To think 3 children sharing will have to do for now

[GrubBug]

2DSC, 1 DC between us.

2DSC are 9&11, DC is nearing 3. All same sex.

We were hoping to be able to move before the need came but unfortunately that hasn't happened due to a few reasons and now Covid too on top putting some strain on finances.

So far, DC has been in our room. I no longer think this is viable.

DSC have second bedroom which is still a big double. It's enough room for their current arrangement which is two separate beds, floor space, dressers, TV, and seating (two pouffe).

My plan is to have one side with bunk beds for DSC and the other side with a toddler bunk (low down and space underneath for toys etc...). Also means there's no need to get rid of any of the other stuff in there so set up would be the same, only difference being bunks rather than separate.

DH is hesitating because DSC don't want bunk beds and don't want to share room.

I know it's not ideal but our child needs their own space now. We are likely not going to be able to move now for another 2-3 years.

AIBU to say it will have to do for now and put my foot down?

It's not fair imo to have a resident child in with us, having no space for their things just to avoid DSC having bunk beds for a couple of years.

DSC are good kids. They aren't kicking up a huge fuss just have made it known they don't like the idea. But I believe if explained to them properly why this is the case that they will get over it and be fine.

Not to mention all the posts telling step parents "they're not YOUR children, they're not YOUR problem, leave it with your partner' even if the OP has made it manifestly clear the partner is bloody useless and isn't doing what's needed for his/her own kids for whatever reason. As if by setting up home with someone who has kids you haven't taken ANY responsibility for those kids. I think that is an utterly unconscionable attitude.

But most of these threads/posts are dealing with situations where the dad has completely abdicated responsibility for his kids to his partner and is using her as an unpaid nanny/housekeeper. Most step-mums (and it's usually the step-mum) aren't complaining about occasionally cooking for or doing childcare for their step-kids or taking them on days out without their dad there every now and again. It's about getting the dad to step up, spend time with his kids and take responsibility. Just because you move in with a man with children doesn't mean you need to become the uncomplaining skivvy for everyone in the house.

Though I admit to being puzzled about why women stay with men with kids from prior relationships who show themselves to be utterly useless parents (and sometimes even have more children with them) .

I don't think in most situations, a step parent should be doing the majority of parenting. That isn't because of 'they aren't my kids, aren't my problem', but because I think it's important that a child's parent, parents them and doesn't fob that responsibility off on another person like we see time and time again on here.

It can also lead to resentment and I just don't think it's a healthy set up personally. I see my role as helping DH to raise his kids. But helping not doing it for him. I also think it's important for the children to see their dad taking an active role in their care when they are with us, not feeling like they are passed off to me all the time.

So yes I agree that you don't have absolutely 0 responsibility toward children in step situation, I don't think the majority of the threads you're referencing are about that. You shouldn't be taking on more responsibility than the actual parent though imo which is often what is happening on these threads.

Not to mention all the posts telling step parents "they're not YOUR children, they're not YOUR problem, leave it with your partner' even if the OP has made it manifestly clear the partner is bloody useless and isn't doing what's needed for his/her own kids for whatever reason. As if by setting up home with someone who has kids you haven't taken ANY responsibility for those kids. I think that is an utterly unconscionable attitude.

Ok, it's becoming clear now that there will be no reasoning with you.

The above is ridiculous. Step parents are not responsible for their step children. People pointing this out when talking to the step parents is not showing a lack of compassion for the step children, if they were speaking directly to them or to their parents then the advice would be very different and focused on them, but it is still objectively true that it isn't the step parents responsibility to deal with it. What you've written above is pure, guilt tripping nonsense.

As to your other comment about MN being filled with step parents who trash talk their step children (who are obviously always angels so no criticism of their behaviour could ever be valid) and try to convince their partners to push out the children and stop paying maintenance once they have their own children.... this is just not common at all on here. And if it ever DOES happen, there is absolutely no way the comments would display a lack of sympathy for the step children. The posters would be absolutely slaughtered.

It won't take her long to pick up on the fact that she is being denied something most children have.

Or looking at it differently, she is being privileged with something most children are denied - closeness to their parents in the night. It really is a very odd aspect of Western culture that is so convinced everyone is better off with children sleeping alone. After all in general, adults don't want to when they find someone they like and trust enough to live with - they usually want to sleep beside them too.

I'd still be co-sleeping with my daughter if my partner hadn't put his foot down; would certainly save me having to go and give her a cuddle in her own room at least once a night because she's lonely!

