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.

@FloconDeNeige

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.

Yeah.... But she's not dead... So what is your point?

My involvement with my DSCs may change of their mother died, but she's not dead so I don't act as if she were.

@DinoHat

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

Well said, btw. At least the usual suspects aren't here to impress upon us how ashamed we should be for scrounging off our partners without taking every opportunity to "prove our gratitude" to them 🙄

@FloconDeNeige

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.

I just feel like this logic is mad though...you may as well consider that your own DH might die unexpectedly so you better not be a SAHM just in case. Or you better not get a mortgage together in case one of you dies and the other can't pay it anymore.

Surely most people only consider any death when there is an actual real possibility it might occur within the next few years, through more than just total chance? Of course SCs would live with me and my DH if something happened to their mother, but neither of us base our life decisions on that highly unlikely (touch wood!!) scenario.

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.

Yes but outside of their other parent dying or becoming seriously ill, or something else unfortunate befalling your family - like your partner losing his job and taking a lower paid one which means you either have to do childcare or give up being a SAHM - then it's actually really unlikely that a SP would be required to take on regular care of her stepchildren pretty much against her will.

I don't see how it would factor into someone's decision about being a SAHM when the other parent is alive and well?? Fair enough if that parent was already dead and the kids were living with her already, but not outside of that.

We can’t plan for our own kids deaths - we’d be dead, why are we responsible planning for our step children’s, parents, deaths?

Sorry our own deaths and leaving our own children without a mother...

@FloconDeNeige

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.

You absolutely do not have to accept being a full SAHP to your SC in the unlikely event of their bio parent dying. If DSSs mum died (when DSS was not yet at school which has already happened so a small window in which that could happen) then I would expect either DP to become to SAHP, or we would split up. I wouldn't be willing to do that but it's so unlikely I do not need to base my life decisions on it happening.

Hard one but inclined to say yes it becomes part of the sahp stuff

Circumstances change, children are a constant. If you can’t or won’t deal with the consequences of changing circumstances, then don’t get involved with people who have children. Unless the bio parents are taking the absolute piss, then this is a risk you run when your partner has kids already.

@FloconDeNeige

Circumstances change, children are a constant. If you can’t or won’t deal with the consequences of changing circumstances, then don’t get involved with people who have children. Unless the bio parents are taking the absolute piss, then this is a risk you run when your partner has kids already.

Well quite honestly I would consider OP's DH to definitely be taking the piss in this specific case.

There doesn't seem to be a reason why he needs to change the status quo when it comes to the management of logistics for his kids, just that he has now realised OP is home and as such he can have it a bit easier if he can palm a lot of his responsibilities off on her.

Unless his job has changed so that he can actually, genuinely no longer accommodate school runs as often, then I do think he is taking the piss. And even then I'd say it would be a conversation to have with their mother first, before asking OP to get involved.

@PurfectlyCatish

This isn't my situation yet. But it's a conversation that me and DH are going to need to have soon so I'm just not sure what is / isn't reasonable of me to suggest I do.

There are a few things which I don't agree with and which I wouldn't want to do myself if I were to take on DSC too whilst being a SAHM. For example, I think they are babied quite a lot with things like DH will get up and make their breakfast for them in the mornings, they have never once made their own breakfast, even eldest who's in secondary school. He will run around in the morning whilst they sit about doing this. I would not be doing that.

Ditto taking the eldest to the gate. Imo they are old enough and mature enough to get the bus as lots of other children going to that school do but DH and ex take them.

H often has a lot of extra time during the holidays which is fine and has a generally relaxed attitude toward contact i.e. will agree to have DSC whenever asked and at the drop of a hat which is absolutely fine, but I don't want the expectation to be that I will be available whenever he decides. I would like to be able to plan outings with DC in mind and not have to swap and change things all the time etc...

So basically I don't mind helping. But I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable taking on everything to do with DSC and certainly not the way it is now.

Yanbu with this however

Esp the flexible care

No I wouldn't 'expect it' however if I was the sahp and it didn't cause massive issues like taking to different schools, impacting on their dc then I'd look to 'help' but it would be 'help' rather than it be expected.

For me it would be if I felt appreciated and not have the piss taken out of me.

I just feel like this logic is mad though...you may as well consider that your own DH might die unexpectedly so you better not be a SAHM just in case. Or you better not get a mortgage together in case one of you dies and the other can't pay it anymore

Exactly. Theres a whole lot of stuff I wouldn't do if I had to constantly factor in the fact that someone might die.

Maybe I shouldn't have had kids at all you know in case me and DH die in a plane crash and leave them orphaned.

No one bases their life decisions around the fact people may die, I don't know why it's always brought up on SPing threads as if they do.

If you can’t or won’t deal with the consequences of changing circumstances, then don’t get involved with people who have children. Unless the bio parents are taking the absolute piss, then this is a risk you run when your partner has kids already

But I'd say a parenting dying and a step parent becoming a SAHM when their DSCs two parents are still alive and well are totally different scenarios. Typically I imagine, becoming a SAHP is discussed and agreed, the logistics are worked out between the SAH and WOH parents, and expectations are talked about. It's not a situation that is forced onto you and completely out of your hands like their mother dying would be.

But unfortunate situations befall families all the time. People get sick, people lose their jobs, and (fortunately less frequently, people die). You absolutely should factor these possibilities into your decision-making when getting involved with someone who has dependent children.

And yes, one of the exact reasons I choose not to be a SAHM, is because my DH could lose his job, get ill, or die.

And we’re talking about major upheavals here, but relatively minor changes in circumstances, as per the OP, should absolutely be taken into account, as there’s a fairly high likelihood of occurrence.

If for e.g. the DH had to move office location with the effect that some days he couldn’t pick his DC, it would be reasonable to expect the SAH step M to do it, not for her to say ‘oh well if I’d had known I’d have to do this, I wouldn’t have signed up for it’. She should know that such a possibility may exist by the fact that the children exist.

You must take care of your step kids.
Why?
Well incase their mum dies.

Thanks MN clearer that up.

But unfortunate situations befall families all the time

I'm still confused why you keep bringing this is because none of those things have happened...

So just in case their Mum dies one day I should take on all responsibility for my DSC now? Even though she isn't dead?

I agree with you that tragedy may change the situation but that's not what we're talking about. No one has died, why do you keep bringing it up?

You must take care of your stepkids.
Why?
Because their Mum’s died.
What? Absolutely not, there’s no way I signed up to this when I got involved with their father...

So what you're saying is any situation or decision a step parent makes she should first think 'what would I do if their Mum was dead?'

@FloconDeNeige

But unfortunate situations befall families all the time. People get sick, people lose their jobs, and (fortunately less frequently, people die). You absolutely should factor these possibilities into your decision-making when getting involved with someone who has dependent children.

And yes, one of the exact reasons I choose not to be a SAHM, is because my DH could lose his job, get ill, or die.

And we’re talking about major upheavals here, but relatively minor changes in circumstances, as per the OP, should absolutely be taken into account, as there’s a fairly high likelihood of occurrence.

If for e.g. the DH had to move office location with the effect that some days he couldn’t pick his DC, it would be reasonable to expect the SAH step M to do it, not for her to say ‘oh well if I’d had known I’d have to do this, I wouldn’t have signed up for it’. She should know that such a possibility may exist by the fact that the children exist.

Unfortunate situations do happen, but I don't think most people plan their life around those possibilities, beyond trying to have some savings or taking out insurance policies.

For your last point, I actually don't think that's reasonable either? Obviously all situations are different, but in lots of cases, for example mine, my SC's mum would rather have the children herself than send them to us knowing they wouldn't even be with their dad and it would be me doing all the school runs etc. The odd occasion would be fine, but apart from that she wouldn't expect to be without her children in order for them to be with me instead. So I think that any changes to either parent's ability to continue to provide the current level of care themselves should definitely be discussed between the parents rather than expecting an SP should step in. If the other parent says no, they can't have the children anymore, then it's on the parent with changing circumstances to find a solution, either asking their partner/parents to help, or organising clubs or whatever. I don't think it ever should automatically land in the lap of the SP except in an emergency.

@CrackALack

But unfortunate situations befall families all the time

I'm still confused why you keep bringing this is because none of those things have happened...

So just in case their Mum dies one day I should take on all responsibility for my DSC now? Even though she isn't dead?

I agree with you that tragedy may change the situation but that's not what we're talking about. No one has died, why do you keep bringing it up?

Dramatic effect?

I'll let DH know that he no longer has to help care for our children at all because one day he might die and then I'd have to do it anyway so I may as well just do it all now too.

I'm still confused why you keep bringing this is because none of those things have happened...

Good grief, you’re coming across as extremely hard of thinking now. Why do you keep repeating ‘but none of those things have happened’. Maybe they haven’t, but they certainly could. Dying is less likely but losing a job or changing working hours are very much more so. You have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of whatever major or minor change in circumstances arise when there are children involved; whether they are biologically yours or not.

@CrackALack

I'll let DH know that he no longer has to help care for our children at all because one day he might die and then I'd have to do it anyway so I may as well just do it all now too.

Why don’t you both just absolve yourself of responsibility on that basis? Though if we follow that logic through we’d have to send them to the care of the local authority.

@FloconDeNeige

I'm still confused why you keep bringing this is because none of those things have happened...

Good grief, you’re coming across as extremely hard of thinking now. Why do you keep repeating ‘but none of those things have happened’. Maybe they haven’t, but they certainly could. Dying is less likely but losing a job or changing working hours are very much more so. You have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of whatever major or minor change in circumstances arise when there are children involved; whether they are biologically yours or not.

Because it’s entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

@FloconDeNeige

I'm still confused why you keep bringing this is because none of those things have happened...

Good grief, you’re coming across as extremely hard of thinking now. Why do you keep repeating ‘but none of those things have happened’. Maybe they haven’t, but they certainly could. Dying is less likely but losing a job or changing working hours are very much more so. You have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of whatever major or minor change in circumstances arise when there are children involved; whether they are biologically yours or not.

Of course they could happen... But they haven't and so it's irrelevant what would happen if they did because that's not OPs situation right now.

I'm hard of thinking? You're the one who keeps mentioning family tragedy and people's parents dying when we're not discussing anything of the sort.

I've already said if the situation changed, someone died, someone lost a job whatever, then it would be reasonable for things to change and a step parents involvement may increase. But right now, that's not the situation so what's the point of bringing it up as if it were?

So what you're saying is any situation or decision a step parent makes she should first think 'what would I do if their Mum was dead?'

No, I’m saying that before becoming a step-parent in the first place, you should think ‘what would I do if their Mum was dead?’

And if your answer would be to shrug your shoulders and say ‘they’re not my responsibility’, then you should walk away and leave their father alone.