To say he can't come more often?

[ReturnOfThePedi]

Unless DH sorts something with work which means he's around more.

I have two DSC, a DSD and a DSS.

They currently stay 2 nights a week but have been making sounds recently about wanting to come more often, especially DSS.

DH works long hours in his own business and often isn't home until gone 8pm, leaving in the early hours and sometimes staying away.

However he always makes sure he is available when DSC stay on Saturday and Sunday nights.

DSS wants to come more often (he some friends on our road which is probably a big factor), DH has been mentioning it and has asked if we can talk about it (their Mum has said it's okay if that's what he wants).

AIBU to say he absolutely can, providing DH makes sure he is around? The way it is at rhe moment if DSS stayed more in the week, DH would barely be here and it would be me doing everything. (He has just turned 9).

I work too but am currently off with our 8 month old however my work hours are set 10-4:30 so I'll be around more than DH in the evenings/morning even when I'm back in work.

The way DHs work is, I already end up with the huge majority of the load at home, frankly I don't want DSS added to that all week too.

No more ridiculous than all the posters acting like she’s being asked to do her husband a favour. She’s being asked to care for her step son. That is for the child, not for the child’s father.

She's not being asked to care for him though is she? There is already someone caring for him on those days - he's presumably with his mum. So there isn't a childcare need as such. If DSS was with them on a day where his dad is normally there and his dad had to go away for work or something that's an entirely different scenario and one where I think it would be reasonable for her to be asked to help with childcare.

She's being asked to facilitate the child's request to spend more time at her house, when his dad most likely won't be there, and it's not convenient for her. So it is, absolutely a favour to her husband.

I really judge the father here

I judge him for not taking any active part of any of his kids lives and expecting his wife to do it all instead. It's interesting you've said nothing about that. Each to their own though. Some people standards are very low though it seems.

I get that DSS is DH's responsibility, and the business is young and OP earns more.
But I think I'd allow a school night evening once every 3 or 4 weeks (at a convenient time) on the understanding that he can play with his friend, have a simple dinner and possibly do a bit of fetching and carrying to help out with the bathtime so he gets some time with his little sibling, not doing anything 'special', just the normal stuff families do.

The child is the responsibility of the parents but the OP and her DH have chosen to get married, they're supposed to be a team and help each other on a reciprocal basis.

I would not be married to someone and 'assume' the reason why they had so little planned contact with their child was due to work, I'd have had that conversation before marriage and certainly before having a child with them.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps going on about "a few hours once a week" either. OP has never said it's only one day. She said

but this is talking about a set commitment of X days every week not just a random outing or an odd occasion in the school holidays

DayS. Not day, not "a few hours" but a set commitment of X dayS a week.

Why would you marry a man who you know already has children, and then have children of your own with him (half siblings to the existing children) if you are going to be so rigid about blended childcare arrangements?

This is such bizarre logic. I would marry a man with children, who is already accustomed to looking after his children himself, and expect him to carry on doing so. Why wouldn't I? Why would I expect that marrying him means that's my job now?

Refusing to watch a 9 year old a few hours a week when you are at home anyway isn't just not being a step-mother, it's actually not being an active part of a blended family. You're essentially saying that you will only care for your children and his existing kids are not your concern.

This is entirely subjective. She doesn't fulfill your view of being part of a blended family, she does fulfil other people's. There is no rule book on what being a step mother means so saying it's basically like being a parent is entirely your opinion. It's not fact. To me, being a step parent is a bit like being an aunt, though it has it's unique factors. It doesn't involve responsibility for childcare. So from my perspective, she perfectly slots into "part of a blended family". It's futile to try and say that your definition is finite.

@PercyPiginaWig I agree with the once every few weeks thing, and that it wouldn't be unreasonable for OP to be asked to do this. It isn't what's being asked of her though is it - the parents are looking for a permanent change of arrangements whereby the child spends an additional day or two each week at his dad's. OP isn't keen, and if she agrees and then gets a few months down the road and it really isn't working for her, she's going to be a bit screwed if at that stage everyone else is perfectly happy with the new arrangement, it will be very hard for her to undo it. Much easier (and better imo) to set her stall out now, and let the parents come up with a solution.

And yet a gain a few posts up, someone refers to OP 'being at home anyway' - what if she doesn't want to be committed to being 'at home' an additional night or two, every single week with no flexibility? She has a right to a life that doesn't revolve around where her DSS would prefer to spend his time.

