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?

I don't know... I think it's quite obvious that a hangover is non essential isn't it? Essential as in a thing that is absolutely necessary.

@81Byerley

As I've said previously, we are currently not seeing my DSD precisely because in our situation we have decided it is too risky. All I'm saying is I think there will be households where the circumstances are different and it could be reasonable for the children to see both parents. And that seeing your children is pretty essential, although it must be balanced with the risk in both houses and parents need to use their common sense. I'm not arguing it must happen.

For goodness sakes, tell your dh to stop being so dramatic.

I don't have young children any more but I do think swapping between households, for what is essentially going to be a very short amount of time, is silly and unnecessary.

Staying safe and well is what's important right now.

As in, it is absolutely necessary that someone delivers diabetic medicine to a person with diabetes who can't get out themselves.

It is not absolutely necessary that a child goes to stay with their other parent.

I think it's quite obvious that a hangover is non essential isn't it? Essential as in a thing that is absolutely necessary.

It depends how bad it is.

No, there no list of essential medical need either.

It's to the people involved to make a decision.

if she is quite control freakery as you call it then its likely not to do with your DP at all and more to do with her need to have them where she can see them and control it so she knows that they are safe. It maybe unfair in seeing you as not being safe

I think your DP needs to reset this and stop taking it as a personal attack on him as it sounds very much like it isnt and see it as his children are safe - she is following one assumes the rules and that is the important thing in this time that they are safe and happy.

So find other ways - I think if you say that actually you know what it is an acceptable decision to keep them safe but you want to have lots of facetime with them to see them. Play games via that - scavenger hunts etc (one of DD dad's friend did a form of taskmaster for them over the phone). You can actually have a lot of quality time using tech - DD has said that she is speaking to her friends just as much via tech than face to face. Use it, its actually an hour or so per day of time they are interacting with you utlise it

A lot of these “I fucking love my kids!” chest beating fathers, usually have their ego on the top of their priority list.

Wow. What a nasty generalisation. Projecting much? I'll be stepping away from this thread now, enjoy your bunfight

There was a thread recently where a mother’s ex-h was keeping his kids because she worked in a care home and her partner worked in a supermarket. Lots and lots of people on that thread saying how awful he was being and how wrong it was to deny access even though they were both more at risk of being exposed due to their jobs. Why is this father being told to shut up and put up but the other father was in the wrong?

it is not absolutely necessary that a child goes to stay with their other parent.

That's your opinion.

The mum sounds like shes being sensible and following the guidelines.

They state that they can be moved but not that they must. They go on to say that courts will take a genuine belief regarding saftey into account.

Lots of separated parents arent having contact. Any mixing of households increases the risk. Please think about the kids first. This is temporary.

It's not my opinion. How is it absolutely necessary? Will someone die?! Will someone become unwell? What will happen?

It is up to parents to decide, yes, but in this example (OP) the two parents disagree. Some posters have suggested that dad should have his way because the government has allowed it. My argument is that this flies in the face of all the other guidelines we are following and that it should not be the trump card played in order for the non resident parent to "win". Common sense should prevail and if both parents can't agree then I personally would support the parent with the child's safety in mind.

The government made it clear children under 18 can move between houses they didnt say they should or that they must

And on the other thread it was clearly financially motivated they were going for the tax credits and asking for child support so it really doesnt compare

My ex isn't seeing his kids he has nowhere safe to take them his home isnt safe for them to visit and tbf its taken him 6 weeks to actually start missing them and contacting them but he is an attention seeking arse

It's not my opinion. How is it absolutely necessary? Will someone die?! Will someone become unwell? What will happen?

What's 'basic food's shopping as per the guidelines. What's infrequently as possible.

I cant be arsed going into all the reasons a family may decide its essential to them. Some children will not do well. Some parents cant worm from home when the kids are there. So each patent has the kids on certain days so the other can work and you know, pay the Bill's. I know several parents in that situation. They dont work on the days they have the kids and do as much as they can days they dont. The other parent does the same.

Again, I am not saying should HAVE to do this. But its permitted that people can if they feel its essential to them and their children.

