To think parents shd prioritise existing children in a second marriage?

[Clara101]

Sometimes this happens... Often it doesn't...

AIBU to think any parent shd prioritise the needs of existing children if they (re)marry. And anyone who marries a parent shd expect their partner to do just that, so they can't always come first in the way they would have done had kids not already been on the scene?

Or is this too simplistic and a life partner always needs to come first before kids - whether previous or shared? (NB I'm not talking abt prioritising existing kids over kids from a second/subsequent marriage. Obviously all children shd be treated equally.)

I've seen my two parents follow these two different strategies over many years and believe that the first leads to greatest happiness all round over the long term. Do others find this too or not? AIBU to be cross with the parent who took the second strategy? Interested in perspectives fm parents who have remarried..!

Taking some of your children on the holiday of a lifetime using your own money (so not a treat from their grandparents or similar) is obviously disgusting behaviour. I'm not surprised you are angry about this!

Lalala

Your ex sounds like a dick. His behaviour toward your two is disgusting.

^^This. That's not "give and take" that's being a terrible father.

I would be very suspicious of someone who makes the choice to have kids in a second relationship tbh. That sounds judgey and is flameworthy - There are masses of exceptions (abuse, death of spouse, etc etc) but i mean when you have a marriage that just doesnt work and then one or both meet someone else and have more kids within a few years while the existing ones are still little.

I can't imagine getting over the grief of the first relationship not working - as in, the grief that my children won't now grow up with two parents in a happy and more financially secure household - and thinking 'i just want more children'. I think I'd say to myself well, it was my right to move on from a relationship that doesn't work, but there are consequences, one of them might be I don't get a whole new family I can't afford. I stress again I'm not talking about leaving someone abusive.

Eggy, that definitely sounds judgemental, you're right. Having kids with more than one partner isn't even unusual. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

To me prioritising my children means that I consider them, and the impact on them of each decision I make. If it negatively impacts them then it gets thought through and balanced up, and most of hte time it doesn't happen. They don't always get what they want, but neither do I.

^^THIS

I think the children should be prioritised in that the parents should think of them first but that doesn't mean that they physically pick their child over their partner. They need to teach the child wrong from right, regardless of their relationship (DC's DFather/Mother, a new DH/W, a DCat...) the children need to learn that these other people (or the DCat) also mean something to their parent and should be respected and given thought to. As should everyone they come across. Showing your child that you will ignore the other people you love because they 'need' you isn't always in their best interest. If they need support because they have had a bad day at work, yet someone else close has fallen down the stairs and is in hospital the adult child should be expected to wait and support their parent... Not focus on me me me, and that only comes about if it is practiced and enforced through childhood. If your child is 2 and is crying because they have scrapped their leg, then yes that comes over hearing your new partner having a rant about something... the child needs care there and then, but if the child just wants to talk about something that has just popped into their head, they should be encouraged to wait. Etc etc

eggy, I don't really understand your post. Because if you make exceptions for it being OK for people to have children with a new partner after leaving an abusive relationship or after the death of a spouse, but less OK if it's beacuse you left just because the marriage didn't work out...you seem to be saying that parents in the first cases 'deserve' on a moral level to be able to have more children, but in the second case they don't necessarily morally 'deserve' it. Whereas surely the decision to have more children or not should be about whether you can financially, emotionally, practically and time-wise provide for both your existing children and another child. Regardless of the reasons your first relationship broke down.

It depends on what you mean. Should the children's needs and wants be put above all else? No, I don't believe it should. A few years ago my dh was in hospital with a life threatening illness and it happened to be over the holidays. My dcs would have preferred to have me with them the whole time but at the same time my dh was very ill and needed me with him. I chose to leave my dcs with their grandparents for several hours each day to be with my dh. The dcs are fine and don't even remember it.

The first marriage is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether it's the first, second or third marriage, there needs to be a balance between the needs of everyone in the family unit. Sometimes the dcs, or one dc, needs to come first, other times its the dh/dw who needs to come first.

The danger of always putting the dcs first is that when they grow up and leave home there is nothing left of the marriage because the dcs have always come first to the detriment of the relationship between the parents.

