Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
ex wont let me move my daughter out of dublin but i cant afford to stay
Comments
-
And just to add to the above, if sole custody with weekend access for OP was something her ex partner wanted, he'd be splitting costs, doing his fair share of childcare, helping with household items such as food, changing his schedule so he's available for drop offs, doing weekend activities with the child and not telling OP he wishes she was dead.
His actions are not that of a desperate man concerned about his daughters welfare, devastated at the thoughts of her moving away.
No judge is going to look favourably on a man who has carried on the way he has so he can't be all that bothered about access to his child, let alone sole custody.0 -
Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators Posts: 12,340 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 11547
Why isn't Dad having day-to-day custody and mother having access rights an option? Many single mothers work full time and have day-to-day custody of their children and nobody questions that. So why not a father? The default position should be 50:50, but that is not possible if the child lives hours away.
From OP's posts, her partner doesn't even manage to share tasks relating to his child 50:50 while living in the same house. I fail to see how living a few hours away could make this any worse.0 -
I would presume if that were possible or indeed if Dad actually wanted that he'd have put plans in motion to have that arrangement in place by now.
He'd have reduced his hours to involve himself in the childcare so that a judge would look favourably upon a man who was making a good case for having sole custody.
OP has said he lives a batchelors lifestyle so I'm not sure how full time parenting would fit in with that.
Regardless, she's doing all the donkey work. She's paying for everything and doing all the childcare and rearing, so why should she be the one with weekend access?
Thus far, it seems he is completely inflexible and not offering any compromises, just a blanket "you're not taking my child" with no consideration for the toxic environment in the house, or what the plan going forward for the future would be.
He doesn't seem bothered. Its all about control.
If he actually wanted to resolve the issue I'm sure by this point (over 2 years) he'd have played ball and offered at least one solution they might be able to agree on but it seems no.
He wishes her dead but won't let her go? OP has no choice but to leave.
I think you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions there. The mother is already on part time hours, if he also went to part time hours, how would the bills be paid?
Because on a part time wage, there is no way the OP is paying 50% of shared costs, which means he is most likely paying more then his fair share of the mortgage, the utilities, and so on.
There is only liability to maintain a spouse if they are married, and the OP has not clarified if they are. If they are not married, his only liability is to cover half the household and half of his child's costs.
Saying he wishes she was dead sounds like an emotional statement to me, not a threat of harm. I didn't read anywhere that he is forcing her to stay, just that he will not consent to her removing their child, which is within his rights.
Anyway, the first step should not have been solicitors, it should have been the family mediation service, and the OP may be surprised to find that father's do actually have rights and a say when it comes to their children, including where they live.0 -
I think you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions there. The mother is already on part time hours, if he also went to part time hours, how would the bills be paid?
Because on a part time wage, there is no way the OP is paying 50% of shared costs, which means he is most likely paying the mortgage, the utilities, and so on.
There is only liability to maintain a spouse if they are married, and the OP has not clarified if they are. If they are not married, his only liability is to cover half the household and half of his child's costs.
Saying he wishes she was dead and she sounds like an emotional statement to me, not a threat of harm. I didn't read anywhere that he is forcing her to stay, just that he will not consent to her removing the child, which is within his rights.
Anyway, the first step should not have been solicitors, it should have been the family mediation service, and the OP may be surprised to find that father's do actually have rights and a say when it comes to their children.
He currently makes little to no effort with parenting, he works full time and is gone Saturdays & Sundays.
OP pays for everything for the child and does all the parenting and donkeywork that comes with raising a small child.
Without doubt OP should have custody of their daughter.
OP's ex is not carrying on like someone who has much interest in access, let alone full custody. He just doesn't want the child to leave the house, yet does nothing with the child when she's there?
And you're arguing for his suitability for full time custody?0 -
I think you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions there. The mother is already on part time hours, if he also went to part time hours, how would the bills be paid?
So why doesnt he do things with his child when he isnt in work do you think? OP stated he was out every Sat and Sun.Because on a part time wage, there is no way the OP is paying 50% of shared costs, which means he is most likely paying the mortgage, the utilities, and so on.
The OP probably cant afford to work full time if she is expected to pay childcare solely.There is only liability to maintain a spouse if they are married, and the OP has not clarified if they are. If they are not married, his only liability is to cover half the household and half of his child's costs.
Thats not quite true. If you are talking about post break up the OP can now ask for the equivalent to spousal maintenance under the cohabitation act. Same way she can look for her share in the house. Basically the same types of things spouses can ask for.
Before the household is separated I think you will find a judge will expect costs to be shared and that the financially worse off person is not being abused by the financially better off person.Saying he wishes she was dead and she sounds like an emotional statement to me, not a threat of harm. I didn't read anywhere that he is forcing her to stay, just that he will not consent to her removing the child, which is within his rights.
Sounds like a threat to me.
You do not have to tie someone down to force them to stay - emotional abuse is just as real as physical. Please dont minimise this.Anyway, the first step should not have been solicitors, it should have been the family mediation service, and the OP may be surprised to find that father's do actually have rights and a say when it comes to their children.
And her ex may be surprised to find that his behaviour is going to cost him in terms of access when it goes to court. Swings and roundabouts.0 -
-
Unusual, but not impossible. One in seven single parent households in Ireland are fathers raising their children.
Source
Oh not impossible at all but if you dig into those figures you will find that they are mostly comprised of the following 3 demographics:
The mother is dead.
The mother is a junkie/in prison.
The mother did not want the child.0 -
I think its important to say to the OP that there are people minimising what is going on in this thread, its a common feature on this website. Victim blaming.
Please disregard it.
What is currently going on it not right. And it is damaging you AND your child.
Children who grow up in toxic environments perceive it early, as young as 3 or 4.
It would be very very damaging for your daughter to grow up seeing her mother abused and held financially captive.0 -
We don't know that; we only know that the OP said he's "not a bad father" - which might be a grudging acknowledgement that he does actually make an effortHe currently makes little to no effort with parenting
Does he have any choice? Who else is going to pay the mortgage?he works full time
Well, we don't know that it's every Saturday and Sunday, but we do know the OP is seriously stressed, and maybe her ex appreciates gets out of her way at the weekends so as not to make things worse.... and is gone Saturdays & Sundays
The father pays for her house, her bedroom, probably the heat & light she's used to, too.OP pays for everything for the child ...
Does the father have any choice in the matter? Do we know whether the OP has volunteered to go back to work full-time so that father can work part-time? No, we don't....and does all the parenting and donkeywork that comes with raising a small child.
And, starting from a point of innocent till proven guilty, so should the father.Without doubt OP should have custody of their daughter.
AulWan's assumptions were all perfectly valid, because we know precious little about the situation other than that the OP is stressed and wants to go back to live with her parents (or maybe not).0 -
Advertisement
-
He currently makes little to no effort with parenting, he works full time and is gone Saturdays & Sundays.
Probably staying out of her way to avoid creating more tension!OP pays for everything for the child and does all the parenting and donkeywork that comes with raising a small child.
As already posted, highly doubtful she pays for everything or even half of everything on a part time wage.Without doubt OP should have custody of their daughter.
And you've come to that conclusion on the basis of one post without hearing the other side of the story? Wow.OP's ex is not carrying on like someone who has much interest in access, let alone full custody. He just doesn't want the child to leave the house, yet does nothing with the child when she's there?
And you're arguing for his suitability for full time custody?
He is acting exactly like someone who is in an unhappy relationship and is also confused about how to move forward. Just because you interpret that as disinterest, does not make it a fact.
I'm not arguing his suitability for full time custody, I'm arguing that he shouldn't automatically be considered like some kind of second class parent and caregiver because he works full time. If that was the case, every parent who works full time is less of a caregiver. He deserves to be recognised as his child's parent on an equal basis to the mother instead of it just being presumed that she should have full custody because she is the mother.0 -
-
CelticRambler wrote: »We don't know that; we only know that the OP said he's "not a bad father" - which might be a grudging acknowledgement that he does actually make an effort
Does he have any choice? Who else is going to pay the mortgage?
Well, we don't know that it's every Saturday and Sunday, but we do know the OP is seriously stressed, and maybe her ex appreciates gets out of her way at the weekends so as not to make things worse.
The father pays for her house, her bedroom, probably the heat & light she's used to, too.
Does the father have any choice in the matter? Do we know whether the OP has volunteered to go back to work full-time so that father can work part-time? No, we don't.
