parental abduction

[stealth2]

But remember in this case mom can't contact dad at all. She would have to send mail. There isn't always that much time when sign ups for stuff comes around.

And remember - this is NOT a court order. She CAN actually contact him, but has been advised not to by her attorney.

 

[djohnson]

Wrong way around. Would it be EASIER for me to let the ex tell them no? Absolutely! Then I don't have to stifle the desire to explain to them why Dad doesn't think it's important for them to have a follow-up visit as ordered by the ER or why Dad would rather they wear ugly-ass glasses 'cause the ones that actually look good on them are too expensive in his opinion. Instead, I just pay for it myself and let them continue thinking Dad's all that. I've heard plenty of his explanations as it is: "I had to sell my plane because Mommy's making me pay for a lawyer" or "Taking you skiing is too expensive for me this year" while calling from a 2 week ski trip to Europe with the wife and skids.

Extras? I can either afford it or not. There's no asking for extra cash for anything. If it's important, I find a way to pay for it - usually by giving something for myself up.

The problem is, especially in this case, how many parents don't stifle the desire? And how is she suppose to even ask him if she can't contact him? It sometimes depends on the parents and kids themselves. But I think both parents should have the right to discuss what the child wants and needs. By you doing it, it's almost like a power trip. You decide what's important enough to ask dad about, you decide if your answer is no then to not even ask dad. Heck the kid don't know the difference because all he has to depend on is you and you always handle it. How many parents would abuse that situation.

Keep in mind too, wants and needs are two different things. That ER follow up that is needed is different than the piano lessons or 4 wheeler that they want.

 

[stealth2]

Not a power trip at all. Just not worth the argument and the inevitable response. I see no need to beat my head against the wall. If they need it - I find a way of paying for it (i.e. the follow-up care and glasses). If they don't - it all depends on the state of the current finances. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. Luckily, my kids both understand that there are more important things than material possessions.

 

[LdiJ]

And remember - this is NOT a court order. She CAN actually contact him, but has been advised not to by her attorney.

Not just by her attorney. Her ex ordered her not to contact him unless it was a "true emergency".

 

[djohnson]

But I think you are answering from your own personal experience and not to this poster or generally. What if it is a caring dad that is always involved and wants to be involved and help. Why shouldn't a child be able to ask both parents for what he wants. Would you want the child to only ask NCP and he decide what goes to you or not? Would you want to think your child couldn't come ask you for movie money this weekend?

 

[Zephyr]

that's what i said before mrsj. this poster's relationship is clearly not as amicable as yours is with your ex

 

[stealth2]

Not just by her attorney. Her ex ordered her not to contact him unless it was a "true emergency".

And her ex is not a judge. She CAN contact him, regardless of his directives. She chooses to use those directives as an excuse.

Would you want to think your child couldn't come ask you for movie money this weekend?

Jr to Dad: I want to go to the movies with the guys this weekend and Mom said I can't. Would you give me the money for it?

Dad: Sure. Have fun.

Mom to Jr: I already said you can't go because XYZ.

Jr to Dad: Mom still won't let me go. I dunno why. She's being a bitch.

Dad to Jr: Well! I will straighten THAT out! She doesn't have to pay for it, there is no reason you can't go! (*) I'll pick you up and drop you off!

Jr to Dad: Kewl.

(*) in the meantime, Jr has neglected to tell Dad that:

(a) he has a science project due on Monday that he hasn't started yet and he's been told him it's time to buckle down and do it

(b) he was cutting school last week and he's grounded

(c) he made a commitment to Mrs Jones down the street to cut her glass and he hasn't done it yet

(d) it's great-grandmother's 90th birthday and there's a dinner planned in her honor

(e), (f), (g) and so on.

Money issues really ARE best handled between the parents. IMO.

 

[BethM]

Jr to Dad: I want to go to the movies with the guys this weekend and Mom said I can't. Would you give me the money for it?

Isn't it fairly normal for children to pit parents against each other? It is going to happen in intact families and in situations where the parents are divorced.

By not encouraging your children to have a normal relationship with the other parent then you are playing a role in alienating that child from that parent. Just because you don't want to have to deal with the fall out of a situation like the one above does not mean that a child should not have the option of requesting what he wants are needs from both parents.

You are basically exerting control over the father and taking away his right to be involved in his children's lives in the same way he would be if he lived in the home with them.

Why shouldn't a child be able to ask both parents for what he wants. Would you want the child to only ask NCP and he decide what goes to you or not? Would you want to think your child couldn't come ask you for movie money this weekend?

A child should be taught that they have that option, that they have the freedom to ask both parents and that they have parents who are mature enough to work through whatever problems might come up. Goodness, if the parents were still married to each other this is how it would work.

By not allowing the father to be a part of the child's life in this way you are playing the martyr. It's almost as if you limit your child's ability to relate to his/her father in such a way so that you can feel good about yourself and all that you are willing to give up so the child has what he/she wants. In the process you are taking away the father's right to give up things for his children and show them he cares enough to do so.

If he is a jerk and tells them no and then flaunts in their face that he is a jerk then this is something they need to learn. Why would you not give them the opportunity to learn their father is a jerk? Don't they have a right as his children to learn that on their own? If Dad lets them down you don't have to stifle anything. He will be teaching them everything they need to know about him to keep them from growing falsely thinking he can be trusted.

I have an ex husband a lot like the original poster. He refused to respond to anything regarding the children. If I stopped asking him due to his non-response and just made my own decision then I would catch hell for it and end up in court.

