Mediation - House Sale and Custody

[AnonymousFish10]

My ex-partner (not married) and I are separating. She wants to remain in the home together and coparent that way - I don’t want to do this. I want us to sell our joint-tenant-ly owned home and provide two stable and calm homes for our two children (two under two). In the event that I move out she is refusing to allow me shared custody (I am a very hands-on father, do my fair share parent - as an example, I do the night shift with our 6 month old every night).

She is refusing to engage with mediation currently. I’ve signed up for a MIAM in two weeks time in the hopes she will change her mind.

My question is - if we end up going to court, which I want to avoid, is it likely that she might win a stay of the sale order until kids are 18? And what would the legal costs look like? Could she be forced to pay my fees (or vice versa)? I don’t have thousands lying around sadly. And I imagine the timeline I’m looking at is months and months maybe even next year?

i completely agree. When you have a child under 3 it is not the right time to split. It is the right time to work on your issues and make it work for your children - life is very stressful with babies and toddlers and this is trying on any marriage.
the fact the mother has a 6 month old she will already be incredibly tired stressed and in recovery. It’s not the right time to put the stress of divorce on a mother or the children. I don’t think you sound like a good dad OP no matter how much you blow your own trumpet; you could be Kevin from motherland and I still don’t think this is the right solution at this time in all your lives

I think as. PP suggested, you need to present a plan that is realistic and reflects the ages of the kids.
In my view, if you are doing night shift with the baby now then there's no reason for this to stop suddenly. Advice is also that for very young children they shouldn't go more than a day or two without seeing the other parent. People do things like 2 2 3 or variants on that kind of thing.
Come up with a few suggestions. Mum may be panicking as she can't imagine her baby away for even a night. Can you suggest, for example, that you go on a day trip with an overnight, see grandparents or relatives? So you can show her that it's possible and you'll cope and they'll be fine. If she can get her head around 1 night then you can work from there.
Courts will be sympathetic to a Dad who wants contact and wants to be involved. I'd just have some different and practical ideas to suggest.

Nope - you’re talking bollox.

I don't remember saying I do it all @Coffeebean987 nor did I say I do 50% right now. In fact I very clearly have stated that she does more as she's on maternity leave. I'm just trying to be involved in my kids' lives. And I have been very receptive to every comment made here, even the less constructive ones. I'm just trying to do my best. Thank you @Waterlilysunset too for your comments.

I can see, however, that this thread has devolved to name calling. Thank you to everyone who helped and gave advice. You're all welcome to judge.

@Whyherewego those are some good ideas, thank you! 2-2-3 is exactly what I've put together in a parenting plan. She has been away from the kids before and I've had them for weekend etc.! I totally see it from her perspective and I want to make it as easy for her too.

OP - this thread is really far from name calling.

Pointing out that you are more concerned with fighting it out with a woman who only recently gave birth to your 2nd child - is not name calling.

No one is saying you should not be involved in your kids lives. Of course you should.
But such involvement should not come at the expense of the kids stability and ability to feel settled and secure .

The parenting plan you mention - 2/2/3 - you are not suggesting the baby and toddler switch homes every two days? And instead it’s the adults that come and go - somehow - while kids have their bed/toys/room?

My kids go and stay with their Dad every week for 2 or 3 nights, depending on a week. It works fine now as they are teenagers, but they struggled initially. Kids like to have their own room - their safe place, their stuff.

You seem to be suggesting constant movement, which is really difficult on the little ones. They need permanency. Adults can move.

Given that you decided to have these children and then promptly decided you don't want to be a family with their mother - it’s really on you to adjust to what is best for them.

If you are saying that you are going to continue living together until you sort out financials/house split - I really don't see how a judge can approve any parenting plan before its known what sort of property you will be able to have - and if there will be enough place for the kids.

Your youngest is to young for 50/50. You want to be a good dad you either stay in the same house till she's at least 2 or you accept little but often contact which is in her best interests with a plan in place to gradually increase from 2 at earliest. Babies need a stable home base it's not about you or her, it's about your LO. That home base needs to be the primary carer no matter their gender.

@AnonymousFish10

You sound such a good dad, unfortunately some MN posters will be determined to say otherwise. You are a man, after all.…😉

Please work with those that know you to continue your contact and care for your children. In your case, contact only during the day is a step back for your children. Build from what you have and what they are used to.

