Non-mol… red flag?

[babysnark1]

So I recently reconnected with a man that I knew quite a few years ago. In the meantime we both got married and had a child and then split up with partners.

He’s still going through divorce and family court. I’ve been split up for longer than him and have been single a few years so been there and done that. It doesn’t put me off as such that he’s going through it having been there myself.

We don’t talk much about it as it’s early days, but he did mention recently that his ex has now applied for a non-molestation order and is alleging emotional abuse.

I had already done a Clare’s law (just past experience) and that came back with nothing.

I haven’t had any issue with him at all, I’ve been enjoying dating him, we have fun together, he’s been kind to me, helpful etc.

But the mention of the non-mol keeps playing on my mind.

His side is that he wants to settle everything amicably, sell the house, split it all fairly, same with the child arrangements but it’s his ex disputing everything (I know this is on his side of course!).

They have an informal agreement with their child but she’s often stopping him from seeing their child so he’s had to start family court proceedings to get it set up more formally.

I do really like him, but is this a massive red flag? They’ve been separated over a year now and as far as I know he hasn’t been dating.

@Borededthis is not me defending him in particular but just my own knowledge and experience of divorce. I thought mesher orders were incredibly rare?

The child is around 3. The marriage was around 3 years. There are no disabilities/special needs etc. Mum worked previously to the marriage and from what I understand no reason why she couldn’t work again. Both are young and able bodied.

He is not a high earner. It doesn’t seem fair to me to tie him into to paying the mortgage for the next 15 years? At the moment he is living with his brother, he cannot afford to rent on his own due to still funding the family home and other costs.

He couldn’t afford on his salary to continue paying for the family home and get somewhere for himself to live. From what he is told me he is looking to try and increase his earnings etc. both parties should be able to house themselves and their child surely?

My ex husband was a significantly higher earner than me. After the divorce I can afford only a much smaller home than he can, he earns more than me so can get a bigger mortgage. It was sad for me for our child to have to leave our family home and go to something “less”, I don’t know any divorced people who haven’t had the same experience unless they were particularly high earners themselves and could afford to buy the other party out.

I wouldn’t be dating someone who’s so freshly split from their partner and in the thick of it. Step back and reconnect once it’s all done. This isn’t a good foundation to start a relationship on. Stress, arguments and legal battles.

When I got divorced the solicitor said he'd get me the house. I said it wasn't what I wanted. He couldn't understand but I said why would I want me and the kids living in our nice four bed house and then going to spend time with dad in a grotty bedsit. He couldn't answer me. We had an amicable divorce we weren't friends but no aggro. One of my adult kids said he was so glad he'd never heard either of us saying anything bad about the other unlike many of his friends with divorced parents. We both bought small three bed houses in the same area, some things are more 8mportant that money or winning. Of course I worked but maybe the ex could do the same.

No sorry, I might not have been totally clear, he wouldn’t pay the mortgage. She would make the payments and he would gain equity. She pays the full mortgage in lieu of rent to him for his share

I don’t know how rare or not these agreements are, I just think that for some it is useful, particularly in the situation where separately they may be unable to get mortgages and would have to rent, or where receiving money from sale would effectively mean all income was lost. I suspect more have to be voluntary rather than court ordered.

However it is most definitely not suitable for all, and it entirely depends on the situation itself, and the position that both parties are in. In terms of working I agree she should return to work, but even still she may have been eligible for a UC top up etc which could be lost if holding a big sum of money from house sale.

But if the house hasn’t been held for long then I guess not much equity anyway so best him getting his half so he has a deposit ready should he wish to buy again.