New Stepmum being pushy over kids

[HuneyBee74]

I am divorced with two lovely children and have a very good relationship with my ex.

He has the children EOW and one evening a week, this has always been the arrangement since we split 5 years ago.

The kids come back to me on Sunday evenings when it is his weekend. This has always been the case as 1. I think it better for them to get back into their routine before the new week and 2. their Dad often has a very early start on Mondays. He travels a lot for work and often takes a Monday morning flight or has to catch an early train.

He recently got married, and his new wife doesn't yet have kids of her own. I have found her pushy in the past regarding the children.

Ex-husband last weekend raised the possibility of him keeping the children on the Sunday nights when it is his weekend, and taking them to school on the Monday.

We talked about it ,and when I pointed out that he often isn't there, he suggested step-mum can get the kids up and do breakfast / school run.

I don't want this. I was happy to talk about him having the kids when he can take them to school on the Monday, but said that when he can't be there that the children should come back to me on Sunday, as we have always done.

I'm their mum and I WANT to do that for them, get them up, give them breakfast and see them off. I feel that giving time that was mine to their Dad so he can spend more time with them is one thing, but I don't want to give my time with my kids to step mum.

We agreed it last weekend - he said fine, he would bring kids back on Sundays when he has got to go off early. All was very amicable.

It's his weekend this weekend coming. I texted him to reiterate what we agreed re: Sundays and asked whether he was taking the kids to school on Monday or returning them to me on Sunday.

He has now come back and said that he won't be there first thing Monday as he is going to the States and step mum is going to do the school run! That she 'is their step mum now' and it is his decision! Not what we agreed!

We are now arguing about it (we never argue!) - and I know that this is coming from her - she is hugely controlling and wants to 'be important'.

As far as I am concerned he has reneged on our agreement to appease his new wife.

Other than turn up at their door on Sunday evening, what do I do?

I too have been thinking about the issue of maintenance. Someone above has said the rules for the ex-husband include

• don't reduce payments because you now live with new gf who has a child or you want to have a baby in a new relationship. Existing kids will not suddenly cost less to feed!"

If two married/living together parents decide to have another child, it's taken for granted that the family's lifestyle will change. Holidays may be more modest, there'll be fewer meals out and large presents. Rooms might have to be shared. That sort of thing. It's not seen as a problem by the mother because ultimately she's likely to be the one who decides whether to carry on with the pregnancy.

But what really goes against the grain is when the child is not the mother's but the child of the husband's new partner.

What realistically is to be done though. If the husband/ex husband takes on more work to pay for the larger family, then the risk is he's going to be less available to see the children of his first family. The new partner may not instantly be able to bring additional income to the new household and even if she goes back to full-time work early on, there'll be considerable childcare costs.

Arguably, the mother of the existing household - whose children are older may be the one - who can adjust her working hours or consider her career options.

I think a long time back - fifty years ago - it was considered that maintenance was unalterable and the children of a man's new relationship essentially had to do with anything that was leftover.

But surely, however disappointed people may feel when a marriage comes to an end - and however difficult it can be when a former partner is involved in a significant new relationship, most mothers don't want a baby to go short on essentials, just so that older children's circumstances are completely unchanged.

Or are people seriously arguing that when a marriage ends, neither party has the right to have children with a new partner?

You shouldn't have children you can't afford, no.

Funder, I think that if a person cannot afford a new baby, then they shouldn't have one. I believe it is wrong to have a baby in a new relationship if that means you cannot meet your existing obligations. It isn't fair that the rp parent has to find more money from somewhere because 2 other people have decided to have a baby.
It's of no benefit to the rp, so why do they have to subsidise it?

I think that my stepchildren's lives were immeasurably enriched when my daughter was born. They really did adore her and they all remain very close. My stepchildren are now in their late twenties and my daughter is at university.

So I'd say that my partner's ex did benefit from the new baby because my daughter loved her older siblings and they loved her back.

Most people want their children to form good and loving relationships.

I acknowledge that these things don't always work - after all first marriages don't always seem to go brilliantly - but if the adults concerned try and make it work out, then it can.

N.B. My daughter was recently bridesmaid at my stepdaughter's wedding. My partner's ex refused to speak to her, smile or make any eye contact with her. Nevertheless I, my daughter, stepdaughter and husband all had a lovely day

You shouldn't have children you can't afford, no

It's not a case of not being able to afford it though. If both parents are still together and have an additional child the cloth is cut accordingly. Yet why is that not allowed when a further child enters the equation but is not the original mum's DC? If the mother (usually RP) goes on to have more DC with her new partner, she inevitably cuts her cloth for her existing children. Why is it so different when an NRP has another child?

