Page 22 | who is being unreasonable? new job and children

interestingly8 · 2023-08-16T06:27:28+00:00

Would like to keep this unbiased if possible. Sarah and Ben have two children together and are separated. Ben is now married to Claire (B&C also now have young children of their own). S&Bs children stay with B&C 2 nights one week and 3 the next currently. The week with 3 nights is over the weekend and the week with 2 is during the week. Ben works, Claire is a SAHM and Sarah has been studying for the past number of years around her part time job. Sarah has now qualified and is beginning a new job which will involve shift work meaning the her and Ben's children's normal contact schedule will need to change and follow Sarah's shift patterns rather than set days that they now have. This will inc upping contact to 3 nights every week whilst Sarah works. Ben is saying this is not possible as he's already arranged his work around the schedule they have had for years and cannot change this dependant on Sarah's shifts for that week. He has agreed to up contact to 3 nights per week but has said these must be set days. Sarah has suggested Claire help if Ben is not around on one of the days, Claire has said no and agrees with Ben the contact schedule should remain the same as its what everyone has worked around for years Inc the children. Who is being unreasonable? Sarah for saying contact needs to follow her shifts instead of being set from now on and if Ben can't do that maybe Claire could help out. YANBU Ben and Claire for insisting contact should follow the same schedule as normal and be set, not change week by week (although they do agree to up to 3 nights per week). YABU

YourNameGoesHere · 16/08/2023 16:19

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:17

And there it is. Again, mum comes last, kids come first, and men call the shots.

And people wonder why women do not have children as much anymore.

Show quote history

Look you can continue with the creative fiction all like but it doesn't change the fact that:

Of course the children come first and a man isn't calling all the shots in this case the OP is.

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:19

Goldbar · 16/08/2023 16:12

Of course there would be a benefit to Ben. His children would have a much higher standard of living in their other house. There would only be no benefit to Ben if he's the sort of dad who doesn't care about his kids' wellbeing at all. If their mother has only been working part-time up until now, the household can hardly be rolling in it. It will be good for his kids to access a higher standard of living in their main home and that is clearly a benefit for any parent who cares about their child.

Of course, that benefit has to be weighed against other factors (availability/cost of flexible working for Ben etc) but that doesn't mean it's not a benefit to him.

Show quote history

Thank you for saying this. As I said previously, I do not understand why few are seeing that Sarah having a better career with more money could not be of benefit to her and the children? It benefits everyone, and it can be worked out in one way or another. The solution surely cannot be Sarah give up your career.

Caprisunny · 16/08/2023 16:19

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:08

I’ll rephrase that. So you are telling me that if Ben and Sarah both passed away, you don’t think Claire should have to parent their children? Basically, if they aren’t your bio children, you don’t think you have responsibility for them. What if there was no relative taking them in. Would the expectation be that they then go into care?

Show quote history

No Claire shouldn’t have to. She may want and do that. But no she should have to. She doesn’t have parental responsibility. And I can bet if she started pretending to be the kids mother, Sarah wouldn’t be happy. If Ben divorced her he could stop her seeing those kids at all. Claire is a step parent . Not a parent and they are different things and different levels of responsibility.

Claire may not be able to afford it. Claire may not be able to cope with all 4 full time alone. There maybe a relative (Sarah’s parents of siblings) that would be better suited. Claire may really struggle with her mental health after losing her husband

Claire may run off a joint the circus in her grief…..who knows? Are we just going to come up with endless stupid situations to try and justify you claiming Claire has the same level of responsibility as a parent?

Sarah may prefer her best friend to have the kids if she and Ben are dead.

Every situation is different. It’s also extremely rare for children to lose both parents before adulthood. So why would anyone know exactly what was going to happen so what’s the point on discussing it.

