Op. Well done on getting the ball rolling. And re solicitors (good solicitors ) having same day availability? Good firms will always try and ensure someone is free to take new client calls within a day. As much as existing business is important, so too are getting new clients. Obviously smaller firms have less leeway but in larger firms it is easier.
For me, the sign of a good lawyer is someone who is pushing you the mediation route vs the court route immediately. What this lawyer should be advising is that a response goes out to her ASAP suggesting mediation as a first step and the assumption is that the 2 week holiday will be going ahead with no issues.
Mediation (not court) has to be the first step. Now the lawyer will also possibly discuss an emergency application order to the family court to ensure the holiday goes ahead. There are pros and cons to this approach. Namely cost, but it can also increase conflict between parties and judges take a dim view of people showing up without mediation having been attempted.
In terms of mediation, I would also suggest that is includes the financial bucket. As I said before, there are three aspects to divorce. The child arrangements (that do not need to go near a court), the one off capital carve and spousal maintenance. Mediation can cover all of them. And again, a judge (either in the financial hearings or child related hearings) will want to see proof that mediation was attempted.
Prior to mediation, your DP should work with his lawyer to understand what he wants to achieve. His STBEW will do the same. The job of the mediator is to explain the law (and therefore whether either persons expectations are ridiculous) but also to get both parties to a middle ground of compromise.
An application to court (on either the financials or a CAO) should only progress if mediation has failed and a mediator supplies the c100.
Re the financials? The little info you have supplied re what he is prepared to pay? Sheer stupidity. Sorry but it is.
He can absolutely allow them to stay in the family home, but that should expire when the youngest is a certain age by which time he should be able to retrieve his investment from it. You don’t say if the house is owned outright however or if he has a mortgage he is paying on it. Because a decision like that will have ramifications on him being able to purchase another home (as I said depends on whether he has a mortgage on it).
Regards the savings? Well he is a parent too and he can also have the money in his name for his children. And he should have the money in his name. Once they are divorced there is zero guarantee what that money will be spent on. I have seen cases where the money has been awarded to buy a new family home and the ex spouse has ripped through the money in a matter of years (cars/ holidays / clothes/ lifestyle/ no home), causing said ex spouse to come back for more money (yes, it happens more often than people think).
Which brings me onto point 3. Clean break. I didn’t notice the age of the children but a very important provision (if he is going to be this financially generous) is that he at least gets a clean break from his ex wife. It does what is says on the tin and stops potential future claims happening in the event that there are a change of circumstances.
My advice? It’s good to stay amicable as possible on the child front and come to an agreement amicably away from the courts. Courts are expensive, conflict fuelling but worse of all can trap the children in the middle of very nasty proceedings.
Financials? Be generous if he wishes, but if he’s going to be generous, he gets his clean break as a minimum.