Advanced search

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Child visitation battles re non primary carer parent

(14 Posts)
earlycomputers Thu 16-Mar-17 12:18:20

My ex-partner is threatening to take me to court because he wants to see more of our children than he currently does. I am the primary carer. When we split up (we weren't ever married), we carried on living in the same house for financial reasons for 3 years, and during this time we shared the kids with me having them 60% of the time (whoever had the kids was in charge and did all childcare functions). Now we are living in separate houses, this arrangement has changed to me having the kids around 70% of the time, with my ex seeing them around 30% of the time. He is insisting he has them 50% of the time but I am very reluctant for the following reasons: I think he may be doing this to pay less maintenance, I would still do the lions share of any child-related stuff but would have far less time and money with which to do it ( I have always done around 90% of any childcare or child duties in the last 12 years since our eldest was born), logistically it would be disruptive for the kids to keep too'ing and fro'ing between our houses if they saw him too often, and finally I believe his motives are less about being with the kids and more about just making a point (as he was never that interested in helping out with the kids and has always been very controlling in general). There is another reason and that is he was charged with domestic violence against one of the children and so I don't want some of his behaviours negatively affecting the children. So - can he legitimately/legally demand the kids see him 50% of the week? Would the courts take into consideration the fact that he was in charge of the kids around half the time when we were sharing a house? Just wondering how other separated families do it if before splitting up they shared the kids 50/50 and then upon the split they then share the kids 80/20 or 70/30 etc. How do the courts decide? Thanks

RedHelenB Thu 16-Mar-17 13:09:32

What do you mean by charged with domestic violence against one of the kids?

Sorry, but if you and the children were/are happy to be with their father for a1/3 of the time why the issues with 50%?

earlycomputers Thu 16-Mar-17 13:31:37

I gave my reasons for not wanting the 50% in my last post. Hopefully that makes sense? thanks

RedHelenB Thu 16-Mar-17 13:38:18

Not really - mainly due to not getting enough maintenance?

As it stands their father has them more than a lot of NRPs so on the basis of what you have written I cant see why 50/40 shouldnt happen.

RedHelenB Thu 16-Mar-17 13:38:33

50/50 I mean.

SookiesSocks Thu 16-Mar-17 13:38:35

He can go to court for 50-50 and given your reasons against it he may very well get it.

You cannot say you dont want 50-50 due to a previous DV against the child but then let him have contact 30% of the time hmm

You say he is doing it to pay kess cm. Well it could be said you are refusing it so you dont lose cm.

QuiteLikely5 Thu 16-Mar-17 13:40:11

You are saying with contempt that you did most of the child related stuff yet he is offering to do half so what's the issue?

If money is the issue you will need less because they won't be with you half of the time.

You will only get a reduction from his CSA all other benefits will remain.

I would hate to hand my children over for six months per year.

Can't he do every weekend and one night during the week?

What do the kids think?

If you are really desperate you could take a reduction in funds in return to remain at 30%

I'm not sure a court would grant 50/50 as it's very disruptive to schooling etc

GirlElephant Thu 16-Mar-17 13:43:28

I find your DV reason very confusing and worrying. You state he has 30% access despite having committed DV against one of the kids but it's a risk to move to 50%? Surely it's a risk for him to have any non-supervised access!?

Amibeingtoosensitive Thu 16-Mar-17 13:47:10

Why is the DV your last reason.
And losing money your first? hmm

earlycomputers Thu 16-Mar-17 14:04:56

The DV issue was in the past and I trust it won't happen again (it hasn't in 3 years), hence putting it at the end of the reasons list. So whilst I don't mind him having some access to the kids, I would mind if it was as much as 50%. The other main issue I have is that I do nearly all the child-related duties and if I had less time with them it would make it hard to manage (eg activities planning/care/homework etc). If I had less money to spend on child stuff (becuase he has them ay 50% of the time), this would mean looking after them even more challenging. It's all very well to say I wouldn't need as much money because I would have them less, but those essential child expenses just wouldn't get paid for by my ex so the kids would lose out. The other reasons for not wanting a 50/50 arrangement is the disruption to the kids (schooling/moving etc). So the question is when do courts grant the non-primary carer 50% access? What grounds do they need for this?

SookiesSocks Thu 16-Mar-17 14:15:07

The courts grant it if there is not a good enough reason not to.
I am afraid your m9ney reason would not wash with a judge.
They look at how it would work in the childrens interests and they care very little about you or how it would affect you.

They will also ask other proffessionals to get involved if they suspect the children are being led by either parent.

What is the 50 50 proposal their dad is suggesting?

earlycomputers Thu 16-Mar-17 16:13:15

What do you mean by 'led by either parent'? The money would of course be for the kids benefit. I don't need money for me. What grounds would a court say no to the 50/50 thing then? thanks

SookiesSocks Thu 16-Mar-17 16:31:02

To some degree courts listen to what the children want. If they feel the children are parroting the negatives from either parent regarding contact they will get other agencies involved to help see past it.

No to 50 50 can be because it wont work distance wise or tbe children would ve unsafe in the nrp care.

prh47bridge Thu 16-Mar-17 18:33:15

The money would of course be for the kids benefit

The courts would not be interested in that. Apart from anything else, if he has the children for more of the time he will need to spend more on them himself (for food if nothing else) and your outgoings will reduce.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: