To go No Contact with Ex DP while still living together?

[Puttingontheritz23]

After two years of DP ending our relationship, then changing his mind, then ending it etc we have finally ended it for good this time.

However, we have two kids and one has a disability, and also a dog. I'm the main stay at home carer as the youngest goes to a unit but only part time. I don't work yet but hope to the future.

It's DP house in his name. I'm desperate not to go back to the cycle of 'hanging out' in the house, as last time DP starting buying me chocolates and being nice even though he'd clearly ended the relationship, as I find it head wrecking. He's said he won't kick me out, I have no family near, and frankly I don't want to leave for a good while because, well why should I put myself and the kids through all the aggro? I've told him I'd like him to leave, but of course I can't make him it's his house!

I've said that if he stays I want to be as NC as possible, in order to make the break up as real as possible. It's been a week now, it's so awkward, but I just don't know what else to do. He's avoiding me, but I know he can be quite a 'martyr' and then build resentment and lash out. His family think he should stay and don't care where I go. I'm being cordial, we are communicating briefly about the kids but that's it.

AIBU?

Op.... what does your dp actually propose is the solution?

How are you paying for food for yourself? Clothing,essentials etc?

I think is terrible that in this country you have not rights if you are not married. You have 2 children together; you lived with him for a long time and gave us work to look after your kids and a disable child and now he can just kick you and the children out of the house.

What sort of financial and childcare support is he offering for the children? You need to find a job and move out but he needs to help with his sons.

OP, if you don't want to move out of the house would it be possible to convert the property into two separate units? You refer to it as a big house.

I don't know if your ex would even consider this and it would generate two sets of bills but would enable you all to live in your existing property and for ex to see the DC a lot.

Otherwise, your options really are very limited. Parents of disabled children face a lot of unpleasant choices unfortunately. However as they get older they do go to school for longer and to its perfectly possible for other care givers to do a perfectly good job which would enable you to return to well paid work.

In the nicest way,you need to stop stating what won't work and start focusing on what could work. Tough but true.

I think is terrible that in this country you have not rights if you are not married.

But everyone has the option to get married. You can't make someone marry you, but you can also choose not to move in with them or have children with them unless they do.

user1495443009
I think is terrible that in this country you have not rights if you are not married.

But if you are aware of this, and surely most people must be, why do you then go ahead and have children in those circumstances, unless you know you can support yourself by working and with the OH paying maintenance?

Week after week I read threads on here from women who have multiple children with their DP, give up work, become SAHMs totally reliant financially on their DP and when they split up are stuck in a dead end job on minimum wage because they didn't maintain what may have been a well paid career, have nowhere to live, etc. I just don't understand why they do it.

If the OP made the decision to move out, she would have some control, if she waits until he kicks her out, she could end up in temporary housing for who knows how long before she is put into social housing. But she won't so will have to suffer the consequences.

My solution, would be we look at if me staying in the house was affordable and DP moving out and mortaging a smaller one.

Why would he do this, versus, say, asking to leave, keeping the children with him, and hiring a carer for them? That would probably be less costly and less difficult than trying to secure a mortgage on a second property.

Week after week I read threads on here from women who have multiple children with their DP, give up work, become SAHMs totally reliant financially on their DP and when they split up are stuck in a dead end job on minimum wage because they didn't maintain what may have been a well paid career, have nowhere to live, etc. I just don't understand why they do it

This x10

I think is terrible that in this country you have not rights if you are not married.

I think it's terrible that people expect the rights that come with marriage without getting married.

If you want that protection, get married. If your partner doesn't want to get married, then you have two choices: move on and have children with someone who does want to marry you, or stay together and be sensible. Get yourself a joint mortgage, or rent in both your names, keep your job, split childcare and bills and make sure you can support yourself should you split up.

But it beggars belief that people think they have the rights of marriage without actually getting married. Until the law changes, you need to follow the law if you want protection. You can't rely on your partners' goodwill. People change, especially when break-ups are concerned.

Week after week I read threads on here from women who have multiple children with their DP, give up work, become SAHMs totally reliant financially on their DP and when they split up are stuck in a dead end job on minimum wage because they didn't maintain what may have been a well paid career, have nowhere to live, etc. I just don't understand why they do it.

This, 100%. People are so naive and they're the ones who suffer in the end. Giving up your career to care for children when you're not married is an unbelievably stupid choice (unless you're independently wealthy and can support yourself should things go wrong).

I have no idea either why unmarried women have kids either and then expect the law to support them when they separate, when the law clearly states there is no protection.

OP, I do feel very sorry for you. This thread will have made you realise you have no recourse to law. Your partner can kick you out, hire a carer for your child and they reside with them. Or you can go into social housing with your children, with carer support. And please stop sneering at social care, you are very likely going to need it.

Your pie in the sky dreams and wishes will only come true if your ex-partner agrees to them. He's not legally required to, EVER.

Sorry you didn't get a lot of people agreeing with you. We are telling you what will legally happen, not what you think morally should happen.

I think OP should get legal advice on mothers rights to stay in the family home.

Mothers rights now.... mothers!!! Like we are a special species!

