Whether by chance or by choice there are millions of single parents who are struggling to make it through each day. Not only are they struggling financially, but emotionally too. For many of them, making it through each day without having a nervous breakdown is a miracle.

Single parents frequently get frustrated, lonely, and irritable, often feeling like a zombie going day to day with no life inside. Feeling that life has too many impossible demands as well as a lack of personal fulfillment leaves you burnt out and depressed. There is just too much pressure to do everything and to do it well all by yourself.

Family and friends try to understand but they can't truly know what a single parent goes through. They don’t know what it’s like to have endless nights of crying because there is no money for Christmas or the feeling of failure because they can’t afford to turn the heat up on a cold winter’s night. They don’t understand the humiliation felt when groceries have to come from a food pantry or have to constantly accept being the bad guy because they have to tell their children, "no" when there’s no extra money in the budget for the ice cream truck.

Hi, I'm new to this site so I thought I would introduce myself. I am a single mom of two wonderful sons and have written a book that is about my decision to be a single mom and how I survive it.

I am not an author; I am just a regular mom who often feels very alone and ashamed. I frequently feel like a failure as a parent and a provider. I wondered, "How many other women feel like I do and think that they are alone"?
I wrote my book hoping that by sharing my very personal story, I could help other single parents to feel less alone.

V.Amberlee

BEAUTIFUL TEARS, A SINGLE MOTHER'S STORY
(ISBN #1-4241-5445-6)
http://www.geocities.com/vamberlee3/beautifultears.html

Well come but maybe a first post should not be an ad?
And do not be so sure others do not understand, I see much pain from the fathers side too even attend funerals of those who could not take that pain.
Your struggle is by your own words self imposed and will be a life long one ,the rewards however are worth while.
Good luck.

V.Amberlee, welcome. I do hope you will be joining in discussions on the site and using it to advertise.

I'm one of the sites resident single dads (full time apart from some weekend time).

What were your reasons to decide to go it alone rather than shared care?

I'm fairly passionate about shared care as a default option except where one parent is unwilling to do so (and then they should not be the prime carer) or where there is confirmed abuse or neglect.

R0bert

Don't you hate that. The second part of the first line of my previous post should have read "I do hope you will be joining in discussions on the site and not using it to advertise."

R0bert

Hoped that was what you meant RObert, the debate however can continue.
I am most defiantly not anti female in this debate, some have true reason to not want fathers seeing the kids.
But my generation has always seen the male pay but not see much of his kids.
It is getting better but not yet as balanced as it should be , I grow weary of funerals that prove this.
My insights came a long while before I got involved in others problems I with some family help raised 5 kids not wanted by a family female who insisted on being free to continue to have unwanted kids on her own.
Bottom line children are not ours to own or use in a spite filled war.
We are privileged to be part of their lives and must always try to be a good part of it.

R0bert, a question for you, as I have my opinions but dont really know much about the mechanics. Is there anyway that shared care could work if mother and father had to live in different locations (say in order to make enough money to get by)? I can potentially see a lot of restrictions on options for jobs etc in order to make shared care work. Easy enough if you live in the city perhaps....

Welcome to OLO V.Amberlee. You should feel privileged, as your post is technically in violation of OLO forum rules because it promotes the sale of your book. Don't be put off by the fact that all but one who has posted to your topic has pointed out this transgression. It is not that they are unfriendly, but they're simply used to having to comply with pretty strict forum rules, rules designed to maintain the quality of debate and discussion.

The OLO Forum is, after all, perhaps the pre-eminent forum in all Australia for the generation of public policy ideas and political discussion! Such brainstorming surely does not seem to happen very much in our various Parliaments these days, but someone has to do this dirty job of fixing the country up! Belly and RObert are but two who are shouldering this load: there are many others, most simply too busy on other threads with this important task to offer you any encouragement. If, however, you wish to demonstrate your sincerity and interest by contributing to the discussion, welcome to a ringside seat at the National Policy Circus.

I guess, from your website hit counter showing only 47 hits, that you are promoting your book yourself. Full marks for trying. Just how relevant your experiences may be to an Australian readership, when differences in the legal and economic environment between the US and Australia are taken into account, remains to be seen. It just shows what a reasonable guy Graham Y, the National Forum Administrator, is, that the topic even got up. Whatever his faults, and he must have some, dealing unfairly with genuine contributors is not normally one of them.

To illustrate just how fortunate you were to have your topic listed, I will show you a general discussion opening post of mine that Graham Y had to decline to list on OLO several months ago; perhaps declined for good reason at the time, I might add, on grounds he feared the public may have been misled by its content. With that risk now past, voila!

Country Gal, I'm assuming that you mean locations which are so far apart that dropping kids to school becomes unworkable from one of the homes.

Probably not long term. We worked it for a while after my ex moved to another city (she stayed with friends near here a couple of days a week). That was never going to be viable long term, rather it was a tactic she used to ensure I could not oppose her moving out of the area. At the time she still worked one day a week near here. Not long after she went to court seeking a change in residency because all the travel was to hard on our son.

The practical issues may get extremely difficult in some rural areas and I don't know if there are good answers to that. Not a lot of options for accomodation or jobs closeby once you move off the farm. For the most part though I don't think that a lot of those choosing to do it alone do so for practical reasons. Some for legitimate safety reaons but in terms of child safety last time I saw stats on it single parent male lead households had a slightly lower rate of substantiated abuse and neglect than female lead ones so no basis there for generic maternal bias.

I've heard so many stories of women going for either a sea or tree change following divorce. Moving away from where they used to live and the other parent. Unless there are compelling reasons for it to be otherwise I think residency should stay within a fairly small radius of where the family resided prior to seperation.

R0bert

V
The posters have been very kind to you.
I cant get your link to open but i would like to know why you decided to be a single Mum.
Did you set out to have children without the formals?
Or did you seperate?
Thats makes a big difference.
Personally I feel there should be no single parent allowed to have a child unless they can support it.
If you are seperated thats another story I suppose.
Good luck with your book and welcome to OLO.
Its sure to take your mind off household chores for a while.
Clearly you have the protential and the will to think for yourself.

Try to think what else you can do to support yourself.
Sometimes the answer is just around the corner.
You may find a local newspaper wanting staff in the adversting section.
There is always a need for people to assist others to get their adds completed.
If you have a gift with words somebody like you would be snapped up quickly.
From there if you work hard you might be able to secure a job as a Journo with a few courses.
You can get these courses through the Goverment at no charge to yourself and they will also pay for childcare while you study.
Lucky for you your in Australia where anything is possible.

How old are your chidlen?

Best wishe

Robert
Most people who move after a seperation do so because they can no longer afford to stay where they were on one income.
For goodness sake you cant tell people where to live Robert.
I cant beleive you said that.
People live mainly where they can afford or where they get jobs.
of course if the male were to pay all of the costs for his kids while mum looked after their daily 24 hour needs- thats might be different.
The counter argument for that of course is its very unfair on the children of the second marraige and the second wives.
I have sen cases where both parents work to pay for the first wife and kids to live in a fashion they can only dream of.
There are no fair answers Robert.
Everybodys case is different.
Parhaps the Government could fifty fifty fund the fathers to travel four times a year to visit their children SO LONG AS THEY ARE PAYING towards keeping their kids as so many dont

I would like to tell of how it once was 25 years ago, just one case but if you look you may find it was common then.
A young wife found another younger man, left he spouse of 9 years in one swift overnight move.
Both her and her new man hide the 2 children from dad, court orders in hand dad went after his kids.
He failed to find them, for a while he got loving letters sent without mum ever knowing.
But they stopped.
Mum broke up with new bloke and two others, this information came after one of the kids found an uncle while searching for his dads grave!
Mum had told the kids dad had died.
I know the uncle very well, I know the dad, and I know it was very bad back then.
Some parents do take children as far away as they can, it is an evil act.
We can do much better.
Right now a mum has sworn to never let the father see his kids, it hurts to know no bashing ,no neglect nothing but very much in love one day and at war the next.
Children first aways.
By the way bet we never hear from the threads author again.

PALE, "For goodness sake you cant tell people where to live Robert."
No PALE I don't want to tell them where to live but if a sea change is more important than the kids then prime care should go to the other parent (assuming they are willing to take that on). In my case I moved to the other side of our suburb, I could not afford to stay in the part I had been in previously.

As for most moves being about economics, if they were in an expensive suburb prior to seperation there is generally a cheaper one nearby. Moving to the coast or bush is not likely to open up a whole bunch of extra job opportunities that did not exist where they lived before.

