To think children should not ALWAYS come first

[FavaBeansAndANiceChianti]

And that it's actually quite detrimental to their future personalities to let them think that they should?

I'm not talking inviting a known sex offender to live in your home kind of situation. But I hate seeing this line trotted out when half of the time I actually think it wouldn't do the children involved any harm to not come first in that particular situation.

Sometimes I read things on here and wonder how entitled and selfish these children must grow up to be.

I've seen people getting the pitchforks out because apparently parents should prioritize abroad holidays if their child has become 'accustomed' to them even if they can't afford it or would rather use the money elsewhere one year.

And I can't even start on the step parenting threads, you see it ALL the time on there, often over things which seem more to do with putting the ex first than the children.

I understand generally that children should come first in terms of needs. However, AIBU to think that people take this far too literally sometimes and it really is fine for other people's wants, needs and desires and feelings to be taken into consideration within the family from time to time?

Well that did not take long to turn into a step kids and Ex bashing thread and there are not bad SMS out there likewise there are never any good Exs and the usually fathers aren't all Disney!

What a goady thread.

Oh and no children do not always come first but their needs are equal to everyone elses.

COI : Mum and step mum

Nope. Children don't come first in my book. Never have. Even that old line, gets my goat.
I am as important as my Dh. Without us, there IS no family for ds's to be part of!

Yanbu at all and some of the hand-wringing to that effect you get on here makes me cross.

What children need should be prioritised but that’s very different to what they want and people get that confused. Children don’t need lots of material items but they need to feel loved and be well looked after.
Also in the world we live in today children can’t always be put first as sometimes it’s a balance of needs; I’m sure it’d be better for my DD if I worked less but equally she needs a roof over her head.

What gets me is the Facebook posts ‘my babies always come first’ when talking about how they don’t go out socially any more, or won’t get a job because their ‘babies always come first’.

I think kids need to fit into family life and be empathetic enough to know that both their needs and wants sometimes need to take a back seat depending on what everyone else needs/wants. I’ve got 3 kids, if they all need me 2 of them have to wait. If I need something at the same time as my kids need something, it’s whoever has the greatest need - I need lunch, my 3 year old needs someone to help him set up a train track. My need comes first.

PP example of her and her daughter both wanting new boots. If both our shoes had holes in, child would get them first. If we both had decent shoes and both just wanted a nice new pair, I’d be getting mine first!

Everybody else seems to know lots of little princesses (why not princes?), can't say I do really. Most families I know tend to be far more pragmatic, and I have also known families where the children were expected to be far more grownup than the adults (one actually involving a stepchild, thankfully he Was far more mature than his stepmother or heaven knows what might have happened).
I'm with WTF on the first page: children don't always need to come first but you do need to consider the impact. And you do need to consider that unlike a new step-parent a child can't just decide that "hey, this isn't work g for me, I'm going to move out and give this relationship a break".

I think what people forget is that actually, having a co-parenting relationship were you can rely on each other and don't have to keep to civil rather than friendly boundaries so in the best interests of the child. I know I have friends who could not have their parents at the same events in their life (like literally had to choose between mum and dad at wedding) and ones who can get on with having a christening or a family Christmas without wondering if mum and dad will kick off.

People always say that this only matters when the kids are kids but actually, there has been more cause for my parents to be somewhere together and united since I've been an adult and they've been retired.

I think people put arbitrage boundaries around how one should interact with an ex to honour the relationship. I think it is weird to count how someone treats another person as some indication of how they feel about you. I don't want my husband to be rude or unhelpful to other people to show how much he loves me. I just want him to be lovely to me.

There is another thread where a poster says she is being pressurised to spend five grand for a school holiday she can’t afford. She cannot refuse because the child’s friends are going and the child will be disappointed.

In my view this attitude is irrational and counter productive. The family finances are jeopardised so they could lose their house or go into debt, the other family members will be deprived to ‘feed the cuckoo’ and, worst, the child will be given a view of the world which is false and which will be likely to make them spoilt and entitled , therefore, unemployable and friendless.

Needs, both emotional and physical, must be met but a little disappointment and a whole heap of reality build character and resilience. Often, parents and other adults’ needs must come before children’s wants. The fact that, often, they do not, is seen in a generation which is sometimes mannerless, angry, spoilt and suffering from depression and other mental health issues.

