Should ex tell me his address where he will be taking the children at the weekends

[evolucy7]

I'm after some opinions on this, my ex has now moved to a new house and despite me having known where he has lived for the past 2 1/2 years and where the children have been staying overnight, he has now point blank refused to tell me where he has moved to... He was told to inform me where he lived and took the children by my solicitor 2 1/2 years ago, but now we no longer have solicitors as we have been through the court process and have a court order in place. I suspect he now won't tell me for this very reason. Would you want to know?

Spero - I never said I agree with his stand but I have known people who have had serious issues with EXP not leaving them to get on with their lives in peace and as a result don't want their EXP's knowing where they live.

It just shows that there are many elements to these situations that people may not consider.

Sparkle, of course, and I think everyone has agreed a parent should be able to keep address secret if there is risk of stalking or harrassment from other parent.

But op has pointed out she knew address for 2 1/2 years previously and she has not admitted to any stalkerish or unacceptable behaviour.

So I think those elements have been considered, and we are left with conclusion that ex has no reason other than suspcious control/punishment type reasons.

But those elements aren't present in this case SS.

I don't think it is control over the OP. I believe he is protecting his new life - I think you may find a new woman "in situ".

It is pure speculation but it may explain why he won't enter into discussion with the OP and why he does not want her to know where he lives in case she turns up.

You may be right. But it's irrelevant really - he's not being reasonable.

"I don't believe many parents would jeopardise the welfare of their children just to be irritate their EXP"

Unfortunately, it does happen far more often than it should.

Abusive men (and women) will use contact issues/their children as an opportunity to abuse their ex partner.

If all people were reasonable and mature, it wouldn't happen, but they aren't.

And also, why should he think the OP will go round?

And if she does, to pick the kids up or whatever, so what? Unless she's got a history of making a scandal when she visits him, why should it be a problem?

I see others have put it better than me (as usual!)

IF the OP was some kind of stalky nutjob who had been harassing her XP then there would probably be some indication of it in her posts and the XP would have recourse to more sensible self=-protection behaviours than stamping his feet and going 'shan't!'

Yes but it is not irrelevant to him - he clearly feels justified in his stance.

If the OP wants her opinion to be considered by her EX then she has to consider his opinions also and at the moment they are not even communicating so I don't see how they are going to move forward without some kind of mediation or intervention.

Really difficult.

I bet he feels justified, all right.

That doesn't mean his behaviour is right.

No reasonable person would behave like this when it's an issue of their children's welfare. You simply don't do it!

It doesn't really matter if he feels justified.

It matters if the court thinks he is.

Janos - you missed out the key part of my post and that was the fact they both have to consider each other as parents. It's not a case of one parent being more important than the other.

One parent does not have to tell the other parent what they are doing/where they are going/trips out with the children. They both have Parental Responsibility in the eyes of the law therefore need nobody else's input as to what they do as parents on their own.

This isn't about one parent telling the other how to parent.

IT's about one parent behaving irresponsibly and unreasonably.

The OP is not displaying the same level of idiocy as her xp. She's not demanding anything unreasonable and her XP is. This is not a six of one, half a dozen of the other situation.

If the law views the EXP as being a valid parent, capable of having his children whenever, wherever (obviously not leaving the country without agreement) then why does the OP not concur and just trust him to get on with it, in the same way he trusts her to look after the children?

Sparkle: Because he's being a dick and, by the sound of it, has form for being a dick. SO the OP knows he's a dick and can't be trusted, therefore she's proceeding with caution.

Sparkle, because she is a mother and she wants to know where her children are sleeping.

Would you be happy if you had no idea where your kids were tonight, when they were 4 and 6 years old?

I wouldn't. It is not reasonable to expect someone to accept that, I don't know why you are insistent on pretending it is.

The won't wash in a court with a judge though if her EXP was to take her to court for breaching the order...

"why did you stop your EXP collecting his children last weekend madam? Erm because he was a Dick Sir."

And Sparkle, the law deems all sorts of unsuitable fuckwits to be competenet parents. The OP is under no obligation to have faith in a law which pays lip service to the needs of children but doesn't actually give that much of a shit.

SS no-one has advised her to use that defence.

She's been advised to put everything in writing so that it is clear to a court, who is being reasonable and who is being a fuckwit.

Unless someone is extremely biassed, it will be pretty obvious.

Herbeatitude - if you had read my other posts you would see my thoughts on his behaviour so please read those before you state me as being false.

Yes all sorts of fuckwits are parents I agree! The OP may not be under an obligation to have faith in the law but it is the only law we have at the moment and despite your tone of hostility towards my posts HerBeatitude I am actually supportive of the OP and trying to help find a way forward for her.

But most of the posts on here just want to rant about how much of a dikhead her EXP is. That does not help.

I have read your other posts but I'm concentrating on your most recent ones.

You appear to be implying tht if only the OP would meet him half way, they could sort this out.

There is no half way with unreasonable people. It's their way or the highway, there's no point in trying to come up with helpful solutions - they don't want to solve problems, they want to make more.

I know I sound cynical but I'm not -it's just that I think you need to recognise when you have no options because all the options that would be open to you if dealing with someone normal, aren't available when dealing with someone who is impervious to reason.

The courts are used to people like this, the reason they are in court, is because they can't be reasoned with. As long as you document everything, you help the court to see that they're dealing with one of these...

There is nothing else to say Sparkle except to repeat that some people cannot be reasoned with. If you are rational, intelligent, thoughtful person (and I'm sure you are) I bet you can't imagine someone behaving like this - but they do!

Evolucy - if you are still here then I second the advice to document everything and always behave in a reasonable way yourself, however he behaves.

Janus I agree some people cannot be reasoned with.

Evolucy I third the advice to document everything and try to behave reasonably yourself, whatever the provocation. (know that is difficult)

Also someone suggested knowing car registration, better than nothing, even if he gives address.