to think it's unfair how women hold all the cards in a situation like this?

[chickendhansak]

Yes I know there are plenty of deadbeat dads who don't step up, don't pay anything, barely see their DC, treat them as an inconvenience. Been there, got the tshirt etc.

But for the ones who do...the ones who want to spend as much time as they can with their DC, who pay all they should (and more), it still feel like they get the sticky end of the lollipop. Seeing the kids on Xmas and birthdays only if the XW agrees, missing out on all the everyday stuff because they can't see them every day. And having to the possibility when the XW starts a new relationship, of some bloke getting to spend more time with their kids than they spend with their own father.

I don't know what the solution is, I just think it's bloody hard, especially if it's the woman's decision to break up the family in the first place.

He also is too dim to realise that child maintenance is earnings based.

Even if the amount was set by a divorce court?

SiL is a fairly high powered lawyer, works 4 days, most of her friends and my female friends have, at one time or another been able to reduce hours to spend more time at home. Same with men who have wanted to. All professionals.

And yes, the courts base maintenance and settlements on earnings, not mad figures gained from the sky.

if one parent has whilst married, chosen not to work

I think this is a rather slanted description. In every couple/family I know, it has been a joint decision whether one of the parents gives up paid work to care for the children, and for how long.

And while it may not be employment, caring for children is definitely work. I get very cross when people insinuate that the primary carer parent is in some way freeloading off the parent who works outside the home.

To look at it another way, there are plenty of people in demanding jobs who would probably be unable to have any kind of meaningful family life at all without a spouse/partner who made it happen by sacrificing years of career progression/fulfillment.

I am one of them- a WOHM with SAHD husband. What he does is, most definitely, WORK.

Can I suggest, OP, that you have a very good read around MN, especially Relationships and Legal Matters, to see the kinds of situations that come up? They are by no means the stereotypical 'She bled him dry then left and won't let him see his kids' scenario set out in your OP.

There are some dreadful parents out there, you can't extrapolate from your experience in your close circle to say it's usually mothers who are unreasonable, and in a particular way.

Would be interested to see what % of NRP Fathers pay child support VS % NRP Mothers

My husband could drop a day if work (but he knows he would have to squeeze 5 days into 4 )

And I know anecdote does not equal data but out of 5 divorced people I know one man has been horrendously treated by his ex wife, the other four women all have ex husbands who are being gits

All good dad's (if not good husbands )

And I don't know anyone who gets spousal support

But that's obviously because every partnership is different as is every breakup!

And can we stop with the "poor husbands being forced to have a stay at home wife", it's usually a joint decision

I really don't need to read around MN (you assume I haven't already). In any event I have lived with an abusive X. I know men are capable of shit things.

But so are (some) women.

Legal team is just a lazy way of not writing his solicitor and barrister every time. I appreciate 50/50 may be a starting point where both parents are working, but it is not usually where only one is. Lots of people on this thread have said what would be the point/ benefit in DC attending childcare when their mum is at home? That's exactly the stance the court would take.

Thanks for some of the nasty assertions about my DP btw. And he is my DP, not my husband. He already leaves work early twice a week to pick up his DC. He gets in late on the 1-2 days he has them overnight. He makes up that time on other days. If he reduced to 4 days a week, he'd lose too much money. Ok, children don't NEED their own rooms. But his are used to it. That's what they have at home. He doesn't want the home they have with him to be any less nice for them than their home with their Mum. Likewise he didn't want it to be much further from school, their friends etc.

And he is down to pay a fixed sum, reviewed annually. He can go back to court to change it, if he could afford it. But he doesn't want his children to suffer financially so why would he?!

Just to answer who looks after me, I am pretty self sufficient, I've had to be over the years. But DP is my best friend and always on my side. Despite his situation I've known ever since we first got together I could rely on him 100%. And of course that goes both ways.

No, 50/50 is the starting point for all couples, regardless of who works or doesn't. Your DP chooses, for whatever reasons, to work ft, the trade off is that he loses time with his children, if he worked pt and his ExW worked ft, the situation would be reversed. If the children are happy with the arrangements as they stand, then the only important people in the situation are happy.

I'm easily confused.

The original post was about it not being fair to men and women holding all the cards. Including being able to move in with a new partner if they wish?

But nothing you've posted since suggests your DP's ex holds any cards?

DP would like to see his children more but can't because he needs to work (for whatever reason). He could see them slightly more by significantly reducing the time they spend with their mother and increasing the time they spend in childcare but as that's not in the children's best interests it's unlikely to happen?

If he wants to see them on birthdays / christmas etc then why not negotiate that in the access arrangements. I think it's unlikely any court would say because he's the nrp he can never have those days - surely alternating is pretty standard.

I understand that it would be upsetting that someone else spent more time with your children than you did but that's part of the reality of splitting up, if the arrangements that are best for the children happen to mean they see more of a step-parent than a parent, they're still the arrangements that are best for the children.

What cards do you feel DP's ex is actually holding?

So what does his ex say when he asks to see them on their bdays?

Your partner could get 50/50 and then it wouldn't be all decided by the RP. It makes sense that the person who actually looks after the kids has say over their care.

Well, my XH tells anybody who will listen all about how he has the 'best interests' of the children in mind really.

Which is presumably why he's halved his access, once the new partner moved in. Oh wait, she's had a baby. Access is now down to 2.5 hours a week. His choice, all his choice. I work FT and have 100% responsibility for my 3, trying to also maintain a fairly new relationship of my own... Yeah, I've definitely got all the cards here. :s

I think the reality is that the OP is the one in this story who has been dealt a crappy hand of cards, and is unhappy with the whole situation, but loves her DP and doesn't want to challenge the narrative.

OP I've been thinking about this some more and your dp's ex is only holding all the cards if the current situation is the ex's ideal situation.

I agree with the others who said that the person with the crappest hand is you.

I also do not see the issue here. he wants to see the DC more but cant because he works not because his X is stopping him. Is the only issue seeing them on alternate birthdays and Christmas? if so, I suspect that could be sorted by a trip to court.

OP well if he works long hours and doesn't have time for 50/50..or even 50/30 from the way you've made it sound; then, what on earth is the main point of your post? He doesn't live with his ex so how is it her fault he can't see their children more because he won't reduce his hours as he doesn't want a drop in his finance?

Incidentally a lot of mothers DO take a drop in finances for the sake of their children - they survive because they know they have to.

I don't know any man (or woman for that matter) who has a job where dropping to a 4 day week is an option. I suspect it's usually relatively unskilled minimum wage jobs where this is possible. I doubt there are many jobs that pay the running costs of two households where the employers don't care how often you turn up.

Really? I know several doctors (hospital and GP), two vets, a number of teachers, a management consultant, a fairly high-flying civil service person, two barristers, several university lecturers/managers who do 4 days a week. Some do compressed hours (5 days work in 4 days), so don't even drop in pay.

As someone said, anyone with children under 16 is entitled to request flexible working, and the employer can only refuse if the business could not cope.

Well I have a pretty good job and work 4 days a week. In fact it is often the case that the further up the career ladder you are the more flexibility there can be.

I tend to be with LineRunner here. The OP is the one with the rough deal.

I also sense a certain level of playing one woman off against the other, going on here by the OP's DP.

Gosh, what a misogynist post, OP. And I say that as someone who has seen lovely friends of mine suffer from being separated from their children, when the courts weren't so father friendly.

You say the ex should never again live with someone else out of consideration for the father of her children?? Wwwhhhat?

You say your DP has to work to pay a mortgage on a huge expensive house and that is why he cannot have his children? Oh poor him

You belittle SAHMs as if they were just slackers and the only valid way to have children is to pay someone else to look after them.

And to boot, you refer to people on benefits as scroungers.

You are in the privileged position of being able to forgive your own ex for not paying maintenance, and I am glad that that is the case, but you could learn to walk a mile in someone's shoes

The PWC will naturally hold all the cards because they are in charge of day to day living. However good the NRP is, by the nature of them not living there, they don't have the full on responsibility. If for some reason, they can't come over, it's just a case of a phone call. Same if they want to go on holiday or a night out, off they go. A PWC often doesn't have that luxury. For that reason, I think the PWC should get first choice over things like Christmas and birthdays because of all the hard work they put in every day.

I'd love to here the children's mother's story in this.

I think the posters who say that if dad does half the child care anyway, then he is far more likely to get 50/50 in the event of any split; alternate birthdays and Christmasses are fairly standard, ditto half the holidays

Plus, if I am reading your posts right, your dp sees dc twice a week during the working week, presumably has EOW and half the holidays if he has decent legal representation. Not seeing the issue, because his legal representation should be able to sort out alternative birthdays and Christmasses. Or he needs someone else acting for him.

I'm trying to sort out access arrangements at the moment. Dad willing to pay maintenance, is transferring to me our house etc. So not exactly deadbeat. But will NOT agree to EOW contact. Wants every three weeks. In what way am I holding all the cards?