Residence dispute with ex H: am I going to be reduced to 1 weekend per fortnight?

[agingoth]

Hi all. I am getting divorced and we are about to go into mediation. H put the petition in which I am going to accept.

My big worry is losing main residence of the kids. We have spent a year separated in London doing strict 50:50 custody. H insisted on staying in the family home so I left as the atmosphere was so terrible and went to live in a flat 10 minutes away, the kids being with me strictly half the time. I was very depressed and didnt' have much fight in me at that point.

I work a long way from London in the North Midlands and now want to take the children with me up there where I think they would have a better standard of living. H is adamant they must stay with him because 'this is their home' and ds1 is settled in school (he is in year 2). My 2 year old is not yet in nursery. They have a nanny four days a week.

I have Mondays off to look after them but have to go up to Stoke 2/3 days a week at the moment to work. If they came to live with me nearer there I would be able to finish work about 4 to be with them. At the moment if with H they are with the nanny until 7pm.

i have offered H every weekend promising to get them down to London to him and more time in holidays. He said no and insists they must stay in SE London and attend the school.

Is he being reasonable? Or am I deluded in thinking I can take them out of London/school?

thanks

yes, amtooyoung I really don't think you have properly read anything I've said and are writing from your own agenda. 'Changed after listening to one poster'? changed from what to what exactly???

sorry you are feeling confused OP, I don't want to add to the confusion.

I'm a practising family lawyer; I would echo what mumoverseas said.

Court proceedings are never a good idea. In my experience this is NOT because lawyers encourage conflict but because court proceedings tend to further polarise people who are already angry/hurting. The adversarial process doesn't help. Mediation is always a best first step.

I beg my clients to stop fighting. I have no interest in prolonging their depressing and predictable fighting, there will be another case just like theirs along in another five minutes. They generally don't listen to me; what they really need is a psychologist, not a lawyer.

Problems in residence/contact, in my view are mostly caused by the parents not being able to let go of the emotional pain of separation or where one is in a position of power over the other and likes to bully.

In such situations a good family lawyer can help. Try to get a recommendation by word of mouth. Avoid anyone who talks about 'fighting'. This is nonsense talk in children matters and suggests someone who has no understandng of the process and the damage it can do to children.

But Spero, the OP is not fighting. That's the problem. She is making loads of concessions for the sake of the children.

Am actually rather surprised that the mediator has allowed the OP and her ex to continue in mediation for so long without any results or a memorandum of understanding.

I think from what I can tell that I am getting a hard time from divorced women who either suffered infidelity from the other side, or wish that their husbands were/had been more involved fathers, or think that women who have specific career ambitions are terrible viragos, god knows.

I had shit from women (never men) before I got divorced for taking a job a long way from London, even though back then H was collaborating with the plan.

Yerblurt was at least rational and calm in what he said....

Tbh my H and I are not fighting, certainly not after today. I have been crying all day, he rang up and rang off sounding petrified.

I will not fight, I would rather give up work, or possibly reduce contact with the kids IF I feel I cannot trust H to make decent financial provision for me not to work. That is the scary choice atm and one I won't really be able to make until I see the whites of his eyes in mediation.

if you had a 2 & 3 year old, I think the advice would be a bit different. You have a school age child, this child will find your proposal very very hard

At the moment, you have 3/4 days with them and work 2/3 days, ex has them after before/after work, eldest is in school and baby is with the nanny, is that right?? Who has them at weekends when neither of you are at work??

If you move and take them with you, you will have mondays and after school from 4pm, you will come back to london at weekends where ex will have them, when will you see them?? Who will have the baby when you are at work? Who will have the oldest in school holidays?? Doesn't your solution mean you will see them less??

Your eldest will have to get used to new school, child care, baby will have to get used to new childcare, it's a big deal

Yeah! You're not taking it lying down

Result!

Go!!!!

Hope you mean reduce your ex'es (nanny's) contact?

If the situation were a woman coming on here saying "My ex had an affair, then moved out and for the last year we've been doing 50:50 shared care. Now he's talking about moving 200miles away for work and taking the children with him" then, yes, there would be a difference in the advice given.

