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?

@ChilledBee

Also, to clarify, I never called DSD stupid. You have inferred that.

I’m sure you’re aware that when you go from a two-person income to a one-person income, money is tight.

And, the shoes - I was a sleep deprived new Mum who assumed that when leaving the house a seven-year old would have put shoes on.

My relationship with DSD is actually very good and she is more likely to come to me than BM with emotional issues (which I then discuss with both BP to come to a resolution). We try and work through the issues that we see and improve all the time.

Yes saying that your child leapfrogged DSD etc and the other terms you used does imply you think she's stupid. I didnt put stupid in quotes but you did use every single other term and frankly,you should be ashamed of yourself and that partner of yours.

He had no business having more children and you have no business being in this little girl's life with those toxic views of her that you hold.

@chilledbee

You’re really not “listening”. The relationship with her is good. We are helping her to improve and contribute positively to her life. She is behind with a number of skills because she is enabled at home and taught that this is ok. We support her, are patient with her, and give her everything she needs. She is not stupid but she has little motivation to put in effort which holds her back. Gentle encouragement all the way.

But in that first time at home with a newborn, it’s very difficult.

Back to the original topic, should a child’s needs always come first. In this case, DSC’s wants were put first, above that of the newborn and the SM. And I don’t believe that that should have been the care.

Also, you sound very bitter and angry. I hope you’re ok.

you are the adults, you pay for this home, you need proper sleep and rest to work and care for the family, and your relationship will suffer if you are sleeping separately

Absolutely true. I've seen it suggested more than once that the adults sleep on the pull out bed in the lounge so kids don't have to share bedrooms. That's insane to me.

I also disagree about the blended families thing always being about the adults and it can never be any good for the children.

It surely depends on how it's introduced? Mum moving new boyfriend in after 2 dates and never having met her kids? Absolutely not okay.

Two people deciding to live together after being in a committed relationship, meeting the children regularly and ensuring there is a good relationship there? That's okay in my book.

Both my parents moved on eventually after splitting and both times it brought more to my life because the people they chose were fantastic. My step dad especially. I couldn't imagine my life without him. But he wasn't some random stranger to me when he moved in as other PPs suggested. My mother made sure we'd had plenty of opportunity beforehand to know each other.

My own step kids message me often in between contact. They tell me they've missed me etc when they come. I can say for certain they'd be very upset if I just upped and left tomorrow because their dad didn't want a 'stranger' living in their house.

It's all about the execution I think.

It's important to mention step parents/families I think because this is said far more on threads about that than threads about biological parents.

Some times it's warranted of course but others it can get completely ridiculous.

I also hate this reluctance to discipline older children for appalling behaviour.

Like a 17 year old who treats their dads girlfriend with utter contempt is constantly excused as being a child. Sometimes j wonder if it was only me that would have got an absolute bollocking off my parent if I'd have spoken to an adult the way some 'children' are allowed to do so on here.

I cared about my father (not just myself) enough at 17 to want to see him happy yet on here it's constantly excused.

Right but the difference is that as RPs, people don't have the luxury of even considering relinquishing the care of an older child (with or without additional needs) to care for their newborn. The only choice we have is to decide not to have more children because the needs of our existing children are too demanding.

I'm in my first marriage with 3 kids. I'm neither a SP or RP post separation/divorce so I have nothing to be bitter about.

What I have done is teach a lot of kids who are harmed by their parent's relationship choices. Sometimes that's because a parent stays with someone who abuses them and/or their children. Other times it is because of issues surrounding a 2nd family and their feelings of displacement and rejection as their NRP prioritises their new life.

I've also seen it work really well and that usually involves friendly co-parents/SPs.

@chilledbee

This is true for traditional families (sorry not sure of proper term) but in a two-family situation, can’t it also be the case that the family without a newborn help out? Always making it a positive experience for the child and ensuring they don’t feel pushed away.

