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?

I have been through the SM/new baby situation, as well.

As a PP mentioned I do think it is different from having your own child especially if the step child's behaviour is challenging - as a SM on MN you are "not allowed" to overstep and set rules and boundaries for your step child, which puts you in a position where you are expected to act like a parent (ie not be able to adapt to the baby without an older child there) but not able to do anything to make that situation more manageable for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, unless the SM is granted the kindness and freedom in her role to have a non toxic relationship and have a firm say in how things go down when the kids are there, then they are well within their rights to say they can't cope having them there right away. It's all or nothing when it comes to whether you have to act like they are your own kid.

The other part of it is of course the wants vs needs thing. I do think people often forget that the birth of a first child is more likely to be difficult and involve complications than a subsequent birth, which is the other reason it is not the same as if you had an older child yourself. I had an EMC after a very traumatic labour, that led to a blood clot and infection for which I ended up back in hospital for some time. My wound reopened, I was in an absolute state, couldn't stand so was unable to look after the baby by myself. My partner had to stay with me and sleep in my hospital room in a chair. That period of time included the usual contact time for my SS so all in all I think it was about four weeks before my SS met the baby. Yes he might have WANTED to meet the baby sooner, but me and the baby NEEDED my partner to be in hospital with me to help feed her and keep her alive. It was simply more important. As it happens, he didn't even ask why it had been a long time and loves his little sister.

People make these situations really dramatic on here but in real life, most of us make decisions based on what is practical and whose needs are actually the most urgent, and a majority of the time it works out fine. Learning to cope with a practical need coming before your wants is just a part of life - sometimes your needs will be the most urgent and other times they won't, it will all balance out.

Their needs, safety and welfare should always come first. I think that’s what the majority of people mean when they say it.

@Novembersbean

What if you had older children though?whether they were also his kids or not. You simply wouldn't be able to have that space whether you needed to or not. And that's the point. NRP often have the luxury to say "my partner needs me therefore my responsibility to my other child(ren) needs to take a temporary backseat". RP don't. Even when it is them in hospital with the blood clot post emergency caesarean.

RP don't. Even when it is them in hospital with the blood clot post emergency caesarean

I'd hope any decent NRP would take on the role of RP in these circumstances.

But I agree with your point. It's not always the case that there are people available to take older children whilst mum and dad rest for a week with a new baby.

However, I don't personally judge if there are people around able and willing to do so for you. I wouldn't judge a mother who's parents watched her older child for a few days whilst she recovered just as I don't judge a SM who's step children stay with their mother whilst she does.

So long as the other parent is willing to offer assistance in this way I don't see a problem with it.

Willingness isn't often part of the equation though. From what I've seen, it is often just expected that the RP will understand and carry the load. And what are they really going to do? They can't just leave the kids unattended so they rearrange visitation for a time when their co-parent is less busy knowing that is not something that will be reciprocated because the favour isn't even acknowledged as such.

ChilledBee if I had had an older child they would have had to be looked after by my parents while I was in hospital, because my partner needed to be there.

Yes I'm aware some people don't have anyone to look after their older children but most step parents do, as the child has another parent, and if they are not keen on helping, grandparents etc. The fact that there are some people that don't have that facility doesn't really make any difference to whether those who do should be able to use it.

If there is absolutely nobody to look after the older child and they would be in the house alone or on the street if they didn't come around straight away, then it would become a need for them to be there straight away. But if there is, then it is a want, and it is entirely possible that the needs of the people in a medical emergency will be greater and have to be prioritised.

I think "the kids always come first" is just a meaningless platitude that no-one really lives by. They may think they are, but by indulging children to an unhealthy extent you aren't really putting them first are you. You are fulfilling something in yourself. You are not viewing them as an autonomous individual but as an extension of your own ego.

In reality, we are mostly all just trying to muddle along as best we can and raise children who don't end up being homeless serial killers. The thing is there are no lessons in this parenting malarkey and our teachers are the folk who raised us. So mostly, I try to model the kind of behaviour I want to see in my kids... self-respect, kindness, cooperation, and fun. If I spend my life sacrificing my needs for my family, my daughter will think that is part of a women's role. I want her to respect herself, practice self-care AND give to others. It's all about balance.

No of course and that's what I think is vital.

I'm only saying that if there is a willingness there whether it comes from the RP, NRP or family, then I won't judge someone for taking them up on the offer.

I don't think it is imperative that SC meet their half siblings 5 minutes after being born. I think it's perfectly fine for them to wait a few days.

It's not even just in this situation, we've had my SC whilst their mum goes on holiday, she's had them when we had before. All perfectly fine, we don't mind helping out with days outside of our contact schedule for whatever reason. I don't judge her for having time away from her kids and she doesn't judge us for doing the same.

Both households are happy to help in these sorts of scenarios, we aren't rigid like that. If we can't help for whatever reason then obviously that's different but if we can, I'm not going to cause issue by saying 'not my problem sorry, go on holiday another time' or 'sorry that's outside of our contact days so you'll have to struggle with a new born and 2 older kids'.

ChilledBee if I had had an older child they would have had to be looked after by my parents while I was in hospital, because my partner needed to be there

Right absolutely. That's what I'm saying. You'd have to find your own childcare. My point is that unless you have a friendly relationship with the ex/co-parent (like you do your parents), they shouldn't be who you call on. I'm in a "traditional" family and certainly don't call on an ex when I need to be there for hubby or vice versa. I call on my family. I'm not saying you didn't, it isn't clear who SS was with in that month.

The issue is when a NRP who isn't on friendly babysitting swapping type duties with an ex but expects them to pick up the increased load of their decision to have another partner/baby. Be that financial (I strongly disagree that CM should reduce to accommodate additional children) or in terms of time/space.

certainly don't call on an ex when I need to be there for hubby or vice versa

Well no if you didn't have children with them then of course that would be odd. You aren't calling on them as an ex though are you? You're calling on them as a parent to their child.

But I do agree it doesn't work if there isn't a good friendly foundation.

@ChilledBee

Yeah I get what you're saying - my SS actually stayed with my partners parents during his contact time after my daughter was born.

I do agree that we shouldn't assume we can expect concessions from the other parent, but that's a slight tangent from whether we should be allowed to prioritise the needs of mother and baby if childcare is available for the older child.

I do agree that we shouldn't assume we can expect concessions from the other parent, but that's a slight tangent from whether we should be allowed to prioritise the needs of mother and baby if childcare is available for the older child.

There is nothing wrong with a NRP making use of their extended support network for childcare during contact BUT if it starts to get to a point where their contact time is regularly altered in this way to facilitate quality time with the second family, that is wrong IMO. It could be a slippery slope where the SP starts to get used to requesting that the SC is excluded from other times.

That's entirely different to needing a few days to recover post birth, Chilled.

This talk came from someone saying this:

"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."

The tone of this is very different to what you're talking about.

Strange thread.

Unless you have a private room, a maternity ward is NOT the place for children full stop - siblings or not. They are full of germs, and there's always a CF who will let them run riot. So of course, kids have nothing to do in hospital - unless they are a patient obviously. Of course they can wait to meet a baby.

Holidays? Well of course don't go into debt, it would be ridiculous. However, it's a bit shit if you decide to have kids and can't afford to give them a semi-decent childhood. Holidays are VERY important for me, an adult, and I strongly believe my kids need them too. It doesn't have to mean a luxury Disney vacation though.

Parents sleeping in smaller room or living room? It can make sense, when the whole family benefits. It's easy to send each kid in their own room, and you still have the main one.

I think when you are a parent, you do agree to put the kids first. You need to teach them values and boundaries, you don't feed your child pizza, crisps and chocolate because that's what they prefer, you try to do what is best in the long term, but you can no longer be selfish. It's not about going into debt for Christmas and spending a fortune on tat, it's about making decisions that will benefit them first. You come second.

can't afford to give them a semi-decent childhood

But see I just don't agree. Holidays don't equal a decent childhood. I think it's so narrow minded to think so and a pretty rude thing to say.

My husband never went abroad until he did so with me. He had a few holidays in the UK when he was young but not that often. He doesn't think he had a rubbish childhood because of it. His parents did a fab job raising him. Them only taking him on a couple of holidays doesn't take away from that.

