My baby and the Other Woman

[Hubnut]

I found out partner of ten years was cheating 4 weeks ago. He'd known her all of 6 weeks (I found his emails to her). I kicked him out and he's living with her. We have an 18 month old baby together. He wants access this Sunday. I'm sickened at the thought of him taking our child to see his girlfriend. I've asked him not to - he says he wont but clearly he's completely untrustworthy. This is worsened by the fact that me and this other woman exchanged a series of very unpleasant texts as I found her number on his phone. I have this fear that she might pinch him, be mean to him when his dad isn't looking just to spite me :-(

He says she's a nice person but that's not been my experience and really he's only know her for a couple of months. She does have a teenage daughter, but that doesn't qualify you as a nice person does it?

The whole situation has been a nightmare of me lurching from sad, angry, positive. I now have this anxious feeling in my stomach about possibility of this woman being with my baby.

Any help or advice?

[prh47bridge]

Your opinion is not fact, it is opinion, no matter how many times you insist otherwise

I am not expressing an opinion. I am stating the law no matter how many times you insist otherwise.

Your lack of knowledge was demonstrated clearly when you stated "One doesn't need a glaringly obvious, defined safeguarding issue nor a shred of evidence of one. A concern is enough". I challenge you to quote one single case in the last 10 years where the courts have accepted an alleged safeguarding issue without any evidence. Here's a clue for you - there aren't any.

[Fourormore]

Read carefully: I'm out.

Ohhhh. Please stay. Your posts are giving me a right giggle.

[MumOnTheRunCatchingUp]

Lol what an embarrassment music

I'm cringing on your behalf!

[MusicIsMedicine]

Your opinion is not fact, it is opinion, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.

You have no idea what I know, where I post, under what name, what I do, or what I believe.

But feel free to continue presenting your assumptions as 'fact.'

Read carefully: I'm out.

[prh47bridge]

If you believe you know the law feel free to post on Legal Matters. You will, of course, get shot down in flames by the various lawyers who post on there.

[prh47bridge]

It is not a surmise that you don't know the law. It is a fact. Many of your posts contain statements that are downright wrong. That is not an assumption. That is a fact.

[MusicIsMedicine]

I refer you to my previous post. You are back to surmising. It is utterly pointless and unhelpful to OP.

Your assumptions are without basis and are dangerous.

I'm out.

Good luck OP. Follow your intuition.

[prh47bridge]

you haven't the slightest idea what I know or believe in

I know that you don't know the law. That is clear from your posts. And telling the OP that the law won't protect her child is incredibly dangerous.

[OutToGetYou]

Oh give over Music, you're banging the wrong drum now.

[fastdaytears]

A court definitely will look badly on a RP who is withholding contact (or being unnecessarily restrictive with it) with no actual basis for any concerns.

That isn't an opinion.

[MusicIsMedicine]

'You don't actually know or believe in the law'.

That's a very dangerous assumption on your part. The truth is that you haven't the slightest idea what I know or believe in.

You are operating on total conjecture here. You've also made convenient assumptions about 'a few text messages'.

The reality is, we don't know what was in those text messages.

Whatever it was, was certainly sufficient to give rise to OP's belief, whether rightly or wrongly, that the woman her ex has known for six weeks, is not a nice person and could be capable of harming her child.

No decemt Judge in any Court in the land will penalise anyone for legitimately acting in what they believe to be their child's best interests.

I see no reason to spell out the obvious yet again.

[prh47bridge]

Speaking for the Courts again whom are not even involved and predicting outcomes

No the courts are not involved. But the principles the courts work to are clear so the outcome if this case arrives in court is easy to predict.

quoting psuedo-legal semantics

Love to know what part of my post is pseudo-legal semantics! It is a straightforward statement of family law as it is currently implemented by the courts.

The law won't protect your child

And there is the problem. You don't actually know or believe in the law so you are happy to give advice that will undermine the OP's position should the case end up in court.

If the OP can show genuine safeguarding concerns the law will protect her child. However, if she tries to persuade the courts to prevent her ex introducing her child to the OW based purely on an unpleasant exchange of text messages the courts will give her short shrift.

[pocketsaviour]

Speaking for the Courts again whom are not even involved and predicting outcomes and quoting psuedo-legal semantics and doing the OP's thinking for her. Wow.

Pot, meet kettle

[MusicIsMedicine]

Speaking for the Courts again whom are not even involved and predicting outcomes and quoting psuedo-legal semantics and doing the OP's thinking for her. Wow.

OP - follow your gut instinct as a mother. The law won't protect your child. Listen to your intuition.

I have nothing further to add.

Good luck OP. I'm thinking of you.

[OutToGetYou]

I didn't say taking a child's safety was odd. Reread my post, don't twist it.

[prh47bridge]

The projection of others and their bias relating to their own cases has no bearing on how Family Law works, which is on a case by case basis.

There are posters on this thread who know exactly how family law works for reasons that have nothing to do with their own case. You do not appear to be one of them. That is quite clear from your suggestion that the OP does not need any evidence for safeguarding concerns. The courts would not agree with you.

