While I appreciate that might be the case, Xenia, I have the common sense to not judge every divorced woman because of the deal my DH has.

My DH's ex is not only financially very lucky, she is secure in the knowledge that her children are absolutely adored by their father, that he would (and does) do pretty much everything for them but she is also eaten by jealousy - just thinking of all the things we have.

I don't suppose that all divorced women are as bitter as my DH's Ex and I think it's strange that any person would view all step parents to the same.

I certainly feel encouraged by the evolving situation here, that recognises that not all mothers are better parents than fathers.

That is not the case in the UK although hopefully more fathers will get more rights when courts eventually catch up to the fact that plenty of mothers work full time and fairly often men do more than women at home.

I suppose in terms of reactions to step parents people are just biased by their own experiences.

I have the children 100% of the time and pay for 100% of everything (and in effect support their father too and I don't have a partner). I could argue that's the most unfair deal on the planet. I'd have been better of widowed. Except I know the most unfair deal is if you love a child whether you;re a man or a woman and are not allowed to see them, that that is the very worst position for any of us to be in and yet lots of fathers and even a good few mothers are in that position. That is obviously worse than having your children 365 nights a year, working full time and supporting them all financially.

What I'm getting at, I suppose, is that stepmothers (and divorced fathers) are getting a roasting on this thread, but, if the French family court is anything to go by (and this is quite a conservative country), lots of divorced fathers are gaining custody of children because they are more responsible parents than their former wives.

The kind of supporting documents for a case like this are proof that a parent does:

- school drop-offs/pick ups
- doctor/dentist visits
- clothing purchases/hairdresser
- homework
- parent teacher meetings
- is home in the evenings

etc.

My partner saw his lawyer yesterday re renegotiation of the children's residence.

His lawyer (a woman) told him that in the past three years things have really changed in France and that fathers are getting custody more and more. Women who divorce still "presume" that they will get custody, but they are wrong. The family judge looks at who is the better parent - and awards custody on that basis.

YCBS, mate, chill a bit! You're having a baby tomorrow . You don't have to justify yourself to anyone.

I suppose my point is this;

It's totally acceptable for a biological mum to say 'my kids are driving me insane, I could strangle them' - No-one takes that literally and she's given support.

So, why when a step parent says something similar, is it taken word for word??????

And if a biological mum has another child, no-one questions her 'birth plan', no-one thinks that unless she allows her existing children to 'rule the roost' that she's freezing them out...

So, why when a step parent has a child, is the 'need' of the child held like a big stick over the step parents head?

My 'blended' family muddles through, just as most nuclear families do. I really don't get why such a distinction needs to be made.

We've had the kids over 50% this year. it's not rigid and, because my DH works abroad, I often have the DSDs here on my own. SO, yes, I do my fair share of washing, cooking, homework etc.

We don't share costs fairly, though: We pay for everything. I actually sometimes seriously wonder what the child support is for because everything the kids need, we buy.... and we pay the school fees (100%) health care(100%) pocket money (100%) mobile phones (100%) i-tunes (100%) and contribute more (usually 100% but not always) to school trips etc.

I'm not sure why you should be able to express the odd 'ranty' view anymore than me. My DSDs KNOW they are loved, wanted, cherished. I don't feel the need to walk on eggshells.

Of course not. You can complain on MN as much as you like. It's what sites are there for. People give their views back often based on their own sad experiences. If you've been a step mother for many years then in a sense you are virtually a parent as it's the amount of time we spend with people which determines how close we are to them on the whole.

I often say to mine I would like the house to myself - which never happens but I certainly complain from time to time and may be it's easier to do that with your own children than someone else's although after so long looking after the step child you probably are freer to express a view.

Presumably some divorced fathers share costs fairly and I know some who have the children 50% of the time which helps mothers who work full time too. Not all are as good as that but they do exist. It sounds like Anna's partner for example has his almost half the time and shares the costs with the mother for example. I know someone else whose children with him one week and with the mother the next. But many fathers just choose to disappear altogether and pay nothing.

