If a step parent is a SAHP...

[PurfectlyCatish]

AIBU to ask your opinion?

Another thread inspired this but I'm interested in opinions as it may possibly be my situation at some point.

If a step parent was a SAHP, would you also expect them to be so for their step children when they were due to be at that parents home? I.e. school runs, holiday care etc...

YABU - the SAHP should do the care for all the children when they stay, step or not.

YANBU - the SAHP only has responsibility for their own DC and the parents of DSC should make their own arrangements for things like school and holidays.

CrackALack
That was me with cake and eat it.
I think if a family unit has multiple children and the decision is made that one person goes to work and the other stays home, then that's a decision that is made with consideration for all children, not just the new children.

The decision to lose an income is a household decision (and a valid one before anyone starts on the hating SAHP line), but it's a decision in a household that has several children. If someone wants to be a SAHP, supported by a WOHP spouse, and only wants to focus their time on their new baby then they need to have children with someone who doesn't have existing children in my opinion.

As someone else said, we rightly say that mum's come as a package with their children. The same is true for dads.

But the problem with that is, if it results in children being differently treated and prioritised

It’s for their parents to prioritise them, step parents might recognise the need to strike that balance but the onus shouldn’t be on them to achieve it.

@LolaSmiles

CrackALack That was me with cake and eat it. I think if a family unit has multiple children and the decision is made that one person goes to work and the other stays home, then that's a decision that is made with consideration for all children, not just the new children.

The decision to lose an income is a household decision (and a valid one before anyone starts on the hating SAHP line), but it's a decision in a household that has several children. If someone wants to be a SAHP, supported by a WOHP spouse, and only wants to focus their time on their new baby then they need to have children with someone who doesn't have existing children in my opinion.

As someone else said, we rightly say that mum's come as a package with their children. The same is true for dads.

Whilst that is fine Lola, I think it's something that the children's parent has responsibility to ensure its discussed and agreed prior to the step parent becoming a SAHP.

It's not okay to agree to your partner being a SAHP for your joint younger child and then assume that also includes school runs, holiday care, club runs etc... For your older children (who have their own parents).

The responsibility of ensuring that stuff is covered is the parents. A SP helping to cover that stuff is fine but it's the parents responsibility to ask and agree it, not expect.

@FloconDeNeige

I agree that most people probably won’t have the same depth of feeling for step-children as their own children; at least not in the early stages anyway.

But the problem with that is, if it results in children being differently treated and prioritised, then it really isn’t acceptable. The children have no choice in the situation; they cannot decide that they are being unfairly treated and walk away. They are trapped and it is therefore incumbent upon the adults around them to do the best they can, even if it means some hardship and self-sacrifice on their own part. And if they don’t like this or aren’t willing, they can choose to leave and simply not get involved with someone who already has existing children in the first place.

And their parents can treat them fairly, by taking their own children to clubs. Thousands of working parents manage to take their kids to football practice without palming off the responsibility to someone else for goodness sake.

Why is the onus always on SPs to prioritise? How about parents prioritise their own children? They have two of them, they should be able to manage it between them.

Basically the step mother has the responsibility to think about her child when thinking about becoming a SAHP. If the father wants that to include his children too he needs to be clear about that and give his partner the opportunity to agree or disagree, at which point he may no longer be in support of her becoming a SAHP.

But it's not okay to agree to your partner becoming a SAHP to your joint child and then say 'oh by the way Sarah and Harry are being dropped off later, they have karate at 12, football at 2 and a friend coming over at 4, see you later 👋'

It needs to be upfront about what your expectations are because the only responsibility, unless agreed others, of the step mother imo is her own child and how their care will be organised i.e. nursery or staying home.

Otherwise*

I agree that the onus should not be placed on the step-parent, however they still have to bear some responsibility in treating the children fairly, even if it causes them some level of inconvenience.

If they are not willing to do accept this, then they really shouldn’t be in a relationship with someone who already has children. Because the children, who are helpless in the situation, end up suffering.

And it's certainly not okay to say 'well I do this that way so you must do it exactly the same too even if you don't agree it's necessary'. Going back to the posters who believe OP should continue taking the eldest to school and run around making them breakfast in bed because that's what their Dad does.... Erm no.

CrackALack
I agree the parent should have had that discussion, but why on earth anyone would have a baby and become a SAHP and assume they don't have to bother with the existing children in the household is beyond me. I'd not expect the step parent to be default parent for everything, nor do they have to do everything identical to parents, but when one parent is working to provide for all children and the spouse, not wanting to do club lifts because the kids aren't yours isn't on in my opinion.

