What do you think this father should do? Remain or relocate?

[Thenavyblue]

If a separated father can't afford a sufficient property in his children's home city which allows him to provide good enough shared care, which of these scenarios do you think is in the children's best interests?

1. The father stays in the city and rents a room in a flat share or at a push a small self contained studio flat, has the children over for tea during the week and the odd sleep over during which the children have to sleep on a blow up bed in the common area.

2. He relocates to a cheaper part of the UK where he can afford a house and give them their own bedroom(s) and space, is able to have them for extended periods over the holidays and provide a much better environment for them. The caveat being he sees them slightly less, so for example, staying over EOW as opposed to just going for tea at his place every week.

Additional information: father is a low earner, currently living in an expensive city where property prices are sky high.

If he wants to be involved then living nearby and seeing them regularly for tea, attending school things etc keeps him involved and a positive influence.

If he can't really be arsed then him moving away won't solve the issue of them not having good quality contact.

Either way you can't unilaterally tell him where he should live or make him step up if he isn't. Maybe this is as good as it'll ever get in which case yea a couple of times a week is better than nothing and you should be helping the kids see little and often as positive.

In an ideal world yes, however he forfeited his part in the H.A lifetime tenancy therefore fell under the 'intentionally homeless' bracket and had to source his own accommodation. The only affordable private housing he could secure is inadequate for the DC.

So - you had shared rights to the HA property, which he's now lost, and you're also saying he has to leave London while you stay and benefit from it forever? I'm 99% always team LTB on here, but you've managed to make me feel like a MRA ..

If he moves out, I would bet my own home that within a year you'll be moaning that he never wants to see the kids and pays desultory CM, and/or that they're choosing never to go there [which is virtually guaranteed because they'll be teens and all their friends and their activities will be in London].

There aren't any good answers, but unless he really is a shit dad, cutting your children's relationship with him isn't going to help them, him or most likely you. If he does need to move, the least you could do is make up for some of the loss of the tenancy by doing the driving each way.

Pretty shitty for him to be being pushed to move further away from his children.

I agree nesting might work here. Could you stay with a friend on nights he spends with the children?

How will he afford to live far enough away for rent to be cheaper and pay the children's travel or would you their mum pay that?

'Now the current lack of space is cited as the reason for sparse contact, sparse being "tea at dad's" on a weekly basis and few and far between overnight stays.'

He won't bother seeing them surely if he can barely be bothered now..
I think your thought of every other weekend for contact is unlikely, especially when you don't know how far, I wouldn't encourage him to move away because if he has such sparse contact now it's unlikely he will bother when there's even more distance between them.

I agree that once the kids are teens they tend to change the rules naturally. Mine go out on a Friday and then will go straight to their dads to sleep, or pop round after school. They also all play football together with the kids friends and their dads - none of this would happen if dad had moved away.

All other things being equal.... option 2 is best for the children in terms of housing.

But these decisions aren't taken in isolation. Maybe he has friends/family/hobbies in the city. Maybe he has a secure job. Maybe he would hate the commute. Maybe he wants to be nearby for parents evenings, school pick ups and to look after kids when they are sick.

If hes living in a one bed flat - however small - that's ok for two kids for now, especially if he lets them have the bedroom. Decisions like this aren't straightforward. Neither option puts the kids at risk, so his ex partner needs to butt out. Of course shes going to think just about the DC and not at all about his needs. But theres no reason that his needs shouldn't be part of the equation.

If a male ex-partner tried to force a female ex-partner to move to an area she didnt want to live in and further away from the child - on the grounds that the living accommodation was adequate but could be improved - there would be uproar on here. People would be pointing out just how controlling that would be. And rightly so.

On that salary he will have to move really far out of London to afford a 2 bed, probably too far to commute so he would have to get a lower-paying local job, hence not solving the problem

With kids that age Option 1 is better.

Why can't the father buy a sofa bed so that there is room for dc to stay over at weekends? It doesn't matter what size the flat is & the dc would most likely spend more quality time with the dc at weekends, he could even have an arrangement to see them a couple of evenings picking them up & going out for tea & then returning them to their home during the week if work patterns would allow it, during colder weather going to a cafe or restaurant for a meal & during warmer weather going to a park or for a walk & taking a picnic type meal.

@OverTheRubicon

In an ideal world yes, however he forfeited his part in the H.A lifetime tenancy therefore fell under the 'intentionally homeless' bracket and had to source his own accommodation. The only affordable private housing he could secure is inadequate for the DC.

So - you had shared rights to the HA property, which he's now lost, and you're also saying he has to leave London while you stay and benefit from it forever? I'm 99% always team LTB on here, but you've managed to make me feel like a MRA ..

If he moves out, I would bet my own home that within a year you'll be moaning that he never wants to see the kids and pays desultory CM, and/or that they're choosing never to go there [which is virtually guaranteed because they'll be teens and all their friends and their activities will be in London].

There aren't any good answers, but unless he really is a shit dad, cutting your children's relationship with him isn't going to help them, him or most likely you. If he does need to move, the least you could do is make up for some of the loss of the tenancy by doing the driving each way.

