To be annoyed that we have to have SC

[miltonkeeyno]

Every week dp has his dd for a few hours in the week (as well as every weekend) she is currently off school self isolating as someone in her class was positive. Her mum doesn't have to isolate unless she shows signs.
Tomorrow we are due to have her over but i assumed because she was self isolating we weren't. DP rang her mum to ask and she said she is working so we are.

Is it all fine and nothing to worry about?

Or are we getting screwed over because she has to work?

Maybe i dont understand the rules and its ok but seems to me like self isolating means.... to self isolate...

He may be her Dad but he is also a separate household and in terms of transmission which is what isolation is meant to prevent, the DD absolutely should isolate from a separate household to the one she was in at the time. The fact it's her Dad's household is sadly irrelevant.

@Magnificentmug12

Screwed over! That’s her dad. She doesn’t have to isolate from him!

Why don’t he go and stay with his ex for a week so the child stays in one house, I imagine you don’t prefer that though?

So thay both parents can potentially catch covid and be put on ventilators and the poor child will have to live with that forever?

If anything being able to isolate from one of her parents is a bonus for the child in terms of keeping her family alive.

I’m surprised that the household of someone who has close contact with a covid case doesn’t have to self isolate.

Where I am the household of someone who is a close Contact also has to self isolate for 14 days and the exposed child has to have negative tests on day 12 of self isolation.

I don't have negative connotations. You have no idea what my situation is. I might be a step mum for all you know. It wasn't at all clear that the 'screwed over' referred to Covid risk which, for the vast majority is very low, and if they already have school age children in the house, is already present. Had the op worded it differently and not added 'so the mum can work' as if she's massively taking the piss by doing so, the responses would be different.

my understanding was that separated parents are treated as one household for the purposes of isolation and covid.

There is quite a lot of hysteria on this thread - the risk of anyone getting covid from a child who has possibly been exposed to it at school is quite low. And I assuming the risk to any of the adults here even if they get it is pretty low too.

The meanness from the OP is also awful - I hope she is ashamed.

If the risk is low @ThatPoster then why is anyone isolating at all?

@HugeAckmansWife

I don't have negative connotations. You have no idea what my situation is. I might be a step mum for all you know. It wasn't at all clear that the 'screwed over' referred to Covid risk which, for the vast majority is very low, and if they already have school age children in the house, is already present. Had the op worded it differently and not added 'so the mum can work' as if she's massively taking the piss by doing so, the responses would be different.

If you say so. It's very obvious that you are biased if you would throw in a load of ludicrous comments about how OP should be offering to home school their kids (which you still haven't addressed) and it is also ridiculous to take such offence to OP saying "screwed over because she has to work". Screwed over was in relation to the Covid rules (yes it WAS clear because it was the whole subject of the thread) which as this thread attests many take to mean you should not move households if you have been told to isolate, and "because she has to work" is just an accurate description of the situation.

If you are not biased, then you are certainly very, very quick to jump to negative conclusions, and have strange attitudes about home schooling.

@PrattATatt

I don't get what was so confusing about OPs use of screwed over. It seemed perfectly clear to me that she was talking about the potential to be infected with Covid.

Perfectly clear to me too.

Or are we getting screwed over because she has to work?

Eugh, what a misogynistic take. No, he’s not getting “screwed over” because she has to work, he’s having to parent HIS children because HE DECIDED to have children and they are just as much his responsibility as they are hers. Is he screwing her over every time he goes to work, or is it different for men?

@ThatPoster
Your understanding is incorrect...PP have put the gov advice on here.
2 households are just that....it includes separated parents.
Self isolating means children STAY inside to stop the spread.

@PandaFluff

If the risk is low *@ThatPoster* then why is anyone isolating at all?

Oh don't be so disingenuous.

But for the sake of clarity we all know that the real risk of covid is to vulnerable people (the vast majority of deaths are in very old people), and the risk to society is that the NHS can't cope with an influx. For most of us the risk of catching it now is very low, and the risk of being very ill from it is miniscule.

a child is allowed and even encouraged to pass between its two parents because the risk to the child and the parents is teeny and the benefits far outweigh the risks (the benefits to the parents, to the child and to each parent in being able to balance work etc). Here the mother will bear all the financial downsides from having to look after the child which isn't fair given the child has two parents.

