who is being unreasonable? new job and children

[interestingly8]

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

Bens maintaiance has nothing to do with Sarah income.

Ben and Claire already have the children 5/14 and have offered to increase it to 6/14. The issue is that they are aware that for everyone (other than Sarah) having that schedule set is better.

flexibility is once every few months sending a message (either way) to say “something has come up can you have the kids on x date” not expecting everyone to work around your work schedule.

But so far, no one appears to have died, thankfully.

I said nothing at all about ‘liking’ Claire to go to work. So, according to your logic, if Ben refused to work, Sarah would get no maintenance whilst raising the children. Is that correct?

It’s up to individual families to organize themselves in a way that suits them, there is no one ‘social norm’ regardless of what some may like to see.

I don’t know what reasons an individual may have in deciding to be hands off. I don’t need to know as it’s got nothing to do with me, and what’s more I don’t care.

But doesn’t the wellbeing of the children have something to do with Sarah’s income?

But that’s only part of it. Their well being also relies on stability and knowing where they will be sleeping one day to the next.

it’s very simplistic to think money = well-being.

Correct. If he claimed benefits he would pay a nominal amount from those, but if he didn’t claim then he wouldn’t be liable to pay maintenance.

isn’t ‘her logic’ by the way, it’s the actual law.

Ok, but you have some interest as you seem to know the law about the responsibility of the step-parents. It suggests to me that stepchildren in the UK are not considered to people as important as their biological children. That may seem self-evident to you, but it isn’t the case in all cultures.

It’s not a given though. People retrain for all sorts of reasons. Some of the reasons eg public sector pension are purely for Sarah’s long term benefit.
I know someone who had a good office based job who retrained as an occupational therapist as that was their dream. It wouldn’t result in more money. Kids might benefit from a more fulfilled mum but might also be affected by a more busy and stressed mum.

It isn’t difficult to ascertain the law on this.

A stepchild is not a child of a stepparent. ‘Stepparent’ is a title, that’s it.

Yes, that is exactly what would happen in the UK. Are you not familiar with the maintenance process in the UK? You would be awarded a nominal amount if the NRP claimed benefits

‘social norms’.. more theorising. Odd that someone who chose ‘not to parent’ as ‘it sounded very hard, relentless work and very expensive’ is giving SP’s such a hard time, fairly hypocritical.

Whilst I can sympathise with you OP (Sarah), I also can see Claire's point of view. As a step parent I have picked up/ dropped off when my husband has been unable to and I've even had a consistent day that I do the school drop off/ pick up every week. The lack of consistency though would be a commitment too far for me. What happens when her own children start school and Claire already has a commitment to collect your children at any given day with little notice? You also mention Claire having previously had her own career and potentially wishing to return to it at some point, this would also make me reluctant to agree to such a changeable commitment.

In terms of the children's dad, most employers, even the most flexible, are unlikely to be able to approve the level of flexibility that he would need to be able to collect the children/ drop to school without a set schedule in place.

If this were a post about dad changing jobs to shifts and wanting to make amendments I think the AIBU results would be quite different. I hope you can get something sorted OP and that you can find maybe some wrap around childcare that works for you.

Maybe the traumatised children of divorced dead parents who died in two separate incidents (unless it was in a violent fight about contact arrangements) might choose to live with a relative and not their former stepmother and two half siblings whose needs at 18 months and 3 are wildly incompatible with their own, and maybe also random speculation about the OP and the father of her children both dying doesn’t actually help her to figure all this out?

Why would the kids go into care? Is not the step mother or care? Or are you the Op and saying you and Ben have no other family at all between you.

Most people have other family members.

No one is dying so it’s a pointless conversation but a step parent does not have an automatic right to the custody of the children in the event of both parents dying. They can apply for it.

But there’s no automatic legal right. Because in last a step parent and parent are 2 different things. There’s no automatic right and no obligation.

That doesn’t mean that in some circumstances or may be the right thing to do. In many cases it maybe better for the children to live with other relatives.

Besides which Claire maybe be willing to apply for custody if Ben and Sarah die. That doesn’t mean she is obligated to provide endless flexibility to Sarah right now because Sarah fancies another job.

What a wormhole this thread has gone down... Although that seems to almost always happen on MN when there's a whisper of a step mother on the thread.

You have no legal right to keep your stepchildren after their parents die. Parental responsibility is not automatically passed to step-parents on marriage or death.

If Ben have up work and Claire went to work, he would pay very minimal if any maintenance.

If both Ben and Claire don’t work, again minimal maintenance.

It’s based on the non resident parent income.

If Sarah and Ben do 50:50 then, in most cases, there would be no maintenance to pay.

Maintenance is never based on the Resident parents income. Not step parents. Because step parents are not the same as parents.

So basically once divorced, fathers are not responsible for their ex’s children if they don’t earn. I suppose one gambit can be to not earn for a year or two, hiding some assets, have it declared you don’t have to pay maintenance, and then moving away so you cannot be found. And we have the Daily Mail screaming about all those single mums on benefit whilst dad is no where to be seen.

And I said your logic, because the law is often illogical. Some have said the law is an ass. (not my quote…I think it was Charles Dickens, which considering he wrote about poverty seems somehow appropriate).

Yes, I chose not to parent because I had to raise my brother from the age of 11. My mother was chronically ill and in and out of hospital. I watched my father work 60 hour weeks paying hospital bills (in the States), and trying to cope. It is very expensive, and it is hard relentless work. Are you satisfied now?

Yes non resident parents can and do avoid paying maintenance.

Yes we know that a lot of the time things that ‘single mum households’ are blamed for are actually the daily of an absent parent.

Yes child maintenance is a flawed system. That’s not the issue. It has nothing to do with this issue.

Maybe the traumatised children of divorced dead parents who died in two separate incidents (unless it was in a violent fight about contact arrangements)

I suppose a duel at dawn to sort out flexibility might possibly result in the death of both parents.

I said upthread that Ben should be more flexible as Sarah did something to improve her lot and those of her children (and Ben too), and was very surprised at the response.

You can talk about singular situations and their solutions, but behind the proffered solutions on the forum are social norms/philosophical warrants. Sometimes teasing those out and confronting them and even challenging them when they are unhelpful helps us make better decisions.

Child maintenance has nothing to do with visitation arrangements and custodial arrangements? I don’t buy that. I would think that if Ben made less, or Sarah made more, the custodial arrangements might be quite different, no?

It seems likely that Claire will be going back to work. Op says she has a career. The children are only 1 and 3 she might still be on mat leave for all Sarah knows eg if she’s tacked on annual leave.