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.

@aSofaNearYou our circumstances sound very similar. That is exactly why I don’t (bad arguably can’t) help.

Oh I see, so you put your desire for a relationship above the needs of the kids involved and then when it turned out that you where required to give a shit about his existing child; you bailed. Thanks for clarifying.

When I had my child with DH I expected things to continue as normal for DSS. I offered some help, because I was on mat leave. But it wasn’t practical to have him more often or offer more support because of his behaviour. So I said I can’t do it anymore.

Even now, as a working parent to my own DC, I am expected to support his mother to a degree, who is a SAHP. Frankly, I get very little support myself and don’t have the resources, time or desire to unburden either of his parents and take more responsibility myself.

@LolaSmiles

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.

I absolutely agree that the buck rests with both parents, but I just don't get why you think that it's on the SP to find someone who doesn't have children if they want to be a SAHP just for their own child when (in OP's case) it seems that her DH has been totally happy with this until now.

How come it isn't on him to have made clear at the time that he would need her to help out with his older children in order to make the SAHM situation work?

He must have been able to manage all this financially and around his working hours up until now so it's not a case of him having to work long hours to earn the income they need and leaving him unable to do the school run etc.

If something major has changed in his job since they agreed on the terms for OP being a SAHM then obviously a new discussion is needed as the current situation is not tenable, but if not then I don't think OP is at fault here for not wanting to do something which may have massively influenced whether she would have agreed to be a SAHM in the first place.

And potentially whether she had children with him in the first place... I know I wouldn’t have signed up to having two dependents on the basis I now have a child.

In general yes the SAHP should facilitate the partner's work by looking after the step-children. However that doesn't absolve the partner from spending time with their children and organising activities for them. Depending on the set up these may be with or without the SAHP.

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.

Spot on. Obviously in a world primarily guided by practicality rather than principle, there are many scenarios where it might make more sense for the SP to take some things on, as the household cannot afford anything else or the SP would prefer to free up the money to use elsewhere etc etc. But the point is, it doesn't follow that on principle SP should expect to offer more childcare to make up for being "allowed" to stay at home (working just as hard as their partner just in caring for their child together), or that they are being vile and morally wrong for not assuming responsibility for their SC as if they are their own, or that it is as much their job to have thought about all these things as it is the actual parents.

I think the practical reasons for SPs to do this need to be seperated from the moral, which are not at all realistic.

@DinoHat

And potentially whether she had children with him in the first place... I know I wouldn’t have signed up to having two dependents on the basis I now have a child.

Yes exactly. I would certainly be thinking twice if I knew that having a child of my own also meant my DP would now expect to also hand over responsibility of his older two children to me.

Bibidy
If the dad doesn't have to use most of his annual leave being home with his children (whilst their step parent and half sibling are already at home) then he has more annual leave to allocate and can take a holiday with his partner and baby in addition to anything he does with his stepchildren

I'm not blaming anyone for less money. I'm stating fact that a 2 income household that spends money on holiday clubs for stepchildren has more money than a 1 income household that spends the same money on holiday clubs for step children. So there is a trade off: either the adult from the household is at home spends more time with all children, or the whole household income is lower to account for the fact that the household is one income lower and the adult at home wants some of the household's children in holiday club. I question whether the adult at home would be happy having their own finances limited to reflect the cost of holiday clubs. Based on many threads on here, I'm guessing they wouldn't.

In essence, I think adults should spend more time thinking and discussing how households will work for all children instead of prioritising having a new baby for their new relationship and new family unit. There's no one right way way do it, but countless threads on here suggests there's a lot of men and women who don't have these discussions before deciding to have another kid.

Interesting how we’re quick to reduce the contribution of a SAHP on the basis there are existing kids - like it’s easy and there is just capacity available to manage more children but ordinarily women would like the role of child bearing/parenting to be better acknowledged as being hard work, which is equal, or actually greater in effort and adds more value than paid work.

I would resent any other family member unloading their children onto me, just because I’m a home and a presumption being made that I have the time, energy and inclination to look after them in addition to my own children (after all they have their own parents) but as a step mother I should actually not only expect it but volunteer it to alleviate their parents of the logistics and strain of child rearing

If the dad doesn't have to use most of his annual leave being home with his children (whilst their step parent and half sibling are already at home) then he has more annual leave to allocate and can take a holiday with his partner and baby in addition to anything he does with his stepchildren

Surely dad is the very person who should be able to care for all his children all at once. Why would the step parent be more capable of looking after all the kids but not the dad - who would otherwise take annual leave separately?

