Can I be forced into working full time?

[naturalbaby]

I work part time/job share but 12hr shifts on an 8 day rota.

We have 3 teenagers with hectic schedules and it's impossible for 1 parent to manage alone for more than a few days - we agreed to be amicable and flexible and have very little/no childcare support. The reason I'm part time is because of the logistics of the kids schedules, it was very difficult for their dad to manage when I worked full time. He's now saying I'll have to work full time or get a different job. I'm on UC so this makes up for my loss of earnings.
Can I be forced to change my work in the next few months for the financial agreement??
We have a joint mediation session soon and I don't want to waste time so want to make it as efficient as possible so that we can finalise the divorce asap.

Your DC are teens?? So what's the reason you can't work full time

I'm trying to establish how much of our current lifestyle needs to change - potentially every single aspect of my life and the kids does because he agreed we could manage it during the separation phase so that the kids lives weren't disrupted during GCSEs and he's now saying he can't long term which we both agree on.

He's trying to control what I do in my time without the kids - for work and socially and I'm trying to establish how much he can actually control/dictate.

He works full time from home and we agreed I would continue working part time so that the kids didn't have to stop their activities immediately - we were already dealing with a child who was struggling emotionally and to take away the extra curricular activities in the midst of separation and exams wasn't necessary.

I claim UC because of my current financial situation and the position I've been left in as a result of decisions that were made during my marriage - I have years of missing pension contributions because of his salary and he's complaining about me taking part of his pension. Part of the divorce process is to deal with that and make significant changes because I can't support myself financially even when working full time in my current role.

UC will expect you to increase your hours OP or look for full time work, the conditionality of claiming benefits as a single parent these days means no consideration will be given to kids activities

The teens schedules will change and I will return to work full time, but I'm trying to establish how quickly he can push that.
My point is he agreed to facilitate our current schedule for the kids benefit and is now saying he can't/won't because he can't cope with the emotional side of divorce and how I spend my time when I'm not with the kids/when he has them.

Surely these sports fixtures are at the weekend?

Hi OP

I presume one or more of your teens does sport at a reasonably high level.

I worked with a colleague who had a daughter who played for a major football club youth team.

He travelled about 70 miles twice a week for training plus matches mostly on weekends and occasionally in the evening.

If your H has agreed to support this not changing during the process due to the emotional needs of the children then I would try to hold him to this.

However once you are divorced it's a different story. Maintaining this kind of high level commitment will be exceptionally difficult if your H isn't prepared to get involved in supporting it. And unfortunately for your teen he doesn't have to and you cannot make him.

It sounds like this activity is going to have to stop as you will need to prioritise earning enough money to support yourself.

This.

Our first responsibility as citizens is to support ourselves. Facilitating teen activities is a luxury, not a need. Certainly not something the taxpayer should be subsidizing.

I'm puzzled by your comment that you can't support yourself financially in your current role even if you work full time. If he pays maintenance for the children as decreed, and you work then how much more do you need for essential items?
Many people are struggling at present, but you want to work part time so your teenage children can continue with activities that take up time and money?
Am I the only one who is confused?

And this is why so many women stay in dreadfully unhappy and even abusive marriages.

You have to plan for being a 100% single parent. Doing 100% of childcare /activities etc and funding your DCs 100%.

No court can force him to do any childcare or do anything to adapt his routine to suit you or DCs activities.

In theory he should pay maintenance but often they don't and there are no penalties.

If he shacks up with someone else he can quit work, live off her and owe you/his dc nothing. If he has more dc his CM to you will be less.

The system is rigged to benefit men over mothers/dcs.

You're on your own now.

Get a smashing lawyer and get what you can in the divorce. Maybe use some of the pay out to get an Au pair to do ferrying.

Also be careful that you have been paid UC while still cohabiting with ex and that you don't break capital rules when you sell your house.

Agreed

He can refuse to ferry the kids around immediately.

He can't "make" you return to work but he can stop paying bills etc and make your life financially very difficult.

The only power you have left with him is persuasion and it sounds like that's all out.

You need to plan they you have to do all the ferrying and all the paying bills.

Yep. So you'll get a share of the pension accrued to date. Assets will be split. And if you cannot agree between yourselves, then this will happen with a court assuming that you can work full time.

