Chances of 5050 here?

[NoSuchBass]

Hello all,

I'd be grateful of some advice.

I have 3 children 8,9,10 and their dad has requested 5050 through family court. We've lived apart for 18 months.

I have a Section 7 CAFCASS Report coming up in June.

My reading of current family court rulings is of a court system hell bent on assigning 5050 to dads, regardless of the dreadful outcomes for the children.

I can't afford a solicitor so am arguing my own case at S7 stage.

I'm feeling increasingly preoccupied with the real possibility he could end up with 5050 granted.

What do we think are the chances in this scenario, and any advice for me to strengthen my case?

1. Dad currently does Monday evenings, with 2/3 children choosing to come home to sleep, so I pick them up at bedtime.
2. He lives with his parents, 20 mins away, our oldest has to sleep in his bed or on the floor (hence she chooses to come home)
3. He's unemployed: I've been very honest with court that his job has always been selling drugs. He's been known to police for 25 years. He comes across very professional in person though. He's private educated and family are wealthy, very white middle class. He's well spoken and well dressed in public.
4. Separation occured due to years of control and domestic violence including strangulation, usually in presence of the children.
5. He does no family admin, doesn't know their friends, no medical appts, no hobbies, no contact aside from Monday evening
6. He refuses to pay for hobbies, school dinners, trips etc even on 'his day', arguing my CMS should cover expenses 7 days a week
7. Drug and alcohol testing confirmed excessive alcohol usage
8. He's obstructed the sale of the family home, necessitating an Order for Sale
9. I have an NMO and Occupation Order for the home.

10. There's numerous examples of emotional blackmail of the children, engineering separation between them and me, and disrespectful talk about me. 11. He wasn't present for the 9 years he was at home: we holidayed, did trips, did bedtime, homework etc without him. He was at the pub. 12. He's ignored repeated letters from me about the children's emotional fragility and need for stability, or replied briefly saying he 'doesnt agree' 13. He rarely replies to messages or calls, or if he does, it's hours later 14. He doesn't have a normal phone because drug dealer so he only communicates on a parenting app on his tablet 15. Early CAFCASS report advised no overnight stays

He does, however:

1. Pay CMS
2. Have wealthy family in a naice area
3. Very good at arguing what he will do (he won't...)
4. No conviction for DV because by the time I was brave enough to go to police, I was out of the CPS prosecution window for each offence. No photos, no injuries, no evidence
5. He lives close enough to school and has started going to parents evenings
6. I have no family around
7. He does, I'm afraid, have lots of cross, shouty emails from me, usually chasing (futile) payment for a hobby, football boots, or asking him to sign a form.
8. I can't prove that the children's emotional upset is due to their dad's behaviour. He could even say it's due to my keeping them away from him!

In the meantime of course, I've just carried on doing everything. The kids are clean, fed, happy, attend school, socially and academically comfortable, settled, they get emotional support at school when they need it, they have hobbies, playdates, medically tended to, I own their home, run a car, have a child psychology degree, I'm employed, can WFH, no wraparound needed, no social life! no debt, boring boring.

His main argument to have 5050 appears to be that the children have a right to see their dad as much as mum. I think he's also arguing that I am obstructive. I see it more that I'm more protecting our children from the mayhem and fear he brings to their life.

1 child hates seeing him, sobs every Sunday evening, horrendous.
1 child doesn't mind, but likes to come home again.
1 child is really indifferent, but I think would struggle with any more contact.
I'm arguing for contact to remain the same.

I don't want to be in a false sense of security here when actually, a board of magistrates could happily waive away all my concerns as unfounded.

What can I possibly say to explain the harm of 5050 here? I can't see how a court just would not care that he has no income with a history of organised crime, yet pays CMS and mortgage (when relevant), nowhere to live, DV history, and not engaged in their lives.

The emotional harm is my main concern. How do you even demonstrate emotional harm!?

Would they still assign out 5050 in this case?

I wouldn’t assume 50/50 is inevitable at all, particularly where there are safeguarding concerns, a history of domestic abuse, substance misuse concerns, unsuitable sleeping arrangements, limited current care, and children already showing distress around contact.

Family court is supposed to make decisions based on welfare, not parental “rights” or a mathematical idea of fairness. The question is not “does Dad deserve equal time?” but “what arrangement best meets the children’s emotional, physical and safeguarding needs?”

