AIBU to not want my ex dp staying at my home?

[Anonymous2121]

I currently live at home with my parents and our son. I am 23, ex dp is 24. We broke up before Christmas, he does not have a job and has only recently (in the last week) found a house share to move into. The split was far from amicable and as such my parents (as well as myself) do not want him coming into our house for long periods of time or staying the night.

I have also started to see someone new, so even if we all had a better relationship I still don't think it would be appropriate for him to be staying the night. I do not think he should have moved into a house share as this will impair his ability to look after our son. He will not have anywhere to take our son back to (should it start raining heavily for instance), all contact time will have to be outside our home. He will not be able to have our son over night either because of this decision. He could have afforded to live in a flat of his own as he has savings, but he chose not to as it would be more costly for him.

Anyway, he is intimating that my parents and I are being unreasonable because we don't want him staying in the house for long periods of time or staying over night. He is arguing that we are blocking and preventing him from seeing his son, despite the fact that he made the conscious decision to move into a house share knowing this would affect his ability to care for our son properly. AIBU to not want him staying over? Sometimes I feel like I am going insane!

I had the exact same situation with my ex OP. He moved into a houseshare with someone from work he had known a month.

We were in the process of going through the courts at the time. Cafcas accepted my concerns were valid and told ex they would have to organise a crb check (it was about 10 years ago) on the housemate. The housemate refused so cafcas said no overnights or contact with the housemate until a clear crb was done.

Ex then started dictating that he would have to have dd at my house. Well my mums house. He would have her 8-5.30pm when I worked 3 days a week. I said no as it was unfair on my mum and my sister. Again cafcas agreed with me that it was inappropriate and told him contact must take place away from my home and away from his houseshare.

In the end he moved in with a family I knew and I allowed contact to take place there. They had dcs and I had known them a few years and had no concerns.

So stand your ground. It is up to him to provide a suitable environment for contact. And unless he does deny contact and force it through the courts.

He is also your sons parent. You have no right to dictate where he lives or how he spends his money.
You mention him being rude and saying horrible things when you were separating. Did you and your parents say nothing in return?
Yes you have the right to be concerned, you're his mum, but it doesn't mean you can dictate and make a relationship with his son difficult.

Frouby:

Just out of interest, would you have been prepared to hand over residency to him if you had had no choice but to move into a houseshare? I know you will probably say that would never happen, but lots of people are forced into that situation, with the alternative being homelessness.

If I had a child with an ex and had an unfortunate change in circumstances which meant my overnight time with our child would be spent somewhere ex wasn't happy with, ex would have the right to have the courts assess those concerns. If they agreed, I would have no choice but to not have my child overnight until those circumstances changed, no matter how "not my fault" it was. Unfortunately for me. If however I had the power to change those circumstances that would sure as hell give me the kick up the backside to do so!

If I were on my own with my child and had to move both of us somewhere that, whilst I wasn't best please about it, was literally the only option, I would. There would be no other parent to consider so no-one else's concerns to consider but mine - except the concerns of social services for the child's welfare. And if SS had concerns (their threshold for concern being much higher usually than a co-parent's IMO) then they probably should step in because surely my child would be objectively at risk!

No because I would have her with me 100% of the time. I wouldn't trust ex to do that. He didn't see a problem with several things I did. Like not using reins or holding her hand near roads. Or having her in the same room as someone smoking. Or a million other things I wasn't comfortable with.

I worried when she was with him anyway. Obviously a hostel wouldn't be an ideal situation but if I was with her I would keep her safe. Ex would have been happy to leave her playing in the lounge with strangers and go off for a lay down. Or nip to the shops. Or even go to work I think.

I would minimise any risk in any situation. And she would be safer with me in a hostel than with him in a flat.

Frouby: I'm sure all parents believe they would keep their child safe. It's my opinion that a parent who can't be trusted to supervise his child, can't be trusted full stop. It shouldn't be a question of whether he is in shared housing.

EpoxyResin:

But if you did have an ex, would you hand over full residency to them rather than move your child into shared housing? If it's that much of a risk, surely it wouldn't be necessary for him to take you to court?

God, I wish people would read the thread before posting such ignorant nonsense.

AyeAmarok:

Aimed at me?

Frouby:

I don't think you would. I think you would argue that your child would simply be supervised by you, that the room would be locked, that you wouldn't leave them in that room etc.

You may well be right, but I wasn't wrong, was I?

No, sorry trifle, I'm too slow at reading this morning and x-posted!

It was to those posting saying that she shouldn't be dictating and blocking where he has contact. Ignoring the fact that a) it's not allowed in an HMO, b) the ex himself doesn't think it's suitable, hence why he wants to stay at her parents' c) OP has said he can see him all day Sat and Sunday so isn't blocking contact at all.

And those saying the OP should let him stay at her parents every week, indefinitely, just

AyeAmarok:

That's alright.

I am still confused as to why contact isn't allowed in a HMO tbh, but if that is the case then the OP isn't wrong.

Trifle I didn't want him to have contact for exactly that reason. Unfortunately the law views it slightly differently.

And I would keep my child safe. I don't know why you would assume I wouldn't.

I would never knowingly place her at risk of harm. In the case of my ex and the OPs ex they are chosing a housing option that doesn't place the child first. I always put my dcs first.

Sometimes parents don't have that choice because of difficult circumstances. It doesn't mean that the parent simply decides not to properly supervise and protect their child from harm.

I am not sure what your point is. No one can argue with not wanting their dc to stay overnight in a houseshare with strangers on a regular basis. And not just strangers to the child or the mother stangers to the father too.

It's a pretty valid concern. Which in my case the court agreed with.

Frouby:

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't doubt you would keep your children safe. Your individual situation might also mean your ex wouldn't - I don't know you and will take your word.

