FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Who gets the custody of a child after divorce?

Jump to newest
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

I got this question when I watched mrs doubtfire this weekend, they were married for 14 years and she wanted to get a divorce.

They went to the court and the mother won, whilst the father robin would still see them, but just one day a week on a saturday. He wasnt happy about the decision, he got really saddened about it as he wanted to see more of them.

Here is my question about it, how do you think that they come to their decision about it, like why should one see less of them and one more?

I know that the state laws vary depending on what country one is in and that it is for the best interests of the child.

Do you also think that the gender plays a role in their decision, if so how much. I wonder if there is statistics about who it favours the most, the man or the woman? Have you gone through something similar and what outcome did they arrive to?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes it usually tends to sway to the mothers favour as society believes a mothers bond is stronger than a fathers. There's a lot that should come into the decision but ultimately an assessment should be made in the best interest of the child. If they are at an age old enough to make the decision for theirselves, then that should be taken into consideration too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Usually it’s the woman historically because women are usually the main care givers

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some EU countries have made it law that children spend 50% of their time with each parent, and David Cameron was attempting to bring the UK into line with this during his first term as PM.

Many many years ago, it used to be the case that children would remain with their father after a split, but some time after WW2 that changed, though there isn't actualpy anything enshrined in law.

There are some parents who deny the absent parent any access which can lead to bitter legal disputes where the courts get involved and a judgement is made on where the children reside - I speak from experience here having gone through seven and a half years of that hell.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amierebelMan
over a year ago

nae danger.

All situations are different, however I know in my case I actually get my kids more than there mother but that took a lot of working towards, but again all situations are different

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

For some, it isn’t even about who has custody but rather having the other parent be responsible enough to be involved in their child’s life beyond the occasional weekend visit.

I haven’t been involved in one but from what I’ve heard and seen from people I’ve come across, if both parents are fighting for custody, it comes down to both proving they can provide stability and security for the child.

M

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In the UK, unless there are circumstances where by it can be proven the individual is unfit, the court will assume whoever receives the child benefit to be the primary care giver to the children. In the vast majority of cases, that will be the mother.

The role of father will continue to be assumed to be provider and their time dedicated to that role, with occasional dedicated time awarded to him. The child's wishes are taken into account where relevant.

It is better that parents in that situation decide what is best for the child and leave their egos out of it, but that is easier said than done in such an acrimonious situation.

It took me a year to get custody of my son and I did not get to see him at all in that time. After thousands spent on solicitors, who admittedly did tell my that they cannot wave a magic wand so chose to waste that money, the legal system was slow and ultimately useless.

So again says the preacher, the absolute best option is to sit down and realistically work out how you both can continue to raise your children. No matter why you are divorcing, they suffer too. Maybe more so. Put your kids first.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The child normally goes to whoever she/he spends the most time with. Normally it's mother as she is the main care taker and has the biggest bond with the child. But there's other factors contributing to who the child goes to and how frequently. It's down to their personal circumstances and how the relationship between the parents and the said child works.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"…..the absolute best option is to sit down and realistically work out how you both can continue to raise your children. No matter why you are divorcing, they suffer too. Maybe more so. Put your kids first. "

Wholeheartedly agree with this. My ex and I avoided any legal ramblings by doing precisely this. We are flexible in our arrangements and it works out very well for our child and us. Cooperate to raise the child and make everyone’s life a happier one.

M

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

[Removed by poster at 05/06/23 08:27:18]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"Yes it usually tends to sway to the mothers favour as society believes a mothers bond is stronger than a fathers. There's a lot that should come into the decision but ultimately an assessment should be made in the best interest of the child. If they are at an age old enough to make the decision for theirselves, then that should be taken into consideration too. "
I see yes and I thought it would favour the mothers more too and yes, there is a lot that come into the decision as well. I think that a better arrangement would be, lets say the 1st week the mother could have them 4 days and the father 3 days then the next week the father 4 days and the mother 3 days. I dont see why 1 should see them less, it seems like they are punishing 1 of the parents, rather than being equal to them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's very different now, to those times mentioned.

Now, there's a good chance the courts will push for 50/50 care.

Not always the case, but it's one they are likely to consider if possible, and if believed to be in the child's best interests.

Though they look to what is in the child's best interests, they have a belief in what that is, and can often miss what isn't in their best interests.

Basically, there's more of a drive to encourage father's to take their role, which can sometimes not be in the children's best interests.

