Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Fuming

38 replies

opheliatickle · 01/07/2018 20:01

Just been told by two men on a single parenting fb page that I should leave my 5mo and 2.5yr old with their dad in the family home because I don't want to live with him anymore after he has ended our relationship but he refuses to move out unless he gets 50/50 equity. I am still breastfeeding and cosleeping with my children and they think this would be in the child's best interests?!

I am just so sick of these MRAs who can give you chapter and verse about their rights but care nothing of their responsibilities.

They think they can just treat women as rentawombs, totally disregarding the physical and emotional dynamics of a mother-child bond. It makes me sick.

What makes it worse is that other women on the page were Liking their comments.

With the way the laws are around child access these days a man is actually favoured over the mother of his children if they are unmarried. Another erasure is women's rights and women's biology.

OP posts:
Original poster
opheliatickle · 01/07/2018 20:02

*of

OP posts:
Gronky · 01/07/2018 20:29

Perhaps, if you are looking for advice, a bit more information about the situation regarding the ownership of the family home would be helpful.

If you are looking exclusively for support then I apologise in advance for prying.

heresyandwitchcraft · 01/07/2018 20:31

I can't really comment on the intricacies of your situation. However, I do think that you ought to look into your legal rights, and defend them as much as you can. I wish you the best of luck, as you sound like a mother who really CARES. And bless you for that.

Original poster
opheliatickle · 01/07/2018 20:47

Thanks Smile

I'm not looking for advice, I'm doing lots of research and that's probably why I'm so wound up about how Singleton mothers are penalised financially in cohabitation arrangements and how men are able to just demand 50.50 now as default, even when the children are so young.

It's no wonder that women have to 'go low' and bring emotional abuse into it in order to get legal aid to secure the family home for their children.

Even then we risk involving services, with the further undermining of our natural role as primary carer.

Sometimes I think all this MR/ trans activist stuff etc is all about destroying women to clear the way for the liberalisation of exploitation of the ones that women protect: children.

Or maybe I'm just a mad crazy paranoid radfem - not born but made that way.

You never realise just how few rights you have as a woman until you have children.

OP posts:
Original poster
opheliatickle · 01/07/2018 20:58

So yeah..: I guess I'm looking for support and to let off steam AngryAngryAngry

OP posts:
heresyandwitchcraft · 01/07/2018 21:02

You never realise just how few rights you have as a woman until you have children.
This is exactly right, as sad as it sounds, in my view. But I extend this to all females. You are not being paranoid, or wondering about anything.
OP- You've totally GOT THIS!

PeakPants · 01/07/2018 21:40

From a legal point of view, I can assure you that no court would think it was appropriate to separate the children from their primary carer.

Have you sought legal advice? Yes, TLATA which is the act governing co-ownership of the family home would often mean a sale for him to get his 50% share, but Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 provides financial remedies that can be applied for for the benefit of the children, including asking that the home be transferred to you with sale at a future date, if that is the only way of you providing a roof over their heads. You can join a TLATA claim with a Schedule 1 claim. You do need legal advice though- these claims can be tricky.

But yes, provision for cohabitants is dire and of course women are worst affected due to their caring responsibilities.

Original poster
opheliatickle · 01/07/2018 22:42

Thank you PeakPants for your very helpful advice.

I was told by my solicitor (during a free consultation) that a Schedule 1 would set me back circa £20k. I understand you can fill out the forms yourself but Confused! That's what solicitors get paid loads for. Even though I work with contracts and schedules in my job I would still be very nervous.

I don't think I have the stomach to go down the legal aid route. I would have to apply for a non-mol and even though there has been what could be described as emotional abuse over the years, it doesn't sit well with me.

I can provide a roof over their heads with 50% equity but I can't claim benefits with it sitting in the bank and I only work part time. The pressure is on to buy a new place if we sell and it won't be very nice on the budget I will be left with... still it might be the best way.

I never thought I would one day be an advocate of marriage. You think it's all about romance when you're young. Then you learn.

OP posts:
PeakPants · 01/07/2018 22:58

Marriage, or legislation to protect cohabitants who suffer financial disadvantage as a result of the relationship (by giving up job, going p/t, being primary carer). Not everyone will get married and some cocklodging guys refuse to marry their partners, even after stringing them along for years with empty promises. I don't think they should be allowed to get away with profiting from this sort of situation, married or not.

Yes, you are right- these claims are not cheap at all and even if you did get legal aid, the Legal Aid Agency would put an interest-accruing charge on your half of the house for all the legal fees and you would need to repay them when the house was sold. You could possibly get a litigation loan if you don't get legal aid, but again, you need to weigh up whether it is worth it in terms of what you will end up with. To stay in the house, you would also normally have to show that you could pay the mortgage payments by yourself every month.

