.

The thread was specifically about maintenance being used as a measure to stop contact or extort money. Looking at this thread quite depressingly it seems some are still of the view a mother should have the right to control access / contact time.

Repeating what I mentioned up thread the family court system is deeply flawed and you can't just take one aspect and say that's what needs fixing. It has to be a more holistic approach.

Talon - you refuse to believe that men take mothers to court for vindictive means and vice versa
You firmly believe mothers only extort monies but refuse to believe fathers avoid paying for their offspring.

No the mother should not control contact it should be a mutually agreed decision between both parents, but in many cases one side will dominate either by making contact difficult -- ie limiting times by the RP or not being available NRP. contact is used as an abusive mechanism by both parents.

Both sides are guilty to varying degrees - not all mothers are bad likewise not all fathers are bad - you just refuse to believe anyting outside your experience.

But this is a thread specifically in relation to Mother's limiting contact.

There's fault on both sides so let's ignore the issue?

YOu link messing around and limiting contact as a monetary control mechanism and there are undoubtedly some mothers and fathers who do this.

There are many reasons why contact may be limited or not equal - needs for the child practicalities or transportation to activities, school drop off times etc. My Ex demanded 50: 50 but having moved 2.5 hours away in rush hour this was impractical, so he then demanded 1 ON per week and EOW, and he expected me to do the dropping off and picking up, ie me take to school, pick up drop at his new place, drive home, pick up in the morning take to school etc - at the same time as deciding his 2 new step children and new child meant that maintenance for his 2 ( already not even CMA rate!) could drop even further - think 100K + salary - 200 pcm in CSA.

I was spending that in petrol per month so yes control goes both ways but it is not all financial. I never limited contact - he chose his times and never stuck to them, but also reduced monies, had complete control over my life, making my ability to hold down a job extremely difficult and he and his now EX going on luxury holidays and leaving his 2 behind.

We all accept both sides play games but can the only women control contact for monies claim. Some of us ahve vast expereince of the other side.

How does someone earn a six figure salary and pay only 200 quid in maintenance. Unless they are having 50 / 50 shared access. Just genuinely interested.

Repeating what I've said upthread I'm not looking to invalidate others experiences. But I do firmly believe the majority of court applicants are going for a contact order of some form. Which usually consists of eow with maybe a bit extra thrown in. Whilst it's hard to find research the limited research I've come across indicates this. Hence I don't think those going for such orders are doing so usually to control the other party (in most cases). I think its usually to get consistent uninterrupted contact. Although even that can be a challenge as the enforcement can be difficult.

Because that is what he and his then DP thought was appropriate as I earn similar and did not need the monies. In the heat of separation and the numerous other bad things happening in my life it was a battle too far to fight at the time. It had been £400 for a few months but then someone realised that as they were now pregnant and her own DCS meant it could be less - it got cut.

Interestingly, they have now split and I get £500 for 2 DCs but his second EX gets £1200 on a pay per view basis!. My amount or I stop contact so he pays. The inequity both in access - contact with mine is dropped - particularly birthdays because she changes at the last minute is so bad.

So I do get where you are coming from - he is weak willed and does not treat is children fairly and she is a vile poisonous abusive manipulative bitch. OVer Covid - he had pay cut after pay cut but not furloughed which would have been better for him, she insisted on her full whack and we agreed he stopped paying me for the time being - he could not afford his mortgage and live, paying both sets of maintenance - one hyper inflated.

It is irrelevant what I earn his DCS should be treated equally