Well, My step children aren't treated badly. My DH didn't leave his kids and freeze them out and his kids are certainly not in relative poverty. In fact, it's quite ironic that divorced dads seems to get stuck in one of two catagories: The ones who leave their kids in poverty and the ones who buy them stuff and (OF COURSE!) are therefore, weekend dads suffering debilitating guilt and stopping the mummies doing the parenting.

I find much of what you say quite contradictory:

On one hand, I have to accept my stepkids but on the other, I know nothing of being a mother.... Impossible to play it both ways, Xenia. I've been a stepmum to my DSD2 since she was less than a year old.

And, according to you, I can complain only to my husband - Somehow my situation negates me being able to have the odd rant on MN does it? (the way MILLIONS of biological parents do about their kids?)

And you talk about enduring fairness

But you chose to marry a man with children which some of us avoid although actually I prefer men who have children and I don't avoid them, I seek them out as then they understand better what it means to be a parent and may be might be more tolerant of my five.

All I can say having got three of them who once were the very difficult baby, 1 and 3 year old trio through the teenage years is nothing was as hard as three under 4, not even the twins who came later and the teenage years were easier - at least mostly we got sleep if we weren't out at 1am driving to collect them. But that being a teenager is horrible - I remember it myself and it's a difficult stage for children to go through. Parents kind of "survive it" usually scarred to some extent.

I think people react because some step children are not treated very well and sadly a lot of men leave one family to take up with their lover and freeze out the first children, are happy to spend holidays even with their own step children who they live with and new babies and the other children are left in relative poverty with much less attention from the father. As so very many fathers do that - not all - they all tend to get tarred with the same brush.

And of coures you can complain about things and it will be for your husband to sort things out when there are conflicts with his children who will be his. Their washing is his. Their problems are his. If you take those things on then you're making a rod for your own back. The aim must be to ensure tehre is no sexism and when that he does all the domestic stuff relating to them never mind sharing the chores with the new baby (and get back to full time work soon after the birth - it's much better for ensuring fairness and no sexism at home)

I suppose it does tick me off quite a bit when step mums get it rammed down their throats that 'they knew about the kids' Well, Err... DUH!... we're not blind! and should therefore put the needs of their step kids before pretty much anything...

but at the same time, are reminded that the poor little things don't really understand a thing about being a proper mummy... and they should really find it a walk in the park only having the 1 child and a couple of elder children to contend with...

Xenia - I've been stepmum to my DSDs for nigh on 10 years now, so know all about the lack of sleep and general mayhem. FWIW, I think that stands me in reasonable ground, as I'm not expecting a picnic!!

I'm not expecting live in au pairs though - by the time I'm home, My DSDs will be back at thier mums and DH will be back at work, so I'll be on my own. I suppose that's why the first night or so was important to me.

I don't mean to sound cranky or anything, but why I am expected to never complain just because there is someone in the world who has it as hard / harder than I do is beyond me.... OK, most people have several children. Bully for them. YOU decided to have 3 kids under the age of 4, I didn't. Why I should therefore believe my life is a picnic is a bit beyond me obviously limited intellect.

I am a step parent. I have done, do and will continue to do everything within my power to be a good and positive person to my DSDs and to support their relationships with DH and my DS. I am still a first time mum and am still allowed to enjoy that feeling and experience.

Good luck with it.
"I told you my life was tooooooo chaotic!!!" What is certain is no new parent who has not had a baby before has any idea how busy and chaotic things are when the baby is here - it is about 100x busier. 3 hours sleep a night and hardly time to dress, eat and shower if you get non sleeping babies as I did.

What I found really helpful was having children 10/12/14 when our twins were born. It was like having three live in au pairs at some points and really useful. So in one sense the step children are going to make things hugely easier for you if you can try to think of the mind set as being that way round. Just having another pair of hands around to hold a sreaming baby whilst you can actually go to the toilet alone is something most new parents don't have the chance to do.