And, starting from a point of innocent till proven guilty, so should the father.
AulWan's assumptions were all perfectly valid, because we know precious little about the situation other than that the OP is stressed and wants to go back to live with her parents (or maybe not).
I'm not getting into a line by line multi quote battle with anyone, the ex doesn't have much interest in parenting their child, is emotionally & financially abusive to OP and is perpetuating the toxic environment in which they live.
It is not in the best interests of their daughter to stay in an unhappy home, OP is the main caregiver therefore the child should stay with her until a judge decided on a custody agreement.
There is no choice but to leave and OP should do it sooner rather than later.0 -
Probably staying out of her way to avoid creating more tension!
At the expense of spending quality time with his child.As already posted, highly doubtful she pays for everything or even half of everything on a part time wage.
She contributes by doing all the parenting.He is acting exactly like someone who is in an unhappy relationship and is also confused about how to move forward. Just because you interpret that as disinterest, does not make it a fact.
That's the thing about perception, because he comes across as a controlling manipulator to me.I'm not arguing his suitability for full time custody, I'm arguing that he shouldn't automatically be considered like some kind of second class parent and caregiver because he works full time.
Yes you did, when you said:Why isn't Dad having day-to-day custody and mother having access rights an option?If that was the case, every parent who works full time is less of a caregiver. He deserves to be recognised as his child's parent on an equal basis to the mother instead of it just being presumed that she should have full custody because she is the mother.
Not because she is the mother, but because she is the main caregiver. If the ex did all the child rearing I'd be advocating the child stay with him.
He's saying he owns the house, she can't afford rent, he lives a bachelor lifestyle and makes little contribution despite currently living with the child, so what else is she supposed to do?0 -
-
At the expense of spending quality time with his child.
Yet the mother says he is a good father?She contributes by doing all the parenting.
See above.
And on re-reading, she says her earnings only barely covers childcare, so he must be paying for all their other living expenses. Do you not consider that as contributing towards his child?That's the thing about perception, because he comes across as a controlling manipulator to me.
Because you only have one side of the story and do not appear to be prepared to even consider there may be another side to this.He's saying he owns the house, she can't afford rent, he lives a bachelor lifestyle and makes little contribution despite currently living with the child, so what else is she supposed to do?
I guess it depends on what you class as a contribution. The full details of the house are unclear and its also unclear whether the house is a martial asset or not.
But sure look, whats the point when you've already made up your mind who the villain of the piece is here?0 -
Advertisement
-
he loves his daughter
but would rather I was dead. his words.
After 15 years together, something happened. But he pays the mortgage, gets on with ‘life after you’ and people seem to think him wanting you to just leave him alone and saying he’d ‘rather you were dead’ equates to emotional abuse. You haven’t suggested he’s cheated, actually abused you or given any suggestion or hint as to why he feels that way about you. I can only assume you are not in fact the victim here.
You still live in the house, only work part time and complain that he’s not paying towards keeping you lr daughter clothed and fed. Do you pay half the household costs? Do you actually pay anything towards the mortgage on the house you’re trying to divide? As others said, it doesn’t make sense that the house is in his name but mortgage in both, unless you were added and he put *his* equity on the table to secure a remortgage.
If you are no longer in a relationship and only work part-time, the fair and balanced approach to this would be to go get a full-time job, share the housing and childcare costs equally and get on with planning to live within your own means as equals. The relationship is dead. Dea with the assets through the courts, but don’t adopt a victim mentality and look to ruin his life and take the family home if you caused the relationship to end and don’t put in your share. Being a parent is not a job and is not something that enjoys equal input in most families.
Be realistic in what you ask for, expect from the legal system and from your ex. Life gets easier when you make the effort to actively improve it, rather than wait for a share of something created under a previous dynamic, or to run away and drag your child away from their father, just because you’re finding it tough financially.0 -
I'm not getting into a line by line multi quote battle with anyone, the ex doesn't have much interest in parenting their child, is emotionally & financially abusive to OP and is perpetuating the toxic environment in which they live.
There is absolutely nothing in the OP's contributions so far to justify such an assessment of the father.