Dad is the person who should be compelled to look after all his kids at once, not the step mother. How backwards?

DinoHat
I wouldn't want family members offloading their children onto me, but then I also wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who has existing children, especially older ones. I've seen enough conflict situations and enough threads on here to see It's regularly a nightmare.
It's fairly simple, if someone doesn't want to factor in other children in a household, don't settle down with someone who has children.

I don't think OP is at fault here for not wanting to do something which may have massively influenced whether she would have agreed to be a SAHM in the first place.

The thing is, these children exist and barring tragedy, always will. That was known when the OP entered into a relationship with their father. Circumstances, jobs etc. can and do change, but the children will always be there.

Thus, they always need to be factored into the OP’s decision-making. It isn’t reasonable to say ‘if I’d known I might have to look after the step DS sometimes and not just concentrate on my own child, I wouldn’t have chosen to be a SAHM’.

What if their biological mother died?

Oh I see, so you put your desire for a relationship above the needs of the kids involved and then when it turned out that you where required to give a shit about his existing child; you bailed. Thanks for clarifying.

I “bailed” the relationship I was in for some very good reasons which had nothing to do with stepchildren, and any other woman with any self respect would have done the same.

HTH.

@LolaSmiles

Bibidy If the dad doesn't have to use most of his annual leave being home with his children (whilst their step parent and half sibling are already at home) then he has more annual leave to allocate and can take a holiday with his partner and baby in addition to anything he does with his stepchildren

I'm not blaming anyone for less money. I'm stating fact that a 2 income household that spends money on holiday clubs for stepchildren has more money than a 1 income household that spends the same money on holiday clubs for step children. So there is a trade off: either the adult from the household is at home spends more time with all children, or the whole household income is lower to account for the fact that the household is one income lower and the adult at home wants some of the household's children in holiday club. I question whether the adult at home would be happy having their own finances limited to reflect the cost of holiday clubs. Based on many threads on here, I'm guessing they wouldn't.

In essence, I think adults should spend more time thinking and discussing how households will work for all children instead of prioritising having a new baby for their new relationship and new family unit. There's no one right way way do it, but countless threads on here suggests there's a lot of men and women who don't have these discussions before deciding to have another kid.

I do understand what you're saying about the holiday - that OP has the ability to save him using up his holiday now - but my point is that, even if she doesn't, the dad wouldn't be using any more or less holiday than he usually would to have his kids, so his situation there remains the same. Regardless of whether OP is working, not working, has a child or not. He's not losing anything, just not gaining.

I would say re the holiday clubs, if a SP isn't happy to provide regular childcare for their SCs during the holidays then they likely will understand that the trade-off is spend on holiday clubs, which impacts their finances too. They can't have it both ways and I think most understand this. I know I would.

The only way I would consider an SP to be unfair in this scenario is if the dad had had a major change in his job/income which made the situation impossible without either assistance from the SP OR her going back to work. If she refused to do either, I would say she was out of order.

Surely dad is the very person who should be able to care for all his children all at once. Why would the step parent be more capable of looking after all the kids but not the dad - who would otherwise take annual leave separately?

Dad is the person who should be compelled to look after all his kids at once, not the step mother. How backwards?
What are you on about? Who mentioned capability
I'm talking about how he can maximise his annual leave and have some time exclusively with his partner and child.
If his leave isn't used to be a second adult in the household through the holidays then he can use some of his leave to have a separate holiday with his partner and new child in addition to anything that includes the step children.

Bibidy
I agree with you. There is going to be a trade off in that situation and it has to be accepted.
I think we're mainly on the same page.

@FloconDeNeige

I don't think OP is at fault here for not wanting to do something which may have massively influenced whether she would have agreed to be a SAHM in the first place.

The thing is, these children exist and barring tragedy, always will. That was known when the OP entered into a relationship with their father. Circumstances, jobs etc. can and do change, but the children will always be there.

Thus, they always need to be factored into the OP’s decision-making. It isn’t reasonable to say ‘if I’d known I might have to look after the step DS sometimes and not just concentrate on my own child, I wouldn’t have chosen to be a SAHM’.

What if their biological mother died?

It absolutely is 100% reasonable for her to say this. If their biological mother died, the step parent wouldn't become their adoptive parent, it would be on their dad. Knowing the children exist and knowing you will be considered responsible for looking after them are not the same thing.

@LolaSmiles

Surely dad is the very person who should be able to care for all his children all at once. Why would the step parent be more capable of looking after all the kids but not the dad - who would otherwise take annual leave separately?

Dad is the person who should be compelled to look after all his kids at once, not the step mother. How backwards?
What are you on about? Who mentioned capability
I'm talking about how he can maximise his annual leave and have some time exclusively with his partner and child.
If his leave isn't used to be a second adult in the household through the holidays then he can use some of his leave to have a separate holiday with his partner and new child in addition to anything that includes the step children.

So the SM should have all the children so the father is sometimes able to exclude them and that helps the SM how?

@FloconDeNeige

I don't think OP is at fault here for not wanting to do something which may have massively influenced whether she would have agreed to be a SAHM in the first place.

The thing is, these children exist and barring tragedy, always will. That was known when the OP entered into a relationship with their father. Circumstances, jobs etc. can and do change, but the children will always be there.

Thus, they always need to be factored into the OP’s decision-making. It isn’t reasonable to say ‘if I’d known I might have to look after the step DS sometimes and not just concentrate on my own child, I wouldn’t have chosen to be a SAHM’.

What if their biological mother died?

But obviously most people don't go around making decisions on the basis that their partner's ex might die? Obviously that is an absolute worst case scenario and would change absolutely everything.

I have 2 SCs, they would not factor into my decision to be SAHM unless my DP specifically brought them into it - for example if he said that we could manage with me as a SAHM but only if I do all of his drop-offs and pick-ups as he'll need to increase his hours at work.

Otherwise, I would not consider that just because I would now be at home looking after our child that I would have to pick up lots of extra things with my stepchildren that my DP currently manages alongside work. I'd expect him to continue as he does now, unless he has specifically said otherwise.

When you have SCs, obviously there are always times when you are doing things for them/paying for them/looking after them and that's something you accept when you get into a serious relationship with someone with children. But I think that's different to looking after them as much or more regularly (as would be the case with OP and her DH) as their own parents.

@FloconDeNeige

I don't think OP is at fault here for not wanting to do something which may have massively influenced whether she would have agreed to be a SAHM in the first place.

The thing is, these children exist and barring tragedy, always will. That was known when the OP entered into a relationship with their father. Circumstances, jobs etc. can and do change, but the children will always be there.

Thus, they always need to be factored into the OP’s decision-making. It isn’t reasonable to say ‘if I’d known I might have to look after the step DS sometimes and not just concentrate on my own child, I wouldn’t have chosen to be a SAHM’.

What if their biological mother died?

I don't get this argument... Unless there is a drip feed, their mother isn't dead so it's completely irrelevant what would happen if she were

And yes someone is perfectly entitled to say that they do not want to be a SAHP if that also includes doing everything for their DSC too obviously, why wouldn't they be allowed to say that? Having two school aged children with your one toddler changes the dynamic completely.

Just as the working parent is equally allowed to say that they don't support them becoming a SAHP if it doesn't include DSC.

LolaSmiles

I think a lot of your argument is based around the assumption that the working dad will have to increase his hours in order to facilitate his wife being a SAHP. This may be true in some cases but won't be in all. When it isn't, why is there any need for him to expect childcare where he didn't before?

If given the option of looking after DSS during the holidays so we could afford to all go on a holiday, or not, I would just forego the holiday. We don't have one every year and it's not an expectation of mine. Equally, I obviously wouldn't complain about DP spending family money to put him in some form of childcare when I wasn't happy to watch him and DP had to be at work. Naturally something has to give but I think your experience of "new families" as you put it is colouring your judgment that by and large SP wouldn't accept this. I'm fully aware that my SC exists and that he must be considered and responsibility to him will not be shirked. It just primarily falls to my DP to do so, and if really needed for our household to stay afloat, I would help out a bit. SPs will have to consider what their priorities are money wise where the existence if SC will affect what can and can't be earned and this could be changed by them doing more childcare, but they do have the freedom to make that decision.

It absolutely isn’t. If the bio mother died in this scenario, then the step children would come to permanently reside with their father and step-mother. If the step-mother is a SAHM, then it would be entirely reasonable that her responsibility for helping care for them would increase.

Unless you think they should be placed into care part-time, so as not to inconvenience the step-mother?

When you enter into a serious relationship where there are existing children, then you have to factor in the possibility that your responsibility towards them could increase at some point. Like if their biological parent dies, for example. If you are not willing to accept this then you simply have no business getting involved with people who already have children, and even less in pro-creating with them.