No love, 'mothers' don't have rights.... neither do fathers..... not in UK law .....merely 'responsibilities'

Which op is shirking

I think common law partners do have rights. I'm not sure what they are.
Best to go to the housing association and get on the waiting list for a house. They will advise you on what benefits you are entitled to and possibly sort you out with emergency accommodation. Although this may not be suitable for your disabled dc.

"What's she supposed to do now and why doesn't the law protect her and the children they agreed to have in that situation?"

Actually the law does protect mothers (or indeed fathers if they become a SAHD) if they are married. If you want legal protection, just go to the register office. I don't see why we should have to create a load of additional legislation just because some people can't be bothered to get married. How would you define cohabition in law anyway? It might be difficult to prove. A marriage certificate makes it clear cut and much easier.

"For the children - the best solution would be for them to continue to live in a stable home not social housing. midnight Or would you suggest that unstable and temporary housing and financial hardship would be better?"

You are mistaken in your idea about what constitutes stable housing. Legally you have no housing security whatsoever while you live in the house of an unmarried partner without having your name on the deeds or tenancy agreement. He could kick you out whenever he wanted, legally speaking.
Social housing, on the other hand, is very secure - much more so than private rented. You are likely to have an introductory tenancy at first but that is likely to become an assured tenancy. Assured tenants have a lot of rights and it's difficult to evict them.

"actually many people are obliged by courts to let the main carer of the children stay in the marital home until the children are no longer dependent."

The key word there is marital. You're not married!!

"I think common law partners do have rights. I'm not sure what they are."

This is a common misconception. There is no such thing as a "common law spouse", legally speaking.
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

OP, all the talk about morals and fairness is nice and theoretical, but it doesn't really matter. Because the real question is: what are you going to do on the day, which might come quite soon now, your ex asks you to move out?

You can't refuse. You have no stake in the property. You aren't a tenant with a contract. Where will you go? And if you have nowhere to go, he can quite easily argue that the children should stay with him, and claim maintenance from you for their care.

People have spelled out your options. You can either take action now and get social housing lined up, or you can wait until he makes you homeless and go to temporary emergency accommodation. Those are the choices, and rail as you like, they won't change. Your current situation is unsustainable.

I think common law partners do have rights. I'm not sure what they are.

Cohabitation vs Marriage:

"Although the terms common-law wife or husband are frequently used to describe a couple who live together, these relationships do not have legal recognition....

Living together: Neither partner has a legal duty to support the other financially. If there are children, see under heading Children. Voluntary agreements to pay maintenance to each other may be difficult to enforce.

Marriage: Each married partner has a legal duty to support the other. If your partner won't support you and you're still living together, you can ask a court to order them to support you. Your ex-partner may have to continue to support you after your marriage has ended if you have made a legal agreement or if there is a court order."

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

If you are not married you have NO legal protection.

I think common law partners do have rights. I'm not sure what they are.

Not in England they don't, no.

Some countries do have common-law marriage and protection for cohabiting couples, but England doesn't. There is no such thing as common-law marriage in England.

I'm surprised tbh that you haven't had more comments about your attitude to social housing you seem to have a very dim view towards it & just come across as a snob

You honestly believe it is your right to stay in his house that he has paid for, & then for him to take on a second mortgage, christ alive

As others have pointed out this is probably your only option right now, you need to get advice asap & start the ball rolling now.

He could pull the plug on this arrangement at anytime, get out before you're pushed. You're in a precarious situation.

Interesting, just read this on the Citizens Advice website (link I shared in my previous post):

"If your partner is the sole owner, you may have no rights to remain in the home if you are asked to leave. However, if you have children, you can ask a court to transfer the property into your name. The court will only do this if it decides it is in the best interests of your children. It is usually done for a limited period, for example, until your youngest child is 18 years old."

So it might be possible for you to stay in the house with the children - perhaps you could use the disability and adaptations when arguing your case - but you will need legal advice to see how likely / achievable that is.

OP, it's not that Trump has affected people's minds, posters are just telling you how the law stands, sorry. It's crap but there it is.

Can you tell us what will happen if he can't pay 2 mortgages? You say he should have thought of that before. But practically he can't afford it from what you're saying. What will actually happen is he'll end up defaulting on the mortgage and the house will be repossessed.

Then you'll be having to rely on social housing anyway.

AnotherEmma

Court is highly unlikely to do that however when the OP has no way of paying for anything. She would be expected to take on the mortgage and everything associated with it.

The idea that a court would insist her DP to pay bills and mortgage on two homes is pie in the sky and won't happen in a month of Sunday's.

Yes good point.

I think it would only be possible for OP to stay in the house if she had a means of paying her way - so the mortgage, bills, all insurances etc. involved with it. Without a job, there's no way a mortgage company will transfer the house into her name.

The most likely stories would be either OP has to go on the waiting list for social housing, and move into council/HA accommodation with her DC, or the children remain in the house with their father, who pays for whatever childcare/care is necessary, and OP gets a job and finds somewhere else to live.

I hope anyone thinking of having children outside of marriage reads this and takes note.

X-post with piglet.

I'm still waiting to hear exactly what degree of financial responsibility the OP thinks she has towards her own children. Because as far as I can see, she doesn't think she should have any just because she happened to birth them and was stupid enough to give up her financial independence.