Of course, it works the other way too, not all mother's deserve the title.

My point is, the current drive to encourage father's to take their role.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Despite my best efforts for many years my boys dad wanted nothing to do with them. They are better off for it too.

I think it's very sad when children become weapons in these things. I know quite a few men who have really had to battle to maintain the relationships with their children and it breaks my heart.

Likewise, I also know a couple of single dad's who do have sole custody too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *estarossa.Woman
over a year ago

Flagrante

Thats lots of questions and there are no definitive answers to most of it, Shag. The reason being that the needs of the child/children come first.

Obviously there Was a traditional gender role, but that isn't really so marked after the baby has weaned these days.

Age, gender, geography, and family dynamics all play their part, which is why it is decided on a case by case basis.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ooroo2019Woman
over a year ago

Chester

One of my best friends works in the family court. The general premise of family court is about the children’s routine.

people often feel that the family court system favours mums, but that boils down to that it in a high number of families in the UK, it is mum that works part time and does the bulk of the children’s routine.

We obviously need to discount the situations of parental alienation and all of the other extreme cases which are the ones you hear about. That is horrific and it makes me so angry when one or more parent makes it about them and doesn’t advocate for their child.

50/50 can work in lots of cases though, but really takes some decent communication from both parents. I do 50/50 and it is hard with logistics around school and friends especially as dad lives 20 miles away.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Most of the time residency arrangements don't make it to court and are agreed separately from the legal side of a divorce.

Personally, I don't think 50/50 residency should be the default as each case is highly individual. The best interests of the children are the only factors that should be taken into consideration, and if both parents are willing, capable and loving, then sure, equal time with both is desirable. Unfortunately, this isn't always a suitable outcome.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irwolf20Man
over a year ago

Nuneaton

After my split, i became my youngest daughters main carer and although we do split custody ( a week about, Friday to Friday), her main home is mine. We have an amicable split and did what was best for the child. My ex and I are still best friends.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atnip make me purrWoman
over a year ago

Reading

I did joint custody until the kids were 15 and then let them choose. My daughters come to live with me at that point and my son chose to keep the 50/50. I stayed good friends with my ex so we could coparent well.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nightsoftheCoffeeTableCouple
over a year ago

Leeds

Usually the woman but I don't believe that to be right, surely 50/50 is in the child's best interests.

I never understand why it's the mum that automatically gets everything and the dada get a weekend if that.

Things have changed since the home maker days the rest should keep up.

Mrs

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *estarossa.Woman
over a year ago

Flagrante

[Removed by poster at 05/06/23 10:40:02]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham

Shared 50/50 is very common these days and should he the default unless one parent has valid reasons not to, it also avoids most maintenance payments. But sadly a lot of fathers don’t want that and let the mothers take custody and become weekend dads.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"Usually it’s the woman historically because women are usually the main care givers "
I see yes. I thought so as well.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rispyDuckMan
over a year ago

Chinese Takeaway near you

It really should be 50/50 but the courts favour the ladies when it comes down to it.

Think cause society regards women as having better bonds with the children & back in the day mums would stay home with the kids whilst dads were out working. So kids bonded more with the mums!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"All situations are different, however I know in my case I actually get my kids more than there mother but that took a lot of working towards, but again all situations are different "
Yes, all situations are different as well.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes it usually tends to sway to the mothers favour as society believes a mothers bond is stronger than a fathers. There's a lot that should come into the decision but ultimately an assessment should be made in the best interest of the child. If they are at an age old enough to make the decision for theirselves, then that should be taken into consideration too. I see yes and I thought it would favour the mothers more too and yes, there is a lot that come into the decision as well. I think that a better arrangement would be, lets say the 1st week the mother could have them 4 days and the father 3 days then the next week the father 4 days and the mother 3 days. I dont see why 1 should see them less, it seems like they are punishing 1 of the parents, rather than being equal to them."

That sort of feels like kids are pawns to keep the parents happy though rather than what the children may want. Thats a lot of bouncing around between homes and instability for the children to put up with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"…..the absolute best option is to sit down and realistically work out how you both can continue to raise your children. No matter why you are divorcing, they suffer too. Maybe more so. Put your kids first.

Wholeheartedly agree with this. My ex and I avoided any legal ramblings by doing precisely this. We are flexible in our arrangements and it works out very well for our child and us. Cooperate to raise the child and make everyone’s life a happier one.

M"
Yes. I also agree with that and it is the best option as well, that is good that you both avoided that legal ramblings, that is a good arrangement as well

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig1gaz1Man
over a year ago

bradford


"Yes it usually tends to sway to the mothers favour as society believes a mothers bond is stronger than a fathers.

there is a lot that come into the decision as well. I think that a better arrangement would be, lets say the 1st week the mother could have them 4 days and the father 3 days then the next week the father 4 days and the mother 3 days. I dont see why 1 should see them less, it seems like they are punishing 1 of the parents, rather than being equal to them."

You wont win with that argument as your expected to still be the bread winner and pay for your child.

So will have to work yet you can be punished for the same as you pay more to see your child more so in a long court case.

and the lady being unfair and refusing contact. you can loose your house and still not win to see your child.

a stay at home father has more chance to a degree of full custody. But the woman has more chance of still having full custody of the child.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig1gaz1Man
over a year ago

bradford


"Thats lots of questions and there are no definitive answers to most of it, Shag. The reason being that the needs of the child/children come first.

Obviously there Was a traditional gender role, but that isn't really so marked after the baby has weaned these days.

Age, gender, geography, and family dynamics all play their part, which is why it is decided on a case by case basis."

That actully dosnt work as one parent can move away from the area and expect you to do all of the running.

which is unfair to the other parent.

I strongly believe in being half and half.

I had full custody of the children and yet was forced to lancashire or blackpool all because she moved there.

no family no support

For both collection and pick up I refused to do both the runs.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Whoever court sees as able to provide steady care as a parent resident. Non resident parent can be involved in many ways, I guess it's in part up to them how they want to be involved. Even though the child arrangement order may lay out certain schedule, without constant battles in court they are hard to enforce if the co- parents aren't cooperative.

T

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton

We don't have custody in the UK the way they do in the US.

Parents are encouraged to sort out an arrangement for themselves. If that breaks down, mediation will be suggested. And of course, Social Care may or may not be involved.

And the older the child is, the more their voice will be taken into consideration.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The most important people in this are the Children , often they can be used as ammunition by parents against each other and that's totally unfair.

Mostly ..if not all the time ..the mother gets the lions share of looking after the children simply because she is the better carer and plus the male has to work or earn more money as he will have extra rent , food and bills to pay for himself as well as maintenance for his kids , please note NOT all situations are like this , some situations are absolutely horrible in everyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton


"Usually the woman but I don't believe that to be right, surely 50/50 is in the child's best interests.

I never understand why it's the mum that automatically gets everything and the dada get a weekend if that."

There's nothing automatic about it at all. And 50/50 is only in the best interests of the child if it is indeed in the best interest of their child.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ive been through mediation and court to gain more access to my children, their mother wasnt happy that i came out with more than she suggested in the hearing. So 13 months later we are back in court because shes made up lies and false accuasations which ive had to bend over backwards to prove are untrue (which ive done) and i still might lose the access ive got. The system is flawed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"Thats lots of questions and there are no definitive answers to most of it, Shag. The reason being that the needs of the child/children come first.

Obviously there Was a traditional gender role, but that isn't really so marked after the baby has weaned these days.

Age, gender, geography, and family dynamics all play their part, which is why it is decided on a case by case basis."
Yes, you are right there, that is a lot of questions too and yes, many of those things also plays a part when they come to the decision, as it is case by case as well.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Both my daughter's left with me on there own accord, I got the girls, she got the house.

Eldest has never seen mother since and youngest who live 4 miles from her sees about twice a year when the ex was money for fags or booze

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West


"I got this question when I watched mrs doubtfire this weekend, they were married for 14 years and she wanted to get a divorce.

They went to the court and the mother won, whilst the father robin would still see them, but just one day a week on a saturday. He wasnt happy about the decision, he got really saddened about it as he wanted to see more of them.

Here is my question about it, how do you think that they come to their decision about it, like why should one see less of them and one more?

I know that the state laws vary depending on what country one is in and that it is for the best interests of the child.

Do you also think that the gender plays a role in their decision, if so how much. I wonder if there is statistics about who it favours the most, the man or the woman? Have you gone through something similar and what outcome did they arrive to? "

I hadn't realised that film was a documentary....

Anyway, my son's sperm donor was "awarded" minimal contact when we first split up. It's a long time ago now, and son is a bona fide adult. Sperm donor never did work out how to be a parent, sadly. Not for the child we share, nor another subsequent child.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rontier PsychiatristMan
over a year ago

Coventry

My ex-wife moved 100 miles away and I ended up in the end with a 6 month old baby and four year old. She originally intended to have them (more I think because that's what a woman's suppose to do rather than what she wanted). I was absolutely in bits and the lowest point of my life losing a wife (not understanding why at the time) and my kids. Then a few weeks later my kids were home with me and she moved in with the guy. I was overwhelmed and a little shell shocked at being a single dad to such young children but it was such a happy moment. And with the help of great family and freinds we muddled through ok.

Personally 50/50 parenting would would great however not really possible with 100 miles distance. However they do go up every other weekend and some of the holidays.

I am really lucky things were so clear cut and no legal issues. It was just kind of here's the kids, I'm off to live my life. Ironically she's the one who convinced me to have the kids as I was so fussed on it. Having that short taste of what it's like as a father to have your kids taken away from your life I understand the pain a bit. And I can see it just takes one unreasonable adult in the equation to make things completely hell for the other and the children. Sorry I haven't got any legal advise because luckily it's not a road I have to cross. Although there was a time she wouldn't send the kids home after a stay (I think as a result of a sly beef she has with my fiancée getting close to the kids). I was shocked to be told that in theory I couldn't just legally request them back right away and if she didn't hand them back it could be a lengthy and expensive court procedure. Luckily common sense prevailed and I got them back a couple of days late (and annoyingly a couple of days at school missed). Also I hate how scary and confusing that must have been for the kids. It was a traumatic experience for me and now I have a constant fear and anxiety of her doingit again to me and the gives.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *929Man
over a year ago

newcastle

I was told by a solicitor (way back in 2014) that although the mother is still looked upon slightly more favourably by courts the vast disparity there once was is a lot closer with more choosing to grant joint custody. I sought the advice after being told by the ex I had to agree to her terms after she hadn’t seen the kids for 6 weeks and came back demanding them back only wanting me to have them the odd time otherwise I’d be arrested for kid nap if I had the kids when she decided she wanted them turns out it’s a load of shit and as long as on the birth certificate you have the same right to them as she does this was put to the test when she rang the police and they turned up checked the kids were safe and admitted that’s all they can do.

When we split up again for good in 2021 we let the kids choose my son stayed with me, my daughter went with her but said she is moving back in here when her rabbit dies

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig1gaz1Man
over a year ago

bradford


"Although there was a time she wouldn't send the kids home after a stay (I think as a result of a sly beef she has with my fiancée getting close to the kids). I was shocked to be told that in theory I couldn't just legally request them back right away and if she didn't hand them back it could be a lengthy and expensive court procedure. Luckily common sense prevailed and I got them back a couple of days late (and annoyingly a couple of days at school missed). Also I hate how scary and confusing that must have been for the kids. It was a traumatic experience for me and now I have a constant fear and anxiety of her doing it again to me and the gives.

"

I had that but as id been granted full custody of the children.

I had to get a removal order from the courts.

I couldnt get them until that court order had been given.

On collection both the children flew out of the house, straight to the car and was me telling me what had happened to them.

Both got a cuddle in the vehicle I was told to stay in the car.

I found out later she had tried to imply with the council she had full custody, hence the reason why she refused to return the children.

Our case was a true nightmare 8 years long

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton


"I was told by a solicitor (way back in 2014) that although the mother is still looked upon slightly more favourably by courts the vast disparity there once was is a lot closer with more choosing to grant joint custody. I sought the advice after being told by the ex I had to agree to her terms after she hadn’t seen the kids for 6 weeks and came back demanding them back only wanting me to have them the odd time otherwise I’d be arrested for kid nap if I had the kids when she decided she wanted them turns out it’s a load of shit and as long as on the birth certificate you have the same right to them as she does this was put to the test when she rang the police and they turned up checked the kids were safe and admitted that’s all they can do. "

I'm glad the police knew what they were doing in that case.

However, no solicitor in 2014 should have been using the phrase 'joint custody.' She is correct though that courts - if they have to get involved - are likely to encourage something as close to shared residence as possible, given the child's welfare.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isfits behaving badlyCouple
over a year ago

Coventry


"Although there was a time she wouldn't send the kids home after a stay (I think as a result of a sly beef she has with my fiancée getting close to the kids). I was shocked to be told that in theory I couldn't just legally request them back right away and if she didn't hand them back it could be a lengthy and expensive court procedure. Luckily common sense prevailed and I got them back a couple of days late (and annoyingly a couple of days at school missed). Also I hate how scary and confusing that must have been for the kids. It was a traumatic experience for me and now I have a constant fear and anxiety of her doing it again to me and the gives.

I had that but as id been granted full custody of the children.

I had to get a removal order from the courts.

I couldnt get them until that court order had been given.

On collection both the children flew out of the house, straight to the car and was me telling me what had happened to them.

Both got a cuddle in the vehicle I was told to stay in the car.

I found out later she had tried to imply with the council she had full custody, hence the reason why she refused to return the children.

Our case was a true nightmare 8 years long"

That's awful. I'm glad it got sorted in the end but nothing can compensate you and the kids for stress, the lost time and the money. I hate that they can literally make everyone suffer with absolutely not consequences. I only had about a week in total of this and it still affects me and my fiancée now. Not even an acknowledgement or apology from my Ex or her parents. I wish there was some sort of justice or compensation for when ex's pull deliberately and harmful shit like this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West

I've tried (and failed) to expunge the memories of my mother weaponising me and my brother, in her narcissistic war against my Dad. He was granted "contact" every 3rd weekend only. But mother would try even to stop that and refused to communicate directly with my Dad. It fell to me to pass messages between them, from about age 6 onwards.

Fun times

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not necessarily. My mum and Dad were fighting over me from 2 years old, when I got to 11, I told the courts I was going to my grandmas, I was sick of the fighting. Courts were going against my dad because of shift work (fireman), even though my step mum had/s been around since I was 3 and my mum had past trauma. If you’re able, decide without the courts.

Mrs

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Why do people still think that women are favoured automatically ?

My understanding is that the courts are fair when working out custody, where custody is sought-taking the needs of the child into account.

Yes , we see more single mothers than single fathers , one of the main reasons being that the woman was left with the child or won't allow the estranged father to see the child AND the man doesn't do anything to seek custody. Some not even knowing they are fathers again and some of them not wanting custody and not wanting the burden of children and certainly not the financial responsibility that goes with it.

There are very few cases where women don't see their children and this is NOT because society works in their favour at all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why do people still think that women are favoured automatically ?

(...)

There are very few cases where women don't see their children and this is NOT because society works in their favour at all.

"

This.

T

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham


"Ive been through mediation and court to gain more access to my children, their mother wasnt happy that i came out with more than she suggested in the hearing. So 13 months later we are back in court because shes made up lies and false accuasations which ive had to bend over backwards to prove are untrue (which ive done) and i still might lose the access ive got. The system is flawed. "

This is exactly why you should always insist on joint custody rather than access.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ister_ee_1981Man
over a year ago

Sunniest Exeter...

It never will, but ever case needs to be judged on its merits, there should be no "default stance" (which others have said is generally the mother is first choice)

And it definitely SHOULDN'T be the case that one parent has to prove the other is "unfit" - what idiot thought that was a good metric to use...

And both parties should be punished equally if they breach the terms of agreement.

Just my two pennies worth...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *cplsMan
over a year ago

Nr Waltham

I got custody of my son when I divorced and very happy he is. He did get to give his preference which was to stay in his home and keep at the same school. His mother moved 150 miles away.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The sad one is when the mother gets custody and turns the kids against the Father. This has happened to a friend of ours, he is a fantastic Father but the witch who divorced him has turned both children against him.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"Not necessarily. My mum and Dad were fighting over me from 2 years old, when I got to 11, I told the courts I was going to my grandmas, I was sick of the fighting. Courts were going against my dad because of shift work (fireman), even though my step mum had/s been around since I was 3 and my mum had past trauma. If you’re able, decide without the courts.

Mrs"
I see yes, as you say there, not necessarily as you eventually choose who you wanted to be with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aughtystaffs60Couple
over a year ago

Staffordshire

I have personal experience of both sides of the coin. The problem is a Divorce usually happens for a reason and if someone is mentally unwell it is very hard to reason with them. You just have to hope time is a healer.

In my case it was, but with Mrs N it was opposite with all the damage that has caused to her children.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Having been through the family court system a lot of what is written here is based on opinion and personal views of how the law should work, rather than knowledge of the law.

You don’t have custody in the UK, you have residency.

The moment you enter court you’re allowing other people decide the outcome. The want, need and desire of the parents take second place to those of the child. The focus of the court is solely on their welfare. If the outcome is inconvenient or not palatable to one parent that’s too bad.

