Threats from ex about joint custody

[seaweedthins]

I'm sure this is a well trodden path so apologies in advance but my ex-H is starting to talk/threaten about joint custody of our DC, who is age 3. At the moment, DC lives with me, I do the bulk if not all the child care and work part time. He works full time, sees DC for one day at the weekend and does a nursery drop twice a week. Ex-H moved out in July and is renting a one bed flat. There is very little practical help on offer from him.

On top of the practicalities, my ex and I are not on particularly amicable terms, largely down to his antagonistic behaviour and it's my understanding that parents obviously have to be willing and flexible to really make joint custody work.

Does he have any chance of JC, and how would he go about it? Would he have to start court proceedings and would we e.g me, end up paying for this? It's my fear he'll put me through hell with it all for a few months, rack up the legal bill, only to be told by court that his demands are unreasonable. If anyone can offer advice, I'd be v grateful.

Without wanting to rock the boat here - why are you opposed to joint custody? Isn't it better for the child?

That's Ok. I have no problem with regular access and overnight stays. But ex is highly manipulative and I suspect this is less about wanting more time with our child than trying to control and exert authority. I plan to move to a different town after house sale and this is his attempt to prevent that. He has never been a full time hands on father and isn't a responsible one now, constantly changing arrangements, going away for weekends and generally always putting himself first. When I asked how he would cope with the child care aspect, he told me he would simply 'get an au pair'. My DC would not be better off in any way at all with this type of arrangement.

I think if you spoke to your ex husband he might have the same reservations with how you live and what you are able to provide. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't really get why the assumption should be that the mother is the better carer and the father needs to fight for equal custody. Seems a little unfair.

I should disclose at this point that I am a man. I know of some one whose ex husband fought her for custody and it was a very long drawn out battle which eventually went to mediation. It did not go well for her and he now has much more access than he started out with. I would advise you to try and compromise this amicably outside of the courts.

seaweed I understand why you are opposed to it. I think often people with a reasonable x (or h) have no comprehension of why you wouldn't want to share residency.

You could be fairly certain that they would make sure you couldn't fit in a job or a life around the free time that they had the child(ren). They'd be late to pick up/drop off. They'd change the arrangements at the last minute, you think you've finally arranged something and then at the last second they change the goalposts and you've no choice but to go along with the new arrangement as they do this when they hold the power (the child(ren) with them) so you have to drive to them to pick up when the arrangement was they'd be dropped off as you delivered them, and so on and so on and so on.

My advice is to fight it but act nonchalant to his face. Like you're not that stressed about the idea of him getting 50:50.

Send him an email saying 'so this au pair you say you would hire, who would recruit her? you or me, would you use an agency?'.

Then keep his reply.

Speak to a solicitor anyway. The initial talk won't rack up a huge leal bill, that'd be worth it for the advice

The term "custody" was replaced with Parental Responsibility 25 years ago. Parental Responsibility gives both parents equal responsibility and rights to carry out those responsibilities. That means parents need to agree important decisions such as living and contact arrangements, changing a child's name or school, relocating a child abroad permanently and medical treatment. When no agreement can be reached it is open to either parent to apply to court for an order to regulate Parental Responsibility.

Child Arrangement Orders determine where children live and/or when they have contact. A child can live in one home and have contact with the other parent or live in two homes. If a child lives in two home they spend a substantial amount of time with both parents but not necessarily equal 50:50 time parenting, orders can be in different proportions. There are many different ways of sharing care.

Whatever the arrangements the priority is the welfare of children and meeting their needs. Obviously when parents separate some routines will change, but maintaining stability and many of the routines is usually deemed to meet the needs of children best.

Good arrangements for children relies on parents working together, or at least not against each other. GOing to court tends to leave parents feeling resentful and resistant making working together impossible. Therefore if there is a dispute it's worth considering mediation where separated parents can learn to compromise and work together for the benefit of the child. With the help of a mediator it is possible to find a way forward that can work for everyone.

Thank you for your replies Giveme and FarEast. Yes, GiveMe, you've summed it up there, these are just some of the anxieties, and I can really see ex using DC as a pawn. I'm not on some anti-male vendetta, FarEast, just anti the somewhat underhand behaviour displayed by my ex.

Really would like to know what the process is if ex wants to pursue JC, and what his chances of success might be, if anyone has been through this?

I have also started the ball rolling with a solicitor for a divorce, so hopefully she can advise me too. Thanks again.

"Good arrangements for children relies on parents working together or at least not working against each other".

I think this is true but if this could have even for a moment described my x then I wouldn't have left him. An unreasonable man doesn't become reasonable after you leave him/split up. Well, not immediately anyway. You have to know how to play it. it's a balance between fighting your corner in court and not reacting to any criticism outside of court.

Seaweed, do you think he really genuinely wants 50:50 or he just wants to make you sweat for a while (because the latter is what my x did).

ps, totally hear you that you're not on an anti-father campaign! i dated a man after my x (three years afterwards) and he was a great father and that was something I liked about him. He didn't trash his xw or try to control her. They had boundaries up for their new lives and he respected those boundaries and didn't try to change arrangements that had been finalised.

Good Man and Good PERSON, they are so intertwined. I wished I'd seen that / known that.

Legally the chances of someone being granted joint custody or shared residence are nil. As I said above the term "custody" was replaced 25 years ago and "residence" and "contact" orders were replaced in April 2014 with Child Arrangement Orders.

If your ex applies to court for an order the consideration is the Welfare Checklist in s1 Children Act 1989. That includes the background. Generally speaking maintaining many of the routines and established bonds is deemed important. It is an uphill struggle changing the status quo, unless there is independent professional (school, social services, medical) evidence children aren't surviving satisfactorily.

Evidence of the status quo which may be verified would be which parent takes the child to/from nursery, to medical/health visitor appointments, who is responsible for the child and the emergency contact when they are at nursery, who cares for the child when they are sick, takes them to activities, who buys their food and prepares it, who buys the child's clothes, does their washing and ironing etc.

When the established arrangement is a pattern of 50:50 shared working and parenting then there is a high probability a court would grant an order for a child to live in two homes 50:50. On the other hand if the evidence suggests both parents were substantially involved but in different proportions then it is likely a court would make an order to reflect that. If one parent has done most of the child care and the other has little involvement it inmost likely the courts will make an order for the child to live with one parent and have contact with the other.

Having said that sometime the court will make an order to equalise the balance of power. FOr example if a parent makes contact with the other parent difficult a judge might order the child lives in two homes so one of the parents isn't marginalised.

PS I meant to say although cooperative shared parenting is the gold star, conflict between parents isn't necessarily a reason for the courts not to make an order for children to live in two homes (sorry double negative, but the gist is there)

You've only been separated for a few months so it is very early days and time does make things easier. As has been said, he won't get Joint Custody as it doesn't exist. He could apply for Shared CA Order, but that doesn't mean 50/50, necessarily. Shared orders are going to become much more common, I think. I don't think you need to be worried about 50/50 as the status quo is that you do the majority of the childcare.

However, the real issue here seems to be the issue of you moving away. I don't think it is controlling to be against this - wouldn't you be if someone wanted to take your child to live further away? How far are you thinking of moving? If he takes legal advice he could be advised to apply for a prohibited steps order as well as a shared CO and as I understand it, this would prevent the move until a judgement was given. You would, of course, have to pay for any legal assistance you require during this process. Even if you were given leave to remove, it is highly likely that defined contact would be granted.

Thanks for your replies. As I understand it, a prohibited steps order only applies if you are moving out of the UK, which I'm not. The move is for financial, work, school and affordable housing reasons and my DC will be closer to both sets of grandparents and cousins compared to our current location.

It's not a decision to be taken lightly, and I haven't. I've spent a long time researching every angle. In contrast, he has refused to have a sensible conversation about how we could make things work and is reacting in a knee jerk fashion.

What I would like to know is if or how he could prevent me from moving. Does anybody know?

Thank you.

Of course he can't prevent you from moving. What he can try to do is prevent you moving away with the DC. I don't think he'd have a great chance of that, given the situation you have described, and doubtless you have thought about how to facilitate contact after the move to maintain the DC's relationship with their Dad, so longer periods than they are with him now etc (courts may expect you to take on the majority of the travelling as you moved). But as you've said, it is costly, and takes a lot of time and effort. The first step would be mediation anyway - would that be something that might be helpful?

