Am I unreasonable not to agree to his new child access rota

@RoseField1 Well obviously if he doesn't it's very straightforward and wouldn't need to go back to court.
A different matter altogether if he is asking for a reasonable variation but Mother is not agreeable or he wants more time.

Why, if he doesn't want a more equal amount of parenting time?? If he wanted to, he would have done it already.

If this indeed was the likelihood of the outcome in court as it currently stands, as father's legal representation I would be advising him either to find another job role, reduce his hours, or give up work completely in exchange for a fairer amount of parenting time.

Working hours will be considered, but not whether a parent is working or not. It’s about facilitating child care around a work pattern - not telling a parent to work. This is often the case if one parent has very long hours with a commute for example. 50:50 is not usual where working hours vary a lot between parents, for obvious reasons. The needs of dc come first and how parents can best facilitate care. The family courts now have a strong child focussed model and quicker decision-making. Agreement isn’t that difficult here because no SS involvement, abuse, drugs/drink etc etc.

@hereforthelolz I agree with that. Ateotd if father take his proposal re child arrangements to court it is irrelevant whether either parent agree with the decisions reached or not; the judge will make the decision.
If mother is saying currently she is not happy to vary the order but father wishes to, my guess is he will apply to court for a variation.

Employment status would be considered though. If the father says he needs to change the pattern to accommodate work; and the OP has no real justification why he shouldn’t (other than not wanting to…it doesn’t interfere with her work schedule), then they absolutely would be asked to consider that angle.

Not the reasons why she’s not working.

@millymollymoomoo A judge will treat mother and father entirely equally in terms of expectations to work, of course. As you say, a judge can’t compel a mum to work in any other circumstances. Neither can they the father. It's all on an equal footing.
If however, for example, father requests 50/50 care of the children and can demonstrate his working hours can facilitate this, then there is no reason as to why the judge would not consider this. Additionally under these circumstances, there would be no child maintenance owed by either party.
But as it stands I agree with you - OP will be expected to accommodate contact around father's shift pattern.

@Autumngirl5 What do
you not understand? This is about living arrangements, not the financial order.

Goodness that sounds complicated! I don’t even understand it.

I think things are getting mixed here. In a divorce and financial settlement case the court will expect both parties to maximise incomes and generally a father won’t be expected to subsidise his ex lifestyle to be pt or not work ( save a few years interim to get back into workplace)

a judge can’t compel a mum to work in any other circumstances

of course as child gets older IF op is living on benefits ( and we don’t know) then the benefits office would expect that from about age 6 ( I think but stand corrected if different)

in this case as op is not currently working and ex is on shift pattern it’s more than reasonable op accommodates that ( which she has already acknowledged)

@MeetMeOnTheCorner This simply isn't true. Answer this... would the courts expect father to work?
What do you think they would suggest if father reduced his hours/found another job and then requested 50/50?
Judges (quite rightly) strongly expect both parties to maximize their earning capacity and move toward financial independence.
Is the OP doing this?

The court would not order a mum to work. She’s the resident parent and primary carer. She just needs to be more flexible with dad and his work.

Yes I missed the post where op says she doesn’t work

they why may not be relevant currently, but should op return to work, ( and let’s be clear if she is relying on benefits then she absolutely should!) or if returns when child is at school etc then arrangements will need to be revisited

most cao should be revisited as child grows anyway. Accepting this and being open to review and change is good

She has, she said she doesn't work. And nobody is penalising the father, OP has accepted she needs to agree to his proposal, especially since she doesn't have work to manage. Again, the reason she doesn't work is irrelevant.

What I think the pp is saying is it’s wrong to penalise a father in terms of child arrangements as he’s working whereas a mum isn’t working and can therefore have child more often - then the natural
comclusion is not working is fine if not on benefits and it’s funded through their own wealth. But if not then mum
should also be working. I would agree with that.

op hasnt confirmed her working arrangements after 5 pages so all this is just speculative and in this context only relevant to the extent does it impact her ability to agree ex proposals which are reasonable

What the Jeff are you talking about? If the father made a new application to vary the child arrangements the court would make a decision around the child arrangements and the child arrangements only. Whether OP is financially independent or reliant on benefits and who financially supports who is absolutely irrelevant to the question being asked and therefore the court would have no expectation or involvement in their financial affairs at all!

The question of WHY she isn't working would not be taken into consideration at all. It's not the concern of the court.

@hereforthelolz Absolutely. In court there would be an expectation that OP was either working to support her child, or financially doesn't need to.
It wouldn't be the case, if father was asking for additional contact, that he couldn't have it as he was working ft to provide but mother wasn't working at all and so could, for example.
Both parties are expected to be financial contributors as now separate households. The father isn't expected to fully support the mother and child, nor of course vice versa.

We don't need to know, but it would be taken into consideration if this went back to court.

But nobody needs to know why she's not working or her financial situation. That's just nosiness and judgement.

It’s to the point in terms of whether op is working. That directly potentially changes the dynamics of possible flexibility to change child arrangements. If someone’s not working it’s much easier to flex rather than if they are also navigating working logistics.

@RoseField1 Yes, it’s tedious. Just because the poster has no experience, she thinks everyone is identical. We have no idea where her money comes from and it’s besides the point.

@millymollymoomoo Absolutely this. I am still interested in finding out how she can afford to support herself and her children as a single parent without working at all. There is absolutely no way I could have managed it.
As you say, it is very likely she will be expected to find work before too long if not immediately, and of course this will make a difference in terms of the arrangements for the children.

It is relevant. Op should be working and if not, should start and at some will have to if she’s not currently. That can impact child arrangements and ability to be flexible and change any advice given here re ops ex requests /demands and whether they’re reasonable to op or not

Jesus Christ please stop quibbling about the OP's financial situation. It's none of anyone's business and not relevant to the question.