The difference is that the man would be being called an outright selfish, abusive twat (and worse) and m'good friend Dittany would likely be calling for his bollocks to be served to him on a plate along with a nice side salad. I sincerely doubt that given that hypothetical situation anyone here (including myself, yerblurt et al) would even think of suggesting that he should be allowed to make such a move. As it is, you've been given a range of opinions reflecting the difficulty of calling such a situation.

So, yes, it's not an equal playing field, and the responses you get here also tend to vary depending on the genders involved. As a woman you do have an advantage in court in any child residency situation. But given the situation as it is, and given that (for whatever reason) you did move out and (for whatever reason) you willingly entered into shared care for a year, that advantage is so small that - in my opinion, and that of several others here - it would be unwise to rely on.

Given that you are a woman then you might get lucky in court and get a sole residency order which means you could move the kids where you want. But given the recent history, you might not, particularly as family courts are increasingly looking at shared-residency orders in such situations. A shared-res order would make it even harder (if not impossible) for you to move the kids.

But, hey, if you want to continue to look at this as a man-vs-woman thing then go right ahead. I think you'd be missing the point, though.

and for me personally, I haven't suffered infidelity in my marriage, my ex was very involved and still is and I have a career and have always worked, I have no agenda

I have seen what a friendly divorce, with all sides agreeing does to children, it hurts them, I just want you to minimise the hurt the best you can for all

ilovemydog - big difference between 'fighting' and 'standing up for yourself and what is in the children's best interests'.

thats all I'm saying. Wasn't accusing op of anything, just warning her off anyone who looks at this kind of situation in terms of 'fighting a battle'. That way madness lies and inevitable emotional damage to your children.

amtooyoung, I have more friends and family the further north I go tbh. I am very isolated in London, H got most of the friends as he kept the house.

My 6 year old is always talking about moving to the countryside and having a dog. Both the boys really come to life in open spaces, I have always (well before the split) wanted to move them out of London. H was totally into that too, now suddenly since we split they must stay in London forever

well if as yerblurt says the law is on his side there is nothing I can do, I will go for what I can agree with him in mediation but as already stated several times on this thread I have decided not to 'fight'.

agingoth - its not 'forever', nothing is 'forever' with children; they get older, their interests change, their needs change.

If you think it would be in their best interests to move and you can't find a way to agree a solution with your ex then maybe a court hearing is the only way forward. a CAFCASS officer will advise the court on what would be in the best interests of the children.

the law isn't on his side, the law isn't on anyone's side, the law says that the children's welfare is the most important consideration in any dispute over residence/custody thus all cases are fact specific. Whatever the bleatings of F for justice et al, 90% of women get residence because 90% of women were primary carers prior to the split. There is no sinister misandrist agenda.

Snorbs, don't really like the whole sidelong 'selfish abusive twat' insult there. Don't think if you read my thread AS A WHOLE- and the response to Elenor, regarding whether a man would be given her advice WAS ABOUT BEING TOLD TO GIVE UP MY JOB, EXCUSE ME- you can really conclude that about me. But what the hell would an abusive twat like me know eh?

People read half the thread, hell half the bloody post, on here then get shirty with their responses. Thanks all for those who did bother to give considered replies but I'm buggering off now.

agingoth, forgive me if I wasn't clear - I don't think that you are a selfish abusive twat. I was using that as an example of the difference in advice you would get here if the situation were reversed, and as confirmation of your assertion that it's not a level playing field.

Who is in receipt of the child benefit?

She will still need a nanny/child care if she moves. She said she gets monday off, I am presuming she also gets the weekend off. Childcare is needed until 4pm 4 days a week.

At the moment, she works 2/3 days a week and father/nanny has them for that time until 7pm

Is that right agingoth??

