Prevention of child abduction by Polish mother.

Reservoir

That is not her decision to make as to whether she wants me to be the father or not, as that is a statement of fact. Unless this was the immaculate conception of course! For the same reason I may not trust her, but if I had custody I wouldn't stop her seeing her own child! it's about what is best for the child not one of the parents who has an issue with the other one!

I was advised not use cheques by my solicitor for legal reasons.

My partner and I have great experience of parental abduction. Hopefully you have contacted reunite.org. If not do so. Unfortunately you won't get much sympathy from most Polish people as they don't appear to have any concept of law outside or inside Poland and Polish law, appears not to be applied, but made up as they go along when it comes to children. They don't understand what the Hague convention is about and think its a personal attack on Polish people, not a convention that protects every nationality that signs it and works both ways. It's a sad state of affairs that it comes to this.

The primary concern should always be the child.

If you want a chat PM me and I'll send you my number. I may be able to give you an insight into what will happen if she does go back to Poland and how you should respond.

Hi Ant63

Thanks for the pointer on the website, and I have dropped you a mail.


I absolutely agree, but I don't think some people understand that!

I don't know, maybe she does not want you to know her bank account? The fact is that you are making excuses for not sending checks, and hiding behind the lawyer, "what's best for the child" and many other excuses. You harp on your rights, and forget your obligations. And call somobody pointing it out stupid.

I'm beginning to see a bit of her side of this story..
Here is another, personal side: I have never insisted on my son's father paying child support - I opted for a good relationship that money issues would have strained, I was sure. Plus, I didn't really need the money. Now, it turns out, according to some claiming legal know-how, I had no right making that decision. The support money was due to my son, and even if I didn't need it, I was supposed to collect it anyway and put it in a bank account for college education or whatever needs might arise.

f stop

I see your personal experiences are clouding your judgement! So to you I'm just another useless guy running from responsibility and just making excuses when I'm trying to do things properly. I really understand it now, if you disagree with something you start to get angry and abusive. You obviously don't discuss the facts or see another's point of view.

You started off being reasonable, then just couldn't help yourself could you. Well good to know what type of person you are!

I may not be right all the time, and may get things wrong, but I'm trying to do the right thing by child!

I'll say it last time, hoping that something might get through to you: start sending child support. Do not wait for the courts, lawyers, assurances or any other excuses.

I can see you're too stubborn to listen to any advice that does not support what you want. People like that always accuse of others not listening to them, or being abusive. (I have no intention of re-reading all this garbage, but I don't recollect calling you names while you did call me an idiot).

On the other hand... I take all that back!
Don't send any support!
Shoot, what if helping you is NOT in the best interest of the child?!?

Like so many women fstop only sees these situations from a prejudicial womans point of view. She considers your attempt in the "best interests of the child" to be an unreasonable request.

Even you using a lawyer is considered wrong. In this area, women throw out any notion of "equality". Amazing!. I dare say that if the sexes were reversed you would be the one accused of kidnapping the child and refusing the mother access along with all the other one-sided issues that are present.

Although she may not want money now; she will after a period of time and accuse you of being a "deadbeat dad". That scenario is the norm and not the exception.


That comment is very revealing. Somehow, it is ignored when a man wants to spend time with his child. Many women are too hardened to even see this as an issue because It's all about them. They don't even consider the negative effects ion children who grow up without a father's presence. Children, no matter how well adjusted feel something is missing in their lives and statistics bear that out. This is not a secret and all studies bear this out.

answers.com/topic/single-parent-families
From the link:
"Social scientists have found that children growing up in single-parent families are disadvantaged in other ways when compared to a two-biological-parent families.......they have....

lower levels of educational achievement
twice as likely to drop out of school
more likely to become teen parents
more conflict with their parent(s)
less supervised by adults
more likely to become truants
more frequently abuse drugs and alcohol
more high-risk sexual behavior
more likely to join a gang
twice as likely to go to jail
four times as likely to need help for emotional and behavioral problems
more likely to participate in violent crime
more likely to commit suicide
twice as likely to get divorced in adulthood
Good luck.