What is the horror in this is taking kids away from good parents because it suits the lifestyle aspirations of one. Of having a so called child support system that penalises the other parent if they take a lower paid job to be closer to their kids or better care for them.

If you are opposed to the idea of telling people where they can live (or them accepting consequences for placing lifestyle above children) how are you on the telling people how much they have to earn? Our current system does that quite openly, it's called "capacity to earn" and it takes no account of the actual changes which occur following a relationship breakup.

R0bert

Thanks for your considered response R0bert. I guess I was thinking more about the country than the city. Often these days with better mobility, people marry from long distances. I'll use my family as an example - for husband and wife to come from more than 300km apart is not unusual. Out in the country things can still be pretty traditional too, with families often living in the home town of the husband. On seperation it is entirely understandable for wife to want to move somewhere where she may have a bit more emotional and practical support from her own family rather than relying on in-laws (who may be less than helpful given the situation). I agree in general with your comments about sea-changing parents, particularly in a city context. Although I do note that whilst there may not be an increase in job opportunities, there are generally cheaper accommodation options, not to mention the lifestyle benefits that may be there for the kids. That said, any move should be looked at in context of interuption to the kids (whether the move be a career move, or one due to seperation), because its a pretty big deal to them.

People Against Live
"Parhaps the Government could fifty fifty fund the fathers to travel four times a year to visit their children SO LONG AS THEY ARE PAYING towards keeping their kids as so many dont"

Nice bit of sexism there PAL - assuming non-residential parent is the father - how would you feel about seeing your kids 4 times a year? Provisional of course on your continuing to provide the father with an income stream which he can spend however he damn well pleases.

Country Gal, and I'm thinking more in terms of the city than the country. To long since I've lived in the country and we were not remote - 1/2 hour out of town and when I was a kid divorces were few and far between.

There are probably a host of other situations where shared care would not be workable, I do think that it's a far better default position than single parent maternal care (which is pretty much what we have had for some time). Adjust when it can't work or when one parent either does not want care or is proven to be incapable of providing it.

We need safeguards in place to protect kids and parents against genuinely abusive parents (whatever their gender), we need to try and allow people to move on with their lives but we need ensure that the consequences of lifestyle decisions rest primarily with the person making the decision.

In regard to the situation you talk about with women generally moving to where their partner lives to marry do you think that the men are likely to have adequate support networks in place when their wife leaves and takes the kids? My impression is that a lot don't have much of a support base outside of their immediate family but I'm not close enough to it to have an informed opinion on that. Not being able to see kids on a regular basis compounds the isolation and pain.

Rob well picked up. Not a lot of mums would be pleased to have outsiders assume that seeing their kids 4 times a year on a short visit would be adequate involvement in their kids lives. It astounds me that so many seem keen to foist that kind of package on fathers (and the kids who only see their dad 4 times a year).

R0bert

I hope that you are not trying to push the "poor single mother" angle, because maybe there are some facts you really should consider as a balanced "devil's advocate"....

The payer (non-custodial parent) generally has to set up an entire household from scratch, AND is awarded less money in the divorce settlement to do so - so imagine what THEY have to tell their kids. In fact most payers are almost bankrupted by the constant battles in court, whilst trying to ensure that the children are allowed to spend time with each parent.

The payer's family will more than likely never see the children again, because the courts IGNORE them completely, as if they are seemingly no longer important.

If a payer re-marries, and has a family...THAT family is financially disadvantaged by the archaic and discriminatory court rulings (and CSA). Since when does your "previous marital status" mean that you are never allowed to be happy again? Ask any "subsequent spouse" about the blatant discrimination that they are subjected to.

I am glad that you are happy now, and that your sons give you joy. But please remember that there are many men and women out there who are still battling for the smallest amount of equality that every other person is automatically guaranteed.

R0bert, in the situation I suggest re woman moving to man's home town and subsequently finding little support, I would expect in most (and I do say just most) cases that the man does have his family there. Particularly while he is younger (I'm talking up to age 40 say) most would still have parents etc to provide some support. I am simply suggesting the in the country women may be more inclined to "move home" to access the same family support. This certainly isnt the case for everyone, but is reasonably common. I know with my own family (have 2 cousins married at home on the farm) the wives would move away (presumably with the kids) back to their home towns to get that sort of support from their own families. If I seperated from my husband (tempting at times!), I certainly would want to move significantly closer to my family and I'm 900km from home.

I do agree with you on that shared care should be the default scenario, then work from there if there are problems with it.

Robert.
Paying towards your kids is not a favour. Its a reasonsibilty. Its not up for backmail either.[ You do this OR I wont pay towards the kids costs]
I would do what ever I could to make my kids lives happy.
No woman marries a man and gives birth wanting the marriage and family to go down the tube Robert.
However things do change in peoples lives.
If the mother moves for support from her family or because she can not afford to stay where she was- Thats something you must except as part of the break up.
This is why its always important to seek counciling together for the kids sake.
As for four visits a year most times it suites the Dads who nearly always form a new relashonship much more quickly than mum does.

There are cheap buses and planes and trains if you want to visit your kids once a month- which makes twelve visits.
Its not so hard it just requires the Dads to put themselves out for their kids like most Mums do 24-7
It is most important kids see Mum and Dad.
It just requires the will.
Where there is the will- There is always the way and the means.
Try asking Mum for the kids every second school holiday and also where mums can afford it I have seen them pay for trips to see Dad.

Often however Dads moved on and the second little lady does not want her life being run around somebody elses kids.
This seems to be a bigger problem in most cases than Dad being able to jump a plane.
Good reason to try not to split up a family unless it really is the only option.

I want to apologize to all of you as I didn't realize I was doing anything wrong. My intent was not to promote my book although it does appear that way after reading it again. My intent was to find a group of single parents for support. Again, I apologize sincerely.
To answer some questions...I was married and we had 2 beautiful little boys. Some people embrace parenthood, others can't deal with it even though they made the choice to have their babies...somehow it just isn't what they expected. My being a single parent was a choice that came with divorce. It was in the best interest of my children to get the divorce. Now, four and a half years later, it was the best thing I ever did for my children. I have no regrets! Their father can see them WHENEVER he wants. I did not want a visitation schedule because a father's roll is just as important as a mother's and I want both of us to raise the kids. Unfortunately their father comes around when it is convenient for him...about once every three months right now. I am a GOOD mother who just wants to help other single parents feel better.
I have asked that my post be removed and again apologize for offending anyone.

PALE, try a rewrite - here I'll give it a go to help.

"Paying towards your kids is not a favour. Its a reasonsibilty. Its not up for backmail either.[ Pay towards the mums choice not to work or you won't see the kids]. Both parents should be responsible for the costs of raising their kids.
No man marries a woman and gives birth wanting the marriage and family to go down the tube PALE.
However things do change in peoples lives.
If the mother moves for support from her family or because she can not afford to stay where she was- Thats something you must except as part of the break up. Mum should expect to see less of her kids if she chooses to move away from them.
This is why its always important to seek counciling together for the kids sake.

There are cheap buses and planes and trains if you want to visit your kids once a month- which makes twelve visits.
Its not so hard it just requires the Mums to put themselves out for their kids like most Dads do 24-7
It is most important kids see Mum and Dad.
It just requires the will.
Where there is the will- There is always the way and the means.
Try asking dad for the kids every second school holiday and also where dads can afford they might pay for trips for mum to see the kids."

Sounds rather harsh and sexist to me but I think it's followed your logic fairly closely.

R0bert

V.Amberlee, I hope they don't remove it. Stay and join in the discussion. Agreed that there are some dad's who don't bother (just as there are some mums).

What I'm fighting against are the sexist types who want to force stereotypes on all of us based on their impressions of their own gender and or the other gender. Times have changed, many men are much more involved in their kids lives in a hands on way than their fathers were but the attitudes towards dads post seperation seem to be based on the generation before us. PALE's comment which suggested that dads don't put themselves out for their kids is typical and ignores the massive sacrifices the majority of men have made for their families throughout time.

Quality of parenting or willingness to sacrifice ourselves for our kids is not based on gender but on the characteristics of the person.

There are plenty of dads out there desperate to be a meaningfull part of their kids lives and being denied the opportunity because of nasty tactics and a sexist family law system (I gather that is common across most of the western world).

Stay and talk about your experiences, what works and what does not work. What do you think are the stumbing blocks to post separation parenting?

