To be suspicious of my kids mum re: lodger?

[YetAnotherUser]

Name changed as this will be horrifically identifying. I'll try not to drip feed so this may be quite long.

I have 2 kids with my ex, typically we share their care 50/50 but this is interspersed with periods where her provision for their safety has been sub-par, (having violent guys around them) and they've lived with me full time. I have a court order that gives me residence if I feel the need to enforce it.

After the latest loser abuser has finally left the scene we've recently recently gone back to shared care, but now she's told me she wants to take in a lodger to get around the bedroom tax (she has a 2 bed flat) and get a few quid. She's unemployed on JSA so the money would come in handy sure.

But, the lodger is a man and has a child... Her last abuser also moved in under the guise of being a lodger, so I'm quite suspicious of exactly what she's up to. As it's a 2 bed flat it also raises a question about where everyone will go when our kids are at hers, their Mum has her bed in the sitting room, I presume our kids will share, and the lodger and his kid will have the other room.

Gut feeling tells me she will end up sharing her bed with the lodger man, and that this is just a thinly disguised attempt to get him in through the back door and introduce him to the kids as a friend without the obviously beneficial period of figuring out if the lodger is nasty or not. She has plenty of form for introducing the kids to new boyfriends within a couple of days, including drug dealers and peados etc.

She also wants me to hand over the child benefit and tax credits as I work and she says she needs them more (latest abuser saddled her with a ton of debt).

Basically I know I can't stop her taking in the lodger if she so chooses, but WIBU to tell her that I think it's a bad idea and tell her I'm not supportive of it?

Just to say - it's obviously ideal if people can parent without the need for any outside control over their decisions. However some cannot, and in the interest of preserving their relationship with their children, it is sometimes necessary for courts to endow a person or body with overriding decision making powers over one or both parents. This step is never taken lightly, but where it is taken, it's almost always better for the person with 'power' to be a parent or family member rather than the state, which is the last resort. Had the op not been able to make good parenting choices these children could have ended up in foster care.

LetsStartAtTheVeryBeginning:

Thanks for that

it's almost always better for the person with 'power' to be a parent or family member rather than the state,

He isn't her family, though. There is a massive conflict interest between two people who have a child and who have split up. It creates a power imbalance which, in my opinion, is very unhealthy.

*of

Trifleorbust - your concern seems to be more about the OP controlling (in your opinion) his ex than it is about what is best for the children.

Can you really not see that from what the OP has described that he is at this time the person better suited to knowing what is best for the children given the mothers apparent lack of judgement (in the past).

He is doing nothing wrong he just wants to balance the children desire to see their mum with their safety - That is not controlling it is difficult parenting!

He is the children's family though isn't he. You are clearly more interested in the relationship between the OP and his ex. This is a safe guarding issue. Are you genuinely saying that these children should be in foster care? Are you being purposefully obtuse? I don't know what your past experiences are but we aren't all desperately trying to control other people.

donners312: I am not saying he isn't concerned for the children. So he should be. That doesn't rule out either his being controlling, or this being an arrangement that is open to abuse.

Gildedcage:

i would rather not get into a lengthy debate here. I think this is an inappropriate situation. I have explained why. Let's leave it there.

He's the children's parent
The courts are rightly interested in the welfare of the children. Parents needs come way down, and where they conflict with the children's needs, they are absolutely discounted.
Your focus here is bizarrely adult focused, and your last statement 'he's not her family' shows how badly you're missing the point.

I think this is an inappropriate situation

It's not unheard of though. Or do you think it's only appropriate if the RP is the mother?

RPs are pretty much always in a position of greater control when it comes to the children than the NRP anyway. I could make it very difficult for my ex to see the children (if he was fussed about seeing them for, what amounts to little more than, 6 hours on a Sunday in the first place!) if he displeased me. But I don't, because I prioritise my children's relationship with their dad more than my irritation by him.

Why can the OP here not take the same position?

The only difference in my case is that there hasn't been a court judgement that he is a pretty unfit parent in the first place.

I think this is an inappropriate situation

It's hard to see what you think a more appropriate solution would be?
They continue living with their mum and get exposed to paedophiles?
Someone else in the family gets granted parental responsibility to override the father's?
The state gets granted parental responsibility to override the father's?
I understand that you suspect the father here of being controlling or abusive and I appreciate that's a possibility- but this really is the best possible solution under less than perfect circumstances.

I just find it bind blowing to suggest that children would be better in foster care. I know there are very many fabulous foster carers but if you have a parent who is able to love and care for you why would a foster carer be a preferred option. Childhood is precious and fair play to OP he is trying to balance caring for his children's welfare and protecting the relationship between the children and their mother. OP you sound like you're trying your best in a very hard situation.

