Denied access to my children by ex-wife
I'm a so-called absent father of 2 girls aged 18 and 15. I didn't choose to be absent and tried all I could to get to see my children. Despite court orders giving me access to my girls 12 years ago when they were 7 and 4, my ex-wife would use every trick at her disposal to stop me seeing them. She started rows every week, called the police telling them I threatened her, even though I have never been violent to her or anyone in my entire life.
She finally told me one day 12 years ago that the girls didn't want to see me again. Foolishly I backed off for a while thinking they would come to me when they got older. The months went by and I went to the house at Birthdays and Christmas with money and cards etc. hoping they would see me but nothing changed.
Months turned in to years. I never missed a Birthday or Christmas and I wrote my number on every card but still never got a reply. On a few occasions when I went to the house with money for them the door was answered by my ex-wife who snatched the money and slammed the door. I never abandoned my kids but to my shame I never really fought for them because I didn't want them to be caught in the middle of a custody battle and felt that they shouldn't be forced to see me if they don't want to.
I am now in a relationship with a wonderful woman who has 4 great boys. They respect me immensely and I have been part of this family for 10 years. I finally got a new job a couple of years ago after being out of work for a long time. I was only working a couple of months when the CSA sent me the forms to fill in. My partners boys are grown up now and paying their way though still living with us so my outgoings where considered low. It took the CSA nearly 8 months to work out how much I had to pay but still charged me arrears from when I started work.
There is no way my ex-wife (who is on benefits) would even talk about a settlement of any sort. My eldest daughter is 18 yet I'm told I have to pay till she is 19. I pay over 40% of my meagre wages and barely have enough left to live on at the end of the month. I think at the very least the woman should be made to work out a settlement to include access. I haven't laid eyes on my girls in 10 years even though they only live 3 miles away. I never abandoned my girls and would give anything to spend even an hour with them.
By: Sam
Comments from visitors
Sam i understand your situation. I too have suffered because of my ex, unfortunatley in this country parental alienation is not recognised by the courts. It is extremely difficult and i struggle with the concept of my ex willing to take my money but unwilling to let me see them. I fear although its only been a year that already the damage has been done. Its also a 200 mile round trip for me to see them.
I have photos of comments my kids have made about me on a certain social networking website none of them positive and the lies printed by my ex do not give enough info to be libelous.
Listen to nik that is sound advice
I have photos of comments my kids have made about me on a certain social networking website none of them positive and the lies printed by my ex do not give enough info to be libelous.
Listen to nik that is sound advice
0
Click to rate 
Report
Sam, I am five years into a mirror of your story. Never give up hope, but live for what you have got and be there if they come back in the future.
+2
Click to rate Report
I have same issues. Mother agreed contact when we split 3 years ago, She moaned that I was late, I wasnt, She then said I didnt fasten them in. I did! I then had to attend a contact centre. Then when It was shut at Xmas I had to go her mams house. During contact I had to change my little ones nappy, this is fine but after I recieved a solicitors letter saying I abused my own child. 1) grandparents apparently witnessed this. No Child abuser would abuse his own kids and especially in from of witnesses. 2) complete lie.
Then these rumours and stories are still circulating and I fear for my life at times if this lies falls into the wrong hands.
I then go to court with all these allegations and I get unsupervised contact which means judge didnt believe them and still they continue.
Then mother get social services involved and again they tell SS the same things. Then mother lies and lies and about my life style. I have no idea what my life style has got to do anything with me being a good father.
Then she gets the kids taking off her for neglect. LOL to busy with my life she forget s aboyt her own. Then Unfortuntlely gets a terminal illness and dies a few months later. In the meantime children are taken to live live at her grandparents. The same relatives that accused me in the 1st place.... Its a joke. Now I have to fight them to get what I want. Argh Its so annoying :(
Then these rumours and stories are still circulating and I fear for my life at times if this lies falls into the wrong hands.
I then go to court with all these allegations and I get unsupervised contact which means judge didnt believe them and still they continue.
Then mother get social services involved and again they tell SS the same things. Then mother lies and lies and about my life style. I have no idea what my life style has got to do anything with me being a good father.