R0bert

I'd love to stay...this is why I joined!
I will be honest and thell you that my experiences with my ex are not favorable to men. He will often say he will see the boys, then doesn't at the last second. I have learned not to tell my kids until he pulls into the driveway to protect them from being disappointed time and time again. When he does see them, he wont participate in any activity with them and yells at them for EVERYTHING. I will say though that I do know many men who charish every moment with their children, they are incredible fathers who are heart broken that they can only see their children every other weekend. I think that the courts are incredibly unfair when it comes to visitations. It's a shame because it is the child who is missing out. Many fathers miss out on school functions, open houses, plays, etc... I envy the children who's fathers love them enough to want to be with them...who get pissed about not getting to be a father...I thing the courts should make better decisions when discussing visitation right. I don't think a mother or father should be allowed to move so far away that the other parent can't have time with their children on a regular basis...I'm sorry, it's just not fair to the children or the other parent.

I speak from a perspective of being a sole parent to two lovely twin boys aged 10 for the past 7 years. Fortunately my ex husband is involved to a large degree in relation to major decisions for our boys. I do not have any family here in Australia and really do it on my own. The key to success lies in 1/Having a great support network (friends/family if around)
2/A positive attitude and be thankful if the kids are being provided with a decent education, have a roof over their head and food in their tummy and most importantly- are healthy- then all is O,K.

No one said this is easy and being a single parent is absolutely challanging in every way however it is ever so rewarding. These are our children who we chose to bring into this world, they did not ask to be in the situation they are in. So just put a smile on your face, enjoy all the fun and goofy aspects of having children, show them everyday you love them and reassure to them that they are loved and together we will all get through it. As the saying goes " This too will pass"

TJ

No apology needed to the posters, V.Amberlee. It is, after all, not our Forum. And the vast majority of posters would never have read the Full Legal Notices in which the prohibition on commercial promotion is contained. Those notices, probably of necessity, read like a Microsoft EULA - you know, they own everything, you own nothing. Better that two good posts be taken down, rather than that the post at the head of the thread be deleted.

It is I who should apologize to you for not posting on topic and contributing to your (well, the Forum's) thread.

I should also apologize to Graham Y and all the other contributors for referring to the Forum as the National Policy Circus. We all know its not. That's in Canberra, not Brisbane.

It should be clear to you now, V.Amberlee, that the National Forum Administrator is a wise moderator. A learned moderator. A veritable Daniel come to moderation!

I get it, O Moderator. I may have my vindication, but not a single off-topic post. I now know what it feels like to have to wear the Yellow Star. Heretofore I have only carried it, etched on my sword, right up near the hilt. (I do have one - a Sword, Infantry, made by Wilkinson, by Appointment Swordsmiths etc etc.) Perhaps the digital pen that I now wield is starting to cut a bit close to the bone! I may even have to change my user name to Shylock, schlock, horror!

I even feel a bit like Gordy, the bloke who refused to salute the Japanese officer in that episode of John Doyle's serialized musical "Changi", when the Jap cut off his little toe with a blunt bayonet. Graham, you only had to ask, mate!

V.Amberlee, I'm afraid I am unable to contribute more to this thread, having, fortunately, no direct experience of the problems of a marriage break-up. If you want an insight into what utter bastards some Australian men can be, watch that series if you get the chance. You'll shed beautiful tears.

I agree with you 100% TJ, our children a miracles and trust me, I do cherish every moment with them. How do I get their father to see what he is missing and be more involved. I want very much for him to be a positive part of their lives. I see how hurt my kids are because in daycare they see their friend's get picked up by their dads and when we go to friend's houses they see how involved and loving other fathers are...I know they feel abandoned by their dad but I defend him by saying he works so hard so they have everything they need. I am sad about this because if I had to chose between child support and his time with them (quality time, not just sitting in front of the t.v.!) I would choose that he spend the time...
I tell him what I see in them and share certain experiences, like my youngest who tells his class all these great tales about his dad, hoping that he will see how much they want to be with him but he doesn't seem to care. Sometimes I think they are better off since he is "the way he is" but my boys love him and want to be loved by him. Does anyone have advice or thoughts on this?

I don't understand half of what you've said, Forrest Gumpp, but for what I did understand, thank you. I had requested that my post be deleted and was told that it can stay. I am thrilled because I look forward to reading what you all have to say. There is LIFE on this post, maybe a bit harsh at times but I can take it. :)

Hello V.Amberlee

You obviously want your children's father to see his kids but for some reason or another he is just not interested. It certainly shows a degree of immaturity and selfishness about him and there is not a darn thing you can do to change that. He probably loves his children however seems to love himself first, his job second, his friends third, his fling fourth, the lack of responsibility/accountability fifth and the kids might just sneak somewhere between fifth-tenth.

Reassure your kids that the lack of his physcial presence has nothing to to with them andis NOT their fault. Reassure they are loved by their mother and extended family. At the end of the day, children will make up their own minds about the missing parent and karma will prevail. And it takes only one great parent to provide for the physcological reassurance and care.

Last piece of advice. Try to place in the way of your children a trusted male role model- maybe a teacher, sports coach, favorite uncle, whatever. . . they will then get the benefit of enjoying some of the things a father normally contribute to the upbringing of a child.

V.Amberlee,

Forrest Gumpp speak with forked tongue in last post. He back.

You would have to be familiar with Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" to have appreciated some of my allusions. Shylock was a Jew. The Yellow Star is the Star of David. To know what Changi was about you would have to have some knowledge of the military fortunes of Australia in the Malayan campaign of WWII. We have assumed from the "Publish America" letterhead that you live in the US of A. Is that right? Have fun on the Forum. Do stuff. If you see a head, kick it. Good luck.

RObert,

Interesting insights you offer to someone without direct experience of these problems. We gave V.Amberlee a bit of a rough start, didn't we? And, ha ha, Belly lost his bet! (Money may be the root of all evil, Belly, but its nice to have plenty of the root.)

I notice you have been posting on the topic "The (male) elephant in Australian prisons" and have been in dialogue with Cornflower. If you are posting again and have words to spare, could you pass on to her that she has seemingly inadvertently double posted on the "Its time to Privatize the ABC" topic. I for one flatly refuse to push the delete button on her, and her posts generally are so refreshingly good that it is a pity to see her hit the posting restrictions unnecessarily early. As it seems our (wise and learned) Moderator is currently favourably disposed toward the fair sex, perhaps if she were to ask nicely, as I am very sure she can, that it be taken down herself, she might get a post back if she's up against the limit. I, by contrast, seem to have been a Bad Boy displaying Bad Attitude recently, and I don't want to draw the crabs on her. This post of hers was a ripper: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6148#89543 . I'm trying to conserve ammunition in the article discussion area at present. Thanks in anticipation.

Forrest, I used the delete button on the second post with a note about why. I need a tally counter to let me know how I'm going post wise on the main pages.

V Amberlee I'm in agreement with TammyJo's comments. The only contribution which I think I can add to your question is about the role maternal gatekeeping can play in some situations.

I'm not suggesting that is the case with you, there are some parents who just don't care but do some research into the topic and make sure that is not the case.

I don't know what if any definitions exists but my summary would be something like "the mother insists that all parenting be done on her terms and blocks anything involving the kids which is not done her way", I've not heard of paternal gatekeeping but thats not to say that it does not exist either.

Your comments so far do not suggest that approach and I'm not trying to have a go at you by raising the topic.

R0bert

You guys are a blast and yes, you did give me a rough start but I deserved it. Even if my intent was not as it came accross to you, I know I deserved it. I wanted to find support but I think I have found fun instead. Because I am with children all the time, I miss the grown up chat. I enjoy logging on to see who will snap at who about what. Don't hold back on my account...I can play the game. Yes, I live in the USA. I live on the east coast where it is very hot in the summer and freezing cold in the winter. We haven't gotten much snow in the last few years. in fact, last winter was very warm. It's scarry because we are use to getting snowstorm after snowstorm. Global warming is really affecting our planet a lot faster than many people realize. I have always wanted to visit Australia, how is it there?

V.Amberlee, glad that you are enjoying yourself. What part of the east coast? I've not spent much time there, a little bit of time each in NYC, Washinton DC and Florida (hanging around Orlando waiting for a shuttle launch). My visits to the USA have been in your fall so the temps have got cold but still been viable. Last time it was west coast only - I love the Sierra's and my frequent flyer points would get me that far.

We had an unusually cold winter this year (it lasted for a couple of weeks and Tuesday morning this week was unseasonally cold as well).

Things can get rough around OLO at times but for mostly it can be a pleasant interesting place, it does get a bit addictive.