For the Section 7, I would try to keep everything very calm, factual and child-focused. Avoid trying to prove he is a bad person in a broad sense and instead evidence the practical impact on the children. For example:

Current pattern: he currently only manages Monday evenings and even then 2 of the 3 children often return home to sleep.

Practical care: sleeping arrangements, lack of involvement in school/medical/admin/hobbies, communication delays, lack of day-to-day parenting history.

Safeguarding: NMO, occupation order, any police information, alcohol/drug testing, previous Cafcass recommendation of no overnights, and any evidence of controlling behaviour or domestic abuse.

Children’s lived experience: distress before contact, wanting to come home, emotional presentation after contact, school support, any neutral observations from school or professionals.

Stability: the children are settled, attending school, socially and academically okay, with routines, hobbies, medical care and emotional support already in place.

I would also be careful not to frame it as “I oppose 50/50 because of him” but rather “I do not believe a move to 50/50 is in the children’s welfare interests at this stage because the current evidence shows they are not emotionally or practically ready for it, and there are unresolved safeguarding and stability concerns.”

It may also help to propose something constructive rather than just saying no. For example, you could say contact should remain as it is for now, with any increase being gradual, child-led, and dependent on safe sleeping arrangements, engagement with school/medical matters, reliable communication, and evidence that the children are coping emotionally.

On the shouty emails, I would own that calmly if raised: “I accept some of my communications were frustrated in tone. They arose in the context of trying to secure practical matters for the children. I am now committed to communicating in a calmer, child-focused way.” That takes some of the sting out of it.

The emotional harm point is best shown through examples rather than conclusions: dates/times of distress, what each child said or did, whether school noticed, whether bedtime/sleep/appetite changed, whether they sought reassurance, and whether the distress is repeated and linked to contact. A short chronology can be powerful.

No one can guarantee the outcome, but on what you’ve written, this does not sound like an obvious 50/50 case. The main thing is to keep your evidence organised, avoid emotive language where possible, and focus relentlessly on welfare, stability, safeguarding and the children’s actual experience.

It’s not inevitable but without any legal proof of your various claims they are just that and he could counter that they are false. The children’s wishes are listened to but it’s essential that the authorities do not have any reason to suspect you of parental alienation, that will damage your case.

Assuming there’s no suspicion that is harmful to his dc, your best approach is to suggest any changes from current circumstances are gradual and child led with annual reviews (or more frequently if the dc wish) and that with the increased contact he needs to be paying for all activities, school dinners, clothing etc on his contact days.

mentioning criminal past is also something to do carefully because unless convicted

Why did you have 3 kids with someone you know is a drug dealer.

Oh, well, yno. Because we're all flawed human beings. We make poor choices sometimes.

And also because I loved him. It was just his job. He went to work, he came home.
He was, and still is, more than what he does to make money.
I don't think anybody is all bad, him included.

I obviously wouldn't make the same decision now.

Also many personal reasons regarding my own expectations of the role of a father.

Just, standard imperfect, emotional, human decisions, sorry.

Thank you for this amazing advice. Yes totally can do that re what is best for them rather than any negation from their father.

hi i found this for you on chatgpt the main thing is to not act emotional make your main concern about your childrens welfare. at their ages i am sure they would have a say. the girl sleeping in same room is not right and i am sure children are meant to have their own space i have added below what i found but recommend using chatgpt First: nothing in what you’ve written sounds like a straightforward “automatic 50/50” case.
There is a lot online about courts “defaulting” to shared care, but in England and Wales the legal test is still the children’s welfare, not parental equality. The court is supposed to look at the actual children in front of them, their emotional wellbeing, safety, stability, wishes and feelings, and each parent’s ability to meet needs.
And importantly: “parental involvement” in law does not mean equal time.
You already have several things that courts and Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) typically take seriously:

• findings/orders relating to domestic abuse (especially strangulation)
• an existing non-molestation order and occupation order
• previous CAFCASS concern about overnight stays
• evidence of alcohol misuse
• children showing distress around contact
• lack of suitable sleeping arrangements
• limited history of hands-on parenting
• instability around employment/lifestyle
• failure to co-parent effectively

That does not guarantee an outcome, but it absolutely does not read like a routine “give dad 50/50” situation. A few important points that may help ground this a bit:

1. Courts do not usually jump from one evening a week to 50/50 overnight care

Especially where:

• there has never been a shared-care pattern before
• children are struggling emotionally
• there are safeguarding concerns
• one parent has not demonstrated consistent practical caregiving

Courts generally look for stability and gradual progression.