All we know is that the OP is waiting for a legal solution to an emotional problem, and we can infer that neither of them are taking any active measures to resolve the dispute through non-combative mediation.0 -
You wouldnt be able to draw down a mortgage like this, but if one person bought the house and the other moved in later and was added to the mortgage it might come out this way.
Im not sure if it would still happen - but it used to be more common pre recession.
That’s not true. You can absolutely draw down a mortgage when the names differ from those on the deeds. Just as an aside. But sorry for the off topic.0 -
You still live in the house, only work part time and complain that he’s not paying towards keeping you lr daughter clothed and fed. Do you pay half the household costs? Do you actually pay anything towards the mortgage on the house you’re trying to divide? As others said, it doesn’t make sense that the house is in his name but mortgage in both, unless you were added and he put *his* equity on the table to secure a remortgage.
.
The OP IS contributing by providing childcare and paying for all her child's expenses. I'd be willing to bet she also does the bulk of the household work. Why is that not seen as a valid contribution? Would her ex be able to earn 6 times her salary if he had to shorten his working hours to do pick ups and drop offs? If he had to take time off at short notice when the child was sick? Would he have as much disposable income if he had to contribute towards childcare costs? Highly doubtful.
Paying exactly half of everything doesn't really work in the real world, in a relationship where one person earns multiples less than the other and does all the childcare. I don't believe that most reasonable people would subject their partner to what amounts to financial abuse by enforcing half of everything, leaving them in poverty.
The reality is that the op is the child's primary caregiver and it is in the best interests of the child to stay with her. It's not about getting one over on an ex, it's about what's best for the child. That's how the courts would see it. If the Op moves then the child's life will stay much the same. maybe she would even see the father more at weekends if he doesn't see her during the week and prioritises that over going out. If the father is given full time custody then the child will lose the person who actually looks after her and will presumably have to spend longer being looked after by professionals as the father will be working (which will also cost money I doubt the father actually wants to pay, if he did he would be doing it already) That is going to be emotionally damaging to the child. If everything stays the same then the child is being raised in a toxic atmosphere and is also emotionally damaging. It's obvious what the best option is.0 -
Nobody said it wasn't.
But would she be able to work part time and pay all her costs including rent, utilities, etc if her partner was not working full time and subsidising her? No.
Why is a parent who works full time not considered as contributing towards their child? Why is working to pay for the roof over your child's head, heat, light, etc, not considered as caregiving?
I honestly do not care who does the bulk of the housework, it's petty, and whats more it's not relevant to custody. The majority of the housework falling to the person who is at home half the day is often the trade-off that comes with one partner working part time.
There is another consideration here, and that is the no small matter of the child's right to a relationship with her father - and that should be more then 4 days a month / every other weekend which is no doubt what his role will be reduced to if the mother is allowed to move away. THAT is child abuse in my view.
Presuming the mother is able-bodied and capable, the advice given by JayZeus above is the way to go.0 -
Advertisement
-
Would the mother be able to work part time and pay all her costs including rent, utilities, etc if her partner was not working full time and subsidising her? No.
Why is a parent who works full time not considered as contributing towards their child? Why is working to pay for a roof over their head, heat, light , etc, not considered as caregiving?
I honestly do not care who does the bulk of the housework, it's petty, and whats more it's not relevant to custody. The majority of the housework falling to the person who is at home half the day is often the trade-off that comes with working part time.
There is another consideration here, and that is the no small matter of the child's right to a relationship with her father - and that should be more then 4 days a month / every other weekend which is no doubt what his role will be reduced to if the mother is allowed to move away. THAT is child abuse in my view.
Presuming the mother is able-bodied and capable, the advice given by JayZeus above is the best on the thread.
I was countering the people saying that the Op isn't contributing because she works part time and can't pay half of the mortgage and bills. She is contributing in another way. Of course providing a home is contributing, but it doesn't absolve a parent of all other parental responsibilities and duties does it?
according to the op the ex isn't around at weekends and doesnt want to do anything with his child then anyway. If that's the case then 4 days a month will probably be plenty for him. If she moves away, (and bear in mind she is hardly moving to the other side of the world here) ,the child will still have a roof over her head, be happy with the person who spends most time with her and provides her with care and nurturing and the op will have the support of her family. The ex's life can continue as usual, working and going out when he pleases. I don't know why you would advocate the ex gaining full custody and putting the child's life into turmoil, just to prove a point?0 -
Evd-Burner wrote: »Every one is saying to go for child maintenance etc. Just remember that he will only be ordered to pay what he can afford and it will be extremely long and tedious trying extract anything from the value of the home.
