To think you don't sleep with your phone off if your children are elsewhere

[eslindanunez]

Have been up all night with a vomiting toddler. I live on my own with her and her dad sees her once a week on a Sunday. She started throwing up about midnight last night and carried on doing so for a few hours. We cosleep so the bed was covered in sick, so was I, so was much of the bedroom and the living room and she needed a few changes of pyjamas so that in itself was quite difficult to deal with it as she wouldn't let me put her down. I tried calling and WhatsApping her dad to ask him to come over so that he could at least hold her while I changed the bed and had a shower and just for moral support ( was quite worried as she's never been sick before) but his phone has clearly been turned off as the messages haven't even been registered as read. That's still the case now at nearly 8 AM. Am I being unreasonable to think that if you're somewhere other than where your children are (he also has two other children from a previous relationship) that you don't just turn your phone off and go to sleep? Because things happen and obviously this wasn't even that bad but it could've been a lot worse! I can't imagine being away from DD and not having a means to be contacted should something happen.

I'm still traumatised by the night dh was working away and I was sick and so were all 3 dc (1 yo twins and a 4 yo). So many bed sheets and towels! 🤢 I had to go and vomit while changing sheets then showered us all. No idea how I survived the night. Dh wasn't around to help and I wouldn't expect an ex to come running for that, hideous as it was. Hospitalisation then yes but sick? Nope.

I'm a lone parent, dd has no contact with her father and sickness bugs is one of the times when I have truly felt very much alone. I had dd throw up violently all over me, my bed (she managed to hit every single piece if bedding) the floor and herself at 2am. It was horrific but you do what you can, sort out child first, then bedding and then yourself last.

I thought this thread was going to be about you looking after someone else child and not being able to contact their parent, then you would def not be unreasonable!

I mention the theatre because it's a particularly good example where a phone must be off.

But if I were in the child-rearing business now - which at age 65 I am not! - I would be teaching them that phones should also be off in restaurants. And I don't use my hands-free in the car because I think it is a dangerous distraction. So there would be many occasions when I was out of contact whether I was NRP or not.

Sorry Aderyn but you still seem to think that an NRP should be close enough at all times to be of help if needed, which I still think preposterous. Can he take a holiday abroad? Or go if work takes him there?

I've had some awful nights but storm I think your description takes the biscuit.
for you.
for you too, eslin. It's scary.

I always have my phone on anyway, and I'm very nervous if I'm not contactable. And especially when my DDs are on a sleepover. I wouldn't ever want to risk not knowing if there was a problem.

In the OP's case, it's not really my place to comment; I'm not a single parent so I've never had to look after a sick child without the comfort of knowing that DH was coming back home from work that evening.

But imo YANBU in expecting him to be contactable at the very least.

That's also where landlines are useful.

Thanks centre. It was bloody awful. It wasn't great sorting the sicky sheets and carpet in the morning either. not envy.

Andrew, I never said that a nrp could never be anywhere else. Of course there will be periods of time where they might not be contactable. But imo they shouldn't be deliberately uncontactable for long periods of time. I think it is irresponsible and selfish. As much as you might prefer to be away with your new dp all carefree, when you are a parent you have a responsibility to that child which doesn't just operate on a part time basis.

I just can't get my head around the idea that you don't have to think about or worry about your dc because they are with their other parent. They are still yours and if they need you, you should be available.

My child may well be sick tonight. They are with the other parent and they will be fine. Unless life or death their dad can cope - because I have something else t do that means I can't be available until about 4/5 tomorrow.

but then I can't be with all my kids at the same time because we don't always live in the same house.

Which is a horrible thing to have said to me.

But Aderyn: it's no use being contactable - that is, phone on - if you can't help if contacted, is it?

If the NRP goes away, with or without a new OH and new DCs, for the weekend and gets the SOS call he may be hundreds of miles away and simply unable to do anything useful. You still seem to be saying he should always be close by just in case he is needed, and I am still saying that that is not realistic.

And that's before you talk of work travel. When DS was 11 I spent an entire month on business in California, eight time-zones and thirteen hours away, quite useless in an emergency.

And just because my kids ar with their dad doesn't mean I don't worry about them. But there's a difference between worrying with them and having a way to actually contribute anything useful.

I have to send them. It's court ordered. What options do I have but to get on with my life and do things to pass the time? Spend time with friends, meet someone new?

I can't do both of those and always be available for my kids 24/7.

And I don't think it's healthy for me or them for me to be so intensely with them that I am hovering waiting for a phone call never going more than 5 mins from the house never having a drink or having quality time with my new boyfriend.

I'm travelling then doing something hundreds of miles from where I live (and my kids are) tomorrow.

F something happens I can't do anything about it.

If I was still with my ex, I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing.

Therefore, according to some on here, I'm a bad parent.

It all got a bit unnecessary.

As parents we are responsible for taking care of our kids and the other parent cannot always be there to help - X or otherwise. Many single parents have never had anyone to help. Many of us have had two sick children at the same time with no help at all - you will get used to it. You are a capable human being. And sometimes you're dealing with diarrheaa too! Much as you're suffering coping with the situation its not really necessary for anyone else to have to suffer too. And through childhood there are many many bugs and illnesses and you will know that they are not major panics. So you're in training for coping more and more efficiently as time goes on.

Whats the point of getting your phone into the sicky mess as well if you cant put the child down? Seems to me a waste of a free hand.

Your child is young and you're not used to it yet but it will come. Your X needs to step up and have the child more than an afternoon (unless there are legal/abuse issues involved). So you can get a break too. If he does start having your child you will be so happy to have a break you wouldn't want to be called everytime your child is sick....

In fact: I am in London. I've been trying to remember the furthest from home I have been on a Saturday night when I was at work on the Friday and the Monday.

It was a remote village in Aberdeenshire. I went there for a wedding; as it happens DS was with me, aged 7 or 8, but DW wasn't; I cannot now remember why.

This was before the days of mobiles. But a separated father there now, even with his phone on (which I regard as an abomination at a wedding, but each to their own on that) could do nothing to help a mother with a sick child in London. So should he not go, just in case?

I get that there are times when you really cannot help being away. That's different to being round the corner and choosing not to be available. I still think that if your kids are sick/there is some kind of emergency, then as the other parent you ought to know about it. You might be able to organise something that will help the other parent. Even if not, I know that I would want to know, to be able to talk to and comfort my child on the phone.
To me it is weird to think 'I can't help so might as well not know and can get on with doing my own thing, away from it all'.

Mind you, I would never spend a month away from my dc on business either.

The op hasn't said he loves round the corner

She also hasn't said the reason for their custody arrangement being as it is, nor the age of the child.

She also hasn't indicated what, if anything, her ex was doing last night.

*lives

And to be fair. If my work decided I had to work away for a month I wouldn't have a choice but to go.

I had no choice and I missed my family.

but then I can't always be with my kids because we don't always live in the same house. Which is a horrible thing have said to me

You have completely misunderstood this.

I was not being horrible to you. You've made so much of this about your situation when it's just not.

My point grew out of Andrew's line of discussion about how you couldn't be with two sets of kids simultaneously.

If you've got more than one child, yoi don't have to choose one of them to spend time with Presumably your kids are with you together? Then they go to their dad's together. The fact that they're not always with you in YOUR house is totally irrelevant to my point. My kids aren't always in my house with me either.

You're determined to take offence when there is none.

And Andrew is determined to come up with loads of scenarios where he couldn't possibly be available to his 'first family'
Congratulations- you're right, Andrew. You are indeed unable to be in two places at once. What are you trying to prove? It sucks. And? Does that mean you shouldn't do your best when you can? Or because it's possible to be legitimately unavailable, should you always choose to be unavailable? Because, say, I could be in the theatre you know?

OP didn't specifically state how far away her ex lives, no. But she did text him more or less expecting that he could come round. So I think we can assume...

You said it to me with a humph face, not andrew.

What if you have to leave one in the hospital and go home to the others?

I don't know why you can't see that it's a horrible thing to say to a single parent.

I said it to you because you'd waded into that line of argument ! If you check back you'll see!

I said to Andrew that if you start s second family you'll always be the bad guy at some point to one set of kids.

You then told me that we're all the bad guy sometimes.

I said well, yes, but not over that because we don't routinely have to pick one family over the other.

You said that you have to pick one kid over the other.

Which I disagreed with. For the reasons I've explained.

I bet you are as able as I am to spend time with both/all your kids simultaneously. It's not a single-parent issue.

My 'hmmm' face was because you were refusing to follow basic logic...

Well if I've one in hospital and two at home I have to pick one over the other don't I?

Or can't you follow basic logic?

Add message | Report | Message poster MerchantofVenice Sun 10-Sep-17 20:16:19
I have more than one child. I'm sure I'm the bad guy sometimes- but not because I'm with my other, separate children confused

That's your post. All my children are separate children. They aren't conjoined.

You didn't say what you think you did.

I said other separate children to denote the sort of situation Andrew was describing- ie children from anothrr partner.

The hospital scenario is bonkers. Any reasonable child wouldn't regard you as the bad guy because you had to go to hospital with the one who's sick.

When you're in charge of your children, do you, barring sickness/other engagements, take them ALL to sleep at your house? Do you? If so, then my point wasn't relevant to you

Honestly, I haven't got time for this.

I think in general, all things being equal, parents should keep lines of communication open.

Not in the theatre.

Not if ex is abusive.

But otherwise- people should do their best. Op was concerned that her ex would be uncontactable in a emergency. Perhaps he wouldn't be and we're unfairly maligning him. But he doesn't sound great.

You sound like a great parent, ok? This thread isn't about you though.

And then you got the dig in about me not living in the same house as my children.

Seriously unpleasant. Do you think I just decided to get divorced for the craic? Don't you think it was a hard decision and don't you think I agonise over whether I did the right thing? every day I worry about the effects of my divorce on my kids, especially at the minute with this thing today where I have to leave them and be out of contact all day.

And nasty little digs from someone who is expounding what it's like to be a single parent and how differently they'd do it as a single parent when they aren't one, is kind of a - hurtful as fuck and b - like all those perfect people who know how much better they'd parent when they have no kids.

Then your post was badly phrased.

Sometimes, you know, as a single parent, I only have one or two of my kids at my house and the other(s) are at their dads or with his mother or at their cousins.

That happens. Because, you know, that's what being a single parent and putting your kids first is like.

So no, they aren't always in my house at the same time.

But you think you know how to do it better.

Put simply, you don't.