Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Do you think this is right/fair ?? (BM refuses to meet DP for contact handover)

51 replies

Catsmother · 04/07/2005 16:23

Forgive me if this isn't the right board, as it's not strictly directly about the skids, but more about their impossible mother.

When she & DP split up, she moved back to her home town - 140 miles from their dad. She could have stayed here had she thought maintaining relationship between skids & their dad important enough, money wasn't an issue then, and she had a very well paid job, but, wanted to go back where there was "more support" (dismissing DP of course). At the time, she promised that the distance wouldn't be too much of an issue as she would continue to facilitate contact etc. by meeting DP halfway ... and this is how it was, largely, though in retrospect, DP often drove all the way up there to see kids anyway ... on premise of mummy & daddy staying friends for the kids' sake and spending a "normal" weekend together (nothing of course to do with saving her any effort or him paying for the weekend's entertainment ...)

Anyhow, as I've explained recently, BM went ballistic - totally doolally & evil - when DP met me 2.5 yrs after their split. Ever since then, amongst other problems, she has messed about with communication and contact, culminating so that in the last 2.5 yrs (we've been together 4) she's refused to meet DP at all for contact handovers. He has had a catalogue of stupid, ridiculous and contemptuous excuses ranging from the obvious "I don't want to" to "I'm doing my hoovering" or "I'm tired". The car has also been blamed, yet she will be driving it elsewhere the same weekend, likewise, she has cited inaffordability as a reason, yet refuses petrol money ( we couldn't afford to offer this regularly but DP tried to call her bluff) .... so, the only genuine reasons are spite, laziness, power, control, awkwardness and selfishness.

To put this into perspective, BM works locally 16 hrs a week, finishing at 1. DP leaves at 6.30am every morning, gets home just before 8 every evening so is shattered by the time he has to get his kids on a Fri evening. The return journey is anywhere between 4.5 to 5.5 hours depending on traffic, so means that kids get back here and into bed about midnight. When this has been pointed out to BM - i.e. the adverse effect on skids of getting in so late and the fact they're being driven by a tired driver, her reply is "get them on Saturday then". This option of course, effectively cuts down DP's contact time with them, doesn't make him any less tired as he'd get up very early Sat, nor does it address the moral issue of him having to make all the effort and bear all the expense despite her moving.

Strictly speaking as she moved, I feel she should bl**dy well drive the skids to their dad's and collect them, but DP being more resaonably minded is prepared to meet halfway. That'd mean, on average, a 2.5 hour drive for each of them. Alternatively, given she is free in the afternoon, she could drive them down, and he would drive them back. BM refuses to consider this period. DP estimates that the cost of doing the extra driving amounts to about £60 amonth, plus wear and tear .... he does 12000 miles a year just to see his kids before any other mileage anywhere else at all. Hence his car is depreceating far more quickly than it should to boot.

My heart is in my mouth when he sets off to get/return the skids as he's so often "unfit" to drive. Every fortnight DP goes through this charade where he asks BM if she's meeting him ..... he knows what the answer is going to be, but refuses not to ask, because that would indicate that he is accepting of, or condoning her actions. Well, I shouldn't be surprised but this weekend has taken the biscuit and shown her up for what a completely callous bitch she really is .....

.... DP had already fetched skid2 but prior to taking her home yesterday texted ('cos BM won't answer her phone to him) to say that would she please meet him as he felt extremely tired and was worried about a long motorway trip. DP, though he is always tired due to his huge long commute, has never stressed this quite as much before as he did yesterday. Her reply ? ..... "you should have thought of that before taking skid2" !!!!!! ..... WTF ??? .... DP repeated (still by text) he was very worried. BM said "you shouldn't have taken her then". Eventually DP did by some miracle actually speak to her and she still refused to meet halfway, quarter way or indeed 100 yards down the road, she told DP to bring her back "later", or this morning. When DP said he couldn't do that as he had to go to work, BM said "not my problem" .... DP asked her "so, you're happy for me to drive our daughter in this state then ?" and BM hung up.

So - DP had, as usual, no choice .... yet on this particular occasion, BM had been forewarned he was dreading the drive, and still chose not to help, i.e. preferring to place her daughter at risk, rather than "do DP a favour" (as she'd see it). I AM LIVID - beyond livid with this vile woman .... how can any self appointed "wonderful mother" (she thinks she's Saint Mummy) happily sit back and see one of her children in a potentially dangerous position. DP was in an awful quandry about what to do, but, couldn't take today off at short notice, nor could he have had skid2 back in time for school today unless he'd left at 4 in the blinking morning .... great idea for someone tired.

Excuse my french, but what an absolute f**king bitch !

Am I wrong to feel so mad about this ? More to the point has anyone else been through, or is going through something similar ? What can we do ? All attempts to speak reasonably to her fall on deaf ears - she is an expert door slammer and phone hanger-upper. She will not be swayed by any argument that late bedtimes aren't right for children so young, nor does she care if the skid's contact with their dad is affected/cut short because of long journeys. As for the time & effort DP expends, she revels in that .... "tough, you want to see them, you get them" is her attitude.

It is all so totally wrong .. certainly morally, & especially given the background to the distance concerned. I also wonder if it's legally wrong too ? .... I was under the impression that it's the responsibility of a "parent with care" to facilitate - i.e. do nothing to obstruct - contact with the absent parent & the kids ? .... though obviously, I'm well aware that "possession" being "9/10 of the law" makes it easy for bitches like her to wreak havoc should they wish.

I am sick of us having to pay - literally and emotionally - for her selfish decisions. She may be happy to be totally selfish and place her children, through her non co-operation, in a undesirable/dangerous situation, but I am not at all happy at the thought of DP having an accident through being forced to make a long drive in all weathers, and our baby being left fatherless.

Yesterday just said it all .... whatever DP said, whatever worries he expressed, the evil B just blanked him.

Does anyone have any suggestions ? .... bearing in mind that letters and conversation is not going to work. Does anyone know if a parent with care can be ordered to meet the absent parent in the circumstances I've described ? Could this form part of a contact order for example ? I do appreciate that contact orders can be hard to enforce, but I think legal recognition of what she's doing as being totally wrong would be a good start.

Thanks for reading .... will be interested to hear anyone else's thoughts and/or suggestions.

OP posts:
MamaMaiasaura · 05/07/2005 10:41

The court welfare officer would speak to the children and as they are older i am pretty sur their views would hold great wieght. The worry is the impact of stress it could have for them at home. It might be helpful to talk through situation with Parentline or the like as they have lots of useful contacts including mediation. Even if bm doesnt want to go down the mediation route for example at least dp and you have attempted. Although you need to make sure this is all documented though.

Catsmother · 05/07/2005 10:43

Yeah .... we've had the remarks like "well, you wouldn't have to meet if you moved here" and "you can't complain as you would have moved here if it wasn't for her" (i.e.me!) That is so much sh*t, and despite knowing it to be so, makes DP feel a twinge of guilt .... yet he met me 2.5 yrs after they split and had never had any intention of moving in all that time. Me - or anyone else being around doesn't make a shred of difference to how he feels about that.

I just keep coming back to the fact that this woman moved, making a whole heap of promises about how she'd ensure contact disruption would be kept to a minimum, yet started playing games & being difficult the minute me & DP got serious. In other words, she's only reasonable when DP does exactly what she wants and behaves how she wants him to (6 years on !) .... which isn't reasonable at all if that makes sense ?

I also keep coming back to the biggest glaring thing about this issue .... that is, leaving aside arguments for one moment of who should be meeting etc., BM was informed that DP was very worried about driving and yet she still resolutely refused to shift her spiteful selfish self, 10 yards down the road to lessen the risk of an accident. How callous is that ? , and how utterly dismissive of her daughter's well-being ? How could she ignore that ?

OP posts:
rickman · 05/07/2005 10:48

Message withdrawn

MamaMaiasaura · 05/07/2005 10:48
  • hope i am not talking to much.

sadsam - sorry for your situation.

