Desperate Help - Can he take my House, my Rights?

burlington6

At the moment, it looks like your ex can support and provide a stable environment for your children better than you can, I hope he gets full custody.

If you can do better, I hope you do.

If you can both do an equal job, joint custody.

Just because you're their mother, doesn't mean your a better parent

dziet

I see your point, this was all agreed as best for the kids and was working fine, kids happy, until I start seeing someone else a year after we split. Now it's all changed, potential disruption and upheaval for kids which I would like to avoid for the timebeing for their benefit.

Tiddlywinks

I wonder what your ex's story would read like?

Something like this maybe?

He was in a long term relationship but partner refused marriage.

Partner wished to be a SAHM and so he fully supported her change of plans - even though he had to take on all financial burden alone.

Relationship ends but he is reasonable enough to move out and so leave the kids settled where they are.

He then pays OVER AND ABOVE what is required even when offered a reduction.

His ex is only working part time to support herself even though the kids are at school all day.

Final straw, his ex gets a new BF and he is worried about his relationship with his kids - will it change? Will he be replaced? Will the BF start living in his house that he is contributing to?

To add insult to injury, he is unable to move on himself as he can't afford to start again.

---

OP - you are aware, I hope, that there are two adults impacted by this break-up? It's not just you and YOUR house and life.

Why not move out and the house sold - get the finances sorted once and for all and move forward supporting yourself with your ex supporting the children.

Then you can both have the freedom to start again.

You need to see that there are two sides to this and he is the father of your children - he will always be a part of your life so start accepting that.

dziet

Some good points there Tiddlywinks. I work almost f/t around school hours - I could not work any more without accessing childcare and because of kids respective sports activities they would have to sacrifice that if that was the case.
I am happy to move on and be self-sufficient, don't care about money, I care about my kids being happy and me being happy. I feel that a move could wait a year to benefit children, but if he enforces it I want to know my rights.
Also, it was a joint agreement for me to put career on hold when his thrived - he earns nearly ten times more than me. I earned way more than him when we started out and in fact had a brilliant career. His approach is because we never married he can and he will screw me financially and not give me anything from the house, which I feel is unfair but need to understand how the law sees it.
He can absolutely afford to start again, his salary allows that, there is no barrier there. For me there is, I have no equity, without a fight, so could only rent and possibly have to claim benefits, so the children's quality of life in terms of where we would live would be reduced. That does not have to happen but I believe he wants it to. For the record I have no care where I live, I do care about my children though.
I have made absolutely clear new man not coming to house never mind living in it.

Guest101

dziet wrote: »

I see your point, this was all agreed as best for the kids and was working fine, kids happy, until I start seeing someone else a year after we split. Now it's all changed, potential disruption and upheaval for kids which I would like to avoid for the timebeing for their benefit.

right, but you changed the status quo.


You have the right to a new relationship, but your ex has a right to be annoyed by it.

Guest101

dziet wrote: »

Some good points there Tiddlywinks. I work almost f/t around school hours - I could not work any more without accessing childcare and because of kids respective sports activities they would have to sacrifice that if that was the case.
I am happy to move on and be self-sufficient, don't care about money, I care about my kids being happy and me being happy. I feel that a move could wait a year to benefit children, but if he enforces it I want to know my rights.
Also, it was a joint agreement for me to put career on hold when his thrived - he earns nearly ten times more than me. I earned way more than him when we started out and in fact had a brilliant career. His approach is because we never married he can and he will screw me financially and not give me anything from the house, which I feel is unfair but need to understand how the law sees it.
He can absolutely afford to start again, his salary allows that, there is no barrier there. For me there is, I have no equity, without a fight, so could only rent and possibly have to claim benefits, so the children's quality of life in terms of where we would live would be reduced. That does not have to happen but I believe he wants it to. For the record I have no care where I live, I do care about my children though.
I have made absolutely clear new man not coming to house never mind living in it.

1: Well then be self-sufficient, as at the moment you're only 60% sufficient.
2: Ok so rent somewhere. - just coming across as incredibly self-entitled now.
3: I hope you are claiming the appropriate benefits.


I'm not trying to upset you.


But "I 'want' doesn't get", you need to actually 'do'

clint_S

Guest101 wrote: »

Your ex probably feels very resentful because to get what is his he would have to appear as a bad guy and kick you out which while you have residency - no such think in the UK

You keep stating this and it's incorrect. Residency is a legal term and usually found used in Taxation and immigration Law.


I agree that Residence Orders have been replaced with Child Arrangement Orders and this is what most people mean when they say Residency, although any existing Residence Orders are still valid.

Guest101

clint_S wrote: »

You keep stating this and it's incorrect. Residency is a legal term and usually found used in Taxation and immigration Law.


I agree that Residence Orders have been replaced with Child Arrangement Orders and this is what most people mean when they say Residency, although any existing Residence Orders are still valid.

Yes yes, very good.


Clearly it was residency in connection to children, not residency for purposes of tax, health treatment, immigration etc.

clint_S

Guest101 wrote: »

Yes yes, very good.


Clearly it was residency in connection to children, not residency for purposes of tax, health treatment, immigration etc.

Then stop doing it, almost every time someone puts residency in a thread you state "no such thing in the UK". After the tenth time I spotted you doing it its caught a nerve. I've had my shout about it I can now happily ignore the next ten times you do it.

Guest101

clint_S wrote: »

Then stop doing it, almost every time someone puts residency in a thread you state "no such thing in the UK". After the tenth time I spotted you doing it its caught a nerve. I've had my shout about it I can now happily ignore the next ten times you do it.

Now you're talking rubbish. It's the first time I've seen it and corrected the person. (or at most a handful of times, and certainly not constantly)


I think you might be confusing me with someone else...