Is this fair (access)

[Marmaladedandelions]

STBXH is moving. He has a job and a house (though the sale hasn't gone through yet) about an hour and a half/two hours from where we live.

I don't want him having unsupervised contact with the children, who are eight years old and nearly a year old. There's also a second baby girl on the way.

Last week I went up there. He took the eight year old on a day out while I was in the building which I was fine with, and we all went out for something to eat.

I have suggested this on a weekly basis. He has said he wants twice a week. I think a 2 hour drive is too much twice a week. In all honesty I don't want him in my house so it would mean going somewhere mid-week and doing something after school which seems like a lot for the eight year old. Then, DH would either have to drive back or stay over in a hotel or similar and I'm worried about him putting pressure on me to let him stay.

So, I suppose what I'm asking is - is once a week fair? I am flexible when it's school holidays by the way.

Do you suppose I am doing so out of spite, Dad?

The answer is, we can't tell - but that is the impression given!

For example, why don't you want unsupervised contact?

I understand the distance - and I agree that this is too far mid-week!

It does help, to be honest - I feel so alone at times. I'm going to try not to be silly and have really, really been trying to re-establish and make new links for support. It's just - I've got DH in one ear who is an extremely strong and forceful character and I just can't justify leaving small children with someone who can be as he can.

But, if I went down the 'correct' routes it would be incredibly traumatic for everyone and there's been enough of that. Sometimes I might sound stupid or weak but honestly some days I feel like I just want to COLLAPSE, where I feel so very alone and scared and vulnerable. Coming here serves as a useful role model. There are women here I admire hugely, who I can model my life on, say to myself 'don't be daft, they coped, you can.'

So - anyway! I think that's a good suggestion pops :)

I would never suggest anyone says to themselves "Don't be daft" because someone else has done something slightly differently.

There is no rule-book or manual for being a parent - so we all do the best we can :-)

Marmalade

An issue here is that what you are allowing him isn't supervised and it will be a lot harder to stop him getting unsupervised contact once he can prove that he has a relationship with the children.

Thanks, boney

He's treading pretty carefully as he doesn't want all the stuff he's done brought up, I know.

Thanks DP :)

It is likely that he would get unsupervised contact if you went down the formal route, even if he has been abusive and violent to you. The fact you are ok leaving him alone with the DC, suggests he is not a risk to them in your eyes.
the travel would also be less of an issue if unsupervised as he could drive to you and take them out locally (no need to come into the house).
I would be careful what you wish for.

I would be very careful here. Your exH wants to spend time with his children and is prepared to make the effort to do so but in his eyes you are looking for reasons not to allow this. I don't know the back story but the relationship that he will have with his children will likely be very different to the relationship he had with you. My kids are the most important things in the world to me but if I never see my exW again it will be too soon. Its different.

I do not have the issues with my ex that you do (I'm guessing) however I am still having to go through the Courts for proper access as she has refused to be reasonable and uses every excuse under the sun to stop me seeing my children (who are older than yours). I have been told that the Courts are increasingly looking for proper co-parenting/shared contact arrangements so I really hope that you can find a suitable middle ground that suits you both.

Carol I don't exactly leave him unsupervised; I can see them pretty much all of the time. I'm not completely sure what you mean by being careful what I wish for, though.

manofmystery, he doesn't, particularly, want to spend time with the children. He wants to come back. The more he sees of me, through them, the more chance he has of this happening.

Believe me, I wish that I had a 'normal knob' of an ex but I dont. I have a violent one, an unpredictable one, and most key one who will NOT back down or back away. I have good reason - very good reason - to believe the children are at risk of harm when with him. That's why I've had to go for this rather more draconian approach. For years my ultimate terror was that splitting up with him would mean I would lose the children to him. His behaviour worsened over time and when I eventually called him on it I had stacks of 'evidence' as to why he cannot be left completely alone with young children. I promise that I am not being difficult; this is (potentially at any rate) a dangerous individual. He has a lovely side to him, I'm not saying he's all bad, but he's damaged.

Its not about what is 'fair' to either parent, its what is in the best interests of the children.

The courts work on a presumption that it is in children's best interests to have a relationship with both their parents, as long as it is safe for this to happen.

The 'bog standard' deal for separated parents is every other weekend Fri-
Sun and half the school holidays - with possibly a meet up during the week if distances/school etc allow this.

But every case is very fact specific for obvious reasons.

So I don't think once a week contact sounds outrageously unreasonable for anyone BUT I agree that this issue of supervision is going to cause problems somewhere down the line. Either he is dangerous and abusive - in which case you are putting yourself at risk - or he isn't and your insistence on supervision is going to cause problems.

But there is obviously a big back story here I don't know.

No matter how painful, you owe it to your kids to put the best possible protection in place. If that means going through the courts with all your evidence, so be it. Formalise the contact arrangements through the courts and ensure that you have limited contact with him yourself. You would be better off NOT hanging around him, and letting the contact take place in a formalised setting, like a contact centre.

If his motivation is not the kids but to get to you, then all this facilitating is just giving him control and access to you. Take you out of the equasion, and see how quickly he drops contact.

Spero I agree with ou, but the ramifications of formalising things would be huge, absolutely huge, and I want to avoid it IF I can.

If I can't and have to go through the courts - so be it, but 'D'H doesn't want this, I don't want this - it's much better we keep things are they are.

marmalade - ok this puts a different perspective on things. I like fannys approach. If he is using the kids to get back with you and this is not what you want then take yourself out of the equation. If you have evidence against him then don't be afraid to use it as that is what the Court is for. Spero is also correct, the interests/safety of the children will always come first. Talk to a solicitor and tell them your concerns and show them your evidence. Good luck!

I can understand your reluctance to go through the Court process but you have to find a way of reaching a resolution/agreement as neither of you are happy with the current arrangement. Have you tried mediation or arbitration as an alternative? Basically someone independent who won't be bullied by your ex.

Sorry to be blunt but either you find a way of formalising the arrangements or he will continue to chip away at you.

Unfortunately the evidence against him also incriminates me - the obvious question is why I put up with it. Of course, I know why, but 'because I'm a fool' probably won't be very reassuring to SS.

As I've said, I will if I absolutely have to, I'd just rather not

No, I'm okay with it - I just wanted to check once a week was ok and not vastly under or over what I expected. I don't want the children to never see him again, that's not what I'm after at all, but I need to know they are safe.

I get it - but the difficulty arises when you say "once a week with supervision" and he says "every other weekend without supervision". Then what? How do you bridge the difference? Spero has already indicated what is the standard approach taken by the Courts but if your circumstances are different then you need to take a different angle. There is no right or wrong answer.

If he demanded unsupervised contact I'd have no choice than to go through the courts, but he hasn't yet - primarily because he's more to lose than I from doing this.

supervision of contact can only ever be a short term solution. The children are 8 and a baby - with another baby on the way??

In just a few years the 8 year old is not going to be happy with this arrangement, would be my fear. The age gap and the implications this has for contact is going to get more and more pronounced.

I am sorry, but this sounds like an incredibly dodgy set up and not good for anyone.

My very firm view is that you should find a way to normalise this. If he really isn't safe around young children, you need to stand your ground and he needs to get help, therapy whatever. Or compromise in that he can have more time with the 8 year old but more limited time with the baby - this would probably be considered entirely reasonable by a court. Say he can build up to longer time with the baby when he shows he can cope.

I am also very alarmed when you say the evidence against him incriminates you. What on earth does this mean? Are you also a danger to children?

You see, I think the very real worry here is that something is going to happen to trigger some row/upset and then you may find people/professionals get involved that you don't want to be involved.

It sounds a very strange set up.

Spero, yes, DS is 8; DD is 1 in a couple of weeks and our second daughter is due in the summer.

I do absolutely worry about DS in a few years but that certainly isn't a reason to let him be unsupervised around DH; nor would he want to be.

What I mean is i am to blame because I put up with it for years and years and years. So yes I am a danger because I didn't keep them safe. Not actively but through passivity. If that makes sense.

It's not that strange; they see their dad once a week with me.

I'm not sure what it is you think you've done that will "incriminate" you - there is no blame placed on women for not leaving sooner when they have plucked up the courage to end an abusive relationship.

However, your comments about him being damaged, and your fear of recrimination yourself, suggests that whatever it is he has done to the DCs in the past, he has possibly done with your consent. If you have facilitated him deliberately harming the DCs in the past, or you have lied to professionals to cover for harm he has done, then I strongly urge you to stop all meetings with him, and to make contact with your local police or safeguarding team as soon as possible. The school can help, or a local children's centre. If you cooperate and volunteer information to professionals now, then you will be supported and your DCs will get the help they need - but if you remain silent even though you are no longer a couple and allow the DCs to continue to see him, then if details of the abuse he inflicted becomes known in the future, you will be considered complicit.

You are neither qualified or objective enough to supervise an abusive man who puts your DCs at significant risk. You are undoubtedly conflicted between wanting to protect your DCs, but ensuring they maintain a relationship with their Dad. You are not the best person to supervise in this situation.

I'm sorry if I'm wrong about this, and will self report this post if it upsets you.

What I mean is i am to blame because I put up with it for years and years and years. So yes I am a danger because I didn't keep them safe. Not actively but through passivity. If that makes sense

It makes perfect sense - it is very common for women who are abused to put up with it for years - because they come to think its normal, they don't know any different, they are scared, etc, etc. I do not think you should be 'blamed' for that.

But once you have left an abusive man and recognised that he is abusive, to continue to put yourself (and the children) within his reach is less likely to be viewed sympathetically or with understanding.

It may not be 'strange' at the moment as 8 is still young enough for a child just to go along with whatever parents suggest. However, you won't have many more years left of this. the 8 year old will pretty soon be challenging both of you, wanting to spend more time with friends, not wanting to be doing whatever it is you will be doing with two very young children. That's when I think this kind of arrangement will fall down. Quite apart from any questions of the safety/suitability of the father to be left alone with any of them.

No, I'm not upset, it was a lovely supportive post. Thank you.

It's very hard as he hasn't harmed them particularly - well of course he has because they've seen how I've been treated and I know now that's impacted more on them than I thought, well DS really - but it's more what he could do, what he has the potential to do.

What do you think he has the potential to do? Hurt them physically?

How will this work with three children, one a new born? What if he wants to take one of the children off somewhere. How would you stop him?

Depending on what you mean by his 'potential' to do 'something' this sounds dangerous to me.

It's fine if DS wants to do something else in the future. But I'm not sure spero (and thank you too for your kind words) if you mean you think they shouldn't see DH at all, full stop, or whether contact should be formally supervised.

The problem with formalised supervision is that it would involve raking through years of some horrific stuff, traumatic for DS and for me really, and also I then lose my 'control' over DH. That sounds awful but he's being nicey-nice just now as he's scared. Once I lose that then I've chucked my Ace card away.