Up thread I outlined a hypothetical situation, which seemed to annoy a couple of posters, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Hypothetical SAHP decides that they're only home for their new baby, and the step children (who were already in the household) aren't their problem. The SAHP decides they don't have to do any childcare for their step children, because it's for SC's mum and dad to sort. Do we believe for one second that the SAHP would be happy with having no holidays with their new family because their spouse has used all their annual leave covering school holidays with their children? I highly doubt it. Would the SAHP be happy having less money in the household because their spouse has spent more money on holiday clubs so the SAHP doesn't have the inconvenience of having the SC around? I doubt it.
There's a whole range of problems that arise from the view I might help with your children when it suits me, but otherwise I want the household to run around me and our new baby.

@FloconDeNeige

I agree that the onus should not be placed on the step-parent, however they still have to bear some responsibility in treating the children fairly, even if it causes them some level of inconvenience.

If they are not willing to do accept this, then they really shouldn’t be in a relationship with someone who already has children. Because the children, who are helpless in the situation, end up suffering.

They only end up suffering if their parent allows that though. I'm assuming they went to school and clubs before, often in these situations (funnily) the parents managed fine before but now suddenly it's impossible and the only way for little Johnny to get to his football practice is for his step mother to inconvenience herself and take him. Nevermind that his own mother and father managed before, now it's up to her because FAIR..

Hypothetical SAHP decides that they're only home for their new baby, and the step children (who were already in the household) aren't their problem. The SAHP decides they don't have to do any childcare for their step children, because it's for SC's mum and dad to sort. Do we believe for one second that the SAHP would be happy with having no holidays with their new family because their spouse has used all their annual leave covering school holidays with their children? I highly doubt it. Would the SAHP be happy having less money in the household because their spouse has spent more money on holiday clubs so the SAHP doesn't have the inconvenience of having the SC around? I doubt it

Surely this whole thing comes back to my point of discussing it before your partner becomes a SAHP.

'hey wife, I think if we go down this SAHM route that this will need to include my children too'

'Okay husband, what will that include in your opinion'.

'Taking them to school, holiday cover, this club or that on X day blah blah vlah'.

Wife either agrees or disagrees, husband either then agrees or disagrees that he wants to support her being a SAHM.

If he agrees he can they say well this will mean I will need AL to care for DSC.

Wife can then agree or disagree and round we go.

Again, upfront. The parent should be upfront about what they expect for the care of their children because like it or not, ultimately they are their responsibility. If they want someone else to take over that responsibility then they need to be upfront about what that will include and the other person can then agree or disagree, never assume someone else will just parent your children. That's pretty poor parenting imo.

Do we believe for one second that the SAHP would be happy with having no holidays with their new family because their spouse has used all their annual leave covering school holidays with their children

And have you ever read a SP thread? It's one of the deadly step parenting sins to ever go on holiday without your DSC anyway so in most families this wouldn't be an issue, you'd just all go together during the holidays.

@LolaSmiles

CrackALack I agree the parent should have had that discussion, but why on earth anyone would have a baby and become a SAHP and assume they don't have to bother with the existing children in the household is beyond me. I'd not expect the step parent to be default parent for everything, nor do they have to do everything identical to parents, but when one parent is working to provide for all children and the spouse, not wanting to do club lifts because the kids aren't yours isn't on in my opinion.

Up thread I outlined a hypothetical situation, which seemed to annoy a couple of posters, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Hypothetical SAHP decides that they're only home for their new baby, and the step children (who were already in the household) aren't their problem. The SAHP decides they don't have to do any childcare for their step children, because it's for SC's mum and dad to sort. Do we believe for one second that the SAHP would be happy with having no holidays with their new family because their spouse has used all their annual leave covering school holidays with their children? I highly doubt it. Would the SAHP be happy having less money in the household because their spouse has spent more money on holiday clubs so the SAHP doesn't have the inconvenience of having the SC around? I doubt it.
There's a whole range of problems that arise from the view I might help with your children when it suits me, but otherwise I want the household to run around me and our new baby.

What would happen if the dad couldn't afford to pay for the extra childcare of his older children? What if he is working longer hours to bring in an income so school runs are not a possibility? What if his ex can't do more than she already does on her days with the children? What if he can't afford to pay more CM as he has to cut back on contact as you won't have them?

Do you still expect to be a SAHM? When it obviously doesn't work? What has to give?

Obviously if any other the above isn't an issue, then I'd expect those avenues to be the first port of call, but if they are all issues, then I think it's very unreasonable for a SAHP to expect their partner to just manage and it be tough luck, they aren't my problem.

Basically the step mother has the responsibility to think about her child when thinking about becoming a SAHP.