Dixiechickonhols · 16/08/2023 16:19

Goldbar · 16/08/2023 16:12

Of course there would be a benefit to Ben. His children would have a much higher standard of living in their other house. There would only be no benefit to Ben if he's the sort of dad who doesn't care about his kids' wellbeing at all. If their mother has only been working part-time up until now, the household can hardly be rolling in it. It will be good for his kids to access a higher standard of living in their main home and that is clearly a benefit for any parent who cares about their child.

Of course, that benefit has to be weighed against other factors (availability/cost of flexible working for Ben etc) but that doesn't mean it's not a benefit to him.

Show quote history

It depends what income was like before. Assuming pt was low paid and retraining role is better paid. It might not be. People retrain for all sorts of reasons.
New role might just be a dream of Sarah - I’ve always wanted to be a nurse and help people but in reality it pays less than wfh accounts work or whatever.

Uptoyou34 · 16/08/2023 16:20

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:17

And there it is. Again, mum comes last, kids come first, and men call the shots.

And people wonder why women do not have children as much anymore.

Show quote history

How is the man calling the shots? Sarah left him, not the other way around so things were always going to be harder in terms of jobs/childcare etc. He can't live his life not knowing what is happening more than a week in advance at at time!

Jesus, when my DP was taken to mediation from his ex, she demanded a yearly shift calendar and it was agreed!!!!

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:20

YourNameGoesHere · 16/08/2023 16:19

Look you can continue with the creative fiction all like but it doesn't change the fact that:

Of course the children come first and a man isn't calling all the shots in this case the OP is.

Show quote history

But he is calling the shots if there is not any flexibility and Sarah has to give up her career that she worked so hard for. Not creative fiction at all.

Whinge · 16/08/2023 16:22

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:20

But he is calling the shots if there is not any flexibility and Sarah has to give up her career that she worked so hard for. Not creative fiction at all.

Show quote history

He's offering flexibility. But flexibility doesn't mean being held to ransom over his ex wifes job. Never knowing what's happening from one week to the next, being made to change plans and reschedule his life and the lives of those around him just so his ex wife can have her dream job.

howshouldibehave · 16/08/2023 16:24

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:20

But he is calling the shots if there is not any flexibility and Sarah has to give up her career that she worked so hard for. Not creative fiction at all.

Show quote history

I’d say that Sarah is the one calling the shots here.

Caprisunny · 16/08/2023 16:24

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:20

But he is calling the shots if there is not any flexibility and Sarah has to give up her career that she worked so hard for. Not creative fiction at all.

Show quote history

He is offering flexibility. Just not constant flexibility.

most jobs do not accommodate their employees ex rota patterns.

Why does Sarah get to decided her job is more important.

If this career is so important to op, she would have spoken to them as soon as the plan with her ex fiancé fell through. But she didn’t.

Sarah, may have to choose a different career and come back to this when the kids are older. She may have to do that even if Ben has them 80% or 50%.

Because the other Parent can not work around Sarah’s shifts.

notlucreziaborgia · 16/08/2023 16:24

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:20

But he is calling the shots if there is not any flexibility and Sarah has to give up her career that she worked so hard for. Not creative fiction at all.

Show quote history

Saying no to Sarah equals ‘calling the shots’ I see. Sarah has to deal with her responsibility towards her own children, same as Ben has. He’s offered to have the children more, but he’s not willing to accept an unpredictable schedule. He doesn’t need to enable OP in making it work for her any more than she would need to for him if the situation were reversed.

Dixiechickonhols · 16/08/2023 16:26

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:19

Thank you for saying this. As I said previously, I do not understand why few are seeing that Sarah having a better career with more money could not be of benefit to her and the children? It benefits everyone, and it can be worked out in one way or another. The solution surely cannot be Sarah give up your career.

Show quote history

But she’s not said it was a better career or more money?
It might be pure childhood dream to be a paramedic or nurse etc. Just because she’s studied and qualified doesn’t mean it’s well paid.
We all have dreams but sometimes they have to wait or take a different role eg set hours to fit in with family life.

