ExH wants more access than I want to give

[SuiteHarmony]

I name-changed a few weeks back ....

I am having a 'family conference' with exH soon to discuss the children, and I am anxious and concerned about how it will go.

I was a SAHM since my eldest was born in 2006. Four kids. I asked H to leave when I found out about his affair in 2014.

At that time, we arranged access 3/14 days, being every second Fri-Mon.

Since early this year, I got a job, and an au pair.

Access is now 4/14, every second Fri-Tues. As H has long holidays (think university terms) he also has approx 5x7 days additional exclusive access.

He wants more. As my children are all 10 and under (youngest is 3), I don't feel that increased overnights are appropriate. I admit that this is tied up with the fact that I feel I have relinquished a huge amount of time with my children due to his selfishness and stupidity.

The job I have enables me to do school drop-offs every morning, and be home by 3.30/4 most days. His doesn't (self-employed).

By choice, I spend my kid nights with the kids. By choice, he would still go out 2/4 of his contact nights.

I have no idea how to communicate in a reasonable way that I have lost enough, and don't want to give more. And that I genuinely feel the kids would have a better outcome from the stability and time I provide. Plus I reared them pretty much single-handedly in the early, demanding years and feel I know them better and they need me more.

I don't know what to do.

MrsBertBibby: It's on the justice.gov.uk website in the court proceedings guidance. Google it?

I agree that it depends on the children. With four of them, they will at least have the stability of each other.

My DD struggled a lot with contact with her dad, she's 10 now and it still isn't plain sailing. I think if she had been going with siblings that would have helped.

I do know though that EOW is not enough. Could they not at least have one week night in the week between? That's what we do and it helped to make DD feel like his home was also hers as they had to do a lot more of the mundane things - homework, getting up for school etc etc.

Plus then at least you would know that you had a specific night when you could book an activity or have a regular social life.

For what it's worth, in my experience it all tends to change when one or other gets a new partner.

Right, I assume you mean the overriding objective set out in the family procedure rules, trifle.

1. These rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly,having regard to any welfare issues involved. (2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable – (a) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; (b) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues; (c) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing; (d) saving expense; and (e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court's resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

But that doesn't mean "giving the parties equal time". It means trying to ensure neither party is disadvantaged by (eg) not having a lawyer, or not providing things like interpreters.

I've been practising family law for 20 years. There is no such "starting point". Any judge who said there was would be wide open to appeal.

There was a massive exercise in considering introducing a presumption of equal time only a few years ago. It concluded with this government release in 2012

www.gov.uk/government/news/proposals-to-enable-children-to-see-both-their-parents-are-launched--5

Why are they only "overnight stays" when they are with him? He is their father, not a babysitter or friend. Reverse that and to him it's very unfair.

If you truly believe it works well for all, swap. Let him have the contact you have now and you take his. Still think it's fair? I highly doubt it.

Is he currently paying child maintenance op?

Is your dh organised with the kids Op? Maybe this is clouding things a little, whereas you have them for most of the time and are probably on top of the daily routine and he isn't. Could you trust him to get everyone sorted on the days he has them. It might not be relevant but I have a friend whose ex had the kids 50 /50 after they initially split and it was a disaster and didn't last long. ( his request for this was definately motivated by paying less maintenance) . The children were 3 and 5 at the time and looked bedraggled and confused most of the time.

It's not about the parents having equal rights, it's about the children having the right to an equal relationship with both parents.

And you have to separate how you feel when they're not with you from how they will be feeling when they're with their dad. I struggled too at first, because it was like sending DS off somewhere else iyswim, and I was even criticised for it by family e.g. When eXH took DS to his parents for new year my mum told me it was too long and I should put my foot down and say no. But ultimately the child is spending time with their other parent, and they don't see it the same way you do.

I agree that the whole dynamic does change once new partners enter the equation. My eXH's new partner moved in with him last year, and DS has been spending less and less time there ever since. Although that has been ds' choice not eXH's.

I got used to DS being away soon enough and it's useful being able to plan things around child-free time. Now DS doesn't spend weekends at his dad's at all, and I've found that child-free no longer exists.

Equal relationship doesn't have to mean "precisely equal amounts of time regardless of whether that suits the children" though. You can't just draw a line through their lives like that. It's arbitrary and silly

MrsBertBibby: I know it doesn't mean equal time. But I suspect it does mean starting from the presumption that the parties are equal and one has no more say than the other. Am I wrong?

Same question here re maintenance.

I think you need to just go along and hear what he has to say, make notes and then you can consider it. Personally I wouldn't agree to his access involving you (being at your house), or it being every weekend as that is unfair on you. So he needs to ensure he can pick up or take the children to any activity that they do currently, organise childcare for when he can't pick up from school until he finishes work, plus take them to school and provide childcare for his days over holiday periods. Also 50:50 strictly speaking should be night stop overs, not just seeing them of an evening.

You need to know all that is in place before you agree.

You need to know all that is in place before you agree.

