To disallow children to go to their fathers place?

[BelleBoyd]

My X is living in a disused office building ( legally in a guardian scheme )
He has one room with all his things in including a lot of computer stuff for his work.
There is a communal toilet in the corridor and several other people live there.
The kids-7 and 3 have visited once and he's pushing for them to visit again. They've expressed no interest to go there again. There are many things they aren't allowed to touch there and when they need the toilet they all have to go as leaving one on their own in the room isn't safe.
I don't think its an appropriate, safe, comfortable place for them to be. I've suggested him seeing them for activities instead.
Am I being unreasonable??

Just seen your posts. Well he's made his bed. He needs to lie in it so to speak.

It sounds like there are plenty of other good options so you are being quite reasonable in saying no.

Yanbu

some replies would appear to prioritise his rights over child safety

It doesn't sound safe and indeed from what earlier poster said may not even be allowed under the contract.

Ring Social Services for advice?

I agree that it will be unlikely that children would be allowed on that site.

You could ask him nicely and then if he resists, start talking about whether his employers know that the children are there and whether the children would be insured to be there. The answers will be no and no. Which he won't tell you, but it will get him thinking.

The other people on site (or visitors to the site) could easily report him to his employers for having the children there. That could be instant dismissal for him. Or if a manager turns up unexpectedly then again, it could be instant dismissal. You could mention that to him. Nicely, of course.

Sounds like he hasn't really thought anything through properly.

Wait, so he chose to live somewhere where it's inappropriate to take his kids? His choice, he deals with the consequences.

I'm surprised at how many PP's think his desire to see his kids in his "home" trumps the DC's right to be safe. He has chosen somewhere where it's "not recommended for children to live" - then tough, he needs make alternative arrangements.

Lots of people don't want to pay high rents, but when you have young children to house, you do what you have to do. This isn't a man on the bones of his arse who has nowhere else to go. His small children need to be safe when they go on contact, end of.

Thanks to this thread I've just contacted the guardianship company and they've told me children are not allowed on the site even for visits and that would have been in his contract. So that decides that I think.
Of course he didn't tell me that...

I was all set to say that you were being unreasonable, and it wasn't your call... and then I read the post and I think you are being completely child-centred and reasonable. He has kids and has chosen to live somewhere unsafe. That's not an option for a responsible parent, if they can afford somewhere that is, and you say that he very much can. I would insist on a soft play etc as well - it's not as if he can have them overnight, anyway, is it? Or even somewhere pleasant.

Just seen your update. Bloody hell, he sounds irresponsible as can be.

He sounds like an arse by satisfying his greed rather than his children's wellbeing. I don't think he should hold his breath for rents going down massively. In relation to the value of the houses, they are far lower than say 15 years ago.. or probably even 5.

I'm glad they're not allowed on site - gives you legal ground to stop contact there, at least.

Hopefully he'll pull his finger out and pay market rent like everyone else.

Just a reminder that there are no such things as 'parental rights'. The legal term is 'parental responsibility'.

OP you are def not being unreasonable.

If it isn't safe don't let them go.

unless he's a shit dad don't stop him being able to see the kids.