Gildedcage: Where does foster care come into it?

LetsStartAtTheVeryBeginning:

Of course the RP usually has more control over what the children do, but where a contact order for the NRP exists, the RP does not get to make decisions for the NRP, who is, let's not forget, a mentally competent adult. That is different to this scenario, as the OP appears to have been able to allow and disallow contact at will, a situation which appears to have been endorsed by the State. That gives him a tremendous (and I would say inappropriate) amount of power.

the RP does not get to make decisions for the NRP, who is, let's not forget, a mentally competent adult

He's making decisions for the children
I really don't get why this is hard for you to understand

George
An agreement can be made for one parent to have CB and the other to have CTC where 50/50 exists and it's not at all an issue changing it back even if it's contested.

Someone who had a court order in their favour as well as a handful of other things would have no trouble at all, I do contested CB cases regularly and very very few have issues.

The only risk he has is that she may contest payment of tax credits to him BUT that would be a lot harder for her to do given the evidence he could supply and that she knows he could make it hard for her.

Gallavich:

Again, I would prefer not to get into a hostile debate with you.

He is making decisions for the children. Yes. But. By giving him the power to make decisions about whether the children will see their mother, and to reverse or change that decision without reference to any impartial third party (like a court) he has in effect been granted a level of coercive control over his ex wife/partner. If you really think about it, ignoring for a moment your (understandable but imo wrong) belief that ONLY the welfare of the children matters, can't you imagine how this power could be abused? Can't you imagine how the welfare of the children could be protected without putting the OP in this position?

The court order doesn't give me power to stop her seeing the kids, just stop her having them overnight.

The minimum allowed by the order is several days after school and one day at the weekend.

YetAnotherUser:

I see.

Sorry to have been so strident on your thread. If I am being 100% honest, some of your language and the general tone makes me feel weird and I don't know exactly why. I hope I am wrong.

Parents do get to 'control' the other parent under certain circumstances.

It's often part and parcel of protecting the child.

Are you meaning to suggest if the other parent of your child did any one of these things....

1. Went to punch child in the face

2.was about to get a convicted sex offender to baby sit

1. Was about to do anything else any reasonable person would consider significantly harmful

That you wouldn't step in and stop them by any legal means possible or would you let them carry on because their autonomy to make decisions was sacred?

But, Trifle, the decisions he has made up until now (according to this thread, which is all any of us can go on, even you) have been to increase contact between the children and their mother when he feels that her behaviour (whatever drives that) prioritises them. He doesn't have to do that. He could stick to it doggedly.

He then risk assesses on a regular basis, as is any parent's responsibility, and when he feels that her choices put his children at risk, he reviews that decision.

I don't see what else he can do!

If the mum thinks he is abusing the 'power' he has been afforded by the court, then she can go back to court and challenge him. The fact that she doesn't means that she either knows he's right or doesn't give enough of a shit to fight for her children at that level. Either way, he's right.

He's not a controlling abuser just because he's a man.

In response further up thread a poster stated the options. If the OP were not to take responsibility of the children. And no other family member could be found parental responsibility would be transferred to the state i.e. Foster care. Frankly I can understand your argument but the alternative is what, a contact centre? Do you genuinely feel that this would be in the children's best interest. The ex has a choice here, she could get her act together and make a concerted effort to show CS that she's responsible but that isn't in evidence. When you're dealing with children their rights out weigh everyone else's.

NeedsAsockamnesty:

No, I am not suggesting I wouldn't protect a child by any means necessary. I am suggesting that this arrangement isn't necessary as a longer term measure, by the sounds of it.

He's already been through court proceedings. That means it will have been assessed by a social worker either from children's services or cafcass. There isn't the facility for courts to remain involved to have oversight of every change to contact that may occur throughout a child's life - nor would that be legal if it were available! The courts operate under the European convention on human rights which clearly sets out the right to a private family life. That means that unless proven unfit, parents have the right to make decisions regarding the care and welfare of their children without interference from the state. This man is a parent as much as the mother is and he has been granted the right to exercise his article 8 rights via a court order. It would run contrary to every legal
Principle if he were obliged to run every change of contact arrangements past a judge!
The children act 1989 is the legislation that enforces the welfare of the child above any other consideration by the way - it's not something I've pulled out of my arse.

parents can be sort of arms reach supervised under a few circumstances in a few different ways often it's via the state or awarding a third party usually a family member PR (but with the power to override other PR holders) and some times it's done like this.

It's rarely as simple as saying if someone's capable of parenting then they are full stop there may be a good reason to believe that the capability can change frequently and with out warning or there may be only certain circumstances that would mean it would change.

We pretty much have a contact should always happen if contact can be made safe sometime this can make it safer than the standard short term contact centre