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?

[Novembersbean]

anyoneseenmykeys it's rare that two people's needs will be exactly equal though, usually one person's needs will be more pressing than the other's and only some of the time will that be the child.

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

@anyoneseenmykeys - I guess it would come down to who was most likely to wet themselves! Until the past year, when I finally got serious about my pelvic floor exercises, my muscles had all the strength and elasticity of a wet paper bag, so in the desperation stakes, I might win!!

[Bourbonbiccy]

As PP have said, it all comes down to common sense.

In the OP example of the holiday, obviously the holiday does not go ahead.

My sons needs will always come first, it will be determined at the time if he gets what he wants depending on the request and the circumstance.

Entitled is a word that I think gets thrown around too much and not always used accurately (particularly on here).

[Longlongsummer]

@wineisneedednow and @ChilledBee and OP. This wasn’t raised as a ‘mum has to take her kids if SM is having a child’ (even though why wouldn’t you it is not as if it happens very often) - as other relatives can look after them - it was how this can be a perfect illustration of how a child’s ‘wants’ are put over clear emotional and medical needs - I don’t know how anyone could argue an older step child’s needs are more important than a newborn and her mother in the first few days after birth. However you see this argued a lot on MN!

My step kids were one of the first to visit in hospital. I just could have done without theIr drama when I’d just had an EMC and baby had to go into icu for a couple of days. I had an older child who I also got to stay at a relatives but for a lesser amount of time. There are, like @wine some particular stresses with step kids at times that do not come up with your own - as in my step child throwing a strop because he wanted her mum around the house to ‘help her’ with something and I really did not want the ex, who disliked me, to be around my fragile newborn while I was trying to establish breastfeeding. I was accused of not putting my step child first.

Healthy childhoods do mean that there are limits. It’s just sad sometimes as some kids who have everything given to them want wise are not given what they need. I watched my step kids be totally indulged and yet I think this covered up the fact that they were not given enough stability and guidance. They are all adults now and very selfish people, but insecure people imho.

[ChilledBee]

@wineisneedednow


Parents don't get leeway with their child. Supposing you have a child with diagnosed special needs who has the same requirements as your SD due to her incompetent upbringing,as you call it, you don't get to relinquish that for new children. Many people who are in that position do not have more children because they can't look after them.

You don't seem to understand that your husband is equally responsible for the person his daughter is today as her mother therefore he simply cannot decide she's too much work and focus on his new family when it suits him.

But I don't think you understand this.

[Longlongsummer]

@ChilledBee that’s nonsense you cannot equate step children with your own and as others have pointed out, if you tried to, by disciplining them as you would your own kids or going to school parents evening you would be lambasted. Of course there is a clear difference which is even more of a reason why there is a clear need from a SM giving birth, whereas step child has two parents and relatives and does not in any need to be with SM. Just plain silly.

[happycamper11]

Depends on the context. If there wasn't enough food I'd feed my dc before myself. As so many others have said yes their needs and rights outweigh ours but their wants do not.

[Longlongsummer]

focus on his new family when it suits him. again just plain wrong. If the father were chucking back his kids to the mum whenever he wanted, more than in a critical medical situation (like childbirth) or severe illness then fair enough. However this is not the case.

Anyway. I’m sure I’m not alone when I looked after my step kids regularly not on their days, once for two weeks whilst their mother wanted two weeks off to have the house to herself! I did feel a bit used to be honest but I can tell you are very naive about these situations! (Yes the DSD was at work he had not been asked)

[Longlongsummer]

DSD = Dad... gosh I hate my keyboard!

[ChilledBee]

They aren't one of the person's stepkids though. They are their actual kids! It's that person who has no business sending away their existing children (especially if they arent being raised right) to focus on their new family. The answer should automatically be that rearranging contact to have a babymoon is more than likely out of the question bar a few hours or a day over the time of the labour. Just like it would if the new couple has another child.

You've chosen someone who is already a parent. Not a step parent or a god parent but a parent.

