Missing grandaughter so much

Where is Yvonne57?
I feel we lack info here.

That's not what I have actually been saying though is it?

It's all there in black and white:

I have been saying that both parents have responsibility for their child's financial and emotional wellbeing

Both are placing stress on the other and there is a child in the middle who is not getting their needs met by both parents

Mum has not made good choices here while under stress

I'm trying to prevent Dad making bad choices while under stress

I haven't taken a side, I've said they need to come together to co-parent effectively and suggested Dad take the legal route if needed

FYI dad needs to be able to afford the legal route and the court will need proof he is an effective parent.

Mediation would be the best first step, mediation won't work of both are angry.

If people thinking calling mum cruel or a bad mother will help OPs son to come at this from an objective standpoint where he can do the right things, like gain employment and successfully navigate mediation, I think that's a mistake on your part....

These people have co-parented for 5 years, now something has gone wrong, it needs resolution and understanding not anger

Glorianny This is manifestly and obviously inaccurate. The income of each of the parents is taken into account when assessing financial responsibility. Or do you think that a millionaire dad should pay half the child related costs the same as the unemployed mother? It works the other way as well, more and more women have incomes that are bigger than their exes. So they contribute more.

I asked. Thank you.

Out of interest, is a mum on normal/average wages to support her child to the same amount as the father on normal/average wages?

If one of the parents earns far more, they pay far more of the actual real expenses, but in no way a subsidy to the custodial parent? Any contribution to benefit the other parent would of course be unfair, I assume.

I find it amazing that everything is viewed from the mother's view point, VioletSky but the father, who may not be able to get a new job immediately is castigated. Even if he could get a new job, he'd probably have to work a month in hand. If he was claiming benefits, he'd probably have to wait 12 weeks and, as he hasn't got residency for the children, would not got much in the way of them in any case. He wouldn't get all his rent paid unless he is in a studio flat so would have to pay out for a roof over his head. If the wife is on benefits, she can get her benefits to change to reflect the lack of payment. Similarly she can get a change in Tax Credits etc.

aren't was corrected, it was supposed to say parent.

It is taken very seriously, legally, if a aren't obstructs a none residents parents access. The non resident parent in this case has lost his job so his financial circumstances have changed and he can no longer pay the agreed amount. If he signs on benefits he will have to pay £7 a week. Yes, it's pitiful but that is how the law works in this country.

I never said I didn't have empathy for the Mother but I do think denying the child visits to her loving Dad and Grandmother is cruel and it is unnecessary

No I didn't say that so I can't answer you glorianny

I can only discuss with you based on what I have actually said

VioletSky

If you read back glorianny my point was that it is wrong to assume mum is "cruel"

The maybe's are how I explained why that is wrong and I also explained how assuming cruelty or labelling it as such may impact how the son deals with this situation after speaking to OP

So mum isn't "cruel" but dad has to be "forced" to do the right thing.
"there isn't a right way" for her. She "has all the responsibility" for the child
She's struggling with bills and deserves empathy. He has to "get stable".
As for the £50 a week. That isn't what he would be assessed as needing to pay £7 is the accepted figure for dads on benefits.
However stressed she may be it is no justification for the mistreatment of the child. Or are you saying that bad behaviour towards a child is excusable if you are stressed?

Indeed Glorianny the unnecessary vilification of fathers regardless of their circumstances.

If you read back glorianny my point was that it is wrong to assume mum is "cruel"

The maybe's are how I explained why that is wrong and I also explained how assuming cruelty or labelling it as such may impact how the son deals with this situation after speaking to OP

That's exactly what I have been saying today Smileless if you read my comments

VioletSky

You can't always rely on a struggling parent who is suddenly having a £50 a week budget deficit to make good choices.

It doesn't necessarily make this a bad mother or make her cruel.

She has child, suddenly all the responsibility of providing for that child rests solely on her shoulders. She has a smaller budget to do so.

She is trying to force Dad to do the right thing and start supporting his child again.