And the point is, this is a situation the ADULTS have engineered by their decision to have another child before they had room for it. It's not something that 'just happened'. And if child goes in with their sisters, she still won't have HER room decorated to HER liking etc - it'll be a corner of a room already full of her sisters' things and decorated to their tastes.

I think the idea of partitioning the room is a good one, and it sounds like that's what the OP is exploring.

Not to mention the adult angle. My daughter "benefits" from not sharing with me because she is developing independence from me. I do not want to cosleep, it is not how I wish to parent. That is a valid decision.

Also research shows no correlation between extended co-sleeping and lack of independence in later childhood. The opposite in fact.

*For me, those threads are more about not letting the parent off parenting.

I'd like to think most, even the seemingly useless ones we hear about on here, would not leave their children hungry if their step parent stopped cooking their meals for example. But 9 times out of 10 on these threads they don't do it precisely because they know the step parent (usually step mum), will do it for them.

It's about forcing their parent to step up for me, rather than washing your hands of the kids because they aren't yours.

Hope that makes sense!*

Which is all well and good and logical, except how it reads to the kids is "your father/mother and I are having a battle of wills over who has to feed you because neither of us wants to be bothered."

The adult rights and wrongs of it mean very little to the children involved.

I saw one recently with a stepmum of two kids and one baby of her own who wanted to go on family days out but her DH wasn't interested; so her solution was she'd go on days out with her own baby and leave the SC to be neglected by their dad. And this was widely applauded. I suppose there is a sort of morality to it, but I just thought - those poor bloody kids.

It won't take her long to pick up on the fact that she is being denied something most children have.

I don't think it's upsetting for OP's daughter not to have her own room at this stage, but equally can't think of another situation where an adult couple would choose to share a room with a child older than toddler-age when there is the option of a shared room with other children, particularly one that sits empty the majority of the time.

*But most of these threads/posts are dealing with situations where the dad has completely abdicated responsibility for his kids to his partner and is using her as an unpaid nanny/housekeeper. Most step-mums (and it's usually the step-mum) aren't complaining about occasionally cooking for or doing childcare for their step-kids or taking them on days out without their dad there every now and again. It's about getting the dad to step up, spend time with his kids and take responsibility. Just because you move in with a man with children doesn't mean you need to become the uncomplaining skivvy for everyone in the house.

Though I admit to being puzzled about why women stay with men with kids from prior relationships who show themselves to be utterly useless parents (and sometimes even have more children with them) confused.*

Well this is what I think on those threads, and it doesn't paint the stepparent in a very good light. "My partner neglects his kids, so I'll neglect them too to teach him a lesson but I still think aside form that he's a good enough partner" - as if being a shit parent shouldn't automatically put him on the relationship blacklist.

@VeniceQueen2004

*For me, those threads are more about not letting the parent off parenting.

I'd like to think most, even the seemingly useless ones we hear about on here, would not leave their children hungry if their step parent stopped cooking their meals for example. But 9 times out of 10 on these threads they don't do it precisely because they know the step parent (usually step mum), will do it for them.

It's about forcing their parent to step up for me, rather than washing your hands of the kids because they aren't yours.

Hope that makes sense!*

Which is all well and good and logical, except how it reads to the kids is "your father/mother and I are having a battle of wills over who has to feed you because neither of us wants to be bothered."

The adult rights and wrongs of it mean very little to the children involved.

Well I'm certainly not suggesting anyone say to a child 'you're not MY child so not my problem'.

But posters aren't wrong to suggest that this should be discussed with the child's parent and they should be told that they need to step up more for their children rather than expecting their partner to do it all.

I don't think anyone thinks this conversation should involve the actual children! But two adults in a relationship where one is feeling taken advantage of, talking about this shouldn't be a problem.

And imo, it really is the right thing that the child's parent is encouraged to actually parent them when they are in their home.

@GrubBug

*It can also lead to resentment and I just don't think it's a healthy set up personally. I see my role as helping DH to raise his kids. But helping not doing it for him. I also think it's important for the children to see their dad taking an active role in their care when they are with us, not feeling like they are passed off to me all the time.

So yes I agree that you don't have absolutely 0 responsibility toward children in step situation, I don't think the majority of the threads you're referencing are about that. You shouldn't be taking on more responsibility than the actual parent though imo which is often what is happening on these threads.*

But surely in this situation, the advice shouldn't be 'step back from the SC", but rather "leave your partner because they are manifestly a shit human being"? Why would anyone want to be in a relationship with someone who had to be made to step up and parent their children??

