Refusing to have DSC

[Nights11]

I'll keep it short!

My husband works in a high pressure job which is under a lot of straight from lack of staff. As such he's having to work emergency night shifts which he doesn't usually do, sometimes staying away from home. It's all a bit of a mess at the moment.

We are struggling to work this around when we have DSC which is 50:50 3 nights one week and 4 the next.

I work long days too in another high pressure environment (law) and at the moment I'm also doing 99% of most things at home with this situation at my husband's work. We share nursery aged children so they are in nursery in the day but I'm collecting after work and then it's home typically as DH is leaving and I'm responsible for everything then on. I'm also having to fit in bits of extra work in the evening once they are in bed just to get things done and basically I'm flat out exhausted too!

Basically the issue is my husband's ex is refusing anything which isn't DSC coming as normal whilst DH is working. He's offered to pay for childcare, he's offered to pay more maintenance, he's offered to have them more when he does get home ect... She works 3 days a week and doesn't do nights so there is no reason they can't stay at her home during the night.

I appreciate its annoying and it means it may be harder for her to make plans but I don't feel the responsibility is mine to then take DSC on the nights / days DH is away.

They are 11&13.

I'm basically flat out refusing, which may sound unreasonable but I am so exhausted and the last thing I want is 2 more children to care for half the week when DH isn't even around most of the time.

Basically I've said if DH isn't here then DSC will need to stay with mum or at her house. It's the holidays, DH has offered to pay for clubs, she works from home 3 days a week and they are old enough not to disturb her if they stay there, as I say he's also offered to pay more maintenance too but she wants them to come here like normal even if DH isn't here.

He's currently providing 50% of the time and over 50% of the money.

I think there's a debate to had right there about how much of that he's providing and how much the OP is!

No you’re wrong @Yousee He is NOT currently providing 50% of the time, that’s the frickin’ point of the whole post…

Recently the OP has been doing some of his 50% and I’d now refusing to do so.

He can’t do anywhere near 50% for the foreseeable future. He’s trying to find a new job - reasonably it’s going to take at least a month before he starts one at the bare minimum, more like at least three.

Meanwhile, he’s also not doing anywhere near 50% time wise with his DC with the OP.

I think this was meant for the report comment section and this wasn't meant to post this on the actual thread ?

(Happy to stand corrected but if it was a mistake you might need to redo it)

You can just say "fucking", we are all grown ups around here.
The facts are that there is currently a 50/50 residence plus maintenance payable by one party to another, all agreed outside of legal interference. In normal times, the Mum contributes 50% of the time and accepts money to cover at least some of the kids expenses on her time, plus has flexibility from her ex. Not a bad set up for her.
There's currently a shitstorm developing (thank you so much for highlighting the fricking point of the thread) but that doesn't take away from my actual point, which is that this is not a £7 per week and one overnight a year sperm donor we are talking about. He's not perfect, things are clearly out of whack right now which OP has said he's actively trying to sort, but he's not a bad guy either.
For all we know the mother is currently undergoing medical treatment she doesn't want to discuss with her ex. That's what's happening in our situation just now as it happens. Contact has been flipped on its head but DH is still paying normal maintenance and we don't know how serious or how long term his exs current medical needs will be.
I'm not saying the mother does not have a good reason to refuse to keep the kids.
I'm saying that for every ignorant arguement about the dad being bad or the OP being cold, I've got another ignorant arguement about the ex being lazy or whatever.

I really don't know what you mean by my "demeaning premises" in my previous post

Yes I can provide evidence. By 'occasional' flexibility I meant it's flexibility that is here or there, not flexibility that is required for several weeks on the trot. 'Occasional' may not have been the best word to describe it, one-offs here and there might have been better. I got this from the OP writing:

...go out/on holiday/ work overtime on her time with DSC which has been plenty over the years.

So while all those occasions may have added up, my point was that at the time they seem to be a one-off occasion or limited to say two weeks max (holidays).

My evidence for the current situation being likely to on 'for weeks on end' is logic and common sense. The OP said the situation was "hopefully short term and he is also looking at other jobs asap.

"Hopefully" = don't know for definite.

short term = undefined, but likely to mean less than two weeks otherwise it's highly probable the OP would have said so, as many posters have said the ex may have declined because she doesn't know how long it's going on.

looking at other jobs asap = going through a job process which means time finding and applying for jobs, hopefully getting some interviews, hopefully getting a job, then working a notice period unlike job pays notice in lieu (unlikely as short-staffed currently). It sounds like the OP's DH has a job where he possibly has to give more than one month's notice. Surely you can see that starting another job is unlikely to happen for at least a month and probably much more than that. That's equivalent to 'likely to go on for weeks on end'.

Typo, should be:

Short term = undefined but likely to mean less MORE than two weeks

@DuchessDarty Basic definitions aren’t evidence; they are a tautology in this context. I do agree with you about the possibility that the request made of the mum was too open ended. But there is nothing to stop her from agreeing on a fixed term basis. The co- operation and money have flowed in one direction only so far.

In any case I hope that redirecting the voluntary maintenance to a nanny will solve the problem.

OP, I’d be telling the ex that as he has to pay for overnight childcare, the maintenance (that he shouldn’t be paying anyway) is stopping to cover the cost of it.

Have any PPs met 13/11 year olds? I’ve got two (plus a 6 year old), and honestly, it’s a toss up as to whether they’re easier to look after, or not, every day!

Basic definitions aren’t evidence; they are a tautology in this context.

Bollocks @poetryandwine This isn't a scientific thesis. The scientific burden of proof does not need to met. The evidence of proof I provided was logical and would meet a legal burden of proof, which is the type of burden of proof that would be most relevant here.

We can disagree, on that@DuchessDarty. I think you ‘ve filled in some blanks that are open questions, though I agree that as far as we know OP has reported the current request in an open ended manner which may have put the mum off. (How long it will take the father to find a new job depends very much on the work he does. It could range from hours - though that is past, we gather - to months.)

Since you bring up the law, why are you ignoring the concept of fairness and the fact that the giving has all been one way in terms of both time and money?

(How long it will take the father to find a new job depends very much on the work he does. It could range from hours - though that is past, we gather - to months.)

You're being deliberately obtuse, surely. It may take him hours to find a job, but it won't take him hours to start a job. He'll have to give in his notice. We know he is in a "high pressure job" at an organisation that is suffering from such a staff shortage that they are asking him to "work emergency night shifts which he doesn't usually do". How likely do you think it is that such organisation would allow the DH to leave within days and not work his notice at all at a time when they are so short staffed? Very unlikely.

And come on, how possible let alone probable it is that someone with a high pressure job will be given a new job within hours and therefore completely bypass any references, background checks or second interviews, all of which cannot be done in hours.

Since you bring up the law, why are you ignoring the concept of fairness and the fact that the giving has all been one way in terms of both time and money?

I'm not ignoring the concept of fairness. I don't share yours and don't think we can judge.

In terms of money, it may be very fair that the 'giving' goes one way only. Stopping maintenance that goes on the kids to teach the ex a lesson and make her shut up and do what you want may not be the fairest thing.

In terms of time, yes it would be great if both could be flexible, but it's up to each whether they are or on; in some instances they just may not be able to. Just because the father is able to be flexible, doesn't mean the mother is able to be. He has the right to say no when she asks for flexibility as she does.

Christ alive, is this thread still going on even though the Op hasn’t bothered to return. Bottom line is….
it’s the husband’s responsibility.
An indefinite amounts of time is not the same as ad hoc flexibility.
Some comment about maintenance without clarification could be 59p
A dad’s responsibility to parent falls on no woman regardless of the role.
Ex wife is not the fall back to to his life.
Wife is not the fall back to his life.

@DuchessDarty neither of us have any idea what the father’s high pressure job is. OP has stated that they need the money. Diverting maintenance to a nanny is not a punishment; it is solving a problem.

In terms of time, you are conveniently ignoring OP’s report (18.52 on 25/07) that whenever her DH cannot accede to the mum’s unscheduled requests, mum pressures OP to take the children. It was hardly a surprise given the tone of OP’s posts, but there it is in black and white. This is highly relevant.

Longer term, mum is not a child to whom OP’s DH owes unconditional support. If she wants the maintenance then she owes OP and DH civilised behaviour. Even if there are MH problems, pressuring OP to care for her children at unscheduled times is not on.

@Heatwavenotify you have some good points about the father’s responsibility but have also missed the mum’s attempts to pressure the OP. It isn’t clear how well she has succeeded but to the extent she may have, that would be down to the father and seems to me dead wrong. I also think the one way help has been a lot more than occasional, because OP sounds both a reasonable person and one at the end of her tether, and your rhetorical use of 59p not all that helpful.

I have been shocked by the attacks on the OP, especially that so few have picked up on the mum’s attempts to use her.

@poetryandwine

neither of us have any idea what the father’s high pressure job is.

No, although given that he has to do "emergency night shifts" where he sometimes has to go away then it narrows it down somewhat. It also means that, as I said before, there is a very high probability it's a job where by necessity there will be a notice period that has to be worked out (instead of being paid by lieu). I know what I'm talking about here having dealt in a professional capacity as a lawyer with lots of employment contracts, including those for doctors and emergency services staff. However common sense means most people will understand that going by the Information the OP has told us, it defies probability to secure let alone actually start a new job within hours.

OP has stated that they need the money.

If you mean the money from the extra shifts then no, the OP has never stated they need the money from the extra shifts per se. What she did say, when talking about the ex wife, is that they (the OP and her DH) need his money generally. Which is hardly surprising is it, don't most of us need the money we earn?

Diverting maintenance to a nanny is not a punishment; it is solving a problem.
I don't disagree on principle, however in this case, as the DH was offering his ExWife extra money on top of the maintenance, it seems churlish to me for him not to use that extra money to pay for a nanny, rather than taking the money from the maintenance because the ex won't submit.

In terms of time, you are conveniently ignoring OP’s report (18.52 on 25/07) that whenever her DH cannot accede to the mum’s unscheduled requests, mum pressures OP to take the children.

Nope, I am not conveniently ignoring. Unlike you I've been on this thread since the first day. I've ALWAYS said that the OP shouldn't take the kids if the DP can't do it, unless she wants to obviously. This would include those times. I don't think the ex asking this in the past is relevant to the discussion you and I are having about time and money. We don't know whether in those instances the OP took the kids.

I have been shocked by the attacks on the OP, especially that so few have picked up on the mum’s attempts to use her.

Then take it up with the posters who attacked the OP. Not me or @Heatwavenotify as neither of us have done this.

@DuchessDarty please don’t put words in my mouth - I never made reference to the money from the extra shifts, although it is an interesting question I wish the OP had addressed.

A short term nanny will be at least £300/wk and that is for someone like a student looking for casual employment (they need a lot of hours). It could easily be double or more. That isn’t a realistic figure for the ‘extra money’ given to the ex if this is to go on anything like you predict, unless he and OP are very wealthy. They don’t sound it.

One difference between us is that I think the past informs the present and the present informs the future. You seem to be regarding this as a discrete episode. I think that is an irreconcilable difference (and know of legal precedents taking each viewpoint in different situations). We do seem to agree that the problem properly belongs to the husband.

I wasn't putting words into your mouth @poetryandwine , hence why I said "if you mean", I was clarifying with you. I assumed you didn't think it necessary to state that the OP and the DH need his money, because that's obvious. So I thought you probably - but not definitely! - meant the money from the extra shifts as that is what the context of what you were saying implied. But no, you were stating the obvious.

The nanny won't be needed for the whole week, just to cover some of the OP's shifts. I don't know how wealthy the OP and her family are, I'm not making any assumptions. I just know the OP said the DH had offered his ex money.

It's ironic that you accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then say that the difference between us is X. Lol. Poppycock. You're making assumptions about me. You do realise what that even if I were regarding this as "a discrete incident" (not saying I am or not), I could also believe that the past informs the future? They're not mutually exclusive beliefs. Shocker, I know.

What legal precedents are you talking about? And why are they relevant?

We and other PPs have both stated the obvious plenty of times. Your set of definitions was actually the apotheosis. Not impressed by the fact that you’re focused on one such instance.

Neither of us has a clue how many hours the nanny will be needed. Or how many hours per week, because of uncertainty around the husband’s shifts.

Your earlier theme is that the night shifts could go on for a very long time, which would mean that the nannying would, also. In the quotation above you’ve made this sound like a nanny is needed for a part of a week. Which is it? If your earlier concern are valid and you believe that OP and her DH need his salary (as you have indicated is obvious) basic arithmetic says the extra money is not likely to come close to covering the nanny costs. I gave numbers earlier.

We have made assumptions about each other. Mine is based on your earlier statement, that the mum’s deeply inappropriate requests that the OP look after the children is irrelevant. I do call that evidence that you are considering this episode without reference to mum’s past behaviour. I am perfectly prepared to believe that in other circumstances you believe the past informs the future. Why would you suppose that sarcasm concerning mutually exclusive events is a suitable tone to take on a forum such as MN?

Why would I help a lawyer precedent? We all know judges do take account of behaviour, particularly in the area of family law. And it would be like asking a lawyer to help with my specialised research where they are hardly likely to be useful.

Your set of definitions was actually the apotheosis.

It wasn't a set of definitions. It was explaining where my logic was coming from as you asked for evidence. Although I agree it was obvious, and was surprised that you asked for evidence, because what I said was "likely" to happen was reasonable an obvious likelihood to predict.

Not impressed by the fact that you’re focused on one such instance.
Noted.

Your earlier theme is that the night shifts could go on for a very long time, which would mean that the nannying would, also. In the quotation above you’ve made this sound like a nanny is needed for a part of a week. Which is it?

Both since both statements don't contradict each other. Again, this is obvious to me but since you're asking:
You gave a quote for a weekly rate.
I pointed out that as the arrangement is 50/50, the nanny wouldn't be required for the entirety of the week as she's only required to cover the parts of the week the DH can't currently do.
That does NOT mean I was saying that the nanny is only required for approx a half a week, end of. It means that she'll only for approx half a week for as many weeks as the DH is unavailable to look after the DSC during his allocated time.

Why would you suppose that sarcasm concerning mutually exclusive events is a suitable tone to take on a forum such as MN?

Because I've been on MN for 18 years.

Why would I help a lawyer precedent?

This isn't good English, do you mean why would you help a lawyer find precedents? If so, because you mentioned them in vague circumstances and I'm interested in seeing them to learn more! We're not at work here. But in case you don't know, lawyers don't say to each other, I believe X because of this precedent, but no I'm not going to give it to you find it out yourself nah nah nah nah.

And it would be like asking a lawyer to help with my specialised research where they are hardly likely to be useful.

Bollocks. You don't need to be a lawyer to send someone a link to a judgment or give a few sentences about what you mean. It's not helping with research. Talking about cases or circumstances on MN happens all the time by people of all professions.

But don't worry, you can save your alleged vague precedents

@DuchessDarty,

I was trying to avoid more of the obvious with a general reference to family law, partly for the sensibilities of women on this thread. But every restraining order and CAO requiring supervised visitation (the most compelling amongst various examples) is a legal validation of the principle that the past informs the future. I assumed a lawyer didn’t need to have this spelt out.

I’m all for co-operation but assume you are much better acquainted than I with the legal literature, just as I assume the reverse is true in other fields. So your emphasis on the idea that I would find precedents for you seems a touch overblown. However I am not British so I always appreciate minor grammatical tips, thanks.

Your comment that on average DH may be expected to be home for 50% of DSC’s visits is a good one, but it doesn’t say much about the reality of the financial situation. OP does 99% of the care for their joint DC and although she’s said that he generally cares for DSC there is a bit of a descriptive vacuum around the present situation. Also my numbers were very conservative. Sadly I know that if you go through an agency for a short term nanny it can easily cost £35/hr in some parts of the country. In other words, there is no basis for assuming the cost can come out of ‘extra money’ for long unless the DH has a salary on the order of a medical consultant, and is also very generous to the ex. We have absolutely no reason to believe that’s his job. (All the consultants I know keep fairly regular hours.)

I notice that one of your early posts on this thread was deleted as being inconsistent with the spirit of MN, so I’m not the only one who has queried your tone.

I honestly cannot remember what this was about. It seems an odd time to revisit it.

You made a point about one of my posts being deleted by MNHQ, as proof that you're not the only one with a problem with my tone. Seemed a bit snide but OK, factually correct. FYI, your issue was me being sarcastic and fyi, that post wasn't withdrawn for being sarcastic but for the words "for you" which were considered a personal attack against a poster that wasn't you. I went back to remind myself of the context of the post and saw that you'd responded underneath with a post that had a bad tone yourself. I thought it amusing at the time and didn't report but as you're now going on about my tone, I thought I'd point out that you were doing a bit a bit of personal attacking. However I've asked for that post to be withdrawn as it did seem odd on its own, although not in anyway rude.

Look I genuinely don't know why you are saying I said the ex's previous behaviour was irrelevant. I didn't say that. I also genuinely didn't know what you were talking about when you talked about various approaches by the court and having seen "precedents for both". In an attempt to understand, I asked you for the precedents as I thought you were talking about specific ones you had in mind. You've now interpreted this as me wanting you to do my work for me. Um, what work? I feel your talk of court approaches was going off on a tangent.

I posted on this to support a fellow step-mother. I've never seen you on this board before (doesn't mean you haven't been) so don't know if you're a step-mother. I mention this because several posters have been pointing out that MNHQ said recently that this was primarily a board for step-parents. I don't mind if you are or not. However you seem to be arguing with me because although you and I agree the OP's ex has responsibility here and is 'the problem', I'm not going to join in with bashing or criticising the ex. I gave the OP my advice as did lots of others; which I believe from memory included me saying that I wouldn't necessarily have refused to have the kids if I was the ex but that the ex had the right to do so, and that the OP was right to refuse to have them. The OP got a lot of advice and views and has now disappeared.

If you want to continue to argue/discuss how the ex is in the wrong, go ahead, I'll be leaving you to it