She has gone about it the wrong way but there is not a right way option for her here, it is solely dependant on Dad.

She may be incredibly stressed and struggling to cope with mounting bills or going without necessities.

That deserves a little empathy.

Dad needs to get stable and pursue this through the proper routes, starting with mediation where hopefully they can come together and co-parent effectively in future

Do you think a mediator would come from a place of telling dad and grandma that mum is cruel and doesn't have her child's best interests at heart? No, so neither should you, you will create animosity between these people which will worsen the situation for the future.

So many suppositions.
It is just as wrong to assume a mum is acting in the genuine interests of the child as it is to assume the dad is at fault because of his financial difficulties.
The mum may in fact be denying the dad overnight stays because if the child stays her payments would be reduced.
The mum may be using the child to punish the dad for his behaviour.
The mum may in fact just want more money .
Whatever the case, however stressed or short of money she may be, using the child as a weapon is completely unacceptable.
It's also completely illogical and counter productive. After all if you are short of money, someone feeding the child for a day, accommodating them over night and perhaps buying them things can only help with your financial difficulties.

Neither is depriving a child of one of their parents; two wrongs don't make right do they.

Neglecting a child's financial needs is not "safe" for a child

I think a parent who deprives their child of their other parent for any reason other than a genuine concern for that child's safety is cruel and a bad parent.

I would have considered my mother to be both had she done that to me.

Smileless2012

Listening but not agreeing.

Sure of course, I do not agree it is helpful to call mum "cruel" or a bad mother.

Parents have equal responsibility to provide for their children financially and emotionally and when one is not fulfilling those responsibilities it places stress on the other

Neither are necessarily cruel or bad parents but they need to realise that they are both the cause of placing stress on the other and there is a child who needs financial and emotional support from both in order to resolve this

You don't have to do anything VS.

VioletSky

Your son needs to get a job and support his child properly.

It's not right for him to take no responsibility for his daughters needs.

Mum likely has had enough and has no other way to force him to do his duty by his child.

The other reason would be that if he has a jib he can then go and get formal visitation through the courts.

You need to talk to him, this is his problem to manage and resolve so that you can see your grandchild

Here is my whole comment for the context, do I need to quote my comment that clarifies it further too?

Mum could be in a stressful financial situation and not making good choices

Listening but not agreeing.

Smileless2012

I haven't quoted partial comments or removed context to be dishonest VS. My post you have quoted @ 16.21 doesn't contain any quotes, and my post @ 16.15 quotes you accurately.

I'll ignore this as I don't think you are listening

Who said "never" Smileless?

I think saying "cruel" is a damaging assumption and we need these parents to come together rather than be further driven apart by words based on assumptions

The behaviour of others around them will have an impact

I haven't quoted partial comments or removed context to be dishonest VS. My post you have quoted @ 16.21 doesn't contain any quotes, and my post @ 16.15 quotes you accurately.

Hithere

Sometimes I see these ideals

"We put a roof over your heads, clothes on your back, you had holidays and clubs and everything you wanted"

Or

"We were poor and we didn't always have heating and sometimes we were hungry and dirty but you were so loved"

...as parenting standards but actually children need both to grow up without negative impact.

So effectively both parents here are making it harder for the other and they need to come together to provide for their child

No Hithere there is no vilification of my friend's son's ex wife or any mother in an attempt to let fathers off the hook and the financial situation of the mother is not irrelevant as has already been mentioned on this thread.

Some earn more than their ex husbands and their income is taken into account when the amount of child maintenance is set.

It is wrong to assume that all fathers unable to meet their financial responsibilities are failing to step up and face reality and making cheap excuses. Just as it is wrong to assume that all mothers who prevent their children from seeing their fathers have no choice and never do so out of spite.

My brother specialised in family matters as a solicitor Rosie and would say the same thing, the child's access to their parent is what's fundamental here unless there are concerns about the child's safety.

My mother needed child support from my father without having to fight for it month after month but didn't make my life any harder by depriving me of my father because of it.