Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

STBX wanting more contact with Daughter

362 replies

btsmummy · 12/09/2011 10:52

Hi,

Thought I'd post here as well s the Divorce section, hopefully it's OK.

I have been separated from my H for just over 4 years and have just started divorce proceedings.

He moved out when we split and paid the mortgage and all the bills, along with the running costs for my car as I was at home with our then 18 month old daughter.

She is now nearly 6 and he has seen her on a weekday and on a Saturday every week since, they have been on holiday together, so there have been times when she has spent a week with him. They have a great relationship and to be fair he is a very good dad and she loves her time with him.

We have always got on very well, and many times we did family things at the weekend when he came to see our daughter (i am still in the FMH), we also continued to sleep together up until the beginning of last year when it became obvious we weren't going to reconcile, thing have been a bit frosty since but got slowly better and we started having family days out again (tho not sleeping together), that was up until this May.

He is now asking for more contact with our daughter and is asking for overnight stays, one during the week so he can pick her up from school and drop her off the next morning, and overnights at the weekends, he has said he would like 3 overnight stays a week so he can spend more time with her, possibly 4 the next, amount to equal care. I have said he can't have this but I have offered him 1 overnight every other weekend, with the usual midweek after school and weekend daytime in between. I also told him I won't discuss it any further and that he needs to speak to my solicitor.

Do you think he has any realistic chance of this, as I've told him we'll have to go to court as I won't agree it?

Thanks

B

OP posts:
glitterkitten · 13/09/2011 20:56

Oh ffs mitmoo you clearly know not what you're talking about.

Solicitors, particularly family solicitors (worth their salt) do not promote tit for tat. Working in a fixes fee (pitiful might I add) with an additional "success fee" if matters settle without going to court are the norm now under legal aid matters.

Buy then don't let the facts get in the way hey?

And your ex got indirect???? I'm pretty sure you started a recent thread slagging off your ex for his comments to your son during, ahem, direct contact????

appeegolucky · 13/09/2011 20:56

Please do mitmoo

Fontsnob · 13/09/2011 20:56

But he already pays MORE than CSA would say he should. So your argument makes no sense.

Mitmoo · 13/09/2011 20:57

Fonts 50 50 care could mean greater proportion of the marital home above the 25% he has put in and reduction or obliteration of CSA claims.

Perhaps I am cynical but when someone is adopting a dishonest persona, I kind of get suspicious about anything else they post.

Fontsnob · 13/09/2011 20:59

So, he has said nothing of wanting more money out of the house and he currently pays above the odds for maintenance. Your assumptions are based on nothing but your own mistrust. Hardly a balanced view.

Mitmoo · 13/09/2011 21:01

FONTS he "she" has been bulling us throughout, he says he is paying more than the CSA say he should. He says he is going for a divorce so unofficial arrangements will cease If he gets 50 50 that will go down to probably zero.

Which is the motivation, to see more of his child or to save money? I don't know, Coincidence now solicitors are involved, perhaps, I don't know.

Mitmoo · 13/09/2011 21:02

glitter you are probably the only person in the UK to trust family court solicitors. Bless your little naive heart.

glitterkitten · 13/09/2011 21:04

It further makes no sense Mitmoo as contributions to former matrimonial home decrease in importance ( as a negotiation point) the longer a couple has been married- a fact we are not aware of.

And really, why automatically assume that this guy is so money motivated that he will take on 50% share of a child just to line his pockets? Is it so inconceivable that this guy sees he is able and willing to care for his own daughter just as much as her mother has done, out of errrrmmm I dunno, such a thing as fatherly love? He'd be tons better off if he had turned his back and done a runner at the outset. Was it his desire to control, manipulate and deceive that kept him there, paying wife's way? Or was it his live for his daughter and his desire to do right?

YouWinOrYouDie · 13/09/2011 21:04

Reality's bullshit-detector kicked in very early on IIRC and one of the phrases which set it off was something about the STBX building snowmen.

What woman, who has been more or less in sole charge or a child for years would even consider that building a fucking snowman was a good example of decent parenting?

If the "wife" had said that the bloke was a Good Dad because he had stayed up all night several times over the years hosing down vomit from the child and bedclothes whilst remaining calm and reassuring throughout and went to work the next day without complaint, which is something single resident parents do all the time, it would have been more believable because the resident parent, man or woman knows these things. And that is only one example of the reality of it.

Fuck the snowman and the reindeer he rode in on. Many other decent parents don't build them with their DC. They are making baked potatoes and heating soups and rolling their eyes at the amount of washing they will have to do later and warming hot towels on radiators and mopping the floors because someone has to be an adult and take on the real adult responsibilities while McNRP gets to have all the fun.

