Posted this in General Divorce: Now copying here:

Hi all

OK this is what the situation is;

She walked out on me abt 6 weeks ago and went to her sisters; maxed out cc etc.

Went to see her for a 4 weekends begging her to come back and let bygones be bygones but no result. Says want to settle with kids where her sister lives.

I went to a solicitor; got a very low toned letter written stating the facts; and stating that I havent seen the kids and will like to put a ti­­meta­­ble to see the children. And also saying that despite all the above I will like to reconcile and salavge the marriage.

No response for a week and then I get court orders for childrens residency to be kept with her including care and maintenance. We have 3 kids all under 12. Married for 15 years.

The alligations made by her in the statement are severe white lies and she wont have a leg to stand on in court for those. E.g. that I havent spoken to her for 4 weeks. Where as I have got call details frm the phone company of when I have been calling her and vice versa.

I am just worried how can she say all this. And how will the court take this. I am gonna hve to fight this and ask for residency with me.

Despite this none of us is talking abt the D Word. Guess we both dont want it. But this is getting silly.

Any advise on
- What do I do abt the childresn residency.
- How does the court look at it. Are they biased towards the mother
- Is it worth me fighting this and trying to turn this to have the childrens residency with me.
- What about the alligations. Should I get references etc. There is no truth in what she is saying how do i defend myself though.


Appreciate your help and comments.

Thanks

you will get the opportunity to response. Ultimately only fight for residency if you believe in the best interests of the children. The children need both parents and the parents need to work together for next god knows how many years.

If agreement cannot be reached a CAFCASS Officer will be appointed to see what is in the best interests of the children the problem with that is the reports can take a long time. Any child over 9 will have their wishes and feelings taken into account more than the younger ones.

Can anyone advise... why can this father not just go and take the children back home? Why is it that the mother seems to have this right to take-off and take the kids with her? THey are your children equally with your wife, why should you not be able to take them back and have her pay the costs of fighting for custody?

Where are the legal eagle comments on this thread, we dad's would like to know how we legally stand, why can't we take the child back. If women had to fight for the children I am sure the ladies would be more sympathetic to fathers and there children. ome on legal eagles, give us a legal input to this thread!

Sadgit, us legal eagals are not full time wikistaff, and you should perhaps at least attempt to be polite.

On divorce there is an expectation that the children remain with their primary carer - therefore whomever looked after them during the marriage will continue. There is a perception amongst fathers that mothers always get the children. That is quite true, and the reason for that is because despite equality, women in he workforce blah blah blah, in most families it is still mum who is the primary carer.

In a family where that primary carer is dad, children follow dad.

In a family where there was shared care, courts will look at that.

Finally, Hdomrep - it is not that case that a child over 9 will be heard. The law is that the court will take a child's wishes and feelings into consideration in light of his or her level of understanding. In English, the more mature the child, the greater weight the wishes and feelings have. Law does not work on such abitary matters as age.

Amanda

Amanda

OK here is the update

I was tainted with multiple alligations in the PSO and residency orders. I couldnt believe that someone who was so close to me could write such alligations in her own hand writing.

Anyho, replied back to her by counter attacking with PSO and residency orders along with my statements ensuring that it highlighted that the alligations are fabircated and false.

Went to court, the judge asked her solicitor if I was ok to see the children; and stbx yes no problem. Stbx said that there was no issue to the childrens welfare. The judge straight away allocated me orders to see children every two weeks.

What I cant understand is:
- How come these alliagtions werent challanged by the judge and ruled out. These alligations clearlye stated that she was worried about the childrens welfare and I may run abroad with the kids. What a joke.

- The judge has now allocated CAFCASS to do an independent evaluation. My sol challenged this with xmas approaching and the CAFCASS turnaround being 16 weeks it will be an uphill struggle for me. But he was determined which is fair enough. It is just the process. Surely the court is biased towards the mother being the primary carer.

But I share the views with the other comments above; that if the father loves and cares for the children equally and above; then why the court has to take the view of being biased towards the mother.

Appreicate a legal and some other feedback from general members.

Thanks

Hmmmmmm...

One problem is the definition of 'primary carer'. Most dads I know in my circle are as much primary carers as their children's mothers. This may be because I live in London, am involved in the arts and media and the people I know tend to be freelance, or teachers, or work flexibly, or all of the above. But I suspect it's actually part of a much broader trend, and I think there are loads of studies which show this. This is the modern world. Get used to it. Celebrate it. Not to be too capital-centric about these things, but if it hasn't reached your part of the world yet - look out, it's probably on its way.

And in any case, I suggest that once there is an attempt on any decent dad to marginalise his involvement with his kids, he should soon become pretty flexible in all other aspects of his life in order to try to dedicate more time to them. And this is absolutely the right thing to do. Because kids need fathers (as much as mothers) - and more so when the family unit breaks down.

So, what does all this mean? Well, in my opinion, if a dad's relationship with his kids mother is breaking down, and he loves his kids, and respects his kids, he needs to wise up and bring himself firmly into the 21st century, if he's not already there: try not to allow your children to be moved away from you in the first place, don't move out, don't give up. Adjust your working life (and social life and all aspects of your life) to put the children at the centre of your lives. Careers can wait, wealth can wait, everything else can wait. The kids are only young once, and what they want is your love and involvement. Put yourselves in a position so that the argument about 'primary carer', and kids and mums, and all that stuff just doesn't make sense (which in my opinion it usually doesn't).

And you know what else? If it was generally understood by most mothers (and their solicitors), that an equality of care was probably going to be the norm post-breakup, I suspect that the divorce and separation rate would probably edge down a fair few notches. (Like it has in Denmark and elsewhere). Because dumping your man no longer means depriving him of his kids as well. Why? Well mostly because maybe, just maybe, it's finally beginning to dawn on society and the judiciary (who are for the most part pretty up to speed with this) that this sort of behaviour is not in the best interests of the children, or their mothers, or fathers, or the community in general.

A robust, but children-centric approach is what is needed. I wish Mr Jones, and others on this thread all the best in their continued involvement with the kids they obviously love very much.

tmb