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.

Yes, the new baby seems to be the tipping point..."well, you're home all day with the baby anyway, so you might as well have SDC too...". Except many women aren't home the whole day with the baby and don't want to be... they have friends to meet, classes to go to, days out planned and their family to visit. I took my baby down to Cornwall on the train to visit a friend for a week while I was on mat leave... just because I could! Definitely wouldn't have dragged a 9yo along as well.

Is DSS wanting to come to be with his dad or to play with his friends on your street? If the former, then dad needs to be there to spend the time with and the 'extra time' should be planned around when Dad will be home. If the latter then the 'extra time' isn't necessary and can be slotted in (again) when Dad is home or when it works for the OP.

I don't agree that when you marry a person with children you automatically become a de facto carer for them. If you want to be, then fine. A friend became a SM and was fully involved and the primary carer in their home (because her now-ex was a useless lump) but it was because she wanted it that way. I chose never to get seriously involved with someone with children because I didn't want the issues surrounding step-parenthood.

I think unfortunately 'who does what and when' is one of those areas that seem to never really seriously get discussed before a couple cohabits. The 'parent' always seems to assume that the other person will be happy to start carrying at least half the load (and possibly more) and the 'non-parent' assumes that things won't change from what it was before they moved in together when they weren't a 'permanent fixture' in the home and were able to 'flit' in and out of the children's day to day lives.

Chances are it isn't discussed because the parent doesn't want the non-parent to know just how much is going to be expected of them, and the non-parent doesn't want the parent to know just how much they DON'T want that responsibility.

It's a tricky one OP. If DSS wanted to be here more, but DH would have to cut hours while he is trying to establish and grow us business, then we would have to make a decision together how that would work and what role I would play. However DSS is already here 50/50 so the dynamic is already different and I already do the school run and cook dinner because I'm best placed to do it.
How many extra nights are being suggested and what impact would it have on your DH work?

@aSofaNearYou
*
Are you a step parent yourself? You have an incredibly binary way of looking at this. She did "want to become a step parent", she just has a totally different an equally valid opinion to you as to what that entails.*

Do keep up, I already said I was a SP. My DSC are adults now so I am not sitting behind the screen with 'an opinion' or weighing in trying to be a superhero and stick up for another adult PP... I have lived the life of a SM for over 2 decades and happen to want to defend the innocent DSC in these scenarios - despite knowing how bloody hard it was being one myself!

You don't dictate that either. A child being part of someone you love brings no inherent obligation for childcare.

Not sure I am dictating anything. But you seem to have form for missing the words actually written on the page. It is a fact that you become emotionally involved with a child when you marry/ have a serious relationship with the father/mother.
I am not surprised you miss the relevance, if you lack the capacity to love and look after your DC siblings in the same way as yoyr DC. Why would a SP not want to look after DSC in the same way they look after their own unless they see the DSC as lesser? Would the OP tell her own DC that they couldn't be in the shared family home if the DH wasn't there too?

Only an actual mum has obligations to provide childcare for their children. So she is being "just a SM" - someone who knows them but does not have that responsibility. It's not just about whether the child would be harmed by it, often the step parent is harmed by the unreasonable expectation. I anticipate that you don't care about that but tough titties unfortunately, others do, and you aren't showering yourself in glory trying to act like any human being doesn't matter.

The PP described harm to the child in the scenario of having SPs care for them - I responded. Please do not anticipate what I think, you do not know me and definitely do not have the same mentality so would always be wide of the mark with your 'anticipation'. Stick to reading the actual words I write on the page.

I'll make my point again that you seem to have missed: when you enter into a relationship with a man or woman with existing children, as an adult you can decide if it is a relationship that you can cope with or you get to walk away. The DSC do not get that choice!

Being in a relationship involves becoming a unit - shared responsibilities of DC and DSC included. Of course the law does not make this an obligation upon marriage; it doesn't need to. I don't care for my DC because the law makes it an obligation. I do it because I automatically love them as I did with my DSC, as they are all part of my family unit.
There are also many SP who keep in touch with their DSC after a breakdown of a marriage, just as they would with their own DC. Likewise some don't keep in touch - that is no different to an absent parent and very sad all round.

As I also said before, if the distribution of childcare etc feels unbalanced within a relationship, that is something to solve with the DH regardless of whether it is care for DC or DSC.

You're a fool if you think @Youseethethingis is the one sounding foolish. More than half the posters here agree with her. What an arrogant thing to say, you've almost got to admire the gall.

More than half the posters on MN agreeing with someone is not the measure of foolishness IMO.
I am not a sheep, my outlook is not based on popular opinion; it is based on the best interests of the child.
Based on your comments, to be seen as arrogant and a fool by you is very much a compliment.

As it's his own business, however fledgling, he can choose what hours he works. It's not like being an employee where you work what you're told to work if you want to keep your job. Is he using his 'hours' as a reason to abdicate all household responsibilities to the OP?

And if the only time he doesn't work is at the weekends when his DCs are there, presumably he spends a lot of time with them. Not disagreeing with that, but when does the OP and their DC ever get any time with him, just them? None, if he doesn't get home until the baby is in bed every night.