Most people spend the first night alone. Our first was born in hospital and fathers can't stay. And then most people have several children anyway so two parents with one baby is a very rare thing to achieve. You usually have a screaming toddler hitting you hard every time you try to sit down to feed the baby. Or in our case a 3 and 1 year old picking exactly when you want to feed the new baby to make demands. Older step children will be a complete picnic compared to that.

I know! A Little 'Serious' baby!!!

So, there you have it: Like most things, worrying about them beforehand is the worst bit! Now I know my DSDs are going to be there, I can look at all the positives involved and it's really not a big deal.

Anyway, it would seem that the new baby is the most important thing in all of this: He's certainly calling the shots of what happens when!!!

YCBS x

Hmm - "on my own" wouldn't really describe the first night in hospital when I had visits from paediatricians every hour or so throughout the night

Oh good luck YCBS. How exciting <<Surfermum wanders off wondering why she is getting so excited for someone she wouldn't know if she fell over her>>.

I spent the first night on my own too - dh wasn't allowed to stay. But you won't be on your own will you - you'll have Baby YCBS!

Youcannotbeserious - Very best of luck for the weekend. I've had three c-sections and DS2 was a VBAC.

Thanks Anna!

And on clothes and possessions - our stepsons' clothes move from home to home, washed and ironed, without them even really being aware of it.

We buy their clothes at this house and their nanny does their laundry at the other, and whichever person is transporting them takes it to and fro.

Which is fine by me - we do the fun bit, nanny does the dull bit

Xenia - a former boss of mine is shacked up with a Maltese man in Malta. He couldn't divorce his first wife (with whom he had two daughters) but that didn't prevent their relationship breaking down and both of them setting up home with other people. Outlawing divorce doesn't prevent family breakdown, it just makes it more complicated.

Youcannotbeserious - good luck with the CS

Hope your DSDs pamper you and treat you like a princess... it could be really worth having them there

Brassica - à la carte, and we are in the process of complex renegotiation... we want to avoid conflict/judges etc and have a lawyer-to-lawyer agreement that is more specific than a court judgement would ever be.

We (and it includes me because one of the key issues is whether the father's family is more functional than the mother's) actually have a very strong case for obtaining full residency with us (the boys' mother has made so many blunders in the last two years) but we don't want conflict or alienation or anything like that. We just want to ensure the boys are brought up properly

Was meant to be St. Thomas' but they can't rearrange my CS at such short notice, so almost certainly going to the Portland now.

Youcannotbeserious - I'm very excited for you about your imminent baby. Which hospital are you having your baby at?

Well, my consultant is still more than happy to comply with our wishes. Sadly, Mr Bump is not!!!!

So, I'm going in this weekend instead. This will mean that my step kids will be coming to the hospital with us (not ideal, but still - they aren't, obviously, going to be in the delivery room. That remains totally off limits!)

And, they'll (DH and DSDs) be popping out at some point during the day to take DSD2 to her activity as it's already been agreed.

And, I would guess I'll spend the first night alone as DH will have to bring the DSDs back home and I'll be in the hospital...

It's not ideal, but we are where we are, and I've said before, we'll muddle through...

I did have a wry smile on the way home from the consultant - I had words with my bump about not keeping his scheduled one-to-one appointment with his father (Sorry, really not having a dig, it really did make me smile!!)

I told you my life was tooooooo chaotic!!!

Depends on the teenager I suppose. Some rarely move from their bed room and see as little of their mother they live with as they do of their father they don't live with. Others are very lively. But I think if you were asked would you like to spend a few days a week in two homes and never have the right dress at the right place and feel rootless in a sense with no one place that was home you might not like that. Yet parents expect their children to move from place to place like that. The simple answer is parents should stay together of course and I suppose it's only because we allow divorce these issues arise at all. It's against the law in one EU state - Malta.

Anna - Which of those do you have for your stepsons?

Calling the police sounds ridiculous.

Here in France there are two possible standard access scenarii:

- residence with one parent (usually the mother) with regular (EOW, one night per week, half of all holidays) visits to other
- shared residency (basically an à la carte scenario, sometimes 50:50°

Xenia - though I know more than one teenager who loves having 2 homes to go to and all the moving about.