The point is that there are lots of people who will exhibit what, to an impartial observer, looks very like a double standard on these issues. They expect people (as you do) to assume that they are capable parents who would protect their children, but they also expect to be able to place lots of conditions on their ex (their child's other parent) seeing the child.

The bottom line for me is that a HMO is either inherently too risky as a place for a child to stay, or it isn't. If it is, then that should apply as clearly to a mother or a RP as it does to a father or a NRP. If it isn't, then the question becomes whether the person is a capable parent; if the answer is no, it shouldn't matter where he or she lives.

Hopefully that makes sense.

The bottom line for me is that a HMO is either inherently too risky as a place for a child to stay, or it isn't.

Not to butt in, but I don't think it's a question of absolutes when negotiating what's best for a child between two separated parents. If two parents are together their joint decisions are pretty much accepted, or indeed if they are a sole parent; if they want to have a lodger in the same house as their child, if they want to leave their child unsupervised for some length of time, if they want to live in an HMO with their child, that's fine because they're the parent/s. So long as they don't cross a line whereby they are objectively negligent to their child's safety (in which case SS or whoever would step in) then they can raise their child as they see fit.

The question comes when they separate, they both get to have their opinions heard on what constitutes an acceptable situation for the child. And if they don't agree, an arbiter such as a court can step in and make the final decision. It seems in the experience of many the court will agree with the parent who thinks an HMO is not suitable. But they're not going to tell ALL PARENTS that HMOs aren't suitable, because parents (who agree) have a right to raise their children how they see fit.

EpoxyResin:

Interesting. But I disagree. Arrangements for contact are not really to be negotiated between separated parents; courts step in to do what is best for the child, not to reach a point of compromise or decide who has the best case in the manner of an arbiter. If a parent has never shown themselves to be a risk to their child, the fact that their ex is uncomfortable with where they live (given that the environment isn't objectively considered to be dangerous) isn't really the issue. They have the right to make parenting decisions for themselves.

Hmmm, interesting. You're right, we do disagree I guess there are people with both our viewpoints out there working in family law, in SS, in the family courts etc. hence why things can go different ways in similar situations. As much as either separated parent has the right to make parenting decisions by themselves, they don't automatically have the right to make decisions which the other parent strongly objects to. And in those circumstances I think yes, it is a function of the courts to act as arbiter. Imagine one parent want to reject a medical procedure for a child and the other wants to accept it; one cannot parent as they see fit - even in their own time with the child - without compromising the other's choice of parenting. So the courts decide. Dramatic example, I know.

As much as either separated parent has the right to make parenting decisions by themselves, they don't automatically have the right to make decisions which the other parent strongly objects to.

And I would be more sympathetic to that argument if it weren't for the onesided nature of the positions put across by many posters here. I'm not sure anyone could reasonably deny that lots of resident parents DO think they have an autonatic right to do this. They just don't think their ex has the same right as they do. Hence my question to the people on the thread saying that their view (not that of the courts) is that a HMO is an unsafe place for a child: would they habdcthst child over to their ex if they had no option other than to live in one, or would they argue that it was for a court to decide/it was fine because they would be cautious etc?

*hand

The HMO issue is a moot point, as I have said repeatedly on this thread for two reasons :

1. Court is highly unlikely to allow contact under those circumstances and my own experiences confirm that (and others upthread).

1. HMO's (run properly by a decent Landlord) have no under 16 contract clauses.

The issue here is that the OP's ex-DP does NOT want to take his child back to the HMO, he wants to stay overnight and conduct all his access at OP's parent's house. This is about control, not about HMO's.

TheFormidableMrsC:

I have recognised that, if this is the case, it is a moot point. I just find it bizarre that it might be the case, and equally bizarre that, if it wasn't the case, so many people would think it should be. It's just an opinion.

We're just talkin' it out :)

Trifleorbust, I am simply relaying facts in terms of HMO's and my own experiences in relation to same and the legal/court take on such arrangements. I presume it is this way because the houses are designed for individual adults, they are not designed for children, it is not a simple "flat share" situation. Some HMO's only have people who rent a room and stay one or two times a month due to work. There are no child safety features as children are not catered for under these circumstances. Further, lack of background information on fellow residents. I most certainly wouldn't want my child staying in a place under such circumstances, I am not sure many would. The OP is doing her best to facilitate contact, but is being blocked at every turn because OP's ex-DP wants it on his terms only and that means spending all his contact time, overnights included, at her parents house.

I honestly think the only way this situation can be dealt with to the benefit of all concerned is via application to the family court. However, I think it's unlikely the NRP will do this because he's not going to get the terms he wants.

TheFormidableMrsC:

I understand what you are saying. However, to my mind, some of these arguments (presumably the ones used by the courts) are problematic.

1. HMOs aren't designed for children: well no, neither are caravans or canal barges. That doesn't make them inherently unfit for children.
2. lack of background information on fellow residents: again, no, but these people aren't sharing bedrooms with the children - just a kitchen. Provided the children are supervised, this is no different to having unvetted friends and family (slight difference in degree of risk but still, fundamentally, the parent remains responsible for the hild'a safety).
3. none of these 'conditions' are applied when it is a RP. As my child's mother, I can move into a HMO if I want to. No-one would suggest my child was inherently at risk.

It seems like a whole set of double standards to me.

It might be double standards, I am simply relaying my own experiences and indeed other posters have relayed theirs. You're wrong in that you could move into an HMO with your children if you want. Almost all (and definitely the ones I know of that are properly regulated) have a no under-16's clause. So, no, you couldn't with children under that age.

I think I am going to step away from this thread now. It's like groundhog day and the problem isn't the HMO, it's the relationship that OP has with controlling ex-DP that is the issue. She needs the assistance of the court and I hope she seeks that.

Good luck OP