I also think that she's trying to perform a massive cash extraction and take his daughter hours away is certainly an issue. It appears that he can provide for his daughter and seems to be doing so, OP is not yet feels like she should be the one to uproot the daughter to her parents house while they live off the lads maintenance.
he doesn't appear to care if the op stays or goes, he just wants to keep his daughter in his home that he is providing for her, in the surroundings she has grown up in.0 -
Nobody said it wasn't.
But would she be able to work part time and pay all her costs including rent, utilities, etc if her partner was not working full time and subsidising her? No.
Why is a parent who works full time not considered as contributing towards their child? Why is working to pay for the roof over your child's head, heat, light, etc, not considered as caregiving?
I honestly do not care who does the bulk of the housework, it's petty, and whats more it's not relevant to custody. The majority of the housework falling to the person who is at home half the day is often the trade-off that comes with one partner working part time.
There is another consideration here, and that is the no small matter of the child's right to a relationship with her father - and that should be more then 4 days a month / every other weekend which is no doubt what his role will be reduced to if the mother is allowed to move away. THAT is child abuse in my view.
Presuming the mother is able-bodied and capable, the advice given by JayZeus above is the way to go.
No one is admonishing him for working full time, the issue appears to be that he spends very little time with the child during his free hours, and has no interest in changing that arrangement.
He doesn’t bring her to her activities and is gone all day Saturday and Sunday.
He prioritizes his own interests over spending quality time with his daughter.
If OP works full time and the ex works full time who looks after the child?
The ex’s earning ability will be much higher than OP as she has been working part time to facilitate childcare the last few years.
Even if she works full time, splitting costs right down the middle isn’t a reasonable solution if one party makes six times more than the other - that’s not how it works.
All the while the innocent child sits in a crèche all day.
None of that is in the child’s best interests, that’s just pandering to the ex.
If he actually had what’s best for the child at heart he would either pay sufficient maintence to help OP to rent nearby or he would accept her moving to her parents place and work towards a custody agreement that benefits him.
The fact that he has done neither of these things speaks volumes.
Seems to be his way or the highway.0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »I also think that she's trying to perform a massive cash extraction and take his daughter hours away is certainly an issue. It appears that he can provide for his daughter and seems to be doing so, OP is not yet feels like she should be the one to uproot the daughter to her parents house while they live off the lads maintenance.
he doesn't appear to care if the op stays or goes, he just wants to keep his daughter in his home that he is providing for her, in the surroundings she has grown up in.
She isn’t trying to perform a cash extraction.
She is paying all costs for the rearing of their child on a part time income with no assistance from him.
He will not contribute financially to the upkeep of the child.
She can’t afford to rent locally, she can’t stay in the house, what is she supposed to do?
Bearing in mind he works full time, is gone all weekend and doesn’t spend much of his free time with the child as it is even though she’s currently living in the house.0 -
She isn’t trying to perform a cash extraction.
She is paying all costs for the rearing of their child on a part time income with no assistance from him.
He will not contribute financially to the upkeep of the child.
She can’t afford to rent locally, she can’t stay in the house, what is she supposed to do?
Bearing in mind he works full time, is gone all weekend and doesn’t spend much of his free time with the child as it is even though she’s currently living in the house.
then why court for cohabitation ?
she is paying to feed and clothe the child, doesnt seem like she's paying to live there or to keep a roof over the childs head.
since he doesn't want his daughter gone id imagine he's pretty concerned about her, him not spending time with the daughter could be not spending time around the OP instead...
OP could go to her parents and leave the daughter with the father and work out visitation.0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »
OP could go to her parents and leave the daughter with the father and work out visitation.
