What do you think of this situation? unreasonable or normal?

I worked with many such men when I was younger.
So many were eventually divorced by their wives.

Agree. But we're not talking about most men here - but a specific man whose wife got so annoyed with him not looking after his own kids that she dropped them off at his workplace.

I think it's a fair assumption that this man isn't kind, hard working and reasonable

When I was with my older DC's dad he admitted to staying late at work to avoid seeing the kids when he got in. They only saw him at weekends and they lived in the same house.

@Lockdownsceptic , they all are, and they're all 'great fathers', until they're faced with parenting their own children.

Yes that’s what I mean. I am always struck by how low an opinion of men some munsnetters have. Most men I know are kind, hard-working and reasonable.

I'm pretty sure 'Sarah' was on here a few months ago.

The back story was that the kid's mother insisted on having every weekend to herself while 'Sarah' wanted to change the arrangement to every other weekend so she could have some time with just her toddler.

Since 'Sarah' made it clear that money was not an issue and that she also worked full time, most posters agreed that she had a DH problem. Options were:

1. Dad stops using work as an excuse to opt out of family life and looks after his own children every weekend or

2. Dad somehow convinces the OP the kid's mother to look after her own children EOW (quelle horreur!) or

3. 'Sarah' gets her ducks in a row.

But here it's "how horrible of 'Sarah' to want to spend some down time with her own child and sister. What a bitch!"

@Lockdownsceptic , "you listened to some mumsnetters you would think that the only reason men work is to avoid looking after children. "
Have you wondered why they think that? If it wasn't work, it would be a hobby, and I know of men who were considering becoming self-employed to reduce the CM.

Aimed

Sorry Glory Monday. That last post was a general one and not meant to be Amex at you.

If you listened to some mumsnetters you would think that the only reason men work is to avoid looking after children. Contrary to this opinion I think that most men work to provide for their families. Self employment is no sinecure. It needs hard graft and I’d be surprised if Sarah didn’t benefit in some way from the hours John puts in.

She is however being blamed for using the children as a weapon in her dispute with her husband.
Who says she is using them as a weapon?

She isn’t being blamed for not looking after her step children, though I for one think it a little odd. She is however being blamed for using the children as a weapon in her dispute with her husband. That isn’t fair. The arrangements should have been settled before the children arrived for the weekend.

Of course she was, unless you’re conflating ‘adult’ with ‘doormat’.

She didn’t leave them to their own devices at home, she dropped them off with their parent. The father abdicating his responsibilities doesn’t oblige her to step into the breach and change her own plans. I’m not sure why the emotional blackmail of ‘but what about the children?!’ is expected to dictate her actions and not those of the actual parent.

You give over, common sense not to be with a man with kids if you can't be emotionally available to the step kids.

She didn't.

He should be concentrating on working not doing childcare on the side when he is at work.

Quite. But then he shouldn’t arrange to be working when he’s supposed to be looking after his kids. It sounds like this is a regular occurrence and that Sarah is fed up with being the unpaid childcare. It sounds like she could have handled the situation with more sensitivity, but maybe she’d reached the end of her tether and felt the only way to get through to the DH was for hint to feel the impact of his decisions himself. I completely agree with the poster saying that the kids should be treated as part of the family while they’re there - but it’s as their dad”s family. They’re there to have contact with him, not with his wife and his sister in law. If he’s regularly arranging other things (whether or not he’s being paid for them) when he’s supposed to be with his kids, that’s not on. Where it really can’t be helped, he should offer their mum (the OP) the time, or arrange proper childcare with someone who’s willing to do it.

Well everyone's wants to know why Sarah doesn't want the kids, Sarah isn't responsible for the kids
So, what alternative conclusion can we draw?
So what if he has to work?
He needs to sort out childcare like any other parent.
Sarah has sorted out childcare for her child.

How do you come to the conclusion that neither mother or father want the children, the father may just need to work to support the family, he has 3 children.
If Sarah did not want to be bothered with the 2 children she shouldn't have a relationship with their father.

So dad is going his happy way and wanting to live his life and expects his new wife to act like the mother of his kids?
If he can't handle the responsibilities that his ex wife used to, he can always pay extra maintenance and beg his ex wife to have kids full time?

Their feelings come first to their parents, no one else. Just like the step mother put her child's feelings first by choosing to concentrate on them?
That's what the parents can do, put their kids first.
Step mums do not exist to save children of broken homes.

Wow, it's the step mum's job to clean up for parents eh
Why on earth is she nasty?
Why isn't dad nasty?

The step mother cannot possibly love your kids the way she loves hers.
The dad is the issue here, this is his time, he can choose to take the kids out rather than relying on free childcare, yet again.
Imagine, he's not looking after his own kids but she's being blamed for it?
That's weird.

Oh give over,
It's up to the parents to ensure their children's emotional needs are met.
They can choose to stay home that day, take the kids out and reframe this as this is the older children's day out only.

So, their father doesn't want them, their mother doesn't want them, but no, they're gunna care if Sarah doesn't want them.
Such trauma.

The children were supposed to be with their parents. Their father. The stepmother is allowed to spend time with her sister amd their own biological children. On their own. She didn't adopt them. They aren't her responsibility. Nor does her life have to always revolve around them. It's unfair for anyone to expect Sarah to sacrifice her own time with her only biological child and with her sister to accommodate the other children ALL THE TIME. The OP gets to spend time with just her kids why shouldn't Sarah?