SadSam · 05/07/2005 10:56

Thanks Awen. Rickman, we have gone to the CSA and mentioned the travelling costs, even shown them receipts and statements. However, after 8 months, they finally agreed to reduce his payments to take into account petrol for driving over 640 miles per month.

They reduced his payments by ................... wait for it.............

a whole £3 per month!!!!!!!!!!!

rickman · 05/07/2005 11:01

Message withdrawn

SadSam · 05/07/2005 11:05

We have, it has been a 2year battle to get that out of them. It then took them 8 months to apply it to his payments. We have had ongoing fights with the CSA for over 2 years and last year managed to get our CSA payments reduced as they hadnt been taking into account our mortgage. However, that took over 8 months for them to amend and then they didnt back date it for 8 months and give us the overpayments by cheque, they just took it off what DP owed. We have written so many letters and made so many phonecalls but they are an absolute nightmare!

rickman · 05/07/2005 11:07

Message withdrawn

SadSam · 05/07/2005 11:15

I can sympathise even though I am on the other side. I do believe very strongly that fathers should pay adequately for their children. My DP has paid through the CSA since the day he and BM split up (6 years ago).

He pays nearly £400 per month for 2 children (eldest is now 16). He has never shirked his responsibilities and I would never let him even if he wanted to (not that he would).

I am sorry that you are not receiving adequeate payments. Unfortunately this is a problem due to dodgy fathers and BMs. There are an awful lot of fathers that dont pay what they should if at all but in the same breath there are a lot of BMs that totally abuse the system like ours. She is working virtually full time cash in hand but does not declare a penny of it and gets all her benefits. She is actually much better off than we are!

rickman · 05/07/2005 15:23

Message withdrawn

LittleStarsweeper · 05/07/2005 17:47

mines a £1000 for two kids! I dont know if you remember there was a thread that got quite heated a couple of weeks ago when it was suggested that all kids should cost roughly the same. I have to agree with that. It makes no sense that one x family gets paid more or less for their children. Surely a flat rate per child should be agreed. How on earth can 1 child cost £500 a month? There must be an average cost. This would be fairer to the second family too.

emily05 · 05/07/2005 19:44

LittleStarsweeper - isnt it based on how much the father earnes? For instance my bil earns about £800 a month - so if him and his wife split up how could he pay what he doesnt earn (iyswim)

emily05 · 05/07/2005 19:45

(sorry - supposed to add that they have 3 children)

Caligula · 05/07/2005 20:04

It isn't based on how much it costs to keep a kid, it's based on income level. My xp is supposed to pay £2.50 per week per child. (And apparantly, that's too much, because last time he paid was a year ago.)

Of course it has to be based on proportion of income. If a father earns a million pounds a year, he should spend more on his children than a man who earns ten thousand pounds a year - just as he would if he were living with them. It would be preposterous if they were required to pay the same amount.

weesaidie · 05/07/2005 20:09

As far as I know it is down to how much the dad earns. It is 15% of his pay for one child and something like 20% or so for 2 etc etc.

It is so the child doesn't live quite poorly while daddy (if he has a lot of money!!) lives the highlife!!

I get about £120 (a month) as my ex doesn't have a high paying job but he has already raised it when he had a very slight payrise as he believes it is fair.

weesaidie · 05/07/2005 20:10

Agree Caligula.

LittleStarsweeper · 05/07/2005 20:15

£2.50 Caligula! thats what you call an insult. Is it cos he isnt working or cos you are in a really good job. Again this is the classic of it doesnt make sense.

Caligula · 05/07/2005 20:31

No, I work in a really low paid job (earn about a third of the national average and am supplemented by tax credits) but he doesn't work at all, except when the DWP force him to do a McJob for about 3 weeks.

This is of course very convenient, because if you job and dole hop, it means CSA systems can never, ever catch up with you!

WideWebWitch · 05/07/2005 20:36

Catsmother, you're never going to change this vile woman, she is never going to be reasonable. So I don't think there's much you can do, infuriating though it is. I'd be spitting and fuming too. When will they be old enough to get a train/coach? Will that help?

vicdubya · 05/07/2005 21:13

Catsmother sorry to hear about tihs situation, can't really offer any advice, only sympathy.