And then the child will spend more time away from both parents in a childcare setting. That is not in the child's bests interests and any parent who cared about their kid would understand that. Like it or not, the op is the primary caregiver and staying with her is what is best for the child. Do you understand that being separated from a primary caregiver is actually traumatic for children?0 -
I was countering the people saying that the Op isn't contributing because she works part time and can't pay half of the mortgage and bills. She is contributing in another way. Of course providing a home is contributing, but it doesn't absolve a parent of all other parental responsibilities and duties does it?
according to the op the ex isn't around at weekends and doesnt want to do anything with his child then anyway. If that's the case then 4 days a month will probably be plenty for him. If she moves away, (and bear in mind she is hardly moving to the other side of the world here) ,the child will still have a roof over her head, be happy with the person who spends most time with her and provides her with care and nurturing and the op will have the support of her family. The ex's life can continue as usual, working and going out when he pleases. I don't know why you would advocate the ex gaining full custody and putting the child's life into turmoil, just to prove a point?
Look, I've known more than one man who found themselves in this situation and they do everything they can to stay out of their ex's way and not rock the boat.
You are assuming that he is disinterested and does not want to spend time with his child, whereas I would be willing to bet good money that it is his ex he does want to spend time with. If things are as toxic as that, I wouldn't want to spend my weekend hanging around my ex either, and would make sure I had plans made to be out as much as possible.
The OP has already said her ex would be quite happy for the child to stay with him and her to go, and he is not going to let her just take the child. If he was as disinterested in his child and his parental role as you seem to believe, he'd consent to her moving away with her mother.0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »then why court for cohabitation ?
she is paying to feed and clothe the child, doesnt seem like she's paying to live there or to keep a roof over the childs head.
since he doesn't want his daughter gone id imagine he's pretty concerned about her, him not spending time with the daughter could be not spending time around the OP instead...
OP could go to her parents and leave the daughter with the father and work out visitation.
OP leaves the child, who drops and collects her from crèche?
Bearing in mind if she’s on the ECCE scheme she’s only in for 3.5 hours a day?
And who minds her outside that 3.5 hours a day while the ex is working full time?
Where’s the logic in sticking the child in a crèche from 9-5 when that’s not what she’s used to just to suit the dad when the mother could continue to be her full time carer at the parents house?
OP is the main caregiver and has always been. It’s in the best interests of the child to stay with that person, regardless of whether it’s the mother or father.0 -
OP leaves the child, who drops and collects her from crèche?
Bearing in mind if she’s on the ECCE scheme she’s only in for 3.5 hours a day?
And who minds her outside that 3.5 hours a day while the ex is working full time?
Where’s the logic in sticking the child in a crèche from 9-5 when that’s not what she’s used to just to suit the dad when the mother could continue to be her full time carer at the parents house?
OP is the main caregiver and has always been. It’s in the best interests of the child to stay with that person, regardless of whether it’s the mother or father.
except , time aside, the father owns the home the child grew up in and has the resources to raise the child (creche or himself changing working hours, or care from his family possibly, we have no idea) , the OP cannot raise the child without a court ordered handout from the father.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Eric Cartman wrote: »except , time aside, the father owns the home the child grew up in and has the resources to raise the child (creche or himself changing working hours, or care from his family possibly, we have no idea) , the OP cannot raise the child without a court ordered handout from the father.
If he was interested in changing his work hours to facilitate being sole custodian I’m sure he would have done it by now.
Same for the excuses about him not making an effort at the weekend - if he wanted to spend time with the child I’m sure he could take her out for the day without OP being there.
He just doesn’t seem to want to.
A court will want to see that the best interests of the child are met with as little disruption to her current routine as possible.
Separating her from her main caregiver and putting her in a crèche for 40 hours a week are not in the best interests of the child.
No judge in the land will order it and rightly so.0 -
Not hours away from the other parent, its not.
Yet you only suggested a few posts ago that the mother should go off to her parents on her own and leave the child with the father who works full time and have her put in a crèche.
Didn’t seem to have a problem with the other parent being hours away then, did you? :rolleyes:0 -
the issue appears to be that he spends very little time with the child during his free hours, and has no interest in changing that arrangement.
He doesn’t bring her to her activities and is gone all day Saturday and Sunday.
He prioritizes his own interests over spending quality time with his daughter.
And how do you know that? Because the OP certainly hasn't told us. What she has told us is that the atmosphere in the house is intolerable for her. Well, maybe it's just as intolerable for him? Maybe he hasn't spoken to her "for a year" because she flies off the handle every time he tries to start a conversation? Maybe he needs to get out of the house at weekends so that he doesn't lose his temper.