But if the isolation period starts on Dads day then he has to bear the financial burden and sort it out.
It's simply the way it is 🤷‍♀️

@PrattATatt

I don't get what was so confusing about OPs use of screwed over. It seemed perfectly clear to me that she was talking about the potential to be infected with Covid.

Yep. But don't forget, these people aren't looking to find offence at all!!

The child is not encouraged to move between houses when they are isolating though.

a child is allowed and even encouraged to pass between its two parents because the risk to the child and the parents is teeny and the benefits far outweigh the risks

Not in our case. SCs stayed away due to my high risk pregnancy when they needed to isolate.

For crying out loud.. This isn't about automatic step parent bias. It's about both PARENTS taking an equal share of parenting. My comment re homeschooling was for the OPs partner / husband not her. Why should he not step up and bear 50% of the inconvenience, hassle etc? Great post from someone just upthread about the OTT reaction regarding the risk from Covid anyway, if the household is otherwise healthy. To the pp who said the dad would have to bear the load if it had happened in his watch, yes he would, or could, but he only does a tiny fraction anyway so it would be a nice change sure, whereas for the RP it's more of the same load-carrying.

@HugeAckmansWife

For crying out loud.. This isn't about automatic step parent bias. It's about both PARENTS taking an equal share of parenting. My comment re homeschooling was for the OPs partner / husband not her. Why should he not step up and bear 50% of the inconvenience, hassle etc? Great post from someone just upthread about the OTT reaction regarding the risk from Covid anyway, if the household is otherwise healthy. To the pp who said the dad would have to bear the load if it had happened in his watch, yes he would, or could, but he only does a tiny fraction anyway so it would be a nice change sure, whereas for the RP it's more of the same load-carrying.

Well you said are YOU going to pay for them, are YOU offering to homeschool, so it's hardly surprising it didn't come across like you were talking about OPs partner. They are separate people.

Yes, one might be of the opinion that the Covid risk is very low and not worth worrying about. But it is still the case that there are differing opinions on this, and on whether you should move to a different household when you are isolating, and there have been (albeit vague) rules about this. It is a very one sided leap of logic to call someone deeply unpleasant for questioning that rule. Many in the same position are doing the same. If you actually read OPs post with a level head you would see it is not filled with the malice she is being accused of, at all, and going on with the logic that it is appears ridiculous.

Honestly, as I have said repeatedly, it's the 'screwed over' comment that prompted the 'deeply unpleasant' response. The op could have phrased it entirely differently and got much more measured responses.

The "screwed over" statement is really sad to hear as well as the "have to have" in the title of the OP. Is the mum not "screwed over" for "having to have" her DC isolate with her or just you and the child's father.

I really hope your SC doesn't realise what a chore they are to have around for you. You don't need to like them around, but hopefully you don't let on that you don't in front of them.

@HugeAckmansWife

Honestly, as I have said repeatedly, it's the 'screwed over' comment that prompted the 'deeply unpleasant' response. The op could have phrased it entirely differently and got much more measured responses.

Would she? Because as previously mentioned, to anyone not inclined to hit the roof about semantics to do with SC, it was quite clear that this was an innocuous turn of phrase, and more than likely a throwaway comment intended to mean "put at risk against what I believe to be the rules". It's really not adding up to an impression that OP would have received measured responses whatever language she used.

Well I can't speak for all posters but I would have responded differently had she simply asked 'should regular contact visits sill happen.' which was all needed saying really. Posters can only react to what is there, not what is meant, implied or later clarified, at which point responses may change.

@HugeAckmansWife

Well I can't speak for all posters but I would have responded differently had she simply asked 'should regular contact visits sill happen.' which was all needed saying really. Posters can only react to what is there, not what is meant, implied or later clarified, at which point responses may change.

Yes, and posters can only massively overstate what qualifies as "deeply unpleasant", apparently.

OK I'm done. You keep on about an anti step parent agenda when I've stated clearly I don't have one. you clearly have just as much of an agenda yourself, to defend an ill thought out op, so we can't really make any further progress.

@HugeAckmansWife

OK I'm done. You keep on about an anti step parent agenda when I've stated clearly I don't have one. you clearly have just as much of an agenda yourself, to defend an ill thought out op, so we can't really make any further progress.

I didn't say anything about an anti step parent agenda, I am talking about very evident unconscious bias. I don't have an agenda, I read OPs post like I would any other post, including those by parents rather than step parents, and didn't see any need to overreact or cite deep unpleasantness due to the term "screwed over". It's simply not that offensive.