Him agreeing you could work part time when the children were teenagers is irrelevant. It's probably not affordable either.

If you cannot afford your lifestyle when working full time then that will probably be dealt with initially by a slightly uneven split in the share of assets and then after that either:

1. You can retrain and earn more; OR
2. You adjust to a lower standard of living.

Sounds like he is trying to use the stability for the children as a bargaining counter to reduce your share of the proceeds. Its a shitty tactic to pull - don't fall for it.

You facilitated his career and salary by relieving him of all the difficulties of juggling work and children. You have earned your half of the financial benefits of the marriage just as much as he has - his mind set that it is "his" money is very telling.

The unfortunate reality OP is he actually doesn’t have to do anything for the kids, he could never have them and do no nights with them if he wants to.

You have 3 teenagers, not 3 toddlers. Teens don't need childcare and they can get the bus or walk to places. You don't have any reasons for not working full time.

Surely the sports matches that are 100 miles away are at weekends? You could work Monday to Friday full time and then take the teens to their matches at the weekend. If it's during the week, they need to get the bus or train (I imagine the weekday ones are local).

So why should the rest of us pay to support your kids and xtra curricular activities when many people are struggling to feed their kids.

I agree either with this - they're not babies.

There's al says lift shares too

They're no 100 miles away every day or I hazard even every weekend.

He is their DF, albeit one happy to use their stability as a pawn in the divorce.

By your token the OP could also refuse to have them at all and the state would pick up the tab for the DC.

For a teen to be traveling that distance regularly I'd say PP are correct and one or more of the DC is playing at quite a high level. If so then yes, it will be pretty much every weekend and some lengthy trips/training during the week. It certainly won't be something that a teen can "get themselves to" and continue to perform in the sport and at school.

Effectively the DH is using their continued participation and progress as a pawn in the financial dicussions about "his" money which is a pretty shitty thing for a father to do but a lot commoner than most women realise when they have children.

You should have led with this OP. There's now a whole barrage of posters fixating on the UC/extra curriculars aspect. He's trying to control you via childcare and knowing you'll do whatever you can to keep things the same for the kids. Honestly, the extra curriculars aren't the end of the world, I get what you're trying to do but honestly you'll be able to think straight if you remove them from the picture right now. For one thing it has the potential to become something the teenagers feel guilty about 'mum tied herself in knots so we could go to matches' etc.

Focus on:

1. How much childcare is he committing to? How many regular days and nights, school runs (if you have to do those, otherwise just being around before/after school).
2. Try and tune out the 'taking my money/pension' rage from him. The system is stacked against you. Nothing holds him to paying maintenance long term. The pension/house share is the only guarantee you have- fight for it!
3. Know that he is trying to control you via your kids, and as his control slips away it might get worse before it gets better. Strip out the unnecessary stresses from your life and focus on what's important- you and your children. Life WILL look different after divorce, but that's OK.

Do teenagers need 'childcare' ordered by court? They can choose which house to sleep in. No need for 100mile jaunts at taxpayers expense.

Except it doesn’t work like that. It sounds like he has moved out, if he wanted go then he could say he doesn’t want any overnights and no court would force him- mum doesn’t have that option.

It’s shit, but that is the way it is legally.

As a parent of course he should want to do his part, but if he doesn’t then nothing, nobody and no court can force him to do anything other than pay maintenance.

But surely up until now OP will have made a joint claim with DH. Going forward she will be claiming on her own and UC say full time work with parents with DC at school over 13. If you can manage your finances without claiming UC no one can make you work full time. It's sad but in divorces DC do miss out on things like seeing both parents everyday and the luxury of having their own taxi services 24/7.

He is their DF, albeit one happy to use their stability as a pawn in the divorce.

By your token the OP could also refuse to have them at all and the state would pick up the tab for the DC.

I don't think anyone is suggesting he's father of year. But he can refuse to take teens to their sport. He just can. And he doesn't have to fund OP working part time so that she can do it. The fact he might well be an arsehole doesn't change that.
He can't dictate to OP what she does, but he doesn't have to facilitate it either if she could work full time but doesn't.

Its only doable legally because in practice most mothers will blink first and prioritise the children, even if that means insulating them from the fathers' neglect.

If mothers abandoned children on divorce, or were only willing to be "disney mums" there might be some action on deadbeat dads.