You don't know anything about this situation; all your advice so far has been based on a worst-case scenario, based on no evidence at all.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »And how do you know that? Because the OP certainly hasn't told us. What she has told us is that the atmosphere in the house is intolerable for her. Well, maybe it's just as intolerable for him? Maybe he hasn't spoken to her "for a year" because she flies off the handle every time he tries to start a conversation? Maybe he needs to get out of the house at weekends so that he doesn't lose his temper.
You don't know anything about this situation; all your advice so far has been based on a worst-case scenario, based on no evidence at all.
No, all my advice has been based on what’s best for the child caught up in all of this.0 -
If he was interested in changing his work hours to facilitate being sole custodian I’m sure he would have done it by now.
Same for the excuses about him not making an effort at the weekend - if he wanted to spend time with the child I’m sure he could take her out for the day without OP being there.
He just doesn’t seem to want to.
A court will want to see that the best interests of the child are met with as little disruption to her current routine as possible.
Separating her from her main caregiver and putting her in a crèche for 40 hours a week are not in the best interests of the child.
No judge in the land will order it and rightly so.
The best interest of the child may however be to stay in the home provided with the parent who can provide fully financially and near all of the services in dublin.
we're both verging on to speculation here, neither of us know if the child would be in creche 40 hours a week, if the ex can work from home etc.. it sounds like he works and goes out to spend as little time with OP as possible, not avoid his daughter.
The facts of it are all about the kid , and in terms of what can be provided
the father :
a home
financial support
being in dublin convenient to schools and hospitals
the familiar location the child has grown up in thus far
the OP :
some room in her parents house hours away.
we have to remember the OP wont have that job when they move and theyre already looking for financial support from the father. OP doesn't have their ducks in a row to provide for the kid, father does.0 -
-
Eric Cartman wrote: »The best interest of the child may however be to stay in the home provided with the parent who can provide fully financially and near all of the services in dublin.
we're both verging on to speculation here, neither of us know if the child would be in creche 40 hours a week, if the ex can work from home etc.. it sounds like he works and goes out to spend as little time with OP as possible, not avoid his daughter.
The facts of it are all about the kid , and in terms of what can be provided
the father :
a home
financial support
being in dublin convenient to schools and hospitals
the familiar location the child has grown up in thus far
the OP :
some room in her parents house hours away.
we have to remember the OP wont have that job when they move and theyre already looking for financial support from the father. OP doesn't have their ducks in a row to provide for the kid, father does.
Near all services in Dublin? No, that’s not what the courts prioritise at all.
They favour children being with their main caregiver with as little disruption to their usual routine as possible.
In this situation that person is the mother.
The father can offer financial support because he works full time while OP cares for their child.
He can offer a home due to some dubious circumstances which caused the OP to lose her rights to the home despite her name being on the mortgage.
She is entitled to that financial support for her child whether she is working or not. He is obliged to provide it.
Your post just seems to focus on the father getting his way at all costs rather than what’s best for their daughter.
That’s not how it works in court. It’s not as simple as a game of ‘who has the most money’.0 -
Just putting the shoe on the other foot.Yet you only suggested a few posts ago that the mother should go off to her parents on her own and leave the child with the father who works full time and have her put in a crèche.
Didn’t seem to have a problem with the other parent being hours away then, did you? :rolleyes:
If she had said she wanted to stay in the same postal code, even within the same city, I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it, but I don't agree with her moving the child hours away. That will only result in a huge distancing between the father and daughter over time, and that is not fair to either of them.
I've seen it in practice and it doesn't work, especially when the children get older. They don't want to spend their weekends commuting back and forward, or there is endless hassle and tears over not being able to join teams or groups in their area, or attend birthday parties etc and eventually its Dad who gets phased out and is it always Dad who has to make the greater sacrifice "in the best interest of the child".
In the best interest of the mother, more like.0 -
Just putting the shoe on the other foot.
If she had said she wanted to stay in the same postal code, even within the same city, I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it, but I don't agree with her moving the child hours away. That will only result in a huge distancing between the father and daughter over time, and that is not fair to either of them.
I've seen it in practice and it doesn't work, especially when the children get older. They don't want to spend their weekends commuting back and forward, or there is endless hassle and tears over not being able to join teams or groups in their area, or attend birthday parties etc and eventually its Dad who gets phased out and is it always Dad who has to make the greater sacrifice "in the best interest of the child".