1. Emotional harm is recognised — but you present it through observable facts

You do not need to “prove” emotional harm like a criminal case. The strongest evidence is usually:

• specific examples
• patterns
• contemporaneous records
• third-party observations

For example:

• “Child cries every Sunday and says X”
• school emotional support involvement
• sleep disruption
• regression/anxiety
• stomach aches before contact
• child returning distressed
• pressure/loyalty conflicts
• disrespectful comments about mum
• children asking to come home early
• lack of beds/private space

Those are concrete and child-focused. What weakens cases in family court is when it sounds like: “He’s a terrible person.” What strengthens them is: “This specific behaviour is affecting the children in these specific ways.” That distinction matters enormously.

1. The court will care much more about parenting capacity than social class or polish

Family courts see articulate, persuasive people every day. A well-spoken parent who:

• cannot provide stable care,
• minimises abuse,
• cannot emotionally support the children,
• cannot cooperate,
• has substance misuse concerns,
• or places children in emotional conflict

can absolutely still have limited arrangements. You do not need to “out-perform” him socially.

1. Be very careful not to frame this as “children shouldn’t see dad”

Your strongest position is probably:

• you support a safe relationship with their father,
• but arrangements must match the children’s emotional needs and current reality,
• and major increases should only happen if he demonstrates sustained, child-focused parenting capacity.

That sounds protective rather than obstructive. The court tends to respond better to: “I support meaningful contact that is safe and emotionally sustainable.” than: “I want it to stay exactly as it is forever.”

1. Your Section 7 interview is probably the most important stage right now

CAFCASS officers are often highly influential. Try to stay:

• calm,
• factual,
• child-centred,
• concise.

Avoid:

• long character assassinations,
• speculation,
• moral judgments.

Focus on:

• routines
• emotional impact
• practical realities
• children’s expressed experiences
• safeguarding concerns
• stability
• what you believe the children can realistically manage emotionally

A very effective structure is: “My concern is not about punishing their father or excluding him. My concern is that the children are already struggling emotionally with the current arrangement, and a sudden move to shared care would be destabilising and distressing for them.” That is a strong, reasonable position.

1. The children’s wishes can matter — especially the 10-year-old

The court will not simply let children “choose,” but:

• an older child consistently resisting overnight contact,
• or becoming distressed,
• can carry weight.

Particularly if CAFCASS believes the feelings are authentic and not coached. Do not pressure them to say things. Just let them speak freely.

1. Your angry emails are unlikely to destroy your case

Many separating parents send emotional messages. What matters more is:

• overall pattern,
• whether you facilitate reasonable contact,
• whether communication is child-focused,
• whether you appear able to support the children’s relationship with him safely.

You sound exhausted rather than malicious. Still:

• stop sending emotional/chasing messages now if possible,
• keep everything short and factual,
• assume every message will be read by CAFCASS or a judge.

1. You do not need to prove organised crime to resist 50/50

I would actually advise caution here. Unless you have concrete evidence, repeated references to “drug dealer” can distract from the stronger points. Your strongest evidence is already:

• the children’s actual experience,
• domestic abuse history,
• emotional impact,
• lack of caregiving history,
• housing/sleeping arrangements,
• alcohol findings,
• instability,
• prior CAFCASS concerns.

Those are tangible.

1. What outcome is realistically possible?

Nobody can predict family court outcomes with certainty. But from what you describe, the possibilities are more likely to be things like:

• maintaining current contact,
• gradual increase,
• alternate weekends plus midweek,
• supported progression,
• conditions around sleeping arrangements/alcohol,
• review periods,
• parenting expectations,

rather than an immediate hard switch to equal shared care. Especially if:

• one child is openly distressed,
• overnight arrangements are poor,
• and there is domestic abuse history.

Practical things you can do now

• Keep a calm factual diary:
• dates
• distress
• missed communications
• returns home early
• practical issues
• Gather school evidence if appropriate:
• emotional support involvement
• attendance
• pastoral concerns
• Keep messages child-focused only
• Prepare a concise chronology
• Focus on the children’s needs, not his morality
• Think about what arrangement would feel safe and sustainable rather than only “no change ever”

You come across as very frightened that the court simply will not care. But the facts you’ve described are exactly the kind of welfare and safeguarding factors courts are supposed to examine carefully. A Section 7 report is not a rubber stamp for 50/50 care.

I think your counter argument is if he wants to build up more time with them he should do that during the school holidays and leave their school night routines as is

Read a book
how to annihilate a narcissist in the family court