Dp's exw is refusing us access to his kids - realistically when do you think lockdown will be over?

[WhichWitchOfTheWest]

I have namechanged for this

Dp's exw decided at the start that she wanted dp's kids with her no matter what. There are no vulnerable people in either side of the family, but she decided only she could look after them and she was convinced we were not as careful as her (which is v unfair).

My employer actually let me work from home a week before lockdown and dp runs his business from home (which he can't work on in lockdown anyway as it's related to retail). One of my dcs is at school so at home and one at university but she came back to stay with me.

First of all she insisted we totally isolate for 14 days before we had them, which we did (the first 2 weeks of lockdown), then when we were due to have them, she announced the eldest had a cough so it would not be safe to swap. We speak every night to dp's dcs and never heard her cough.

It seems clear she is going to keep finding excuses. Dp is utterly devastated. It was his birthday too in lockdown and he was in tears about not seeing his dcs. We usually see them once during the week and on the weekend.

We have spoken to our lawyer but he said because she keeps making up ill health the only way to disprove it is to get a doctor to confirm the kids are ok and no doctor can do that at the moment. He has written her a legal letter and she has totally ignored it.

I am trying to keep dp's spirits up but I think realistically, we are only going to get to see them after lockdown and even then, I can see her still insisting we aren't as careful as her fgs so when do you think lockdown will be over and we will be able to see them again?

What bit of "No mixing households " do you not understand?

Nope, it's you who doesnt understand. Children under 18 are permitted to go between their parents houses. Both house are their homes.

It's a shame that the children's mother didn't just say "Sorry, I'm following the guidelines, and that's why you can't see the children"

She cant say that, because she isnt.

My ex husband and I have luckily both decided it's for the best that they stay with me for the duration, we do not have anyone known to be vulnerable in either house, but it felt the most sensible thing to do. It is horrible and I know both he and the children are finding it hard, but we both think it's the safest option. He video calls them for now, and it's not forever.

I also agree that during these times maybe go a bit easier on her, possibly she is extremely anxious, as we all are, and to be honest the thought of my children being with their dad and becoming ill with this, meaning I couldn't be with them is terrifying, even though I know he would look after them just as well. So I would just sit tight for now, and wait and see what happens over the coming weeks, this will end

@hollygoloudly why is it safe for children to be moved from house to house? Yes, it has been permitted. But that doesn't make it safe.

The app doesn't let me scroll up past bookmarked posts, but are your kids seeing their dad OP? Sorry if you mentioned.

why is it safe for children to be moved from house to house? Yes, it has been permitted. But that doesn't make it safe.

Why not?

If both households are abiding by the guidlines, its perfectly safe.

It becomes more difficult if additional step children are involved. The more kids and houses involved the hard it manage. Or of its hours and hours drive.

That's why people need to look at their own situation and decide, what's best for them. Just like with all the other guidelines.

@carriebreadshaw

I think how 'safe' it is will depend on the circumstances in both houses. It wasn't my intention to get into a debate about safety however, it was a direct reply to a poster who said children seeing both parents is against the guidelines. It's not, it's expressly allowed.

It's not safe for the same reason I can't go and visit my friend. Or my mum... mixing households increases risks.

Also if there's a car journey involved then that is potentially extra risk of strain on the NHS etc.

We've all been told essential journeys only.

Of course he is allowed to see his children. This was explained a while ago. In cases of separated partners children are allowed to see their other parent. I'd get legal advice. She shouldn't get away with this.

Typical anti-male bias on this thread... Completely different replies would be posted if an ex-husband had refused to allow kids to see their mum for weeks on end.

There is clear guidance posted by CAFCASS at www.cafcass.gov.uk/grown-ups/parents-and-carers/covid-19-guidance-for-children-and-families/ including judiciary comment at www.judiciary.uk/announcements/coronavirus-crisis-guidance-on-compliance-with-family-court-child-arrangement-orders/

@carriebreadshaw

I would argue that young children seeing their parent is pretty essential, especially considering this could go on for months. It's totally different than seeing a friend and if both households are isolating properly then the risk is minimal.

That doesn't mean I think it must happen regardless of circumstances. We are currently not having my DSD to stay unfortunately, due to a mix of keyworker/vulnerable people in both households. So for us it doesn't work. Common sense needs to be applied but in a lot of cases it could work and would obviously benefit the children to have access continue.

It's not safe for the same reason I can't go and visit my friend. Or my mum... mixing households increases risks

No it's not.

The guidelines are in place because if every bodies continues to mix households, it will spread too fast.

The guidelines are not there to stop stop the spread, but to slow it. They dont want it stopped completely. That's why there are exceptions.