If the child or children are ruled “Gillick competent” by the court, then their voice will be heard and carries more weight than the parents.

A court can grant shared residency, sole residency or place children into care.

In my case I was awarded sole residency, and mother was denied contact beyond limited written contact.

Family court is private law, and you have to pay your own costs. Expect a very large bill of many thousands of pounds…

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

50/50 for my youngest agreed without need for court. May change as they get older and have a preference for where they spend more time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton


"Having been through the family court system a lot of what is written here is based on opinion and personal views of how the law should work, rather than knowledge of the law.

You don’t have custody in the UK, you have residency.

The moment you enter court you’re allowing other people decide the outcome. The want, need and desire of the parents take second place to those of the child. The focus of the court is solely on their welfare. If the outcome is inconvenient or not palatable to one parent that’s too bad.

If the child or children are ruled “Gillick competent” by the court, then their voice will be heard and carries more weight than the parents.

A court can grant shared residency, sole residency or place children into care.

In my case I was awarded sole residency, and mother was denied contact beyond limited written contact.

Family court is private law, and you have to pay your own costs. Expect a very large bill of many thousands of pounds…"

^ This - except that gillick competence doesn't *strictly* apply here, as it specifically refers to consent. However, it might be used by some professionals in a looser manner.

Everything else is correct though. It's quite worrying how even some professionals get this wrong (e.g. police officers), not just people expressing opinions on fab.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"^ This - except that gillick competence doesn't *strictly* apply here, as it specifically refers to consent. However, it might be used by some professionals in a looser manner."

Actually… it is as I described. Essentially, the ruling of “Gillick competent” is based around the person, in this case two minors, being judged to be sufficiently competent to understand the complexity of the decision being made, and their understanding of its consequences. I have written judgment from a very senior Judge describing this, and its application. In my case it was very significant.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"I got custody of my son when I divorced and very happy he is. He did get to give his preference which was to stay in his home and keep at the same school. His mother moved 150 miles away."
That is good you got you got the custody too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
30 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.


"50/50 for my youngest agreed without need for court. May change as they get older and have a preference for where they spend more time. "
That is good it was 50/50 for your youngest one too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allerthanaverage79Man
30 weeks ago

Ayrshire

Custardy is a trifling matter!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
30 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.


"Usually the woman but I don't believe that to be right, surely 50/50 is in the child's best interests.

I never understand why it's the mum that automatically gets everything and the dada get a weekend if that.

There's nothing automatic about it at all. And 50/50 is only in the best interests of the child if it is indeed in the best interest of their child."
Yes, you are right there. I also agree that 50/50 is in best interest for the child too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ivemealadybonerWoman
30 weeks ago

somewhere

The father of my boys got custody of my boys, not that we ever went to court over it.

My husband at the time, was a stay at home dad, I went to work, 2 of my boys are autistic so made sense for him to keep the house, the boys and keep them into a routine, it broke my heart but it what was best for the children and we felt, given the circumstances this was best, not what was best for the adults, for a very long time I was there most evenings for dinner and bed time, to keep them in their routines and then as they got older we started to change little things and overtime it became more normal for me not to be there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
30 weeks ago

The Town by The Cross

I only read the first few answers and then lost interest.

It does not go in the womans favour automatically.

There are many things taken into consideration before a decision on what is in the childs best interest is made.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rHotNottsMan
30 weeks ago

Dubai & Nottingham


"I only read the first few answers and then lost interest.

It does not go in the womans favour automatically.

There are many things taken into consideration before a decision on what is in the childs best interest is made."

Typically the courts favour joint custody these days unless one parent has valid reasons for sole custody. Unfortunately many guys don’t seem to want this and are happy for the woman to have custody

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atnip make me purrWoman
30 weeks ago

Reading

I did joint. Seems the best way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
30 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.


"The father of my boys got custody of my boys, not that we ever went to court over it.

My husband at the time, was a stay at home dad, I went to work, 2 of my boys are autistic so made sense for him to keep the house, the boys and keep them into a routine, it broke my heart but it what was best for the children and we felt, given the circumstances this was best, not what was best for the adults, for a very long time I was there most evenings for dinner and bed time, to keep them in their routines and then as they got older we started to change little things and overtime it became more normal for me not to be there.

"
That is good you were there most evenings, yes, it is important to keep the routines too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top