There needs to be balance so that everyone is happy. If the first child was always put first then there'd be a world full of only children. Of course a second, or third, child will mean there's less time and money for the first but as long as they both get everything they need then there's no problem. The 'new' child or family shouldn't come before the first but they should be equals, as should the husband and wife.

My mother met her husband when I was 19 and he always comes first. I moved abroad, paid to travel to visit them and I still was basically ignored over him. They'd get out of the car if we went somewhere, link arms with him and totally ignore me and I'd trail behind feeling like a embarrassed spare part. I constantly constantly got messages of my inferiority and place. That's nasty and hurtful to any adult.

Mummyoflittledragon that's so similar to my experience. I was 19 when my dad and his wife got together. (I didn't even meet her before they moved in together) Except it was them who moved abroad and me visiting. I have always accepted I was an adult and so had no right, was silly even, to feel sad about this. But it's horrible isn't it?

Clara I dont know what I think about the "comes first" bit, as of course everyone has different needs at different times that take priority in any family situation, I think I understand what you are getting at though. I am separated with 2 children and cannot imagine anyone ever being more important or coming before their needs. I would think of this in terms of their overall well-being though. Which isnt about getting what they want all the time in any family set up.

My mum pitted herself against her husband's children from the beginning. He needed to think of himself more, put her first more etc. She was annoyed they didn't get much weekend time together. He refused to compromise and they were very up and down for years. They are ok now that his children are grown up but she does not have a great relationship with his children even now.

She'd love a big happy blended family now but in 20 years ive met his children 3 times. If she'd approached it differently she might have a happier time now.

I can imagine that the right adult would never set themselves up in conflict though and that could work.

(Well in reality I'm happy with my DC and no one else!)

Tiny: This.

I would be very suspicious of someone who makes the choice to have kids in a second relationship tbh.

Why?

My ex, as I've shown on this thread, is a cunt with no regard for the well being of his children.

DH and I both brought children into our relationship. Me two and him one. We moved in together later than we'd have liked for the sake of the children, and we put off having more children for longer than we'd have liked for the sake of the big three. However we now have six kids living in our house. All fed, clothed and looked after. All treated equally, all given one-on-one time with parents (the nature of DH's job means this can happen well as he works away then had 4-6 weeks of time off).

The main difference between me and ex is that I considered my children before making decisions and only went for it when I knew it could be done without negatively impacting them.

I do think though that lots of parents who are shit toward their children when they remarry or get into a new relationship are probably shit parents anyway. Looking back on it now I can see times where ex most definately put himself before the children, the situation with his new wife is just an extension of that.

Prioritising children's needs is paramount. That includes teaching them empathy and fairness. Disney Dad's don't prioritise their children's needs. Thet prioritise their desire to be seen as an 'awesome' parent over actually being a parent. If you chose to have children with a man who parents as a Disney dad, then you really shouldn't be whining about their behaviour. Choosing to start a relationship with someone who actively parents their children and then have more children (without reducing financial support of pre-existing children) is entirely different from a relationship with a Disney Dad as you're enabling his poor parenting of children who deserve better.

'Blended' families are all about making the parents happy, not the children.

I think equal priority is a better idea than putting children first all the time.

Of course it's important to ensure first family children feel loved and heard but it's also important that the second family and the second marriage/partnership are given equal time and attention.

It's a balancing act but I totally disagree that all efforts should go into the first children to the neglect of the second relationship and children.

All of the children are important, not whichever ones were born first. That would assume that all children from previous relationships are somehow more legitimate and that any subsequent children are second class citizens compared to the first ones.

If someone started a thread saying their partner's first child was the result of a one night stand and the one they have now together was planned, so should take priority over the 'accidental' one, they'd be absolutely flamed and rightly so. It's no different than saying that the first ones are more important.

Adults sulking about their partner caring too much about their kids and not getting enough attention are obviously not reasonable either. The children are the priority.

eggy you're basically saying that those from failed marriages are not entitled to happiness and children with new partners regardless of 'fault'. Ludicrous. My dh had a five year old from a very brief marriage when we met. We married and had our ds within three years of meeting (finances were not a worry), and DH's ex went on to have four more children with four more men. So was I to do without my longed for ds just because, according to your theory, my DH should suck up the failure of his marriage to a cheat?

