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.

Bibidy
She made a decision to be a SAHP in a household with multiple children.

Threads like this show why blended families often come with lots of conflict for the children.

My friend is in this exact situation. She has a stepson and her own toddler, she’s a SAHM and they have the stepson 50% of the time. Her partner works long hours so she is expected to do a lot of the legwork and it’s actually quite bonkers tbh because the stepson goes to school where his Mum lives which is 30 miles away so my friend regularly drives 120 miles a day just to do the school run. She doesn’t complain about the situation at all so can only assume she’s happy about it but I don’t think I would be at all.

It's not up to you to decide how they get to school, that's a decision for their parents

I find it absolutely staggering that people hold this attitude, whilst in the same breath saying it's unthinkable that a SP should not automatically step up and do this "because family". If somebody tried to guilt trip me into viewing their kids as my own and seeing myself as equally responsible, then came out with territorial statements like this about the things I should NOT be involved in, I would tell them to jog on. It's one or the other I'm afraid, you either want to SP to view themselves as equally responsible, or you don't.

The step-parent getting a job doesn't even solve the issue though? Or is it just that if she did have her job her DH would have to continue looking after his own children?

First the step-parent having a job is good enough reason not to have time to help,

More importantly, having 2 people sharing the financial burden makes it easier for the DH. Realistically, when you are solely responsible for the entire family, you can't take or demand flexible hours and handle all the childcare. The pressure is on you to keep your job.
The DH would also have more money left over to pay for his kids childcare, holiday clubs etc.

@LolaSmiles

Bibidy She made a decision to be a SAHP in a household with multiple children.

Threads like this show why blended families often come with lots of conflict for the children.

But again, my argument is that the agreement at the time OP became a SAHP was clearly not that she would do school runs, holiday care etc for the older children, otherwise it wouldn't have cropped up now. Their dad has continued to manage that up to now, so I'd be interested to know that the reason is for the change?

Genuinely, if the original agreement was that OP would be a SAHM on the understanding that she will do all school runs for all children on the days they are at their dad's and look after them during the holidays then I would say she was being unreasonable.

But it seems that this is a recent change in mind by the dad, and so therefore I don't think OP is being unreasonable at all as it may be that she would not have agreed to be a SAHP if these had been the conditions.

@LolaSmiles

Bibidy She made a decision to be a SAHP in a household with multiple children.

Threads like this show why blended families often come with lots of conflict for the children.

Presumably he made the decision for her to do that to, and should never have agreed to have another child if he couldn't make it work with his other obligations.

@ChicFennel

The step-parent getting a job doesn't even solve the issue though? Or is it just that if she did have her job her DH would have to continue looking after his own children?

First the step-parent having a job is good enough reason not to have time to help,

More importantly, having 2 people sharing the financial burden makes it easier for the DH. Realistically, when you are solely responsible for the entire family, you can't take or demand flexible hours and handle all the childcare. The pressure is on you to keep your job.
The DH would also have more money left over to pay for his kids childcare, holiday clubs etc.

I do agree, and think if something has changed that means OP's DH can no longer do flexible hours to manage the school runs and school holidays he's been doing so far then a discussion should be had about how to move forward. Whether that's OP picking up the school runs, or OP going back to work so that they can afford wrap-around care for the SCs on their days etc etc.

I just don't think it's unreasonable for OP not to just completely accept picking up all of this extra responsibility and work for her SCs just because she is the one at home currently.

It's not up to you to decide how they get to school, that's a decision for their parents

Agree, it's a decision for their parents and also a job for their parents to do!

It's not up to you to decide how they get to school, that's a decision for their parents

So the parents do it then, along with everything else that they have made a decision about regarding their child.

Why is the parent having contact time without them there? The two parents should be able to sort it out between themselves. The SAHP has responsibility to their own child and the moment you start to take away from that for someone else's it will lead to resentment.

It's not up to you to decide how they get to school, that is a decision for their parents if they decide the child should go on horseback and take over an hour to get there then the SAHP should just go with it should they?

Presumably he made the decision for her to do that to, and should never have agreed to have another child if he couldn't make it work with his other obligations
I'd suggest that THEY made the decision to have a SAHP, and that all children need to be considered.

The OP doesn't have to do everything dad does. I like what a PP said about not cutting breakfast into hearts because daddy does it , but THEY chose to have another child.

I still stand by my view that if people want to be territorial, have the sole focus on them and their baby then they should choose to have a family with someone who is also child free. Don't start a relationship with existing children, do a half-arsed attempt at blending a family, and then expect your household to revolve around you and your baby.