And now he wants to put even more on the OP, more work, more restrictions on her time, while he carries on ducking out? No, that's not on. I hope any discussion between OP and DH goes much wider than just the SDCs. He's having a laugh, but only he's finding it funny.

The child isn't the only person who matters.
It's not very common to feel that the overwhelming love one feels for one's own child can or should be expected to just automatically manifest on demand for someone else's child as the ink dries on the marriage certificate.
No child gets to choose who their parents are or are not in a relationship with. Step child isn't special in this.

@Iamclaracowbell

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'?

What would happen if circumstances dictated that your DH became the full time parent for his DCs because the DM could no longer care for them at all for reasons beyond anyone's control? Would you divorce him? Or tell him he could never go to work or socialise regularly, if you were at home alone with DCs on a regular basis?

Surely SPs enter into a relationship with a man/woman with DCs knowing there is a possibility that your DSC could come to live with you 100% of the time and so your life will be far more than just 'helping out' now and again. Surely then the same is true, even if it's for 50% of the time...

If this isn't for you, I agree the marriage/partnership shouldn't happen or should end, quickly for everyone's sake. Some adults do go into a relationship with DSCs with eyes fully open and embrace that blended family from the outset.

I just don't believe that in ANY other scenario on MN, there would be all this back and forth about the OP whilst her husband gets away with contributing precisely nothing to home and DC and barely anyone makes a comment about it.

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?

You can think this ^ all you like, people disagree that this is what being a SP means, but even if you do believe it means you have a level of responsibility toward your DSC, I don't know why on earth it justifies in PPs mind the way the husband is treating his wife.

He is being a typical bloke we hear about on here day in day out and any other scenario people would be telling the OP to LTB, not guilting her into doing even more for this man.

What would happen if circumstances dictated that your DH became the full time parent for his DCs because the DM could no longer care for them at all for reasons beyond anyone's control?

This is an entirely moot point. What I would do now, is not and doesn't have to be exactly the same as what I'd do in a situation which is different to the one I'm currently in.

If my husbands ex died then obviously I am aware that more would be required of me. But I'm not going to accept that when she's alive and well. Why would you?

I'll just tell my husband he can use all his wage as fun money and I'll cover all the bills, I'd have to do that if he lost his job or died tomorrow so why not?

Bloody stupid argument that always comes up on these threads "BUT WHAT IF THEIR MOTHER DIED/WAS UNABLE TO CARE FOR THEM"

She's not dead and she can care for them so what's your point?

@FranklinFluffy Every. Single. Time!!!

If ex-W dies, I'll work out how what my take on it is there and then, based on the circumstances and information available to me at that time. I'm not going to end my marriage now as @Aquathest so helpfully suggests, over something that is statistically unlikely to happen, and that I may very well be perfectly happy to step up and support with if it did, depending on the circs at the time.

Absolutely no comparison to SDCs wanting to come over more to play with their mates down the road.

Do keep up, I already said I was a SP. My DSC are adults now so I am not sitting behind the screen with 'an opinion' or weighing in trying to be a superhero and stick up for another adult PP... I have lived the life of a SM for over 2 decades and happen to want to defend the innocent DSC in these scenarios - despite knowing how bloody hard it was being one myself!

Ok, good for you. I wasn't responding to your first comment so missed you saying whether you were a step parent or not, that's why I asked 🙄 I stand by my point that you have a very binary outlook on this, though, very all or nothing.

Not sure I am dictating anything. But you seem to have form for missing the words actually written on the page.

You said the laws of the land don't dictate what you should do for a step child, and I said you don't dictate that either. It was very obvious why I made that comment, I don't "have form for missing the words actually written on the page". Your patronising responses are not nearly as effective as you think they are.

It is a fact that you become emotionally involved with a child when you marry/ have a serious relationship with the father/mother. I am not surprised you miss the relevance, if you lack the capacity to love and look after your DC siblings in the same way as yoyr DC. Why would a SP not want to look after DSC in the same way they look after their own unless they see the DSC as lesser? Would the OP tell her own DC that they couldn't be in the shared family home if the DH wasn't there too?

You seem to think I'm the thick one, and yet you can see no way someone could not want to take care of a child in the same way as their own without viewing them as "lesser". How ridiculous. DSS is in no way lesser than my DD as a human being, but he is lesser to me, and my obligation to him is lesser. I wouldn't tell my own DC they couldn't "be in the shared family home" - otherwise known as be in my care, since 9 year old's are wherever their parents are there to care for them, not wherever their house is, most of the time. But I would if neither of her parents were at home, which is the case here. I imagine it's the same for OP.

I'll make my point again that you seem to have missed: when you enter into a relationship with a man or woman with existing children, as an adult you can decide if it is a relationship that you can cope with or you get to walk away.

It is something I can cope with, just not within your very specific parameters. Thankfully not all parents think exactly like you.

Being in a relationship involves becoming a unit - shared responsibilities of DC and DSC included. Of course the law does not make this an obligation upon marriage; it doesn't need to. I don't care for my DC because the law makes it an obligation. I do it because I automatically love them as I did with my DSC, as they are all part of my family unit. There are also many SP who keep in touch with their DSC after a breakdown of a marriage, just as they would with their own DC. Likewise some don't keep in touch - that is no different to an absent parent and very sad all round.

All this is completely your opinion, not fact. