Ex picking up children query

Fire_Fox

daska wrote: »

On weekends when DSD had to travel to her mother I would drive 103 miles each way, twice a weekend, it's not dangerous but it is time consuming and expensive, many reps drive well in excess of 1000 miles a week. When residency was finally granted to us she became responsible for all the costs - not that I think she's actually paid a penny towards them, she still gets us or her dad to pay it all.

Some are fine doing a lot of driving others are not. I didn't simply say it is dangerous I said

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Bit it's not just 100 miles, it is 400 hundred miles (there and back twice). That is not just a financial commitment but a time commitment and there is the issue of the stress/ tiredness/ being able to drive safely. Depending on the amount of stress and driving in the rest of their life, this can genuinely be too much for some people.

NewKittenHelp

Mojisola wrote: »

Is she sure this is the best way forward? Whose name will the house be in? The ex may be happy for her and the children to live there now but how will he feel if she wants to move a new man in? What if she decides to move in with someone else?

Is she going to be homeless without any capital when the children leave full-time education? Many adult children live at home well into their late 20s. Is the father going to sell the house when the mother still has the "children" living at home with her?

I think it's always better to separate finances as much as possible so that the resident parent has some independence and flexibility in the future. If the house where they live is controlled by the ex, that may not be the case.

Perhaps she could put the money that she would have spent on rent or a mortgage into a savings account so she can buy a house? Not many people get 18 years plus of free accommodation as adults, and the ability to save a significant amount for a house in that time.

In that time she could easily save lots of money, and even buy a buy-to-let in a few years so she's back on the property ladder.

daska

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Some are fine doing a lot of driving others are not. I didn't simply say it is dangerous I said

Sorry, I don't buy that, it's not a massive amount. And it's directly within my experience with both DS1 and DSD. With DS1 I'm still responsible for all the travel even though he's over 200 miles away and my disability means I can no longer do that drive. I didn't like it in either case but the solicitors considered it 'normal'. Thankfully DSD is now over contact age and DS1 was a very competent train traveller from a tender age.

Seanymph

Mojisola is bang on. I'd view the 'house' as a poisoned chalice myself.

Whose name will the deeds be in? The childrens - no, he can't do that because he loses control of it for when they are 'over school age' (is that secondary? College? University?)....... so he'll keep it in his name and it's a gentleman's agreement.

So what if his new relationship goes sour and he wants the house capital back. Or it doesn't and she gets fed up keeping a roof over his exes head - or, god forbid, he dies and it goes to the new woman and her child in the will.

I wouldn't want my ex having keys to my house, much less deeds!

As for the driving - yes, of course she should meet halfway. If she is caused financial difficulties by this (which it appears he compensates her for anyway) then she needs to say - I will happily meet you halfway, I have the time availability to maximise your time with them and meet you, but I need help to keep a car running and pay the fuel - he seems to have been more than reasonable I'm sure he'd entertain that.

no mention in the bits I've read about the travel the poor kids are having to endure! Presumably if he's buying the house he'll decidew here it is?

Anyway, I'm in the 'drive half way' camp - but in your friends shoes I wouldn't be touching that house at all.

Sambucus_Nigra

ginsterman wrote: »

Can i just reply to a few of the comments on here:

1. Nowhere has it been stated by myself that my friend is in receipt of benefits, the facts are that she is receipt of ONE benefit, child benefit which contrary to an earlier post does not amount to £8k for 2 children per year! I believe trhat at current rates of £20.30 per week for the eldest and £13.40 per week for the youngest amounts to £1752.40 per year, a difference of over 6k

2. The ex has a very good relationship with his children and thats the way it should be, he loves them, they love him. He is allowed to see them whenever he wants but the agreement set between themselves at present is he sees them every other weekend from the friday evening until the sunday evening.

3. She has been living with her parents but the ex is in the process of buying a house for the children, the house will be bought in cash (no mortgage), no bills will be paid by the ex, and it will be able for the ex and the children to live in until the youngest leaves full time education.

4. Whilst she has been living with the parents, she has been paying them a sum for "lodging" and paying for the extra food for herself and the children.

5. She has found herself a part time job which will be starting in a few weeks to go to while the youngest is at pre-school, once the youngest starts full school then she will be able to increase the hours she works.

