Missing grandaughter so much

Yes, we need to nudge them in the right direction...

Not towards more anger and animosity

I'm so tired of seeing how badly that impacts children

Agreed, VS but we aren't actually in a position to do that. Only the parents can do that.

It really doesn't matter who is more at fault here anyway

If people think the way to resolve family issues is to be aloof, blaming, insulting and lacking in any kind of responsibility or accountability... I will guarantee you that will fail

You can't just browbeat people with how they aren't fulfilling your exact expectations and behaving exactly as you wish and expect a good relationship to come out of it

People aren't perfect, they don't have perfect mental health and they make mistakes under stress.

We want this situation resolved not made worse

Delila

I think most people commenting on here are saying that inability to keep up with maintenance payments should not result in withholding of contact. Contact with both parents regardless of financial issues is of paramount importance to the child (unless there are safeguarding concerns).

Yes, this.

And loved supporting grandparents. It who knows whole story really and complex emotions as lack of in depth info. Really judgements are being made on very very little info when you read it.
And this.

Most posters are commenting objectively and some with the experience of professionals who may have worked with families with similar difficulties.

Yes, contact with grandparents too, so important.

Objectively

We don't know what mum's reasons are or what kind of mother she is.

What OP wants and needs is for her son and her grandaughters mother to be able to come together and co-parent effectively so that she can see her grandaughter again.

If OP takes on board insults about mum and listens to advice comparing her grandaughter to an object... then passes this on to Dad it's going to make the situation worse if Dad then starts saying all this to Mum.

Mum needs to understand that she needs to emotionally support her child by allowing access to Dad (if that is what the child wants).

Dad needs to understand he needs to financially support his child and take some of the burden of responsibility for all the travel off the OP as its a lot to ask.

Dad also needs to emotionally support his child by not calling Mum names and making accusations she treats her daughter as an object.

So I hope OP is reading this and disregards any advice along those lines

Because this child does not ever need to hear either of her parents insulted by the other side of her family as it will cause her stress during key stages of childhood development.

Perhaps there is already an element of Mum and Dad arguing over this already.

In which case both must step back from that immediately and work together in their child's best interest to prevent future issues for the child and their mental health.

And loved supporting grandparents. It who knows whole story really and complex emotions as lack of in depth info. Really judgements are being made on very very little info when you read it.

I think most people commenting on here are saying that inability to keep up with maintenance payments should not result in withholding of contact. Contact with both parents regardless of financial issues is of paramount importance to the child (unless there are safeguarding concerns).

In fact, according to the OP, this is the second time recently that the mother has withheld the child from her father for financial reasons.

We aren’t told whether that’s an established pattern.

The OP isn’t a misogynist for giving that information, and I’m not a misogynist for pointing it out.

GG65:

1) We don’t know how long the couple have been separated, so we don’t know how long any of this has been an issue.

2) We aren’t told whether or not this is the first issue with contact, whatever the period of time involved. Neither are we told how happy the mother has been with contact to this point.

3) The OP has not given any information regarding the child being “used as a weapon”, so there is no clue regarding patterns of behaviour.

No projection on my part, btw, and it is insulting to suggest it.

I haven’t accused anyone on this thread of projection.

I agreed with another poster that the term “using the child as weapon” made me uncomfortable due to what I perceive as projection from fathers that belong to certain fathers’ rights movements.

Maybe I should have added a disclaimer to that post, but it certainly wasn’t directed at anyone here.

Gg65

It is refreshing to see a mother of adult sons holding them responsible to their parental role

Thank you

It might be more helpful to the discussion…

This isn’t a discussion, this is page after page after page of rank misogyny.

…if you didn't accuse other posters of projection or saying accusing others of “using the children as pawns” because that is exactly what they would do…

I didn’t though, I referred to certain fathers’ rights movements of which “using the children as pawns” seems to be their mantra.

”…or using words like hilarious about others' posts…”

I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to police my posts in this way.

