Divorce query.

[Xordium]

I wondered whether someone here may know this eg semi-pro. I've just had a call from a friend - well more an acquaintance at work - whose husband shall we say is not exactly the best character (ie rhythms with what you drop from a ship to stop it moving). She has confronted him over getting a divorce.

Now here is the part I don't really know about. She gave up work to look after their child who I think is about 5 (looks about that anyway) but she now works part-time (not a lot of income). He works and has done throughout. She thinks because she has been the main carer (she can demonstrate that and it is documented) she would get the lion's share of custody but would like to arrange fair and amicable visitation etc and plans to work therefore is happy to have a clean financial break. Now here is where he has dropped the bombshell - has has said he will quit work and wants full custody but extending cordial visitation rights and will seek maintenance to support that decision.

Now moving the gender aside here as I don't think it is relevant or indeed should be. Can he actually just do that? My understanding is no but tbh I don't want to even got there and haven't other than the "well you need to speak to a solicitor sharpish". This is more for my curiosity than anything.

 

[spudbynight]

Yes he can do this. Whether a court will grant it to him is another thing, they might.

I would counsel against any involvement with letterboxes.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The court historically always side with the mother, it takes something out of ordinary to change that.

 

[Brenn47]

Exactly the same happened to my friend, it's ALL about the benefits. Her ex insists on having the kids 4 days a week, even though the children don't want to stay there, but it's all about the benefits and tax credits!

They kids 11 and 13 have told him they don't want to stay there, but he won't budge in the 4 days a week... because he'd lose money!

 

[Xordium]

Yes he can do this. Whether a court will grant it to him is another thing, they might.

I would counsel against any involvement with letterboxes.

Congratulations on being the first person to suggest letterboxes!

TBH the bloke is that much of a little pig in the litter I'd rather just punch him. But I know that won't exactly help matters.

The court historically always side with the mother, it takes something out of ordinary to change that.

Yep, traditionally it has but they are allegedly gender neutral now (I'll keep my personal opinions out of this). I was wondering if there is actual legal guidance on this because irrespective of gender and let's play it the other way - even if a woman did this it would be deliberate sabotage of the potential earnings available for the child.

 

[MrMoonX]

She can do what she likes with regards to contact (there is no child custody in the UK) it will up to the non-resident parent to take it to court to get a child arrangements order. Divorce is a separate process now. The court will act in the best interests of the child

 

[Xordium]

Exactly the same happened to my friend, it's ALL about the benefits. Her ex insists on having the kids 4 days a week, even though the children don't want to stay there, but it's all about the benefits and tax credits!

They kids 11 and 13 have told him they don't want to stay there, but he won't budge in the 4 days a week... because he'd lose money!

So he had a job and quit it to get that agreement? Or was he always unemployed?

 

[Xordium]

She can do what she likes with regards to contact (there is no child custody in the UK) it will up to the non-resident parent to take it to court to get a child arrangements order. Divorce is a separate process now

Argh forgot you'd know most likely know this.

So in this respect would his actions enhance his chance of becoming the resident parent or would it cast his actions in a bad light?

 

[MrMoonX]

Argh forgot you'd know most likely know this.

So in this respect would his actions enhance his chance of becoming the resident parent or would it cast his actions in a bad light?

There's nothing to stop either parent taking the child to live with them as they both have parental responsibility. It will be up to the other to make an application to the court. I would suggest that it would be more likely to be in the child's best interests that they stay with their current primary carer i.e mum. In any case the courts would much rather prefer the parents to sort it out amongst themselves using mediation.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Unless he works full time in a low paying job with no career advancement/prospects and she gave up a career as for instance a lawyer or doctor and is now back doing that part time and can easily move full time then he hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell.

If he didn't want to be the primary carer before then why would divorce change that.

 

[Xordium]

Thank you everyone for your input so far.

There's nothing to stop either parent taking the child to live with them as they both have parental responsibility. It will be up to the other to make an application to the court. I would suggest that it would be more likely to be in the child's best interests that they stay with their current primary carer i.e mum. In any case the courts would much rather prefer the parents to sort it out amongst themselves using mediation.

And if he was a complete Richard and would only want custody on his terms to fit around his work schedule (doctor - yer I know before you say it ). Basically he has threatened this before and his argument was I will have them when I am not working and to me that seems pretty daft because fitting around his soooo important schedule is what has driven these two apart.

If he didn't want to be the primary carer before then why would divorce change that.

Yep, that is my feeling too. Incidentally they both had good jobs (above average wage prior) only he does now.

 

[MrMoonX]

Thank you everyone for your input so far.


And if he was a complete Richard and would only want custody on his terms to fit around his work schedule (doctor - yer I know before you say it ). Basically he has threatened this before and his argument was I will have them when I am not working and to me that seems pretty daft because fitting around his soooo important schedule is what has driven these two apart.



Yep, that is my feeling too. Incidentally they both had good jobs (above average wage prior) only he does now.

She can dictate whatever CONTACT she looks pretty much, it's up to him to challenge, although as he's a parent with PR there is nothing to stop him taking the child anyway. They are much better just sorting this out without the expense of court as I doubt she will be able to afford a solicitor and all the associated costs. She will only qualify for legal aid if there is documented proof of domestic abuse

 

[Xordium]

Didn't they make the decision together..? It's not as though it was all sunshine for him, whilst she made a massive sacrifice... he had to work, whilst his partner got to spend significantly more time with their child. Clearly she made the sacrifice of giving up work/limited her progress in her career to care for the child, but he also made a sacrifice.

And now, with the divorce, her sacrifice can be rebalanced (to an extent) with how the assets will be split, unless she opts to not bother.

Yep, I get that argument. But he fully agreed at that time to not be the main caregiver and therefore can he just renege on his verbal (and provable) agreement now?

She can dictate whatever CONTACT she looks pretty much, it's up to him to challenge, although as he's a parent with PR there is nothing to stop him taking the child anyway. They are much better just sorting this out without the expense of court as I doubt she will be able to afford a solicitor and all the associated costs. She will only qualify for legal aid if there is documented proof of domestic abuse

No, he isn't that much of a richard to the best of my knowledge.

Man this stuff is so awful. I feel for them - I can see both sides. I am hoping he'll calm down and see she is in my eyes being reasonable - gaining custody and offering a clean financial break. However, he doesn't like coming second at anything ... I am not sure he has the kid's best interest at heart and more his perception that if he doesn't get custody he will be seen as a failure as a father etc and that will impact the professional image. Like I said he's a richard.

As for the costs you are correct the lack of agreement will add to them considerably.

 

[MrMoonX]

Yep, I get that argument. But he fully agreed at that time to not be the main caregiver and therefore can he just renege on his verbal (and provable) agreement now?



No, he isn't that much of a richard to the best of my knowledge.

Man this stuff is so awful. I feel for them - I can see both sides. I am hoping he'll calm down and see she is in my eyes being reasonable - gaining custody and offering a clean financial break. However, he doesn't like coming second at anything ... I am not sure he has the kid's best interest at heart and more his perception that if he doesn't get custody he will be seen as a failure as a father etc and that will impact the professional image. Like I said he's a richard.

As for the costs you are correct the lack of agreement will add to them considerably.

Please stop saying custody! If the child is living with her she doesn't need to gain anything, she's a parent with PR she doesn't need to do anything other than reach an agreement or ask a court to make a child arrangements order regarding contact and residency

 

[Xordium]

@ MrMoonX: Old habits die hard. I will try my best for you as you've been so helpful!

I think you've answered my query. In short in the likelihood they can't agree her and the little one can move to a new place (they don't own) and then he will have to apply to her for contact and actually this threat would not really change that outcome and as she is offering a reasonable settlement then she would most likely get what she offered.

 

[Xordium]

They agreed to something whilst in a relationship... that doesn't mean the agreement (that she'll be the main caregiver whilst he earns the money) stands post separation. She was the caregiver in terms of hands on stuff... but then he was the main caregiver in terms of putting food on the table. They cared for the child together - I think it's harsh to put less value on his contribution, with her getting 'the lion's share' of the time with the child, given it was arguably equally important and arguably more of a sacrifice that the father continued to work (I'm not a parent, but I'd imagine most people would rather spend time with their children than work, if the parents earn the same)

Although clearly it's far more likely she'd get custody if it all kicked off, unless she's insane.

