Guest viewing is limited

Ex relocated - appeal or not, strategy with upcoming hearing

Ash said:
You definitely don't want the children being moved away and the appeal would cover that and may support the hearing as to who the children live with - or it may confuse issues. As I said - I'll have a think about it!
Click to expand...
Absolutely, you perfectly see now what my doubt is. Well, ok, I will wait further ideas, then. Take your time. Oh, and talking about time: is there any limitation of time to appeal? the hearing occurred a week ago, already (Oh my God, how strange, it seemed to me it had happened almost a month ago! Oh God, without children time never passes! How hard it is!) well. thanks!!! Really!!!
 
There is a time limit for appeal - I'm not sure exactly but I think it's within 21 days.

It's weighing everything up. If your solicitor charges 5k to appeal and you still have another hearing in September and probably need representation for that, if it's about who the children live with - that could get very expensive. A barrister would be another opinion.

I think personally you need to see what the Cafcass letter says before determining what next, and hope that arrives very soon. Cafcass will have contacted the school and checked with social services.
 
I can't see Cafcass recommending the children are allowed to move away with the Mother if they think there are risks.
 
Ash said:
There is a time limit for appeal - I'm not sure exactly but I think it's within 21 days.

It's weighing everything up. If your solicitor charges 5k to appeal and you still have another hearing in September and probably need representation for that, if it's about who the children live with - that could get very expensive. A barrister would be another opinion.

I think personally you need to see what the Cafcass letter says before determining what next, and hope that arrives very soon. Cafcass will have contacted the school and checked with social services.
Click to expand...
sorry... in the main time I was trying t understand the difference between barrister and solicitor!!! :p in any case, I think it will also be useful to see what the position of my solicitor, next Monday, about it (I already paid 1500pounds to my current solicitor, by the way) . Will update you here
 
Ash said:
There is a time limit for appeal - I'm not sure exactly but I think it's within 21 days.

It's weighing everything up. If your solicitor charges 5k to appeal and you still have another hearing in September and probably need representation for that, if it's about who the children live with - that could get very expensive. A barrister would be another opinion.

I think personally you need to see what the Cafcass letter says before determining what next, and hope that arrives very soon. Cafcass will have contacted the school and checked with social services.
Click to expand...
oh, I forget to say that my solicitor gave me an alternative to the 5000pounds, with a cheaper solution that would be >they will help me with the paperwork for the appeal, but I will represent myself in the court?
 
Ash said:
I can't see Cafcass recommending the children are allowed to move away with the Mother if they think there are risks.
Click to expand...
well, according to what I am learning here, is that one of the main thing here is..... defining "risks"!!!! ie. The school raised concerns, and the nursery as well.... would it be considered as evidence of "risks"?
 
Ash said:
Did he say the kids would move as well? If he only said she could move, then that's not so bad. If he said determine Child Arrangements in September that might mean who they live with after she moves.
Click to expand...
No, the court focus on the fact that the MOTHER is free to move, but about the KIDS, they will define it in September.
 
Ash said:
Has the ex been given permission to move "with the kids".
Click to expand...
No, this will be decided in September. Indeed, there is the problem for her to enroll the kids in a new school, because no decision was taken about the kids.
 
Ok. But I'm confused. If she's moved already then presumably she's already taken the kids with her and is living somewhere else with them?

Solicitor and Barrister are both lawyers. Solicitors do the day to day stuff, and paperwork basically - writing letters, statements, court applications. Sometimes their advice can be very useful. If they're any good - there are some really bad ones too and some very biased ones. Thing is they charge by the hour, and for every letter and phone call.

I ran up £3,500 with a solicitor before I even had a court hearing, and that was doing the application myself. Nothing to show for it apart from a load of letters back and forth arguing between solicitors - which meant nothing and weren't even evidence for court. Some ex's also bombard your solicitor with pointless emails just to run up your bill!

I paid 4k for the barrister for final hearing and he was worth every penny. They really are experts, very professional and are "advocates" - ie they speak for you in court, persuade the Judge, and present case law. Now a solicitor can also represent in court but a barrister would trounce a solicitor and run rings round them.

So Barristers come into their own at court hearings and can get you what you want. They like to win their cases. I find them more trustworthy and reliable somehow as well. Their charging is different. It's usually a fixed fee (check that). So you'll be told - it'll be 4k for a day's hearing, half that for a half day's hearing and 1k for a consultation. And that's it. No hidden costs, no running up more bills. And they will communicate with you in between without any extra charge. They also know family law inside out and Judges listen to barristers. They are experts in presenting case law (arguments a Judge has to follow based on other cases that set a precedent for what they're arguing for).

The usual thing, for people who can afford it, and not many of us can, is to have a solicitor and barrister team. Who work together - the Solicitor doing all the paperwork and the barrister doing the hearings and they liase with each other. There are pros and cons to that. The pros are - somebody else is doing all the work for you. The cons are - they can leave you out of the loop a lot, the barrister only talks to the solicitor, not you, and you end up with something you didn't want and a big bill. I prefer to work with a barrister direct. If it's necessary. Some cases are more straightforward.

And yes I hear you - none of this cost and stress and misery would be necessary if it wasn't for your ex and it's wrong - but it's the way it is right now.

If your solicitor has given you a cheaper option - them doing the paperwork and you doing the hearing - that sounds the wrong way round - you could probably do the paperwork yourself, maybe with a bit of advice, but having someone at a hearing sounds necessary if your ex has a solicitor (which it sounds like she has, to get that order changed).

Ok so the order hasn't been completely overturned then. Ex has been given permission to move but they haven't decided whether kids should move or not - which is unusual. It's normally all decided at the same time. I assume that's because her solicitor made a fuss. That may be why they said she can move, before the welfare checks were complete - because basically she can do what she wants - except take the kids with her without the court's permission.

I'm still a bit confused. What would be the point of appealing if the order didn't include the kids moving as well? The appeal would surely be only to prevent her moving the kids away, not herself.
 
Fabio78 said:
well, according to what I am learning here, is that one of the main thing here is..... defining "risks"!!!! ie. The school raised concerns, and the nursery as well.... would it be considered as evidence of "risks"?
Click to expand...
Depends what Cafcass thinks. If they have spoken to the school and checked for social services involvement, they will see there have been issues.


Fabio78 said:
No, this will be decided in September. Indeed, there is the problem for her to enroll the kids in a new school, because no decision was taken about the kids.
Click to expand...
Good point - means they can't change schools before start of term in September. Unless - she has already enrolled them in new schools because she's moved and they're with her. And her argument in court will be - they're already settled in new schools. The argument of possession being 9/10ths of the law. Her solicitor will try and undermine the previous welfare risks and argue your ex's case for the kids now being settled.

I think that's the issue. And may be why the solicitor is suggesting the appeal - to prevent that happening before the hearing in September - although I can't see an appeal hearing would be much earlier.

Once they made an order for the ex to move, but didn't make an order for the kids to stay with you, then the ex was free to move them basically. Perhaps the court didn't realise she'd move that quickly.

Sounds like dirty tricks by your ex's solicitor.

The danger is - they may not move the kids back if your ex has already started them in new schools before the hearing in September. She might be in breach of the order and ignoring things but she might get away with it too.

So looks like something needs to happen before the hearing in September to prevent that. Any appeal has to be "to prevent Mother moving away with children". It's the "with children" bit that's important. No court would make an order to prevent the Mother moving. If the second order said yes the Mother has permission to move - and the kids live with her ...........then the court didn't issue an order to prevent her taking the kids did they?

Sorry if I'm going round in circles. But something needs to be done. Either an appeal or ask the court for directions.

But as I see it right now - the Mother has moved - with court approval, the kids legally live with her so she has them with her. And the hearing over the kids, isn't until after schools start in September, so she will enrol them in a school near her.

If they allow that then the best you can hope for is a 50/50 order. I'm wondering how long an appeal hearing would take as well.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry not to be more positive, but it looks like her solicitor has engineered things. Ex has moved with kids and school starts before the hearing in September. Cafcass report may become irrelevant if it's all happened. The only thing left to decide in September would be - how much time with you and how and when. She has already "taken" "custody".

Someone else on here had a similar issue recently and just got a good final order but the courts wouldn't move the kids back.

The fact they hadn't decided about the kids yet means - the kids have to be somewhere meantime! They are with ex, who has moved and is witholding them from you. Her Solicitor has played the system.

What you really want right now, is the kids back with you, before the hearing in September and a Direction from a Judge to say their school must not be changed until the hearing in September determines things.

It's a vicious circle - the only way they could remain at the same school in September, now your ex has moved, would be if they live with you, and that hasn't been determined yet because the hearing is in September.

Sadly ex's do get away with this.

Ask your solicitor how long an appeal hearing would be? It might not be quick enough or it might be an urgent hearing.
 
I think you may need to do the appeal if you want any chance of having the kids remaining living with you. To prevent ex enrolling the kids at school and to say they must be returned to you to start school in September pending the hearing in September. She might still refuse to do it.

Either that, or accept that in September they won't be moving the kids back but you can argue for a 50/50 order. Regardless of what Cafcass or the courts say, your ex has already moved, has the kids with her and the hearing isn't until after schools start back. She is legally obliged to send them to school so will do so where she's living.
 
In fact - I think your ex witholding the kids until the hearing is her strategy for getting sole residency and the kids moved to a school there. If she lets you see them, you might keep them. Dirty tricks by her solicitor (who will have advised her).

I don't think there's any point sending her a letter saying she must let you see the kids, because she won't - what's needed is an urgent court intervention in the next week or two before term starts.
 
Ash said:
Ok. But I'm confused. If she's moved already then presumably she's already taken the kids with her and is living somewhere else with them?
Click to expand...
Well, the detailed situation is: she went there with the kids, to find house. They came back now, but they will move definitively shortly. Yes, I know, I understand your conusion because it is the confusion of everyone who hear about this extremely inappropriate and stupid and counterproductive decision of the court: They talked about HER human rights - despite the fact that no one was asking her to stay, she could leave the kids and go wherever she wanted. So they focused on saying: the woman cannot be blocked, she can go. Question from both lawyers: "and the kids? the school?"... Answer of the judge: "we must wait september... don't know... guys, talk to each other!"..... WHAAAAAAAT? so yes, the most stupid and absurd decision!
 
Ash said:
Solicitor and Barrister are both lawyers.
Click to expand...
oh, I see now, thanks for the explanation (I did a bit of research myself too :) ). Well, apparently the firm that is working with me they have both, a solicitor who is following the case, and a barrister that will be in the court. Now that I am more into the "terminology" I will confirm it, anyway. In any case, for the amounts that you mention, well, I don't think I can afford it. Better, eventually I could, but I must be very careful not to go bankrupt, because this would not be beneficial for anyone, either....

Anyway, as I said, if I am not wrong the firm of lawyers who is working with me splits the job between solicitors and barrister, already.
NOTE: after the stupid decision of the court, I decided to change my lawyer, to whom I had already paid almost 4000pounds, exactly for that kind of work that you correctly mentioned (paperwork, some inoffensive letter, some emails, etc). But in the court she was a sheep more than a lion. I did not like it. II know nothing about law, and I know even less about "Law in the UK", thought somehow I understood that something went wrong that day. So I moved to another firm the same day. Now that I know the difference between solicitors and barrister, everything is so much clearer to me, about what happened! Probably a barrister would have never accepted so passively that absurd decision, and would have fight 😞
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ash
Ash said:
Good point - means they can't change schools before start of term in September. Unless - she has already enrolled them in new schools because she's moved and they're with her. And her argument in court will be - they're already settled in new schools.
Click to expand...
No, she cannot enroll the kids until the decision.
 
Ash said:
So looks like something needs to happen before the hearing in September to prevent that. Any appeal has to be "to prevent Mother moving away with children". It's the "with children" bit that's important. No court would make an order to prevent the Mother moving. If the second order said yes the Mother has permission to move - and the kids live with her ...........then the court didn't issue an order to prevent her taking the kids did they?

Sorry if I'm going round in circles. But something needs to be done. Either an appeal or ask the court for directions.

But as I see it right now - the Mother has moved - with court approval, the kids legally live with her so she has them with her. And the hearing over the kids, isn't until after schools start in September, so she will enrol them in a school near her.
Click to expand...
The council where she is moving is alerted about the situation, their schools will not accept the enrollment of the kids, as a process is ongoing. So i do not think it will be easy for her to enroll kids there. They are regularly enrolled here. And yes, I also feel like something must be done before the main hearing. But what?😕
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top