Olive19741205 · 16/08/2023 16:27

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 15:56

I really disagree with this. She is involved. She is the stepmum.

You don’t marry someone with kids without the expectation that someday, you might have to parent those kids, or that parenting schedule could change. Things happen. It is not the same as marrying someone without children whatsover. what would happen if Ben died? Would his kids go into care because it is nothing to do with her?

Show quote history

If Ben died surely they'd stay with their mother?

If so much is expected of step-parents (according to you), why do step-parents have no rights to contact when a relationship ends?

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:28

Caprisunny · 16/08/2023 16:19

No Claire shouldn’t have to. She may want and do that. But no she should have to. She doesn’t have parental responsibility. And I can bet if she started pretending to be the kids mother, Sarah wouldn’t be happy. If Ben divorced her he could stop her seeing those kids at all. Claire is a step parent . Not a parent and they are different things and different levels of responsibility.

Claire may not be able to afford it. Claire may not be able to cope with all 4 full time alone. There maybe a relative (Sarah’s parents of siblings) that would be better suited. Claire may really struggle with her mental health after losing her husband

Claire may run off a joint the circus in her grief…..who knows? Are we just going to come up with endless stupid situations to try and justify you claiming Claire has the same level of responsibility as a parent?

Sarah may prefer her best friend to have the kids if she and Ben are dead.

Every situation is different. It’s also extremely rare for children to lose both parents before adulthood. So why would anyone know exactly what was going to happen so what’s the point on discussing it.

Show quote history

Right, I understand. When the bioparents die, stepparent would be considered justified in having the children put into care. It isn’t a stupid scenario at all. We do this all the time in philosophy…create situations to see what social norms are. It clarifies to me what people in the UK think about the responsibility to stepchildren, and that they are a notch below their own children. When bioparents die, the stepparents’ responsibility ends.

But when biodad is alive, Claire does appear to have responsibility because she is helping raise her stepkids now. Or could she say, I refuse to have the stepkids in my house? Would that be socially permissable?

yogasaurus · 16/08/2023 16:30

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:28

Right, I understand. When the bioparents die, stepparent would be considered justified in having the children put into care. It isn’t a stupid scenario at all. We do this all the time in philosophy…create situations to see what social norms are. It clarifies to me what people in the UK think about the responsibility to stepchildren, and that they are a notch below their own children. When bioparents die, the stepparents’ responsibility ends.

But when biodad is alive, Claire does appear to have responsibility because she is helping raise her stepkids now. Or could she say, I refuse to have the stepkids in my house? Would that be socially permissable?

Show quote history

Do you have kids?

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:32

Dixiechickonhols · 16/08/2023 16:26

But she’s not said it was a better career or more money?
It might be pure childhood dream to be a paramedic or nurse etc. Just because she’s studied and qualified doesn’t mean it’s well paid.
We all have dreams but sometimes they have to wait or take a different role eg set hours to fit in with family life.

Show quote history

Well, if someone works part time, parents, and studies part time (which costs now without grants), generally it is to have a better financial life for themselves. I am in higher ed, and I have known few part-time students with small children put themselves through all that to make less money. Older part-time students sometimes study things out of interest, but not working parents.

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:32

yogasaurus · 16/08/2023 16:30

Do you have kids?

Show quote history

Why do you ask?

notlucreziaborgia · 16/08/2023 16:33

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:28

Right, I understand. When the bioparents die, stepparent would be considered justified in having the children put into care. It isn’t a stupid scenario at all. We do this all the time in philosophy…create situations to see what social norms are. It clarifies to me what people in the UK think about the responsibility to stepchildren, and that they are a notch below their own children. When bioparents die, the stepparents’ responsibility ends.

But when biodad is alive, Claire does appear to have responsibility because she is helping raise her stepkids now. Or could she say, I refuse to have the stepkids in my house? Would that be socially permissable?

