Divorce and the kids. Is this arrangement viable longterm?

[Moolihooli]

We have 2 kids aged 12 and 7. Although we had begun divorce proceedings at the end of 2019, when lockdown happened we decided it was best for the kids to stay together for the time being.

We used that time to sort out finances etc. She is keeping the house and I recently moved into a small flat. Unfortunately the only place I can afford nearby is a small 1 bed flat.

It’s really important that I’m within walking distance to the kids. Especially since I don’t have enough room to have them overnight.

But I don’t know how long this is viable. Only having the children for the day is very hard. I tell myself that the unsuitably of the flat means it’s best for them but I don’t know how true that is in the longterm.

How damaging will it be if I don’t have regular sleepovers? We have agreed that I will take them on holidays but is that enough?

'You hear your argument a lot from adults who are trying to justify to themselves why they deserve to live in a big house (clearly no longer ‘the family home’) whilst their ex gets a poky flat.

Not so much from children, who quite enjoy having two homes (as long as it is managed well).'

Do you?

That's not my situation. I'm coming at it from the angle of having grown up with divorced parents.

I would say exactly the same if both parents were living in mansions.

@NuffSaidSam,

Would you say it about families who go to ‘the country’ most weekends?

Always ask this, rarely get an answer…

@Shehasadiamondinthesky,

That is just wrong.

That is ONLY the case if there are sufficient marital assets to meet both parties’ ‘needs’ post divorce, so only really applies when the assets are in the millions (as I assume yours were).

The starting point is to meet both party’s needs from the total assets. Only once that test has been met are pre marital assets excluded.

OP needs proper legal advice and to claim what is his in law.

'Would you say it about families who go to ‘the country’ most weekends?

Always ask this, rarely get an answer…'

Yes.

Although I think weekends only is less disruptive than doing a week about or half the week in each house and that applies to both divorced families and people with country homes etc.

I don't think it's ideal for children to be away from home every weekend. Particularly where facilitating this requires them losing their family home.

I think the ideal scenario is to keep stability at home whilst also ensuring as close to daily contact as possible with both parents. It sounds like that's what the OP has. In that scenario I think the overnights are not as important as some people make out.

My dcs shared a room at their dads until a year ago, dd15, ds 12. Exh hung a curtain down the middle of the room. It was totally fine.

The thing about ‘going to the country’ every weekend is that this is the routine and space children have grown up with. But equally, once children have their own friends and interests which involve doing things at the weekends, then I would also question whether it is fair to take them away every weekend.
The main point I think is that we have moved beyond the days where children are treated like property to be split. The focus should be on what works for the children. Of course it is important for them to maintain a relationship with both parents children but ideally that would be decided at an individual level taking into account the needs and preferences of the children, rather than an arbitrary division to suit the parents.

One at a time seems the best option
Or a pop up tent in the lounge for privacy and fun “camp” out?
Or a bunk bed with double bed for you at the bottom and top bunk for ds, with dd on sofa bed in lounge

@KatySun,

We have also moved beyond the point where fathers were considered optional extras, and bricks and mortar were considered more important than parental contact.

Let a court decide what is in the best interests of the children.

The ‘family home’ no longer exists post divorce, nor does ‘what the children have been used to’ as they have been used to both parents being together. ‘The children’s best interests’ is often used as a smoke screen for one parent’s best interests.

Anyway, OP should seek legal advice from a good family solicitor and take it from there.

Get a decent divorce solicitor. She doesn’t get to keep the house. You both get to share the assets you have accumulated which means up-to half of its value is yours . This is important as you will be able to find somewhere better to live meaning that the current place you are living in is only temporary. Her idea of keeping the house etc is very outdated. She will need to buy you out of it. Don’t be held to ransom by her or the house. Children are far more resilient than we give them credit for.

'We have also moved beyond the point where fathers were considered optional extras, and bricks and mortar were considered more important than parental contact.'

No-one is denying the importance of contact. Daily is best imo. That doesn't mean it's best to split the DC between two homes though. As you say, it's the contact not the bricks and mortar that counts right?