Then she gets the kids taking off her for neglect. LOL to busy with my life she forget s aboyt her own. Then Unfortuntlely gets a terminal illness and dies a few months later. In the meantime children are taken to live live at her grandparents. The same relatives that accused me in the 1st place.... Its a joke. Now I have to fight them to get what I want. Argh Its so annoying :(
+5
Click to rate Report
No it is not good that you are denied access to your childen, particularly if you have not harmed them in any way. However given what appears to be your system there does not work the same way where I am. Here the authorities removed the right from a mother to keep her sons from a man who has been before the courts 19 times, and has served jail time for 7 of those times for offences against children. The authorities have given that man unsupervised access to his small children, with a view to unsupervised overnight access a few months down the track. From your point of view then you have good reason to complain don't you. When lowlife such as that get what you can't have.
-3
Click to rate Report
still more anon - 4-Feb-11 03:23
What are you talking about? Too much whisky again? What backfired?
You need help.
You need help.
+4
Click to rate Report
A million fathers? Would you like to provide some proof of that?
No, I feel for anyone, male or female, who is denied access to their children, providing there is no good reason for it. Sometimes the father is abusive or violent to either the mother or the children.
What I am fed up with is the same person making the same complaint here ad nauseam, while admitting that when that child tried to make contact he took great pleasure in rebuffing him and denying both his son and his "new" children the chance to know their siblings. Speaks a lot for what kind of husband and father he is.
No, I feel for anyone, male or female, who is denied access to their children, providing there is no good reason for it. Sometimes the father is abusive or violent to either the mother or the children.
What I am fed up with is the same person making the same complaint here ad nauseam, while admitting that when that child tried to make contact he took great pleasure in rebuffing him and denying both his son and his "new" children the chance to know their siblings. Speaks a lot for what kind of husband and father he is.
-8
Click to rate Report
Slip of the fingers. I meant to type 20 not 29 years.
+1
Click to rate Report
My wife and I are very happy thanks but if she left me I would not still be whining about it 29 years, a happy rem-marriage and 3 kids later.
+1
Click to rate Report
"Andy Summers", I did not read the artcle you refer to, but a friend of mine who is quite knowledgeble of the law has the opinion that the woman could be charged under the very old and obscure law of "Troilus Strapadictome"
-4
Click to rate Report
Is that you gainsy? Still pretending you don't use other names all the time? Pitiful.
-7
Click to rate Report
Gainsy/ Andy - for heaven's sake put a sock in it. You have been banging on about this forever. Your ex wife is not every woman in the UK. Get over it already.
By the way, if you don't want to read rubbish then don't read the Mail.
By the way, if you don't want to read rubbish then don't read the Mail.
+1
Click to rate Report
" Gainsborough Lad's ex most probably left cause he had a nob the size of an Acorn and was rubbish in bed, I think the final straw was when she found him knocking one out over Lily Savage.
*MikeP 25-Sep-2010 13:13"
I did not write this childish remark, nor do I know who Lily Savage is (and I am not even bothering to find out.)
*MikeP 25-Sep-2010 13:13"
I did not write this childish remark, nor do I know who Lily Savage is (and I am not even bothering to find out.)
+2
Click to rate Report
This is very sad. It' is high time that the courts enforced thier order. 6 weeks in jail for the mother who refuses to comply should do the trick. I accept that this is unlikely but until the courts take a strong approach to this nothing will change. My heart goes out to you. I am in a similar boat and also trying really hard to see my son, aged 7.
+1
Click to rate Report
Gainsborough Lad, this is not stalking. You were caught out lying after doing exactly what you accused other people of doing and now you are trying to brazen it out.
Fine, you do that but everyone knows now what you are. The quotation was yours! So, you presumably have no respect for yourself or can expect any from anyone else.
"I am not going to waste any more time arguing with someone who uses a nickname five or ten times then changes it to something else once the latest nickname has lost its credibility, I have more respect for people who use the same nickname for months on end."
I expect you will be relieved that I will take your advice and not waste any more time on you. You have insulted a lot of other people though so I cannot speak for anyone else!
Fine, you do that but everyone knows now what you are. The quotation was yours! So, you presumably have no respect for yourself or can expect any from anyone else.
"I am not going to waste any more time arguing with someone who uses a nickname five or ten times then changes it to something else once the latest nickname has lost its credibility, I have more respect for people who use the same nickname for months on end."
I expect you will be relieved that I will take your advice and not waste any more time on you. You have insulted a lot of other people though so I cannot speak for anyone else!
-7
Click to rate Report
yet another anon - 6-Sep-10 19:41
Gainsborough Lad/Albert Poopdecker/Danny Boy/Jupiter 2/ Broadsword/ Mike Oxbig etc etc.
Normally I would agree completely that it does not matter what names someone uses here but you criticise other posters for doing it.
I have used other names here ( but not in the same gripe) and do not pretend that I haven't. The difference is that you say that you don't - except your Carry On names which you pretended were a joke after you were caught out- while claiming that other people lose credibility if they do.
You frequently claim that Been There ,Digsy , Florida Girl or others are all the same person and you then refuse to continue talking to them as you claim they have lost "credibility" by using multiple names in the same gripe and say "I rest my case".
This is always, oddly enough, when you are losing an argument.
You also accuse others of inventing new names to make it seem as if more people agree with them while you do exactly the same thing and even talk to yourself in the same thread!
You said this some time ago,
I am not going to waste any more time arguing with someone who uses a nickname five or ten times then changes it to something else once the latest nickname has lost its credibility, I have more respect for people who use the same nickname for months on end."
Normally I would agree completely that it does not matter what names someone uses here but you criticise other posters for doing it.
I have used other names here ( but not in the same gripe) and do not pretend that I haven't. The difference is that you say that you don't - except your Carry On names which you pretended were a joke after you were caught out- while claiming that other people lose credibility if they do.
You frequently claim that Been There ,Digsy , Florida Girl or others are all the same person and you then refuse to continue talking to them as you claim they have lost "credibility" by using multiple names in the same gripe and say "I rest my case".
This is always, oddly enough, when you are losing an argument.
You also accuse others of inventing new names to make it seem as if more people agree with them while you do exactly the same thing and even talk to yourself in the same thread!
You said this some time ago,
I am not going to waste any more time arguing with someone who uses a nickname five or ten times then changes it to something else once the latest nickname has lost its credibility, I have more respect for people who use the same nickname for months on end."
-5
Click to rate Report
yet another anon - 6-Sep-10 19:12
Yes, A Smith, I think you are right. I have often thought it and even said it to him as they both phrased everything in exactly the same way and had exactly the same approach but I had not noticed the odd punctuation that Gainsborough Lad and Danny Boy both use!
Danny Boy said "Thank you for the compliment that you think that I may be Gainsborough lad".
So, he thanked me for mistaking him for himself!
Danny Boy said "Thank you for the compliment that you think that I may be Gainsborough lad".
So, he thanked me for mistaking him for himself!
-2
Click to rate Report
yet another anon - 6-Sep-10 17:28
Gainsborough Lad has always berated other posters for using multiple identities and often accuses everyone who disagrees with him of being all the same person!
He has consistently claimed that he does not do this and categorically stated that he is not Danny Boy or Jupiter 2.
Gainsborough Lad writes in a very odd way. He ends most paragraphs with a comma and not a full stop. There is usually no full stop until the final paragraph. I have never seen anyone else do this, not just here but anywhere.
You can enlarge the page with control and the scroll wheel to see this anomaly more clearly.
I find it very strange that not only does Danny Boy use the same phrasing, the same misspellings and talks about women in the same way but he also does this same strange thing with commas at the end of paragraphs! There is no doubt in my mind they are the same person.
He has consistently claimed that he does not do this and categorically stated that he is not Danny Boy or Jupiter 2.
Gainsborough Lad writes in a very odd way. He ends most paragraphs with a comma and not a full stop. There is usually no full stop until the final paragraph. I have never seen anyone else do this, not just here but anywhere.
You can enlarge the page with control and the scroll wheel to see this anomaly more clearly.
