overnight stay - am I being unreasonable?

[christle]

My husband and I agreed to seperate at the start of June but it took until last week for him to move back to his parents (which he originally said would do). He has taken 3 days off work this week to look after our youngest daughter (aged 10), we have another teenage daughted almost 16. Although he has moved out we still haven't come to an agreement over finances and the house and are seeing lawyers about this.
He said that he wanted the girls to stay at his parents for the 3 days that he's taken off work. I said no for 2 reason.

1. The girls would need to share a double bed while he sleeps on the sofa.
2. No finances have been agreed yet. He sent me a text message the previous day saying that according to the CSA he would only need to give me £101/wk and that would drop if the girls spent more than 52 nights a year with him. I would accept that figure if he was going to be paying half the mortgage but he won't be and, as such, can afford to give me more. I just feel that if he's going to hold 52 days over my head then I can't agree to them staying overnight just now. Am I wrong?

On the basis of the information you have invited, yes you are wrong. Surely the welfare of your children and them spending time with their father should be the most important thing here, rather than how much money you 'lose' because they spend time with him?

Sorry if this comes across as harsh, don't get sidetracked from what should be the real priority.

What is wrong with them sharing a bed? My girls each have a double bed and share with friends on sleepovers and sometimes with each other.

There is nothing wrong with 2 sisters sharing a double bed.

I think you're wrong, I'm afraid.

You're witholding contact so that you get more money? Is that what you mean?

I'm trying to be fair and I'm not stopping him from spending as much time as we wants with them but he's been so unreasonable and childish about getting things agreed that I feel he'll be trying to clock up his 52 nights.

We already have debt management plans in place and neither of us would qualify for a new mortgage at the moment. The lender won't allow him to be removed from the current mortgage at the moment and the house is severe negative equity partly due to the market and partly because of large unfinished projects which I will need to fund to complete.
I can afford to pay the mortgage, household bills, MY debts and pretty much everything else on my wage but worked out I would need a minimum contribution of £140/wk from him. He earns marginally more that me so is substantially better off without all of the household finances to deal with.

I've been through all of the financial/house related stuff with my lawyer and because of the current position there are really only 2 options that I can put forward without putting us both in more debt:
a) He pays more than CSA guidelines but I take on full responsibility for the house and re relinquishes any rights over it. It's in negative equity so doesn't count as an asset therefore there is nothing to buy him out of.
b) He pays the CSA guideline but also pays half of the mortgage and contributes to the substantial repairwork that is required on the house. He is then liable for 50% of any profit/loss when it sold.

He has rejected both of these options saying that the house should be sold regardless of what it does to us financially or I should give him 50% of the current market value - he seems to forget that this would also have an impact of the kids since neither of these would leave me with enough money to find somewhere else for myself (and them!) to live.
He has also started removing items from the house and in each case he has claimed the best of what we've got leaving me with the old or worn out that will need to be replaced.

Look - I REALLY understand why you're pissed off. Having to deal with your ex is nearly always horribly difficult and stressful.

But this...

So what if he's trying to clock up his 52 nights? That's 52 nights your dc will have had time with their dad. I should never be about money, the access side of things is about your children.

I assume he's going to have to house himself?

I'm just thinking of mine AND their security in so much as keeping a roof over their heads.
We'd originally agreed to try and keep things amicable but it hasn't gone that way and the last thing I want to is use my children as pawns. I'll think about what you've said and maybe suggest 1 night but really don't want to let them stay 3 - the oldest doesn't want to anyway.

I would like us to be able to sort this without falling out but my lawyer has said that it's looking like I may have to take him to court and that I do have a very strong case. Just seems now that every time we talk it turns into a row.

The first rule in a marriage separation is that finances and contact are separate. You are linking them.

Whilst you may believe you are being reasonable in your requests if you withhold contact you lose the moral ground and you will ramp up animosity - As a mum I would outraged if a partner thought they could force me to agree to a financial deal by using the children.