'Let a court decide what is in the best interests of the children.'

Really? You think the best outcome is to go to court and put the decision in the hands of someone who doesn't know anything about the DC, who doesn't have any personal interest in what's best for them?!

@NuffSaidSam,

It is best for two parents to agree in a fair way what is in the best interests of the children, having taken and considered professional advice.

If that does not happen, however, court is best placed to decide.

@twinningatlife, completely wrong.

Op, you are entitled to a share of the assets so that you can purchase an adequate property to house your children when they are with you. Finances and assets from the marriage are divided so that is possible for both parties.

It doesn't matter if she owned the house beforehand or if she has contributed more. You were married and as a result assets are joint.

I would advise you to seek legal advice. Not to make this hostile as that isn't in anyone's interests but if you are the weaker party financially your position will be protected.

I think you need to have adequate housing for your dc. It's not just a bedroom but they need space when with you to relax, do homework etc. This will only increase, especially the 7 year old

If your ex refuses to sell, there still needs to be a solution so that you can fund a house deposit (she might need re mortgage). What do you know about finances? Equity, savings, pensions?

Don't walk away without a housing solution as it will impact your relationship with your children. It's admirable that you want to remain amicable but equally your Ex needs to be amicable (and reasonable) and recognise you have housing needs.

'It is best for two parents to agree in a fair way what is in the best interests of the children, having taken and considered professional advice.

If that does not happen, however, court is best placed to decide.'

I can totally agree with that.

You seem to feel like bending to her terms re: housing is your penance for initiating the divorce.
But all you are doing is damaging your relationship with your children, which is unhealthy for them. You aren't making exW feel better about the split.
I think mediation is a good suggestion. This isn't fair on you but more importantly it isn't fair on the DC.
You probs need to consult a solicitor also because its possible that the court won't agree the financial consent order as its so unbalanced in her favour at the moment.

I guess another alternative is you look for a bigger place further away so you can have the kids over more easily

@Moolihooli

She's being very unfair about this, OP, you know she is.

I’m not sure she is being unfair. I agree that we need to do a lot more talking about what’s best for the children and that might mean she contributes to a bigger place (I’m currently renting) but she is doing her best in a difficult situation. She didn’t want to divorce and I know it is taking every ounce of her reasonable self to make it as smooth as possible for the kids. I have been struggling with MH for a few years and realised that our relationship was actually the cause of a lot of my anxiety and depression. We haven’t been happy together for a long time and have had a functional relationship for the sake of the kids but there has been no sex or intimacy since the youngest was born.

Unless there's a big drip feed that you were abusive, then this isn't a fair or reasonable outcome. Things are going smoothly because you're doing what she wants. It doesn't matter that the choice was yours, that doesn't effect what you are legally entitled too. Please go and see a specialist in family law, take any information you have in regards to assets and debts and timelines of purchases and marriage. If your stbxw earns significantly more than you I'd expect she has a larger pension too, any assets and debts on both sides need to be considered. You really need to get some legal advice and sort out the asset split and divorce. You both need to be able to house and care for your DC. Unless you left childcare and house care and earning all to your stbxw you've still contributed to the marriage, to your family.

OP as a divorced parent of 6 year old I would say it's vital you maintain overnights, even if it's just one/week. You need to stay present in your kids lives - both legally and emotionally - and especially considering your son's age, he's about to need his dad around to deal with him, and no nights/mornings would sever a bond you may not get back.

The seven year old is young enough to be told to agree to sharing a room with her dad - she needs to start to get used to that as one of the things that will change.

Get two single fold out mattresses/airbeds and then figure out who sleeps where - i suspect older boy in living room would work best, so the young one can go to sleep earlier in bedroom whilst you guys stay up

And please definitely get legal advice (PM me if you want recommendation for initial 90 min consultation) I married someone who earned more and paid for entire mortgage, I was entitled to half of it (and not because I'm female)

How about one of those arrangements where kids stay in the house and mum and dad move in and out when it's there turn.

