At what age (of the child) does a child access agreement end?

[far2oldforthis]

Ten years ago when I got divorced from my boys mother, their mum and I agreed access, majority with her, but plenty of time with me, which I'm presuming went to the court to be rubber stamped as part of the divorce. I don't know for sure as my main focus was pushing the divorce through.

Nowhere did we ever state that the access agreement would stay in place until a certain age, such as 18 years old. We have stuck to access agreement for years, but...

My boys are now the top end of 14 (15 in early 2023) and 16 years old (17 in early 2023). They live close to me and when they fall out with their mum they come to me and want to stay with me over night until things calm down (she still treats them like 10 year olds e.g. in the hot summer we just had, they'd be out with mates and had to be home for their evening meal at 6pm, we are talking about a 16.5 year old being ordered back home so he could sit at the table and just eat with just her and his brother who had also been summonsed). What I'm saying is arguments happen frequently.

When they come to me after an argument on those nights they should be at hers, we then get the emotional blackmail text messages from their mum. The texts say she will phone the police and have me arrested for kidnap, she texts them and says that if they stay with me don't bother come back to her as they won't see her again.

So I'd like to know at what age for the child does any access agreement end? When can an almost 17 year old choose where he wants to stay the night?

And how do I stop their mum from using emotional blackmail on the children - it should be noted that the last time the 14 year old fell out with his mum and stay with me, she phoned him and said she was calling the police - he replied 'go on then' put the phone down and went to bed. We know she won't call the police, but she just keeps using this emotional language.

Any help much appreciated

if your children came to live with you she could come to your house and insist they return home, she could try to pick them up from school or she could take you to court

all of those things are unpleasant for your boys so the best thing would be mediation

the 17 year old would not need to be included in that I don’t think

also do consider how silly this all is if you are talking about being home for 6pm if that is their only issue?

there are worse things in life but at 17 it’s very harsh to be so strongly controlled- she risks losing them for good by being so dysfunctional or causing them emotional harm at least

you said she is a good parent so don’t let go of that thought too quickly

ask the boys what they would like? Tell them the reality of the situation - you may have to go to court?

good luck!!!

Reallyreally,

Many thanks for your comments, I have a follow on question.

If the boys split their time 50/50, equally between me and mum and we pay each other no CM (I'm getting the hang of these acronyms) I'm guessing the mum still is the primary carer? So say one of the boys wants to go on a £1000 school holiday, who is legally responsible for paying? And I'm talking about legally, yes I know one parent could offer to help the other as she is the primary carer would it be her legal responsibility to pay?

@far2oldforthis “Just a question. If it was the other way around and she was paying me maintenance would you also tell her to find a way to carry on paying me?”

Yes. I only know one couple where she earns much more than him and he has been the full time caregiver with part time work.. They are still together but absolutely he sacrificed his career for the kids. I would expect her to pay towards them even if they split their time or went to Uni etc.

They are both your children and to expect someone to have them half the time but take away all the money they were previously getting (rather than half) whilst you benefit from the increase is unfair I think. I realise it’s your income but maintenance is for providing a home for the boys. Cutting her cloth is fine but realistically with everything going up, it will impact your children as much as your ex. If you both earn the same then fair enough.

You mention the £6k holiday but who was that for and funded by whom? Could have been her parents giving her money for a holiday or new boyfriend or something she saved up for as a treat for the boys before they got too old. You haven’t said. But clearly with private schools and extra curricular etc the expectation for a holiday will match accordingly. Or do you want her to say she can’t afford to take them anywhere , whilst you whisk them off somewhere amazing because you have all the dosh? That’s what people mean by Disney dad. You hold all the Aces but the boys having a shit time with mum because she can’t afford to do stuff isn’t great is it.

Quitelikeit,

No the issue isn't about being home at a certain time. It's when they fall out with their mum they come to me and want to stay the night until things calm down (by that I mean her). At that point she texts to say if they are not dropped home she'll call the police or she text them to say if she stays they won't she her again. There was one argument where she wouldn't let him in the house in the morning to get his school stuff (this was in the years before 6th form) after he stayed the night with me, so we had to return to mine and I have a whole set of spare school uniform for both boys (shoes, trousers, tie, lab coat, obviously shirts as he wears them when he is at mine) for such occasions but I don't have a blazer. So I got him to school but had to talk to a teacher on the gate about what had happened and why he had no blazer.

So essentially when I spoke to them they want to split it 50/50 but she doesn't.

@Reallyreallyborednow

At the moment mum has them full time and had full maintenance. New arrangement she has them half the time but gets absolutely no money towards that. Surely it would be fairer to have half the maintenance.

As a previous poster said if the dad had them full time what would the mum pay? The difference between that and what the dad pays is a fair amount to reflect the inequality in household incomes.

A voluntary agreement has no status. Either of you could say you no longer agree to it.
Where you don't agree, it's then court (or mediation).
The court will consider the status quo (ie the existing voluntary arrangement) as well as things like the children's wishes.
When I started in practice 25 years ago children of >8 had to be brought to the court for the first hearing, so they could express their wishes on a preliminary basis. They'd be taken into a side room by the CAFCASS officer and wouldn't actually go into the court room. But that ceased long ago.
I tell clients with older children who are being vocal about wanting to change their living arrangements that it is crucial they stand up for themselves and express their views, because their wishes at this age will be paramount.

Where my client is much better off financially and there is some suggestion that the other parent is refusing any change for financial reasons, I often throw in a suggestion that they might consider offering to still pay the child support, if this is affordable. This removes the financial motivation. This would be a private agreement and would not appear on any order that might be made because officially nobody can reach a binding agreement to oust the CMS's jurisdiction to make a CM assessment. On one hand yes it may be a bit unfair to carry on paying, but on the other if it achieves what you want without a whole load of arguing and legal fees and can be afforded, it is a pragmatic step to take in order to avoid acrimony which will undoubtedly affect the DCs. achieve what you want without too much acrimony. I do not know if this is feasible for you but it might be something to consider.

It's difficult to know from a snapshot whether the children are playing you off against each other and just rebelling or if they genuinely want a new regime.

It sounds to me like you can do this yourself without a solicitor. At least for the initial stages.

50/50 regimes are much more common these days.

Sorry hit post by mistake when I was editing m, but I'm sure you get the gist.

By "do this yourself" I mean go to court. You fill in and submit online a C100. A mediator has to sign it to say you've either attempted mediation or had a MIAM and mediation isn't suitable.

Talk about OTT.

Why is it rude not not want to eat a meal that you didn't ask for? Particularly as a teen who is hanging out with friends on a drummers evening.

And I say that as a pretty traditional family where we nearly always all sit around the dinner table together.

Most meals can be plated up and eaten later or just tell them to make something quick when they get back provided they clean up after themselves.

I am not going to comment on your situation, but I'll tell you my story as it may make you think.
I have a 20 year old son with my ex. Since 14 he went from a sweet, lovely kid to this raging horrid ball of hormones. The teenage years have been tumultuous to say the least. I tell you what I really needed to get him through them - that was the full backing up from his dad (we separated when he was 8). I got that. Even if he didn't agree, he did to my son. My son could absolutely not play us off against each other and threaten to run off to the other parents house. It wasn't encouraged or allowed by his dad, not once. And one time when we were mid covid lockdown and it was all going to shit, his dad took him to stay for 2 weeks at my request and made his life incredibly uncomfortable to make him realise exactly how lucky he has it here.
My son made it through those hard as fuck years and last month I was proud as punch to drop him off (with his dad) at Uni, knowing we managed to get him through it all and out the other side to adulthood and independence.
But yes, I did tell him off and get annoyed when I had made dinner on the days he was home but he fucked off out instead. It's rude, and also expensive to have him then raiding the cupboards for snacks or making a mess again cooking and inevitably using stuff for other meals and costing me more money.

Again, it would be good if people could establish the facts (rolls eyes).

In the 10 years I have been divorced I have taken my boys away "on holiday" twice, both times to the Isle of Wight and one of those time we stayed in a tent!!!! Trips way tend to be to friends that have children the same age, so they have just as much fun.

She has taken them to a small island off the coast of Africa, the Middle East and the Far East. The £6k holiday was for her and the two boys alone to go to the Far East.

Does that make her a Mattel Mum?

"You hold all the Aces but the boys having a shit time with mum because she can’t afford to do stuff isn’t great is it." No it wouldn't be but I do not think they had a shit time in the Summer spending two weeks in the Far East.

There was one time, makes me chuckle thinking back to it. She asked if I wanted the boys for an extra week as it would be good for me to bond with them a bit more and do dad things. I said sure why not. When they came to me they said Mum's suitcase was by the front door. When she turned up a week later to collect then all suntanned, I just looked at her (probably rolled my eyes). Turns out her then boyfriend wanted to go on holiday with her but didn't want 6 and 8 year old boys going with them, so she left them with me.

Still think I'm a Disney Dad?

100% agree. 90% of mumsnet posters hate non-resident dads for some reason. Mum can of course do no wrong.

TooTrusting
I've waited for now for exactly that reason, is it them playing us off, but the eldest one said to me when he was 15, one Monday morning when it was time to go back to his mum's, "Do I have to go back to mum's?" and he's continues to say about not wanting to be there and he's now 16.5 years old, so this isn't new.

Chances are both, yes to the 14 year old, are old enough wishes will ge taken into account if it ended in family Court

But yes. The home for tea time example is very effective in getting the response you want, but frankly if she had cooked expecting them home or eating together is part of her budgeting for food then your response is undermining.

For course you may be entirely right but comments about ironing (they are both old enough to work an iron if they want) and mumsnet mafia really don't paint yourself in a great light. I'm a bit bemused that any decent parent wouldn't know if there was a family Court order in place. That was the most important aspect of the divorce/post divorce paperwork for me because want happed surrounding the kids and my legal responsibilities in that respect was really important

Who pays £1000 for a school holiday? Frankly whoever is willing to do so or if it is set out in the financial settlement or . Any family court document (there is is important again) You could take her to court to force her to pay half, but that wouldn't put you in a good light either

Icedlatteplease

It doesn't matter about budgeting for food in this context, I have no idea but even if it was she could cook one large meal and then plate it up for them to microwave when they came in. No one is asking her to cook three times. Apparently I'm told the microwave is the most efficient way to cook things, so hardly an additional expense.

Put yourself in my eldest position, out with his mates and girlfriend in the park, in the Summer sun and he has to get the bus home for tea at 6pm, leaving them all in the park. Not a good look at 16 is it?

"That was the most important aspect of the divorce/post divorce paperwork for me because want happed surrounding the kids and my legal responsibilities in that respect was really important" To clarify I knew exactly what was going to happen to the children, when they were come to me and when they were going back to their mum, I knew we were splitting school fees between us, along with sports clubs (I wasn't expecting a bill for half a home made birthday cake!!!). So I knew my legal responsibilities to my children as it was written down, what I didn't know was whether what had been written down by the solicitors had gone to a court and been turned into something called a 'family court order'. It appears that the answer is no there isn't one.

"I'm a bit bemused that any decent parent wouldn't know if there was a family Court order in place." Just because it was all written down and mutually agreed by both sides clearly and in a calm conversation between myself and my ex, and thus I didn't know about something called a 'family court order' doesn't make me a non-decent parent, does it?

Most of my meals can not be plated up and microwaved. It would ruin them for a start. Also in the current cost of living crisis most of us are trying to reduce our electric and gas use.
My eldest didn't care what other kids thought about him coming home for tea, because I taught him that peer pressure shouldn't be bent to. Despite his difficult times, he never gave in to peer pressure. Nor did I as a teen. I danced to my own tune. If my friends thought it was funny that I went home for my dinner, well, that's a them problem, not a me problem.

@far2oldforthis a child has a day in where they live from 8 years old. At 12 they have more of a say over residence and contact.
From 14 a child is not forced to live with either parent unless there are safeguarding concerns in regards to 1 parent.

Essentially even if there is a court order it's void now. The police will not intervene and a court of law would just adapt the order to your son's wishes.
That being said it's important to encourage your children to see their Mum even if they live with you as I'm sure you would.

My ds left home at 14 to move in with his dad, I spoke to a solicitor who basically told me the courts wouldn't do anything even though there was a court order that said ds lived with me.

A 16 year old can move out of home if they want to so I'm guessing it's 16. But if a 14 year old wants to stay at they're dad's I'm not sure if anything can be done to make them go home. She will feel silly ringing police to bring a 14 and 16 year old home from they're dad's who's no threat to them and has unsupervised contact.

At the moment mum has them full time and had full maintenance. New arrangement she has them half the time but gets absolutely no money towards that. Surely it would be fairer to have half the maintenance

why? They each have them 50% of the time, they each pay the costs incurred while they have them. Why should she still get money?

flip it- the dad now has them half of the time but gets absolutely no money towards it. Why doesn’t he get half the maintenance?

so again, why should the dad give her money?