When DSD’s Mum was pregnant with her second child she was struggling at the end of pregnancy (quite sick) and we offered to have DSD to give her some relief. It was handled with care with DSD saw it as a treat. We also offered to help when baby came along to give them time to settle in. So it can work positively in a two-family situation.

(sorry was experimenting with name change and changed without realising it)

My parents always said to me that me and my sisters always got what we needed but we never got what we wanted. I always thought this pretty hard until I grew up! Now I have DS and he will always get what he needs but he won't always get what he wants.

I agree OP. It feels like people who are unhealthily obsessive about putting their child before everyone and everything else don’t have much else going on in their lives.

They have lost their own identity and by continuing to make it solely about their child they don’t have to address the fact that there is no balance. It becomes martyr like and not healthy for either parent or child.

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"

You see this is where I think it can get very skewed and crazy. I was talking about a few days, a mum and her new baby is a critical time in that first week when things are very vulnerable. Who could possibly argue that a step kids wants are above a new mothers needs? Crazy.

And no, they are not her children so it is not the same. And yes the Dad should be focused on the mother of his baby above his older step kids. FOR THAT WEEK.

There are times when adult needs are priority. And they get to choose. Not the kids. And that is totally okay.

In step family example I do agree that I also see parents put their new relationships first above the kids too sometimes in a way that ignores their child’s needs. That is really awful. However this is not as often as you’d think. On the step parent boards it is overwhelmingly SMs trying to put their step kids first and ignoring their own needs until they are totally drained.

@crazywelshgirlshgirl I do agree. It’s maturity I think and an unselfish nature in a parent that is key.

For example:
My Ex thinks be puts his son first all the time. He does that by showering him with gifts, telling him he loves him and only seeing him when my son says it’s okay. Which is now about 2 days every two months. So he puts his sons wants right up there. He does not cater for his needs at all, he doesn’t even check he’s brushed his teeth when he stays.

Another step parent example:
I definitely did not want my step daughter around the first week after my newborn was born. I gave in though but it was awful and was not good for me, newborn or me and DP. But there you go you move on. I did a fair number of her wants, for example I took her to a shows in town, always cooked her favorite meal when she was here. It’s nice to do that. No bother for me either why wouldn’t I. I saw her needs as being able to still have a very strong bond with her Dad. So I made sure they had lots of room to carry pretty much as before. I saw her needs as having a simple, not confusing childhood by being clear I was not her mum, respecting her mother. Respecting her. I saw many needs such as diet not being met and tried to make sure she had access to healthier food without being too dominant etc. And the list goes on. However whenever I did have a need, such as for her not to be rude to my children, then this was a big sticking point and that is when I sometimes found her mum and Dad would be super defensive and say ‘it’s just her nature’ etc and I would be saying no, her wants to behave as she likes is not a need, she does not come first, other people also have needs including my kids to live in a fairly healthy atmosphere.

So I don’t think it’s rocket science. Just common sense really.

This is true for traditional families (sorry not sure of proper term) but in a two-family situation, can’t it also be the case that the family without a newborn help out? Always making it a positive experience for the child and ensuring they don’t feel pushed away.

Yes absolutely. But when it is clear that the SP has no intention of fostering that type of relationship and/or actively opposes any friendly bond between co-parents (Eg AIBU to think DP doesn't need to have a cuppa when he drops off SC?), they can't then expect for ex to do something close family would do for a new parent.

Eg AIBU to think DP doesn't need to have a cuppa when he drops off SC?

It's all relevant though isn't it? this situation, to me, depends on whether that particular ex has been reasonable previously.

For example, if my ex treated my husband like shit, spoke about him horribly, threatened him, tried to turn our kids against him simply because he existed or whatever, I wouldn't be going in for a cuppa at pick ups and I'd be nothing but tolerantly civil towards him. I certainly wouldn't be his friend just because he co parents my children. You don't have to be super friendly with exes simply because they are the other parent of your kids. It depends on numerous factors.

