Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Lone parents

Use our Single Parent forum to speak to other parents raising a child alone.

Flip

Original poster

Custody question - what rights does an XP have?

23 replies

willowthewispa · 05/03/2009 21:50

I'm asking this for a friend. She and her XP have a baby son, they split up reasonably amicably when he was a couple of months old. Up til now they have had an informal arrangement where he pops in to see his son when he wants, or takes him when she wants a break.

They have fallen out now over something unrelated to their child, and the XP is very angry with her. He is threatening to take her to court to get joint custody, and has even told her he wants to do a month the baby staying with him, then a month with her.

What's the likely outcome if he does take her to court? What rights does he have over access? They aren't married, XP is named on the birth certificate, and he pays no maintenance.

OP posts:

georgimama · 05/03/2009 21:53

How old is the baby?

A baby under a year or two is unlikely to be ordered to spend a night away from their primary carer, it's not in their best interests.

Why does he pay no maintenance?

MrsMcCluskey · 05/03/2009 21:54

If he is named on the birth certificate they have equal rights unless otherwise directed by a court.

ScorpiowithabigS · 05/03/2009 21:56

If he is named and baby i am guessing is born after Dec 2003, he will have parental responsibility.

The courts will not allow a month on/off type contact, and will at this point i expect suggest weekend day visits.

She should approach the CSA for maintenance - his non-payment will not look good, as it doenst look like he is serious about the childs welfare from an outsiders point of view.

Original poster

willowthewispa · 05/03/2009 22:05

Could he stop her leaving the country if she wanted to move abroad?

OP posts:

ScorpiowithabigS · 05/03/2009 22:06

With parental responsibility, he is allowed a say in that and could get a court order banning it, yes, if not in childs interest.

ScorpiowithabigS · 05/03/2009 22:06

link

MrsMcCluskey · 05/03/2009 22:08

He could go to court to stop it

N1 · 05/03/2009 23:20

It sounds like the father has Parental responsibility for the child. This allows the father to be involved in any decision that affects the future of the child.

where the child goes to school, if the child should change schools (can prevent the resident parent from moving area in some cases), what medical procedures the child has or doesn't have, name changes....etc. PR is quiet strong if used correctly. PR allows the father to make an application into court as a right, he doesn't need to ask for permission.

If your friend and her ex have fallen out, best they try to agree on a written agreement so each knows where they stand.

The father can apply for shared residence, and he could get it. Shared care is not the same as shared residence. This in terms of law says that the child LIVES with one parent during certain times and LIVES with the other parent the rest of the time. In residence/contact orders, the contact order tells the parent with care to make the child available for contact during certain times.

Shared care is where the child is cared for (day to day or week to week) by both parents. The child can live at one parent for a few days and the other for a few days, though the parents would need to agree on this arrangement. For some parents who live close together, the shared care arrangement works because both parents do homework with the child, both parents work ....etc.

If the child's parents are in argument mode and the parent with care forces the CSA/maintenance issue, the argument gets more heated and aggressive. An absent parent resents paying money to someone they don't like unless they feel that the parent with care can be trusted to use the money fairly. The CSA is an argument all in it's self.

If the man wants joint custardy (shared residence) just give it to him, there is no strength or weakness in the argument. It's wording on a court order.

The one exception it joint residency/ sole residency is if the parent with care puts the child into care (Section 20 CA 1989). With a contact order, the absent parent has to make an application for a residency order to get the child to live with them. In a shared residency order, the absent parent can just take the child out of care because there is a shared residence order.

In all fairness, it's better to not go to court and not have any court orders. Everything is so much simpler and easier.

StewieGriffinsMom · 06/03/2009 22:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

N1 · 06/03/2009 23:16

I don't think so. I could have added more.

The CSA do cause problems (I am living proof) and I don't want to change the course of the post.

It sounds like the father of the child does have PR. Even if he didn't, he can get it easily.

The aim is to try to divert away from court. Court should be a last resort. Adding anger and hostility to any situation makes for finding agreements (or even compromise) much harder.

