Hi I wonder if you could give me some advice please.

I've recently separated from my husband. He would like to keep it amicable and wants us to not use solicitors and go for a 50/50 split with us having a child each.

I'm really NOT happy with this, the children are girls of 15 and 10 and he wants the youngest to live with him.

He works, I'm a full time mum and we have been married for 15 years, together for 21. Maintenance is not an issue, my concern is the split of the marital home which when sold will leave equity of approximately £350K. I am happy to go for a no-fault divorce although I do have grounds to divorce him for mental abuse having seen a solicitor. He has stated that if he does not get his own way he will 'turn nasty' and run up as big a legal bill as possible to deprive me of any possible additional assets.

I want both girls to live with me and a 60/40 split. I can maintain myself with a (very) small private income but would expect him to contribute to the girls financially and would allow him as much access as he would like provided it didn't impact upon schoolwork etc.

Am I being reasonable and if so how can I prevent him from running up a huge bill?

Hi Loblolly,

I think that given that you are and have been a full-time mum you are being entirely reasonable.

At the moment he is bullying you and you should tell your solicitor about this: it is continuation of the psychological abuse you endured during your marriage.

You may have to fight to keep both children but if they want to stay with you then you should do so. Courts generally try not to separate siblings and also try to maintain stability for children, which in your case means staying with you because you have been their main carer. Has either of you talked to the children about where and with whom they would like to live? Your elder daughter will be allowed to live where she likes as long as she is not at risk; your younger one will have her wishes taken into consideration by the courts if she is considered to be able to understand the implications.

Your husband seems to be seeing them as some kind of commodity to be shared out. If the younger one goes to live with him has he thought about arrangements for her care while he works?

You don't actually have to split the marital home as it is the children's settled home. It is possible for you to stay there until your younger child has grown up and for it to be sold and your husband get his share at that stage. This may not be the best thing for you (it's not for me), but it's an option that you can consider.

Best wishes,
Sadie

Thanks Sadie

I desperately want to get out of the house, it has too many bad memories for me tbh.

He has spoken to the children, sadly he is not above using emotional blackmail on them either, it's a learned behaviour, his mother has actually said to the children that they must tell me every day that they don't want me to leave their Daddy! The youngest has said that she wants to live with him but if you ask her why it is because she can't bear the thought of him living on his own. She also said that if the eldest were to live with him then she would want to live with me.

And so the cycle carries on

He brushes off questions about childcare, ignores any reasoning about teenage/preteen girls especially needing a mother to guide and reassure them and walks away and refuses to discuss arrangements apart from saying that he will live as close to me as possible (which I find quite an horrific thought).

This weekend he threw a mug at me in front of them, he is now saying that he threw it on the ground (it landed on the ground and smashed all over the patio). Friends have said that I should report this to my GP or solicitor, which I will do.

All this stress and manipulation has given me IBS so I'm actually feeling quite cranky with him.

All I really want from him is my children, a token amount of maintenance for them and a reasonable amount to enable me to buy them somewhere to live. I know there will be a huge drop in standards but to be honest I'd rather live in a cramped flat than stay with him any longer.

Sorry, I forgot to add that I have no intention of stopping or restricting his access to the girls. They love him very much and he has been a (relatively) good father to them, dispite the manipulation techniques. He genuinely loves them very much, he just doesn't seem to understand that there are boundaries and things that should not be discussed with children and that they need protecting from the truth sometimes.

i have been through the same .
my ex wanted the two boys to live with him and the two girls to live with me.
the choice is upto the children at the end of the day.
i am just lucky mine agreed mums house was the best for them .
nearly lost one at the time, i sat him down and explained about not being with his brothers and sisters and he decided not to go.
it is a form of control.
you need to be strong, there is only so many cards they can play...
once played there is nothing left ......
control returns to you.
you have to control your own life.
good luck with this, i feel for you
xx

I'm not sure if your husband is still living with you but may I suggest you keep contact with him (yourself that is not kids) to a minimum. It will be better for both of you in the long run. I do not believe that any Court would split siblings and suggest you relay that information to your husband. It looks to me like your husband only wants one of the kids to enable him to get the 50/50 financial split. Tell him that unless he starts being reasonable and non-agressive you will have no option but to instruct solicitors and that if he want to keep costs down he must abide by those rules.

The usual rubbish. He may just want them to get a 50:50 split, but equally there is an incentive for you to keep them to increase your part of that. It works both ways and both are pretty despicable.

Instead of you both treating them like commodities why dont you try mediation and have a go at determining, as their parents, what is best for them. If you are both committed to their wellbeing as being the first priority then this is surely better than all the inflammatory threats about solicitors and seeing who can run up the biggest legal bill to spite the other one.

B