I think she has a responsibility to think about all the existing children in the scenario. The father and his children come as a package.

Imagine if this were the other way around to your proposed situation;

The step father has the responsibility to think about his own child when considering whether to be the sole provider. If the mother wants him to provide for her children too, then she needs to be clear about that and give him the opportunity to agree or disagree.

Is this also fair? If your scenario is fair, then so is this one.

But in reality, people - men or women - who enter into relationships where there are existing children, shoulder some responsibility for making things as fair as possible for all of the children involved. Simply stating ‘they have 2 parents, they aren’t my problem’ as some on here have, just doesn’t cut it.

I do agree though that it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to take the piss, like some men undoubtedly do.

@CrackALack

Basically the step mother has the responsibility to think about her child when thinking about becoming a SAHP. If the father wants that to include his children too he needs to be clear about that and give his partner the opportunity to agree or disagree, at which point he may no longer be in support of her becoming a SAHP.

But it's not okay to agree to your partner becoming a SAHP to your joint child and then say 'oh by the way Sarah and Harry are being dropped off later, they have karate at 12, football at 2 and a friend coming over at 4, see you later 👋'

It needs to be upfront about what your expectations are because the only responsibility, unless agreed others, of the step mother imo is her own child and how their care will be organised i.e. nursery or staying home.

I agree with this. I was upfront with my partner before trying for DD that I would not want to be increasing the amount I did for DSS due to being home more so if he didn't think he could continue providing what he currently did for him without relying on that then we shouldn't do it. I accept that the step children need to be considered, but not that it's unfair to say that that consideration and any extra effort required should come from the parent. I think that is fair enough.

I do not view the situation as "I decided to be a SAHP and be supported by my DP and should expect to do more in return to make up for it". Me being at home with our joint baby and doing 99% of the housework was not an unequal contribution compared to him going out to work. We both respected that each were equally crucial. It had no bearing on arrangements for DSS which stayed as they were previously. DP and I are both self employed so things are a little different for us in that there is no AL (and I do do some work, just much less than before), but it has meant that my DP has had to work harder to ensure he does not book work in when my DSS is there even though he knows I would be home, and often has to work harder during the week to get it all done in time, as his time is more stretched now that DD exists, but he knows he can't just make up time on the weekend.

To me, all of this is an entirely appropriate consequence of his decision to have multiple children. I don't really understand why so many hold the view that in order to be "accepting" the package SPs must expect to take on half of the responsibility. I simply accept that he has a larger roster of responsibilities than me and HIS time will be affected by weighing those things up.

100% yes

My frustration comes from seeing situations where people get into relationships with someone who has a child, and then they have a baby and suddenly expect to want the household to run around them and the new baby without much consideration for existing children (eg. I want to he a SAHP so will remove my income from the household pot, I expect you to financially support me to stay home with our baby, but actually your children aren't my concern and I don't expect my time as a SAHP to have to factor your children in unless I volunteer to help).

In OP's case though, do you not feel like this is placing all the responsibility of the decision to be a SAHM at her door? As if she's insisted on doing it, demanded her DH pay for it and doesn't care about anything else as long as she gets her way.

In most cases, the decision for someone to be a SAHP is made by both parties with consideration to a lot of factors, particularly finances. We don't know the exact scenario with OP obviously, but I would expect that her DH had equal input, as most do, on her becoming a SAHP.

He has continued to manage logistics for his older children since then, which says to me that doing school runs for them or looking after them regularly during the school holidays wasn't something that was brought up at the time and not something he considered part of the agreement, otherwise OP either wouldn't be a SAHM currently, or she would already be doing these things since her child is now a toddler.

As a stepmum myself, quite honestly, I would not be a SAHM if it would have to involve doing all of this for my stepchildren. Not because I don't like them or because I don't consider them an equal part of the family, but because I would be worried about the strain it would put on our relationship. I don't want to be the person stressing my stepkids out, forcing them out of the door for school and being on their backs about homework, I am not their parent and we don't have that unconditional bond that allows parents to do these things without affecting the relationship.

CrackALack
Is it assuming someone will parent your children? Or is it that you think you're in a committed relationship with a spouse, you've brought another baby into the family, and you have a household with multiple children?

There's still assumptions if someone says they want to be a SAHP with the baby and doesn't explicitly state "and by the way I don't want to be doing any school runs, any club lifts and any holiday childcare for your children because they aren't my problem".

Both partners should communicate expectations about the family situation regarding WOHP/SAHP.

In fact, I'll go further, people who want to being new children into households with existing children should spend a LOT more time discussing how the household will work for ALL children, instead of cooing over how great a new baby will be for the new family.