The contact arrangement was working and by the sounds of it, one thing caused everything to go wrong. If things were working, it's hopeful that things can get back to working.

PR can be used to make a resident parents life very difficult. I know of a case where a mother had to have 3 psychiatric assessments already (there was nothing wrong with her before a split). The ex has added so many manipulations to her case that she runs the risk of loosing her child. If not to the ex, then to adoption. To make matters worse, all the mother wants to do is protect her child - which is obvious to everyone but the ex and a corrupt guardain - and a Judge who believes the guardain.

It's better to know more of the worse than to little and feel lost.

StewieGriffinsMom · 07/03/2009 08:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster

willowthewispa · 07/03/2009 22:05

Thanks for your help everyone.

OP posts:

MeMySonAndI · 07/03/2009 22:34

I think you are overreacting Stewie, I think she is only providing good advice, she is not offensive and has not said any lie. I can't imagine how you can accuse her of being so full of her own situation after such a neutral (and accurate) comment.

If I decided to leave the CSA out of our negociations it was after reading so many negatives about getting them into the case. I also think it is best to leave it as a last resort, which incidentally, may be the case of willow's friend.

Willow, the only thing that I would add is that she can not just take the child away of the country, but she can apply to the court to take the baby back to her country if the father doesn't agree with this. If it is in the child best interests (like mum lacking to have a network of support here), they are likely to grant it.

cheerfulvicky · 08/03/2009 08:31

Read N1's other posts. Also, isn't N1 a bloke anyway, not a she?

lostdad · 08/03/2009 09:39

Yes, but blokes as fathers very often want the best for their kids too.

When we're not all chasing women, getting drunk and gambling the housekeeping away that is.

StewieGriffinsMom · 08/03/2009 13:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

oldraver · 08/03/2009 14:25

N1..The CSA do cause problems (I am living proof) and I don't want to change the course of the post.

The only person who causes problems is YOU by refusing to pay for your child
Willow whatever you do dont listen to the drivel spouted by N1

aseriouslyblondemoment · 08/03/2009 14:33

lol at lostdad!
Actually this is an interesting thread tho in my case I'm speaking as a divorced woman
Apparently exh's rights reur dcs have changed
It is one of those things that I need to look into along with making a new will,but tbh have had more than my fill of solicitors for the time being so it will go on that 'to do' list of mine
but if anyone can clarify things here then that would be good
and btw.slating other members on the forum isn't particularlyadult helpful IMO it is merely somebody's POV and the more of those we get the better as long as the postings aren't offensive etc

aseriouslyblondemoment · 08/03/2009 14:36

weird!
shouldnt have had that grinning emoticon there
should read 'our'

Janos · 08/03/2009 15:09

willowthewispa, your friends XP will have parental responsibility if his name is on the birth certificate. I'm fairly sure of that but you may want to check.

I honestlyc an't see how 1 month on, 1 month off weill work with a baby. And I can't imagine it being good for any child to be separated from their parents for that length of time - they are going to be left pretty confused and distressed.

No court (if it got to that point) would enforce such a 'request'. Well, they may but I would be extremely surprised if they did. Look at it this way. They are bound to act in the interests of the child and not the parent.

Also, where does your friend live? I ask because England/Wales and Scotland have different laws.

Original poster

willowthewispa · 08/03/2009 15:32

Both parents live in England. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't take her to court for custody, he has quite a few "issues" and I think even he realises he couldn't care for the baby full time. But if she does try to move abroad it gets a bit more difficult.

OP posts:

Janos · 08/03/2009 16:06

If he has PR, I don't think she could move abroad without his consent. And in the situation you describe it sounds like he would be minded not to give it.

Check out this link for more information.

It looks like he does have PR, by dint of being on the birth certificate. HTH.

Original poster

willowthewispa · 08/03/2009 16:11

Thanks, it does. I'll pass all the info on to her.

OP posts:

Flip