do i have to let exp who does not have PR attend a routine dental appointment for dc?

[cestlavielife]

exp does not have PR.
long backstory was abusive etc.

he is desperate to be involved which means trying to attend every single routine medical appt.
tomorrow dds have regular routine checkup. nothing anticiapted, one at some point in future (2-3 years) will need orthotics referral.

i dont want him there - ystrday had to atend a pre assessment at family therapists centre with him to get some counselling for dc over contact issues. they inisted we both attend pre assessment together. he accused me of all sorts including being abusive, was ranting and raving. hopefully therapists took note for their report - but it was awful. i really dont want to be in same room as him tomorrow while dds have routine dental review!
.

can i just say no ?
legally i think so as he does not have PR?

morally?

he knows there is an appt and is asking where and when...

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

Legally, I don't know. Morally, I would say that his behaviour has ruled out any possibility of him being given any concessions at the moment, so I would say No to him attending the dental appointments.

Could you spell it out to him - ie. "No, you cannot attend the dds' dentists appointments, as I am not willing to subject myself to the sort of behaviour you exhibited yesterday and do not wish the dds to be upset by witnessing you behave that way."

[Meglet]

I wouldn't.

And why are they making you attend 'family therapy' when he is abusive? It's wasting everyones time as he will carry on doing it . I had one mediation session with XP and they ended up cutting it short and telling him to leave.

[cestlavielife]

tks for input. i will be firm. it is routine stuff not major decisions on anything anyway.

(.the therapy referral is for DDs but GP referral really didnt give sufficient background so they insisted we both attend the pre-assessment as parents. ... plan now is to refer for DDs to see someone.

[ex insists I am alienating them, stopping contact etc when it coming from dds - various incidents in past and decisions on contact were supported by social worker ecetc ; but i am v happy for them to see someone to speak in confidence and say what they really want from both of us individually...and maybe find way to get message across as to what they do want how and when)

[olgaga]

For heaven's sake...!

How awful for you. Stick to your guns. If he goes there and makes a scene it'll only make it hard for your dds. Shouldn't think the dentist would be exactly happy to have that situation anyway.

It's not as though it's a medical emergency - he has no right to barge into their day-to-day lives like this, especially when he cannot control his behaviour.

[cestlavielife]

ah he can control it - he clearly felt the family therapist was there to listen to his accusations (tho she did try to say let's draw a line under the past...) ...i realy really tried to say "these are the facts of what has happened, which is relvant to the current situation. there were smashed doors and other agressive acts whcih scared the DC" not saying he is this and that.

one exchange went
ex: she is abusive. she has stopped me seeing the DC for the last 12 months.
therpaist: so when did you last see them?
ex: this morning, i played football wih them (dds who have already finished scool agreed to meet him in park with the childminder; they refused to go to his flat, as being enclosed and not in public, so it was a compromise)
therapist: oh. i see .....
ex: but this is abusive....

etc.

but there is no telling when he might flip. he has done so - most recently in front of dds a month ago... i dont want to run the risk for something as banal as a dentist. and it would send the messsage - hey i am fine with your behaviour...

(and i will need to have private words with the therapist at next appt as she did say something about having parental sessions alongside the dds being seen! )

anyway yes the dentist thing is another way - he will log it as me being abusive to him etc etc. i need to step back and leave him to thrash it out with his therapists.

[zipzap]

Could you ring up the dentists and explain the situation? They might let you change the date of the appointment and could stick something in the notes about not handing out any info about appts etc to your ex.

[amanspointofview]

This is the LEGAL section?.not the messed up relationship section.

Get over yourself. He wants to attend his daughter?s dental appointment. Little things a child remembers later in life. Grow up.

[oldqueenie]

oh very helpful amamsview
of course he is not "legally entitled to atend every routine health appointment UNLESS you agree he should / a court order says he can... and in view of his recent behaviour I certainly wouldn't be agreeing....
are there any court orders /applications in place? do you have a residence order?
even with pr a non resident parent can expect to be informed / consulted about significant decisions afffecting their children, but can't expect to be involved in the minutiae of everyday routines.
he sounds like an unpleasant bully. good luck.

[oldqueenie]

sorry amaNsview

[amanspointofview]

?Little things a child remembers later in life.?

I don?t cyber fence as experience tells me I am a worthy opponent. Oldqueenie?..time to rethink your handle and to reconsider the value of your not so good input.

[EduStudent]

Telling the OP to get over herself and grow up over concerns about her abusive XP is vile and dismissive. Would seem I'm not the only one lacking character.

May I ask what value you feel your first post added? And how it demonstrated a desire to discuss family law?

[prh47bridge]

Yes, this is the legal section. And the legal position is that the OP does not have to let her ex attend any dental appointment, routine or otherwise. You may think the OP should allow her ex to attend but the law does not require her to do so.

[MOSagain]

amanspointofview so are you a family lawyer as that is what you appear to be claiming from your post?
If so, I must say I'm shocked as that sort of comment is not one that I would expect from an experienced family lawyer. Not at all helpful to the OP

[Spero]

Even if he had PR he would have no legal right to attend a routine medical appointment.

pR is very poorly defined in the children act. As I understand it and try to explain to clients, it gives you a right to be consulted about issues of importance in a child's life. It does NOT give you a right of veto or the right to interfer in day to day decisions.

The whole concept of PR is a load of bollocks. It was insisted upon by a Tory government who wanted to retain a distinction between married and unmarried couples. I think it is a nonsense. If you are someone's biological parent that potentially gives you legal rights under Article 8 of the ECHR but you have to demonstrate that you have a family relationship and you are not a risk to the child.

