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?

[HopelesslydevotedtoGu]

I wonder if the reason you are feeling odd about it Trifle is that the op frankly sounds too nice to be the mother's ex.
Chaotic women who have shitty boyfriends and make bad decisions tend to have repeated those decisions over and over again through their lives, choosing other controlling/ destructive relationships that for whatever reason resonate with them.
So having had paedophile and drug dealer boyfriends who have screwed up her access to her kids and her finances, it feels odd for her other ex to be 'normal' and wanting the best for her and going out of his way to help her. More expected (sadly) would be another guy who wanted to exploit or control her.
I haven't seen any evidence of that in your posts OP, but frankly I am really surprised by what you say about yourself and about your ex, because you don't sound like two people who would be in a long term relationship together.
Was your ex so troubled when you had kids together? How on earth did your relationship happen?

[Trifleorbust]

Hopelessly: That did occur to me, yes! A woman who seems to (almost pathologically) choose abusive men just happens to have her children with a man who is not only not abusive, but this fair minded, constant, competent and completely worthy of being entrusted with decisions about whether she should see her children. Hmm. Perhaps I am just cynical.

[Trifleorbust]

Gallavich: I am not suggesting you have pulled it out of your arse. I understand that courts put the welfare of children first. I refuse to believe, however, that they can use this principle to entirely disregard the potential for abuse in a situation they are responsible for setting up.

I do understand, of course, that these are difficult situations. The OP has clarified that some contact is specified in the court order, so his discretion is limited to whether there should be overnight stays. Had he made that clearer to start with, the situation would not have seemed quite so problematic to me.

[Gallavich]

I refuse to believe, however, that they can use this principle to entirely disregard the potential for abuse in a situation they are responsible for setting up

They don't. But the indicators for domestic abuse will be addressed and the possibility considered in the social work assessment. Social workers and judges don't assume that every father is abusive.

[Gallavich]

Sorry I didn't finish that sentence. They don't assume that every father is abusive without evidence to suggest that he is.

[Trifleorbust]

Gallavich: Of course they don't. But they should consider that two people who have been in a relationship that has broken down, and who disagree over contact and lifestyle, shouldn't necessarily be put in a situation where one is effectively 'in charge' of the other. I believe this holds too much potential for abuse.

[Gallavich]

Ok trifle - what do you think would be a better solution than this one?

[MrsandMrsSmith]

Trifle - separate to the specific issues in this case - I'm afraid that the courts regularly give abusers potential to further abuse even when they are NRP. IME it's unusual for a parent to have contact removed. Abusers can and do use the court system to their advantage quite easily.

[Trifleorbust]

I think there should be a court hearing that ascertains whether the mother is responsible enough to parent 50:50 without constant oversight from her ex partner. If so, she should be able to crack on with that - not to have to call her ex for his opinions on everything or think about whether he is likely to withdraw overnights if she, for example, meets someone and wants them to move in (as we are all entitled to do, usually). If she is not responsible enough, he should do all the overnights and the current terms of the court order (evenings and weekends) should stand, OR contact should be withheld, depending on the assessment of her parenting by the court, NOT by the OP.

[TimeforANewTwatName]

Trifleorbust unfortunately I know two women who exdh's were the straight down the line kind of guys, the relationships failed because they were too nice for them, they have both gone on to have a string of unhealthy or abusive relationships.

Actually I just remembered I know three.

One didn't have dc but also got help later on and now is settled with a good man and dc.

One had dc,

One had dc but did a midnight flit, leaving their then 2 year old behind.

[Trifleorbust]

Time: Of course, I am not saying never.

[YetAnotherUser]

HopelesslydevotedtoGu

I won't go into the gory details, but I was with her for about 7 years. We were both young, and eventually the relationship broke down because... Well lots of reasons, but the final nail was because she started shagging other guys lol.

She probably was this troubled before we got together, but I didn't know her all that long before our first child came along (I know, I know, more fool me). Then I suppose looking after the kids and having a job took up much of her time and kept her out of trouble, as it were. Things went belly up when our youngest was 3, and I suppose she reverted to her previous tactic of trying to get a new boyfriend ASAP, with fairly predictable results.

I'm by no means perfect and I can't pretend that our relationship got off to a particularly sensible start, but I like to think I was a cut above the guys she's been meeting since lol.

[Gallavich]

trifle
I've explained why that's not possible under our current legal framework, making reference to article 8 of the ECHR. Your suggestion is simply outwith the remit of the courts.

[Sweets101]

OP have you considered making an application under Sarah's Law re this lodger? I would definitely do that as a starting point.

[Trifleorbust]

Gallavich: In that case why are courts able to make contact orders at all? Makes no sense to me, sorry!

[Sweets101]

It makes perfect sense when you are living it Trifle

[Trifleorbust]

Sweets101: When you are living what?

[Sweets101]

The situation OP describes whereby 1 parent is deemed responsible/able to safeguard DC in a situation where the other parents ability is susceptible to change.
Did I get the wrong end of the stick? Sorry I thought that was what you were discussing .

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

There is never no recourse to the other parent.

Should the op withhold the children based on her behaviour she always has the option to go back to court and for the court to see if they agree with the op or not.

The risk to the op is that if it is not appropreate safeguarding then the situation has to be looked at again.

[Dragongirl10]

Why don't you say to her that if she has men staying, the children cannot stay.....and they want to stay so it is sad for them.
If she is putting other men before the Dcs welfare, then sadly you clearly have no choice but to not let the Dcs stay at her flat.

[LetsStartAtTheVeryBeginning]

Dragon I'd imagine that's the sort of thing he's said until he's blue in the face. Unfortunately, some people just aren't able to take it on board.

[scorpio1981]

Request a background check on the lodger from the Police. Tell the DSS/Housing dept what's going on, don't hand over any benefits and if your gut is telling you something is up with this 'lodger', then keep the kids with you. Statistically most abusers/killers of children are mother's boyfriends. Your kids are way too precious to allow some stranger anywhere near them especially one you know nothing about and have doubts about. I work in the law and having seen what some 'boyfriends' do to children......please be careful.