Thats all off topic but I look forward to reading your views and insights. Sorry I have not got any gems to offer on getting a disinterested parent to understand just what they are missing. One of my good friends has the same experience.

R0bert

R0bert, perhaps maternal gatekeeping can have two aspects. One bad one, where mother is simply attempting to be controlling, and one not so bad, where mother has worked out (normally by trial and error over many years) the best way to motivate, discipline and reward the kids. I certainly do believe that the former situation happens. I also believe in the second version of this. The latter certainly has bette motives behind it, but of course may still impact on the father and make him feel like he cant contribute. I struggle with this in my own situation - I have had the bulk of childcare duties (as well as working fulltime and keeping house) and have worked out by trial and error the best way to treat our daughter (only 2) to get the best results from her. By that I mean how to get a happy contented child, who at the same time isnt allowed to get her way all the time. In one day my husband can undo weeks of good work, and turn her back into a raving manic 2yo tanty thrower. Why, mainly because he sooks her and lets her have her way. So I have to admit on analysis that I am guilty of maternal gatekeeping, mainly for the purpose of keeping my own sanity (as any parent who has lived through toddler hell could understand!).

There is a huge difference between maternal gatekeeping and controlling though and many parents don’t know the difference. When my ex takes the kids (seldom), I do ask that he brings them home by 6pm so they can wind down and go to bed on schedule. This has been an issue for him because he feels I am “controlling” the situation when that isn’t it at all. We get up at 6am to go to daycare and if they are overtired, they are extremely difficult in the morning and are over tired and cranky at school. They will give both me and their caregivers a hard time because of it. It’s not their fault that they are over tired yet they must be disciplined for the poor behavior and that’s not fair to them. He doesn’t care about the effect it has on them though because he doesn’t have to deal with the after effects. He continuously brings them home late when he does have them just to spite me, so the problem isn’t just women trying to control the situation, the dads do it too. Unfortunately it is the children who suffer for it. It’s a shame that two people who once loved each other enough to have children can’t work together to do what is best for them. I think that because most children are in the custody of their mother’s, it’s more common for the moms to “get back” at the dads by using the kids as pawns

V.Amberlee- This is starting to get a tad monotonous with your grumbling of being a sole parent/lack of support of ex/your perception of defiance of your ex when he does visit your kids. You are sounding like you are the ONLY person ever to be a sole parent and are quite happy to wear the victim hat.

Honestly, just build a bridge and get over it. Focus on keeping your own head above water, get a job you enjoy, treasure the time with your children, whatever contact the ex has with the kids- just let them enjoy each other in their own way and unless you suspect overt/covert physicial/emotional abuse is present- just don't say anything.

You've got to move on- the future of your children depend on it.

Obviously you don't read well. How is my responding to Country Gal's post grumbling about being a single parent?
The reason I started this post was to meet other single parents and be a sort of support group. No one is forcing you to participate. If you don't like it, don't be a part of it, simple as that.
I do not wear a victim hat, I am quite happy and capable to care for my children on my own

V.Amberlee, sorry I didn't respond to your post from Friday earlier. It's been a very busy time.

Completely in agreement with you on that. When I mentioned gatekeeping I was refering to the type that insists that the other parent does everything by our rules and a lack of aceptance that they will do some things differently. That does get difficult around transition times - if a child is returned over tired or dosed up on lollies or junk food you and the child wear the consequences not the parent who created the situation. It's a balance all parents have to deal with in some way or another wether together or apart. A reflection of how controlling we are.

There can be a sense of ownership that comes with being the resident parent, something we need to be aware of and keep in check. It's possibly also easier for the non-resident parent to do the good time parent thing. It's easier to maintain in short bursts and the limited time with kids can lead to a temptation to try and make all the memories good ones. I don't think that there are any easy answers on either side to those quandries except for both parents to try and stay focussed on raising kids with balance and keeping their own issues out of the process as much as possible.

R0bert

V.Amberlee

There are an abundance of support groups (both group meetings and internet groups) specifically set up by and for sole parents. They even have the occassional professional on hand to assist with advice/support. My advice to those in Australia is to utilize those support systems available if needed that can guide you through this life challenging situation.

V. Amberlee- I think you are a tad oversensitive- a sure sign of stress!

V Amerlee

You say neither parents should move far away from each other. Robert of course agrees.
Ok but have you ever sat for a week or even a full day in the Federal Family Court? Have you ever worked in family law courts? I have.

As nice as that may sound what the truth is we are looking at a huge percent of these people having orders and difficlties with domestic volience.

In these cases[ and there are many] most times it is recomended by the courts that the offending parent only be allowed to see their children under supervised vists and then not so often it will distress the child.

Now lets say V Amberlee that after many years you meet Mr right. Hes good with the kids and the answer to your dreams.
Your making plans to re marry.
He has three kids from a past marraige and you have two likewise.
You plan to have two more together once your wed.
In this case- Which kids do you think you need to be close to- His kids OR Do you make him move closer to your x for his convience?

After all whos kids are more important his or yours or the ones you plan to have together?

My point is all the kids would be equally as important.
People dont stay still in life and everybodies circumstances change.
A good parent will see their kids as often as possible.
A better parent will make sure those times are filled with love and wonderful memories- but you dont achieve those results by dictating where he may live because he or she may have another she or he with others to consider.

Take it from me try being the second wife with the three kids and the emotional blackmail that the first wife. My friends
marraige was almost destroyed by it. She has his kids too!.
That was my point.
I hope you enjoy OLO. Yes it can get a bit rough but most people are really nice .
best wishes

Good head-kick, V.Amberlee. TammyJo was asking for that one. Don't you cop any rubbish!

I am at a bit of a loss to understand how anything you have so far said since you first joined the forum (on 4 August 2007) could have been claimed to have become monotonous. Even less so by someone who first joined it on only 7 August 2007, and who has only ever posted on this one thread. She must have simply been out looking for a fight. Tell you what, I think she has flagged your (I mean the Forum's) thread on her automatic email alert function, so be ready for her next sally.

Sorry if I'm a bit hard to follow sometimes. It just occurred to me that you may not have been aware of the drama of the two off-topic posts of mine that were taken down after I so shamelessly used your arrival on the forum as cover for my own purposes. This link might either further confuse you, or give you a bit of a giggle, should you wish to fill any gaps in your knowledge: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884#15541 There are two more posts further down the thread that complete this story about Gordy.

Yeah, TJ has almost certainly got the thread flagged! She's just posted before I could get this in. Next time just don't wait so long to let rip with a head-kick. Head-kicking does wonders for relieving stress, if you have any. Have fun.

Forrest Gump

Your " head kicking" comments are distasteful and offessive. I would not tolerated this type of comment in my own personal or work life and I am not at all surprised some of your posts have been taken down based on your self-confessed bad attitude.

I however, am asking you to please refrain from using that type of violent imaged wording as it is absolutely out of line.

I am sure that V.Amberlee would agree that your type of language and ethos is the very thing we are trying not to teach our children. You do not have to stick up for V. Amberlee- she does quite well on her own.

Oh dear! In an attempt to set at ease one new forum contributor to whom had been given a bit of a rough reception, it seems I have offended an even newer one along the way. You're dead right, by the way, about V.Amberlee not needing to be defended. She is doing very well on her own, but I wasn't so well aware of that at the time I composed my last post.

I assure you, TammyJo, you would never receive the type of comment I made with respect to you in your personal or work life from me, unless I knew you very, very well and that you would take it in the lighthearted spirit in which it was intended. I've never taken a physical, or gratuitous verbal, swing at a woman in my life.

The thing is, this isn't inter-personal or workplace interaction, it is the OLO Forum on the internet, and, protected by claims to commendable personal virtues (if true) of self-reliance and concern for your own children set up in your first two posts, you came in swinging with a personal jibe on your third! Surprise, surprise, you drew fire.

As for head-kicking (as a comment) being offensive, be advised it is Australian idiom. In this context, it is NOT out of line. Indeed, members in general of the National party are frequently referred to as head-kickers, and happily accept the sobriquet. Oddly, enough, amongst Parliamentary staffers, the large majority of whom are women, it is this particular group of (largely) Neanderthal WASP males who are held in the highest regard among all Parliamentarians. I wonder why that could be?

If you read the terms and conditions of your ISP you would also realise the internet is 'adults only' unless there is active parental supervision of children. So much for the guilt trip about what may be being taught to children through so-called 'violent imagery'.

You have come across as a sanctimonious would-be Political Corrector of colloquial Australian language. And a bully.

Welcome to OLO.

