Children Court Order / relocation

[peacocksuite]

Looking for experiences not opinions here, please.

Have a court order for 50/50 during term time but I am doing majority of holidays.

Have reached financial settlement that has totally screwed me, basically I can't afford to live in the area we currently live in (expensive).

I would like to move to a cheaper area so I can afford a house for my children but by doing so children arrangements would need to change.

Kids are primary age, as far as their opinion counts they enjoy seeing him but struggle with the current arrangements.

Nb children's father is an abusive narcissist who has displayed behaviours various experts have shown significant concern towards but not serious to stop the relationship with the children altogether (not saying what as outing). I believe that the children should have a relationship with their dad but that doesn't mean 50/50.

If you have experience of changing a court order due to financial changes in circumstances or not being allowed to move due to the court order, then please let me know.

There is a court order for 50/50 yet various experts have expressed concern about the father? Please can you confirm to me that these experts were consulted at the time the court order was made? I'm sorry I have to ask but I need to understand the circumstances.

No it has come to light afterwards. I had concerns when we went to court but they were dismissed by my lawyer as not significant enough. I may have not been given good advice but it's done now.

My understanding is that the concerns would not be significant enough to overturn the order especially as I have more than one child and this only affects one, and is difficult to prove.

The original question is more around logistics, can I relocate because I can't afford to live in the current area.

I merely made the concerns point to say that I don't feel I would be removing my kids from a perfect, model father, who has their best interests at heart. He is very wealthy and has ensured I've come away with a very bad deal.

I assume your solicitor has ensured you have come away with a really bad deal. That's what you pay them for.

You would need to apply for permission to relocate with your child which would include your reasons for needing to move - such as evidence of your financial situation - and how you would continue to support your child ‘s relationship with their father. I would expect the court to direct a Cafcass welfare report pretty swiftly.

If you genuinely cannot afford to live in the area and there’s really nothing you can do to improve this situation but to move away, generally I have found my local court to be sympathetic towards these situations.

The difficulty I am having (I'm a trainee solicitor) is predicting what the likely outcome will be. It cannot just be decided on logistics; you share custody 50/50 with your ex so this is not a decision you are allowed to make on your own. You cannot leave the area, remove them from the school they are at etc without his consent.

I'm also struggling to understand how you can get expert opinions on your ex after the court order. Why would he have agreed to be subject to such scrutiny unless it was required as part of the case?

I think my concern is that if you tried to up and leave you would look like someone sticking two fingers up at the court and unsurprisingly judges really don't like that. They are not going to be swayed by your beliefs or those of others that haven't been subject to the scrutiny of the court before a court order is breached.

If you can move to a cheaper area within a reasonable distance that your ex may continue his share of custody and the children's schools don't change, that might be possible but beyond that I think you'll need permission from the court.

Have you posted about this before?

You have to be able to demonstrate it’s in the children’s best interests with clear evidence why
youll also need to demonstrate how you will pick up the burden of travel to their dad and how you’ll facilitate calls etc to maintain their relationship

you’ll need to propose contact arrangements that work

he can also in the meantime place a prohibited steps order to pre ent the children moving

Thanks all, to answer some questions -

@FSTraining thanks for looking at this with your expertise as a trainee solicitor.

The expert opinion has been on the behaviour my ex has demonstrated (described as grooming but that's all I'll say), not directly on him or the child. From what I have been told this won't be a factor in deciding as it seems that father's behaviour has to be so severe that social services need to be involved before it has a bearing on how often he should see the children.

Unfortunately I can't realistically move to a cheaper area (without it making it logistically too difficult to work),we live in one of the most expensive parts of the country.

@Needapadlockonmyfridge no I haven't posted on this before.

@Stomacharmeleon not sure I understand, obviously the outcome was not what I wanted or tried to get.

I am aware that the court will have to decide as ex definitely will object to me moving away. I am just trying to work out my chances of success.

I should also day that I am happy to do all the travelling and facilitate contact with the children as much as possible via facetime calls etc.

I'm not sure who the experts forming opinions about your husband are, how they've formed those opinions or why so I'm going to have to ignore it I'm afraid. It doesn't seem to be anything that has been determined on a clear legal basis.

So I'm going to say it as I see it. You're coming across as someone who is upset that your ex-husband got 50/50 custody; you are attempting to stick two fingers up at the court's decision and you're even - potentially - willing to make allegations about the other party in order to undermine the court order. I don't think you have an "expert opinion" as you claim because social services aren't even involved and I very much doubt he has willingly come forward to be assessed by an expert after having won a court order for 50/50 custody. You've said as much that you don't believe it should be 50/50 in your original post but the court has already disagreed with you.

If you cannot afford to live in the area, you will need the other parent's consent to move. If you try to move without his consent, he can ask for a prohibited steps order. As it would uproot children from their schools etc, you could well find a court thinks the children should live with him more if you choose to move without respecting the court's authority. And if you make claims that "experts" are making opinions then you might well find a court decides - if the allegations are unfounded - that the children should spend even less time with you.

Courts do approve relocations if there is a strong pull element to the move.For example that you have been offered a great career opportunity that would result in betterment for you and the children. This is a move you wouldn’t otherwise make if it wasn’t such a good life opportunity or a requirement of your job / profession. The other factor is that the children reside with you and spend most of their time with you meaning travel to the other parent is less disruptive.

