Views on ‘starting a new family’?

[irishglaze]

I’m interested in people’s views on this as personally I’ve never experienced it first hand as neither my father or my mother had other children when they separated. My brother has been getting into arguments at work with a guy who has been ‘calling him out’ (DB’s words) on having children with his wife when he has a son from a previous relationship. DB had his son at 18 and he was unplanned. They split when she found out she was pregnant and she got with another man. He wasn’t in his life for the best part of 3 years as his ex claimed the other man was his son’s father. There was a DNA test and DB is now on the birth certificate. He has contact EOW on the weekends with overnights. He’s been married to his wife for 2 years now (together for 7) and they have a 3 year old. They are now expecting another early next year. DB’s colleague obviously had some words to say when he revealed the new arrival at work. He claimed DB shouldn’t have any more children and should concentrate on the one he already has. It’s really upset him, he’s a wonderful father and has always gone above and beyond.

Personally I think that as long as you maintain regular contact with your first child(ren) and include them in your family life then you’re not abandoning them. What are other people’s views? Obviously it’s not just men as the same can be said for women who have more children too

being single doesn't mean you are slavishly devoted to your child no, but saying you will not enter another relationship just in case your child is less than happy about it, suggests just that.

It all comes down to definitions, I suppose - one person's 'slavishly devoted' is another person's 'realising that they come first and will be prioritised in your life until they're grown up'.

Having children isn't like getting a goldfish and tipping some food flakes in every few hours and cleaning out the tank every week or so - it's a very serious commitment to make. They're a result of a relationship, but, once they arrive, are not subordinate to it - if for no other reason than that your relationship was a choice made by adults and not a commitment that you realised you were potentially making by agreeing to have sex.

realising that they come first and will be prioritised in your life until they're grown up

but you can do that and also have a relationship, you know? theyre not mutually exclusive.

I don’t like second families.

I think unless years have passed and the first family are adult, then yes, the parents should focus on their steady existing children.

I don’t like the extra load on the benefits system when people are not 100% supporting their existing children. And I think it makes life more complicated for children. And it means parents’ time, money and resources are divided into smaller amounts with the creation of another family.

well yes, if you explain it to them like that of course that's going to be how they feel. The reality is usually very different though isn't it?

maybe that's all they "see" but its incredibly easy to explain why that isn't the case.

I never said that you would explain it to them like that (although some bitter parents doubtless do). Kids are a lot more perceptive than many adults think - and many MN threads will attest to these feelings staying with children throughout their lives.

The thing is, the alternative to all this heartbreak is for their parents to stay together and at least 1 party be miserable. Is that really better?

It depends. If a parent leaving and making a new direction for their life ends up leaving the child miserable, is that better? Of course, I'm not talking of cases where one parent/spouse's appalling behaviour means that getting out of danger is essential; but adults choose relationships whereas children don't choose to be born.

Situations will vary considerably, but I do think that, in some cases, we do instinctively make selfish choices based on what adults want and, sometimes, a child's happiness and security has to come first before that of the adult(s) who made a commitment to bring them into the world. Ideally, nobody should have to live feeling miserable, but if it's a straight choice between an adult or their child being miserable, I think the child's needs trump those of the adult.

DB's colleague is an arse who needs to understand that NOBODY is interested in his pontification, or needs his permission.

Suggest DB riposts by re-naming colleague Marie Stopes, & using that name every time colleague offers another unwelcome comment.

I don’t like second families.

That's a whopping amount of dislike to carry @Morganmermaid.
How are you coping with that?

Managing perfectly fine thanks.

It’s just something that I would never choose for my family, just like a wouldn’t choose white carpet as I don’t like that either.

The original post was asking for views so I gave mine.

I’m not a fan of second families either. I think if you’ve had a child that wasn’t planned, especially in your brothers circumstances, never lived with them or had the chance to etc then possiblynits a different thing.

But I think we’re theres been a marriage or long term relationship breakdown where there are kids involved you don’t rush to start an”second family”. The existing children need to remain the centre of your life, and that’s unlikely to happen of another baby comes along.

Fine have a relationship, but one that’s just between the adults.

I’m not going to be starting a second family anyway. I can’t really make the decision for anyone else!

If exh decides that, having seemingly found it utterly impossible to do night wakings ages 33, and struggles to manage his 5 days in 14 with the existing two kids, he is well placed to start another family at 44 then that’s up to him! Not happened yet but he’s mentioned the idea a few times 🙄🙄

realising that they come first and will be prioritised in your life until they're grown up

but you can do that and also have a relationship, you know? theyre not mutually exclusive.