If you can afford to buy on your own with 50% and can afford a mortgage, I would probably do that even if it means downsizing a bit. It does suck though. I think in cases like this, where one person has a reduced earning capacity as a result of the relationship, they should be given an enhanced share or even the home outright if they can pay the mortgage. I don't actually feel too sorry for the poor menz whose careers will have been totally unaffected by having a family. They can save for a deposit and be homeowners within 2 years or so again. Some women, even if they get half, will never get on the property ladder again if they have reduced earning capacity and caring responsibilities. They may have to rent all their lives, including into retirement and live their lives with the threat of being kicked out with 2 months notice hanging over them. It's so shitty.

WhereDoWeBeginToCovetClarice · 01/07/2018 23:01

Something about this OP gets my F4J spidey-senses tingling.

TittyGolightly · 01/07/2018 23:03

My BIL had to go to court to get access to his son when he split from his ex.

Baby was under a year and breastfed so the court ordered short visits of an hour or 2 2-3 times a week initially. Once child was over 1 (but still breastfed) he was allowed contact for whole days but not nights, at 18 months 1 overnight and by 24 months every other weekend.

I don’t know why you think your 2.5 year old shouldn’t have meaningful contact with their father. The 5 month old should have shorter visits as outlined above. Otherwise, what if you feed them both till they’re 7? You can’t argue that they need it nutritionally by that age.

WhereDoWeBeginToCovetClarice · 01/07/2018 23:03

It's no wonder that women have to 'go low' and bring emotional abuse into it in order to get legal aid to secure the family home for their children.

Who the fuck says women have to do that?

PeakPants · 01/07/2018 23:05

Something about this OP gets my F4J spidey-senses tingling

It does raise an important feminist issue though which is how unmarried women are treated under the law, particularly when they have children.

The bit about child contact is obviously a bit dubious but surely F4J would say the mothers are being favoured, not fathers? I didn't get a troll sense about it, but maybe I am out of touch.

PeakPants · 01/07/2018 23:07

Who the fuck says women have to do that?

They do, sadly. In 2013, nearly all family legal aid was abolished other than where there are allegations of domestic abuse. It has led to people feeling pressured into making allegations, and those need to be evidenced by a NMO or a police report or similar. It's pretty dreadful actually.

WhereDoWeBeginToCovetClarice · 01/07/2018 23:08

surely F4J would say the mothers are being favoured, not fathers?

Not while they are trying to reel you in.

PeakPants · 01/07/2018 23:08

Titty I think the OP was more concerned about the house and she was angry that she had been told that she could move out and leave the kids with her ex. I didn't get the impression she was planning on denying him any contact.

TittyGolightly · 01/07/2018 23:09

Even then we risk involving services, with the further undermining of our natural role as primary carer.

Hmm
Original poster
opheliatickle · 01/07/2018 23:10

@WhereDoWeBeginToCovetClarice I can assure you I have nothing to do with F4J.

I have just been trolled on fb by two of their specimens for suggesting that, as a woman, I should be able to stay in the family home with my 2 young children. They could not see why a mother of a 5mo baby should not hand her children over to their dad and simply leave.

OP posts:
PeakPants · 01/07/2018 23:11

Not while they are trying to reel you in

Okay, maybe I am not as familiar with their techniques. She is absolutely right about the legal aid point, so even if it's a troll, I am glad the point has been made- women are being pressured to make allegations to even have a hope of securing legal aid. It's particularly hard where it is emotional abuse because often there is no evidence to corroborate and the LAA will just refuse to believe women. It urgently needs reform and restoration of access to justice. So many people are being failed.

WhereDoWeBeginToCovetClarice · 01/07/2018 23:12

Well I may be wrong or we may be building up to a gotcha! Let's see.

PeakPants · 01/07/2018 23:14

Yes, Titty I disliked that too. Women are nearly always the primary carer, but it's a socially constructed role to a large extent.

Original poster
opheliatickle · 01/07/2018 23:14

No gotchas here Halo

OP posts:
Original poster
opheliatickle · 01/07/2018 23:18

I feel I am the natural primary carer to my children because I carried them, birthed them, breastfeed them... it's a cliche and a double edged sword, I know, but to say otherwise I feel would diminish the importance of the mother child bond, afaic.

I never said I wanted to stop contact with the children's father. Only that I would like to stay in the family home with them, the home he won't leave.

I suppose it's just hard luck really, he wants the same financial deal as me in order to provide a home for the children 50% of the time, however, he is also staying part time to keep his options open.

OP posts:
Amalfimamma · 01/07/2018 23:24

WhereDoWeBeginToCovetClarice i dont know if it's -f4j- or something else but up has got my 6th sense for trouble paying attention

Original poster
opheliatickle · 01/07/2018 23:26

Maybe it's just my hyperbolic writing style?

The post I got trolled on had the comments closed by the page admin, somebody reported it because it 'went too far.'

I don't mean to cause trouble, I think I'm just a bit dramatic...

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.