The posters on here who openly say they wouldn't blend a family because of the complications and challenges have their heads screwed on. Either blend a family, or acknowledge you don't want to and don't do it.

The decisions of the parents need to be executed BY the parents.

Not delegating to their staff..AKA step parent/au pair/skivvy.

@Acupofcamus

My friend is in this exact situation. She has a stepson and her own toddler, she’s a SAHM and they have the stepson 50% of the time. Her partner works long hours so she is expected to do a lot of the legwork and it’s actually quite bonkers tbh because the stepson goes to school where his Mum lives which is 30 miles away so my friend regularly drives 120 miles a day just to do the school run. She doesn’t complain about the situation at all so can only assume she’s happy about it but I don’t think I would be at all.

Your friend must have been absolutely desperate for a partner to sign up for this.

@LolaSmiles Sorry there was a typo there, I meant to say that he presumably chose to have another child and for OP to be a SAHP too, the same as you. Personally, since the other kids are his responsibility, I think that means that he should have considered this eventuality and discussed it with OP before deciding to have another child. It may have only been possible to do so if the SM takes on some childcare, but in that case they need to be asked if they would be ok with that, it shouldn't be assumed.

I don't wholly disagree with your point about territorial attitudes but I think it cuts both ways, in fact I used that same term earlier about the posters saying OP should stay out of parenting decisions! There are a huge amount of parents who believe strongly that their partners should leave all parenting decisions and discipline to them, and in which case I don't see how they can expect a step parent to fully commit to "blending" families. For that to be a mutually beneficial experience, all adults need to have authority and input.

aSofaNearYou
It sounds like we agree.

You're right. They both should have discussed this. They both knew that there were existing children. They both chose to have another baby.

To have a SAHP means that the household income drops. This affects the provision available for all children in the household. It's easy for people on here to say a dad should sort childcare for his kids, he should do x,y,z, dad and step children's mum need to sort holiday childcare out and not rely on a SAHP in dad's household being present on dad's days. But we both know that dad would be getting a kicking if the new family can't go on holiday because a dad's annual leave has all gone on taking days off during the holidays because his new partner doesn't want hers and her baby's time inconvenienced by the presence of pre-existing children.

I think this is a touchy subject for me as I've seen quite a few people end up with strained relationships with their parents as a result of new partners and new babies. There's a worrying number of threads on here that in various ways boil down to "parent plus new partner have new baby, new family comes first and existing children have to slot in", often with the expectation that when things get a bit tricky at the NRP's house (usually dad's), expect the RP (usually mum) to pick up the slack so the nice new family isn't disrupted too much.

Hmm. If he's paying you to stay at home then he is helping you out hugely. Therefore in return you can expect to help him by spending some of your time looking after his children.

She’s not at home doing nothing. She’s looking after their joint child. She’s saving them a childcare bill for the child that she is the mother of. That is an arrangement set between them for their joint child and focused entirely on them.
There is (or should be) a separate arrangement for the stepchildren between their parents, that doesn’t involve the stepmum having to do anything. She has a responsibility for her child and her child only.

She is staying at home, which allows him to work without cutting down his hours to look after his youngest. This means that maintenance won’t be affected as he won’t have to reduce or change his hours. Therefore the stepmum is doing her bit “for the stepchildren.”

I think this is a touchy subject for me as I've seen quite a few people end up with strained relationships with their parents as a result of new partners and new babies. How on earth is making the step parent their ‘parent’ going to help that strain?

The child, as well as having to accept a new step mum and half sibling, is then supposed to be absolutely fine having their parents step back from parenting them!

I say this from first hand experience of the step mum who became ‘mum’ because I was SAHM. The most awful experience I’ve ever had as it totally ignores the fact that step mums are not the parents. I have a list as long as the Great Wall of China of the tensions that often arise. Such as my step kids not wanting parenting by me, for a start. They didn’t want Dad’s new wife telling them to say thank you after dinner, or asking if they’d done their homework. They were OK with me ‘giving’ but not parenting - and that’s a real issue as it doesn’t work.

I think there is a lot of underlying misogyny in this thread.

There are so many posts blaming the OP or step mum for the situation and giving her the responsibility of financing and parenting a man’s children. Even in comments like these she is blamed for ‘why blended families don’t work’ which is utter nonsense and again, misogyny.

