Am I unreasonable not to agree to his new child access rota

[Princess90x]

I have a current court order where ex has children 4-3-4 on his 13 day off rota. Based on 2 weeks on 2 weeks off

Well tonight he is saying he is going on a 3 week on 3 weeks off.

So I went on current base line of our court order i hold the lives with said 3-2-3 on his proposal coming december
Our children are 11 and currently 2 (3 in december)
He kept saying he has the children currently 12 nights now and I said that's not the case based on our shared calendar hence me stretching the 8 nights across the 3 weeks and saying sharing the summer holidays equally if his off rota permits it
If we cannot agree we will go mediation
We talk via talking parents so he went off on one saying he's contacting his solicitor so I said okay

But im just confused who says i agree to be a solo parent no check ins for 3 weeks no help off him during that time i didn't agree to current but a mans work needs trumps right? (he talks to 11 year old via text or FT on his current schedule sometimes might talk to 2 year old if he's not busy toddlering) but he never asks me any questions about them during his 2 weeks at work anyways again communication is via a court app i can't work out if im the high conflict one or him because i won't agree and neither will he 😂 what do i do we went court in may last because as I said he wanted to have not 50/50 but me 53% and his 47% based on his off rota ended up with this set up 🤷

NO NEED to SHOUT!

you have misread - the child is away from
dad 3 weeks and with mum 100% during that time, suppose you think that’s fine!

Good job that's not what he is seeking!

May I ask why you are not in work, OP? @Princess90x

Sorry @Princess90x , my intention didn’t come out well.

What I meant was that I agree he isn’t seeing his dcs much.
I agree that 3 weeks wo seeing them is long, esp for the youngest.

But the devil’s advocate would say it would be the same if you were still together iyswim.

@CoverLikelyZebra It’s important the older child has a voice in this too. Any changes should not be disruptive to the older child in terms of school and hobbies. Just saying what adults want does not take into account the needs of either child.

The existing arrangement is very typical for a court ordered arrangement. It’s essentially 9 out of 15 nights to dad when he’s not working. Many child arrangements are 9/15 nights to mum 52 weeks of the year or holiday arrangements clearly defined. In this case, the dad cannot do 52 weeks, so he gets more time when he can have them. That’s seems ok to me. That pattern could be continued for the 3 week or 22 night rota. I just would check it works for dc. It means op has dc for much more because dad probably cannot have dc for 2 or 3 weeks at a time and the court recognised this.

He doesn’t seem a bad dad to me and clearly wants engagement with dc.

Why are you asking that? Is it relevant?

@RoseField1 Of course it is in terms of a reasonable child arrangements order.
For example, Father should not be told he can only have the kids certain times 'as he is working to provide' but yet Mother argues she can have them more as she is not? That sort of thing.

You asked why she's not in work. She's already said she's not in work so she's fine to change care arrangements. Why do you need to know why she's not in work?

She has a 2yr

@Blondeshavemorefun So does Father.
Father, in this instance, clearly wants to have regular contact with his children just as mum does.
So why should he be "penalised" for working by seeing his kids less?
Being a single parent does not mean you can't work. In fact; it means you need to step up and take financial responsibility for your children along with the other biological parent.
Ask me how I know.

@Cheeseandolivesplease He’s not penalized! He’s just around less! Most men accept working means less time to see dc and sometimes this applies to the mum. It’s time available that matters and stability for dc that meets their needs. Many parents are not in a position to pick and choose work hours! Life is not like that.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner Why "most men" but not "most women"?
Once separated I don't think it is reasonable for father to work to provide everything financially whilst mother does not, meaning that she has more time with their children
There should be a more equal status quo.
My children lived 50/50 between myself and ex-husband for a good number of years and absolutely we both worked in order to be present parents and provide financially for them.

Sometimes a mum has been put at a financial disadvantage by sah with young children, or by facilitating a partner who works away and hasn't been around to do their fair share. It's often difficult to go back to work when there are huge chunks of time where the dad isn't available to to his bit. OP has full responsibility for the dc for weeks at a time where there is zero help available from dad and that probably has an impact on her ability to work. Plus she has a 2 year old.

If mum was suddenly as unavailable as dad, who would look after the kids?

So while she has to continue putting his job first to a large degree because it's financially necessary, there has to be acknowledgement that ex can only maintain this work pattern because OP is picking up his slack, when it comes to childcare.
Although they are divorced, there's no such thing as complete separation when you have dependent children and financial commitments. Ex needs her as much as she needs him, for the time being.