[Longlongsummer]

And just to add, I do feel that the mother chucking her kids at me for two weeks just so she could have a break (this is outside of holidays when we did have them half the time) - was an example of a parent not putting their child’s needs first! The kids didn’t want me SM for two weeks. And mum had agreed to be RP and received the maintenance. So it was her wants over child’s needs.

[ChilledBee]

I honestly think that if NRP were made to take proper responsibility for their existing families, half the second families wouldn't exist at all. More people would go into 2nd relationship with a firm no and stick to it.

[Longlongsummer]

@ChilledBee I had no problem sending my own child away for a few days - in fact I had to I was in hospital! Which was not met with any judgement at all funnily enough. It was a time when I think it was totally fine to have asked my step child to go to her granny’s or her Mums, by her Dad. Why wouldn’t it?

[Longlongsummer]

@ChilledBee you also assume we were the NR. No, despite Ex receiving all maintenance we had step kids 50/50 and for a good few years full time!

[Novembersbean]

ChilledBee by describing it as a babymoon you are assuming the birth was straightforward and everyone would be sufficiently recovered after a day to look after another child. This is often not the case, so yes whilst my partner is the parent of the other child, he had to make the decision to prioritise the needs of his partner and baby who were in a medical emergency over the wants of his older child to stay over at that time as he was accustomed to.

It's not true that no parents outside of this scenario have the option to send the other child away - if they have any support network then they do have the option. They may choose not to, but they do have the choice.

[Novembersbean]

You have chosen someone who is already a parent

I also think this works both ways which is seldom acknowledged on MN. Yes she has chosen someone who is already a parent, but likewise he has chosen someone who is not already a parent. If you subscribe to the logic discussed on this thread - that needs and wants should be weighed up based on whose is the most pressing, rather than the child coming first by default, adding another person into your life comes with the added possibility that that person might have needs that will be more pressing than your child's and you may have to put them first. In this case, it also comes with an added increase in the risk of complications during childbirth that will lead to your older child's needs being the least urgent and not being prioritised.

This is a choice just as much as choosing to be with someone with a child is.

In getting into a relationship with someone that had a child I accepted that they had an extra person whose needs would need to be considered and that sometimes those needs would be more urgent than mine, but not that they would be in every instance regardless of circumstance or any medical emergency that might arise.

[Monkeyplanet]

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”

Sounds like a typical 7 year old to me, but then again my eldest is 4 so what do I know. Personally children can't walk away from their parent's relationships when their partners are making them miserable so I think it's incumbent on the adults coming into their lives to be aware of this and put their needs first or walk away from the relationship

[Longlongsummer]

@Novembersbean very true, and children from both previous and newer relationships all have needs, and so do parents and step parents. Sometimes it feels that only one set of people’s needs are the priority, and that is never good. Step parents, step kids, parents, kids if one is put above the other always that leads to damage!

So for example chilledbee saying repeatedly ‘you married a man with kids’ is saying his kids always take priority. Not good or healthy.

[Novembersbean]

@longlongsummer Exactly. It's unhealthy in any family and no less so in a step family.

[ChilledBee]

Firstly, IIRC, your SS went to his paternal GPs organised by your DP so this isn't really relevant to you.

by describing it as a babymoon you are assuming the birth was straightforward and everyone would be sufficiently recovered after a day to look after another child. This is often not the case, so yes whilst my partner is the parent of the other child, he had to make the decision to prioritise the needs of his partner and baby who were in a medical emergency over the wants of his older child to stay over at that time as he was accustomed to.

When it came time for my 3 year olds so come home after the birth of their sister as people had work and other commitments to attend, how far along I was in my recovery wasn't relevant. Our kids needed to come back to their parents with DH running the show so I could rest. I was fine btw but just tired like anyone would be. Wasn't injured as such. But even if I was, the kids would have still had to come home and be parented by their parents.

It's not true that no parents outside of this scenario have the option to send the other child away - if they have any support network then they do have the option. They may choose not to, but they do have the choice.