She made a decision to be a SAHP in a household with multiple children. No she made the decision to have a child with a man who already had children. She did not agree to parent them all.
Threads like this show why blended families often come with lots of conflict for the children. No they show why step mums on the whole are put in an untenable position by men and expected to be the household nanny to their children.

It doesn’t work because the children don’t want it most of the time. They resent having to give up time with their parent. Resent new rules.
It doens’t work because the actual parents still try to parent remotely and give the step mum a hard time if she parents in her own way, and undermines that.
It doesn’t work because the father takes no notice of the needs of his own children when he has more. This has nothing to do with the new wife and everything to do with him.

This situation is completely the responsibility of the father and it’s pretty appalling that he is abdicating parenting his kids. If he couldn’t afford to have another, he shouldn’t have done so. There is no indication that the OP is demanding pricey holidays or taking money away from his kids. And again this is still the father’s responsibility - if he had more children than he can cope with then shame on him.

I am a step parent and helped with DSS when I was on mat leave with school runs but it didn’t fall exclusively to me. I don’t care for him during the holidays. I used to prior to having my own DC, but behavioural issues mean it’s impossible to have them all together alone. If it wasn’t for that I would be happy to help, but not be relied on.

OP - I’ve read your updates and think you have the right attitude. Being a SAHP doesn’t make you a nanny for SC and it you do agree it should be on your terms. You should definitely have agency whilst they are with you too.

Also consider if it will prevent you doing anything with your own DC. For example much of what my DC’s day is based around is too young for DSS. If I couldn’t do those things I would rather be at work as it would make caring for my own DC more difficult and create a different dynamic.

@Rejoiningperson

I think there is a lot of underlying misogyny in this thread.

There are so many posts blaming the OP or step mum for the situation and giving her the responsibility of financing and parenting a man’s children. Even in comments like these she is blamed for ‘why blended families don’t work’ which is utter nonsense and again, misogyny.

She made a decision to be a SAHP in a household with multiple children. No she made the decision to have a child with a man who already had children. She did not agree to parent them all.
Threads like this show why blended families often come with lots of conflict for the children. No they show why step mums on the whole are put in an untenable position by men and expected to be the household nanny to their children.

It doesn’t work because the children don’t want it most of the time. They resent having to give up time with their parent. Resent new rules.
It doens’t work because the actual parents still try to parent remotely and give the step mum a hard time if she parents in her own way, and undermines that.
It doesn’t work because the father takes no notice of the needs of his own children when he has more. This has nothing to do with the new wife and everything to do with him.

This situation is completely the responsibility of the father and it’s pretty appalling that he is abdicating parenting his kids. If he couldn’t afford to have another, he shouldn’t have done so. There is no indication that the OP is demanding pricey holidays or taking money away from his kids. And again this is still the father’s responsibility - if he had more children than he can cope with then shame on him.

Great post and completely agree...but so much easier to blame the woman than hold men to account for their behaviour.

I also know from a few friends who were bundled together as teens into blended families it is often truly awful for the children involved.

The teen years can be difficult enough without having other teens foisted on you in your supposedly safe place, your home.

@aSofaNearYou

It's not up to you to decide how they get to school, that's a decision for their parents

I find it absolutely staggering that people hold this attitude, whilst in the same breath saying it's unthinkable that a SP should not automatically step up and do this "because family". If somebody tried to guilt trip me into viewing their kids as my own and seeing myself as equally responsible, then came out with territorial statements like this about the things I should NOT be involved in, I would tell them to jog on. It's one or the other I'm afraid, you either want to SP to view themselves as equally responsible, or you don't.

Exactly this.

You can't force someone to have responsibility, but no say in any of it.

I won't ever be in this situation as I don't want children of my own and my DH wouldnt ask me to because he likes spending time with his daughter. He only has her half the week so he wouldn't palm off his half of parenting on me.

Even in comments like these she is blamed for ‘why blended families don’t work’ which is utter nonsense and again, misogyny
Woah there.
You seem to be VERY selectively ignoring the fact that I've talked about the fact that THEY have made decisions as a couple.
THEY made the decision to have a child together when there are existing children.
THEY made the decision to have a SAHP in a house with existing children.
You're also selectively ignoring that fact that I've spoken about the fact that I think that PEOPLE who don't want to consider existing children should have their own families with childfree people.

I don't buy the idea that anyone should have children with an existing parent and then shrug their shoulders and say "not my problem".

Dear me, what a sad state of affairs it is when suggesting that two adults consider all the children when making plans is misogyny.