"This is such bizarre logic. I would marry a man with children, who is already accustomed to looking after his children himself, and expect him to carry on doing so. Why wouldn't I? Why would I expect that marrying him means that's my job now? "

Because you have chosen to marry a man with children. That's a package deal. Pretending a second marriage where one partner already has children can be just the same as a marriage where any children are jointly yours biologically is totally unrealistic and indeed 'bizarre logic'. Pretending the existing kids don't exist to you and it's half-siblings is a recipe for disaster.

@ReturnOfThePedi

I agree but I think if he can't afford to drop his hours or can't have flexible working he will have to say no to his son

This was my thinking really. The financial affects aren't hugely relevant as it's not like DSS HAS to come more often. If it's not practical for DH financially or business wise then surely he'll have to say no, not me just accept the additional load?

So 50/50 is never an option then?

What would it add to your load? Cooking? School run? I assume at 9 there's not much actual looking after when he's there?

@ChequerBoard

"This is such bizarre logic. I would marry a man with children, who is already accustomed to looking after his children himself, and expect him to carry on doing so. Why wouldn't I? Why would I expect that marrying him means that's my job now? "

Because you have chosen to marry a man with children. That's a package deal. Pretending a second marriage where one partner already has children can be just the same as a marriage where any children are jointly yours biologically is totally unrealistic and indeed 'bizarre logic'. Pretending the existing kids don't exist to you and it's half-siblings is a recipe for disaster.

I married a man that has a child from a previous relationship, does that mean that I am now a parent to this child? No, absolutely not.

They are not a package deal. I married him, not his child.
I knew he had a child when I married him and he knew that I didn't.

OP is not obligated to do anything for his children. Of course if she wishes she can help out (which is sounds like she does) but she has no responsibility to provide childcare for his children. She's hardly pretending that the SC don't exist, she just doesn't want to spend her time permanently looking after someone else's child. Pretty reasonable i'd suggest.

@FranklinFluffy

I WFH and my SDDs know this. If they asked to come over on a weekday and I said they couldn't because dad's at work, they would know that I was home and refusing to have them. And that would make them sad and unwelcome.

Surely you'd just explain you're working? No need for anyone to feel sad or unwelcome but just because your office happens to be at home doesn't mean anyone can just come round whenever they like, you're still working.

Slightly different in my case because they are a little bit older and so a bit more self-sufficient. Also we live one street away so the girls can get from school to here under their own steam. And also they know that I work for myself so can usually flex a bit.

What happens here if they want to come on a weekday is:

1. if dad can WFH he does
2. if dad can't work from home, he tries to make sure he can leave a bit earlier than usual.
3. if dad is going to be stuck at work till late, I tell the girls, yes you can come, but dad is at work so it's just me and I'm working so you'll need to either play outside or watch TV with headphones or chill in your rooms till Xpm when I can stop. Etc.

Occasionally - when it suits me and no big deadlines, I will bunk off work and do something fun with them, or help with homework or whatever.

Rarely would we say no, unless it was super last minute and there were some plans that made it impossible. And if I did say no then the girls would 100% know it was me saying no, and it would make them sad, and it would impact my relationship with them.

However, as I said in my post. Even though the Op's DS has repeatedly asked to come midweek, and will almost certainly be hurt if told no, I don't think that Op should be landed with this.

I think Ops husband needs to give up his business (which isn't making enough money) and contribute to family life more. Since op is the breadwinner and he has two extra kids, him doing childcare, housework and a part time job is probably more valuable to the family.

But of course if there was an option of a brilliant full time well paid job, they may want to consider other options e.g. a nanny to facilitate childcare. Or op becoming a SAHM (if that's something she'd want) or any other combination.

Basically there are a million options here but op being landed with it when she is main breadwinner and doing most house stuff clearly isn't the answer. But nor is the answer banning the child during the week. The answer is OP's DH sorting his bloody life out.

Also my situation is slightly different because:

1. DH pulls his weight
2. DH earns very well for his work and I would rather me look after the kids occasionally than him have to give up his job and go part time (I earn well too, so he's not the breadwinner, but I'm keen for us to stay a two-earning household)
3. We're trying for a baby and I am self-employed so quite important he keeps his job for when I am on shit mat pay.
4. We actively want to move towards 50/50 which has been tricky because his ExW blocks contact all the time, so we both tend to go for extra days whenever we can get them.
5. it's a proper partnership and we discuss things (I would not be happy if stuff was just dumped on me).

What I'm hearing over and over is that you get to choose who to marry and then after that you don't get to choose anything. You are there to serve. You made your bed. You accidentally adopted some kids when you though you were just getting married. You don't get a say in what you do with your own time, you don't get a say in how another woman's kids are financed/educated/fed/brought up because who do you think you are? You're not their mother! You must serve. That is all.