Yep, I get that and so does she which I personally think she is being more than generous with her offering good contact (see mrmoonx I am trying!) with no financial obligation to her. It seems to me to be him who is reneging on the balance.

Hence why I brought it here. I've made it quite clear I am not impartial in this matter!

 

[Brenn47]

So he had a job and quit it to get that agreement? Or was he always unemployed?

No, he had a job and still has, they split up, he now needs the benefits/tax credits to pay the mortgage despite the kids not want to be there at all.

He will NOT budge on the 4 days a week because he'd lose too much money.

 

[Xordium]

I just hope what she 'reasonably offers' isn't just what happens to be the closest to what she wants that she can get away with, and instead is decided based on what's best for the child... coming from someone who lived with their mother and got to see their father one afternoon a week after school, then one day at the weekend (outside of school holidays). Imo (and ime) it'd've been nicer if I'd spent far closer to an equal proportion of the time with each.

I believe what she offered was largely a 50/50 split but that would have to be not just around what he worked but something that would enable her to work too. She feels (rightly I think) that she shouldn't have to base her life around what is convenient for his rota.

No, he had a job and still has, they split up, he now needs the benefits/tax credits to pay the mortgage despite the kids not want to be there at all.

He will NOT budge on the 4 days a week because he'd lose too much money.

That's pretty bad. He'll have a shock in a few years then when they can really act on their choices.

 

[RaohNS]

There are a lot of things that could happen.

He could quit his job but the cynic in me says, being male would mean he already has an uphill struggle as the Courts will always follow the guidance of the Childrens Act and "the best interests of the mother will be paramount".

For this reason, he would likely be screwed.

She is wanting a Divorce, I wouldn't necessarily believe everything this woman says to be honest. From experience and understanding, an awful lot of women become unhinged upon separation. Her primary goal will be 1) Control 2) "Reclaiming myself" 3) Surround myself with friends by telling everyone everything who will listen 4) Pretend to be neutral or fair and 5) think of every way of getting back at him

Source: Mumsnet

the rose tinted spectacle wearer in me says: he has an exactly 50/50 chance of gaining custody and no mother would dream of making things difficult for her children by saying anything bad about the ex-husband. The Courts are a fantastic place that will deal with matters fairly and amicably inside of 6weeks (not 5years) and will allow a jolly good time with your children (not to scripted hours under penalty of being thrown in jail) and you will never, ever have to go back to Court because it hasn't been complied with (including it not being complied with 4 times and you getting in trouble for spelling a persons name wrong!!!) and also where mothers natural instinct is (NOT!) balanced against fact, logic and empirical evidence... at all... ever...

 

[MrMoonX]

There are a lot of things that could happen.

He could quit his job but the cynic in me says, being male would mean he already has an uphill struggle as the Courts will always follow the guidance of the Childrens Act and "the best interests of the mother will be paramount".

For this reason, he would likely be screwed.

She is wanting a Divorce, I wouldn't necessarily believe everything this woman says to be honest. From experience and understanding, an awful lot of women become unhinged upon separation. Her primary goal will be 1) Control 2) "Reclaiming myself" 3) Surround myself with friends by telling everyone everything who will listen 4) Pretend to be neutral or fair and 5) think of every way of getting back at him

Source: Mumsnet

the rose tinted spectacle wearer in me says: he has an exactly 50/50 chance of gaining custody and no mother would dream of making things difficult for her children by saying anything bad about the ex-husband. The Courts are a fantastic place that will deal with matters fairly and amicably inside of 6weeks (not 5years) and will allow a jolly good time with your children (not to scripted hours under penalty of being thrown in jail) and you will never, ever have to go back to Court because it hasn't been complied with (including it not being complied with 4 times and you getting in trouble for spelling a persons name wrong!!!) and also where mothers natural instinct is (NOT!) balanced against fact, logic and empirical evidence... at all... ever...

Bitter much! Whilst I recognise the inequality towards male parents, then children act states the welfare of the child is paramount. In most cases children are best placed to remain with the resident parent, unfortunately for fathers this is usually the mother