Of course you can, but it's all about balance.

Is it reasonable to say that you don't want to socialise with your work colleagues outside work? Of course it is, because you have a job which you do to earn a living, but your family and friends are far more important to you in your life, even if you love your job during working time - and no normal person would question that.

Is it reasonable to give the impression to your child (using child's logic and feelings based on what they see and understand) that you love spending every other weekend (or whatever arranged time you have) with them; but you love spending ALL of your spare time (probably including their EOW) with their half-siblings who live with you?

It depends. If a parent leaving and making a new direction for their life ends up leaving the child miserable, is that better?

why would the child absolutely definitely be miserable if their parents split up? you don't know how they will react until you do it - so staying in an unhappy marriage because your child might be upset for a while is a terrible decision imo. They are more likely to suffer if unhappy people stay together, they're perceptive as has been said, they know you hate eachother, they are probably unhappy already.

but if it's a straight choice between an adult or their child being miserable, I think the child's needs trump those of the adult

if the parents are miserable, its very unlikely that the child will be happy anyway.

why would the child absolutely definitely be miserable if their parents split up?

I'm not saying they necessarily would - a lot depends on their age, personality and a lot of other circumstances.

I just think that many people don't even consider them at all when they make plans that are wholly based on the adults' desires.

Is it reasonable to give the impression to your child (using child's logic and feelings based on what they see and understand) that you love spending every other weekend (or whatever arranged time you have) with them; but you love spending ALL of your spare time (probably including their EOW) with their half-siblings who live with you?

but they wouldn't think that if you explain it to them in a way that they understand?

the only reason we ever had issues with "you love Ds more than me he lives with you" from dss is because his mother had told him that. Once we had explained that it wasn't the case, he could see us and his brother as much as he wanted (mum permitting which ofc she didn't) and we still loved him just as much, things were fine.

Children are not stupid.

There's seems to be an assumption running through this thread (not by everyone obviously) that it's nearly always the man who makes the decision to up and leave his family, or if it's the woman who has called time on the relationship then it's still the man's fault because he must have been abusive or similar.

Women are not angels either, plenty of women with children have affairs. And obviously most men who have affairs are having them with a woman who knows they're the OW. So my point is why should a man who has had his family ripped apart by his children's mother and is not given the option to become the RP not go on to start a new family with a new partner if he can emotionally and financially afford to do so?

I agree @MyCatHatesEverybody this thread seems to only talk about men leaving, not sharing PR.

Women can and do decide to end the marriage and can often be seen to try to exclude the father and play happy families with the new partner.

But another man bashing MN thread.

Also if the father is paying maintenance and then meets and has another child, why is it deemed that he shouldn't be able to afford it, his new partner could reasonably be expected to have an income that adds to the pot, so they can afford for him to have further children.

spangly mycat

I think MN is largely made up of married women who cannot imagine their life changing at all ever, and a lot of ex wives and "first families"

the viewpoint here is generally always that men are bastards, only mothers properly look after children, second families are shite and step parents (mainly step mothers) are the epitome of evil.

There will be cries of "I gave up my job to dedicate my life to my children and he didn't" well yes, but presumably it was a choice. Also, its not set in stone and can change.

A lot of women want their husband to go out and earn the money when they're together. The expect that to continue when they split, but also complain that they only see the kids EOW (even though that's likely what they wanted themselves) and have "left their children"

well you cant have it both ways can you. You cant have the time and the money.

MyCatHatesEverybody so your focus is the adult's wants above the children's needs?

The biological sex of the parent who leaves and creates a second set of children doesn't matter, what matters is whether the existing children feel abandoned or their quality of life (emotional and social quality of life not just material, though that too) suffers because a parent feels entitled to another go.

The "starting a new family" attitude is exactly the problem.

Any future spouse and children either parent has isn't a new family, the only way it can work is if the existing children are always the top priority of both parents, and if, and only if, the parent can manage to add another joint-top priority should they ever consider conceiving a half sibling to their existing children.

The attitude of starting a new family is the attitude that the first children have been replaced with an upgrade. That can never be right, and anyone who would do that will never genuinely be a good parent because it's all about them and their entitlement and not about their individual children as seperate human beings whose wellbeing, emotional and social development and security, not just happiness, are in their parents' hands.

the attitude of starting a new family is the attitude that the first children have been replaced with an upgrade

maybe that is how you feel but its certainly not how I feel, which says a damn site more about you than it does about people with children to more than one person.