To PALE - I don't think it is fair to move a long distance away. It's not fair to the ex or the kids. If I were to remarry, I would not move away from their father, their dad may not see them often but he does see them. If someone is in a situation where it's an issue of safety, well that is different altogether isn't it? Do what you need to do for safety, not for spite.

Robert has proven to have a bigger bark than bite, you've really grown on me. I'd like to hear more about you if you'd like to share. How many children do you have?

Forrest Gump - I may not always understand you but you've made me smile many times. I thought you said you weren't coming back? Couldn't resist us could you :) I'm glad you're back. And your comment was not offensive in any way, it was a figure of speech, TammyJo needs to lighten up. She shouldn't make harsh comments if she doesn't want to hear them in return.

As for TammyJo - she doesn't bother me. I noticed she came back so I think she likes you guys :) I know there are support groups, the computer happens to be the most convenient one for me. I enjoy meeting new people from other areas, this is the computer age after all. I am merely offering my ears to others and if I choose to use the internet to do it, what is wrong with that? I never turned to friends or family for support because of pride & because I felt like a failure. I understand that for some people, talking to a stranger who they never have to meet is easier. It’s not how you reach out to someone, it just that you do

V.Amberlee, now I'm all embarrased. Sorry if I gave a scary bark. I have one son who is 10 years old (a count of boys over the weekend just gone would have given a different result but the others were not mine). The friendships that can grow out of online discussions can become important, we get to talk about issues that most social friends can't get near (at least not when sober).

Sorry about the sporatic responses, my PC is dying a slow death and I keep getting reboots at unexpected times.

PALE, I support kids being kept away from actual abuse. That does not mean claims of abuse invented to help a residency or property case. It does not mean claims of abuse which are about one parent being willing to keep boundaries in place for kids and the other not liking it. It's about substantaited abuse with a valid risk of it re-occuring. The same reasons that the government would consider valid reasons to take children away from intact two parent families.

Repartnering by one parent is not about abuse by the other, that's a different issue.

If the new partner is more important than the kids then residency stays in the area where the kids formerly resided if the other parent is willing to take it on. The parent who makes the choice to relocate should not be empowered to pass on the negative consequences to their kids and former partner. If that can't happen for some reason then the parent losing contact with their kids due to the other parents choices also could lose the legal financial obligations (better still be compensated for their loss).

I've not sat through Family Court proceedings but have seen and heard how my ex's friends have used it to seek better outcomes for themselves. I've been through the Federal Magistrates Court and seen how little import is given to truth in that place.

R0bert

V Amberlee
Yes but in that case it would all be about you and your kids - wouldnt it?
When in fact in the real world he may also have kids- So what about his kids x wife and their postion.
See what I mean.
We should be careful not to cast stones.
I have a friend in the most difficult postion because he wants to move closer to his kids which would pretty much cut out her x seeing theirs.
So in the end all I am saying is nobody can live in the past.
We can not put demands on others.
What we CAN do is to do the very best we all can.
We all want what is best for our kids and you will get no arguments from me there. However iF your x meets the love of his life and she lives five hundred miles away and they are expecting another child to that marriage he can hardly say. No because my x - you- wont like it can he?
Anyway from what I have seen its certainly NOT a great idea to live too close to the x with her x guy jodging his x
Its full of tention and arguments which is much worse on all!of the children.
I hope all that makes some sense to you.
Sure if your x never has another marraige and no more kids and he wants to be close
It might be good for the kids.
Each case is different.
Thats all .

Robert
Of course its not meant to be abused. However - it is. Your correct.
There are many Dads who also abuse the system as well.
Over all I agree. Kids should NOT be used as a pawn to control the other party- which includes x wifes controlling and threating the other party as to where he lives for the rest of his life.

Ie if you move away you wont see the kids. Dont expect me to let the kids come down there to you!
Dont expect me to let the kids come to stay with you because "shes" there.
All too familar and too controlling and too many x wives try to control their x husbands ' Especially if hes got a new lady in his life. Hell have no fury etc Very Sad for the Kids indeed.

If Daddy lives a long way just tell the kids how very much he loves them and how important they are to him to travel so far as often as he can.
NOT your fathers moved away from us!

Its damaging to the innocent children and 80% of Mothers do use these unfair tactics of the men and the kids until they find another husband or partner.
Thats a fact Robert and its very unfair on men and the children they love.
The other twenty percent are as you say. They hide from being located because of abuse.
Maybe people should have to have a licence to have kids considering we are required a licence to drive on our roads.

If the relationship is getting serious and there are children involved from prior marriages, it is an issue that should be discussed before moving forward with the relationship. Every situation is different and it's up to those involved to come to a resolution. I am not in that situation so my opinion is limited by lack of experience. I will say that I wouldn't put any man before what is best for my boys. So yes, it would be "all about me and my kids" as it should be since my #1 priority is them

Hey RObert - Was your home in tact when all the boys left? My home is always full with the neighborhood kids and it's not easy sometimes but I like that they hang out here because I know what they are doing and who their friends are .. I just wish they weren't so loud and eat me out of house & home...boys eat to much...LOL. Does your son still let you hang out with him and his friends or are you banished from the room? So far I am still "cool" but I know it wont last.
Can I ask a personal question? How long have you been divorced? Do you get to see your son often? I'm just asking because of the topic of distance that we've all been having

PALE, unfortunately there don't seem to be any easy answers. We end up having to work towards harm minimisation and from my persepective minimising interference by the government, once they start taking sides those they side against are in a very difficult place.

V.Amberlee, the house survived. Freshly cleaned floors have some suspicious marks etc but thats fine. Divorced about 3 years, seperated 4 1/2 years. We started out close to 50/50 on care with a midweek and mid weekend changeover. From a practical sense that seemed to work very well. My ex wanted to get to 80/20 within a couple of weeks (at a guess just after she found out about child support formula's). We had an unpleasant residency battle after she moved out of the area and tried to take residency with her. I eventually gave in to arrangements that had almost no chance of working long term because the ongoing conflict was hurting us all too much (I'd already ditched my solicitor because the legal bills were crippling me). We managed to maintain a form of shared care but it was very difficult.

My sons behaviour spiralled out of control until his mum sent him back to live with me. We had a rough start with that as he'd been told a lot of lies and had got used to boundaries not being backed up. Over the last 11 months his behaviour has pretty much turned completely around so he is happier and his mum seems to be a lot more settled.

He is with me 12 to 13 nights a fortnight most of the time (but does see his mum sometimes for a couple of hours on a weeknight).

I'm largely ignored when he has friends his own age to play with unless we all do something which needs me. We did a couple of long push bike bike rides over the weekend. I don't think "cool" is much of an issue yet.

R0bert

V Amberlee

I have been reading your thread with interest.

You will get into all sorts of situations if you re Marry or have a new partner or boyfriend.
To make it work you must consider your new partner who may decide he wants to take the family to meet his friends for a BBQ etc.
Like wise he may have a past and those arrangments you have made may clash with his other x wife etc.

You have brought something different to OLO.
We all know a bit more about Robert and his life.
Thanks Robert and thanks V Amberlee
Its` Nice.
Good Luck to you and I hope you never have to suffer the second wife sydrom and the guilty x husband trip first wives often lay on x husbands because they dare to get on with their lives.

My partner and I moved because his x wife just would not let go.
At first she tried to stop him from seeing the kids at all.
He was a good Dad and provider so it was only because she wanted to hurt him
We fought and fought and spent our house money on lawyers.
All of a sudden she decided we could have the kids. I mean every weekend. Then it got to be almost every night. She moved three times to[ as she put it] keep the kids close to their Dad.
She would ring almost on a daily basis to HIM - Never me! to ask if I could pick the kids up.
She knew through the kids when we planned somethng special such as a family wedding and always rang just before to say you have! to take the kids just to spoil our plans.

By this time we had two of our own. Our life was a mess. I could not cope. In the end my kids were suffering because of arguments and his kids picked on them.
I told him he either put our marriage and kids first or I was leaving.
So yes we all put our own first.

