Received a letter from ExP solicitors and need some advice please (family law)

[MsBakingCakes]

ExP and myself have been separated since april last year and we have a DD. We have reached an agreement for contact which seems to be working and no problem there.

Now the letter that I have recieved is asking me to provide some information which I am not entirely sure if legally I have to provide. I cannot afford to go see a solicitor to respond this letter and I am not sure why suddenly he has consulted NEW solicitors to deal with this matter as the visiting contact arrangements have not been dealt through soicitors anyway.

They are asking me to provide evidence of our flight bookings including flight numbers and details as well as an address and contact telephone number where we are staying. He has my mobile phone which we use to be in contact as we have always done even before we separated and after separation. He has been stalking us in the past and I would prefer not to provide this information.

The solicitors are also asking me to confirm that I have no intention to vary our arrangements in respect of either direct or indirect contact. Why are they asing me this if ExP already has a written confirmation from me accepting his contact proposal? Is he aming to something else that I cannot see?

Any advice much appreciated. Thanks in advance

ValentineBmbshell: I am also concerned bout exactly the same. Why suddenly he is doing this. Days before I received the letter from his solicitors he sent me an email saying that he would sign the consent once I replyed to his solicitors. I just think that he is doing something behind all this official stuff with solicitors

oppss I posted to soon. I didn't see the email until last night so I was not aware of it.

Anyway I will reply to his solicitors so he keeps spending money on them (he has already spent a fortune and has changed them already three times ) and I will wait and see what happens.

Thank you babybarrister for the link and information. I will check it. You always give very good advice.

I hope your strike a while back from posting in here went well for you and all the other

I think you all know that your advice is much appreciated and that should be enough. You know that you are doing the right thing and some times people do not appreciate but other people we do appreciate

Thanks again

she allowed to take her child on hol's without informing him for upto 28days and there isn't much he can do ..
:S
I read somewhere that the mother has more rights than a father and if a father was to take the child on hol's without informing the mother first it could be classed a KIPNAP whereas she could and there wouldn't be much he could do about it ..
It basic facts i think people take this PR way to far and get confuse what PR actually is and think it open up some massive opportunity to control lifes. It all confusing the law has change since 2003 but it all able to access on the internet from people that know what they are on about.
The barrister person is right depending on the type of arrangments you have then she the one to follow for advice if he has a res order etc ..
But if you have no order in place and it was just a neutral agreement then you perfectly ok to jet away ,aslong as your back in the UK within 28days.
I personally cannot tell you what right or wrong as i am not sure of the history behind the agreement or arrangements you have.

www.dad.info/separation/law-and-rights/fathers-and-children-the-law

PR IS A DUTY GIVEN TO CARE AND PROTECT THAT CHILD, NOT TO PICK AND CHOOSE HOL'S DATE OR CONFIRM HOLS DETAILS.

Having Parental Responsibility does not enable a father to over-ride the mother?s wishes. nor does it undermine her right to make day-to-day decisions relating to the children when they are with her.

I think that, as stated further upthread, one parent can only take a child overseas without permission if a residence order has been made in his or her favour. The website also makes clear that even in such cases ideally everyone with PR should agree to the overseas trip.

My understanding, therefore, (and I am not an expert) is that if the OP does not have a residence order she does need the father's consent to take her dd overseas. Just as he would also need her consent if the positions were reversed.

OP says that she understands she needs the father's consent but is questioning what is the minimum amount of information she is required to provide in order to reasonably obtain that consent. There does not appear to be a fixed set of data but examples such as this don't suggest the DP's salary is likely to be one of them.

AMummyFromNotts - Let me be clear. The mother does not have any more rights than the father. In the absence of a Residence Order anyone wanting to take the child out of the country needs the consent of everyone with PR. The mother is in exactly the same position as the father in this regard. Assuming they both have PR she will be potentially guilty of child abduction if she takes her child out of the country without the father's consent.

You say "if you have no order in place... then you perfectly ok to jet away". That is complete rubbish. As there is no order in place the OP would potentially be committing a criminal offence if she takes her child out of the country without the father's consent.

You also say "Having Parental Responsibility does not enable a father to over-ride the mother?s wishes. nor does it undermine her right to make day-to-day decisions relating to the children when they are with her." The truth is that having PR gives the father the right to be consulted on certain decisions such as which school the child attends, the child's religious upbringing and so on. It also means that his consent is needed for certain things such as taking the child out of the country or changing the child's name.

If the OP follows you advice she could end up in serious trouble.

Totally agree with babybarrister and prhbridge

"I read somewhere that the mother has more rights than a father and if a father was to take the child on hol's without informing the mother first it could be classed a KIPNAP whereas she could and there wouldn't be much he could do about it ..
It basic facts i think people take this PR way to far and get confuse what PR actually is and think it open up some massive opportunity to control lifes. It all confusing the law has change since 2003 but it all able to access on the internet from people that know what they are on about.
The barrister person is right depending on the type of arrangments you have then she the one to follow for advice if he has a res order etc ..
But if you have no order in place and it was just a neutral agreement then you perfectly ok to jet away ,aslong as your back in the UK within 28days.
I personally cannot tell you what right or wrong as i am not sure of the history behind the agreement or arrangements you have."

I have to say, I did have a good chuckle at this. Are you for real?