So if he could behave decently you might have a moral obligation to involve him as much as possible but he has no legal right whatsoever to force his way into the minutiae of your day to day life.

[amanspointofview]

Since ECHR has been introduced let me remind you on article 25 which I have reproduced below:

Article 25.
? (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

? (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


Now perhaps those that have a dislike for a man?s point of view would like to discuss not only the children?s act coupled with human rights legislations and perhaps could advance some moral philosophy.

Ladies please advise me when a daddy?s interest in his child is not important? It is not abuse. It is not controlling. It is a genuine innate need to be at the centre of things that are important to his child.

[cestlavielife]

tks all (i did go slightly off tangent so apologise )

he does not have PR.
I have a residence order.

the "right to be consulted about issues of importance in a child's life" (were he to have PR) is the issue here - a routine dental appt is not that important, surely?

there are issues over contact due to past behaviours.
DC have been referred for counselling. due to confused referral from gp they insisted we both attend pre aassessment together as parents and this was a nightmare.

i did send text saying "I dont wish you to attend the dental appt, i wil let you know if anything significant" and he texted back "as you wish this shows how abusive you are"

anyway as luck would have it the dentist then rang to cancel as was sick, so appt has been postponed...

and legally speaking i am also absolutely not obliged to attend any "family counselling" with him, right? they suggested that next time DDs would be seen while me and exp had another session in another room!

unfortunately the therapists GPs etc all seem to have this idea that "systemic family therapy" will resolve all issues.

but it is not court ordered.

however - the contact order is not technically being followed to the letter due to incidents - order is for supervised contact at set times and "any other as agreed". supervised only happens when someone is available; otherwise is liimited to some contact in public places where DDs feel safe.

hence i feel a need to show i am doing the right thing legally should he bring it all back to court and start arguing i am breaching conact order. (I have "reasonable excuse" due to incidents and this is all backed up by SS). [tho he thinks the judicial system is all wrong and biased so is unlikely to take it back to cout...]

clearly unless a court orders me to do something (eg let him attend dental appts) i have free will - and surely it is my legal human right to not be around someone whose behaviour upsets me ? unless is absolutely necessary?

which may in fact override dd's "right" to have her dad at a routine dental appt.... (and she has expressed the view she would rather he was not there)

• but when someone is bullying and manipulative one begins to doubt.

[boredandrestless]

They are going to sit in a chair for less than 5 minutes while they have their teeth counted and recorded. My ex loves his DS as much as I do but both us would rather pull our own teeth than beg to go to a dentist check up. They are boring! He is pushing to do these things to attempt to have some control over his ex's daily life and have more contact with her to upset her. How the dcs will benefit from having 2 bored parents squashed into the dentist's room is beyond me. Even a couple living together wouldn't usually both go to such an appointment.

I would perhaps however invite him - if he makes an idiot of himself again in front of yet another professional involved in his dc's lives it will make him look even more silly. Is he going to complain to the dentist he is being alienated from his dcs whilst he is attending their routine dental check up?? I understand you not wanting to though if he his most recent incident was only a month ago! It may also go against you. For example if you refuse mediation sessions in the same room because of his abusive behaviour - he cold then throw back, "well she was happy enough for me to attend appointments with her". I'm typing as I think but I think in your situation I would veer towards a formal no in writing, explaining due to recent incidents and ongoing things being sorted out you don't feel it's necessary, and that you are happy to pass on any info from routine check up appointments.

[boredandrestless]

Ignore his text reply. You are not being abusive he is trying to mess with your head!

Do you have a solicitor you can check with?

[cestlavielife]

"genuine innate need to be at the centre of things that are important to his child. "

is a routine dental appt important to he child? surely so long as one parent attends that is enough? in a normal world, do two parents always attend every single routine appt or is it usually whichever parent is free? when contact order is for supervised contact then it could mean that routine appts were shared if tha is what a court ordered - but "his" would need to be supervised herefore aranging another adult to go with too - practically speakng it makes no sense espec as he does not have PR and cannot legally sign for any treatment.... me supervising contact does not work as he uses that time to insult/criticise/bully (even in presence of others eg in a waiting room, cafe or in front of therapist!)

so; if someone is criticising/bullying/insulting to the other parent, whose rights come first?

my right for peaceful existence free of being bullied and insulted (which so often happens whenever there is contact of any kind, including in waiting rooms!!);

the child's "right" to have both parents at every appt (???why???)

or his right or "innate need" to be involved?

[Collaborate]

Oh dear - a bit of a bun fight deviating from the perfectly reasonable question posed by OP in the initial post.

amanspointofview - there is no need to be gratuitously offensive. As you rightly pointed out, this is the legal section and OP has been given some legal guidance. I see you are not a family lawyer - that fact was perhaps apparent (to those of us who are) upon reading the tone of your posts.

[amanspointofview]

Your relationship failed. It may have been your fault. Perhaps his fault but in truth the faults lies not only with both of you but more importantly with both of your own childhoods.

So why now instil the same damage on your own children? If, for whatever reasons, you are not comfortable in his presence just say ?X has a dental appointment and I can take her or if you are free you can take her and this is the details?.

Anger is corrosive. Think of the child.

[amanspointofview]

Collaborate:

My legal training did not involve the mental turmoil of warring ex-couples. Perhaps you would confirm that yours did? Or perhaps you are hiding behind your title which sadly is true of those that profess to knowledge of the Law.