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 🤷

You cannot force him to take up access or a more equal split especially if he has a job where he is away for 3 weeks. I would look for a fair split with him having kids more in his home time and holidays as long as that works for you too. You can claim cms if you have kids more nights across the year

This. And if he does work on an oil rig for 3 weeks at a time, I don’t know what he’s supposed to do about that, other than quit his job, then neither parent will be working.

Be careful what you wish for OP (although I can’t fathom your posts either).

This does remind me of a thread some time ago, where the exDH was in the army, and short of taking the children on deployment (!) there was no way to parent equally

@Cheeseandolivesplease From what I understand the courts see dads who want to work and fit dc around work. Thats why the most common child arrangement orders favour the mum. The most usual arrangement is 5 nights to dad and 9 to mum in a 2 week cycle. The main reason for this is the greater earning power of men. If a woman has greater earning power and doing long hours, the arrangement might well be reversed. Who says dad is forced to work? In most cases, men want to work! Money matters to them, but women can work but they really do face doing even more if dad isn’t around. As this case demonstrates.

This doesnt seem in the best interests of the children. Three weeks is a long time not to see him and then not to see their mother, especially a 2 year old. The 11 year old will miss time with friends potentially too. Its very chaotic and centred around his needs, not theirs. I would psuh back fully on all this and suggest weekends when he is available, or something like that more reasonable and understandable for a very young child. If he want to be a more involved parent he may need to reconsider his job and what would actuallty work, like so many mothers do.

From a legal perspective, as the existing order sets out, she probably would be expected to accommodate his work pattern as long as it doesn’t impact on her own work commitments and quality time with children.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner It was you who said women were "forced" to work, but you believe men "want" to work and that "money matters to them."
Can't you see the sexism in your beliefs at all here?
The starting point in UK family courts is actually 50/50 as it assumes both parents should have equal time with their kids and also both work to provide for them.

@LemonTT OP doesn't work. I imagine she must be very well off as a single mum to afford not to at all.

@Cheeseandolivesplease No. Many women don’t want to work and would rather be fill time with dc. I’m pro choice! If Op can afford it, great. Most men don’t look after dc full time. I’ve never met one who gave up a decent job to do this. At best they fit dc in around working and I don’t judge women by what paid work they do. Looking after dc is incredibly important work!

@MeetMeOnTheCorner As you say, if OP can afford it then great. I'd love to know how though as a single mum - she must be very wealthy?
As for many women not wanting to work and would rather stay at home ft - I actually disagree. I never wanted to give up my career, even though "Mr Big Job" ex-husband felt emasculated by it (yuck!) I am so glad I wasn't pressured into doing so.
As for my now husband, he'd love to give up work and be a SAHD given half the chance!

I agree. It’s far too long for a 2yo to be away from mum when she’s been the primary carer. I think 2 weeks is too long too though, it’s destabilising.

He's not suggesting 3 weeks without seeing mum. I know it's confusing but he's proposing to be away 3 weeks (so 3 solid weeks with mum) and then have DC 12 nights over the next 3 weeks, on a 4-3-4 pattern. DC will spend no longer than 4 days away from mum. It's the same number of nights he has DC now but with a longer period away.

@Cheeseandolivesplease Lives with her parents? Has an independent income? DH is happy for this arrangement and pays? Not everyone is the same as you. I gave up my job and childless friends thought I was mad but we decided I couldn’t do the hours I needed to do and DH run a business without a lot of paid help and then no one sees dc.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner The major difference here is you are married I assume and your husband earns enough for you to decide to give up work. Do you help your DH out with the business if he doesn't have a lot of paid help?
But in the case of a single parent things are obviously different.
I do wonder how the OP is managing to afford not to work at all?

@Cheeseandolivesplease No! He employed over 100 people! Just don’t assume single women don’t have money! Yes I’m married but not everyone is poor.

Not everyone is poor no. But statistically it’s unlikely for a single parent to afford to live without working unless living off state benefits.
possible but rare

Jesus Christ please stop quibbling about the OP's financial situation. It's none of anyone's business and not relevant to the question.

It is relevant. Op should be working and if not, should start and at some will have to if she’s not currently. That can impact child arrangements and ability to be flexible and change any advice given here re ops ex requests /demands and whether they’re reasonable to op or not

@millymollymoomoo Absolutely this. I am still interested in finding out how she can afford to support herself and her children as a single parent without working at all. There is absolutely no way I could have managed it.
As you say, it is very likely she will be expected to find work before too long if not immediately, and of course this will make a difference in terms of the arrangements for the children.

@RoseField1 Yes, it’s tedious. Just because the poster has no experience, she thinks everyone is identical. We have no idea where her money comes from and it’s besides the point.

It’s to the point in terms of whether op is working. That directly potentially changes the dynamics of possible flexibility to change child arrangements. If someone’s not working it’s much easier to flex rather than if they are also navigating working logistics.

But nobody needs to know why she's not working or her financial situation. That's just nosiness and judgement.

We don't need to know, but it would be taken into consideration if this went back to court.

@hereforthelolz Absolutely. In court there would be an expectation that OP was either working to support her child, or financially doesn't need to.
It wouldn't be the case, if father was asking for additional contact, that he couldn't have it as he was working ft to provide but mother wasn't working at all and so could, for example.
Both parties are expected to be financial contributors as now separate households. The father isn't expected to fully support the mother and child, nor of course vice versa.

The question of WHY she isn't working would not be taken into consideration at all. It's not the concern of the court.

What the Jeff are you talking about? If the father made a new application to vary the child arrangements the court would make a decision around the child arrangements and the child arrangements only. Whether OP is financially independent or reliant on benefits and who financially supports who is absolutely irrelevant to the question being asked and therefore the court would have no expectation or involvement in their financial affairs at all!

What I think the pp is saying is it’s wrong to penalise a father in terms of child arrangements as he’s working whereas a mum isn’t working and can therefore have child more often - then the natural
comclusion is not working is fine if not on benefits and it’s funded through their own wealth. But if not then mum
should also be working. I would agree with that.

op hasnt confirmed her working arrangements after 5 pages so all this is just speculative and in this context only relevant to the extent does it impact her ability to agree ex proposals which are reasonable