Utter nonsense, both sexes are equally guilty in those situation using their own offspring as a weapon against the person they supposedly loved so much in not so distant past. She is right, it's all just an excuse to get even at the other person all at an expense of ones own child in the name of "what's best for that child", let me rephrase that "what they think is best" and all rationalization in the world will not change that reality.

f stop

You really are pathetic individual, my problems can be resolved, but I think you will have to live with yours for ever!

You're quite the ShortHairWhiteKnight. Of course people unfortunately use their children to enhance their particular case. My comment had to do with women attempting to use what they consider their trump card. One of the posters used her motherhood card as the be-all to end any discussion. No fathers need apply.

In this instance we have a woman who took their kid and didn't seem to be very communicative after that. Inherently, that is wrong. People who do that think only of themselves without regard to the other person who contributed half the DNA to the child. That child starts out behind the 8 ball and crime stats gathered from single parent families more than point that out. The spouse who 'kidnaps' the child doesn't even think of all the long-term consequences to the child.

No we don't! What we have here is hearsay on Op’s part, you don't know the facts of this case yet you're taking sides because it suits your agenda, showing your personal prejudice in the process. The other person is not here to present her side. How much of what you have just heard can be taken at face value? That's what's inherently wrong here, you're showing your bias by taking sides and not even making an effort to hide it. Your personal feelings are irrelevant, simply put making a judgment after hearing just half of the story makes you a fool. You're like a teenaged punk who has premature ejaculation before taking a good look at what's really hiding underneath that dress, be careful, you may be surprised as to what you may find there, appearance have fooled many of men.

Well yes; anything anyone says that is of a personal nature is "hearsay" from that person's point-of-view. That should go without saying.


If you reread my responses you will find them quite objective. I noted that 'kidnapping' by a spouse is wrong and so is denying access to the child. Do you have a problem with that? I also pointed out something that is dear to me. It's the fact that too many kids grow up without a parent, usually the father. Our society pays a high price for that.

One of the posters wanted 'special' consideration for the mother even though as you pointed out, "you don't know the facts of this case". Neither did she but the 'mother card' was played. It is frequently overplayed.


Please leave your personal experiences out of this subject matter.


Obviously.

Then you have a funny way of expressing it, what you're doing in fact is encouraging him to be a deadbeat parent. Depriving the mother of the child the means of supporting that child is just one but perhaps the most important reason why the society pays a high price. So tell me, how is your advice in the best interest of that child?, and how exactly are you trying to protect the society from people not living up to their responsibilities?

When having a marital problems, seeking counseling, confiding in a friend or reaching out for legal advice if all else fails is one thing, that's what normal people do but seeking an approval for your action on a public forum? Willing to wash your dirty laundry on the internet in a futile attempt to turn the opinion of the entire world against your former love out of spite? That sure is a sign of a deranged mind and of a complete looser. People like that should be castrated and not allowed further reproduction for failing to support their child, now that would relieve some of the pressure from the rest of the society don't you think?

Point out where! Your accusation is false! Seems like you reinterpreted something from your own mind - not mine.


Wrong again. Depriving a child of his father is the most harmful. (often done with child alienation).
* 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
*85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes
*80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes
*71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
*75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes
*70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes
*85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home
"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation
*Approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...." (Source: "Surviving the Breakup," Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein)

Those statistics are based on American way of life, selfish me generation that thinks only of themselves, no family values whatsoever. No wonder single mothers forsake the upbringing and the future of their own children in favor of their own happiness here and now letting the street to bring them up, as if the rest of the world is the same.

thelizlibrary.org/fatherless/effects-of-fatherlessness.html

Zimmy would like us to believe that women that divorce are purposely pushing the fathers away and sentence their children to unsuccesful lives.
You have use your head when interpreting those numbers.
Nobody can dispute that when two 'good' people get married, and they love and respect each other, they have a much better chance of raising well adjusted children.

What his statistics show is what happens when one of the parents is not suitable to be a wife or husband, or a parent. It shows that majority of the time in these situations the burden of raising children falls on, usually fully employed, mothers.

Also, because most of the marriages from hell do end in divorce, these statistics do not show what happens to children from disfunctional, or abusive households, where parents do stay together.

No argument there.

