to move DD to a new school?

[lyneham]

I have started a new job and am moving into a new house closer to the new job, and also moving in with DP

I want to move DD school from September so that it will be easier to drop her off and collect her from before/after school clubs, she is in reception at the moment.

My problem is that DD goes to her Dads house every other week and he has said that he wont agree to a change of school, partly because his DWs DCs go there, and he says it would make it very difficult for school runs for them every other week.

We live in a city and it would be about 2 miles, AIBU to want to make my life easier?

Yes but Lynam doesn't want to think of her ex's partner as her dd's parent, in any way, and also doesn't want to think of the children as her daughter's step siblings.

So I presume it works both ways and that she won't consider her partner to be her dd's step father.

Lyneham even.

Thunderduck - I don't think you can make that assumption. The DSSs' mother knows I am a "third parent" (an example - we are going to make an application for schools for the boys next year, and all three of us will need to sign it!) but her boyfriend is not a "fourth parent" and she is not another parent to his child.

But is it clear whether Lyneham's ex's partner wants to be a parent to her DD?

It is clear to me what Lyneham wants.

She wants her, her DD and her new partner to all live together as a family and for the child's natural father to bugger off and leave them alone.

I say three hundred cheers for the natural father fighting for his rights.

All I can see is the mother trying to take positive things away from her child because of what she, the mother, wants.

I was being slightly sarcastic, but the double standards demonstrated by the OP are ridiculous.

She clearly stated that she doesn't think of the other children as her dd's siblings and seemed to take offence when another poster said that they now were.

Also she doesn't seem to be happy with her ex's partner collecting her dd from school, but it's fine for her partner to do so?

Of course it's difficult to share your child with another person that you didn't choose to be in a relationship with, it is very painful but one's feelings have to be kept deep inside and not demonstrated to the child.
What's needed is what her ex's family seem to be doing and that's to encourage good relationships between all involved parties, for the sake of the children.

i see your point, but would you stop and concider for a moment, why would a mother go to such lengths? i may be wrong but i think Lynam is not telling us the full story... her reaction is that of a woman who has been hurt very badly by her ex,( who is now with a new woman who has children by someone prevous and new baby on the way )I think she's not happy with ex-wife for some untold reason( i did ask if wife was OW ),that has nothing to do with the children., please be gentle with the OP,she's still hurting.... it takes some longer to get over a break up.

She stated earlier that her ex's partner was not the reason for the breakup.

Wow, this has taken off again!

"I have no problem with families with more than one child, the ones I see look very happy, but this is not what I have chosen for my DD."

I think this post typifies a lot of your general attitude tbh.

She is not your (singular) dd, she is both yours and your exHs dd.

You seem very hung up on having things a certain way and that way is your way. you are not happy that your ExH has gone and done things differently and that you have little or no control over that. You have repeatedly stated that your dd is happy and yet you say you want to change things to make her happy - but she is happy, just not happy the way you want her to be happy. I agree with the above poster who observed that you seem to want to have dd and dp in your nice little house with the perfect life and have ExH bugger off and leave you alone. Now, once again, you cannot help how you feel and we all get those perfect picket fence dreams sometimes, the thing you are forgetting is that your dd will not be happy like that. She will be deprived of her father, her half sibling, her step sisters, her step mother and, if you have your way, even her school and friends.

In some ways I almost wish that threads like this were admisable in court because your ExH could show an awful lot about your intent and your attitude simply by showing them this.

Cafcass are very good (IME) at spotting someone who is out for their own gain and does nto have the interest of their children at heart. Your ExH is doing the right thing by sticking by his child and offering her a stable and happy environment. You may not be happy about things from the past but they are no longer relevant, he ay not always have been perfect but he is doing his bit now (and more than a lot would). If you tried to tell Cafcass dd should be with you because ExH was crap when you first split up and stories of that nature then you will get a nice big red mark against your name as sonmeone who is being obstructive and difficult for your own ends.

drlove8, I do understand your point about it taking a long time to get over a break up but a, using the children to hurt someone after a break up is never ok, no matter how hurt you are or how terrible things have been (and it sounds like this break up was not a terrible one) b, it is not a new break up, it has been years and c, getting over it means you have to let go of the anger and bitterness, something the op seems unwilling to do.

Here's what the OP said in another post about the reason for the breakup.

