Children\'s act and the transfer of property

Hello guys.
I've just split from my girlfriend, we have been together for four years and have a 2 years old boy. A few months ago I inherited some money and bought a house (w/mortgage). My girlfriend had a terrible credit history and so both mortgage and land reg deeds are in my name. She is now threatening to take the house and I'm reading in horror that this is totally possible. Please can someone tell me if this is a likely step for a court to take? We both have modest incomes and are in our mid 20s.

My gut reaction is, yes, it is in theory possible, but such orders are made for the benefit of the child. Nevertheless, the mother will often benefit indirectly from such an arrangement.

If you were married, then in a situation like this it is unlikely that you would lose all your interest in the house. The most likely order would be the so-called Mesher order, which would give her and the child the right to remain there until the child was 18 ( more or less ).

But as you are not married, then it is possible the Court could make a Mesher order or even order a tenancy until the child attains majority. I very much doubt if you would lose all your interest in the house.

Cases like this, unfortunately, as rare and there is not much experience of what the Courts do. There is no point in giving her the right to live in your house if she cannot afford to do so.

But where there are children involved the Courts are quite prepared to over-ride strict property rights.

LMM

Thank you for your post. I am amazed that we could be at the property less than 3 months then she walks out with the child and uses that to take the house. Does the court consider the time-­frame­s involved? I'm advised that due to the mortgage she cannot "take" the property but could potentially force a sale. I honestly cannot see why people clamor about absent fathers when there is legislation in place that encourages this kind of cynical behavior.

She can't "take" anything. Under the Children's Act 1989 parents have responsibilities towards their children and the court may order that assets are made available to provide them with a roof over their heads until they reach 18 years of age or finish tertiary education. It doesn't matter whether property was used by the family during the relationship, it is the welfare of the child (in particular to housing) that is the deciding factor. Any interest in the property is returned to the original owner at the end of the period.


It's a fairly complicated area of law and therefore expensive. I would suggest you see a lawyer early on to find out where you stand and what your options are. If given your particular circumstances providing housing is likely negotiating is the cheapest way forward.

These orders are as rare as hens teeth I have to say. In 16 years of practice I have seen only one and it was in circumstances very different from yours.

Thank you all for your replies. I was in a state of shock (understandable I hope) when last posting and I am well aware that providing for the child is the main priority; I have been doing that from day one! Having seen a solicitor I'm told that property "adjustment" is unlikely and that I would have strong grounds for fighting a claim for assets under schedule 1 of the children's act 1989 as I am going for 50/50 custody and will have to provide a home myself. Due to our modest incomes and the level of equity involved it's unlikely that selling and dividing would provide enough capital for 2 homes so we will just have to wait and see what happens. Again I would like to thank those who took the time to reply.

Well done, I'm glad you sought legal advice and put your mind at ease.