If you can't agree a deal then look at mediation or get the solicitors to sort it. The finances in your situation look tough for both parties - if there isn't much to go around then it's likely that each of you won't get the deal you ideally want. A 3rd party might be able to offer an outside opinion which results in a fairer deal.

If your older girl doesn't want to go to her dads for 3 nights - fair enough but don't stop contact at any time. Mums cannot be the gatekeepers for access.
It is tough enough on kids to go through a separation without having to takes sides. They want mum & dad to have stability going forwards, they can't be made to choose.

Yes you are wrong, if they don't want to share a bed they can talk to him about sleeping arrangements or choose not to go. Agree that you cannot link up financial arrangements with contact. That will not end well for any of you. Let the lawyers sort out what is fair in terms of money and please think of the contact as a separate thing entirely.

It does not matter how unreasonable he is being about money btw. Your children need a happy and secure relationship with both their parents more than they need a nice house and a loaf of things.

Loaf? Load!!!

Definately keep your personal view of him and the financial side away from decisions about contact.

You can't really dictate what he pays. If the CSA guidelines are 20% of net income then thats all he has to pay. If he is jointly liable for other debt then there is nothing you can do to make him pay that and any court judgement would go against both of you if joint. Whilst he may be legally and morally obliged to pay, it is impossible to make someone.

He is being a dick money wise but this doesn't make him an unsuitable host for your children.

Also it is worth considering that actually this wrangling over money is often a result of the adversarial legal system and his lawyer, like yours, just looking out for his best interests. Just try not to be too mad with him. It might be best if it goes to court, each side is trying to reduce liability and maximise what they get out. That is, to a certain extent, just how it goes unfortunately.

Money and children are a completely separate issue. Don't mess up his relationship with his children because of money.

I don't think you are right but I can see where you are coming from. HE was the one to mention the '52 nights', which probably made you suspicious. It also meant HE was the one who first put together the children and finances.

To be honest, I would say to him that the CSA tell him the MINIMUM he has to pay, not maximum. If he feels that he only wants to pay the minimum then that is a bit rubbish of him.

Remember, if one of your children is 16, it won't be long till he won't have to pay anything towards her upkeep. I would get ready for a fight about money, it sounds like it is building up to it. Get all info you have ready and get legal advise ASAP

Thanks to everyone that responded.
I spoke to my lawyer just now (she's been on holiday for the last week while most of the arguing was going on). She actually said that I wasn't doing anything wrong since he's only been out the house for a week but it could be a problem if overnight stays were prevented over a prolonged period of time.

That said, I've contacted him and asked if they he wants them to stay the night before a day trip he is planning since he wants to make an early start and he's agreed.

Well good luck to you. All I can say is sometime what lawyers tell you isn't illegal or is something you can get away with, isn't the right thing to do.

Basically she is advising you, I think poorly, about what is not likely to get you in legal trouble. Not the same as what is right.

For those you that thought I was being unreasonable, it's now almost 3 weeks since my husband moved and he still hasn't paid a penny in maintenance.
Despite this I have allowed him to see the children pretty much whenever he wants and at last minute regardless of my plans and they are staying overnight with him for the 2nd time tonight.
I've been told by my lawyer that he intends to try to force sale of the house through the courts.

don't conflate liability for money with your childrens' need for regular contact with their father

trying very hard not to, wish he could see it the same way

he's been so unreasonable and childish

OP, make sure you don't go down this route too ay.

Your children are not pawns.

Yabu. I still now at 31 share a bed with my sister when I go home for a night out. They are children.

Maintenance should have no baring whatsoever on you decision for access. They aren't bargaining chips.

Why should Christle "play nice" when its obvious that he isnt?
He's going to force a sale that will benefit no-one, will harm his children and will put both parties into deeper debt?
Surely bankruptcy would be a saner option, at least you would get to keep the house.
I can't understand what he thinks he will gain by forcing a sale, it makes no sense.