V Amerlee
So what I am saying is if ever your x moves on with his life to another marriage dont try to make him stay in am area if his new wife wants to live elsewhere.
It totally destroys the children with the tention in two houses.
Just let him see the kids when he can and let his kids know he loves them.
It doesnt matter if ts not every weekend or every second weekend.
Also as much as you can try to appreciate and consider his second wife or partner.
Its not her fault your marraidge broke up and most times it is her! who makes the beds and cooks the meals for your kids.
I am not suggesting you try to make her your life buddy but a bit of repect goes a long way beleive me.
I remember once his x actually said Thanks to me.
I went inside and sat down and cried.
I guess thats all any of us want in life to be treated with respect.
It must of been an odd day for her because she has never once thanked me since despite the fact I still knock myself out when we have them for holidays.
I know she holds it against me he found somebody else. I think she is seeng a man sat the moment because shes not so fixed on calling every single night just to interupt our dinner time.
Maybe one day if she marries him and he has an X with kids she might know what she has put my kids through and our household and marriage.
Boy I sure do hope so!
Sorry

V.Amberlee this will be off topic but did you know you get a mention elsewhere on the site in one of Forrests well crafted pieces of prose.
In the second of a two part post

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884#15541

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884#15578

If you are not familiar with the setting it is based around Thomas the Tank Engine a popular childrens series. Enjoy.

TarynW, the situation you describe seems to be one where the people who move don't take the kids with them. A difficult decision but at least one that cannot be about vindictiveness or financial gain from the kids on the part of the parent moving.

R0bert

Robert
Sorry but what are you saying to Taryn?
My friend is in her second marraige also. She has the two from her first marraige and he has three to his first as well.
Are you saying neither of these people should have moved because their x partners didnt move with them?
In his case it was the x wife who moved out of the area first and I think she was entiled to.
Anyway if you could clear that up so I understand what you mean.
I think you mean that the people with the main care of the child ought not to move to another area away from the X
Is that correct?

PALE, assuming that the other parent has tried to be actively involved in the childrens lives - then I don't think that is fair or in the children's interests for one parent to move away and take the kids with them. From a legal perspective I think that transfering the residency to the other parent or absolving them of financial responsibility for children they don't see because of the choices of the resident parent are the best 80/20 type solutions. They won't fit all cases but have to be far better than what we have now.

There are not easy solutions, it would be unfair to expect someone to stay in a case where the other parent is one who could not be bothered with the children and moving away is going to make no real difference to their involvement with the children anyway.

R0bert

Hi TarynW and welcome. I'm glad you can join us. I am so sorry for what you go through. Why is it that when couples break up they automatically hate the new spouse? It is unfair, I agree. My ex did have a girlfriend for a while and he actually spent more time with the kids when they were together. I will admit that I did get a little jelouse in the beginning because my kids loved her so much but I quickly got over it. I liked her, she was very nice and very loving to the boys which was great. I didn't worry when she was around because I trusted her, she was very motherly. We got along great and I was happy that he had someone.
It sounds to me like your husband’s ex doesn’t want him but doesn’t want anyone else to either. She just can’t stand that he has another family and can be happy without her. This would understandably put strain on your marriage but don’t let it ruin it. Things do change over time and maybe she will accept that he has a new family. What if you called her for advice on the kids or something? Make her feel respected as their parent and maybe she will change her ways? I know when my ex’s new girlfriend called to ask me if she could by my son a particular toy (she wasn’t sure if it was appropriate or not for his age) I thought that she was very considerate. Sometimes you can change someone’s attitude by showering them with kindness. I hope things turn around for you. Keep us posted.

Robert, I think it’s great when a dad is the main caregiver for his children. Kudos to you for being there for him! It’s too bad he had to go through a custody fight and hearing his mom bad-mouth you. That is such a devastating thing for a child to go through. I’m glad he is back on track.
Yes, I did see Forrest’s post .. I felt a bit weird by it, not sure if he was criticizing me or complimenting me for getting my topic posted

V.Amberlee, I read Forrest's mention of you as an acknowlegment of you and his short term hijack of the thread. I doubt that there is anything sinister in it.

I'd rather do shared care than prime. That's not about the workload involved, I've got it a lot easier than people I know with multiple kids and low income jobs. It's about a preference for my son to learn from both his parents.

R0bert

V Amberlee
Sadly people cant live their lives trying to play happy little familys with somebodies X.
I think if another person is assisting with the care of your kids then despite everything the Mum needs to set a good example and act accordingly not just foir her kids but because she ought to be grateful of the time given her kids.

There is far far too little respect and consideration given the secod wife and partner who often carry a heavier load than the x because they have their own on top.

Robert You say you think time should be shared between both Mum and Dad - Then say you have your child twelve to thirteen nights out of fourteen.
Does that sound to you like half and half.
Sounds more like a person who controls both the child and the x to be honest.
I suppose you insist! on family outings together as well.'

Then you say if a couple are re married and they have to move away for work or what ever reason they should rip! the kids from the x marraiges away from their Mothers? You go on to say it should be made law?
I think you have some serious control issues to be honest.
Thats beyond the pale.

PALE, I was going to write a terse response to your post but I might wait for bit and see if anybody else cares to point out your errors. Might be more fun that way.

In the mean time to entertain yourself you could try reading what I've actually said and comparing it to your claims. You may find it entertaining.

R0bert

Robert
What you said was you want a law introduced to make people give up custody of their children if they move away. Or at least visits.
How can that help a child.?
Oh- I forgot only if they have either had little contact or visits with their kids- or the other way around.
The other way around you are saying this.
If a person has made a point of seeing his children or her children on a regular basis and the other party who has the main care of the kids wishes to move- "You want a law passed to stop them from being able to move." - Or to choose between going and not seeing their kids.
That is not fair. You claim if you can show the court you have always made an effort to visit the children then you should be able to force the main carer[ often mum to hand the children over]' Rather than be able to move on with her second husband]

You even come up with an interesting counter offer suggestion.
Which was- If the parent can show the court the other party- eg be it the father does not see his kids on a regular basis he should be relieved from any child support?

What I am trying to point out to you both is other parties normally have other spouses and other children with other demands.
Now in case I have read you wrong please explain why on earth you would expect other people with other children not to have issues with their own lives.

In order to carry out your new law Rovert- each State of Australia would have to have a suburb just for the x and their children so they could all live happily ever after.
The bottom line is you can NOT introduce a law to dicate where people live by holding a gun to their heads that they wont ever see their children from their first marriage again if they move.

Even if! the parent may not slot into your army Robert.

PALE, so choosing to move and taking the kids away from a parent who has been involved in their lives is in your view "fair" whereas choosing to move and not being able to pass the negative consequences to the other parent is not "fair".

My suggestion re child support was about situations where the earlier approach did not work. For some reason the parent who was not moving was unable to take on full care of the kids (after being cleaned out during the property settlement they may not have a home where kids can be accomodated, debts may preclude them taking on a job which provided the flexibility to do full time care etc) they should be freed from their obligations if the other party chooses to move away and stop their active involement in childrens lives.

What I proposes places the consequences as far as possible back with the person making the choices, the person most likely to gain from the move.

You seem outraged that this may in practice place limitations on choices mothers make. Are you as equally outraged that current laws can be used to effectively force C$A payers to stay in high stress or dangerous jobs to contine to provide financially based on capacity to earn? Are you outraged that C$A payers who wish to change jobs to adjust to their changed circumstances and spend more time with kids based on new living arrangements can be stopped from doing so by C$A's "capacity to earn"?

I noticed that you have not addressed your earlier nasty allegations re Control. It will be interesting to see if you get around to doing so.

R0bert

Robert Said
PALE, so choosing to move and taking the kids away from a parent who has been involved in their lives is in your view is fair?
PALE replies
Robert

For goodness sake get over it.
This may come as a big big surprise to you but people who are ALREADY seperated tend to move on with their lives.

In many cases they re marry and relocate for better oportunitys for familys future and work based reasons.

Most times[ Not always] it is the Mum who has the full time care and Dad visits to suite him.

Its looney to sugest a law be made that if a woman and Mother re marries she cant move into another area or state with her new husband without handing her kids over and giving them up to a Dad who probably works full time and cant keep them on his own anyway.
Also its a fact young children need Mum.
Control? I said you sound like you want to control everybody because you suggested a law be enforced that would be TOTALLY unfair.
Nobody should forget how important it is that marriages are taken seriously.
The best thing for kids is to know Dad loves us so much he travels @@@ to see us as much as possible.
Of course thats if the other parent has had to move for one of a million reasons!
Perhaps they moved to be closer toHIS children.
See what I mean Robert.
Second marriages have four others to consider- Not just ONE.
For example if your x wife re married and her husband was transfered inta state do you really think it would be fair to tell her she could not see her son?
What about her second husbands children- Should they not be entiled to see him too?
Your policy idea is really unworkable

SERIOUSLY, AT THIS POINT IS PALE EVEN WORTH RESPONDING TO? NO MATTER WHAT WE DISCUSS. PALE KEEPS GOING BACK TO THE SAME THING WITH NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OTHERS ARE EVEN SAYING.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, there is no right or wrong because every situation is unique. If my X were to move away from us...that would be HIS CHOICE. I have custody of our children so I believe it would be WRONG to purposely move away from their father.
As far as making nice with the new girlfriend or wife, I don't believe a friendship needs to evolve but in the best interest of the children, I think it’s important to be able to get along and care for the children as a team. The kids would only benefit from it. AGAIN, EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT but communication between everyone involved in caring for the children is important

V.Amberlee, good point. I still continue to be astounded at the inability of some to see the other side of the fence and the corresponding ability to embrace double standards.