I am perplexed by these folks who say that the baby needs a stable permanent home. Small babies don't really care where they live, they don't have a sense of stuff and their toys are generally really portable (books, rattles etc). I get it for a toddler who may find it a bit harder to understand.
But I know people whose toddler has done overnights at a grandparent weekly since about 1 year old so mum could go back to work. They are now older and don't appear to have turned into a psychopath.
Secure attachments with carers is the key, ideally mum and dad together but if not then mum and dad apart can also work. There's no research I'm aware of that says it's doing damage to a small child doing overnights with someone they love

I know two people who did 50:50 when their children was less than 1

they are mid teens now and perfectly happy, emotionally stable and well adjusted and were fine as young children as they never knew any different.

don’t give up. Mn posters generally don’t like men and will always favour a mother even when she is being completely unreasonable as is the case here

The father currently does all night waking for the youngest. So actually, for him to be stopped doing all night waking (by only having daytime access) would he more detrimental to the baby as this is all they've known at night.

@AnonymousFish10 for your kids sake please do the research and don't just listen to those telling you what you want to hear. The research is out there and there are reasons little and often is recommended for babies. Under 2s developmentally are very different to over 2s. Yes it might turn out fine for your kid, statistics are population level, so it works for some babies, but on average it's not whats best. It isn't about the mum or the dad it's about the primary carer. Personally I'd stay put until they were 2, and give them that security. Of course if your DP is abusive or things are so toxic it's bad for the kids that's a different scenario.

Thank you all for your further comments. It seems to be have been suggested that I'm looking to hear what I want to hear. I find that a little disingenuous to suggest as if you look at my responses, whilst at times I hold firm, I am open to people's suggestions and points.

I'm going to state one more time that it is not my intention to 'win'. It is to be present in my children's lives. It is to do right by them. If that means, by the will of the court (and research and expertise) that my role as a father should be diminished, then so be it. However, I take great offence to anyone telling me I'm not a good father. If I did a minuscule of the parenting effort and I didn't take on the mental load, then I'd understand the criticism. But I know what my kids need to thrive in life; it's both parents. I created an attachment with both of my children from the moment they entered this world. A father, sadly due to the state of fatherhood in history, has to prove his parenting. But I've spent endless sleepless nights, hungry days, stressful moments, hospital visits, dentist visits, parenting my little ones (as has their mum and more). So have your opinion but I came here for advice, this should be a safe space, no?

What I will say is thank you to those who have suggested and mentioned the phased approach towards equal care and overnights. As I'm doing my research I'm coming across this and I'm curious about it.

A bit of research for those who have told me I'm going in blind or that I'm trying to hurt my children by focusing on my rights (in their opinion):

• "Children can form attachments with more than one caregiver, but the bond with the people who have provided close care from early infancy is the most important and enduring" https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-health-development/attachment-early-years

• "A broad consensus of accomplished researchers and practitioners agree that, in normal circumstances, the evidence supports shared residential arrangements for children under 4 years of age whose parents live apart from each other." https://www.sharedparenting.scot/research-study-supports-overnight-shared-care-for-children-under-four/#:~:text=A%20broad%20consensus%20of%20accomplished,live%20apart%20from%20each%20other

• "...policymakers and decision makers should recognize that depriving young children of overnights with their fathers could compromise the quality of developing father-child relationships. Sufficient evidence does not exist to support postponing the introduction of regular and frequent involvement, including overnights, of both parents with their babies and toddlers. The theoretical and practical considerations favoring overnights for most young children are more compelling than concerns that overnights might jeopardize children’s development." https://www.sharedparenting.scot/research-study-supports-overnight-shared-care-for-children-under-four/#:~:text=A%20broad%20consensus%20of%20accomplished,live%20apart%20from%20each%20other

• "...the research highlights the importance of a father’s involvement in the early stages of a child’s life, with the attachment formed between father and child leaving a long-lasting impact on the child’s life chances, lasting well into adulthood." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childcare-shared-care-and-well-being-outcomes-for-families/shared-care-fathers-involvement-in-care-and-family-well-being-outcomes-a-literature-review#outcomes-of-shared-care-on-children

Seems he has carried out his research, well done OP.

There is a real tension in research between research that suggests under two’s are negatively impacted by instability/too many changes of primary carer….yet many children of this age spend 8-10 hours in day care, 5 days a week. Must lessen the relationship with the primary carer too?

This is not research. This is a selection of articles from an activist website focused on promoting the POV that OP is aligned with.

Majority of under-2s are not in day care, not in the UK. Mostly because there is no universal provision of childcare. It also is an undisputed fact that smaller children (certainly under 2s) benefit from one-on-one care.