I worry slightly that that sets up a precedent for a more sedentary and boring future...

I agree that the assumption should be 50:50.

No. I was saying the court's decision is based on what they think is best for the child so it is dead easy for any clever mother to manipulate things so the conclusion is that the child does not see it's father. I think that's very very wrong and I would like all fathers to be told there isd a starting point of 50% each (particularly for full time working mothers like me who support our children along and have the children 365 nights a year (not necessarily out of choice). If the starting piont at least for couples where both work full time was 50% then it would be easier on both parents and fairer although if I were teenage child I would refuse to move from pillar to post. I'd want one home.

Xenia - are you actually being sarcastic, or do you really think it's in the child's best interests for a court to decide how much time it spends with it's father? In one post you say it is in the child's best interests to see each parent 50:50, yet you say above that the courts decide what is in the best interests (very very very rarely 50:50 outcome). So I can only assume you're being facetious?

Whereas here in France it is considered de facto that the interests of the child are best served by maintaining close and frequent contact with both parents unless significant proof to the contrary can be demonstrated.

Nothing is enforceable because the interests of the chidl are first (the courts and laws sat) so if a mother is able to "persuade " a child to say it won't see its father or if the child knows the fight between parents over contact is horrendous and that damages the child the courts will often say okay contact is too damaging to the child or they will make an order but have no means to enforce it.

FioFio - the point is that you rarely have to call the police if the threat is available (and real).

Not like the UK, where nothing is enforceable it seems and there are endless expensive legal battles and/or children used as pawns in vindictive relationships.

calling the police sounds so civilised, I bet it makes the children really happy

Brassica - like I said, the jurisdiction is not in your favour at all .

Here, when exes do no shows for access weekends, you can call the police. If they do sufficient no shows, their access gets reduced.

did someone lock you in this thread anna?

Ooh yes, I want to know whether your consultant is still complying in your decision to put your DSDs' schedule ahead of your baby's

I realise my coping strategy is less than ideal but I don't see it as being a doormat. I have no option but to accept his behaviour. I can't make him behave in a way that I think is acceptable, I can't make him communicate his plans to us in a timely manner, I can't make him be the sort of father I'd like him to be. I no longer have any influence. I could go the legal route but I would spend thousands of pounds, huge amounts of time and mental energy and by the time it was resolved DS1 would be off to University. And in any case, people breach court imposed contact orders every day of the week.

I've got to go to see my consultant this afternoon - I'll be back later too!

Motherhood gets dreadfully in the way of MN sometimes.

Now look, Anna, I am loving this debate ....... but I am in the middle of organising a party for 35 5 year olds on Saturday (where I am doing the entertainment), plus FIL, SIL and DH are on their way to us after a funeral and expecting a meal - I can't keep coming back to this thread .

So I'm not leaving you there ... it's just I have a gangplank to make.

If another party is being unreasonable and you can walk away without loss, then that is the best strategy.

However, if another party is being unreasonable and, if you walk away, you lose out, then you might wish instead to defend yourself.

If all parties involved are equally accommodating, then no, being accommodating is not being a doormat.

If one party is accommodating another without due reciprocation (or payment), then yes, it is being a doormat (though this might be a better strategy than any other available strategy).

Personally, I prefer to think of cooperative strategies, rather than accommodating strategies.

Yes, actually I think you're right it's not ALWAYS the best thing to do. If dh hadn't retaliated by going to Court when his x said she wasn't going to let him see dsd he could have been erased from her life completely .

But as a general rule it's stood us in good stead.

Being accommodating isn't necessarily being a doormat.

Surfermum - I don't agree, however, that it is always good practice to not retaliate in the face of another person's unreasonableness.

Self-defence is a necessary life skill and children need to have a good role model for self-defence.

To be fair to you Brassica - you live in a jurisdiction that manages post-divorce child access (and maintenance) less well than the jurisdiction in which I live.

You most probably have good reasons for deciding that it is better to withdraw from conflict and be accommodating (a "doormat") rather than enter a protracted and bitter legal battle. That wouldn't happen here in France as it is much easier for both parents to get decent, regular, enforced access and the law ensures parents behave themselves decently and respect access agreements.

