Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

I am applying for Removal of Jurisdiction to take two of my three children with me to the US. My eldest (15yrs) wishes to stay in the UK with her father. The father and I are trying to reach an agreement before it goes to court.

My question, is it appropriate for the father to expect me to fund the cost of the children visiting him in the UK and also for me to fund the cost of my eldest to visit me in the US?

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

Well you are causing the expense, would be nice if he chipped in on the eldest.

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

I have to agree with Boiler, while it would be nice if he contributed, I think it's a reasonable expectation that since you are the one moving you will pay the bulk of the costs of visits.

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

On principle, yes, you should bear the cost. But you say you are negotiating. That would include who can afford what, and what is in the best interests of the children.

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

Thank you for your input. He has made it very clear that all costs must be met by me and visits will be when he says they can be including when they do visit. I also will have to pay for an extra ticket for someone to escort the children to and from the UK as he doesn't think the airlines scheme for unaccompanied children is good enough despite the two staying with me will be 14 and 9. I guess this will end up being a judge that decides what is fair :(

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

You should validate all this with a family lawyer, but here are some thoughts:

The 15 year old is nearly 16 => as far as the U.K. is concerned, this is the age where she's entitled to make up her own mind either way. So there shouldn't be any specific agreement as to who pays for what.

The 14 year old is pretty much in the same position as the 15 year old. If it comes to court, the court will put a significant weight on what this child's own wishes are. So you really shouldn't be arguing over who pays for visits.


The 9 year old is in a different situation. You're the one moving away to the United States, assuming you are happy for this child to keep up a relationship with the other parent and if you can afford it, you should agree to pay for visits. At least up to a certain age (14 or so).


What's the plan (in U.S. visa terms) if the 15 year old changes her mind?

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

This assumption that "you're moving away, therefore you must pay" is rather one-sided I feel. It sounds like he has jealousy of your move and is trying to wring as much as possible out of you, hoping you're feeling guilty about taking them away. At the very least he should be paying for the eldest to visit you but I would go further and say you share the costs for each child 50:50 as you are jointly the parents, assuming one of you is not desperately poor while the other is fantastically rich.

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

In theory, he could possibly block the move of the children out of UK jurisdiction. As long a parent is financially and emotionally caring for the children, many courts side with the parent that is staying within their jurisdiction.

It seems he knows that so is making demands that may seem unreasonable.

Although he can make those demands and you can agree to those demands, once you move to the US, generally the UK courts will have extreme difficulty enforcing those demands (except child support where the US will generally assist in collecting child support).

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

Exactly. She's basically being held to ransom using the poor kids as pawns.

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

He did originally agree to allow the children to leave but then revoked the agreement and changed the goalposts. I agreed to most of his demands but now he has changed the goalposts again! I understand what your saying about most things been hard to enforce once we move out there but he is insisting on £5000 being left here in case the kids need repatriating or mortgage payments need to be paid on the house if it hasn't sold.

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

It sounds like he has figured out everything and has you over the barrel.

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

Are you in the middle of a divorce or something? Mortgage payments, etc, are normally irrelevant to a removal from jurisdiction case.

Secondly - have you got a good family lawyer? You should NOT be using a free forum for legal advice.

Thirdly - you should consult with your lawyer about going to court. If this man has made agreements then revoked them, then probably you need to stop wasting time and let the court decide. The 15 year old is staying anyway, so no discussion there and the courts (in most places) will usually listen to what a 14 year old wants, so the only real debate will be over the 9 year old.

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

If you did choose to do that, make sure there is some sort of escrow agreement so that he can't get hold of the money on his own whim. You would both need to jointly release the money.

I agree with JAJ - get a family lawyer. Maybe even just an independent mediator for families if you can't afford a lawyer - does the CAB do that sort of thing?

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

I have a lawyer. We are currently awaiting a court date but this will be long and drawn out if we can't reach an agreement before the first court date. I for one, do not want to put the kids through the court process. As I am applying for the K1 visa, I will not have all the time in the world to sort things so I am trying hard to reach an agreement so the move can go ahead in time for the kids to start school in the US at the beginning of the school year. We are divorced but the mortgage is in both names as I can not afford to take on the mortgage in my own name.

Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
 

They're his kids as well you know.