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 🤷

Your making a mountain when something is so simple, your ex is absolutely correct it adds up to the same amount of days over the year..You don't need to harp on about mediation or going to courts every single time he clearly is being amicable and you got it wrong. At least you have a father who works and wants to do the right thing for the kids the same as you so keep it amicable not everything needs dragged thru services every single time once the main order is in place

@PinkEasterbunny Many parents do agree around work commitments and school commitments. It’s just the ridiculous push for 50:50 to save, mostly men, money. It’s vital parents maintain work if they have it and have enough time to find work if necessary. I really don’t believe carving up dc like a cake to force a parent to have dc more works for dc. It might if parents live very close and parents wfh or work part time, but otherwise, continuity does matter for dc and their interests should be paramount.

But the general expectation should be that both parents work full time in which case the justification for 50:50 becomes stronger, obviously it depends on what types of jobs.

but whereas some men want 50:50 to reduce maintenance some others don’t want 50:50 because I) it reduces their maintenance and ii) they want the upper hand if being ‘main’ parent and to hold control

@RoseField1 Ah that's good then - it will leave the door open for mum working ft when her youngest is in school.

@millymollymoomoo There’s no expectation of full time work by both parents at all! Dc come first with the court. Their needs. Not your views on work and money!

@MeetMeOnTheCorner
In UK family law, judges generally expect a separated mum to maximize her earning capacity and seek employment, especially once her youngest child reaches school age. This of course also applies to father.
It absolutely isn't the case that father is expected to work ft and pay CMS in order that mother does not have to find paid employment.
The judge will treat both separated parents as literally that; separated and there will (rightly) be no regard to "typical" gender roles. Therefore there will be the expectation on both of them individually to provide financially for their children and the financial needs of the child/children are required to be met by both parties.

You said full time. There is no expectation of full time. Maximizing income is considered around child care. Women who, for example, are teaching assistants, never work 40 hours a week, for a full year. They might increase their hours in term time but they still have the school holidays. Circumstances and jobs do matter.

There is no law judges must follow in terms of who works and who doesn’t. If finances are very tight, a mum might be gearing up to work part time once dc are at school but child care costs are a factor. This is current advice for stay at home mums. As I said, needs of dc come first. In HNW divorces women with childcare responsibilities don’t suddenly rush out to work if they divorce.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner in s divorce both parents are expected to maximise their income. And a spouse won’t ( usually) be expected to subsidise a parent choosing not to work, that absolutely is the presumption for the basis of a financial settlement. So it’s based on an assumed full time income potential not what that person currently earns if they’re not working, it would also look at income from benefits or other sources. Should that partner not work then they have to find their own lifestyle through benefits or wealth or other means going forward. I never said a judge would force someone to work. ( although yes i absolutely think people should work and choosing to live on benefits should be judged long term)

That is separate to child arrangements

Maximizing income is not demanded immediately! A plan for it is another matter!

Key part you clipped is if other parent is willing to support , or if there is suffucyrrsources to permit this. Most divorces in England do not meet these conditions / at best most non working parents will have a short term spousal element for a couple of years if children are very young and if there is income and resources to permit it. Often there is not .

That’s why I said planning for work. It’s not an immediate requirement! Dc needs come first and certainly mums with Sen dc don’t always rush out to work.

SEN is a completely different use case

@MeetMeOnTheCorner SEND dc can obviously impact upon how many hours a parent (both separated parents) can work.
But I don't think in this case the OP has said her children have SEND.