I have a busy day today. When I come home and when my mixed nationality, mixed race granddaughter is gently snoring in the bed beside me, I'd like to come back to this thread and read about the things Nelson Mandela did and said which had an impact on people.
I'd like to come back and see it written how Buddy would have written it, another truly great man who we mourn and who tried to teach us about love for others.
It's our choice whether to escalate hostility, or allow it to pass into history.
I most admired Nelson Mandela for not seeking retribution, for seeking to break the cycle of hate and for looking forward towards a united, peaceful future.
That was a wise and strong message, rising above the offences of others.
I've just perved your profile to have a proper look at your new pic and there was a young, fit fella in the banner adverts with some mistletoe tucked into his Christmas brief briefs.
I think you should try that look next, Pete. See if it works for you.
But don't use holly by mistake, eh? It might not have the Christmassy feel you're looking for.
I'm sorry to hear that, Glat. Although just because he's not mentioned doesn't mean he's not in people's thoughts.
You mentioned earlier about your children's father having no interest in them. When my daughter was older I had a discussion with her about parental bonding and some of the reasons why her dad might not have bonded with her in the way she had hoped.
He does love her dearly, I'm sure, but he never really learned the skills he needed, I think.
That conversation helped her a lot to come to terms with his abandonment of her. It made her realise there was more to it than her not being good enough.
Legally, on this side of the pond (if my memory serves me correctly and unless the law has changed over the last 10 years) a child can decide not to have contact with an absent parent from as young as 10 years old.
The family courts can however go to some lengths to try and resolve issues as it's not considered in the best interests of the child to have no contact with one parent (unless the parent is abusive, or neglectful in some way). It can lead to emotional difficulties later on, including in adulthood.
My daughter's father refused to take a drugs test (which I offered to pay for), or to have supervised access at an access centre. The family court denied him access given his lack of cooperation, but I offered for them to meet up to walk their dogs in the park by my house where she could run home if she needed to. It wasn't long before my daughter became fed up with his continued poor behaviour and refused to see him.
That was a lot easier and less stressful for both my daughter and myself at the time, but it did cause her emotional difficulties later. She became old enough to understand the impact of him saying he'd rather have nothing to do with her than take a drugs test. I also suspect she had some guilt about making that decision not to see him, although she was intimidated by his temper and stalking behaviours.
At a time when she needed him to say he'd do anything to maintain contact, even if that meant addressing his substance misuse issues, or creating an environment where she wasn't exposed to his usage, he let her down.
Even if parents are inappropriately behaved, the tendency is for a child to love them and want to be with them. Whatever he put my daughter through, and despite not wanting contact, I'm certain she still loves her dad. I'm certain she wishes he could be a 'normal' dad and that she could have a 'normal' relationship with him.
The same over here - you don't need a lawyer to go through the family court system. There's a facility within court buildings you can use to find out about your legal rights, what you can and can't do.
Family court systems over here will also provide a mediator if both parties are willing to negotiate, although like Dizzy said, a lawyer can do that, too.
Using a lawyer can be a gamble, too, unless you already know one, or can get a recommendation.
Also, on this side of the pond maintenance payments by the absent parent are not taken into consideration. Access is considered in the best interests of the child whether a financial contribution is being made towards their up-keep, or not.
And once again zipping back to Dizzy's post - Jim's ex might not be using access to the children as a weapon. She might genuinely have got to the point where she doesn't feel like considering Jim's needs and doesn't feel like putting herself out for his benefit. She might genuinely feel he's more of a disruptive influence right now, than a positive one. I don't suppose moving 1,000 miles nearer to the uni she attends only just popped into her head out of spite. It just maybe seems like a more workable, or enticing option for her under the current circumstances.
Whatever the rights, or wrongs of her own behaviour, Jim needs to consider his position very carefully. Hiring a legal advisor might be a very sensible thing to do, but there might be other, softer, less incendiary options besides legal correspondence, at least to start with.
Just a thought - perhaps Jim could start by writing to his ex himself, maybe with some legal advice behind him. Copies of those letters could be passed onto his legal advisor. What would be the difference in terms of the likelihood of moving things forward positively? Personal, or legal correspondence? What would be the difference in terms of his legal rights?
jac379 Forum Posts (12,293)
RE: ... Oh my sack, I've been banned from a thread ...
Steady on, Jean.I wrote to Santa when I was six asking why he only had one sack.
I didn't get any presents that year.