DH's 2 children came to stay with us every weekend for 8 years (they are both now over 16 and come only occasionally). They lived 15 miles away.

In that time, BM collected / dropped them off 3-4 times.

Her attitude was 100% that if dh wanted to see them, he had to do the mileage. The only times she did help out was when she was literally passing the door anyway.

But I can tell you if she had moved 500 miles away it would have still been dh doing all the running.

I do agree with Aloha tho, I think going to court will make things worse & won't help.

I also undertsand completely why you can't call her bluff because otehrwise the kids will be told "Daddy doesn't want to see you".

She has you over a barrel and always will

Catsmother · 05/07/2005 22:20

WWW ... unfortunately, the days of the skids getting here and back under their own steam are far far away. Even if that ever happens, to some extent it would still involve BM seeing them off at station - and of course being there to meet them. (On some occasions, DP has driven 2.5 hours back only to find no-one in and she's not answering her phone. When she does turn up there's no apology). I also think that because of the respective locations, skids could end up travelling for longer than they do now on public transport - sod's law isn't it !

Vicdubya ... I had to chuckle to myself when I read your story .... "our" BM wouldn't even drop kids off if she was passing. DP has driven them all the way home, only to discover (from what skids say, or what his mum picks up) that BM was out somewhere en route, yet she still didn't meet him as that would have been "helping" him ... so you get this unbelievable situation of these 2 cars travelling along the same road at more or less the same time ... and DP making this totally unnecessary journey!!!

OP posts:
aloha · 05/07/2005 22:26

Don't agree with flat rate. THink proportion of income is much fairer. Let's face it, the more you earn the more you have 'spare'!

Catsmother, deep sympathy, continue to vent but honestly, I think she does have you over a barrel as has been said

Catsmother · 05/07/2005 22:33

Oh BTW, I agree with the proportion argument re: child maintenance. Can't see how it'd work otherwise ...... lower income parents would be crippled and high earners would be laughing. Think about it, even in "complete" families, there is a huge difference between what is spent on a child in rich vs okay vs poor set-ups. Humans being what they are (i.e. some of them will always try to wriggle out of responsibility, some will try to take advantage) you are never going to get a foolproof system where every child gets what they "should" but I think the proportional system is as close as you can get.

OP posts:
SadSam · 06/07/2005 09:09

I agree that payments should be according to salary. However, as I have mentioned before, just like it is not fair that there are bad fathers that dont/wont pay, there are also bad BMs that are screwing the system. I do not think it is fair that our BM is working full time without declaring it and getting all her benefits, then asking DP to pay for football classes, football boots etc. for sons and dancing classes for daughter. She says she cant afford it, but trust me she is genuinely better off than we are! It makes me so angry, it should be fair all round!

Catsmother · 06/07/2005 13:39

I agree "it should be fair all round" but there are some pretty nasty people out there for whom divorce and the resulting financial implications/responsibilities seem to bring out the worst in them. I can remember shortly after DP & I got together, BM rang him up weeping and wailing that she was going to slit her wrists 'cos everything was on top of her, she was in debt, and she couldn't afford the electric bill. At that time, my job enabled me to look up people's credit in detail (ok ... I really shouldn't have done it, but DP was worried, and I stressed to him that anything I found out could NEVER be used/mentioned in any way) and I discovered that she owed all of £50 on a credit card and usually paid it off in full every month. As the finances of his actual divorce progressed, it transpired BM got paid £24k for a 20 hour week !!! (more than me for full time) and had over £10k savings, plus various shares - all accumulated since their split ..... yet there she was trying it on like a good 'un. Oh, she was also getting about £300 more every month from DP than the CSA would have him pay. DP has, not surprisingly become somewhat hardened to her pleas of poverty since .... now though, she sneakily fields demands for money via the kids, there's just no stopping her.

Maybe the answer is that all divorced/separated couples who cannot agree about maintenance & contact should have to attend an interview in court where they're each wired up to a lie detector ..... things would be fair then wouldn't they !

I do appreciate I'm being a touch fanciful in the above paragraph, but you can dream ...

OP posts: