The other parent demands access and equal decision making in respect of Junior ISA / SIPP accounts

TBagpuss

If he has applied for a Specific Issue order then yes, it's unusual - these are more commonly used for things like decisions about which schools children attend, religious upbringing, etc.

Assuming this is the type of application he has made, then as with any other application under the children act, the court has to made a decision with regard to the 'Welfare Checklist' and specifically what is in the best interest of the children.
What I would recommend is that you may with to prepare on the basis that:

- His interference is likely to cause conflict, this is not in the best interests of the children.
- He has made no / minimal contributions to the accounts, and his family have only made small and indirect continuations
- There is nothing to stop him setting up alternative investments for the children's benefit,  including other tax efficient savings such as setting up pension's for them 

- You are the parent best able to meet the children's needs y managing the accounts, due to your professional involvement in the field
- You believe that he is not motivated by what's in the children's best interests but that he has a history of controlling behaviour and you are concerned that he is making this application as a roundabout way to force you to have to continue to maintain contact with him, to indirectly gain information about your financial situation by seeing what you are able to contribute and that there is a risk that he may seek to control and manipulate the children, particularly in relation to his perceptions about what you could chose to pay for for them and / or trying to get direct access to the money.
- There are no benefits to the children in his having access to the accounts. If he wishes to invest the funds he choses to save for them elsewhere he can, the set up of the accounts mean that the money is secured for the children so there is no need, even if you were not trustworthy, for him to have access or veto powers.

My guess is that a court would ask you whether you were willing  to compromise, perhaps by sending him copies of the annual statements, so if that would not be something you are willing todo, be prepared to explain why (bearing in mind that the focus is about what's in the interests of the children , so concerns about his seeking to manipulate the children or put pressure on them to indirectly  control you, thereby putting them under stress, is a stronger argument than  framing it solely as him wanting to control you.    

If you can, I would prepare a breakdown showing how much he / his family have contributed, and perhaps (if it would be affordable) propose that that amount is paid into accounts in the children's names that he controls. (I understand you can withdraw anything from the accounts but if it is only a small amount, would it be possible to set up an account he can see/ control (perhaps funded from whatever you'd otherwise pay into their accounts that you hold, this year) 

greengrizzly

TBagpuss said:

If he has applied for a Specific Issue order then yes, it's unusual - these are more commonly used for things like decisions about which schools children attend, religious upbringing, etc.

Assuming this is the type of application he has made, then as with any other application under the children act, the court has to made a decision with regard to the 'Welfare Checklist' and specifically what is in the best interest of the children.
What I would recommend is that you may with to prepare on the basis that:

- His interference is likely to cause conflict, this is not in the best interests of the children.
- He has made no / minimal contributions to the accounts, and his family have only made small and indirect continuations
- There is nothing to stop him setting up alternative investments for the children's benefit,  including other tax efficient savings such as setting up pension's for them 

- You are the parent best able to meet the children's needs y managing the accounts, due to your professional involvement in the field
- You believe that he is not motivated by what's in the children's best interests but that he has a history of controlling behaviour and you are concerned that he is making this application as a roundabout way to force you to have to continue to maintain contact with him, to indirectly gain information about your financial situation by seeing what you are able to contribute and that there is a risk that he may seek to control and manipulate the children, particularly in relation to his perceptions about what you could chose to pay for for them and / or trying to get direct access to the money.
- There are no benefits to the children in his having access to the accounts. If he wishes to invest the funds he choses to save for them elsewhere he can, the set up of the accounts mean that the money is secured for the children so there is no need, even if you were not trustworthy, for him to have access or veto powers.

My guess is that a court would ask you whether you were willing  to compromise, perhaps by sending him copies of the annual statements, so if that would not be something you are willing todo, be prepared to explain why (bearing in mind that the focus is about what's in the interests of the children , so concerns about his seeking to manipulate the children or put pressure on them to indirectly  control you, thereby putting them under stress, is a stronger argument than  framing it solely as him wanting to control you.    

If you can, I would prepare a breakdown showing how much he / his family have contributed, and perhaps (if it would be affordable) propose that that amount is paid into accounts in the children's names that he controls. (I understand you can withdraw anything from the accounts but if it is only a small amount, would it be possible to set up an account he can see/ control (perhaps funded from whatever you'd otherwise pay into their accounts that you hold, this year) 

Thank you! This is amazing advice, and helped me to structure my own thoughts.