Show quote history

Yes, we’re both parents to die Claire, not being their parent, would absolutely be justified in refusing to take custody if she didn’t want to.

She has absolutely no legal responsibility for them at all, even with their father being alive. She absolutely can refuse to have anything to do with their care. That she involves herself in it is her choice, not something she has to do.

notlucreziaborgia · 16/08/2023 16:34

notlucreziaborgia · 16/08/2023 16:33

Yes, we’re both parents to die Claire, not being their parent, would absolutely be justified in refusing to take custody if she didn’t want to.

She has absolutely no legal responsibility for them at all, even with their father being alive. She absolutely can refuse to have anything to do with their care. That she involves herself in it is her choice, not something she has to do.

Show quote history

Were*

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:34

notlucreziaborgia · 16/08/2023 16:24

Saying no to Sarah equals ‘calling the shots’ I see. Sarah has to deal with her responsibility towards her own children, same as Ben has. He’s offered to have the children more, but he’s not willing to accept an unpredictable schedule. He doesn’t need to enable OP in making it work for her any more than she would need to for him if the situation were reversed.

Show quote history

Well, would it be better for Sarah not to work at all, and Ben has to increase his maintenance? She’d be infinitely flexible that way, but Ben would have to work longer hours, or maybe Claire would have to go to work.

MeetMyCat · 16/08/2023 16:34

Dixiechickonhols · 16/08/2023 16:13

Flexible doesn’t sum up the level of disruption that a varying last minute shift schedule imposes.
They are at the whim of Sarah and her manager.
No nights out, holidays, activities or hobbies planned more than a week or two ahead. It’s no way to live. Kids in a constant state of confusion.
Flexible is agreeing to swap occasionally or in an emergency.

This. You honestly can't impose this level of disruption on a household that the shift worker doesn't live in.

notlucreziaborgia · 16/08/2023 16:35

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:34

Well, would it be better for Sarah not to work at all, and Ben has to increase his maintenance? She’d be infinitely flexible that way, but Ben would have to work longer hours, or maybe Claire would have to go to work.

Show quote history

Sarah refusing to work wouldn’t increase the amount of maintenance he pays, and nor would it put any burden on Claire.

funinthesun19 · 16/08/2023 16:36

It’s not Claire’s responsibility to facilitate Sarah’s new job. Sarah will have to work with Ben to sort something else out.

After school clubs and holiday clubs exist. Does Sarah know this? Seems she doesn’t if she’s asking Claire for help.

Claire won’t benefit from helping Sarah in any way. Claire is a stay at home mum to her own children which enables Ben to work without worrying about childcare for their joint children. She does enough for their family unit. Why should she spend her time helping Sarah though? Why should Sarah get to benefit from Claire’s time she spends looking after her own children and sacrificing her own career? It all seems a bit one way.

yogasaurus · 16/08/2023 16:36

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:34

Well, would it be better for Sarah not to work at all, and Ben has to increase his maintenance? She’d be infinitely flexible that way, but Ben would have to work longer hours, or maybe Claire would have to go to work.

Show quote history

That’s not how maintenance works, as someone has already said upthread. It’s based on the NRP salary, not how much money the RP has. So it wouldn’t mean Claire would have to work (which you would like).

For someone with a lot of options, you don’t know at lot. All philosophy and no actual facts

yogasaurus · 16/08/2023 16:37

*opinions

1967buglet · 16/08/2023 16:38

notlucreziaborgia · 16/08/2023 16:33

Yes, we’re both parents to die Claire, not being their parent, would absolutely be justified in refusing to take custody if she didn’t want to.

She has absolutely no legal responsibility for them at all, even with their father being alive. She absolutely can refuse to have anything to do with their care. That she involves herself in it is her choice, not something she has to do.

Show quote history

Ok. Is it a usual social norm in the Uk that step parents don’t have much to do with their stepkids? If so, why do you think that is?