Crying at the kitchen table while ex plays monoploy with dc in the sitting room

[thinkingmakesitso]

I can't believe this. I have had loads of threads but in a nutshell he was a sahd/musician/writer who shagged a mutual friend in our bed while I was at work for 2.5 years. He moved out summer 2014. No divorce started yet and he still does before and after school care as well as seeing them here on a Sunday.

I have tried to get him to agree to him going home at certain times on certain days so I get a decent amount of time with them, as well as being able to work. He argues, then agrees, then doesn't stick to it, claims he forgot, we argue, he agrees etc etc. I just can't take it any more. Today he came at 9.30 am, an hour earlier than normal with no prior warning. took them out, back here since 2pm. I can't relax at home as he is here, but he can't afford a place to take the dc to. I wanted him to agree to go at about 4 every other weekend and put them to bed the other. He agreed but has now 'forgotten' this.

He asked earlier if he could take the dc to his parents for the whole weekend next week. I didn't really want it, but said yes. I then heard him arranging taking ds1 to the football at the end of Nov, on a Saturday - my day. An hour ago, I suggested seeing a mediator. He got nasty and said we would have to make it fair then, as now I get it all my own way, apparently. I then asked him to leave nowish as he will be taking the dc all weekend next week, and he got nasty and downright refused as it's not fair as I had them all day yesterday. FFs, I live here, it's not my fault he fucked everything up. He is adamant he wants nothing financial from me, but this is worse in a way. I have no power or control over anything, while he insists he is being done badly by.

I love my job but live for the weekends to spend time with the dc, but now it's ruined. He wants to be here 11 hours on a Sunday and I just can't stand it. I feel so sick and shaky and can't get on with anything I could be doing. Like an outcast in my house.

Well done thinking, it is really hard to take action when everything seems so threatening and big, but once you take action and start taking things one step at a time, it feels better doesn't it?

I have rabbit-in-headlights moments still, but just doing one constructive thing can sometimes be enough to break the jam and get you on a positive spiral. Probably mixed too many metaphors here, but just making the calls is a great start. Soon you'll have a rota and a calendar and you'll be setting some rules and boundaries. Well done you.

You tell him that he has the 'right' to see his children 50% of the time, as is 'normal' in divorced families. That what he doesn't have a 'right' to do is invade your life.

Actually, don't argue with him. Don't attempt to justify. Just keep saying "That's the way it will be". And do consider changing the locks or at the very least putting slide-bolts on the inside of the doors. You are going to have to have some way to keep him out of the house. He has established residence elsewhere (with his friend). You need the added security as you are a woman living on her own.

As far as afterschool, what amount of childcare time are we talking about? 2 hours? 4 hours? Is there anywhere else at all he can take them? Contact centre? Library? Cafe? Is there a specific reason he can take him to his place? Safety? Friend has forbade it? A 20 min drive isn't all that much. Could he take them there and you pick them up? Honestly, you don't want him in your home, especially when you aren't there.

Just out of curiosity, where are his 'things'? Did he take them or are they still in the house? If they are, get them out or box them up as being 'in storage'. It further establishes that he no longer lives there.

As far as the house, I'm in the US so this may not apply, but my cousin would have had to pay her ex 50% of the equity value to keep the house in their divorce. She was a SAHM (so more in your stbx's position) and she wanted to keep the house. They agreed that she would sign off on her interest his pension in return for him signing over the house. Some jurisdictions specify 50% of the market value of the home, though, so you are going to want to be sure what's what in your case.

Excellent start Thinking. Take it one step at a time. I do hope you get that childcare in place.

HR will help. Now, back to your post. Those weekends are precious to you. You work hard and deserve a time you can relax with the children, or on your own. BTW even though I'm divorced, my ex still hasn't taken his things from the house. I've got to dispose of them - and it blooming well rankles.

'From the OP " nutshell he was a sahd/musician/writer'

So if op had been a sahm /musician/writer you would all be advising her to walk away with no money ? Because as a sahp he is a cockodger ?

I find Another Emma's posts particularly upsetting and anti -men. And feels very much like a lot of projecting going on. Why on earth would a sahp not be entitled to half the house equity ? Why would he not be entitled to look after HIS children as he has always done. Why would the op want to find some random childminder as opposed to the df ? Why does the op get to call the shots ?
This to me is all wrong. The issue is that there is not enough money /equity for two parents to have two homes with enough room for the children.

OP wants (feels entitled - egged on by mn who seem to have no idea of the proprty laws /marriage / % of child contact. laws are. It's Like this : if there is enough money to split and s/he works and has them eow, and s/ he has the capital to pay spousal maintenance whilst the non working parents gets a job. That's what happens, to the rest of the mere mortals you sell your house and RENT two houses. That way he is out of your household, they go to him, they come home, he doesn't cross the threshold. Problem solved
I think you want the house and him to pretend that's fine. It really isn't.

He can see the children every other weekend, where he does this is his problem to sort out. He's an adult. He has to sort that out.

In fact can somebody explain why the stbx May not spend time in his house with his dcs ? He sounds like he has actually tried to make it easier for everyone when he absolutely didn't have to especially as he was the sahp

Yes Eldon, but why can't he do it in HIS jointly owned house. ?

No one is calling the 'shots'. Thinking has had a partner who has cheated on her, a lot. £20,000 is half equity, he can easily get himself restarted on a career path and housing, especially if he has childcare taken out of the equation.

Most of us on this thread are here because we want to support the OP. She has thanked us and said she found our input helpful. She is in the process of seeking professional legal advice.

This is a support thread and I hope it doesn't get derailed.

So why don't you just reverse genders here for a minute and see if you think it's fair.

Sahm, musician writer splits with her husband who is paying the mortgage. The wife moves out because the atmosphere is not good for the children. Husband doesn't get cracking with the divorce because he doesn't want to sell the house. He can't afford anything because SHE HAS BEEN A SAHP !! There are debts in the marriage because Sahm had a failed business which the dh must have known about. So according to some mn posters , she should shove off, with no home and no meney and on top that lose her 50:50 childcare contact with Dcs. ?

I am ashamed at lack of gender equality its breathtaking.

SAHM shags parent of pupil in her business and, when rightly told to go, still insists on coming back to the marital home to entertain the children. Pick them up and refuses to budge on this. Walks into home whenever, conveniently has a flat share so that keeping the children at weekends is not on.

Father who pays for all of this has no opportunity to meet a significant other meanwhile, as SAHM, is constantly in the house. Even at weekends.

That's the reverse gender scenario Marilyn

OP well done that's an excellent start. We agreed everything in mediation, it was very helpful. The court order gives me sole occupancy of the house. It is entirely up to him to manage and facilitate his relationship with his children. Of course it suits them to do it in the family home, and their sense of entitlement. Chances are neither of our XHs will think about what the kids are going to eat for tea, have they uniform for tomorrow, who needs nit combing, have the school dinners been paid, is it bin night, has the roofer been contacted about the leaking chimney, don't forget the lightbulb in the loo has gone etc etc etc. nope. They can walk in, tell us we are shit, make out they love their kids more than Peter Andre loves his, and fuck off or a week in a European City with his girlfriend who predates the separation. (Yes I am projecting!!)

But, OP, we must accept them in our lives, be kind and gentle always, because if we don't we are not putting the children first. Fuck that shit.

OP you won't have to sell the house necessarily. It can be held in trust until the children are adults. The equity split can be agreed now, then when you youngest reaches whatever age you agree on (21 in my case) you can split it/buy him out. The mediator, the courts and the solicitor are first and foremost concerned with the children's needs. You can then work out what feels fair to you both, how to split marital assets.

I would strongly recommend preparing a spreadsheet to work a budget from. Put everything, absolutely EVERYTHING on it, and also things for the future like school trips. Remember to include any benefits you might receive (entitledto.com is hugely helpful), take into account the drop in tax credits if applicable and interest rates may increase. It's important to get all this in place now. Know exactly what your position is. HTH.

Apologies if this has already been said - but child benefit is the 'gateway' benefit for things like tax credits, and the recipient is also seen as being the 'main' parent to whom any (if any!) maintenance is paid. This is usually the case in my experience. So worth having it in your name if it isn't already.

Marilynsbigsister
"I find Another Emma's posts particularly upsetting and anti -men. And feels very much like a lot of projecting going on. Why on earth would a sahp not be entitled to half the house equity ? Why would he not be entitled to look after HIS children as he has always done. Why would the op want to find some random childminder as opposed to the df ? Why does the op get to call the shots ?
This to me is all wrong. The issue is that there is not enough money /equity for two parents to have two homes with enough room for the children."

I'm really surprised by this. I don't see why you think my posts are "anti men". I've even re-read them to double check and I just don't get it. When I give advice I try to focus on supporting the OP. In this case I think her ex has treated her very badly (by having an affair and running up joint debts) so in a way I have been anti him I guess, but even then I never said he didn't have a right to see his children or to get his share of the equity.

You're calling it "his" home but I believe it's jointly owned. He moved out and is living elsewhere, but she is still living there, so it's her home as far as occupation goes (as opposed to ownership). This is why I don't think he has a right to be there. I think it's healthier for everyone involved for there to be better boundaries and an agreed contact plan in place.

The reason that there is not enough money to run two homes is that the ex has chosen not to do paid work. Of course being a SAHP is a job in its own right, but it's actually not a choice that everyone can afford to make when they have to pay the bills. It also sounds like the children are all of school age now (?) so there is no reason he couldn't get work during school hours even if he was still their full-time carer.

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with your posts? It's quite common for people to derail threads with accusations of man-hating and assertions that the advice would be different if the genders were reversed. I find it all a bit tiring and unhelpful.

I also don't see why my posts should be "upsetting" to you, but if I have hit a nerve for any reason please let me know why.

The stbx is currently saying he 'doesn't want any money' from OP. But I think that will change radically once OP starts disentangling her life from his! OP is only doing what a vast majority of men already do. That is to try and keep as much of what is 'hers' and give as little to the SAHP as possible. I'm not saying it's completely right, it just makes it reality. I think the days are gone (and rightly so) where a SAHP should be able to expect that an ex will support them for the rest of their lives. Child maintenance, absolutely. Alimony for a short time to get back on their feet and get a job, yes. But not to be supported for a lifetime.

I don't think that OP is trying to completely shaft her stbx. She understands that he is entitled to something out of the house, she just can't figure out how that can be accomplished and still allow her to keep the house, which she is entitled to want to do. There is no rule that a SAHP gets to keep the house by virtue of being a SAHP. The 'rule' is that things must be equitable. She understands that she will have to pay him child maintenance IF he is the main carer in his own home. But he is not. He is caring for the children in the home he no longer occupies for a few hours a day. OP has them before he arrives and after he leaves. He sees them on the weekend, but OP is also there on the weekends so they are not in his sole care during that time. What expense is he incurring in caring for the children as it stands? He isn't maintaining a residence suitable for them, he isn't paying for food for them, which is what child maintenance is meant to do.

It is imperative that this situation be 'untangled' and that OP and her sbtx establish separate lives with regards to the children. That's what OP is trying to do by getting in her own childminder and wanting to keep her stbx from just walking in to what is now 'her' home. Once that's done, the courts will decide what is 'fair' in their situation.

He's totally controlling the situation at the moment through a combination of passivity and threats.
Its time to call him on it. Don't let him in if he turns up early. Have somewhere the children need to be, or a friend "drop round to do something with you and the kids" at the time he's supposed to leave.

Put up a big wall chart "for the children to see when they are seeing you next" that has the start and end times on it in advance, in pen. Block out your weekends clearly.

Tell him the new ways things are going to be, and when he starts arguing that "you cant stop me seeing my kids!", "I'll get custody in court!" etc, just reply "This is how it is, if you don't like it then take me to court".

The only way to take back power is to bustle through all his passivity, and call him on every threat. Even if he does take you court, anything has got to be better than the way things are right now, you can't have your childrens' memory of you being that you're always in tears.

How about when he questions you stating

"we can discuss options at mediation"

20 minutes is nothing - it's completely normal in many dc lives to have to travel for 20 minutes after school home and then get carted around in the evenings to activities etc.

Your marriage is over, you are separating, you are not protecting your dc with this façade. They are being taught that your ex does what he likes but swans into your space as and when suits him.

Agree, Elendon, and why wouldn't anyone in this position, male or female, not look for a job?

Spousal maintenance is not very common anymore and when awarded is for a limited length of time.

I think he's only saying he doesn't want much from you but the reality will be different. Yes to a mediator. He/she will be fair. An email outlining dates/times each month is great. Maybe you could text the night before to remind him what has been agreed.

"Maybe you could text the night before to remind him what has been agreed."

Er, why? Why would she do that?! We're trying to encourage the OP to do less for him, not more!

The whole point of a written agreement is that both sides have a copy and stick to it.

the reason he shouldn't have the kids in the house is because he no longer lives there. That's pretty obvious I would've though. Especially given the reasons why he left. He wants his cake and eat it for sure. Entitled knob

Support is one thing , complete gender bias is another. The fact he shagged someone he shouldn't is neither here nor there but many posts use that to tel the op she is justtified in occupying the home. The reason she occupies the house is because he has left voluntarily. He is perfectly within his legal right to lmove straight back in again. and change any locks that have been altered. Supporting the OP by telling her what you would like it to be is not the same as reality. As a previous poster said, the court and judge will only be interested in what is equitable. It cannot be considered equitable for one parent who has the children 50:50 to end up with the house until the kids are 21 (because she paid the mortgage) while the other parent gets nothing, not even enough to set up in a home in which to see the dcs 50:50
I say again if this were a women who was the sahm you would all be screaming unfair. Sell up op. Do yet yourself another rented property each and start joint parenting with some boundaries.

The reason she occupies the house is because he has left voluntarily. He is perfectly within his legal right to lmove straight back in again. and change any locks that have been altered

Surely the reason she has the house is because he left voluntarily and the children are living with her.

They have been separated for eighteen months and he still has not found a job. I really cannot see mumsnet or a judge being that that sympathetic to such a bone-idle person, be they a man or a woman.

And yes of course some financial arrangement will have to be made about the house, but I don't think anyone is questioning that.

Marilyn the children are occupying the house. Their basic needs come first.