I would encourage OP to get back into work when she can because it's better for her if she doesn't need anything from her ex but possibly it's just too hard to do right now. We don't know where she lives and availability of good childcare, what she's qualified to do, travel situation or availability of appropriate work.

@Aiming4Optimistic I see that. All good reasons as to why becoming a ft SAHP is not a sensible idea.
It also makes it harder to get back into work (which OP will need to do) in order to financially support her children if significant gaps in employment history.
At what age is childcare funded now? I think it's changed relatively recently (my youngest is 6).

After crunching numbers, whether he sees children 8 nights out of 28 (current arrangement) or 12 nights out of 42(proposed arrangement), he still only has the children for 28.57% of the time. So, he really isn't getting them for any longer (and still nowhere near 50%). For 50%, he would have to have them for the full duration of his off time - which would be problematic in so many ways for the children.

One question I would like to know the answer to; is the change in on/off weeks - was that initiated by him or his employer? Because if he initiated it, without discussing potential impact on the children (longer gaps between seeing their dad), then he has damaged his own case. If his employer has imposed the change, then it is not his fault.

It would be wise for OP to obtain legal interpretation of the division of holidays, for everyone's sake. There are 13 weeks of school holidays per year in UK, so 91 days in total. All well and good, but if he is working over any of those holiday periods, then what? Does he think he gets time in lieu during term time?

@Cheeseandolivesplease Most arrangements for dc are not truly 50:50. Usually mums do the most childcare and do the most nights. Working has to be arranged around this and child care costs fall to them. A highly paid mum will undoubtedly work, others find costs are sky high for childcare, so don’t. With the standard 5/24 days with dad, mum has far more juggling, organisation and running around to do and outsourcing costs! That’s why lots of mums don’t do it if they didn’t have a high paying, flexible, career. Many don’t. It’s wrong to think all dads have flexible working arrangements too!

Working and earning money to provide for your children is a fair share contribution.

@LemonTT But most people working full time do want to see their dc and that’s why there’s usually some time given to them but not as much as a non working mum.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner Absolutely. So the fairest solution here is they both work and have a fairer share of time with their children.
Unfair if dad has to work ft whilst mum doesn't at all, no?

He needs to understand you are co-parents not partners you dont have to work around his schedule and vice versa and mantrumming gets you nowhere a reasonable discussion should

I think it's more nuanced than to say it unfair if dad works and mum doesn't because of the nature of dad's job.
He couldn't actually do 50/50 unless he has the dc for the whole time he is off work. That is probably not ideal for the dc who won't want to go 3 weeks at a time without seeing either mum or dad. It probably wouldn't work for schooling either. So in reality mum has to solo parent for the majority of the time. Which has the knock on effect of putting her at a disadvantage if she also has to work ft, pay for more childcare, manage the logistics. So if mum is to work, she may be limited to pt (which means less money) or dad should contribute 50% of childcare costs and/or change his employment so he can do more actual looking after of the dc.

What wouldn't be fair is for mum to have to organise her whole life around dad's schedule whilst also working ft and picking up dad's share of childcare.

@Cheeseandolivesplease Of course it’s fair! Dc might well be more settled with mum and their needs Trump pushing mum into work. Also why should women who work looking after dc (and it’s very valuable work if you had to pay for it!) be pushed around to work for money too? I didn’t need the money and didn’t work but I did just about everything else. Some people prioritise dc over juggling childcare and look at what’s best for dc above all else. Dc are not a cake to be shared out equally and I certainly wasn’t going to rush around working when dh earned 10 times what I did. The op should not be forced to work. What matters is happy and settled dc who are not shunted around unnecessarily. Dc thrive on routine, school friends and parents who make time for them.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner OK. Now let's change this... I've changed the mum/dad and men/women only in your response...

I'm highlighting the pure sexist nature of "gender role" here.

Dc might well be more settled with dad and their needs Trump pushing dad into work. Also why should men who work looking after dc (and it’s very valuable work if you had to pay for it!) be pushed around to work for money too? ....
Some people prioritise dc over juggling childcare and look at what’s best for dc above all else... Dad should not be forced to work. What matters is happy and settled dc who are not shunted around unnecessarily. Dc thrive on routine, school friends and parents who make time for them.

I simply do not accept that it is reasonable a parent (let's face it, nearly always the father) is expected to work ft in order to provide financially for his family, whilst the other parent does no paid work whatsoever, arguing that they "can't" work because they have children. Rubbish.

It’s fine not to work …… if you’re not renting in the state to pay your way through benefits.

if you are - then you should work . Simple

@millymollymoomoo You've got to be pretty loaded in that case though as a single parent?