Divorce and school application

[Trek28]

I am going through a difficult divorce and need to make an application for our daughter’s school place, as she is due to start school in September 2024. The application needs to be made by the 16th January 2024. I am looking for advice from people who have been in this same situation.

Over the last 4 months I have tried to get a dialogue going over a school application, I have put forward a list of schools in our hometown on more than one occasion and given reasons why I would like our daughter to go to one of those schools. This list includes a school which we both agreed our daughter would attend before our relationship broke down.

Communication is very difficult; I never see my ex-wife and she will only communicate through her solicitor. She has not cooperated over schools and has only yesterday sent a solicitor’s letter giving her intentions.

Her letter says that she intends to go and live “longer term” with her mother and stepfather who live 20 miles away. They also live under a different local authority. My ex-wife has put forward a list of three schools all within 1.5 miles of this address. She is asking for my agreement on these schools and my agreement that she can put down her mother and stepfather’s address as the address for the school application.

I don’t understand how my ex-wife can do this and use her mother’s address for a school application. We currently have a court order in place that gives us 50:50 custody of our daughter and 50:50 use of the family home. We each spend 50% of the time with our daughter and have use of the family home while we are with her. My wife is today living in the family home, she pays her share of the mortgage, the bills and council tax and all her documents are registered at that address.

Does anyone know if this is possible?

@Trek28 I think this thread is getting a bit odd! I don't understand why people are saying good for DD to be near stbx parents for grandparents access when you also have parents in the other direction!

I think in honesty it's quite simple, especially if you are communicating via a solicitor.
I'd just write back and say

• you still want to have 50/50 arrangement with your DD once the FMH is sold
• that you are happy for stbx to live wherever she pleases but that you hope you can both agree that a 50/50 arrangement is fair on both sides and that's what you'll be seeking in the CAO.
• that you cannot support the application for the school near your stbx mil as that would be fraudulent as your DD doesn't live there
• you have previously suggested suitable schools for DD that are in the town and by your understanding the current address is where the school application should be based on
• you intend to rent/buy in this town place post sale of FMH in order to facilitate your care of DD

Having all.of this documented via solicitors will probably.help in the long run if she's being difficult

Good luck

Down thread, direct quote from you:

"There seems no case for the mum to move away...".

Being charitable, you forgot you said it, but nevertheless, your thinking is off on this one.

OP this is what you you want to hear, but it's bollocks dressed as reason. Your ex will move in with her mum temporarily and explain to the Court that she plans to stay in that town and buy a house with her share of the equity when available. The 50:50 thing will also end when school starts because you can't agree anything, with you getting weekends and holidays, to facilitate stable schooling, especially if you live in different towns. The Court is not going to make you the main carer. Those are hard things to hear, but that's the reality, so you can either waste time, money and effort swimming against the tide, or you have a conversation about how it will work for both of you.

Anyway, you have my views, it's your choice in the end.

What makes you think he won't be made the main carer? You don't have enough information to make that assumption.

Good post, @nibblessquibbles

Your initial post said “wife would need to go back to work FT” so I misunderstood.

But just because OP hasn’t mentioned whether the current local schools have after school clubs or if there are loan childminders, doesn’t mean that there aren’t.

@Laurdo it's not an equal chance though is it? It is much more likely that the mother will become the main carer. The reason why you have to mediate is to give people a chance to walk back from fanciful positions clinging to possibilities over probabilities. There is a chance that you might win the lottery, but I wouldn't place a side bet on it happening.

Perhaps dad was the main carer when they were together in which case they'd likely award him main carer now that they've split. Mum is the higher earner, maybe that entails longer working hours etc. We simply don't know enough details to assume what a court would decide.

Some people do get away with this kind of thing. However, LAs are getting better at detecting fraudulent applications. And, when someone does win a place with a fraudulent application, it can be removed even after the child has started at the school.

I think you have a fixed view of a town as being best for your daughter but people move all the tjme

there is every chance if your wife puts forward the idea of her parents being childcare etc that she could get it through on the other she may nit

the 50/50 is not a long term solution so you need to figure out what is- 20 mins isn’t actually far and she could move in fairly easily

It's 20 miles not 20 mins. In rush hour traffic that is a lot of time in the car especially when the OP works in the opposite direction.

What if the OP wants to use his parents as childcare? I think the mum is being completely selfish expecting OP to add significant time onto his journey so that things are more convenient for her.

Oh boy, my brother went through similar.
He got a child arrangements order for 50-50. ‘Better’ schooling than available locally (secondary) was then used by his ex wife as a premise for moving to her parents’ town an hour drive away. Parents’ town is also much cheaper property-wise. Exw wanted to live mortgage free on a family home which wasn’t possible where they were originally. Anyway somehow got her dream relocation agreed by court. Judge told brother to just decide what he would do next. So he also moved to exw parents town to keep his 50-50. I don’t think this was the outcome his exw expected but either way she’s done well. She now lives mortgage free close to relatives and gets the upside of 50-50 to live own life. He’s trying to see the best of it, in that he still sees his kids. He also bought a cheap house with a small mortgage. He’s starting to make friends locally. The kids have equal access to both parents. It’s not his first choice but he says it’s the least bad option. Exw still constantly asking him for money but he’s in a much better position to refuse than if he had allowed her to reestablish herself as the primary parent and he’d gone down to weekend visits with the kids due to distance. Kids were heartbroken about moving btw. They really miss their old schools and friends. They’ve developed behaviour problems because of all the disruption.

I just wouldn't presume OP will be made the resident parent on the basis the wife will be refused to move.
It may be that if she does things properly the Court may allow her to move and may ask the father to adjust his contact arrangements or to move also.
I cannot believe you have been able to adhere to a 50/50 court order whilst nesting in the family home. The poor girl must be so confused! it is not healthy in the slightest.