In the best interest of the mother, more like.
+1 , and his daughter go down to her parents house, will he want to come down to that hostile environment all the time - not a chance, phase him out, keep demanding money , daughter grows up resenting dad, the usual play.0 -
Advertisement
-
And being moved hours away from her home and from her father won't be?
That really says a lot about how much value you place on the father's continued role in his child's life.
No, it says a lot about how I believe in what is best for the child. It's a fact that the courts will strive to keep a child with their primary caregiver, whether that person be the mother or father or another family member. There is a reason for that. A child isn't a possession to split in half or to be given to the person who has the financial advantage.0 -
No, it says a lot about how I believe that in what is best for the child. It's a fact that the courts will strive to keep a child with their primary caregiver, whether that person be the mother or father or another family member. There is a reason for that.
You have a faith in our courts that is largely undeserved. The outcome is often as dependent on the character and bias of the deciding judge as anything else.0 -
Just putting the shoe on the other foot.
If she had said she wanted to stay in the same postal code, even within the same city, I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it, but I don't agree with her moving the child hours away. That will only result in a huge distancing between the father and daughter over time, and that is not fair to either of them.
I've seen it in practice and it doesn't work, especially when the children get older. They don't want to spend their weekends commuting back and forward, or there is endless hassle and tears over not being able to join teams or groups in their area, or attend birthday parties etc and eventually its Dad who gets phased out and is it always Dad who has to make the greater sacrifice "in the best interest of the child".
In the best interest of the mother, more like.
If the child is availing of the ECCE scheme she is either 3 or 4 years old. That means within a year or two she will be starting primary school, at which point OP will be able to increase her working hours and earn more income, while remaining the primary caregiver.
The best compromise for all involved would be for the ex to provide sufficient maintenance to assist OP rent locally for a year or two, at which time she’ll be in a position to earn more and not be under such financial pressure.
Dad wins cause his child is close by and not stuck in a crèche all day, OP wins because she doesn’t have to move back in with her parents and the child wins because she’ll have regular access to both her parents.
Seeing as the ex won’t even contribute to his financial obligation to his child I can’t imagine it’s something he’d be interested in doing but it’s the only scenario where little changes and everyone gets what they want.
If he’s unwilling to do that then OP literally has no choice, she needs to leave with her child.0 -
Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,750 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 17390
Moderator: Let's keep this on topic for the forum and bear the forum charter in mind.
Any further posts that are off topic will be deleted and may be subject to sanction in light of this warning.
This forum is for the discussion of the law relevant to the queries of the OP.0 -
[Mod deletion]
OP, have you separate applications for child maintenance and the property? If you haven’t made a maintenance application already (as you haven’t mentioned it) you can do so separately and should do ASAP given the waiting lists. You really need to apply pressure to your civil legal aid solicitor in relation to the property. Explain the urgency of the situation to them. Separately, you can be given a private practitioner cert to access a local solicitor (registered with civil legal aid board) as opposed to the legal aid solicitor if they can’t reach, in relation to maintenance. I’m sure the maintenance order won’t be enough to pay rent, but should ease pressure in relation to food etc which might mean you can wait out the court case in relation to yours and your child’s home. It would be a shame to leave your job of twenty years, not to mention your home and friends. Depending on your income, you might be entitled to one parent family payment and working family payment. A visit to your local citizens information office would help.
Stay civil, stick to the high ground no matter how difficult he makes things. You can look back with pride when it’s all a distant memory. It also models good behaviour for your daughter. Unfortunately, I do know your pain.
All the very best. S0 -
Seeing as the ex won’t even contribute to his financial obligation to his child I can’t imagine it’s something he’d be interested in doing but it’s the only scenario where little changes and everyone gets what they want..
Legally, both parents are required to maintain their children equally.
The op's ex is fulfilling his financial contribution to his child by providing the roof that currently exists over her head. You are assuming that he would have the means to contribute towards a second home while his ex continues to limit her working hours to part time hours only.
I know very few people who would be in the financial position to do that, unless they are earning megabucks, and no judge will order him to pay more then he can afford.0 -
Advertisement
-
sounds one sided to me.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement