Messages

Poor choice of words on my part. Thanks again for your advice. We're just getting tired of rearranging our days to accommodate the BF whenever he's sick, out of town, hungover, or doesn't have his mother available to help him with his child. Now the baby's been sick, we offered a visit here, he doesn't want to deal with vomiting, etc. But you're right...we do need to improve our relationship with him, and even if he doesn't take us up on it, the offer could be a positive step. So thanks. And in case you're wondering why I'm the one writing, I do all the daycare for my grandchild while my daughter, the BM is at work. They've lived with me since the baby's birth, and I'm unavoidably enmeshed in their lives. My purpose in participating in this forum is to get a more objective look at both sides of the picture.

Thanks for all your input. The child has seen the doctor, twice in fact. The BF does not want his time when the child is sick because he really doesn't know what to do, and doesn't want to deal with it. The baby was never too ill to see dad. I just didn't think it was good for a sick child to endure a 45 minute car ride (each direction) and wondered what other people do in this situation. The BF did not want to come here to take care of the child. His next scheduled visit is tomorrow, and the baby is better now, so is make-up time for the 2 hour midweek visit still necessary?

My grandchild is under 2 and the BF is supposed to have visitation but the child is vomiting, running a fever and has been since last week's visit. What is the norm for visits with a sick child? I know that the BF needs to know how to care for him, but I don't think the child should have to be taken out when so ill. We've offered to allow the visit to take place here, but the BF doesn't like to do that.

It may not be about controlling the NCP. Hopefully it's about the parent wanting to spend as much time as possible with the child.

I apologize. I should have said "parenting time." Like I said, I'm new to this. I'm just trying to figure out what's really best for the child. It's just so hard to trust other people (extended family, step-parents, friends) just because the ex thinks it's okay to leave the child with them. Yes, of course it's his child too, but if he can't be there for his parenting time, especially for a whole week, I think he should check with the mother to see if she can have the child in his absence. The child has the other 7 weeks of his parenting time to bond with step-sibs, see the grandparents, etc. But I think Dad should be there with the child. It's different for the custodial parent (I hope that's the right term) who has physical custody of the child for the majority of the time. It seems to me that it would be impossible to check with Dad every time she couldn't be with the child, for work, appointments, etc. Am I too biased about this?

I'm new to this whole custody/visitation thing, but isn't the purpose of visitation so the non-custodial parent can be with his/her children? If it's your visitation and you cannot spend it with the kids, shouldn't the custodial parent automatically have them? It seems to me that the kids should be with a parent whenever possible, instead of with a stepmom or even grandparents. Couldn't you work out a different week for your visitation, when you can actually be there?

Ref,
Thank you so much for taking the time to give me such a long and well thought-out answer. You've made some excellent points, and I'm going to copy this to the BF. I love the idea about the weekly "newsletter" which will really come in handy when my daughter is older. Mainly, it's just so nice to have an unbiased point of view about decision-making. I really appreciate your input.

I am seeking sole decision-making for my 18 month old daughter. The bio-father, whom I was never married to and never lived with, is opposed to this. He has missed most of the baby's doctor visits, is always late for visits, cancels visits occasionally, and wants everything to be a "compromise" without consideration for what's usual and good for the baby. He's hell-bent on getting more visitation time and wants to be able to decide who takes care of the baby during his time. This is so he can take her to his mother and leave her there. (His mother has filed a grandparent's rights suit against me so she can have "her own time" with my daughter. She lost, but has appealed.) We've tried to discuss this, but always end up in an argument. When we went to mediation prior to temporary orders, he tried to run the show, getting very condescending and belligerent. I just don't see any reason to agree to joint decision-making when we can't agree on anything. I think it would cause more problems for our child in the long run. Right now he has 8 hours of visitation a week (at his mother's house) and our temp. orders require him to follow my lead in terms of our baby's care. He has paid child support since we got the temp. orders, although he's sometimes late. He refuses to discuss with me how the baby's doing during his visits, or what's gone on. He doesn't like to be told about her development, what she's learning, how I do things with her, etc. Our communication is very poor. I even suggested communication counseling but he wasn't interested. Sorry this is so long... can anyone tell me what my chances are for getting sole decision-making? What, if any, are the advantages to joint decision-making? Thank you.

I disagree. Children do not need both parents from day one, they need their mothers. Generations of children have been raised primarily by their mothers. It's only been in the last 25 years or so that some men in this country have decided to argue for "parenting equality." Young children, especially babies and toddlers, primarily need the care of their mother. That's not to say that fathers aren't important. They are. Relationships with involved and loving dads are critical to a child's growth and development, and these relationships evolve over many years. But the relationship between a child and his mother begins before birth, and is the child's most important bond. For heaven's sake, he was part of his mother's body for 9 months! I don't think the BF has to "serve" the mother, but in the interest of what's truly best for the child, the BF needs to treat her with respect and compassion. If the BM is a loving, nurturing parent, the father ought to be grateful for that. It makes sense that he should see the young child frequently, but for short periods of time. Young children do not need to spend long periods of time away from their mothers.