6. The private agreement for maintenance is quite a bit below the 10k quoted by a previous poster. The reason the CSA havent been involved is due to the ex being very clever (and also very legally) doing a "Jimmy Carr" regarding his tax liabilities.

These are a few of the facts which i realise would have been handy to include in my original post however there have been a lot of assumptions especially regarding benefits which arent fair.

I havent attributed fault to the ex for the split but set down the facts i.e he left for another woman who he is now living with and she is now expecting a child with him. I do not know the facts behind why he had the affair, neither do i care to, but its irrelevant to the case. At the end of the day i asked for peoples opinions on whether she should meet him halfway or not and some people have replied yes and some have replied no. Thank you all for your opinions though, clearly a divided subject!

I don't know how much 'quite a bit below the £10k' is, but if he is buying them a house and she will be living rent free, then to be honest, saying you can't afford the mileage to allow the father access is a bit rich. Unless that 'quite a bit below £10k' is for example, £2k.

I personally think she would be better off keeping the maintenance agreement and getting her own place. As if she thinks meeting him halfway on driving when he will be owning the house she lives in as well, then there may indeed be 'trouble ahead'.

Mojisola

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

Perhaps she could put the money that she would have spent on rent or a mortgage into a savings account so she can buy a house? Not many people get 18 years plus of free accommodation as adults, and the ability to save a significant amount for a house in that time.

It depends on her income. If she was renting, she may be entitled to HB to help with the rent. If her income is low, she won't receive HB but won't have enough to put money aside for a future property either.

If a relationship does break up, it's better to do it cleanly and let the two people start to rebuild independent lives. If one is beholden to the other for the roof over her head, it will get messy!

BobQ

Fire_Fox wrote: »

T
The OP chose to live somewhere different to where the father of her children is based, he is not simply her ex. This is about continuing to put 50% of the effort in for the sake of the children's relationship with the non resident parent, which is something that should be a priority/ seen as a personal obligation by any loving resident parent. Once again there are wider issues than just cost: there is the time, stress and safety implications of driving both ways twice in one weekend.

The only point I was making is that there should be no presumption that someone splitting from their partner should be required to live near her former partner. There are other factors like the support from their family, availability of employment, cost of housing. Of course they should act in the wider interests of the children but they should not be criticised for living somewhere lelse than the the vicinity of their joint home.

Fire_Fox

daska wrote: »

Sorry, I don't buy that, it's not a massive amount. And it's directly within my experience with both DS1 and DSD. With DS1 I'm still responsible for all the travel even though he's over 200 miles away and my disability means I can no longer do that drive. I didn't like it in either case but the solicitors considered it 'normal'. Thankfully DSD is now over contact age and DS1 was a very competent train traveller from a tender age.

I would have hoped your disability would make you more open minded and argue against the solicitor considering anything 'normal'. Some people sleep well some do not, some are stress heads some are not, some concentrate for hours some are easily distracted. The reality is RTAs are not just people who are tired on paper, it's not those who have done the most miles, not just lorry drivers, salesmen, taxi or bus drivers. Some people can run a half marathon twice a day some can't run a mile.

BobQ wrote: »

The only point I was making is that there should be no presumption that someone splitting from their partner should be required to live near her former partner. There are other factors like the support from their family, availability of employment, cost of housing. Of course they should act in the wider interests of the children but they should not be criticised for living somewhere lelse than the the vicinity of their joint home.

Did anyone make that requirement? Did anyone criticise the move?

BobQ

Fire_Fox wrote: »

=


Did anyone make that requirement? Did anyone criticise the move?

Well there are lots of references to the fact that the OP "chose to live 100 miles away ....." as if this makes it wrong for her to have done this.

See messages 2,3,4,5 and your good self in 63.

tattycath

BobQ wrote: »

Well there are lots of references to the fact that the OP "chose to live 100 miles away ....." as if this makes it wrong for her to have done this.

See messages 2,3,4,5 and your good self in 63.

As far as I can see, no one is saying it's wrong but if you choose to move your children a long way away from their other parent-surely you should take some responsibility in helping to facilitate access for the children and absent parent.
When I moved away from my ex, I met him half way so as to help with access-even though he earns alot more money than me and his company pay for his car/fuel etc.