''exH did not leave me for her. We split up because our relationship ended, we pretty much went belly up financially, and it put a huge strain on us both.''

drlove8 With all due respect, I think you are wrong. She sounds too calculated to be hurting.

Cheers, King!

You are welcome Yorkshire, you can keep your hands off my hot barman though

'She wants her, her DD and her new partner to all live together as a family and for the child's natural father to bugger off and leave them alone.'

I think this is it in a nut shell!!!
The whole school idea is that it would be too difficult for the father to have her half the time and she would have to live with them. It is much easier for Lyneham and DP to do a 2 mile trip to school, if DP doesn't drive he could walk it easily and so could DD-it would do them both good to get the exercise.
I really would leave things as they stand Lyneham, if you go for sole residency you could well find that the court thinks that XH would be the better prime carer. He seems to me to have a much better attitude, and his new family are willing to be friendly.

I find it extraordinary that you think someone has less love to give because they have more than one child! It isn't a finite thing to be divided up. You say that your DD doesn't like to see her daddy with her step sisters, and yet you want to take her away from them and make her an occasional visitor-surely that is worse! At least she is part of the family at the moment-not a visitor.

A new baby makes a lot of difference. You seem to be able to pretend to yourself that her step sisters have nothing to do with DD (misguided in my view-I would get to know them) but the new baby cements the relationship because she is half sister to both. My DSs are half brothers and they, and everyone else, never think of them as this-they live together and it is no different from being full brothers.

You and XH are equal parents and your DP is equal to your DDs stepmother-you seem to think it a wonderful thing for him to be her father, but not for XH's W to be mother.

You only really have one point (fully understandable) and that is that she should be with you as you are her mother and she is your only DC. However I don't think that is going to be enough if XH fights your decision which he can, and probably will.
I would stick with what you have and make it work for your DD. If you do try for sole residency I think that you should think of your arguments for it very carefully and be sure to leave all the 'me,me,me' ones out of it.

OP, you asked me earlier what you could do and these are my thoughts (although I have not actually worked as a solicitor for 6 years).

Firstly, the courts have a "no order" presumption, that is they will try not to change the status quo unless there is good reason. Your ex sounds like quite a smart cookie to me. He has obviously taken proper legal advice, and indeed it was probably that advice originally that led you both down the mediation path as this has worked out much better for him than would normally be the case.

You are now on the back foot as your ex can present a very nice set up to Cafcass, and it sounds as though your DD is reasonably, although not totally, content. The first thing I would do is pay for a two hour advice session with an experienced child lawyer. I would tend to leave the school issue alone, as it is likely that people will see this as simply a ploy to alter the shared residency. I would instead be honest and upfront with your lawyer, and say that you regret the mediation and wish you had gone for full residency. You then need to discuss with your lawyer whether you have a good case for obtaining this. The only things I can think of is that perhaps the accommodation at your ex's will become a bit squashed when the baby arrives (will your DD have her own room?) and that you are worried that your ex's wife will have enough on her hands without your DD half the time as well.

The best thing going for you is that your DD is still young and the courts do generally prefer a single main base rather than 50/50. The adverse things are that you appear to work full time and your relationship with your DP is not that well established (however would both your DD and your DP say that they get on well?). This thread has been very good for you in showing that everything you say must relate to your DD and not you.

One thing that an earlier poster said that really rings true for me is that family court cases are a lottery. There is another case going on at the moment where a mother has been completely banned from seeing her own children for 3 years simply because of alleged "emotional harm" due to her allegedly turning the children against him. Another clued up father (imo) who could pay for his choice of lawyers and experts. This is your big risk. You do not know how either Cafcass or the judge will go and all it takes is one "expert" calling you a manipulative control freak or whatever, and your ex could get full residency.

That reads as a negative opinion of the bloke - like how dare he get good advice.

He wants to see his DD. Where is the harm?

Dongles, the only thing I can see from your post is that, even you, have no real grounds to offer the op for going for full residency. You seem to be supporting her in going after a baseless claim and to try her best to dress it up well enough that a solicitor will be taken in by it. Just to be clear if a man came here and suggested he do the same (ie "I have no real base for my objection I just think my dc should live with me, help me dress up some stuff that sounds good") they would be hung, drawn and quartered - and rightly so.

