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

I don't think anyone is being unreasonable in this scenario to be honest. Everyone's perspective is reasonable for their own situation. The question is what level of compromise is reasonable on all sides to provide the most stability for the DC.

I no longer work shifts but I used to and they were different each week. However, it was a rolling shift pattern, so I always knew what shift would be on what day even if lates was Tuesday one week and Thursday the next. My shift pattern could be viewed 12 months in advance. If this is the case then I don't think it's unreasonable for Sarah to ask for some flexibility. Ben & Clare will know well in advance what days they're having the DC and can plan accordingly. If I were Ben that's what I'd do rather than ask Sarah to find a CM etc as I'd consider a home setting among family for my DC preferable. However, if Sarah doesn't know from one week to the next (e.g. the rota isn't decided until the start of each week), then that's clearly an unreasonable expectation.

All of which means nothing if it's not mutually agreed and upheld willingly. It would require high levels of organisation and communication to work well without the DC feeling pulled from pillar to post. If that's not a given, outsourcing or using a friend is the better (and less stressful) option.

It really doesn’t matter whether you consider it illogical or not. You are of course free to consider it as illogical as you like, but that doesn’t make it any less the law.

if a non custodial parent doesn’t earn then they are not liable to pay maintenance.

As far as philosophical notions of right and wrong, should and shouldn’t go - within the law those are subjective judgements to be made by individuals. You can have lots of ideas as to what I should or shouldn’t be doing, for example, but I don’t consider myself philosophically obliged to give a shit.

And because people just accept things how they are, don’t think about it, and don’t give a s*, is why we have a poor maintenance system, children in poverty, and some real problems with misogyny. Do you not realise that the law at its highest level IS philosophy?

Of course, considering that my degree is in law and I worked in the field.

The law, at least in democratic societies, doesn’t seek to govern every aspect of a persons life. It seeks to strike a balance that best serves society as a whole whilst respecting individual freedom. People are free to lobby for change, but there’s a difference between that and lobbying petty diktats on mumsnet.

No child maintenance is not linked to ‘visitation’. Not as in, if you don’t pay you have right to see the child.

Is linked to custodial arrangements, in a way.

It’s based on the non resident parents income. Their income. Not their partners. And how many nights they have the child.

No, custody arrangements wouldn’t be made differently if Ben made less and Sarah made more. It’s not the one with lowest income that gets the kids.

However often each of them have them would be up to them to decide between them and they can’t decide it can go to court. But the court doesn’t give the lowest earner custody.

The “What if”s have expanded to Ben dying.

Wonder if anyone will actually suggest that as a solution.

But it’s Sarah’s shifts that are causing the problem … !!

And when it was pointed out that the kids would stay with their other parent...we had another death. 😂

The solution is from the Wise Woman in Blackadder the 2nd

Well, that's one option.

😂

Sometimes I read threads in Relationships where a couple is splitting up, and the wife wants never to speak to her husband again. Other posters say something like “You have children together - there’s no way you can avoid speaking to him altogether.”

And I always want to say “Well, there is one way”.

So obvious OP is Sarah. You are unreasonable expectating step
mum to provide care when you are working and also to expect them to fit around different days every week.

You may have spotted a gap in the market. Maybe this is Sarah's new job. It explains the unpredictable hours.

So obvious OP is Sarah.

Yes, it would be hard to have missed that by now.

What was her plan to take care of it? Oh yes tell Ben his new wife is doing it......what happens if the new wife has her own plans for career or life? I'm fully if you take on a partner with children you take the children but not that the ex can then dump their agreed commitment on you. If you decide to have children some things are given up working nights when you're a single parent being one.

If Ben died Claire would have no right to custody which would solely fall to Sarah she could try to fight for it. Sarah could also put the child into the care system.
Nobody has said that Claire does not parent the children....actually it says Ben has no childcare issue as Claire does it....but is it right for the children's mother to automatically assume Claire will also provide her free childcare. Why isn't Sarah looking at childcare options. What if Claire needs to go back to work is she supposed to put her needs and those of her household behind Sarah's?

Because your studying for a career you don't automatically get more money....nursing takes years of study requires night shifts and has shit pay. I know a few friends who decided to go in for it for their own job satisfaction but it didn't financially benefit the children....does the op say what this high powered shift job is?

Sarah is so incredibly out of order for suggesting Claire helps out and should be embarrassed dor suggesting it frankly.

You are incredibly unreasonable and should be embarrassed to have thought Claire had any duty to look after your kids unless you (and ben) offer her a salary.

That poster then killed Sarah off when it was pointed out that Sarah would be having the kids.

That post has a whole murder mystery subplot going on. 😂😂😂

So Sarah leaves husband gains a Fiance decides on a career path with Fiance's support intending on him solving her childcare, they split up now op expects ex (who at no point was involved in any career decision before op walked out) and step mum to facilitate her career path. Right totally cheeky.

Colonel Mustard with the candlestick in the library.

So we have a Baldrick cunning plan, death by duel or candlestick. What else could we need🤔🤔

Yeah and even then Claire wouldn't have any responsibility to the kids unless she wanted it