PSO isn't just for overseas moves, it can be applied to any move, even 10 miles away!

PSOs don't only apply when there is a risk of international child abduction

A PSO prohibits someone from doing something or reverses an action. For example an application might be made for a PSO to prevent a parent from changing a child's school until the court had listens to all the evidence and a judge comes to a decision or to change a child's name back.

IF there is a dispute about living arrangements a PSO may be granted to prevent someone from moving until the court has heard the case and come to a decision.

Ok, thanks everyone for taking the time to reply. I really don't think there are sufficient grounds for a pso here - I can set out quite reasonable reasons for the move and ultimately, it's not up to my ex where I live with our DC. Surely if I can demonstrate reasonable grounds for the move, and that it's in the interest of the DC, I would think this is fair enough. And just because he might want to control my movement, doesn't mean that he can, surely. In other words, just because he might go in all guns blazing to apply doesn't mean he'll get it granted by the court. I'm sure the court is used to dealing with parents who seek to use these kinds of orders to control or restrict relocations or changes like moving school but hopefully they will weigh up all the evidence. I would have thought too that it takes time for a pso to be considered etc, it's not going to be granted as an emergency case as it's hardly as if I'm absconding abroad. Happy to be told otherwise of course by anyone with legal wisdom or first hand experience.......

Thanks again

It isn't up to your ex to control your movements, but he has equal parental rights and responsibilities to determine where your child lives and goes to school..

If your ex doesn't agree with the move/change of school and starts court proceedings the court won't know what the situation is until they have had time to investigate. That could take many months and you may be prohibited from moving the children in the meantime. Recent research found that relocation within the UK was allowed in 70% of the court cases. That means it isn't a foregone conclusion that permission will be granted.

The paramount concern with relocating in the UK is the welfare of children. It's unlikely the children will be prevented from moving unless they live with both parents in substantial proportions, the move is to somewhere inaccessible or there is a poor contact history and it is found the motivation for the move is to frustrate contact. Another consideration is the motivation of the parent opposing the move and whether the opposition is more to do with the issues they have between adults and controlling behaviour than the welfare of children.

An au pair cannot have sole care for a child that age for full days, if that's what he is thinking.

Thanks STIDW. Problem is, if he starts the process rolling towards court, and I have to stay put in the meantime until his PSO request is denied, my DC's application to school is going to get completely messed up. Not sure how much you know about primary school places but 1) there's a massive shortage and 2) applications have to be in by mid January. So if I have to stay put while we have to go through the madness of a pso application, my DC will end up missing the on time application for a reception place. This means you basically get left with the schools that haven't been filled, which as you can probably imagine, happens for a reason ie: they're not very good schools. At the moment, I am lining up two ofsted excellent primaries in my planned location and would be within a short catchment of both.

Struggling with all this as you can probably tell:(

All the more important, then, to try your best to get him to mediate - reassure him about contact being maintained (overnights, holidays etc). Key to your success here, I imagine, will be the distance of the move and therefore the travelling that the DC's will have to do. If the new town is 20 minutes away, he's going to look ridiculous; if it is a 10 hour round trip, not so much.

Seaweed I'm sorry but I think you are making too many assumptions. There is no way of knowing that his application for a PSO (if indeed he makes one) will be denied. I know of a case where the grandmother caring for children on a Residence Order wanted to move 40 miles away from the mother (who had weekend contact) and the mother banged in an application for a PSO and it was granted, almost immediately. Of course each case is different.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that IF your ex wants to make an application for a shared CA Order, there is no longer legal aid available for this as it's private law so unless your ex is very rich and can afford to pay a lawyer or represent himself, then it probably won't get to court. Having said that, many people do represent themselves in the Family Courts since legal aid was withdrawn. I think (not entirely sure) it is compulsory to have mediation before the case is heard in court, in the hope that it can be kept out of court. Mind usually by that stage the parents are taking entrenched positions and so mediation is of little use.

I really hope this matter can be settled without the need for a long drawn out battle in court, which of course puts the children right in the middle of the conflict. Your children are of primary school age and so will be old enough to know that mom and dad are "fighting" over them and this as I'm sure you realise can cause a lot of confusion and emotional harm.