But imo blended families are a disaster for 99.9% of children in them.... and people really shouldn't put their sex life and adult desire for a 'new family' ahead of the existing children. And making distinctions like "pay for me to stay at home with MY child but not YOUR child" doesn't seem like a very positive way to try and create a blended family.

What would happen if the dad couldn't afford to pay for the extra childcare of his older children? What if he is working longer hours to bring in an income so school runs are not a possibility? What if his ex can't do more than she already does on her days with the children? What if he can't afford to pay more CM as he has to cut back on contact as you won't have them?

Then you'd discuss that when considering becoming/whether your partner should become a SAHP...

If that is a problem and the step mother doesn't want to do any of it either then obviously it's not possible in that household for her to be a SAHP. But it's not her responsibility to bring that up, it's the children's fathers because they are his responsibility ultimately and their care is for him to organise. That may be asking a step parent to help of course which is fine, but it's still up to him as their parent to think about it.

I didn't expect anyone else to organise my child's nursery for me. I'm their parent, I did it. If I was asking someone else to look after them, I'd ask, not just expect because it's my responsibility to ensure they are cared for, by whoever that may be.

The step father has the responsibility to think about his own child when considering whether to be the sole provider. If the mother wants him to provide for her children too, then she needs to be clear about that and give him the opportunity to agree or disagree

Yes.. I would think that an entirely fair discussion to have before be became a SAHP... Why wouldn't it be? Even if just to ensure you're both on the same page?

Would people really just be happy to leave their children's care up to chance and assume someone else will do it without checking?

Oh and for context on my last comment, the reason I stepped away from offering to care for my DSS on my own is because he is simply really hard work in several scenarios, and his challenging behaviours have not been handled in the way I would do if he were my child, and as such the problems have been allowed to escalate. If I were to take him to school, I would have to deal with behaviour on that journey that I would never have allowed (the drive to school is actually a very common time for him to act out). But as I don't have the freedom to raise him as I want, I'm not going to be the one to deal with the consequences.

This is the bottom line. If you want you and your children to be a "package" in the sense that your partner automatically behaves like a parent and halves the responsibility for you then you MUST equally expect them to exercise their own judgment with the kids and potentially make changes to how things are done, as a parent would. Otherwise, you are the one having your cake and eating it. This reality is all the more heightened in OPs case as it sounds her partner and her views on how to parent them do not align.

Bibidy
I think the buck rests with both parents in terms of how the household is organised.

I also think if someone wants to be a SAHP and have almost exclusive focus on their baby/children then they should find someone who doesn't have children.

In the OP's situation, I'd 100% back her not having to change her plans if the the children show up on random days. That would annoy me. I also don't think she has to cut their breakfast up or whatever it is their dad does, but I do think it's fair that a SAHP in a household reflects the fact all children live there.

t your partner automatically behaves like a parent and halves the responsibility for you then you MUST equally expect them to exercise their own judgment with the kids and potentially make changes to how things are done, as a parent would.

Yes, I totally agree with that.

I’m not surprised that step mothers get a bad rap, reading some of the attitudes on this thread; particularly from funinthesun19 who sounds absolutely vile in the way she behaves towards her step children.

I don’t even have any stepchildren but thanks for the concern . I was with someone with a child once though, and yes I had my limits. People have explained to you why it’s not a case of being “vile”.

Hypothetical SAHP decides that they're only home for their new baby, and the step children (who were already in the household) aren't their problem. The SAHP decides they don't have to do any childcare for their step children, because it's for SC's mum and dad to sort. Do we believe for one second that the SAHP would be happy with having no holidays with their new family because their spouse has used all their annual leave covering school holidays with their children? I highly doubt it. Would the SAHP be happy having less money in the household because their spouse has spent more money on holiday clubs so the SAHP doesn't have the inconvenience of having the SC around? I doubt it.

But why would the situation regarding the dad's holiday allowance and spend on clubs have changed just because an SP is now at home with a baby? Just because she's now potentially available doesn't increase the amount of holiday her DH has to take to be with the older kids compared to previous years when she was also working and not able to look after them anyway.

If he's a dad that has his kids half of the school holidays then presumably they wouldn't have been taking holidays without them anyway as it wouldn't be possible. And yes, there will be less money in the household if one person doesn't work, but that would be the case with or without stepchildren so it would be unreasonable to blame them for that.

It's all down to an open discussion for me. If dad said to SM "Listen, I am happy to continue arrangements with the kids as they are currently BUT due to our income going down we won't be able to have a holiday this year as I'll need to money for holiday clubs, unless you would be willing to help out over the holidays", a lot of people would agree to having the kids a couple of days a week through the holidays, or whatever.