"You accidentally adopted some kids when you though you were just getting married."

If you enter a second marriage where the partner already has kids thinking like this then you beyond naive.

What is it with some posters regarding stepmums being on maternity leave and dsc? Why can’t people just accept that during those few months she’ll be at home and dsc sticks to usual arrangements? I’m struggling to see why that is so detrimental towards the child.

Not really. I know what I signed. It was a marriage certificate, not an adoption certificate. I now legally have a husband. I didn't legally take on his child and I also did not agree to take on his share of parenting her. Furthermore, neither he, his ex nor DSD has ever required me to do so, beyond the odd favour.

And also, I am the first wife, if that matters at all.

@Youseethethingis

And also, I am the first wife, if that matters at all.

It's always assumed SMs must be "the second" 🤣

Thing is as a SM you accept that to a certain extent your life will be impacted / controlled by your DSCs needs, and you work with that. You sign up to support, to help facilitate his relationship with his children, you don't sign up to take on all the responsibilities of the actual parents. If it was spelled out in advance that 'your life is no longer your own you must now put my children first at all times', no-one would ever get married to someone who already has kids! You can absolutely respect the right of the parent to put their children first, without having to actually do it yourself.

In my case, DH works a lot of weekends, so his contact is structured around that. If my DSC (similar age to OPs so not old enough to be left to their own devices) decided they wanted to be here every weekend because their mates live down the road, it would be a flat out no from me. Of course I would help out if there was a specific weekend that was important to them for some reason, but being routinely expected to give up all my weekends just because it's what they want would not be happening. Is that more acceptable for me because I have no DCs and therefore am not 'at home with the baby anyway'?

@ChequerBoard

"This is such bizarre logic. I would marry a man with children, who is already accustomed to looking after his children himself, and expect him to carry on doing so. Why wouldn't I? Why would I expect that marrying him means that's my job now? "

Because you have chosen to marry a man with children. That's a package deal. Pretending a second marriage where one partner already has children can be just the same as a marriage where any children are jointly yours biologically is totally unrealistic and indeed 'bizarre logic'. Pretending the existing kids don't exist to you and it's half-siblings is a recipe for disaster.

No, again, this is a massive and bizarre leap of logic. I'm well aware the child exists. It is different as a result. But DP is still responsible for looking after him. Why is that so hard to understand?

Thing is as a SM you accept that to a certain extent your life will be impacted / controlled by your DSCs needs, and you work with that. You sign up to support, to help facilitate his relationship with his children, you don't sign up to take on all the responsibilities of the actual parents. If it was spelled out in advance that 'your life is no longer your own you must now put my children first at all times', no-one would ever get married to someone who already has kids! You can absolutely respect the right of the parent to put their children first, without having to actually do it yourself.

This, absolutely 👏

Why does marrying a man who already has children render that man suddenly incapable of caring for his children himself when he's presumably managed perfectly well up to that point?

If a single dad has to sort his work hours so he can care for his children, why should that suddenly change just because he enters into a relationship ? At what point do the caring responsibilities for his children 'transfer' from him to his new partner so that she becomes responsible for his children?

Thing is as a SM you accept that to a certain extent your life will be impacted / controlled by your DSCs needs, and you work with that. You sign up to support, to help facilitate his relationship with his children, you don't sign up to take on all the responsibilities of the actual parents. If it was spelled out in advance that 'your life is no longer your own you must now put my children first at all times', no-one would ever get married to someone who already has kids! You can absolutely respect the right of the parent to put their children first, without having to actually do it yourself
Oh don't be so bloody sensible, you are making it very difficult for people to disagree without looking like twits

If the kid wants to come more, the dad needs to step up and provide the care.

At what point do the caring responsibilities for his children 'transfer' from him to his new partner so that she becomes responsible for his children?

I think many men take their chances once they have a baby with their partner and she’s more vulnerable. And there are so many cheerleaders who agree with these men.

“You’re at home anyway so what does it matter if dsc is there more?”

“You do so much for your own dc so why can’t you do xyz for dsc?”

He is self employed, surely he can flex his hours to be home early one day a week. He can start earlier if necessary.

This is a tiny commitment to improve his relationship with his children. Once he has arranged it, DSD has the option to come too and he can put the baby to bed once a week too. All three children benefit.

Further it gives you a night when you are free to work late or go to after-work socials once you are back at work.

Be really wary of getting put on the Mum track for this man OP. Protect your career and make sure he pulls his weight at home.