I find it very strange that not only does Danny Boy use the same phrasing, the same misspellings and talks about women in the same way but he also does this same strange thing with commas at the end of paragraphs! There is no doubt in my mind they are the same person.
-5
Click to rate Report
Gainsborough Lad,
I have looked into this a bit and, despite claims that fathers kill their children more often than mothers do, the figures are roughly similar but there are big differences in how , when and where.
Women usually kill children when they are very young or babies and often, but not always, when they are suffering from post partum depression. It is not often planned and is not to take revenge on the father.
With men the children are of any age and the motive is usually revenge and to make the mother "pay". Sometimes they are suffering from mental illness as well but the murders are usually coldly planned.
Out of interest, as more mothers are working longer hours in good jobs courts are beginning to award custody more often to the father.
I have looked into this a bit and, despite claims that fathers kill their children more often than mothers do, the figures are roughly similar but there are big differences in how , when and where.
Women usually kill children when they are very young or babies and often, but not always, when they are suffering from post partum depression. It is not often planned and is not to take revenge on the father.
With men the children are of any age and the motive is usually revenge and to make the mother "pay". Sometimes they are suffering from mental illness as well but the murders are usually coldly planned.
Out of interest, as more mothers are working longer hours in good jobs courts are beginning to award custody more often to the father.
+3
Click to rate Report
Danny Boy
You don't seem to have read my post but it does not matter what anyone says to you, it never does as all you want is to get on your soap box and say the same thing over and over again.
If a man murders his children, then he is the only one to blame. If he, as you say, does this for revenge to "get back at " people then it is shockingly amoral and just shows that he views the children as objects that serve his purpose.
A lot of people have done research into "family annihilators" and in most cases the parent who destroys the family has regular access to the children, sometimes is still actually living with them. The murders are usually carefully planned and pre-meditated, not an impulse or committed from despair. They are committed out of hate, revenge and a desire to cause suffering to the surviving parent.
You don't seem to have read my post but it does not matter what anyone says to you, it never does as all you want is to get on your soap box and say the same thing over and over again.
If a man murders his children, then he is the only one to blame. If he, as you say, does this for revenge to "get back at " people then it is shockingly amoral and just shows that he views the children as objects that serve his purpose.
A lot of people have done research into "family annihilators" and in most cases the parent who destroys the family has regular access to the children, sometimes is still actually living with them. The murders are usually carefully planned and pre-meditated, not an impulse or committed from despair. They are committed out of hate, revenge and a desire to cause suffering to the surviving parent.
-6
Click to rate Report
Danny boy
"just a couple of children" slaughtered by their father whom they trusted. You seem very cavalier in your attitude to children's lives.
What you just "answered" was not my question. Read it again. You are twisting what I said.
You are just throwing opinions about without offering proof. How do you know that dozens of children are murdered because a mother refused access? If a man kills his children because he cannot see them then he never loved them.
If a mother refuses a father access to his children with no good reason - such as violence towards them or sexual abuse - then she is in the wrong.
If a father kills his children to punish his wife or because he thinks " If I can't have them no one can" then he is entirely to blame for his own behaviour.
Most cases of "family annihilators" as they are called in the US are not because of access problems but because a woman has moved on in her life and is happy, regardless of who caused the break up in the first place. The husband cannot stand it and destroys her by killing their children.
"just a couple of children" slaughtered by their father whom they trusted. You seem very cavalier in your attitude to children's lives.
What you just "answered" was not my question. Read it again. You are twisting what I said.
You are just throwing opinions about without offering proof. How do you know that dozens of children are murdered because a mother refused access? If a man kills his children because he cannot see them then he never loved them.
If a mother refuses a father access to his children with no good reason - such as violence towards them or sexual abuse - then she is in the wrong.
If a father kills his children to punish his wife or because he thinks " If I can't have them no one can" then he is entirely to blame for his own behaviour.
Most cases of "family annihilators" as they are called in the US are not because of access problems but because a woman has moved on in her life and is happy, regardless of who caused the break up in the first place. The husband cannot stand it and destroys her by killing their children.
0
Click to rate Report