As a previous poster said if the dad had them full time what would the mum pay? The difference between that and what the dad pays is a fair amount to reflect the inequality in household incomes

the inequality in household incomes is not the other persons problem. If mum is earning less that’s her business and dad should not have to subsidise her. they both have 50% care, they both have the same opportunity to earn.

mum should be looking to increase her earning rather than expecting dad to pay. CM is not enforceable at 50% shared care.

o/p- legally I believe the resident parent for 50:50 is the one in receipt of child benefit. Cost should be split though- so a £1000 school trip would be £500 each in line with the care.

Cost should be split though- so a £1000 school trip would be £500 each in line with the care.
That's the moral position not the legal position. Although morally whether you should be able to commit someone else to a £500 expense without their agreement is another question.

To the OP

Patronising much?

Apparently I'm told the microwave is the most efficient way to cook things, so hardly an additional expense.

Yes you could reheat a chilli in the microwave but a pork chop would not taste good, a prawn pasta or stir-fry would be inedible. You'd also reduce the nutritional value of some veg.

It doesn't matter about budgeting for food in this context,

Actually eating together does feature as part of my budget, it's not the cost of cooking but that the joint meals are the best ways to share protein costs. A stir-fry for example is also a good way of making a small amount of meat go a long way.

This is how I afford, for example, my very expensive annual holiday as a single parent, I budget carefully everything else.

Put yourself in my eldest position, out with his mates and girlfriend in the park, in the Summer sun and he has to get the bus home for tea at 6pm, leaving them all in the park. Not a good look at 16 is it?

Tbh there's a lot of answers to that.

I told my kids I absolutely did not want them "hanging out" in a gaggle of teens in the park as gaggles of teens usually cause a nonsenses of themselves to other park users, scare small children and often are drinking, if they are out late they ought to have a positive purpose. Dd has kept to that standard. So actually I don't have a lot of sympathy for wanting to hang at the park.

If I'd asked them whether they would be in for dinner and they said yes so i cook, I would expect them in for dinner. "Leaving Not being a good look" would not be an acceptable excuse to break a previous agreement.

So actually even this is subjective.

There are other things you have said that might worry me more. But the fact you focus these things as evidence of what a bad mother she is, when actually they are very very subjective, makes me 🤔 🤔🤔. I can see both sides of what you have put. Of course bad mothers exist. So do bad fathers. Most muddle along doing their best in accordance with their own value systems. For me a marker of a decent parent would be one that knows knows if a legal arrangement was in place. For you that you allow your kid out past 6 on a summers evening. The thing is our value systems aren't all the same and usually that's OK, especially if you are strangers disagreeing on the Internet. Its much harder when you are trying to co-parent a teen. Recognising the importance of the other person's value systems even when you yourself dont hold those values is a real skill that requires practice.

the inequality in household incomes is not the other persons problem. If mum is earning less that’s her business and dad should not have to subsidise her. they both have 50% care, they both have the same opportunity to earn

There is an inherent misogyny to this statement. If you take significant time off for maternity leave or to raise your children then there is an earning penalty attached. Usually it is a mum that does this. Historically we have recognised the costs of this financially, correctly in my opinion. Now with the devaluation of caring and "traditional women's" roles generally we increasingly don't want to recognise the financial consequences and yet we haven't changed society enough for the "same opportunity to earn" to be real.

If your financial order provides for who pays the school fees or how they are to be split, it would normally also deal with "extras", such as a school trip.
What does the order say?
Absent any mention of this, if a client came to me saying the DM had signed DC up for a £1k school trip (being a holiday rather than an educational trip) without consent I'd say to make it clear to both DM and school that you don't agree DC should go and you won't be liable for the cost. However, in giving this advice I would consider DF's own financial position and if he had ample funds I'd probably advise to suck it up but make the point to DM that these things must in future be agreed in advance.

I do agree with the point about taking care not to undermine DM's parenting. Teenagers can be difficult. She is entitled to impose some rules in her own household. At times the DCs won't like them. If they turn up at your doorstep whenever there's an argument over mum's rules and you take them in, it must be incredibly frustrating for her and it teaches the DCs that they can play you off against each other whenever they don't like something. If this happened with my DCs and my ex I'd expect him to send them home and present a united front. And I'd do the same for him. My teenage DCs often whinge to me about their dad's parenting style and I just tell them that it's dad's rules when they are with him.

I think perhaps the example you've given of the 6pm dinner issue is something of a red herring. Because you mentioned elsewhere that they've been saying for a while that they want to stay with you more. Focus on the arrangement they want rather than petty rows.