It was nothing more than a power struggle. Not even about the children but about him trying to control me and cause me to feel a lack of control over my role in my children's lives.

I finally stopped asking him anything and told my children to go to him directly. I took myself out of the middle of the situation. I put his children in a position that took his control over me away from him and he had to then, act like a father and show his children he loved them or continue to act like a jerk and answer to them.

It didn't take long for my children to see, with their own eyes what a jerk he was. It didn't take long for them to let him know that he had no legal power over them and they would not be jerked around by him.

The last time he took me to court for something the judge told him he was tired of him and to either be a father or keep it out of the courtroom.

The original poster said this man has not called his children since February. That right there tells me that it isn't about his children and staying close to them. His actions are about exerting control over their mother and making her jump through hoops.

If the man cared about his children he would be on the phone to them a couple of times a week. He would be communicating plans to see them and would be willing to work with their mother. I don't care how far away he is or what his reasons for moving. That doesn't keep him from stepping up to the plate and respecting his children and the woman he left behind to raise them.

This man is a moron who is using his children to engage in a power struggle with his ex wife and using the court system to try and control her. Given enough time and enough rope he will hang himself and will end up just like my ex...with no power at all and no one to blame but himself.

 

[Zephyr]

Beth I agree that a child should be able to ask either parent for something, but not something that is already order to be split between the parents like necessities i.e. braces, medical bills, tuition and anything else covered by the court order, and neither parent should ever tell the child to ask the other parent (especially when they know it will make the other parent look bad)

 

[stealth2]

Not to continue hijacking the thread, but there is a huge difference between barring the kids from asking their other parent for stuff (I don't) and telling them to do so (I don't).

 

[djohnson]

But that was the whold point of the thread. OP, mom, says she can't contact, or dad doesn't want her to contact him regarding matters that aren't an emergency. Child wanting to take band or play baseball is not an emergency. She could still call him and make him mad from the get go and him say no to spite mom, or child could ask dad if he would be willing to split the costs. There is no harm no foul and child hers what dad really has to say or thinks about it rather than what mom decides to repeat back.

The going to the movies thing above isn't really relevant as that would depend on which parents time it was on. If it was on dad's time then it would be up to dad, and hope dad can work with mom if child is in trouble or grounded. Totally different thing.

ps I don't have an ex of any kind. I am however a step mother, wife of a very active and loving father. It doesn't matter what the relationship is with ex (ours is really mixed up as there is more involved than just 'parents'. What matters is the childs relationship with BOTH parents. I can't imagine my SS not being able to go to father or myself if he wanted or needed something.

 

[dannysmyboy]

Good grief, just because I've signed my kid up for stuff like piano lessons, figure-skating, chess, Tai Kwon Do, or golf in the past does NOT mean I want to forever be obligated to have her take that stuff! There are plenty of activities my kid has had classes for, or been involved with, that she does not miss at all. One tries things to make them well rounded and see where their talents lie, or what they develop a passion for. That does NOT mean that just because they took it before they HAVE to take it in the future!

And NONE of that is relevent to the fact that dad is traveling a great distance, with plenty of notice, to spend a weekend with his kids. And mom wants to deprive her kids of a weekend with dad because of a bunch of side issues.

And nothing the poster stated about dad gave any indication there was any reason to think dad was planning to flee with the kids. "Abduction"? yeah, right.

Hey, I agree, she can't pick and choose her weekends and she needs to keep track of who's weekend it is. And child support is to cover these expenses, and that fluke lessons, etc are excessive. I agree with you all...however, in reading her posts, it sounds like the guy is really being a jerk and creep to her with court costs and motions. I can relate to the type of behavior she is receiving from him, if it's true. She could be lying to us, she could be nuts herself, and we won't be getting his side anyway.

 

[stealth2]

But that was the whold point of the thread. OP, mom, says she can't contact, or dad doesn't want her to contact him regarding matters that aren't an emergency. Child wanting to take band or play baseball is not an emergency. She could still call him and make him mad from the get go and him say no to spite mom, or child could ask dad if he would be willing to split the costs. There is no harm no foul and child hers what dad really has to say or thinks about it rather than what mom decides to repeat back.

The going to the movies thing above isn't really relevant as that would depend on which parents time it was on. If it was on dad's time then it would be up to dad, and hope dad can work with mom if child is in trouble or grounded. Totally different thing.

It really is no different. If it's on Mom's time, Mom gets to decide if it's going to happen and whether she can afford it. If it infringes on Dad's time - Dad has a say. If it's totally on Dad's time - it's Dad's decision if it's going to happen and/or he can afford it.

 

[djohnson]

It really is no different. If it's on Mom's time, Mom gets to decide if it's going to happen and whether she can afford it. If it infringes on Dad's time - Dad has a say. If it's totally on Dad's time - it's Dad's decision if it's going to happen and/or he can afford it.

Umm I think that is what I said

Did you read the above post where they have dad going to get JR on mom's time and mom said no. That was my point, that that case wasn't applicable here.

 

[Inquiry123]

Editorial Comment

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

Emily Litella:
I'm here tonight to speak out against fluke lessons. A fluke lesson is a terrible, terrible idea. I mean, a fluke is supposed to be accidental, right?! Why would somebody want to practice at havin' an accident? I mean, that's just plain crazy! If kids are going to make a mistake, let 'em make it -- don't make them practice it.

Chevy Chase:
Miss Litella?

Emily Litella:
Yes?

Chevy Chase:
The story was on flute lessons . Flute. Not "fluke".

Emily Litella:
Oh. I'm sorry. Never mind.