You are the primary carer. You have always been the primary carer. In all probability you will remain the primary carer.
What reasons does he give for the children being better off with him now that they are at school? This is a new one on me and may well be a new one on the judge. He''ll have to do a lot better than that to remove the children from a full-time parent.
There is a list of reasons that he has, one of which is financial reasons.
He says he has support from his family, childminders, nannies and after school clubs.
He says he can be flexible with his work now that he is established and it will cause chaos to the children once I go out to find work. He is also stating that I will never be able to provide enough for them and that they will adjust and have a better life with him.
He is still trying to pin child abuse on me.
I am wondering where the Law and Legal System lies on all this as my solicitor stated that more and more fathers are getting custody.
Financial reasons will get him nowhere. That is what child support payments are for - and if he thinks they will not be enough then I am sure he is welcome to pay more. Once you are working you will also get child tax credit and you will probably get spouse maintenance for a while as well.
Childminders, nannies, family and after school clubs are not the same as having you. This won''t get him far either. Why would it cause more chaos for you to go out to work than for him to do it and cover the childcare with a hodgepodge of different arrangments? In any case you would have a reasonable case for spouse maintenance until the younger one goes to secondary school to enable you to have a job that fits around school hours or school hours plus teatime club.
He is not going to get far with child abuse allegations either. He is just making allegations, nothing is proved, and if the children are fine then CAFCASS will see that and say so. Your legal team will also be able to make the extremely good point that he thought you were OK to be the children''s full time carer when he lived with you so why shouldn''t he think that now? It is really hard to show that a mother who has been a full-time carer is unfit to remain the main carer for the children, and you would have to be wallopping them regularly or smoking dope in front of them every night for this to happen.
It is true that more fathers are getting residence or shared residence, but not in circumstances like these. It''s usually when the father has been the main or equal carer (not true in your case and he doesn''t even seem to be trying to pretend it was) or if the mother is manifestly incapable, eg. frequently blind drunk when looking after the children.
I have to agree with Sadie.
My friends ex upped and left and for 2 years had very sporadic contact (his choosing), cancelling contact in favour of holidays etc with the OW.
Once the new relationship had died down (the honeymoon period was over) he decided that he wanted the kids full time as he had a bigger house and could work from home. Beggars belief really.
How do these NRP''s think that they''re in the right?
It is not the NPR''s right to see their children. It is the children''s right to see their parents.
Noone is perfect and when a "faulty" NPR says: I have messed up but I want to make up for it and commits to doing this, then why would they be denied contact?
It is not to the children''s best interest to keep them away from their parents because we are holding grudges or we want to teach them a lesson and all RPs should encourage any kind of contact, even the ones that come later.
Now having said that, full time after two years? Nah... That ship has sailed. But I would give him the opportunity to built to 50-50, yes. Sometimes fathers surprise you with how good they can be and how the children enjoy their parenting styles.