Is fstop suggesting that being fatherless is best?
I just knew someone would finally use the discredited "Liz Library" (a feminist research org). Many of the agenda ridden comments from this site are most revealing. They attempt to portray the fiction that a two-parent family is not better than a single-parent family Of course there are exceptions, I dare say many of them but they are not the rule. Ms Liz pretty much says that they are and In one of her blogs she even suggests that visits to fathers are detrimental to children. I found it interesting that she listed Joseph Stalin as an example of growing up fatherless. Perhaps he''s her role model?

Finally, even the list of notables in Ms Liz's link is not quite accurate because many of the individuals listed had father-like role models. For example, she lists Nicolas Copernicus who was brought up by his uncle Lukas Watzenrode after his own father died. Others had male role models in their lives. Todays kids seem to lack those.

Of course the dire statistics that affect fatherless families cannot be disputed and our society pays a harsh price for it. The evidence is all around us. Only a feminist and/or a liberal wouldn't notice it.

you are a one trick pony, Zimmy. No use talking to you.

You must have missed my many comments on; socialism, Polish history, Obamacare, immigration, WWII, Copernicus, academia, holocaust, Polish-Jewish relations, Occupy Wall Street, media, law, sports, the arts, historical figures, and humorous Polish proverbs just to name a few of the many subject matters I've commented on. Of course people who are stunned to hear something that is contrary to their ingrained beliefs tend to accuse others of having a one-trick pony singularity. It's their hot spot, not mine.


I'll let you buy me a drink.

Where have I ever sought approval here!

I have asked for advice in this forum because my ex is Polish and my child half Polish. So I guessed that someone must have gone through the same thing here or know someone who this has happened to.

As for washing my dirty laundry in public, what do you know about the situation apart from the basics, you don't know my name, my ex's name, where I live apart from being in the UK. You don't even know the sex of my child. I have kept everything deliberately vague and avoided specifics. So you know very little apart from me asking for advice.

'Deranged mind' etc, I believe that people are inherently good and want to help others, I know I do. However, I have never realised now many people do not have that same set of values, and just want to be abusive, opinionated, and generally just obnoxious.

Also I have clearly stated that I am willing to support my child, but you clearly ignore that as that doesn't fit into your agenda. As for your last comment about sterilisation, that is quite a national socialist idea isn't it for someone with such 'liberal attitudes.'

Maybe you now have you facts straight!

yes that would be interesting...

Its standard practice to not use cheques for most transactions like this for the simple reason that cheques can be saved and all cashed together which can cause problems.

What?! I have never heard of such a thing. And what sort of problems? You write a check, you balance out the money. If you know how to balance a checkbook, you have no issues. If you do, that's considered your problem by courts, not the mothers. In the US, anyway. Sounds like an excuse to save money for your own purpose, then if you go to court, pretend the money was saved for the child. Which some courts would view that as just that.


I sincerely hope none of you believe it's better for a mother and child tostay in an abusive situation?!

acadv.org/children.html
kcsdv.org/stats.html
domesticviolenceroundtable.org/effect-on-children.html

Any pediatrician, child psychologist, domestic violence lawyer, counselor, etc. will tell you that the rates of domestic violence against women and children in the US, particularly in married households, is grossly underrecorded. Why? Because for it to be introduced into statistical studies, the mother needs to report it, and if she were to stay, she's labeled a bad mother and her kids taken away, even if staying is her only option (please, do not give the tired old lecture about it not being her only option, are you an abused woman in a marriage with children? If not, you have no room to talk about that anymore than I do about prostate cancer or other male-specific topics).

Yes cheques can be saved then cashed together or at irregular times to cause problems for the person issuing the cheques and the child. That is why bank transfer is the best option a guaranteed payment that is deducted and deposited on a regular date, it makes everything simple.

Of course you mean, "none of you believe it's better for a mother or father and child to stay in an abusive situation", right?

It isn't surprising why people default to presuming the male is always at fault. That's the template as provided by women's advocates and main street media. I'm certain that it will surprise the general public to learn that 55% of child murders are committed by women. Seems like 'politically incorrect' information like this is too shocking and therefore taboo for discussion in these, ahem, progressive times.