You know no more than anyone else on the thread other than what the OP has told us

Exactly. But I have come to a different conclusion from you. Doesn’t make one wrong, doesn’t make the other right. It’s just a different viewpoint that I’m as entitled to express as anyone else on this thread.

As Yvonne hasn't been back we'll probably never know the outcome.

Delila

“In fact the mother has been the primary caregiver for the child for the past 5 years, and has been happy with contact to this point. Surely if she was “using the child as a weapon” this would be a pattern established long before” (GG65)

Pure supposition in every detail.

From the OP, the mother is the primary caregiver.

From the OP, this has been the first issue with contact in 5 years.

“Using the child as a weapon” is a pattern of behaviour, not one isolated incident involving multiple factors.

Suppositions in every detail? How so?

GG65 It might be more helpful to the discussion if you didn't accuse other posters of projection or saying accusing others of “using the children as pawns” because that is exactly what they would do or using words like hilarious about others' posts.

You know no more than anyone else on the thread other than what the OP has told us, which is that she is distressed because her son, the father of her 5 year old granddaughter, missed a maintenance payment, the mother prevented the child from visiting her GP and DF, father paid money late, mother wanted more and stopped the child visiting again.

We should really be expecting more of our sons as fathers

I agree that many fathers are failing as parents and leave mothers to struggle on their own but we don't know all the circumstances in this case. However, this man can't play his part as a father if he is prevented from seeing his child.

No projection on my part, btw, and it is insulting to suggest it.

“In fact the mother has been the primary caregiver for the child for the past 5 years, and has been happy with contact to this point. Surely if she was “using the child as a weapon” this would be a pattern established long before” (GG65)

Pure supposition in every detail.

GG65

*If the GM is facilitating contact or not is entirely irrelevant.*

No, it’s not irrelevant. The majority of parents manage to maintain a relationship with their own child without needing this level of support.

Would you rather the little girl didn't see her father?

No, but the father has to want to see his child, doesn’t he. That involves making the effort to see his child - I wonder why the OP is so involved in facilitating contact - if she stepped back, would her son step up? I’m not sure.

If a father is unable to provide suitable accommodation surely a GMs house is better than no contact?

It might be better than no contact, but it’s certainly not an ideal situation, and it’s certainly not the norm.

I take it you have had very little actual experience of parents splitting up GG65. In most cases the father moves out of the family home He then needs to find affordable accommodation.Often that is impossible and it certainly takes time. My GS now grown up always had three homes, his mum's, his dad's and my house where he stayed with his dad when his parents first separated. He continued to regard one of my bedrooms as "his" even when a teenager. I think it's probably more the "norm" than you think-but then who wants to be normal anyway?????

Smileless2012

Here we ago again with supposition the father has to want to see his child. That involves making the effort to see his child, and just because he spends weekends with the OP and his D, why assume that he doesn't want too and doesn't make an effort?

Do you agree then GG65 that the mother is wrong for preventing their D from seeing her father?

If you read my post that you’ve quoted, you’ll see that I did not assume that the father does not want to see his child, but rather that I’m dubious about whether he would be able to “step up” in the event of the OP stepping back.

Do you agree then GG65 that the mother is wrong for preventing their D from seeing her father?

It’s really not an ideal situation at all. But I can understand how perception and emotion in the face of extreme stressors (loss of child support during a cost of living crisis), can lead to certain decisions being made, without jumping straight to assumptions of manipulation and control on the mother’s part. The mother certainly wouldn’t be able to just decide to stop supporting her daughter because “she doesn’t have that much money at the moment”.

In fact the mother has been the primary caregiver for the child for the past 5 years, and has been happy with contact to this point. Surely if she was “using the child as a weapon” this would be a pattern established long before now.

As a woman, and a mother of sons, this thread is really disheartening. We should really be expecting more of our sons as fathers, not colluding in the “using the child as a weapon” nonsense that only serves to vilify the mother, whilst deflecting from the father’s role in the situation.