Quite surprised that people don't think it's essential for parents to see their children. I would be interested to see what would have happened if the same posters' children had happened to be with their Dads when the lockdown began, and whether they would take the same view and let them remain with their Dads for the duration? I know one PP has said she's in this situation and that her and her ex have made a balanced decision. I can't believe that all of the posters would be quite so 'logical' about it if the shoe were on the other foot.

There was a thread recently where a mother’s ex-h was keeping his kids because she worked in a care home and her partner worked in a supermarket. Lots and lots of people on that thread saying how awful he was being and how wrong it was to deny access even though they were both more at risk of being exposed due to their jobs. Why is this father being told to shut up and put up but the other father was in the wrong?

The father in this situation did exactly the right thing. He was protecting his children from additional risk.

And on the other thread it was clearly financially motivated they were going for the tax credits and asking for child support so it really doesnt compare

Surely, if one parents isnt seeing the child, they should be paying extra money to the parent that does. Probably tax credits as well, for the time being. Why would tax credits go to the parent the children are not living with. Even temporary. I would think a parent who isnt seeing their child but not paying more, or keeping tax credits is behaving poorly.

As pp said, having them fulltime is expensive. So you could say any parent keeping them, has financial motivation.

Tax credits is another reason it may be best for kids to move. If one parent is a twat, they can claim tax credits and then claim they are the resident parent afterwards. Especially if the child is with them permanently for the next few weeks/months. It will fuck all sorts up.

If both parents are in high risk key worker roles, I think it's entirely reasonable for the kids to stay at the parents who arent in high risk roles.

Every family has the right to make their own minds up about this. Some people will abuse it, either way.

I'd do the same but I would have have to because ex wouldn't make a fuss about it. Yes moving between parents households is "allowed" but it's still an unnecessary risk. My ex is a very difficult man but agrees that it's best l for the kids to stay in one place for now. I'm glad of that.

I’m really surprised at some of the comments on this thread.

The risk of children travelling between two households where both are wfh is absolutely minimal. The risk to young children is tiny anyway ( and less than the regular flu) - although I guess the mother may be thinking about a slight increase in risk to herself.

I’m a single parent to two young DC. I have health anxiety and am finding it really difficult for my DC to go to their dads ( there is almost an instinct to keep children near!). However where there is a good relationship between DC and their dad I do think it’s v important for them to see their dad. Lockdown could last for a long time, kids are already in very strange circumstances, to then be unable to see their dad is likely to be way more a risk/damage to them than catching the virus. Obviously as per a pp there may be situations where the parents sensibly take a different decision.

I feel sorry for your DP. I can also imagine how scared his ex is. At home you can control the level of potential exposure. Once the kids are out of the door all of that security disappears. It's a huge leap of faith. Plus she'll be worried that if you need to self isolate she will suddenly be without them for a further fortnight.

Getting a legal letter when your anxiety is through the roof won't have helped. Maybe try reassuring about how you are all minimising the risk.

@FrivolousPancake
They are HIS children equally... He has equal rights to see his kids and decide whats safe for them. And if he decided his house is safe for them, it is not a unilateral decision.
Had your ex decided to keep them in his house and told to f off, you would have gone mental. Stop being bitter and selfish

They are HIS children equally.

They aren’t possessions. That’s the difference between our attitudes.

At home you can control the level of potential exposure. Once the kids are out of the door all of that security disappears.

^ this

It’s a temporary situation and what matters is that we all stay as safe as possible.

They aren’t possessions. That’s the difference between our attitudes

@FrivolousPancake no they're not possessions. But both parents have equal parental rights. Why should the mother's fears trump the father's legal right to see his children? I understand those fears, and it would make me nervous too. But it's not fair on either the children or their father to keep them apart unless there are compelling medical reasons.

And why do the fathers rights trump the mother's concerns? It's a ridiculous argument in which no one can win.

Because they have equal parental rights. And the mothers fears, whilst not completely unfounded, do not appear to be based on any particular 'high risk' factors. If she or the children were in a particularly vulnerable category I think it would be different, but in the absence of any information suggesting mitigating circumstances, there's no clear argument for her to make this decision unilaterally.