PALE does not seem to have realised yet that I'm the single parent with prime care so the measures I'm talking about are ones that would restrict me rather than my ex if I wanted to act that way.

I sent you an email via the address on the page you linked to in your first post to touch base. Did you get it?

Cheers
R0bert

My X took the boys on Sunday! Yahooooo! They went to his bosses house who has triplets, 2 boys and a girl, who are the same age as our boys. They live on a lake. They all had a great time, even my X was in good spirits when he brought the boys home. He said he wants to see the boys every weekend! I think he plans on spending a lot of time at his bosses house which is great. Our boys will have kids to play with and be outdoors instead of in front of the t.v. I am excited so I hope he holds true to this. Our boys were very happy.
:) I was lost on what I should do with my kid-free day! WOW, how strange! I needed to clean and grocery shop but I was so tired, I just slept all day. Kind of a waste but how often do I get to do that?!

VAmberlee said

They went to his bosses house who has triplets, 2 boys and a girl, who are the same age as our boys.

Vamberlee
Clearly you are very young and Naive doing the best you can as a single mother.
I will attempt once again dear to point out to you where you seem to fail to see where perhaps [ without] knowing it X wives can bit unfair to another family.
If you read your words above you will see you have absolutly zero concern for his bosses wife.
She has triplets. However you see no problem with expecting her to have yours there every weekend.
Dont you think the poor woman has enough?
I am sure there must be a park near by surley your children dont have to be stuck in front of a TV just because yourX isnt there.?
Anyway here are some words of advise from somebody a few years older.
Contact the bosses wife yourself direct.
Ask her does she mind? the children coming every weekend and tell her you know how difficult it is with young ones.
Maybe even offer to mind hers oncea month to give her a break.
Just please for your own sake and the sake of your children who clearly love going near the lake take this poor lady for granted.
She just might like some time alone with her husband and her children.
Your X sounds totally irresposible by the way.
Robert. All I said was you cant run other peoples lives.
If that offends you then it does.
It wasnt my intention but you sub linking with other threads to draw me back here does tend to make me think i was right.
Good luck to both of you.
Robert you should vist V next your that way.
You have a lot in common- Your dislike of me
Funny As!

Oh PALE, how very schoolyardish of you.

You are upset with me and V.Amberlee appears to be my friend so you attack her. Very grown up, I'm sure that you have a lot of mature advice to offer V.Amberlee.

If I do get back to V.Amberlee's part of the world I'd look forward to catching up with her. She seems like a decent person seeking to act responsibly in regard to her kids well being and her interactions with the world.

In regard to your comments on this topic your unwillingness to make any attempt to deal fairly with what I'm actually saying leaves me with no interest in discussing the matter with you.

R0bert

Robert

Your gate cashing of Davids post to have a go at me was childish.
You didnt like me saying you sound like a control freak- in front of V But Robert you do!.
Instead of leaving a post here you gate crashed HIS thread because you couldnt get my attention.
I thought it would be nice to leave you to alone. Thats why I didnt keep posting!

Your comments are not going to have any effect our work- one way or the other. We have noticed your lack of interest in Animal "Not to repond" to our threads is good as most times it has been either to point out a rule or suggest a new one- including changing the whole of OLO a year back.

I suggested you visit-V didnt I.?
Why because its clear your both lonely.
In "your case" I can understand it.
My reponse to V was not unkind. It was how I felt and how I see things.

If V learns there are others to consider it will help her to be a happier person. Shes young. Shes Sweet but she doesnt understand fully.

So Robert
If you and V get married- Which one of you is going to have to give up their kids?
"Your rules" and NEW LAWS might come back to bite you on the bum.

V. Some more free advise. Love yourself and be happy your kids are healthy.
Go out weekends with the kids and let him have them when it suites. "Dont sit around waisting your life."
I know you cant see it but you are living your life through his movements
Move on and good luck
Remember others are entiled to THEIR lives and famlies just as much as you and yours.
I might post Roberts comments on the other thread so you can see what angered me.
Then again I might not., I will leave you now with Romeo. Let us know if he leaves the toilet seat up.
funny As
Good Luck guys

PALE, strange as it may seem it is possible for men and women to be friends without romance being a part of it. You continue to display a schoolyard mentality in your approach to conflict.

As I stated in the other thread my comment was in response to your behaviour on that thread. The hypocracy of your stance against personal abuse on the threads was fresh in my mind because of your behaviour on this thread but the comments was on that thread because that is where you chose to attack another poster for making a personal attack. I referenced personal attacks which you have made against other posters from a variety of threads, not just this one.

It seems with you that it's never about your actions, it's an attack on your organisation, it's that somebody else is a control freak or that they don't care about animals (in exactly the right way) or that they are abusive (in a different way to the way you are).

R0bert

I wonder if it's occurred to PALE that their organisation's interests are poorly served by the prolific childish, bigoted and personal comments that are posted in this forum under its name?

While I'm personally sympathetic to the welfare of animals, there's no way I'd go near 'People Against Live Exports and Intensive Farming' with a barge pole, on the basis of what is posted in this forum under their name.

Mr Morgan
My names is David and I am the CEO of PALE. I dont often get involved with OLO being far too busy.
However let me asssure you the members including the President and myself are unpaid dedicated people who give up much of their time to assist animals.
Several of these people are lawyers who often work well into the late hours of the morning to acheive great results.

We have seven hundred members who are active.
Most weekends you will find these people delivering hay and other products to struggling farmers that is paid for out of their own pockets.

I have read several of your posts to date and conclude you are not particually concerned about the plight of millions of Animals that face barbaric treatment through the live Export Trade.

That Sir is a matter for you and I do not wish to debate it with you futher.

My concern is your continued comments made against this organisation.

Your personal comments directed to Antje Struthmann throught OLO are noted.

I will not tolerate you following her from post to post to make a general nuisence of yourself to our organisation.

Regarding this particulat thead my only comment is considering nobody is paid a wage and Antje`s doing this in her own time she is quite free to comment on other issues if she wishes and I wish her well.
Please be assured PALE will not be responding to your comments on any threads Mr Morgan and suggest you do like wise.

CJ Morgan, your comment prompted me to see what showed in Google. A couple of basic serches showed little of this stuff. I expect variations on the search terms would show a lot more but the two searches I ran retruned very little OLO material. A more complete seach by an organisation considering involvement with them might be a different matter and something that Wendy (if she is still there) should consider. Most organisations don't allow staff to post personal views in a manner which could be read as reflecting the views of the organisation.

V. Amberlee, sorry I've been sidetracked. That is good news. One of my good friends here has been excited recently because her ex has started spending more time with their kids. He is doing so at his parents place. Leaves me wondering if some dads lack the confidence to have the kids on their own. One step at a time I guess but it's still good news.

Regarding the suggestions made earlier. I don't know your situation but it seems to me that the arrangements are between your ex, his boss and her husband (or if the boss is male then his wife) and that it would probably not be appropriate for you to interfere. Do what you can to make your ex's time with the kids work well for all of them but don't try and manage it for them except if asked for help.

Cheers and sorry if you have copped flack because you were friendly to me.

R0bert

Robert

Wendy did not post the above comments to V - I did. I see nothing what so ever wrong with it.

See what I mean. Now your telling ME what posts I can respond to and how.

I too have been a victim to my husbands X expecting us to take the kids every single weekend[ even on our honey moon] and follow their agenda despite what sports my kids had to miss out on.

Also I worked fifty hours a weeks and over.


You delude yourself that I commented on the bosses wife because you have become friendly with V.

I think you need help to be honest.

As V opended the thread I think she can speak for herself so dare I say Robert mind your own business.

I get very upset when second wives are not considered and shared that with V.

You Robert are making yourself look very foolish.

Regarding you Morgan rubbishing our organisation I think the emails through our web site on OLO tells the real story.

PALE have doubled their membership and we have a dedicated team working to improve conditions for Animals.