Good for your brother. It really annoys me that some mother's seem to think they get to call all the shots purely because they're the mother. Especially annoying when their ex is a good dad and they're just trying to make things difficult for them.

We sometimes have to bend to my DHs ex's wants just because it's not worth the drama and consequences of arguing with her. Makes it worse that she rarely has the kids best interests at heart and is more focused on point scoring and pissing off her ex.

Err, why?

many people waiting to divorce have no option financially but to continue to share the FMH, perhaps with one of them in a spare room, until finances can be sorted and the house sold.

The DD stays in her home 100% of the time and each parent is there 50% of the time and not far away (20 miles apiece) the rest of the time.

It’s not perfect, but few couples have the money to keep paying a shared mortgage and instantly rent a flat two streets along, or whatever!

This is the full quote:

There seems no case for the mum to move away and get the DD into a school which it would be much harder for the dad to do 50:50 with as it is in the wrong direction.

That is not saying there is no case for mum to move away. You are misrepresenting what @SheilaFentiman said.

@SheilaFentiman - you do also know that @prh47bridge is a family law lawyer also?

@prh47bridge The full quote doesn't change the meaning and I've misrepresented nothing. @SheilaFentiman thinks the ex should be made to stay in the current town, or presumably move without her DD.

This thread sits between realists, who see that the ex is behaving reasonably and providing notice to the OP, and seeking his agreement; and fantasists, who are encouraging him into pointless grief and expensive Court applications (while hanging on BS about fraudulent school applications as a device he could use to try and get his preferred outcome).

OP has to decide whether he wants to agree and be part of it, or disagree, see it happen anyway, and blow his chances of an amicable coparenting relationship. It's easy to advise the high risk strategy when you're gambling with someone else's life and future though isn't it.

The only thing the ex will be guilty of is applying to a school fraudulently if she chooses to go down that road.
I just see someone who is trying to move out of the family home and establish a home elsewhere as the FMH will be sold!

Me too, but the stuff about fraudulent school applications is BS. Some PPs are just using it as a cynical device to justify their encouragement of an attempt by OP to throw a spanner in the works of his ex moving on. She's asked for his agreement, she hasn't done it unilaterally, and when he says no, she'll move with the child to the mums to facilitate doing it in January. Nothing fraudulent about that. If she has to go to court to rubber stamp it, her solicitor will do it. That's reality, so OP should bite the bullet.

No, that isn't what @SheilaFentiman thinks. She thinks that OP's daughter should not end up in a school that makes it harder for OP to have 50/50 care. That is what she said, not how you keep misrepresenting it.

As for your next paragraph, complete rubbish. Neither I nor SheilaFentiman are encouraging him into any court applications at all. However, if his ex continues to insist on wanting her own way regarding the choice of schools, he may have to apply for a Specific Issue Order. That would not be pointless or expensive. It would be essential to stop his ex embarking on the high-risk course of action she currently proposes.

Your lack of understanding is shown when you refer to "BS about fraudulent school applications as a device he could use". No-one has suggested it is a "device he could use". It is simple fact that an application from the ex's parent's address would be fraudulent as OP's daughter does not live there. That is not BS. That is the law. It is therefore important that OP ensures that the FMH is used for any application as that is legally the only acceptable address, and therefore that schools near the FMH are chosen. That isn't about stopping his ex moving, or stopping her taking her daughter with her. It is entirely about making sure she gets a school place.

Realists? You mean people who believe mums should dictate what happens with their kid and dads just has to accept whatever scraps they're thrown and be grateful that they are "allowed" access to their child?

If the OP was female and her male ex was dictating that their child should go to school near his parents because that's where he wants to live and mum would just have to commute, move next to his parents or reduce the time she sees her child, I'm sure the responses would be much different.

Apologies if this has come up and I missed it. The application doesn't have to be fraudulent even if if she hasn't moved and puts the school nr her parents down.

If it is under subscribed.which many primary receptions are these days she could still get the school even with your current address.

As you have 50/50 though you should agree the application whatever is chosen. Also you need to think what school will look like with pick ups/childminder or after-school club. I expect she will be relying on her family for hers which is why she plans to live near.

No, it would not be fraudulent if she applies from the FMH to schools near her parents. It is not impossible she would get a place that way, but it is unlikely. However, her plan is to apply using her parents' address. That suggest she thinks an application from the FMH wouldn't work. Of course, if she does apply using her parents' address, that would be a fraudulent application.

@prh47bridge how much would a fully contested Specific Issue Order application cost? Assume a need to prepare several witness statements and documentary evidence, and a four hour hearing with solicitors and junior counsel. How quickly would it be listed? I'd hazard a guess that it's £5k-10k, even if done cheaply. If you tell me it's less than £1k, I'd tell your clients they need a better lawyer.

Yes I'm a lawyer too, even if I use an informal writing style on MN.

As one lawyer to another, you seem not to attach much weight to the ex's rights, her reasonable conduct to date, and you mischaracterise her wanting to live with or near her mum as a "high risk" course of action. I am not clear why that is so. I am doubtful that a Judge will see it as high risk either. It's perfectly normal to want a support network.

I thought your legal response was well written by the way, if straying into solipsism, and perhaps suffering in terms of the quality of its analysis through non-engagement with adverse points to OP's position that you would rather ignore.

OP - do you see what I'm really doing here? As fun as it is to spa with @prh47bridge, I'm demonstrating to you how two aggressive lawyers going toe to toe in a court battle will not serve you or your DD's interests, unless you like paying legal bills to the likes of @prh47bridge.