I went on abroad holidays ever year without fail. I don't believe I had a better childhood because of it than anyone else. In fact I still had a lot of shit to deal with in my childhood which weren't fixed by flying off to wherever every year.

Holidays don't equal a decent childhood. I think it's so narrow minded to think so and a pretty rude thing to say.

holidays are my thing, so I completely understand that other people don't care. I just cannot imagine my own kids having to be stuck at home, when there's so much variety in the world to explore. Sounds very sad.

My point was more about people willingly having kids when they know they won't be able to afford days out, school trips, uniforms even! I mean, come on, is that fair on the child? Yes, you can have a happy childhood DESPITE everything, but it shouldn't be so hard.

I agree completely. When I think how I was brought up, which was the opposite, rarely prioritized and now my kids expect the opposite! My DH fosters it more than I do. I feel quite resentful tbh especially when he gives them larger portions than me ffs, they are both quite young still!
(Don't fuck with my food!)

I completely agree with the needs and wants distinction. However, there is a blurry line. I haven’t accepted an employed position (I, self employed and flexible now) because my kids love me doing drop off and pick up and generally being around. I love it too. It’s not a need, but it’s still something I prioritised over career/money etc.

The difference is, they know they are absolutely at the centre of my world. However, they are not spoilt materially or parentally in any other way. I lavish them with my time and attention but not exclusively. I have my own life, but choose to run it around them for the most part. My mum did this for a large portion of my childhood too, it felt grounding. I, not saying it’s essential, but it’s a want we all want, not just the kids.

I think they should come first. I see it as an obligation when you decide to have kids. Ours are adults and older teen but still come first when it comes to any decision making. Always have, always will.

It’s all relative though. Things like missing out on great work opportunities as we would have had to move which wouldn’t have been in their best interest (but would have been in ours) are no-brainers. If there was a basket of pears and they wanted apples and bananas then tough luck, eat the pears until shopping day. It doesn’t mean they always get everything they WANT but it does mean we always have done and will continue to always put their NEEDS and best interests first.

exactly

Spoiling children is not putting them first, it's usually more about the parents anyway.

@ChilledBee

The context of my original post isn’t out of place. Directly after having given birth, we were given no leeway with a challenging DSD. This is despite being very lenient with DSD’s Mum when she had been pregnant previously.

The reason being DSD wanted to come and not have her routine changed. At this point her want should not have been put above the need to have a few days to settle after giving birth.

I went into a lot of detail which I understand has led you to read a tone into it but, I was trying to convey that it’s not always an easy time with a DSC when you have little control over what they see as accepted behaviour.

As I said yesterday, I don't think it is realistic to say that children's needs must ALWAYS come first.

Adults have needs too, not just wants - and sometimes the adult's needs will have a higher priority than the child's needs. For example, if the adult is absolutely desperate for the loo, and the child needs a drink or a nappy change, should the adult see to their own needs first, and then the child's needs, or should they wet themselves whilst changing the nappy/getting the drink?

Or in the more extreme case I gave, of the oxygen masks coming down during a flight. At that point, the official advice is that the adult accompanying the child should put on their own mask first before putting their child's mask on. This, to me, is an example of a time when an adult has to put their own needs first, so that they are able to care properly for the child's needs.

It is a matter of common sense. Yes, needs are more important than wants, but not all needs are as important as eachother, and there is nothing wrong with dealing with the more pressing need first, even if it is an adult's need, and then dealing with the less pressing need, even if that means a child waiting for a bit.

Children's needs: safety, food, shelter, education, health etc trump a parents wants and sometimes needs (I would always make sure my children are fed and clothed even if it means I go hungry or cold, for example)
Adult needs trump childrens wants.

if the adult is absolutely desperate for the loo, and the child needs a drink or a nappy change, should the adult see to their own needs first

to make it a fair comparison, if you are desperate for the loo but so is your child, then your child goes first...

but then of course, it's mainly common sense, and it's all about the long term benefit of the child. What is quite sad is seeing families when the parents have little care for their children.