Yes you might have extended network and you should make use of it for sure. This isn't the issue unless it becomes a significant amount of contact time or the other parent is expected to organise supervision at this time.

[ChilledBee]

Sometimes it feels that only one set of people’s needs are the priority, and that is never good. Step parents, step kids, parents, kids if one is put above the other always that leads to damage!
I think the people who exist and existed first should be put first. So if you have a child who you feel is developmentally behind for whatever reason and that isn't being addressed properly by their RP and/or you're already struggling to have sufficient contact time, then probably now isn't the time to add to your parenting obligations with a new family.

So for example chilledbee saying repeatedly ‘you married a man with kids’ is saying his kids always take priority. Not good or healthy.

Yeah I think his existing kids should be his priority over making a new family with someone else. The reality is that a lot of NRP barely parent their kids. They have them to stay, yes, but actually playing the same type of active role they'd have played if the relationship didn't break down rarely happens.

[TeacupDrama]

the family is a unit and sometimes different people take priority if a parent needs to be rushed to hospital this takes priority for the child to have food even
when DH cut himself badly and we needed to go to hospital for stitches i was half way through doing dinner so turned oven off jumped in car went to hospital with DD too no time to arrange childcare so she just had to come and sit around minor injuries and go without dinner she was fine, she was hungry but she knew her dad needed to be seen to more than she needed dinner
even a 9 year old can perfectly understand that not even needs can be met sometimes
sometimes not often perhaps the needs of the adult are more pressing than a child's needs
sometimes doing what is needed to keep an adult working is more pressing as ultimately that is what is going to fulfill child's needs down the line
but there is no need for a parent to be in torn clothes so a kid can get designer trainers there might be a need for a parent to wear the same winter coat for five years so kid can get a pair of proper shoes every time they need them ( just not several pairs)

[Novembersbean]

@ChilledBee I don't think anyone is saying they just wouldn't bother trying to get more custody of a child they felt was being neglected - but it's not often a case of neglect, it's just the RPs standards/boundaries/parenting approach are not in line with those of the NRP. The NRP may feel the child is not being raised as they would like, but that doesn't mean it is neglect or a cause to try and get full custody, it just means that accommodating the child's needs and behaviour due to their upbringing will come with added complications and potentially conflict.

But that doesn't mean the other parent is doing something wrong, it is subjective. As a NRP, there's only so much you can do about it save try and take custody away from the other parent, which wouldn't be right.

Would you honestly suggest a couple not have children though they want to because it could be a little bit trickier due to the behaviour of the older child that they don't have enough power or influence to improve? Would having to wait a few days to meet your half sibling be more of a hardship than a couple that want to have children sacrificing that dream? Because that is another example of a child potentially being put first to excess, in my opinion.

I'm not talking about if this becomes a wider pattern, which is a separate issue, this is purely about the immediate recovery time after birth.

[Longlongsummer]

@ChilledBee I already had a child. DP already has a child. His child was being mean to mine. But apparently that was just her having emotional adjustment issues according to her parent so I should not tell her to stop. Which childs needs takes priority?

[ChilledBee]

Would you honestly suggest a couple not have children though they want to because it could be a little bit trickier due to the behaviour of the older child that they don't have enough power or influence to improve?

Suggest? No, but plenty of RPs reluctantly choose not to have more children due to the demands of being the RP of the ones they have. I can understand that choice but think it is unfair when the NRP knows they can have more children as an option because they do so little and they know they can get away with doing less.

Would having to wait a few days to meet your half sibling be more of a hardship than a couple that want to have children sacrificing that dream?

I don't think that should be an option when the reasoning is largely hinged on the child's "upbringing" because it sets an unhealthy precedence. Both parents are responsible for a child's upbringing therefore one shouldn't be able to shrug the responsibilities when it becomes inconvenient. That then turns into them not coming on holidays/trips/family visits because it is just easier to go without them.

Because that is another example of a child potentially being put first to excess, in my opinion.

To me, it sounds like people making more babies when the one they have got a feral.