I have never been involved in contact proceedings relating to my own children. My comments are not, therefore, based on bias relating to my own case. They are based on knowledge of family law and how it is administered in practice.

Each case is looked at individually but there are some basic principles that are always followed.

The courts believe it is best for children to have a relationship with both parents and will support that unless there is clear evidence that it is not in the child's interests.

The courts believe that neither parent has any right to say what the other parent does or who they see with their child. They will only implement restrictions if there is clear evidence of safeguarding concerns.

The courts are familiar with parents who invent safeguarding concerns as a way of trying to stop or limit contact. Allegations are ignored unless the parent can provide evidence.

You say the OP is "rightfully" concerned over her child's safety. Nothing she has posted indicates that she has any evidence for her concerns. She has exchanged some texts with the other woman which, unsurprisingly, have not been pleasant. That is not something the courts would accept as indicating safeguarding concerns. If there was evidence that the other woman had abused children in the past or threatened the OP's child that would be a valid concern. Exchanging some unpleasant texts is not.

If the OP follows your "advice" and this ends up in court her ex will be able to use her actions as evidence that she is unreasonable. The courts do not like parents who restrict contact citing safeguarding concerns for which they have no evidence.

In the short term the courts would probably cut the OP some slack on the basis that emotions are raw. But they will absolutely not support the OP in putting restrictions on her ex's contact with their child in place based on nothing more than some unpleasant text messages.

[MusicIsMedicine]

What exactly is 'odd' about taking a child's safety seriously?

The OP is not involved in any Court proceedings at this time.

She is concerned over her child's safety and imo quite rightfully so.

OP - follow your instincts as a mother. Your child's immediate safety comes first.

[DaveCamoron]

Yet again some more odd posts by Music, the OP blocking contact would not go down well in court, how many posters need to say that before some other posters understand?

[MusicIsMedicine]

Yet again we have this rather bizarre bias - the bias of people that think this enables them to talk for the Courts. It doesn't. Even if a matter ends up even going to Court, every case is different. The projection of others and their bias relating to their own cases has no bearing on how Family Law works, which is on a case by case basis.

Offering contact at OP's house is not at all unreasonable in the circumstances.

[OutToGetYou]

I don't think anyone has suggested the OW does, or thinks she does, have any 'rights' to see the child, so Music going on about her not having any rights is pretty odd.

[prh47bridge]

One doesn't need a glaringly obvious, defined safeguarding issue nor a shred of evidence of one

Yes one does. If a parent blocks or puts conditions on contact citing safeguarding concerns but with no evidence the courts will view that as unreasonable. That means that parent is less likely to get the benefit of any doubt.

Unless there are real safeguarding concerns, i.e. concerns for which there is evidence, the courts will not allow one parent to restrict what the other does with the child.

Please ignore the "advice" from MusicIsMedicine. It is badly misinformed. The post by Marilynsbigsister is spot on.

[Bananasinpyjamas1]

Oh that sounds very hard on you OP.

I'm a step mum (not the OW), but I'd completely understand if a mum wanted to stipulate that it had to be a committed relationship before her kids were involved. It sounds like she has been horrible to you on top of that, and your emotions are probably going crazy.

I don't know about courts, having no experience. But as you are trying to come to terms with the separation, the feelings of rejection, all the anger and the pain, then I would have thought that it is reasonable for you to have a period of time of not having the OW in your child's life, even on a purely compassionate level.

At some point, yes, you will have to accept her being around with your child, in the long term, but it seems very cruel to the dynamics to do that now.

Can your Ex partner be made to see that? Could you meet with a mediator or a counsellor just to make plans for the next 6 months or a year about this? You need time and space to start to get yourself together.

[ProphetOfDoom]

Whilst not legally binding in any way my solicitor did lay out very clear access arrangements with my EXH that had the children's well-being at the heart of it, which included getting the children used to seeing us separately before new partners were introduced. There were minor safeguarding concerns in my case - not with exH overly although some - but primarily with the OW's family threatening towards exH that my children witnessed and some evidence reported by my childminder that they had been left on their own - so I was able to steer how I wanted it to go. Given your P doesn't look after your dc for any length of time on his own and the OW has been sending unpleasant texts over a number of weeks now, suggesting residual hostility after the initial flare up (why? - when she's won her (booby) prize?) I think you could very reasonably request he build up contact in a familiar environment with his dc, especially whilst he's still establishing himself as step-father to the OW's child. Relationships are known to founder - esp when moving strange men suddenly into the house - and surely he wants to bring his dc into a secure and established r/ship? Or at least that's the way I'd play it whilst offering the low pressure play with dc/hand them back at your house.

If he's bent on pushing his rights re your child he can, but mostly ime the drama/selfish behaviour that allows for an affair continues for a while afterwards and as long as they can say 'I'm still seeing dcs' they're too intent on the new r/ship to bother.

[RolandaHooch]

OP, please do not take any of the advice given by Music. As another one who has been through the court system many times, I agree entirely with Mumontherun and Marilyn.

Courts take a very dim view of a parent who tries to dictate terms such as this to the NRP. I can see exactly why you are worried but this is not the same as there being a safeguarding issue.

He has agreed to not introduce the OW for now and that is the best you could hope for.