We are the same Brassica - whatever dsd's mum decided she would or wouldn't do we would accommodate that. The alternative was an argument or being as petty as she was - we didn't want arguments and aren't petty. We decided that she could only fight if we were willing to fight back, and we weren't going to do that.

We're not being doormats, we're turning the other cheek. And I think that's a good role model for dsd - that no matter how unreasonable someone else is, the answer is to ignore them, not to "get them back".

It worked in our situation - we are now at the stage where all parties get on and do help each other out. At the end of last year I gave dsd's mum my car, and when I had a big argument with dsd her mum gave me advice. I'm currently helping her look for a house locally. And I can't remember the last argument or aggravation we had from her mum. Instead of arguing over every half hour over and above what the court order states she says things like "you might as well keep her for the rest of the week". Instead of "if you are 1 minute late bringing her back I am calling the police" we get "can you stop and buy me some cigarettes on your way". It is much, much better for everyone, not least dsd.

Anna - Am I really a doormat. I just accept that I don't have any control over his parenting or his life. I have withdrawn from the conflict. What is the alternative? Spend months at solicitors trying to enforce a defined contact order? Threaten court? Go to court? Go back to solicitor when he breaches the order?

And Brassica, I fear that I think your way of doing things equates to being a doormat...

But we just cannot be endlessly accommodating without our whole life revolving around ex-wife's life.

Which would be an appalling role model for the children.

Children need to grow up in a family where everyone's needs are catered to as fairly as possible, not just one person's desires and whims being eternally pandered to.

Being accommodating removes all the venom from the situation. My ex used to try and chop and change his plans to frustrate my life. It has a poisonous effect if you all join in by trying to control one another and it's appalling for the children. I solved my particular problem by being completely accommodating and accepting. Saying things like: 'the boys will be disppointed as they were looking forward to it but don't worry I'm always here for them if ever you can't meet your commitments'

I actually agree that if the ex wife knew then it was spiteful but it sounds as if she didnt know and had already booked it

YOu do have to wonder what response the exW would get on this board if the question that had been posted was:

I would like my step kids at the birth of my child, but ExW has booked a holiday for all of them and therefore they won't be there.

I'm guessing most people would think it was the ExW right to do what she wanted?

silverfrog - indeed, I have the advantages the other way - last summer I wanted to take my elder stepson to see my parents in England for a week, with my daughter (my partner was working and my younger stepson still at school).

My partner's ex didn't bat an eyelid - I can do whatever I like with the boys.

Brassica - no, I don't think that divorced parents should be "helping one another as much as they can". I think they should cooperate in a fair division of responsibility.

Brassica - I do agree with you, but if he'd asked the ex not to book a holiday, it's pretty juvenile to go ahead and book it anyway. When DH's Ex had to go into hospital for a routine, but scary operation, we cancelled plans to look after the kids so that she didn't need to worry about that. I think that degree of maturity / caring about the kids and the other parent is required on both side, TBH.

I can't see how it's OK for an ExH to change plans because of his career, but not because his new wife is having a baby??? (Well, other than the ExW likes the money from the career, but isn't quite so keen on the new baby!! )

He has them every other weekend. But in reality this normally works out to him having them one night in every 3 - 4 weeks as he has a very busy career. I am extremely flexible, often cancelling my own plans at the last minute as his change.

pmsl vvq

I haven't read all the thread but having been in a similar situation I would say the ex is being a bit unreasonable and I understand why Linda might prefer for them not to be around. However, I do think she would be much better off looking at the situation positively as an opportunity for bonding between the half siblings who are old enough to be helpful now and in the future. John should arrange to be around when they are there. She should remember that her child will be a blood relative of her stepchildren even if she herself is not.

Brassica - out of interest, what arrangements do you have with your elder children's father over access?

Anna - I think it's better to be as accommodating as possible. To be otherwise just sets up a whole chain reaction that is unpleasant and extremely damaging for the children. Both parents should be helping one another as much as they can.