In your post you give two reasons for the move. The first is that you can’t afford to live in your current area. This is a subjective statement and would fall apart if your ex produced evidence of affordable homes near to where he lives. Something that is usually produced during financial settlements to justify needs.

There are parts of the country where housing is cheap. But wages and job opportunities are depressed. It’s not a given you would be better off. You would also need to reduce hours of work without 50:50 or use childcare. Even if it is family care that’s not seen as better as time with the other parent. To go down this route you are really going to have to show betterment with little impact on children’s relationship with their father.

The other reason you give is that you are concerned about the other parent’s behaviour and the inference is you want to get your children away from his influence and to spend less time with him. That’s likely to raise more questions than you can answer in court based on your posts. Opening you up to accusations that you are deliberately interfering in the children’s right to a relationship with their father and undermining any other reason you might present.

My mistake @peacocksuite
I have read a thread with a very similar situation recently.

But surely the question is "would he take it back to court if you moved (and still provided reasonable access)?

What do you mean by grooming? Of whom?

My understanding is that you would need to agreement from the children's father to reduce contact, if he didn't agree it would be your responsibility, as the parent who move away, to ensure the children were with father for 50% of the time.

The reason for my OP was to see if there were others out there who had been able to vary a court ordered time arrangement to relocate later.

Because courts seem to grant 50/50 almost as a rule now, but this is often before couples have sorted the finances and worked out the direction of their lives, I am assuming that decisions to try and vary orders later on must also be becoming more common (of a couple is in court in the first place it's unlikely to be the case that they will agree a relocation later).

@FSTraining I mentioned already that I didn't think the evidence on how he behaves with one of the dc was likely to be a factor. I am not willing to disclose any details as it is outing. I am not trying to "stick two fingers up at the court" (why the aggressive language?), I have adhered to the ruling since its been made as best I can. I am merely trying to assess my options given I can't afford to give my children a home in our area, which is not my fault.

@JanglyBeads of my dc.

@peacocksuite The court are not going to deny a parent their share of custody because the other party cannot afford it. What would normally follow a 50/50 order is a financial order taking into account the respective needs of the parties. A weaker party may be awarded more than half of the assets and then be expected to maximise their earning potential. I can't see a judge saying to the party who is fulfilling the court order "sorry mate, going to have to take your kids off you, mum can't afford the rent." It's just not going to happen, sorry.

@peacocksuite the point I was trying to make was whether you feel hard done by or not isn't that what you pay your solicitor to sort out for you? To make sure you get a fair deal before you agree to 50/50. Or did you assume you would get more?

Also, the courts will question if you have concerns for the children that are of a serious safeguarding nature why have you continued to allow unsupervised contact.

If the concerns aren't a serious safeguarding concern to the children, I imagine 50/50 will remain.

Court orders can be changed if facts have changed and one party can no longer adhere to what was ordered. How far a judge would expect you to go to comply is dependent on the circumstances.

I think you might be wasting money which you can’t afford appealing a decision you don’t agree with. Have you tried to make this work and can you demonstrate that it is untenable?

Fundamentally you need to showing you have a better job and a better home lined up along with a plan to ensure the same level of contact can be maintained.

Out of interest, this situation must arise a lot. Sorting out childcare and financial arrangements is a bit chicken and egg?

On one hand, you need to agree the childcare arrangements first so you know what you “need” based on child living arrangements before you sort of the finances.

On the other hand, if you agree to all the childcare arrangements and are then left short in the finances (like in this case) it might be difficult to provide suitable living arrangements for the children (even though you have agreed).

Stuck between a rock and a hard place?

What is the solution? I guess sort out the childcare arrangements based on the absolute worst outcome of the finances? I think solicitors probably don’t help if they promise things and then the case is lost.

It’s a shame you can’t do childcare/finances all together at the same time.

We ended up in court twice in the same week!

Judges don't usually expect parents to be able to adhere to a prior contact arrangement if they can literally no longer afford to though - any arrangement has to be realistic?

@Stomacharmeleon I didn't agree 50/50 on custody, it was imposed by the court. Our finances were agreed much later as ex tried his best to delay settlement as late as possible,there was not a choice in which was agreed first.

@pinkunicorns54
I think the situation is harmful but is difficult to prove. In fairness I'm in between a rock and hard place as I have to allow contact with the court order and as it has been pointed out if I am accused of making unprovable claims it could back fire on me. I don't know whether you have personal experience of the system but it is soul destroying as you can't act in the best interests of your children and everything you do is viewed through the lense of how will this look to the courts.

@LDA123 agree it is chicken and egg. I had no choice to agree custody first as that is what came first in proceedings. I don't think custody arrangements should be agreed until finances are agreed as also that would encourage parties to agree a financial settlement earlier. But it doesn't matter what I think obviously.

It depends if you think he is at risk of causing significant harm to your children. If you feel like he is, you should be stopping contact in order to protect them.
With or without a court order, if you are concerned about significant harm, you can stop contact.

But you would have to evidence harm or likelihood of harm to your children. I wonder if it's worth seeking legal advice. Did CAFCASS / a social worker do an assessment when deciding 50/50 split?

If the concerns would not reach threshold for social work intervention - it appears that the threshold for significant harm has not been met.

@JanglyBeads did you have a similar experience with court?