I did say 'usually' the father leaving, but never meant to make assumptions - just going on the majority of cases for easier writing/reading format.

I agree with notnow - it's not a case of mum/dad/husband/wife good OR bad, just a case of the adults responsible for children making decisions with those children's best interests at heart.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll it's usually the father leaving because that's what the mother wants.

Like @Bollykecks says they want it all ways.

Also if the father is paying maintenance and then meets and has another child, why is it deemed that he shouldn't be able to afford it, his new partner could reasonably be expected to have an income that adds to the pot, so they can afford for him to have further children.

I think it's just that you're potentially paying out for two homes for the same children or, at least, for bigger homes than would otherwise be necessary and double resources, because they both sometimes have to accommodate the same children, whereas children living with both of their parents will each only need one bedroom (or a share of one), and one/one set of everything else in their one home.

Even if the NRP does have plenty of money, that money still has to go further than it could if s/he only had one set of children in one house to pay for.

The new partner might indeed also have an income to add to the pot, but may also have additional children to add to the pot - and may lose some or all of that income to childcare costs or being a SAHP if they go on to have more children.

I think it essentially boils down to the fact that, if all children each have two parents to attend to and pay for them, things are going to be less tight than if two sets of children have one parent in common i.e. on aggregate, only three parents and not four to provide for two sets of children.

I think unless years have passed and the first family are adult, then yes, the parents should focus on their steady existing children.

By that logic, nobody should ever have more than one child..

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll it's usually the father leaving because that's what the mother wants.

There is a whole range of different situations and I don't think it's helpful to generalise which sex parent is always/usually a bit/mostly/all to blame or who wanted what in cases where a couple with children end up living apart.

I'm not looking to apportion blame to anybody as an overall principle. I'm just saying that it takes a mother and a father to create a child and, unless the child is subsequently adopted, it is the responsibility of both of those parents (whilst they are alive) to ensure the best for their children until they are grown up, with their own wants coming second.

webuiltthis

I think it's just that you're potentially paying out for two homes for the same children or, at least, for bigger homes than would otherwise be necessary and double resources, because they both sometimes have to accommodate the same children, whereas children living with both of their parents will each only need one bedroom (or a share of one), and one/one set of everything else in their one home

well yes of course between 2 parents you're paying for 2 houses, because you divorced and you likely do not get along. That in itself is not unusual or unexpected, is it? The alternative to this, is that the parents live together, in a relationship or not, and spend more money on the kids because they don't have to fund 2 houses. Its not realistic and its not a solution, and also money doesn't equal happiness.

Even if the NRP does have plenty of money, that money still has to go further than it could if s/he only had one set of children in one house to pay for

if I didn't have a 3 bed house, and rented a 2 bed flat in a shithole, i'd have more money to spend on my child, whats your point?

again, money isn't the be all and end all, nor do you need to spend most of your wage on your children to ensure they're well looked after and happy. If you can comfortably afford more children, and lets remember the "second family" child will have another parent to fund it as well, why shouldn't you?

I think it essentially boils down to the fact that, if all children each have two parents to attend to and pay for them, things are going to be less tight than if two sets of children have one parent in common i.e. on aggregate, only three parents and not four to provide for two sets of children

why are you assuming things are tight at all?

Dss for example is actually better off, his mum works now whereas when she and dp were together she didn't, so actually dss has gone from having 2 parents with 1 income, to having 2 parents and a step parent with 3 incomes. He lives a better quality of life now than he ever did when they were together let me tell you. us having Ds made absolutely shite all difference to that either.

I personally would never be so invested in having additional children that I'd start a family with a man who wanted more children.

I'd also steer clear of a man with other children. I don't want a man so much that I'd take on his kids!

(there are so many other things I'd not do - go search for a husband abroad, get involved with someone with a obsessive hobby I wasn't interested in - it's just certain criteria that attract value judgements!)

I am actually the younger child of a second family, so perhaps this makes me a bit of a hypocrite! However, my half-siblings dad was an abusive shitbag who never wanted access to them, which they personally would have resisted anyway.

As far as they were concerned, my dad was their dad. They have other half siblings they don't know.

My husband's family was similar, except that his father sadly died when he was very young.