[Solved] Second hearing in two months

I have to admit my head falls in disbelief when I read these stories. When the mother and father decided to have this child, they effectively entered into an arrangement where they are both responsible for raising this child. They both committed to it emotionally, physically, financially.

Now one of the parties decided to move on with her life. No one is stopping her moving on with her life, she can go and the child can stay and live with father. My disbelief lies in the fact that people think it's normal she can reduce the kid's relationship with his father because she wants to move on with her life and therefore is no longer responsible for the decision she made of her own free will of having a child with this man.

Pragmatically speaking, I do think actd and mojo are right in as far as society places very little value in fatherhood, and therefore you are at a serious disadvantage, but you never know, see what the case law says. Be prepared to have to accept defeat but show your kid he's important to you.

Just don't attack or be negative about the mother, instead focus on the positives of your relationship with your son and how that's important for his development, attacking her will get you nowhere and could damage your relationship with your son, don't do it.

I don't think that it's that society places little value on fatherhood in this case, it's just that the court can't prevent her moving, which means that there simply isn't a solution that satisfies all parties.

In my own case, the mother of my children moved 3 hours away after we split up, so I had to travel to see them, but this backfired on her a couple of years later when I took the children away from her as she was neglecting them, meaning that she was the one that had to do the travelling for a while, until she decided it was too much trouble for her to bother any more.

Our lives are constantly changing, nothing stays the same and personal choice is high on the list of the freedoms that we aspire to in our society. I can understand why a court would be loathe to limit a persons ability to move freely around the country, that kind of thing only happens in countries like Russia and China, and even there state control is loosening its grip nowadays.

Its not that society places little value on fatherhood, it just places more value on personal freedom.

That said I do think there’s an imbalance between mothers and fathers rights as such and the laws that govern that need bringing up to date to reflect the new family dynamic.

I’m sorry but I don’t think this has anything to do with personal freedom. The child staying with the father in an environment the child is already familiar with doesn’t restrict the mothers liberty of going wherever she wants to go.

Also from what I’ve read , courts have moved away from the times when all a woman had to do was say she would be distressed if she wasn’t allowed to move, and these days they put more focus on the impact the move will have on the child. The mothers freedom of movement is not the courts paramount concern.

The OP might want to read this, even though it makes for depressing reading, father had child 40% of time and mother was allowed to move child from London to Cumbria, and you tell me there’s not a problem of society placing little value in fatherhood :s

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed153303

Thank you for your comments. I’m really trying to hold it together atm. My ex has already offered extra hours/weekends and is prepared to share the driving/travelling. She has applied for specific issues order and child arrangement. I can’t have my son full time as my working hours are irratic (shift work) I just get my weekends in a rota and make sure my night in the week with him is sorted with work. Surely cafcass should day that as we share the care it should remain that way?