I argued with reasons why the father MAY be in the position he is in because immediately this post came up, suppositions were made against the father. I have no idea about his level of involvement but many of the posts about failing to provide a home, etc could have been made about my son on the strength of the information given. In reality, it was totally different but circumstances made it look like that.
The only thing we know for sure is that Mum has stopped access and we are told that it is because she isn't getting her maintenance. For me, that is weaponising the child because the child has no say and is being deprived of her father and wider family.
As a mother who was left on her own with 2 children without maintenance from their father and a lack of willingness to engage with them regularly to build a relationship, I have empathy with the mother's situation. However, I don't think stopping the access is the way forward unless the child is unsafe. I know there were things I did in desperation which did not help the situation at all but I hope I have learned from it so I now know that conflict is the worst thing to show the child. Sometimes you just have to be the bigger person to put your child's needs first.
The other thing that has been spouted over and over again is that the Grandmother has taken on the lion's share. This is supposition. She may give them a place to stay and pick up the child. If that facilitates the parents access arrangements without rancour, that doesn't strike me as wrong. The son may well be doing all the work once the child is with him. Yes there are sons who lean on parents but we don't know if this is one of them.
We see so many posts about the cost of living and the struggles people are having but when it comes to a post like this, somebody has to be the fall guy. Maybe they are both struggling and neither are demons, just in a horrible situation that nobody can handle so the child becomes the fall guy.

Callistemon21

sodapop

Yvonne57 if that is your granddaughter's real name you should consider having this post taken down. It's very easily identifiable.

Yes, I agree. It's an unusual name.

My son hasn’t got that much money he is at the moment out of work
But your DGD's Mum still has to house and feed her - presumably she needs that maintenance payment.

It is distressing for you but can you help him out and pay in the meantime and make sure he takes any job while he looks for something permanent?

But do it without enabling him - tell him it's a loan and he has to pay you back when he is earning again.

Do you agree then GG65 that the mother is wrong for preventing their D from seeing her father?
I agree with you Smileless.

It's not just the father and grandmother suffering here, it's the child too.

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
JaneJudge well said.

This has happened, apparently, because he was late with one maintenance payment, perhaps for the first time for reasons unclear to us, which he later rectified as soon as he could.

I'll re-post my earlier comments.

Some posters are trying to make it personal when most of us are looking at this objectively.

Here we ago again with supposition the father has to want to see his child. That involves making the effort to see his child, and just because he spends weekends with the OP and his D, why assume that he doesn't want too and doesn't make an effort?

Do you agree then GG65 that the mother is wrong for preventing their D from seeing her father?

If the GM is facilitating contact or not is entirely irrelevant.

No, it’s not irrelevant. The majority of parents manage to maintain a relationship with their own child without needing this level of support.

Would you rather the little girl didn't see her father?

No, but the father has to want to see his child, doesn’t he. That involves making the effort to see his child - I wonder why the OP is so involved in facilitating contact - if she stepped back, would her son step up? I’m not sure.

If a father is unable to provide suitable accommodation surely a GMs house is better than no contact?

It might be better than no contact, but it’s certainly not an ideal situation, and it’s certainly not the norm.

No I'm not assuming that the mother is using the child as a weapon, it is my opinion that she is GG65.

Rosie's asked that question too Glorianny but it's yet to be answered.

GG65

Smileless2012

9 pages of supposition about the mother here really!!! We know from the OP that this father has missed a child support payment and as a consequence is unable to see his 5 year old D.

Supposition is a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis and posts of that nature have been made about the father, not the mother.

Supposition is a belief held without proof or certain knowledge

Exactly - you have no idea if the mother is “using the child as a weapon” because you have no idea what the history is here, or what has gone on in the past.

You assume the mother is “using the child as a weapon”, but on the information the OP provided about the extent she enables contact to take place between her son and his daughter, I see this a “straw that broke the camel’s back” type situation.

Why is my viewpoing “supposition” and invalid, whilst yours is not?

If the GM is facilitating contact or not is entirely irrelevant. Would you rather the little girl didn't see her father? That apparently is what is happening anyway. If a father is unable to provide suitable accommodation surely a GMs house is better than no contact?