Separation - wife wants me out of house before separation agreed

mrbongos

Registered User
Messages
11
We have started separation, just had our first mediation meeting where my wife stated she wants me out of the house ASAP.

I'm not sure of my legal standing. From what I've heard, if things escalate to courts, it can be claimed that I have deserted the family.

Also, I believe the mediation process will last longer now that I would be a thorn in the side.

Where do I stand do you think? Would I be in legal danger if things really escalated if I've chosen to leave home without a separation agreement?

Thanks for reading
 
Only if you refuse to support / pay child maintenance / parent your children.
So it's no problem leaving the family home, soft separation - as long as bills are paid, help with children? No possible negative if things escalate to a battle between solicitors/barristers?
 
Leaving can put you in a very unfair position. You cannot be a full parent to your kids (if any) if you are not there and involved 50% in all activities. If you can obtain another house apartment where you can have the kids 50 % of the time then it may be fine to move.

Be very slow to move if you have nothing lined up. Moving back in with your parents is just being a visitor and the kids would just be visiting their grands instead of living in a separate home with you.

Can you continue to live in your house with your spouse currently. Is there abuse or shouting? Would the kids suffer with you both there? Can ye divide up the space.

I am not saying your family situation is like this but you hear so often of the husband moving out and quickly looking access to the kids by a whole manner of means. They are sick, crying, want to go to a party, are too upset, tooo tired, not available etc, etc. then when it comes to court the wife lists all the times you were supposed to take the kids and didn’t so you are painted as a poor parent and end up with less than 50% access.

The court could of course issue an exclusion order asking one parent to leave because in the long run it is not practical, but in the short term don’t move out too quickly.
 
We have started separation, just had our first mediation meeting where my wife stated she wants me out of the house ASAP.

I'm not sure of my legal standing. From what I've heard, if things escalate to courts, it can be claimed that I have deserted the family.

Also, I believe the mediation process will last longer now that I would be a thorn in the side.

Where do I stand do you think? Would I be in legal danger if things really escalated if I've chosen to leave home without a separation agreement?

Thanks for reading
Do not move out without getting proper legal advice.
 
Leaving can put you in a very unfair position. You cannot be a full parent to your kids (if any) if you are not there and involved 50% in all activities. If you can obtain another house apartment where you can have the kids 50 % of the time then it may be fine to move.

Be very slow to move if you have nothing lined up. Moving back in with your parents is just being a visitor and the kids would just be visiting their grands instead of living in a separate home with you.

Can you continue to live in your house with your spouse currently. Is there abuse or shouting? Would the kids suffer with you both there? Can ye divide up the space.

I am not saying your family situation is like this but you hear so often of the husband moving out and quickly looking access to the kids by a whole manner of means. They are sick, crying, want to go to a party, are too upset, tooo tired, not available etc, etc. then when it comes to court the wife lists all the times you were supposed to take the kids and didn’t so you are painted as a poor parent and end up with less than 50% access.

The court could of course issue an exclusion order asking one parent to leave because in the long run it is not practical, but in the short term don’t move out too quickly.
Am feeling that way also, moving out early points me out as the bad guy. Tension will be gone, mother will be happy and therefore kids will be, thus proving I'm the problem. I guess that will happen in the end anyway when we do actually split, but at least the kids will get to see me deal with split in house and do my best.

Kids are 18 and 16. There's no abuse or shouting at all, just tension. Wife or 16 year old are not talking to me. I don't have to do any parenting as such, apart from odd jobs around house and making school lunches, as wife retired from work a few years ago to look after kids full time.

Dividing up space is perhaps possible but feels like banishment. There's no grandparents. There's no place for me to live nearby, so it would be Airbnb for the duration probably (it's Dublin, not exactly super easy to find accomodation)


Do not move out without getting proper legal advice.
Thanks, probably right thing - if I really think I need to move.
 
In a world of equality, one wonders why the wife should not be the person to move out, and particularly when it's the wife that appears to want to put immediate distance between herself and her husband ?

I would not be going anywhere, at least not in the short term.

Go through the process, be honest, be fair, but don't throw yourself on your sword. You have to have a right to a reasonable quality of life, too!
 
Last edited:
Where do I stand do you think?
Under no circumstances move out until there is a full legally binding agreement in place. You will lose everything if you do.
Missing the point. Its the children who need to stay in their home.
Missing the point, the kids are 16 and 18. They can stay there too. They will be able to survive with one working parent in the house.

There's no reason the wife can't get a job and rent somewhere nearby.
 
Last edited:
Missing the point, the kids are 16 and 18. They can stay there too. T
The question doesn't circulate on which parent stays or goes; the fundamental is that the children have as little disruption as possible.
 
Be aware that will likely take 2 years.
That's the very best case scenario. If he leaves the home it could take 10 years as his wife has no reason to engage in the process.

The question doesn't circulate on which parent stays or goes; the fundamental is that the children have as little disruption as possible.
Exactly. Therefore there's no reason why his wife can't leave the home.
 
no reason why his wife can't leave
OP has indicated that their mother has been the primary carer for a number of years and that he "...doesn't have to do any parenting..".

The primary aim is to minimise disruption to children; they've done nothing to cause this but they'll bear the impact from it.

Incidentally this " You will lose everything.." is simply not true and "10 years" scenario is very unlikely.
 
OP has indicated that their mother has been the primary carer for a number of years and that he "...doesn't have to do any parenting..".
Sure, but I'm sure he can take over the role if required. The Mother gave up her job to mind the now almost fully grown children. The OP hasn't indicated that there's anything stopping her from going back to work. She's had the privilege of being at home for a number of years, he's made the sacrifice of working in order to facilitate that. It seems unreasonable that he should now be disadvantaged because of his selflessness. In short that's a decision that can be made between then but it is extremely sexist to assume that the mother is the only parent who can satisfactorily look after their offspring.
The primary aim is to minimise disruption to children; they've done nothing to cause this but they'll bear the impact from it.
True no matter what happens.
Incidentally this " You will lose everything.." is simply not true and "10 years" scenario is very unlikely.
It took me 10 years and my ex got way more of the marital assets despite most of the children living with me. I left the family home and an abusive relationship and the kids followed within a few years.
So if the family home is all they have then if he leaves he'll lose everything. If he has a pension he'll keep half of it but he'll lose the house.
If he leaves and she just doesn't engage (and why would she if she has the house) then it could quite easily take 10 years.
 
In which case, I would say you "won" not "lost".
Indeed, but this is a financial forum and the question was in relation to the family home and was answered in that context. If this was Askaboutpersonalfulfilment.com my answer would have been quite different, in the unlikely event of me posting on such a forum. You'll also notice that I didn't say I lost everything. Thankfully we were in the fortunate position to both me able to provide a decent home for the children.
I'd also say that personal does not extrapolate to general.
Indeed, which is why you'll notice the use of the word "could" in my initial comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jim
Missing the point. Its the children who need to stay in their home.
Hi,

I took that as a given!

There's no reason why the children (both of teenage years) need to live with their mother, they can also live with their father, in the family home.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top