The nanny isn't the issue, many women who work have nanny's, it isn't a terrible thing

My boy at 6 wanted to live on the moon btw, you can't take what he says as gospel. I bet he just wants his mum & dad equally

dittany, that's a potentially dangerous path to go down - not least because, at its extreme, it could be used to argue that an unemployed, deadbeat dad should be the preferred resident parent if the mum goes out to work while the kids are in an after-school club. Which isn't something I would necessarily agree with but that's the logical extension of what you're saying.

dittany, that is highly offensive to all working mothers

We don't have rights to our children, we are their caregivers. The children have rights to access to both parents, they have the rights not us

I'm not arguing anything

I believe it's in the childrens best interest to have continuity, not be taken from father and nanny and school and life as they know it

I think they should go to mediation, OP seems to be saying leave work and stay in london or leave london/father/nanny/school, the is no middle ground. Compromise is needed

The children will still need childcare, she will be working more days. At the moment, it's 2/3 days with nanny, if she moves away it will be 4 days with childcare up to 4pm and weekends with dad. She will have less time with her children

If she moves away and leaves children where they are, she could return fri nights and spend all of sat/sun/mon with them, no childcare costs for her so could put that money in hotels or renting somewhere in london

If she stays and commutes, still no childcare costs, one property to maintain and children have continuity of mother/father/nanny/homes

Agingoth, (hoping you are around still),
I totally understand about your job. I work in the same sector and I know very well how rare it is for a job in your field to come up in the right part of the country. I am a bit myself at the moment as I may have to leave my own job that I love - not bc of divorce but bc husband's commute is getting unbearable - and I am doubtful I will find another anything like it, given that there will only be 2/3 possible employers to look at. But anyway... people who have posted about 'a little bit of career sacrifice', can't know how the sector works (and to be fair, why should they?) but I do and I can sympathise with how devastating it must be to have to face giving up a job that is a really good fit for you.

I am unsure about the real advantage of actually moving the kids up, though. I assume you're currently in a typical academic 'away from base' flat for part of the week. Who owns the former family home? Is there no suggestion on the table that this house will be sold, so that at least you could get yourself a nicer London place for them to stay in while with you? If they were up in the Midlands with you, what childcare arrangements would you be able to make? I do see amtooyoungforthis's point above, in that it sounds as if with them living with you, because you're working you'd actually have less face-to-face time with them. It seems more like you need to aim at a better living arrangement in London so you can have a good quality 50% of the time with there.

You've also said you work part time. Is there any way you could (maybe next semester now) get all your teaching timetabled back to back so that you can cram it into a shorter period in the Midlands, then do other stuff from home? Where I am, this is possible if you accept working on the unpopular days (ie Fridays) and in poky top-floor seminar rooms etc.

I have to agree with what Snorbs said above - if this was a man we were talking about the views would be very different. The children should be the most important thing here. Whatever is the BEST thing for them. I don't all the details but Mum moving 200 miles away doesn't seem to be the best thing for them - at least under the circumstances described.

I think it is frankly slightly bizarre to say that a father wouldn't feel any guilt or upset if he had to spend time away from his children. Why wouldn't he? Involved and loving parents want to be with their children, whether they are male or female is by the by.

My husband also claimed that I made him move out of the house because the atmosphere was too difficult, and yes of course it was, as our relationship had broken down at that point. In fact he tried to persuade me to move out, and I refused. He was also the primary carer at that point, and I was working full time. When we moved to a 50:50 split he looked after the children at his place, and we had a nanny at mine for after school. That in no way meant that I wasn't parenting them, and it's a ridiculous thing to say. In any case I didn't have the option of reducing my hours, just because he had quit his job. Anyway fast forward a year or so, when I was speaking to a solicitor about residency etc (formalising our separation) she said that as they were based from my house for I think a couple of hours longer a week, I would be considered the primary parent. Which seemed completely nuts to me, but as he was proposing to move out of the country with the children at the time I was glad of the protection.

He also felt that the quality of their lives would be much improved by a move to the countryside. Interesting they would both have agreed at that point, having spent many happy days with my parents in the country, but actually moving has been quite traumatic for my ds (and he misses the city!). Stability is much more important to children than we give them credit for I think.

I can see that this is a horribly tough situation on everyone in this family, but asking your ex to either lose most of his time with his children or totally uproot his life and move is not a small compromise. I hope mediation finds something that you can work towards which reduces your stress, and makes things seem more possible.