I think that its all a balance, some situations the children come first, in some the parents, in some the new partner.

I think it is ridiculous to say that if your first marriage fails that you shouldn't go on to have a new relationship and children, it is perfectly possible to have a good balance between everyone, surely it is good for the children to see a happy relationship and be part of a happy family unit.

'[Blended' families are all about making the parents happy, not the children]

In the first instance it is because the parents want to be together but if done correctly then it can hugely benefit the children.

If people can't look after (be it physically, financially or emotionally) their first children then, imo, they've no right having more children.

Blended' families are all about making the parents happy, not the children

Maybe that's the reason they are created, but it is certainly not the case that parents in blended families are always putting their happiness before their childrens'. Of course there are some selfish parents who put themselves first, but this happens in both blended families and 'together' families. And it is unfortunate that there are undoubtedly some blended families where step siblings don't get on with each other or find it very difficult to adjust to living in a blended setup, and then the parents have some tough choices to make and probably don't always make the right ones. But there are plenty of parents in blended families with perfectly happy kids, who provide a great home and family life for them.

Thora people are not saying prior children are more important than subsequent children. Of course once children exist they are all equally important. They are saying that existing children are more important than the desire to have subsequent children (i.e. before those subsequent children exist). If having more children will mean your existing children lose out in a major way (eg you will not be able to support all of them financially or would not be able to spend enough time with all of them), then you shouldn't have more children.

This applies whether you are separated or still together.

I think you can see extremes on both sides.

I've read enough posts on here about people that have gone off with OW & give no consideration to their children & likewise people have ended relationships as their DC did not get on with new DP's. Every circumstance is different but, with two children U16, I would struggle to think of any scenario where I would prioritise a DP over them in a moment of truth.

Maybe that's the reason they are created, but it is certainly not the case that parents in blended families are always putting their happiness before their childrens'. Of course there are some selfish parents who put themselves first, but this happens in both blended families and 'together' families. And it is unfortunate that there are undoubtedly some blended families where step siblings don't get on with each other or find it very difficult to adjust to living in a blended setup, and then the parents have some tough choices to make and probably don't always make the right ones. But there are plenty of parents in blended families with perfectly happy kids, who provide a great home and family life for them.

Sure, but what's going on in all these failed first marriages? Are they all breaking down because of abuse or addiction? I don't think so. I suspect it's because people can't cope with the inevitable marital lows precipitated by life with small children.

Five years down the line they discover they've traded one set of problems for another, and they have to reconcile households with a pool of children having 4, 5 or more different parents.

Maybe prioritising the children too much is why some marriages break down... inevitably it's hard having young kids, but making some effort to leave the kids with a grandparent whilst having a weekend away with the husband, or expecting children to entertain themselves whilst parents are having a conversation, might make the relationship last and actually be better for the children in the long run.

Some times there are posters on here who are so very precious about their children, and you wonder, is it in their long term interest if the parents split up as a result?

^Agreed. I'd struggle to remain married to my husband if he were as obsessive as some of the stuff I've seen on here.

Fuckingitup. Yes it is horrible. It sounds as though you've got two eff'd up parents, who don't know how to behave. Or in your mother's case, realised far too late. I met my mother's husband once before she moved him in to my home. Well, I say my home, I'd just gone off to university when he basically started staying over more nights than not and quickly made it a permanent arrangement. And it was the house we had with my dad before he died from when I was 5. No thought of discussing this with me. The expectation was that I would return on ad hoc weekends and/or in the holidays and was just supposed to get on with it. Mother is a narcissist. As I said upthread, I'm the scapegoat. The first I heard of him moving in was when I went home after 3 weeks and he was basically staying over pretty much all the time. She asked me if I minded if he stayed over in front of him. What was I supposed to say? Hell yes I minded. I was being horrendously bullied by the other students in the house share and wanted some moral support. I'd driven 3 and a half hours solid and almost 200 miles to get there. God knows what I was thinking to even bother to drive home and think I'd get any emotional support from her.