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 🤷

She has, she said she doesn't work. And nobody is penalising the father, OP has accepted she needs to agree to his proposal, especially since she doesn't have work to manage. Again, the reason she doesn't work is irrelevant.

Yes I missed the post where op says she doesn’t work

they why may not be relevant currently, but should op return to work, ( and let’s be clear if she is relying on benefits then she absolutely should!) or if returns when child is at school etc then arrangements will need to be revisited

most cao should be revisited as child grows anyway. Accepting this and being open to review and change is good

The court would not order a mum to work. She’s the resident parent and primary carer. She just needs to be more flexible with dad and his work.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner This simply isn't true. Answer this... would the courts expect father to work?
What do you think they would suggest if father reduced his hours/found another job and then requested 50/50?
Judges (quite rightly) strongly expect both parties to maximize their earning capacity and move toward financial independence.
Is the OP doing this?

I think things are getting mixed here. In a divorce and financial settlement case the court will expect both parties to maximise incomes and generally a father won’t be expected to subsidise his ex lifestyle to be pt or not work ( save a few years interim to get back into workplace)

a judge can’t compel a mum to work in any other circumstances

of course as child gets older IF op is living on benefits ( and we don’t know) then the benefits office would expect that from about age 6 ( I think but stand corrected if different)

in this case as op is not currently working and ex is on shift pattern it’s more than reasonable op accommodates that ( which she has already acknowledged)

Goodness that sounds complicated! I don’t even understand it.

@Autumngirl5 What do
you not understand? This is about living arrangements, not the financial order.

@millymollymoomoo A judge will treat mother and father entirely equally in terms of expectations to work, of course. As you say, a judge can’t compel a mum to work in any other circumstances. Neither can they the father. It's all on an equal footing.
If however, for example, father requests 50/50 care of the children and can demonstrate his working hours can facilitate this, then there is no reason as to why the judge would not consider this. Additionally under these circumstances, there would be no child maintenance owed by either party.
But as it stands I agree with you - OP will be expected to accommodate contact around father's shift pattern.

Employment status would be considered though. If the father says he needs to change the pattern to accommodate work; and the OP has no real justification why he shouldn’t (other than not wanting to…it doesn’t interfere with her work schedule), then they absolutely would be asked to consider that angle.

Not the reasons why she’s not working.

@hereforthelolz I agree with that. Ateotd if father take his proposal re child arrangements to court it is irrelevant whether either parent agree with the decisions reached or not; the judge will make the decision.
If mother is saying currently she is not happy to vary the order but father wishes to, my guess is he will apply to court for a variation.

Working hours will be considered, but not whether a parent is working or not. It’s about facilitating child care around a work pattern - not telling a parent to work. This is often the case if one parent has very long hours with a commute for example. 50:50 is not usual where working hours vary a lot between parents, for obvious reasons. The needs of dc come first and how parents can best facilitate care. The family courts now have a strong child focussed model and quicker decision-making. Agreement isn’t that difficult here because no SS involvement, abuse, drugs/drink etc etc.

If this indeed was the likelihood of the outcome in court as it currently stands, as father's legal representation I would be advising him either to find another job role, reduce his hours, or give up work completely in exchange for a fairer amount of parenting time.

Why, if he doesn't want a more equal amount of parenting time?? If he wanted to, he would have done it already.

@RoseField1 Well obviously if he doesn't it's very straightforward and wouldn't need to go back to court.
A different matter altogether if he is asking for a reasonable variation but Mother is not agreeable or he wants more time.

I think that the father is benefiting from the unpaid work of the mother but the mother, since they are no longer together, is not benefiting from the paid work of the father, with the exception of child support which is not a huge % of the paying parents salary. So it’s a false equivalence to say that he is working to provide for his family whilst she does the bulk of childcare because he isn’t, whereas she is.

If this indeed was the likelihood of the outcome in court as it currently stands, as father's legal representation I would be advising him either to find another job role, reduce his hours, or give up work completely in exchange for a fairer amount of parenting time.

I think this is unrealistic. Most people have to work to keep a roof over their heads (and make CMS payments). Also, changings jobs isn't usually that simple either.

@OhamIreally we have no idea what money he pays you op

@PinkEasterbunny I totally agree. So how is the mother managing?
I fully appreciate this isn't the case yet as I believe one of the children is still preschool age, but when this changes...
In the UK family court, there is a general expectation that both parents will become financially self-sufficient following a separation, and mothers are typically expected to work once their children reach school age.
CMS isn't there to facilitate a permanent SAHM so OP will likely need to work before too long and thus child arrangements will possibly need reviewing again.

@OhamIreally If she isn't getting a substantial amount of CMS from her ex, how is she affording not to work? I do appreciate she could be very independently wealthy.

@Cheeseandolivesplease Many parents don’t want 50/50 and certainly don’t want to change from a well paid job to something that reduces lifestyle! I can assure you many couples have an imbalance of childcare based on working patterns. Especially the rich.

@Cheeseandolivesplease biy what you’re referring to is related to separation of assets not child arrangements. Yes one parent in separation is not generally expected to have to support the ex through division of assets or spousal maintenance so the other can be a sahm or work pt . But that is not related to child access arrangements.

The only thing that is relevant is working patterns and ability to do logistics

@millymollymoomoo Working patterns that will inevitably need to change once youngest is at school, however.

Most child arrangements orders do factor in future changes when children go to school. Judges are quite used to doing this, it's their job.

Many many parents don’t do shared school runs, and work patterns are considered. Parents sort this out even if they remain married!

Absolutely this! We seem to get obsessed with complete parity when parents are apart, when it wasn't even achievable when they were together.