Last point and I'll let this dead horse rest peacefully.
Objectively, sports are good for kids. We should encourage and facilitate it as parents, as a rule. So when the kids ask their mom if they could play sports and the father says he doesn't want activities scheduled on his weekend, she's left with one of two choices: one, sign them up, support their practices and games on her weekend, and ask the father if he will either take them or allow them to stay home (and never insist that he/they do), or two, tell the kids "sorry, your father does not want you to play because it will interfere with his time with you." Because in reality, those conversations happen and kids want to know why they can't do what their friends are doing.
Of those two options, it would seem to me that kids would harbor more resentment about playing no sports whatsoever than only missing half of their games. So again, I don't see how that should be interpreted as manipulative by the mom when pinning the blame on the father for missing out on everything is the alternative option. Instead, she gives them what is within her power to give, and leaves the rest up to him to decide on.
Sometimes the noncustodial parent is, in reality, the "bad guy" who says no when he could and should say yes, and I don't think it's the court's job to protect him from the predictable consequences of being a selfish parent.
It's also worth remembering that the custodial parent does 90%+ of the work of child rearing, and value their sparse free time, so when they give their weekends over to supporting the kids' activities instead of taking time for themselves, again, it doesn't really lend credibility to the idea that mom is being selfish or manipulative.
The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Objectively, sports are good for kids. We should encourage and facilitate it as parents, as a rule. So when the kids ask their mom if they could play sports and the father says he doesn't want activities scheduled on his weekend, she's left with one of two choices: one, sign them up, support their practices and games on her weekend, and ask the father if he will either take them or allow them to stay home (and never insist that he/they do), or two, tell the kids "sorry, your father does not want you to play because it will interfere with his time with you." Because in reality, those conversations happen and kids want to know why they can't do what their friends are doing.
Of those two options, it would seem to me that kids would harbor more resentment about playing no sports whatsoever than only missing half of their games. So again, I don't see how that should be interpreted as manipulative by the mom when pinning the blame on the father for missing out on everything is the alternative option. Instead, she gives them what is within her power to give, and leaves the rest up to him to decide on.
Sometimes the noncustodial parent is, in reality, the "bad guy" who says no when he could and should say yes, and I don't think it's the court's job to protect him from the predictable consequences of being a selfish parent.
It's also worth remembering that the custodial parent does 90%+ of the work of child rearing, and value their sparse free time, so when they give their weekends over to supporting the kids' activities instead of taking time for themselves, again, it doesn't really lend credibility to the idea that mom is being selfish or manipulative.
The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W