@Moolihooli
You are almost certainly entitled to more assets from the divorce than you currently have, start with reading the link below

bevanevemy.co.uk/how-to-divide-assets-in-a-uk-divorce/

As a PP explains a court could force sale of the house to finance 2 suitable living arrangements, DO NOT let your stbex dictate terms to you, the law / courts are there to help you get a fair and equitable settlement no matter what she thinks or says, stay strong, get good legal advice and challenge whatever is offered, everything (houses, debts, cars, savings, pensions) are up for discussion,
Stay strong & Have a beer on me 🍻

You definitely need legal advice as their us a lot of incorrect information on this thread!

Please see a solicitor
But you most definitely need to factor in overnights

@twinningatlife

Unfortunately the previous posters are a little off the mark - whilst that is what the law strictly says it's generally geared towards protecting the mother with lower earnings potential and wanting to stay inThe family home with the children..... Ie preventing a father, traditionally earning more forcing the mother out with the children

In this case it's not

No way in the world is a judge going to force the wife who has bought and paid for the house and living their with the children to sell the family home and split assets..... unless the OP can demonstrate that they have actually paid towards the mortgage and house costs all these years

That's way off the mark. The courts don't automatically favour women, where on earth did you get this idea? It's not the 1980's!

@NuffSaidSam

'Would you say it about families who go to ‘the country’ most weekends?

Always ask this, rarely get an answer…'

Yes.

Although I think weekends only is less disruptive than doing a week about or half the week in each house and that applies to both divorced families and people with country homes etc.

I don't think it's ideal for children to be away from home every weekend. Particularly where facilitating this requires them losing their family home.

I think the ideal scenario is to keep stability at home whilst also ensuring as close to daily contact as possible with both parents. It sounds like that's what the OP has. In that scenario I think the overnights are not as important as some people make out.

Calling something the "family home" is an attempt to imbue it with some sort of sacred value. There will be two new houses, and then they will become the family homes. Sheesh, I never hear this when families are moving house - "but the children will lose their family hoooommmme". It's manipulative and disingenuous, and used as a tool by women who want to get the better deal from a divorce.

'Calling something the "family home" is an attempt to imbue it with some sort of sacred value.'

No it's not. It's shorthand for 'the home where they are currently living and settled'.

'It's manipulative and disingenuous, and used as a tool by women who want to get the better deal from a divorce.'

As I said earlier, my views on this are based on being a child of divorce. I've not been divorced myself. Whilst this may be true for some people, it's not a fair statement that everyone who has this opinion is a manipulative, disingenuous woman. Some people just have different views to you and some of those people may even be men!

I personally think it's important to have the overnights as this includes the normal routine times like bedtime and mornings, which parenting is built on. I also firmly believe its quantity and not quality that maintains connection - children don't really know what to do with' quality time' with parents and that just engenders issues like Disney dad, whereas just being around each other and allowing space for those moments and conversations as needed, is irreplaceable.

My two dc are subjected to two homes, in fact we call them home1 and home2, and they're just fine. They miss the other parent when not there, but they quite like having two bedrooms etc. What is most important we've discovered, is predictability and consistency. We do week on week off.

Will your ex contemplate mediation?

Moving between homes is stressful, getting used to new beds, forgetting where you are in the night, making sure you packed everything you need, different rules at each house, relationships to pick back up, being further away from friends. It's all awful and no fault of the children. If the op was miserable and wanted a fulfilling love life that's up to them but they shouldn't disrupt the children's lives any more than they have to.
Some of these suggestions are so grim - tent in the lounge? They have a perfectly good home and can see both their parents without the stress of overnight stays. Their wellbeing needs to come first.

@NuffSaidSam

'Calling something the "family home" is an attempt to imbue it with some sort of sacred value.'

No it's not. It's shorthand for 'the home where they are currently living and settled'.

'It's manipulative and disingenuous, and used as a tool by women who want to get the better deal from a divorce.'

As I said earlier, my views on this are based on being a child of divorce. I've not been divorced myself. Whilst this may be true for some people, it's not a fair statement that everyone who has this opinion is a manipulative, disingenuous woman. Some people just have different views to you and some of those people may even be men!

So would you feel this het up about a family moving house?