Saying that some kids are put into childcare from young age - hence baby should be OK with being shipped between homes, isn't really an argument of what is best for the child.

OP - I don't know if you are fighting with your ex over something. Or, somehow, really scared to lose out on being a parent, and think fighting is the only way to make it happen. It isn't.

When I was getting divorced - my exH started off saying he'll be fighting for 50/50. At that time, I was a SAHM, while ExH worked long hours and travelled for work. He sounded a lot like you - talking about his rights as a father; and needing to be in kids lives. Saying he'll get a nanny to take care of the kids while he is at work during "his" week, rather than having them be me.

We went to a mediator/counsellor to talk about what is best for the kids and to work out a plan that made sense. And in the end - he does not have them exactly 50% - but he IS very much involved in their lives. Kids are with me during most of the school week - allowing him to work. And spend quality time with him on weekends. Kids would have hated moving houses week on/off.

If your fight is driven by fear of not being in kids' lives - you need to stop being defensively aggressive and start building a cordial co-parenting relationship. The main thing that really hurts kids of separated parents is parental conflict. You are starting this separation really acrimoniously. If this is how your relationship goes on - where you can't make joint decisions without court - your kids will grow up with a lot of issues.

@Sashya two of the sources are the government and NSPCC... Hardly 'activist websites'. And all of the articles are reference academic studies and research. You are right about the Shared Parenting Scot website though - it references an academic study but it is about campaign for shared cared.

I can see you've missed the bit where ex will be returning to work and not be a SAHM. So your argument of them being with her doesn't stand up. At no point have I mentioned a nanny or, actually, discussed what the arrangements are going to be. A lot of projecting and a lot of assuming is going on.

Everybody seems hell bent on picking this apart based on their assumptions. How do you know I'm not trying to build a cordial co-parenting relationship? Could it be that I tried to open a conversation with my ex and was met with a brick wall and no discussion?

I'm really trying to not share more than I have to. I'm not trying to paint anybody, especially my ex (the mother of my children), in a bad light.

@AnonymousFish10

I didn't assume you will be getting a nanny, etc. I used an example from my separation - and said you remind me of my ex. Not in details of the situation, but in your attitude and language.

As to your "research" - the non-activist sources you mention are articles talking about father being important in early stages, and that a baby develops a connection to father - facts that NO ONE on this thread is disputing.
And you only have biased source supporting your POV regarding the specifics of the shared care.

As to - I tried to build a cordial relationship, we couldn't agree, so I am going to court.... This is exactly the sort of ongoing parental conflict that will be so damaging to your children. You have no idea how many issues regarding raising your kids you will need to be discussing and agreeing on. As the instigator of the split - if you can't pause and take as long as it needs to take for the mother of your children to get her head around the separation she clearly does not want - what chance do you have at keeping constant conflict of your children's lives....

You're right, the research did speak to my side of the argument.

Honestly, once again, nobody here knows what my home life is like.

Of course no here know what your home life is like. I’d say unless your wife is a long term alcoholic refusing to seek treatment or a violent domestic abuser then leaving your marriage at this stage is not a wise move and not in everyone’s best interests (except perhaps your own)

I genuinely can’t believe the advice is that both of us should stay in the unhappy and unworkable marriage.

It isn't the advice. It's some people's advice. Some others would advise not to stay in a relationship that's broken down.
But this is MN and you'll get some extreme positions and you have to decide which ones you want to listen to

My apologies, I forgot to take the PP in my response.

@AnonymousFish10

No one is saying you need to be in an unhappy relationship.

But - I don’t think it’s unusual to question a man who chose to make two children in a short period of time - and is leaving the mother of those children at some of the most vulnerable time - with two small babies.

Yes - at that time you stay and put your unhappiness aside and do what’s needed.

No matter how ‘bad’ the relationship is for you - it is your own doing.
You say you wanted to leave when your partner was 3mo pregnant? Well - just 3mo before then you chose to have unprotected sex with your partner - knowing what that means. And you had a baby then already…
You seem to be blaming your partner for it all - while taking no responsibility for really only thinking about yourself - it’s all poor me, my home-life is so bad… I wonder what your partner’s side of the story is…

This is such a mess, and all created by selfishness of adults who make babies, but then are not prepared to do what it takes to provide them with a stable home - something that babies need more than anything.

Do with this what you want. I feel sorry for your partner who made such a terrible choice in having kids with someone so unreliable. And more than anything - i feel bad for the kids.
They did’t ask for any if this.