If anything, they may be over recorded. Many false charges are filed by women seeking the kids and the bank accounts. It is much more difficult for men to report being abused by women then it is for women to report abuse. Women are encouraged to do so. Men are laughed at when they do. It doesn't take much common sense to understand the cultural prejudice against men when it comes to these issues.


That's an odd comparison. The correct equivalent would be an 'abused man with children', but then, logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit. As to prostate cancer, you should be happy to know that it has always been funded much more heavily than breast cancer although the incidence of each is comparable (but that's another subject).

I realize that bringing up the full facts to an issue is distressing to those with a more selective mind-set (agenda). I bring the other side of the story which is rarely told - the full one.

Again, I ask the question. I'll play along with your semantics and say mother or father.

Otherwise, I wish you a wonderful life. I don't feel like discussing with you further. You have your agenda, as do we all.

Again, you have to think about what these statistics mean. It is skewed by the fact that of single parent homes, more than 80% are led by women.

More telling is this one, that with both mother and father present, 80 percent of child fatilities within the family are attributable to fathers or father surrogates. (Bergman, Larsen and Mueller, "Changing Spectrum of Serious Child Abuse," Pediatrics, 1986)

There is nothing to "play along". Don't you believe in logic, let alone objectivity?


So far so good. Likewise!


My agenda, if any, is fairness and something I call 'fuller truths'.


Exactly right. There are many more female-led households than male ones. I wasn't sure if anyone would pick up on that (of course it is more difficult for a man to get custody than a woman and our court systems need overhauling). However, a substantial number of women who are still married abuse and/or kill their kids at a higher rate than married men.

This goes against the conventional grain as espoused by Polishmama who made a case for motherhood privileges because of womens 'special' love. That 'special' love is not evident in women who abort their unborn; who dump newborns in toilets and dumpsters and who otherwise murder their children.


You were able to come up with a caveat for mothers murdering their children but not surprisingly you stop short in your research when it suits you. Most of the father surrogates are the 'bad boys' women hook up with as they crank out kids to multiple fathers. Indeed, most of these men have criminal records. Biological fathers are the least likely to kill their kids followed by biological mothers. Almost exclusively, when biological fathers kill their kids, they are also killing the mother. That's because 90% or more of the time, the issue of divorce and/or breakup is the trigger with the woman threatening to "take the kids". There is no excuse for this and I am merely presenting the emotional state where the father feels that he has nothing to live for. Perhaps it is men who need all those shelters and help that women have?

There is no excuse for murder no matter who does it and no matter for what reason. That includes the hidden nature of female crime which is overshadowed by bogus feminist statistics that constantly focus on "evil males" and "female victims" only.

I agree with you ZIMMY, this focus on the helpless female victim of the evil male is actuallly insulting to women. Unless they live in some backward place that is.

I mean women in the USA/ Europe do have choices, innit?

I pray you never fall into that situation. You are not in an abusive relationship until you get hit or otherwise emotionally or sexually abused. And then, the abuser makes sure that you know he (or sometimes, she) is bigger than you and capable of doing worse next time, that it was all your fault and a whole slew of psychological abuse that eventually turns the victim against themselves. It's not insulting to women talking about abusive relationships. What's insulting is brushing it off as something that no longer happens or that it's exaggerated or whathaveyou. Just like child abuse. It happens. Often. And when other women (or men, if the victim is a man) make it seem like the victim is just being a bad mother or exaggerating or stupid, that's just plain wrong.

And ZIMMY, my comments to the OP about a mothers perspective were meant for him because he said he was trying to understand from her perspective. Which I presented. Given that his ex isn't here.

The two of you confirmed subtly what I thought you were trying to say, that an abused wife and mother should stay in the relationship. Partly because it seems you think that it's better for the kids, and partly because you wouldn't believe her if she was. Otherwise, why continue to not answer the question which I asked based on what you were saying?

Also, the OP is still going to need to take parenting classes which he hasn't done. Has he calculated how much he will owe in child support yet to know how much to put into a bank account, since he won't pay by cheque? Has he offered a wire transfer (I don't recall in the exchanges off-hand)? I believe that's what this thread was initially about.