There are exceptions to this, like if you need to care for someone, medical need AND children under 18 going between households. Do you also believe people shouldnt be able to mix households for medical need?

You may disagree and feel its shouldnt be allowed. But it is. It's a stated exception.

So the posted who said it was allowed, wether individuals agree or not, is wrong.

It's a bit different in that it's voluntary with us but:

I'm not seeing my daughter until this is over. She normally lives eith me but was, rather incidentally, staying with her dad in another country when they imposed a lockdown and it was clear that the same was going to be happening everywhere shortly.

I hate not seeing her, but it's better for her on balance: ex has a girlfriend and another child. I'm a single mum in a demanding job. Ex has no parents, I have two, both of whom are back in the UK and vulnerable and constitute a small risk of me having to suddenly emergency travel in the middle of this if something should happen to them. Ex's workplace has stopped operating. I'm an executive and currently crisis managing 12-14 hours a day. He lives in a converted farmhouse. I live in a city centre in a spacious flat buy share the tiny garden with everyone else in the house.

On balance, it was a choice between getting a small child on a plane to be stuck inside on the iPad while mum works, or her being with dad a brother and her lovely stepmum to play with and having places to go outside.

So, I guess what I want to say is: I understand how one can come to this decision. It might objectively be better in some cases. The difference obviously being: we decided this together in a long and sometimes very emotional call between ex, his GF and myself.

The judiciary comment outlines what I was trying to say. They "can" and "may" moved between houses but that doesn't mean they "should" "must" or that it's safe.

Why it would be safe for children with two parents to do this when everyone else has been told it's not is just completely non sensical

Medical need is essential.

The judiciary comment outlines what I was trying to say. They "can" and "may" moved between houses but that doesn't mean they "should" "must" or that it's safe.

And that's judged by the parents. You misunderstand. I am not saying kids must. I am saying the poster that said it wasnt allowed is wrong.

Why it would be safe for children with two parents to do this when everyone else has been told it's not is just completely non sensical

I have already explained that.

Oh your DP sounds awful. Roaring crying, being devastated and running to have legal letters written to the mother of his children!? When shes clearly just trying to keep her children safe.

I’m so glad my ex was reasonable and rational enough that we could decide together what the safest option was without all this dreadful drama.

I'm not replying directly to you. I understand you were saying that it's been allowed. We know it's been allowed. What people are saying is that juat because it's allowed doesn't mean it's right.
The one poster who said it wasn't allowed hasn't been back and I think the rest of us are fully aware of the guidelines.

@carriebreadshaw I cant make out if you are trolling, but you've completely misinterpreted what was stated.

I don't think I have. It's setting out a common sense more nuanced approach to extend beyond the blanket guidelines about children in this situation

@FrivolousPancake

I know right? How dare a man be devastated at thought of not seeing his kids for months, shed a tear and try to do something about it. What a rotter. I mean, a mum would never do anything so dramatic

It’s been three weeks!

@HollyGoLoudly The problem is where is the proof that the child doesn't have a cough? How do they know that since the last shopping trip they are not incubating the virus? Personally, if I had children living with the other parent, I'd be desperate above all else for them to be safe. I wouldn't want any risk to them. That would trump my own need to see them.
My own children are grown up now. It doesn't mean my feelings towards them have changed or I need to see them less. I want us all to be safe. If that means I can't see them, I accept that. The sooner people accept that common sense has to prevail, the sooner this nightmare will be over. And just because the government has said that you CAN do something, it doesn't mean you have to. I can go shopping for essentials, but I don't. I can walk in public places, but I don't. Because I'm taking responsibility for my health and my husband's, and by doing that I'm reducing the risk to other people.

Medical need is essential.

And who judges whether it's an essential medical need or not. I have hangover. If mum comes over because I have a raging headache and need painkillers but dont have any. That's not essential medical need. The people involved need to decide wether it's an essentially medical need or not.

Again, I am not saying people should or have to move the kids around.

But they can. They should look at both households and judge the risk involved.

It's an exception, along with medical need.

And as above, the other mother in this situation on the thread has put her child first and agreed it’s best they stay with their dad and stepmother for the time being.

A lot of these “I fucking love my kids!” chest beating fathers, usually have their ego on the top of their priority list. Not their children or he wouldn’t be dismissing his child’s ill health and putting their mother under extra stress by getting solicitor letters sent after three weeks

@81Byerley completely of ignoring that you are wrong?

What does you choosing to not go out for essentials mean to this debate? Or not going for exercise.

That's a choice. Just because you choose not to doesnt, mean everyone else is wrong for doing so.

Someone must be shopping for you?