Same, are you just searching for any way to make things hard for him? The 'he forfeited' statement makes me think you are thinking about revenge and hurting him, not whats best for the kids.

Option 1. Being closer and seeing the kids frequently and regularly will be better for their relationship long term. (Assuming you aren’t talking about all of this in front of them in which case either option will damage them).

OP have you any idea how much private renting costs? Credit checks mean letting agencies won't usually allow you to rent if the rent is more than 50% of take-home pay, usually it's more like 40%. Where do you think he's going to get a family size property for £500pcm? I live in the supposedly cheap North and it'd be rare to get a one bed flat for that in most areas now!

Unless you're happy with driving the kids to contact in the Welsh valleys then you need to accept option 1.

Option 2 definitely.

Yes it’s nice to have tea during the week but kids are often so busy that it’s not as beneficial to them as quality time on the weekend.
Does he not want to move away?

On that salary he will have to move really far out of London to afford a 2 bed, probably too far to commute so he would have to get a lower-paying local job, hence not solving the problem

That is very true.
Thanks missed that they live in London so he would have to move quite far away to get an affordable property.

It’s entirely up to him. Perhaps he wants to remain close to the children so they can easily get to see him, perhaps he needs to stay in that area for his work. The important thing is that the children continue to spend time regularly with each parent.

@Kneesaregood

OP have you any idea how much private renting costs? Credit checks mean letting agencies won't usually allow you to rent if the rent is more than 50% of take-home pay, usually it's more like 40%. Where do you think he's going to get a family size property for £500pcm? I live in the supposedly cheap North and it'd be rare to get a one bed flat for that in most areas now!

Unless you're happy with driving the kids to contact in the Welsh valleys then you need to accept option 1.

Also what magic job does he have that pays so little but is magically easy to find again if he moves away? I’m usually on team RP but him being a low earner (even if he is a douche) can’t be controlled. The best solution is for the kids to keep the house and for you to take turns living there. Let him stay over and you leave. And vice versa.

Whichever would be more convenient for the mother and children.

Also to add - I was moved as a chi

@NannyAndJohn

Whichever would be more convenient for the mother and children.

Why should he choose where to live based on what's more convenient for the mother? Who decides where to live based on convenience for their ex? He should pick where to live based on what works for both HIM and the DC

@OverTheRubicon

The problem with option 2 is that it can work for young kids but won't as they get older. Everything from birthday parties to sports clubs will be close to the home location. Then once they get to early teen years they'll want to see friends.

That's fine if it's a 30 minute drive, not fair on the kids if it's a long way, because it's almost guaranteed that as they get older they'll have less and less desire or ability to travel. Dad also won't be as able to pop by and see a school play, pick up a sick child or more. It fractures the relationship which is bad for kids, the dad and often the mum, who then has to take on more and more.

This is why for so many people it's not right to have one person keep the house, because most couples then don't have enough for anything near similar.

Exactly. It should be law that kids keep house and parents take turns living in it. If NRP is an unfit parent then kids shouldn’t be seeing them anyway.
Maybe I’m biased but I had to move between 2 households (parents in emergency services). I fucking hated it. Leave my musical instruments, books etc behind because it was such a pain to cart them up and down.

Parents chose to split. Don’t make the kids suffer. Long holidays in some remote hole (that’s why property is cheap) on weekends and holidays is a waste of their young lives. They won’t like it.

So - you had shared rights to the HA property, which he's now lost, and you're also saying he has to leave London while you stay and benefit from it forever? hmm I'm 99% always team LTB on here, but you've managed to make me feel like a MRA

So what was the alternative then?

Do you think the mother, in this case primary carer, who is a SAHM and children should have given up the security of a lifetime tenancy and rent a 1 bed private flat?

The DC best interests must come first i think everybody on MN will be able to agree with that, therefore it's a no brainer that they keep their home.

Should the children just suck up the fact that the best they'll get is tea at dad's and an occasional sleep over on a blow up bed or sofa?

Should the mother suck up the fact she has to do the lions share of the parenting indefinitely?

On the subject of CM as people have mentioned it.. yes he is paying under the required amount to account for the fact he can barely afford the flat he's in at the minute.

So who is benefiting from him insisting he stays here here? Certainly not the children and most definitely not the mother.

Option 1. When they are teens they wont want to go stay out of town regularly and, if he's at a distance, he'll never see them. At least if he's close by he can take them out for the day.

Also what magic job does he have that pays so little but is magically easy to find again if he moves away?

Retail. There is always retail work, no matter where you live. Its not as though he'd be giving up a niche career.

It's ultimately impossible for a single man who works for just above NMW to live alone in a reasonably sized property in London, privately rented, with ample space to provide 50.50 shared care for his children.

There are high earning professionals living in flat shares.

It just doesn't work.

Should the mother suck up the fact she has to do the lions share of the parenting indefinitely?
Why don't you leave the HA property then, get a job and let him do the RP?

@MichelleScarn

Should the mother suck up the fact she has to do the lions share of the parenting indefinitely? Why don't you leave the HA property then, get a job and let him do the RP?

He wouldn't want to be the primary care giver.

Besides, giving up the H.A now doesn't mean he would get it. It will go to the next most in need person on the list, a list consisting of thousands upon thousands of people.