But I agree. If there's no reasons why exes can't be friendly, it should be encouraged.

Child's need come first

Like I never understand the posters who say it's okay for two exes to go on holiday with each other and their kids (when they are in new relationships).

Going in for a brew is one thing. But surely all holidaying as a family is just confusing? I don't think it does children any good really to think that nothing changes when their parents aren't together anymore because likely one day it will.

I suppose I focus a lot now on what people choose. If that example was the case for me, I'd probably decide that this level of drama isn't for me and abandon the relationship but if it was too late for that, his choice to remain friendly would tell me how he prioritises his life. I wouldn't be angry so much as disappointed that we were not the match I thought we were. I wouldn't view it much differently to meeting a fabulous guy who doesn't share my desire to settle down close to family and have kids. It doesn't make him a bastard. He is just on his path, and I'm on mine.

I think people correctly think "children's needs come first", but then they make the mistake of thinking "only think of the children, all the time".

If you're married / in a relationship, you need to give this relationship due weight within the family set up, because the relationship is the thing which underpins many of the essentials that the children need - i.e. the stability and flexibility of a two-person household.

If, by prioritising the children exclusively you are neglecting your marriage / relationship, you are actually undermining the children's environment overall.

DH family have some confusing links with intertangled timelines but the children seem to understand just fine. I didnt and I always felt awkward when I knew people with history were in the same room only to see them greet each other warmly or discreetly avoid each other depending on the situation. There is hurt and scars and trauma, don't get me wrong. But nobody is confused about who is who and people don't let their issues with one person (ie their dad) affect their ability to bond with the people connected to them through that person (ie paternal half siblings). Some of the assumptions I made about the effects of these situations were wrong. It also creates an ability to see blood as thick as water rather than the opposite.

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...

I don't think it's a moot point in that situation because SM willingly chose to have children with a man who has children so she can never have the FTM experience of being alone and having a babymoon because they as a couple have a responsibility to those children. It is a sacrifice you made by entering that relationship. Don't chose a man with children if you are not willing to accept the responsibilities and sacrifices it comes with. I would be livid if a new partner suggested my children who I see for part of the week must go to their other parent and miss visitation because we had a new baby. Not on

Really interesting thread - I completely agree with you OP and this is my biggest MN pet peeve (I don't think it is nearly as common a mentality outside of this forum).

I think it's really telling that you also mentioned the threads with parents excusing awful behaviour from near adults, I think this is very much linked. I've seen people defending "children" into their 20s as apparently "21 year olds are always selfish". I don't think there's any reason for someone of that age to be naturally selfish and downright unpleasant and the parents that do think that is just how people do that age behave are very likely the people that raised their kids to think their wants should always come first. A 21 year old should have learned to cope with other peoples feelings and needs being considered a long, long time ago, but if they've always been put first in all circumstances, how will they?

I have to admit I am a bit worried about what all these kids are going to end up like.

Well it's always a juggling act, but I have generally tried to show my daughters that while I have their backs and will go to the ends of the earth for them, I am also a separate person with A Life that goes on outside the general sphere of "Mum Duties" and their needs and wants and I think they appreciate me all the more for that.

I feel children need to understand that they aren't always going to win and they aren't always going to take first priority in everything we do. In some things, yes of course they should, in others they don't.

I know two children, who are actually really lovely but have been brought up to always be number one. Always win games ( parents would plan it that way), always chose days out/ where to go for meals etc. Both only children so didn't have to share that choice either. It's been fine up until now, when they're getting to an age that means they are socialising with their peers who equally wish to win, choose days out etc!

It's sad, they're actually lovely children but have been brought up to believe they should always come first, no matter what. It's caused upset within the friends group, and name calling ( selfish etc). They've both had to learn the hard way and I know that at least one set of the parents now regrets the way they brought them up. Fortunately it seems to be settling down now but hard to watch.