I hope someone/anyone can shed some perspective on this family dilemma. 16 months ago a relation, aged 47, suffered a stroke. After nearly dying she was helped back to life by a fabulous NHS, husband and parents. She has been left, for the time being, with little movement on one side and very little verbal communication, although this improves steadily, and a year after the event she is now driving.
8 months after her stroke and still very much in rehabilitation her husband of 14 years announced that he couldn't cope and wanted out of the marriage. In a way, fair enough, but what has happened is that he has convinced the couple's 12 year old only child that her mother is not able to look after her, that the daughter is to live with him permanently, with only every other weekend visits with her mum. My suspicion is that he's taken this stance only because he wants to gain a larger proportion of the financial settlement - he's told the daughter that they will live in a 3 bedroom house and that mum will have to live in a smaller flat or with her parents.
Obviously solicitors have become involved and now CAFCASS - there was a preliminary hearing this week. What I can't understand is why is my relation facing losing complete care and control of her daughter just because of her stroke? If she had cancer, or any other illness, surely the court would not be considering anything other than the 50/50 arrangement which would be the starting point - my relation is 95% able to look after her daughter independently - she would only need a little help with tasks such as filling out forms, talking with teachers etc.
Is there anyone out there with any similar experience? As a family we can't understand how this 'man' has been able to create the impression that he is the only proper person to look after the daughter. And please believe me, there are no skeletons in the cupboard, my relation was a 'normal' very hard working, high achieving woman and her only 'crime' was suffering this devasting stroke.