After reading about PR for step parents on another thread I keep thinking about it.
Is there really any benefit? We have kids EW, Easter, 2 weeks in summer and boxing day to NYD. I often have kids when DH is not there and take them out and about with me - we take kids on holidays but then DH is with us then.
I have frequently taken kids to doctors and hospital (DSD has asthma and has needed to go on nebuliser and DH usually stays at home with other kids). Obviously DH is aware and mom is always aware as I phone on route to let her know and if she wanted to come then obviously I would expect it. When DSD has had surgery I have taken time off work so she can come home to ours to recuperate straight from hospital.
I sometimes get on with mom and sometimes less so. Either way she is happy enough for me to be involved on this level with kids and even when we have not been speaking (yes we still have moments of childishness on both parts) she has called to let us know when had to take DSS to A & E and I went to meet her.
I don't know how I would even go about mentioning to her that I would consider PR without it seeming that I wanted to over take her (I know this is not the meaning but how do you say to someone that you want PR of their kids?). But worried now that I am in the wrong for doing these things with out it - is it enough that mom and dad have given consent to act on their behalf? If I am wrong how do I tell them I shouldn't do it any more without sounding like I don't care about kids?
Am I just over thinking it because I have been reading threads on MN?
The issues only arise when a step-parent or other adult without PR (such as a DGP) acts in a way that one (or both) parents with PR subsequently object to.
So, in the case of medical treatment - if my DDs dentist treated my DD on the say-so of her DSM and I subsequently objected and sued the dental practice, they would be considered liable.
As a result many Doctors, dentists, schools etc are tightening up on their procedures and require one, or sometimes both, parents to agree to treatment before they agree.
Life saving, emergency treatment is different, as medical professionals are sworn to save life and would not be liable - but routine treatment can technically only be consented by a parent/other with PR.
As an example of how litigious society has become, the coach company who transported my DD on her yr 6 residential required copies of the signed permission slips from all parents - where parents were separated, BOTH had to sign, or if one parent was absent, the parent had to sign to confirm that!
I'd be inclined to leave it - if you've managed to do all those things without it, and it's always been OK. And sounds like anyone who needs to would be able to get hold of one or other parent if they needed to anyway.
If you do want to consider it, maybe best to see what your DH thinks first. You having it doesn't actually take any rights away from their mum, but it might not feel like that to her, so could antagonise things when you don't really need to.
As said above, in an actual emergency you'd be fine, as hospitals, etc will always treat a child regardless who brings them in until they can get hold of a parent. My ex doesn't actually have PR for my kids - ie his own kids (born before the law changed and we weren't married). He's taken both of them to A&E on ocassions, and also to GP, dentist and has signed school consent forms and never been questioned about it.
Thanks both. I hadn't really thought about it before and started to think oops should I be doing these things. Also dont want to upset Dh's ex as think the pr would bother her and I can understand why and likewise didnt want to cause upset by stepping back. Like you purple my ex has never had pr for my ds and has never seemed to want or need it. maybe its one of those things that if you assume authority people dont question it so much, will leave as is for now.