@VeniceQueen2004

I saw one recently with a stepmum of two kids and one baby of her own who wanted to go on family days out but her DH wasn't interested; so her solution was she'd go on days out with her own baby and leave the SC to be neglected by their dad. And this was widely applauded. I suppose there is a sort of morality to it, but I just thought - those poor bloody kids.

I saw that thread. I do think there is room for a middle ground though because after all, the DSC are not there to spend all day with their step mum. They are there to see their father. It's unfortunate obviously that he chooses not to do anything fun with that time but I don't think the answer is as simple as 'well SM should then be responsible every time'.

That needs a serious conversation between the two adults to come to a solution.

A child's parent shouldn't need to be 'encouraged' by their partner to parent them. That makes them a bad parent, which makes them a bad person, which makes them a bad partner, surely?

I just feel there is no sympathy for the children of divorce, especially on MN

They get more sympathy than anyone!

Second children are expected to put up and shut up and the argument is always trotted out, “Well their parents are still together”. Why can’t child of divorced parents be expected to put up and shut once in a while too?

@VeniceQueen2004

A child's parent shouldn't need to be 'encouraged' by their partner to parent them. That makes them a bad parent, which makes them a bad person, which makes them a bad partner, surely?

And people are regularly encouraged to leave on these threads. But that wasn't your initial point.

You were suggesting that it is a step parents responsibility and posters who say 'not your child, not your problem' are wrong.

Anyway this is a big derail.

Second children are expected to put up and shut up and the argument is always trotted out, “Well their parents are still together”. Why can’t child of divorced parents be expected to put up and shut once in a while too?

Why does anyone have to 'put up and shut up'? What is the benefit of family life being so adversarial?

You were suggesting that it is a step parents responsibility and posters who say 'not your child, not your problem' are wrong.

I think by marrying/settling down with a partner who has children, you take parental responsibility for those children. I am aware this is a highly unpopular view, especially with step-parents; but I just don't see why, in a world with millions of people in it, if it was that important to you not to get parentally involved with someone else's kids why you wouldn't just find someone who didn't have them. You know they have them, you know they are going to be in your life, if you are a decent person you want your presence in their life to be as positive as possible, not to try and wash your hands of it as much as possible.

This is very different if they are older teens/adults; but young kids need looking after. It's less important to me who actually cooks the fish-fingers or takes them to the zoo or whatever than that they don't feel like they're being passed like a parcel between people trying to do the least possible, whether those people be parents or stepparents.

Why does anyone have to 'put up and shut up'? What is the benefit of family life being so adversarial?
Well, its you that seems to have a bee in your bonnet about a small child sharing a room with their siblings rather than their parents? 🤔

I think by marrying/settling down with a partner who has children, you take parental responsibility for those children.
Except that legally, morally, financially, emotionally, biologically and practically you don’t do any such thingZ

Lazy parents will always try to offload their responsibilities onto someone else given half a chance. It doesn't mean that they can't step up in the absence of a willing victim.

Well, its you that seems to have a bee in your bonnet about a small child sharing a room with their siblings rather than their parents?

AS I'VE SAID, I don't think the OP's case is an example of people getting it wrong (although I do think it would have been wiser to have the house move before the baby, but hey I'm having a baby in the middle of Covid and a work restructure so I get that sometimes life happens). I was responding more to all the people acting like there couldn't possibly be a problem with this and raising that step children might be protective of their space in a home they are only in part of the time as having space that is temporary or shared can make them feel more like visitors than family members. And that having divorced parents, step-parents, half-siblings and living between homes week by week is inherently challenging, which is of course why very few adults choose to do it. I was presenting that perspective.

Other people have picked this conversation up and run with it, I have responded, that's the nature of threads on MN - they very rarely stick exclusively to the question asked and to the track the OP suggests, they wander. Otherwise all you'd need would be the vote button.

Well, its you that seems to have a bee in your bonnet about a small child sharing a room with their siblings rather than their parents?

Although having said all that I really don't think a 3yo gives a monkeys about sleeping with their parents. Most of them prefer it if given the option.

Except that legally, morally, financially, emotionally, biologically and practically you don’t do any such thingZ

I think that you can argue all those things except the morally. Morailty being inherently subjective. And it's the morally I'm talking about

Lazy parents will always try to offload their responsibilities onto someone else given half a chance. It doesn't mean that they can't step up in the absence of a willing victim.

But can you honestly tell me you wouldn't be repulsed by a partner who behaved that way to their kids and to you? Why would anyone choose to knit their lot to a lazy parent?