You do realise that any good family solicitor would have to advise someone based on what is best for the child within the meaning and spirit of the law? They are also expected to advise their client not to proceed where their claim is spurious or harmful - and to withdraw support if the client refuses to proceed within sensible limits? A judge can and will throw an application out and the solicitor can end up in serious trouble for supporting a poor claim.

I hate to try to teach my grandmother to suck eggs but I am not convinced you worked in family law, is that right? (a genuine Q not a dig)

It seems that you are advising the op to try to get full residency simply because she is the mother and that is your view of how things "should be". There has been nothing posted here to give reason for concern about the shared residency, nothing to suggest the father is anything less than capable and caring. What, exactly, is your agenda here?

Taking aside the fact I do not like the ops attitude in general there is the very real possibility that taking it to court could mean that she will lose residency of her child, your advice is actually encouraging her towards potentially losng the right to contact she has now. Like I said, I do not agree with her but I think that losing residency is a bit much!

' The first thing I would do is pay for a two hour advice session with an experienced child lawyer'

The first thing that I would do is think what is best for DD! You don't seem to have many points against XH, Dongles, except the fact she might not get her own bedroom. I think that the DDs emotional health should come first. It is quite clear that there is no real case-it is a question of getting a lawyer who can bend things her way.

'and say that you regret the mediation and wish you had gone for full residency'

I would bet lyneham had no choice.

Children are not something to be fought over-both parents should be helping her in the present situation, not hindering.

KingCanute, a solicitor is there to advise and act in the best interests of their client. If a mother wants full residency (which I can sympathise with), it is up to the solicitor to advise if she has a good case or not.

The whole of childcare law is naturally centered around what is best for the child. This is why the preference is for young children to live in one main base, as opposed to shared residency, and caselaw also shows a very strong preference for young children living with their mother.

There is no point trying to con or manipulate your own solicitor- you just state what you want and ask their advice. They are paid to be on your side, even if this means telling you things you don't want to hear. The OP's ex has clearly used a lawyer (or manipulated one if you want to look at it that way!). If you read my post properly, you will see that I am very well aware that the OP may be taking a massive risk in applying for full residency. That's why I think she should obtain up to date legal advice. On the other hand, time is not on her side and she may already have left it too late.

I have already spent over £1500 on legal advice, their advice was to go to mediation which I did, and look where that has left me and that cost over £1000 for 4 sessions

I have no more money for legal advice.

piscesmoon, the courts do in fact take a lot of note of practical things like bedrooms and living space. The emotional well being is one part of a big picture, and having to unload all your stuff every week and never have one place to call home isn't considered ideal (plenty of case law on this- not just my opinion).

I would have thought very generous contact, such as part of every weekend and mid week as well, along with shared holidays, is better for a young child. No one is trying to get rid of the father. As far as I can see, he will have plenty of contact with his DD and if she decides to live with him when she is older there is nothing that the OP can do about it.

The op's dd seems to be thriving and happy in the current situation.

Shared residency may not always be ideal but I do believe that it can be at times the best option for the child.

I fail to see how seeing less of her father now could possibly benefit her.

I've thought long nad hard about whether to post on here.

OP, I've been through a very similar situation to you. Almost identical in fact. Except, my XP actually did what you are thinking of doing. We shared residence, with DS spending part of the week with me, part with XP. I was happy with this arrangement and didn't seek to change it.

FWIW I think some posters have been very harsh on you. I think it's the nature of the internet, some people hide behinf anonymity.

Let me say I understand where you are coming from and that it must be very hard, not seeing your DD one week out of two.

However, my XP acted as you are thinking of doing and took my DS out of nursery without my agreement.For reasons I think which are similar to the ones you have given here - he moved further away and thought it would better if DS went to a nursery closer to him without (I think) fully considering the impact on DS.

The upshot of this is that I consulted a solicitor and we proceeded to court action. To cut a very long and upsetting story short, it has been recommended that I have full residence of DS.

Please be very, very careful about how you proceed as you could end up losing the access you have and think about what I have said and what is best for your DD.

No Dongles, I do know for a fact that a solicitor in family law is expected to act in the interest of the child. Where the parent is attmepting to follow a course of action that is potentially harmful to the child they are required to tell the client to change or stand down.

In almost every other area of law you are probably right, but not family law.

You are also out of date on shared residency, there is a move towards shared residency being the norm although not always with a 50/50 split.