Desperate- can he really make me and our child homeless

[PhoenixIsRising]

Partner of many years has had affair and now decided he wants to have a new life without me and our 2 year old with this new, much younger woman.

He owns the house. I have been visiting family in the last week (swapping xmas presents etc) and now says that as I have 'moved out' I have no right to return to the property.

Can this really be the case? I know I have no right of ownership to the property but surely he can't make me and his own child homeless like this?

Despite his astronomical salary I have always paid for everything relating to the child and all our food (but critically nothing relating to the house). This means I do not have a great deal of income as I earned significantly less than him and was also part time.

I posted originally in chat but was advised to ask in this board in case there was anyone with a legal perspective that could help.

Marriage certificate goes some way to giving woman equality in a family with children

There's already a way to get that security, Pencil, you get married.

Yes, and as I said there are many women who don't want to get married because of the baggage that comes with it.

Battleax you are quite correct that this is a subset of women and there is another subset of women for whom the problem is apathy. Nevertheless, if equal civil partnership was a thing, there is a subset of women who would be protected where they are not currently. What's not to like?

This is for a separate thread though, apologies for the derail.

There's a private members bill to that effect pending that has a chance pencils. I'm rooting for it too, but not because I think it will solve this particular set of issues.

( www.thetimes.co.uk/article/civil-partnerships-to-go-straight-ff0lccgcs )

The sort of men who'll pull this shit when they've had enough of their DP, might go along with the whole marriage thing for the tradition, but a civil partnership which will be solely about giving their DP rights, won't be popular.

Another family lawyer confirming that MrsBert is right and that Bluntness is wrong and is giving incorrect advice to vulnerable people.

Where the applicant for an occupation order does not have a pre-existing right to occupy (ie they are not an owner or a tenant), there are two types of orders the court can make. They can make a declaratory order, ordering that the applicant has the right to live in the property for the time of the order. They can also make a regulatory order, regulating occupation. That would include e.g. excluding the respondent or regulating the times he could be at the property. There is no requirement for physical violence to have taken place for either type of order, but obviously a regulatory one is more Draconian as you are excluding the owner from his home. Therefore they are usually only made on notice and where there has been violence.

I absolutely think a judge would make a declaratory order, giving the OP the right to remain in the house. Given the urgency, she could apply ex parte and if she is not seeking a regulatory order, excluding her DP, I cannot see why the court would not grant it the same day as her application, especially if she has nowhere else suitable to go with her young child.

As pp have said, an order would last for up to six months and can be extended on one further occasion of up to six months.

And do not get me started on 'helpful' incorrect legal advice on here. I just had to correct someone on another thread who said there is a 'rule' in English law that husbands have to give their wives a cash sum equivalent to half their pension pot on divorce. It helps nobody and it either gives false hope or it prevents people asserting their rights.

Yes, and as I said there are many women who don't want to get married because of the baggage that comes with it

Additionally, many MEN do not want to get married and refuse to do so. They may promise their pregnant partner that they will marry them but not follow through with it. People who say 'just get married' are making out like it's a unilateral decision that a woman can take. What if you are already pregnant, have had to give up work and financially depend on your partner who then turns around and tells you that it's all over?

This isn't about stupidity or choices. The current law allows men to treat women who raise their children like shit and that is why it needs to be reformed.

What if you are already pregnant, have had to give up work and financially depend on your partner who then turns around and tells you that it's all over?
But no-one forced you to get pregnant by a man to whom you are not married.

Yes, it is a shit situation but don't make out that women find themselves in it through no intervention of their own.

you will likely have a beneficial stake in the house but probably quite a small one
No, she hasn't

The police can organise her collecting her belongings
No, they won't