I will continue to make personal posts Robert if I so feel.

I know you have complained about our name being used but thats the way Management of OLO set it up when we joined as members.

I suggest If you have any complaints you take it up with him.

V I hope you took my comments onboard. Like you my children will always come first.

In our case that meant we had no other option but to move.
It wasnt because my husband doesnt love his children.
It was because he does. Now when he sees them its good quality time.
They get Dad all to themselves and dont have to share him with myself or our kids.

There are lots of nice people on OLO. I am back to my Animal Welfare work for the evening.
Still its all for the Animals so its very rewarding at times.

Cheers Antje

PALE: "My names is David and I am the CEO of PALE... ...My concern is your continued comments made against this organisation."

Given that it's rarely clear which member of your illustrious organisation is posting silly comments under its name, those of us who disagree with their frequently xenophobic, childish and hateful comments have little choice but to address whoever it is by your organisation's nickname.

If you don't want your organisation's image tarnished by the dumb and hateful rants of individuals, why don't you get them to post here under their own names or nicknames rather than as PALE? Rest assured that I'll continue to refute and lampoon egregiously xenophobic, racist or otherwise hateful comments in the manner which they deserve, no matter whose name they're posted under.

Rather than respond to David from PALE's post here I've requested a new thread to take it outside. Hopefully that will be up later.

Enough space has been taken up on other discussions with this stuff.

R0bert

I have been away for a few days and look what you guys did.....my goodness you’ve upset PALE again….oh my, my.
PALE - Your suggestion that I “have absolutely zero concern for the boss’s wife” is ludicrous. Where do you get off saying that? You suggest that I call her and offer to watch her children? That’s absurd! Do you ever think? First of all it is not my place to dictate where he takes our children when he has them as long as they are safe. If takes them to his boss’s house (who has invited him to do so) then that is his business, not mine. Should my X call MY friends and offer to baby sit their kids because my kids and I spend time with them? Come on, if you have something to say, please make it worth reading. You seem to be extremely critical of everyone and their thoughts. You should consider thinking about what to post before submitting them. I have to tell you…you come across as egotistical.
Your comment on if Robert and I marry? What is that?! People can’t be friends? Do YOU have a ruling on that as well? Oh please, please share your ever so intriguing thoughts on friendship!

I wasnt going to bother to respond but I have five minutes before a meeting.

Robert the CEO asked me to post a message from him.

So `no` OLO laws were broken because I typed it!

look at this thread its a much bigger bridge of rules "however" unlike nasty you I`m not like that or others including Graham.

You`v made yourself look even more controlling and foolish[ 'if thats possible'] opening up your school boy thread rubbising PALE.

How pathetic.

I have difficulty understanding why you would work overtime to get a NFP organisation banned from OLO.

It must take a certain type of person to sink that low.

Here are some of the reasons I said to you - "Robert you can not control others lives-"

1ROBERTsaid]it was a tactic she used to ensure I could not oppose her moving out of the area.
PALERELIES How dare you oppose where she lives!- "control"!

ROBERTSAID2In my case I moved to the other side of our suburb, I could not afford to stay in the part I had been in previously.

PALEREPLIES Oh so its ok for Men to move because they are no longer receiving the benifit of anothers providing! BUY nobody else can move!

ROBERTSAID3If the new partner is more important than the kids then residency stays in the area where the kids formerly resided if the other parent is willing to take it on. The parent who makes the choice to relocate should not be empowered to pass on the negative consequences to their kids and former partner.
PALERELIES
IN second marraiges there ARE others! to consider including the children of that marriage! here you are wanting a LAW to make most times Mothers hand over the kids because! shes found a new husband and life!
Nasty Controlling and spiteful that would be and very unfair on the liitle kids.
Mummies getting re married and leaving daddy
We must punish Mummy.
Then you try to control OLO rules.
oohah! You dont agree with what I said- I`LL show her by getting the whole NFP banned.
Charming morals.

PALE given some of your post was on topic I'll make a responnse to that.

I moved less than 1 km. My ex was at the time living about a 12 minute drive away from our former home and working about 1 km away. Our sons school was about a 5 minute drive from where I moved to. A move that was deliberately limited by the desire to fit in with shared care of our son. I've not made or seen any suggestion that moves within a 15/20 minute radius of the former residence are unfair or unreasonable. What I'm talking about are moves which make ongoing regular involvement in a childs life by the parent who has not moved either token or unworkable.

Your sexism seems to blind you to the reality that what you think is completely unjust for a woman to have to bear as a consequence of her own choices is seemingly OK to pass on to a man as a consequence of the womans choice.

I've asked before about your views on existing laws which force C$A payers to continue to earn at the same level (capacity to earn provisions) and you have failed to respond other than talk about responsibility which seems absent when you talk about mothers relocating.

I've pointed out that what I propose on this issue applies to myself as the parent the child lives with so if you are talking morals/ethics remember that I'm talking about things which limit my own freedom for the sake of my child and out of fairness to his mother.

If it is controlling to expect to maintain some control over the circumstances of my own life then I'm controlling but what you seem to be proposing is a situation where women have full control but no responsibility or consequences for their own choices.

R0bert

Morgan
Racist?
We work with Muslim leaders and Aboriginal leaders and I am proud to say our President and her partners[lawyers] hold a unique MOU with them
See here-
http://www.halakindmeats.com/
Racist- Your kidding!
Your ignorance of myself and works clear.
This is the first of its kind in Australia and we both as a group and many of pales members hold close personal friendships with not only Muslim people but Elders and our brothers and sisters from all over the world.
However I am also able as anybody else free to make a comment on subjects raised on the OLO forum.
I am very much pro Australian which I would be hoped might be appreciated since I am born in Germany.

Vamberlee
When you open a thread it is to invite comments. Where you say you couldnt afford food for your kids or to turn the heat up. I tried to uplift you making all sorts of suggestions and praising you at the same time because I thought perhaps you were despressed
read the post-

Vamerles-
Try to think what else you can do to support yourself.
Sometimes the answer is just around the corner.
You may find a local newspaper wanting staff in the adversting section.
There is always a need for people to assist others to get their adds completed.
If you have a gift with words somebody like you would be snapped up quickly.
From there if you work hard you might be able to secure a job as a Journo with a few courses.
You can get these courses through the Goverment at no charge to yourself and they will also pay for childcare while you study.
Lucky for you your in Australia where anything is possible.

How old are your chidlen?

"You didnt reply.

I wish you well and I am sorry Robert upset Taryn and myself. I think this thread might have been fun left to the girls
Then again on second thoughts Roberts probably got the green light there too.
Antje

PALE said: "I think this thread might have been fun left to the girls"

As a man who now has shared custody (week about) of my two children after years of court battles which cost me nearly everything, while the mother was funded by Legal Aid, I think too much has been "left to the girls" already, frankly.

This thread is about the joy and pain of being a single parent, and I have experienced as much of both as I would wish on anyone. Most of the pain has been because the laws around child custody and child support and the institutions that administer them are distinctly sexist and routinely discriminate in the vilest way against fathers. Your comments make it clear that you regard paternal involvement in the children's lives as a deletable option, subject to the whim of the mother, yet if I were to suggest that maternal involvement were less than critical, you'd be grossly offended, which makes you a hypocrite and a supporter of a very clear and nasty double-standard. "left to the girls" indeed...

Antisepic
Firstly thanks for the laugh today and for the humour in your response. Love the name and it just fit in so well under the circumstances. Its funny how you get a mental picture of a person I was sure you would be a lady.
I agree women play with the kids visits in order to get attention or what they want.
I am not trying to offend V but my expereince is that first wifes in particlar do this especially when her man has moved on.

This is the only thread I have not been able to really get a handle on[ theres that name again]

When I first read the opening post I thought well if you cant afford to turn the heat up or food for the children- Why dont you get a job.

Then I thought as I dont know if shes able to work perhaps thats a bit hard.
In regards to the other issue which Robert has blown up as usual I am privy to a bit more info.
Taryn used to post on OLO and used to work at pale office. One day a long time ago somebody posted something really personally awful about her and her one week old baby.
Absolutly everybody screamed for it to be taken off.
However' certain people wanted it left up'
Thats when she left. She had to.

AS for the rest. Too many x wives play games and use the kids as a power tool to control.
Nearly all of them do and the courts fall for it!
Its not fair on the men and my friend has experienced similar.
Its stinks and the woman get away with it.
I have notcied many will let them see the kids and even take them for wekends. "Until" the new girlfriend or second wife comes along.
Then hell have no fury.