I don't really feel that strongly about snowmen by the way Blush

glitterkitten · 13/09/2011 21:04

I AM a family law solicitor Mitmoo you muppet

glitterkitten · 13/09/2011 21:05

Resolution accredited at that

Mitmoo · 13/09/2011 21:07

Glitter keep up if you can. My ex got indirect many moons ago, later I introduced direct and supervised for a number of years. Later to go to unsupervised without going back to court. Family courts are complete nightmares.

If you trust the courts then you either have no choice or are a fool.

Later still as the child reached his teens it was between ex and son to sort contact. While he was little I had to protect him.

If you're going to remember, then try to remember, misremembering isn't helpful.

Mitmoo · 13/09/2011 21:08

hahahahahaha Glitter.

Says it all...................................

Fontsnob · 13/09/2011 21:08

Although mitmoo the wife is actually starting divorce proceedings and who knows, she could be refusing because she will get less money (if you want to see it from a monetary pov) if he has shared contact. The fact is we DON'T know. So you and the others who are name calling are out of order.

Fontsnob · 13/09/2011 21:10

youwinordie perhaps he is trying to get the opportunity to get to do all those things through increased contact?

YouWinOrYouDie · 13/09/2011 21:11

My XH could pay more than the CSA said - almost 100% more! What a great man he would seem if he posted that here.

Except that he payss £1.80 p.w for eleven year old DD (after ten years of pissing about even though we were married) from the maximum of the £5 they are allowed to take from his benefits for all the DC he abandoned. He could pay twice that since he is living with his mother and pays nothing for any utilities, food, toiletries or cleaning products. His money is for HIM only but he could in theory be paying "well over the odds" if he doubled that princely sum Hmm

appeegolucky · 13/09/2011 21:11

mitmoo you seem to be a very bitter woman, your clinging onto this csa issue and the house split if he gets shared. Let me tell you, equal care will have no effect on any financial split regarding the house and as far as the csa are concerned the nrp, in this case the op would still be liable to 50% maintenance, as the mum will still be the rp. So, let's assume he and his x equally share contact, she's going to get payments from him, can you tell me what they'd be for? Let's not forget she will still be getting any child tax credits and child benefit. But fuck it, he's the man eh?

glitterkitten · 13/09/2011 21:11

I'm truly sorry I haven't recorded the ins and outa of your little life and got the details spot on dear Mitmoo. How silly (read devious) of me. I'm frankly not that interested, unless you're instructing me Grin

Your experience of family courts/ matrimonial law is clearly limited to your experience of your one poxy case.

I'm sorry, bit when it comes to Children Act, Matrimonial Causes Act, an Family Law Act theory and application, I do know better than you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, our systems not perfect. But trying to give legal advice Whig is clearly wrong isn't big hard or clever. That's been my beef with you on this thread.

glitterkitten · 13/09/2011 21:13

I'm sorry mitmoo what explains what exactly?

Fontsnob · 13/09/2011 21:16

youwinordie so because your XH isn't living up to his reponsibilities then all other nrp (who are men) are the same?

My DM was court ordered to pay 20p a week to my DF for maintenance of me and my DB....think she still owes us a couple of mars bars...

marshkat · 13/09/2011 21:19

if you are not seen to be doing what is best for your child, which in the courts eyes is 50/50. then im afraid you might have a long court battle on your hands. its not about what is best for you, its about your child, who will not be a child forever, one day be able to make her own decisions, so PLEASE for her sake dont turn on her dad.

Mitmoo · 13/09/2011 21:22

glitter as a family court solicitor you will take the buck of whoever is instructing you and not give a tuppency feck about the children it damages. If you know you are instructed by a father or mother who is a thoroughly incompetent parent you will put forward their case because they are your client. You are paid to believe them you are not paid to question their credibility. Been there done that and got the T-shirt.

I know I've seen it, I've experienced it and thank goodness for my child I've beaten it.

You may claim to know "better than you" but please dont pretend that you are not influenced by who is paying your invoices. Because that is simply not true.

glitterkitten · 13/09/2011 21:25

I advise each and every one of my clients at the outset that I am not going to advise them only what they want to hear. Nor will I compromise my professional reputation by running a hopeless case in court based purely on instructions provided. I have suggested clients go elsewhere for those very reasons.

So thankyou for you ever so insightful judgement into my profession, professionalism and ethics. Your opinion ( and knowledge on the matter) is quite frankly shit on my shoe.

You are clearly bitter. See a doctor. Unless of course you know better than them too.

glitterkitten · 13/09/2011 21:26

And btw mitmoo being a children's panel member I also act for children.

You twat

glitterkitten · 13/09/2011 21:28

Furthermore if you "beat it" for your child why on earth did you go behind the decision of a court to allow indirect contact and go on to promote direct contact? You contradict yourself. Silly ( read devious) thing