I hate this.
I hate that 1 parent mother holds all the cards and has the final say.

One or two nights a week plus EOW is way less than 50/50 and it is what many families make work extremely well.

At present he had only EOW and I think it is totally reasonable for him to have more.

Well yes, you are wrong.

The Overriding Objective is there to tell the court in what spirit, and with what overall goals, to operate and apply the procedural rules set out in the Family Procedure Rules. It doesn't serve as a gloss on the substantive law, which remains the Children Act 1989 (chiefly, s1), and decided case law under the Act.

This is a link to s1 Children Act. Take a look. It specifically states there's no special golden ratio.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/1

You need to know all that is in place before you agree.

I hate this.
I hate that 1 parent mother holds all the cards and has the final say. hmm

I didn't suggest she has the final say. This is a meeting, if they don't agree it's a judge who holds all the cards.

I make no apologies for suggesting that I would need to know the arrangements in place prior to changing access arrangements.

I can completely appreciate why you are upset but I think an ex asking for anything up to 50/50 (excluding situations involving inadequate parenting) is within the bounds of reasonable, even if you have decent reason to not want this to happen.

I totally agree.

I don't quite know how to say this without sounding critical of you, OP, but it's not about what you've lost. It's about what's right for your DC.

FWIW, I know I'd feel the same as you. But sometimes our feelings aren't the issue.

Totally agree again. It's hard not to see this as you feeling entitled to ration contact as a way of punishing him for causing the marriage breakdown in the first place.

MrsBertBibby: I don't think you are understanding that I don't think there is a golden ratio. My point isn't that the court is under any legal obligation to impose 50:50. It is that they are under an obligation to treat both sides equally at the outset. Without looking at what is best for the child they obviously can't make a decision, so the OP is in no stronger a position than her ex at that point. That is what I mean by a start point of 50:50 - if all other things relating to the child's welfare are neutral, they will treat the two parties equally.

I can obviously speak about the families that I know and 50/50 works for them. Even when this started out at a young age. A few of my own children's friends had this arrangement. I say had because they are now all adults.
It was organised in a way that the children had two homes and two bedrooms that were decorated and furnished to their needs and that parent budget. Pe kit, clothes etc at both houses to make things easier, why wouldn't there be, both sets of parents were equally responsible for purchasing these items. Holidays split mutually. Christmas and birthdays as the children aged they were more involved in the arrangements and decided how to spend the time - one chose alternative years, one had two days and another split the day. Activites were attended regardless of who's week it was. Teenage years even more flexibility and teens deciding who's house they were at that night. But before that, the change happened on a weekend, and all that was needed to be taken was basically homework, and anything the child decided they wanted to take with them (mobiles, mp's, book being read at the moment etc) which fit easily into a backpack.
Like I said they are now adults themselves. They have a fab bond with both parents because of the time they spent with both, and recognised that their parents put aside their feelings for the needs of them.

Someone asked how we would like it having two homes or two work places. Maybe this is clouding my judgement because I didn't have one home. I had several (dysfunctional family) but I still see the positives of it, and how properly done like the above it can work and be a positive thing.
I also until recently did have two offices in two separate buildings. The first few weeks were a bit messed up of course, but once I was organised and a routine was put in place it worked. The early weeks were also around having the right equipment in both places to make this easier.

What do you mean by "treating them equally", though?

MrsBertBibby: I mean not starting from the presumption that the RP has more rights than the NRP. The OP seems to think (and I say this kindly because I understand how hard this is) that her house is 'home' and the children are 'away' when they are with her ex, and is talking about what she is prepared to agree to as if she has more rights than he does. A court isn't allowed to operate like that.

It's not about the rights of the RP or the NRP it's about the children

throwingpebbles: I am aware of that. There is nothing I have said that is incompatible with that. The courts put the child first, which is correct. After that the NRP and RP are treated equally.

Given that both parents legally have the right to a family life it is not just about the rights of the child. The parents both have rights regarding time with their DCs too - which are equally weighted and not dependent on whose fault the split was, whether they are paying maintenance or even whether or not they have PR.

Trifle, the court wouldn't be treating the OP as if she had more rights than her ex by holding the two of them to the arrangement they made together when they separated until it can make time to hear the case, consider the evidence (including any CAFCASS report if one were ordered) and ordering what the court thought was In the children's best interests. You complain about her saying what she will "agree to", but agreeing things is a 2 way street. In any child case, the parents say what they want, if they agree, hurrah, if they don't, ultimately, a judge will decide.

In a situation where the kids are mainly with one parent, it's pretty natural to call it "home", although it's better to refer to "mum's" and "dad's". When talking to the kids. I think people in general conversation however will call their own house "home". Calling your house "mum's" feels a bit weird talking to other grown ups.

MrsBertBibby: I know there would need to be a court case before any judgement was made, but the fact that there was a prior arrangement wouldn't stop a new from from being put in place.

MrsBertBibby: Plus, I am not complaining about anything. I think the OP needs to manage her expectations, that's all.