Yes, Anna, I remember reading a thread of yours on that, and I agree that you could not let that situatio ngo on.

This just highlights that the info in the OP was not enough to go on. If the ex in the OP was like your dh's ex, then that's one set of reactions, and if like my dh's ex, then another set completely.

I wish that my stepchildren were allowed to see us more often. My dh's ex has them on a very short leash, and they are not allowed to do anyhting without her permission.

For example, my uncle offered to take my stepdaughter to the theatre for her birthday (it was dsd 18th). Dsd loves the theatre, and my uncle offered to take her to show of her choice, dinner etc, maybe an afternoon shopping pre-theatre - whatever dsd wanted, really (my uncle is fab in this respect - loves girly shopping, really great at taking girls out, from the age of about 4 upwards). Dsd's first reaction - she had to ask her mum if it was ok. apparently it wasn't (we don't know why), bt cash in kind was fine (very on my part)

Anyway, mini rant over, my point was that it just goes to show that no situation has an easy answer - you want your dh's ex to stop taking you for granted, we want dh's ex to treat dh as the father he is...

The ex wife has no duty at all to change her holiday plans to accommodate the stepmother. If the stepchildren are due to be with their father then it is up to the father to sort out alternative arrangements if he doesn't want them in the house when the new mother is there with the new baby. The ex wife should go on her holiday.

silverfrog - my partner's ex has frequently made requests for the boys to spend extra time with us, entirely at her convenience (work and personal reasons), for up to a week at a time, sometimes for several months in a row.

Initially, I let it happen (resentfully, but silently).

To cut a long story short, it now drives my partner totally insane with anger when she tries to do this - and he refuses. Why? Because if he lets it happen, he is compliant in a family system where one party gets every other party to constantly run around after her. Everyone is/would be at her beck and call.

This is not a good role model for the boys to grow up with. So it no longer happens.

TheHedgeWitch - as a lot of us have said, it does all depend o nthe timings/whether the stepchildren are due contact time, etc.

From your OP, if the ex-wife wanted to book a holiday, and asked if Father and stepmum could have the children, father said no because of due date, ex went ahead and booked anyway. That is clearly selfish, and unreasonable of the ex wife. HOWEVER, it has been done. If the ex wife wants to be petty, and involve her children in a spiteful game, then so be it. This does not mean that the stepmum has the right to refuse to let the stepchildren stay. If she does, imo she is being as petty as the children's mother. None of this is the children's fault, and so they should not be made to feel uncomfortable for their mother's actions.

THis has (and does) happen to me regularly.

Wehn I didn't complain that my stepchildren were sent to us at dd1's due date, dh's ex made sure that she refused to swap fpr dd2's due date, and what is more booked a holiday for her and the children, leaving the day after they got back from staying with us. She sent them down with the message "could you please ensure all their clothes are clean as we will not ahve time to wash before we go on holiday".

And yes, I did make sure they wre clean, despite an autistic toddler and a new baby (post Caesarian).

If dh's ex wants to be petty, let her. I refuse to involve my stepchildren in it, and actually, this backfired on her as both stepchildren thought she was being ridivculous, and did their own washing so that I didn't have to - I merely reminded them that it needed doing (and yes, dh is capable of running hte machine too, but was a bit preoccupied with the cooking )

If dh's ex were to set up a scenario like in your OP, I would be delighted if she would actually consider sending my stepchildren to us. But she only lets them spend the court apoointed amount of time with us. I would love it if she would let them come more, and yes I realise that this would enable her to play more games, but tbh, if she gets pleasure out of stupid games like that, then I just let her get on with it.

I have to admit:

If my DH's ex had gone ahead and made plans when she was asked specifically not to, he'd be furious too.

In our situation, we haven't asked DH's ex to modify arrangements and don't intend to... but if we had..........

expat - I really can't see at any point where anna has demonstrated any egocentrism towards any child. Your comments are really very strange

No she's not. She's a normal woman.

Where's this anti-new mother sentiment coming from?

The ex-wife may have done it to spite, but the new wife is a PFM.

Well, this turned into an interesting discussion didnt it

TheHedgeWitch - my DP (I know) would agree.

Dh's idea of lunch out is stopping at one of those caravans selling burgers at the roadside . Although I'm sure dsd would prefer that to a restaurant where she might have to eat something green.

My Hubby just read this thread.

Remember, he has an ex-wife and a daughter who is 15, and also me and our DS who is 20mo.

He thinks you're all horrible and says ex-wife should have cancelled her holiday or made other arrangements.

No child should be made to feel more special than the other and new wife/baby should not be made to feel they rank second to other kids and new mom has EVERY right to a couple of days to adjust having come home from hospital

He said if ex had done what the one in my OP has done he'd have been absolutely furious.

I don't want to fight, certainly not with pots calling kettles black.

End of.

Expat, if you want a fight, go and do so somewhere else.

You are the most boring spoilt princess on MN and I just want you to stay away from me.

Ah, yes, not like those terrible mothers who work before that and leave their children with nannies and childcare workers.

No, Expat, I work. Have done since my daughter started school.

That's funny, Anna, this isn't in the step-parenting section. It's in the AIBU section.

And, IIRC, I've seen you on WOHM threads, passing plenty of judgement.

Although admittedly you are a SAHM.

Incidentally, the paediatrician thought that the one-on-one appointments was an excellent idea - he said he was going to use it as an example for the parents of some of his patients who thought their children needed a referral to a shrink (no, just more time with their parents...)

I'm waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to chaotic, SM!!!!

Surfermum - honestly, the children adore it.

In fact, the boys' friends got so envious of seeing their classmate's father pitch up at lunch time to take them out to a restaurant for lunch that it's started a trend

Surfermum - honestly, the children adore it.

In fact, the boys' friends got so envious of seeing their classmate's father pitch up at lunch time to take them out to a restaurant for lunch that it's started a trend

I'm still trying to get my head around the thought of making appointments to be with each other. It sounds like it works for you Anna .... but I think I am waaaaaaaaaaaaay too go with the flow to even contemplate it.

Anna - We have agreed how we will live with the DSDs once the baby is here.

The DSDs are keeping their rooms as they have now and the baby will share with us. We don't have room for a nursery unless the DSDs share and we feel that it's more appropriate for the older kids to have individual space, and I want the baby in with us to start with anyway.

By the time we need a nursery, then we'll look to get a bigger house. We've already agreed (with some thought) that when DS is a toddler, he'll have one of the larger rooms for playing etc., unless we have room for a playroom because my DSDs will be older and need less space for toys etc.,

I think it's possible to have a plan without being super prescriptive.... But, as I said before, each situation is different. I wouldn't want my DSDs at the hospital and certainly not in the delivery room, but thankfully they agree with me on that one, so it's a non-issue

If it's so uninteresting, why bother thinking about it enough to pass judgement?

I think you have no business on a stepmother thread, personally.

Oh, and I never said I didn't have the GUTS to be a stepmother.

Instead, I admitted I was too self-centred. And rather than visit my egocentrism on some kid who doesn't have the choice, I thought I'd spare them myself.

Unlike some . . .

And you're also incredibly funny, Anna! But probably not in the way you intend .

Ach, well, go on back to slagging off your ex's wife and French women who work outside the home, by all means.

It's uninteresting, to say the least.

Expat - you are pretty conceited to pass judgement when, by your own admission, you say you wouldn't have the guts to be a stepmother

Brassica - precisely because the new baby is 'not the PFB for the father and the children from the previous marriage, it is a fantastic opportunity for them to put their own selfish feeling aside and show consideration for the new mother who does have a PFB. '

Good grief, Anna, to be honest but very unpleasant, you continue to astonish and amaze with your level of self-centreness, immaturity and conceit.

If you are lucky, a newborn baby sleeps quite a bit and you can use the time that the newborn is sleeping to do things with your older children.

But if they are all crying for Mummy simultaneously (God help), the baby is probably the most vulnerable.

Was just making the point that even very young children/babies are affected by their care and surroundings. Some posts seem to have suggested that all a baby needs is feeding rather than attention

Youcannotbeserious - it's good to think about how you will live with the new baby in advance.

I think it's a bit like a birth plan - useful for thinking about contingencies, and helps you deal with the different scenarii that life may throw up at you.

I am not talking about a todlder allnew, but a baby, a newborn baby, with a new baby you can afford to leave thme be for a while and concentrate on making sure your elder children (who are closer to that magical age of four so can be much more affected by the new birth) are feeling reassured and loved.

I've thought about this a lot over the last 12 hours and my conclusion is this:

1. My DSDs are always welcome in our house.
2. My DH and I will do everything in our power to minimise the disruption to the other members of our family (2 kids, 1 dog) and to ease intergration of the new family member
3. If it works out (as it probably will) that my DSDs are about immediately or very soon after I get home from hospital then we will deal with that.
4. If it works out that my DSDs are with their mum and don't see their new sibling for a couple of days, then we'll deal with that too.
5. If the kids are with their mum but want to come over for a few hours to see the baby, then we'll deal with that.
6. If I honestly thought that DH's EX was just trying to get a rise / prove a point / be annoying by sending the kids, I'd be pissed off about it. But, that would have nothing to do with my new baby. I would be pissed off that she was using the children to score points.

Ahh... that feels better now.

There is a lot of evidence though that a person's level of security and self-esteem is set in the very early years, and cannot be corrected after the age of say 4

Therefore it's not always correct to assume that an older child's feelings are more lasting

Oh VS you are on very, very shaky ground here .

Babies have feelings and needs right from the start. They are different feelings and needs to those of an older child, but they are very real and need to be responded to very quickly. Older children can (and should be made to) postpone gratification. Not tiny babies.

When? Probably around the same time they gain some understanding of the world, their family and their position in it.

Or if you want to be pedantic maybe I should rephrase to 'real and lasting feelings.

For example, DS1 is 3, DS2 is 4weeks, I just fed DS2 whilst on here then changed him and laid him down whilst I had lunch with DS. DS2 started making noises, not crying as such, more whinging, I left him there and continued to eat lunch with DS1. At that moment in time DS1 needed me to reassure him and to quench any feelings that he may have had about DS2 being more important (which no matter how clever a child is they will feel, even after explanation if they are continuosly put on the back burner.) At that moment, both of them wanted me, but only DS1 had feelings that were not fleeting and what I would say was a real need.

Fine - but the 2 points are to me totally coherent...

Anyway, it works for us - the children never fight about who has seen more of their father and it means that he gets to talk to each child individually and knows what's going on in their lives, so that we can deal with issues/problems very promptly.

Twas the juxtapositoin in my mind of the following:

"One cannot possibly be prescriptive and say that in a given situation x person's needs will always take priority."

"In our organised family each child has regular times (appointments) with my partner so that they can be one-on-one."

But I was just being mischeivous, so ignore me!

Explain why you think there is a contradiction. From my POV it is 100% coherent.

whilst I do agree with your idea in principle, Anna, does it not contradict your post setting out that your various children and stepchildren have appointments wiht oyur dh?

On a more serious note, I do agree that all needs within a family need to weighed up, and definitely agree that whoevers needs are most urgent at any given point should be made a priority.

Whether that's a baby needing to be fed, or a teenager needing a lift into town, they all need to know that they cannot come first all of the time (disclaimer, i am NOT advocating making a baby wait for a feed)

In all families every single person, be they baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult, old person, male or female, has feelings and needs. Everyone's feelings and needs must be considered. When there is a conflict of interest, and one person's needs are momentarily greater than anyone else's, it is perfectly reasonable to explain to everyone concerned, whatever their age, that one person in the family will be prioritised for a little while.

What is important is that everyone's feelings and needs be expressed, and considered, as much as possible and on an ongoing, reactive basis.

One cannot possibly be prescriptive and say that in a given situation x person's needs will always take priority.

VS - am very shocked at your implication that a baby doesn't have real feelings and needs.

When do feelings and needs kick in, in your developmental chart?

Putting dsd first doesn't mean