Oh, and just to clarify - the maintenance didn't get lowered. It is more that my partner's ex felt that she suffered as a result of my daughter's birth. And she helpfully(?) told my stepchildren that they would get pushed out.

Except, FunderAnna statistics would show you that by far the majority of men never pay any maintenance (and the average amount for those who do is insulting) and that a very high proportion abandon their children altogether.

Suggesting this is a 'poor menz' situation ignores the very real situation that exsists in his country. Namely, we support men to walk away and make excuses for poor behaviour and lack of maintenance. We pile ALL of the responsibility onto the single mum and vilify and ridicule the one person who has actually stepped up and got with it.

Yes this ^

Sarah, I honestly don't think anyone should be having children they cannot afford. If a rp had a new baby and that meant she (usually a she) couldn't afford to support her existing children, she would be equally irresponsible and selfish.

I suppose the main issue is that the nrp is choosing to do something which negatively impacts on someone else's household and that person has had absolutely no say in the decision but has to subsidise it.

Funder, it was horrible of your step children's mum to ignore your daughter. Being mean to a child is disgusting behaviour. But you are seriously deluding yourself if you believe she benefitted from the existence of your child.

So I'd say that my partner's ex did benefit from the new baby because my daughter loved her older siblings and they loved her back

Have you read that back to yourself and asked yourself about the logic? Siblings I'm sure 'benefit' but the ex has fuck all to do with your child.

I think as the mother of my daughter's siblings, my partner's ex does have something to do with my child.

It's just that his ex dislikes the connection and wishes it didn't exist,

No. You are making connections that don't exsist. Read it all now.

Funder, honestly, she has no biological, legal or moral connection or obligation to your child.

Most men dont pay maintenance? Really? MOST?

NRP's shouldn't cut their maintenance when they have new children imo. When my girls were little there's no way I could have afforded another child. We were living right on the line because one of them had health issues that meant I had no choice but to give up my job (there are only so many days off for hospital stays and illness that any job can tolerate). Every penny was counted and used (no holidays or days out or anything, just surviving).

Their father then moved in with a woman who already had a child and quickly had another child. Their maintenance was cut accordingly. We ended up having to move in with my grandparents for a while and they helped out.

I heard a lot about his gf/then-wife's "right" to have another child, but what about my children's right to be supported by their father? Especially when in his case the minimum amount financially was the only thing he did contribute.

I think I have a different definition of 'family' to some people. A lot of Mumsnetters like to think small and tight.. 'My little family. My house. My rules.

I think of family as something looser and baggier. The mere fact of being married/having been married to the same person makes a connection. Being the parents of siblings who have the same father makes a connection.

To me life feels easier and more honest and potentiallyif you acknowledge that set of connections - even if it's something that's quite complex.

But to others it seems preferable to go round saying, 'X or Y or Z. That woman/that man/that child as nothing to do with me.' When what is really meant is 'I wish that woman/man/child had nothing to do with me, because I find it too much to deal with, and it's not completely in my control.'

Yes, most. A quick google will show you the stats.

So what about rps? Should they not have any more children either? Because when a new baby comes in to a househould circumstances change and often children get less than previously?

Link it pleasd

Bugger, pressed send too soon.

I feel it was exactly the same as a former friend of mine. Walked out on her husband and children, then had a new family with her new boyfriend. Each time she had a baby she cut the maintenance she paid to her ex. She couldn't afford to have extra children, but selfishly chose too at the cost of her eldest three. Her defence is that she wanted more kids. It's not right, you don't deliberately have more without considering the impact on the first children.

O. You can google it yourself. Plenty of reliable info out there. Try Gingerbread as a starting point. Their faqs make grim reading.

Resident parents can make a choice about their households and how they manage them. They know what income they have and what sort of slack it has and what they can and can't afford to do. It's not about the children having less/ more, it's about the impact one household's decisions have on another household. Have as many children as you want, but don't expect someone else to pick up any slack that causes.

Funder I'd like to copy and paste your post, so the next time somebody asks why step parents get such a hard time on here, I can point them in your direction.

Got to page 10 got bored, fast forward to page 22. OP is unreasonable.

I'd love to know what is so amazing about getting high school aged children ready for school. talk about infantalising and making it all about the parent.

oh and Ops DS takes after the dad in not standing up for himself.
food for thought, people tend to have a type. if new wife is controlling, it's safe to assume...
no not a step mum just someone playing catchphrase and sayingg whatshe sees