QLD I left the Marital house With my child after separation, can we go back?

[5678My]

Hi
There’s the situation.
I have a DVO against my ex.
But I left the marital house with my child because my ex pressured me to leave so he can do the repairs for the house so we can sell it and split the proceeds. Now the house is under contract with the special condition of the buyer selling their house first. With it under contract, it means all fixings and repairs are done.
Can I still legally go back in the house (my name’s on the title too) and ask him to leave? Meaning, can I just rock up at the house (I still have my keys) when he’s not there and tell him I’m claiming back my residency to the house?
It’s just so hard to work 2 jobs to be able to provide roof and food for my child.
Been 2 months and Centrelink’s still assessing my application for any payment.
And by going back to the house, my ex will be obliged to again provide for us in some way (example paying half mortgage and bills) because we are too close to selling for him to have the bank foreclose our property.
Or is it a good idea to go back to the house altogether?
Thanks

 

[sammy01]

Oh dear, so firstly, you should not have agreed with the buyer selling their house first. That could take months.
Can you go back?
What are the conditions of the DVO? That is where the answer lies.
However, I see this as problematic - You have sought an order that means the ex can't come near you. Yet you intend to go near him? Now he has done the repairs you wanna kick him out with no notice and effectively make him homeless?

What about a compromise - depending on IF he agrees / you could move back in and live separate under the same roof?

Outa interest? is there any agreement about the ex spending time with the kid?
What about child support? is the ex paying that?

My thinking is you're gonna get more for the house because the ex did the repairs. True? So my advice would be to get onto centerlink 2 months is too long - chase them down for the $$$ but making the ex homeless at the click of your fingers just doesn't seem right.

 

[5678My]

Oh dear, so firstly, you should not have agreed with the buyer selling their house first. That could take months.
Can you go back?
What are the conditions of the DVO? That is where the answer lies.
However, I see this as problematic - You have sought an order that means the ex can't come near you. Yet you intend to go near him? Now he has done the repairs you wanna kick him out with no notice and effectively make him homeless?

What about a compromise - depending on IF he agrees / you could move back in and live separate under the same roof?

Outa interest? is there any agreement about the ex spending time with the kid?
What about child support? is the ex paying that?

My thinking is you're gonna get more for the house because the ex did the repairs. True? So my advice would be to get onto centerlink 2 months is too long - chase them down for the $$$ but making the ex homeless at the click of your fingers just doesn't seem right.

Thanks for your reply.
He’s got money that he’s not declaring for the property settlement. I can’t pursue that money because I can’t afford a lawyer.
He’s having his lawyer draw up a consent order for which we are splitting the proceeds of the house (when sold), and not the whole asset pool.
Saying that, I’m sure he can get a place to stay. Specially that his new gf’s coming over from overseas to live with him.
He pays $100/week for our child. We did had parenting arrangement (written consent) but he missed out on the days he’s supposed to spend time with our child so I withdraw the consent. Now he’s going to get a parenting order so he doesn’t need to ask for my consent.
I am not technically coming near him if he’s not in the house?
Also the thing is, I am on temporary visa so I don’t have a lot of Centrelink entitlements eventhough my child’s an NZ Citizen born here in Australia.

 

[smallcat]

Why are you so greedy that want his hard earned money, and also kick him out of the house where you chose to leave voluntarily?
Don't be a thief, don't be greedy. Just get what you have contributed.

 

[5678My]

Why are you so greedy that want his hard earned money, and also kick him out of the house where you chose to leave voluntarily?
Don't be a thief, don't be greedy. Just get what you have contributed.

wow. You don’t even know me and the whole story for you to accuse me of being greedy and thief.

getting what’s rightful/lawfully for me and my child is called being greedy and thief?

then what do you call a man who has manipulated and cheated on his wife then now living a new woman in the house without even the divorce and settlement is done? Aren’t that without Respect, iMMoral and unEthical? Or that doesn’t mean anything to men as long as their happiness and pleasures are satisfied?

 

[GlassHalfFull]

I don't think you can compare cheating on your wife and a new partner moving in prior to the divorce with trying to take more than your fair share of the money in the split... They are totally separate things and although cheating on you might be ethically wrong, it's not against the law. These things happen in life and it's up to us to be grown ups about it and move on even if you harbour resentment. Trying to screw someone by kicking them out of their home after you have voluntarily moved out so that HE could renovate it with his own labour and (perhaps?) money with the understanding that you would both be the beneficiaries of it after it was completed.. That's another story. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't pretend to know you or have the whole story. I'm not judging you for anything more than what you've said. But there are a lot of men on this forum who have been kicked out of their own home unceremoniously on the backing of a DVO (often with completely bogus or at best dubious claims of violence) so forgive us if we're a bit skeptical. Separation sucks for both sides... Yes I'm sure it's hard for you. It's probably been hard for him too.

In any case, legally speaking, if you have voluntarily left the house and it's been that way for some time, having joint ownership and a set of keys doesn't mean you can walk straight back in as best I understand it. It may be a grey area of law without clear guidelines or case law, but I'm far from an expert. I suspect you would run the risk of him calling the police and having you removed as it's not longer your residence. Ownership has nothing to do with residence...

 

[5678My]

Thanks for the insight. I didn’t realise that most on here are men kicked out from their house for bogus claims of Domestic Violence.

I am not trying to take more than my fair share of the split. My main reason for wanting to go back in the house is to force him into selling the house. Otherwise, he will just settle there with his new woman while putting me into financial hardship and use the fact that I don’t have so much time (or not having enough time) for my baby (because I am working 2 jobs) so he can get my child’s full custody (because he got the money and time). He had his lawyer drafted a consent order where me with my child is only getting 38% of the asset pool, because he’s only giving me half of the house sale proceed (if and when the house he’s living now gets sold). And you guys think that’s fair?

But if him calling the police to remove me and my child from my home (if I choose to go back) will be his resort (as you and others would do) then I’m not gonna risk dragging my child on the street and be homeless.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

I didn't say most people here are men kicked out of their house. I said there are a lot. You're twisting what I've said.

Your assumptions about how it will play out seem unfounded. It's very unlikely he'd get full custody (there's no such thing as custody in family law in Australia, but that's another story) just because you're working 2 jobs. The court usually maintains the status quo (which in your case is you continuing to be the primary carer). Especially while the children are young (babies).

Just because his lawyer drafted a consent order with you only getting 38%, that doesn't mean it's what will actually happen. It's called negotiation. I never said 38% was fair. You hadn't even mentioned a proposed settlement at the time. I said kicking him out of the house that you voluntarily left is unfair. You're again twisting my (and Sammy's) words. Also, how exactly will him calling the police and asking them to remove you from the house result in you being homeless? Where are you currently living? Surely you could go back there if he refused to let you stay in the house? A lot of what you're saying is pretty confusing to me.

It sounds like you need to take the matter to court. You need a lawyer to represent you if you're unable to self-represent. I don't know what your equity in the property he's intending to sell is, but assuming it's a reasonable sum, many lawyers will be willing to work with you with the assumption that you will pay them once the settlement is complete. That's probably your best bet at this point, although I don't know enough about your situation to say for sure.

 

[sammy01]

ok so slow down here folks.
I'd suggest we all take a deep breath in and let's try and avoid tit for tat or gender bias.

5678 - I reckon you write back to the solicitor. Write your response here. Make it long - BUT be professional. So I'm assuming the child is from the relationship?.... See the ex is paying that solicitor so if you write to the solicitor the solicitor will read it and charge the ex for doing so... Explain that you need full financial disclosure from the ex and that you feel a 65% split in your favour is more in line with reality.

But folks lets be constructive here.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

I think I was being constructive, for the record. Part of being constructive is setting the record straight about where we are coming from in terms of our background, opinions and advice. I'm a bit skeptical because every second person here is claiming domestic violence and family violence orders, and while I can't comment on the validity of every case, I am positive that many of them have been used for tactical and strategic advantage rather than because of a genuine and pressing fear of one's safety, given how easily they can be abused and how such little evidence is required.

My lawyer told me that more than half of cases reaching the federal circuit court and family court at present have family violence orders in place. Now either we're all extremely abusive people here in Australia, or the reality is that in many cases, someone has taken the current climate and run with it in court to get an advantage over the other. That's all. I don't think I'm way off base here. That certainly doesn't mean there aren't legitimate and severe forms of domestic violence being perpetrated in society. Of course I'm not saying that. The only truth I'm speaking is that with the amount of at best dubious cases out there, we should take them with a grain of salt (and my understanding is that the family court does indeed do so).

My advice was pragmatic though. Yes, of course she can self-represent, that's always an option, but realistically speaking, from what we've heard here, she may not represent her interests in the best possible light. That's just my opinion though.