A prime example is a step mother giving birth to a child and wanting say a week without step kids. Just to adjust, to settle etc.

Here to me clearly the SMs needs come first.

However they are vilified as the step kids are going to apparently be irreparably damaged for life for not being around the newborn straight away and having their schedule in any way disrupted.

I find this unbelievable. It is so clear that in this case SMs needs are pretty important and so are the newborns child’s needs to have a relaxed mother.

When I had my 1 year old, my 2 3 year olds were obviously at home for all of the first days of their birth. As their parents, we cant just cast them off so we enjoy a baby moon with our new baby. That's how it is when you're a parent. Sure,family stepped up to babysit when we went to the hospital and in the days after for a few hours here and there. We didnt send them away for a week though because other people have to work/live.

If I only saw my children for part of the time, I certainly wouldn't think it appropriate to send them away for any length of time because I've chosen to have another child. That's what parenting is about. Why should people in 2nd families have that space when people in 1st families often don't? It is not unheard of for a women with other children to go and have her baby alone with the staff because her partner has to look after the older children.

I think it's nice if someone can take your child(ren) at this point, but you should no way expect it or complain when it cannot be facilitated. That's part of the choice to have more children.

Look up the modern day philosopher Alain De Botton and his School of Life. He has a lot to say on this including that a parents most important job is to let their child down (to gently teach them about rejection and disappointment in life).

He was a recent guest on the Steve Wright Show, worth listening to.
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00087nn

From memory it was about an hour and a half into the show.

I think it’s one of those phrases that are a bit open to interpretation. If you are a parent you have a moral obligation to prioritise the needs and development of your children. But literally putting them first all the time is detrimental (sacrificing your career/social life to always be there when they are little and then ending up a financial/emotional burden to them in adulthood is something that comes to mind as a common parenting mistake for example). It’s a catch-22 if you interpret it literally. Most people seem to be able to strike a balance in order to meet their needs without overindulging them and harming their development or narrowing their own lives so much that they become a burden as their children grow up.

I think the step mother issue depends a lot on whether it’s her first baby. I’ve seen this multiple times on here and often people trot out the line “Well if they were your biological children would you send them away?” which is slightly a moot point in that situation because if they were the SMs children then it wouldn’t be her first baby...

Children’s needs need to come first, and I think sometimes their wants do too. But not all the time. I wonder if the people saying that children should come first all the time are the parents of the children/teenagers who will come up behind me in a classroom while I am having a conversation with another pupil (or a member of staff) and go “Miss, Miss, Miss” repeatedly until I turn around and it turns out the crisis is that they want to borrow a pencil sharpener

A strong relationship between parents/caregivers is important for a secure family. A good working relationship even for separated parents is important too. Parents meeting their own needs and each other's up to a point also makes for better relationships. What's good for the parent is good for the child, and vice versa in healthy families. If parents are divided children get in the middle, as weapons or manipulated/manipulators. This is not good for emotional wellbeing.
If there has to be a choice something is wrong. It's juggling all the time, taking turns, sharing, prioritising and reprioritising. The welfare of the child/rent is paramount but does not mean they come first every time

@bellatrix

It's irrelevant if it is her first baby, it isn't his first baby so he can't not look after them. Imagine if a guy wanted to send his step kids away for a week so he could have time alone with his first conceived child?

Maybe not having that special time alone and kid free is part of the downside of having children with someone who already has kids.

I agree, OP.

Sacrifices to be made on needs - eg if insufficient food, prioritise feeding children. Or prioriitise purchase of essential children’s clothing over bottles of wine.

But ‘wants’, no.

Children's needs should be prioritised not wants and demands! They need love, good nutrition, your time .... they don't need holidays, gaming machines and takeaways. So no one should be buying holidays they cannot afford but kids need to be taken into account by new partners, not to any greater extent than a natural parent would (nothing wrong with having an occasional sitter or going away without kids for a special birthday) but especially when they are not resident all the time, they should be prioritised when they visit

@AnneLovesGilbert

Seems like to got it spot on. It's so important that step kids don't feel pushed away by the birth of a new half sibling.

@ChilledBee

The difference between a 1st family and a 2nd family is a really simple one; in most cases where the 2nd family has restricted access to the DSC, that child is being brought up with different values, accepted behaviours, sense of entitlement potentially, etc. This makes the 2nd family’s life more difficult and stressful when the DSC is around, than any resident children (if there are any). They often don’t know/care to learn the household routine or rules and believe that their needs and wants should always come first.

As an example, my DSD’s routine couldn’t be changed when I had just given birth to my daughter and we had to have her for half of school holidays. Her DF had to go to work and while we would usually send her to OOSH, we couldn’t afford to as I was on maternity leave. At seven years old DSD couldn’t even put a piece of bread in the toaster for herself (I was breastfeeding and asked her to do this and I would then help sort it out when I was done), when asked to get ready to go out, doesn’t put shoes on and doesn’t say anything until we’re halfway up the street (walking), refuses to eat different foods every time we have her and expects us to shop for her at a moment’s notice e.g. “I fancy spaghetti bologna tonight”.

In a nutshell she is being brought up by first family to be dependant, lazy and incapable. We battle with this all the time and try and change this behaviour with reward charts, etc.

At the time of coming home with a newborn, I didn’t need the stress of an incapable child.

As an FYI, this was three years ago, and my three year old is at a point where she is leapfrogging DSD in terms of capability and obedience.

Children need discipline and to need to learn we don't always get what we want immediately or at all sometimes but their needs should always come first and their wants should be entertained and considered not just dismissed out of hand

I don't necessarily think putting children first means that you have to give them everything they want, to me it just means to consider the impact of something on them. So before you do something consider the impact on them first

This. And the new baby example doesn't consider the impact on the family. I think SMs forget that their baby isn't only theirs - they are bringing a new sibling into the world and into the SC's lives. That should be done positively and thoughtfully. Not with the attitude "It's all about me now" .

@crazywelshgirl

I don't think all 7 year olds can safely do themselves a breakfast myself so I think it is reasonable adults to assume a 7 year old will need help. But even if she should have been doing that five years ago, she is your partner's child and therefore he cannot simply give up responsibility for her when it suits him.

If her maternal family are really incompetent and he is a decent guy, he would be the RP and wouldn't rest until he is. At this point,if has such a good parent, he would have 50/50 because although it isn't great to keep moving around for children, he would want at least half of her time to be in a place where she is parented appropriately.

So no, it was completely out if order to relinquish care of his older child because he has conceived with you. If I was his co-parent and I wanted him to have less to do with her, I'd use any choice he made like this against him to show that our child isn't a priority for him and that his 2nd family takes precedence.

Honestly, it sounds like this child would be happier and have a more secure and consistent upbringing without her father in her life. He seems flaky.

@chilledbee what is it about PPs partner that makes them seem flaky? I am not getting that at all from their post.

@chilledbee

He seems flaky because he needed to work and we couldn’t afford to send her to OOSH? Or should we have gone into debt so that we could maintain her normal routine?

I didn’t say her first family is incapable of bringing her up; we have different values. Very different things.

I also didn’t say I expected her to make breakfast herself. Just to put some bread in the toaster and I could help when I was done breastfeeding.

With regard to access, we are moving towards a 50/50 agreement. He is in the military and was away for long periods of time so for her stability, and in putting her needs first, he agreed to less access. Not really flaky at all but considering the needs and emotions of a child that needs routine. Now that we have stability in his job and no long periods of going away, we’re slowly moving towards a better arrangement (for her and him). Slowly because we’re putting her needs first and don’t want to force sudden change on her.

I also don’t think there was need for such a personal attack. I was simply giving a different perspective and agreement that not all DSC are angels or easy. As second families, we accept that but at really hard times, sometimes it’s in the best interests of everyone to have some breathing space. That doesn’t mean excluding DSC and they should be involved and welcomed at the time of a newborn coming into the family, but it can mean a slight change to routine for a couple of weeks.

The fact that he is with a woman who has these views of his daughter and speak about her that way and that he would have another child knowing he couldn't afford childcare for the other and the only options were either she stays with a step mother who thinks she stupid, "lazy", "dependent" and "incapable" and who wouldn't even realise the kid doesn't have shoes on until they are down the street. "Flaky" is the mildest term I have to describe this creature.

Parents don't get to oust their kids to make the newborn days with subsequent children easier. You're not a parent but he is.

This is really terrible.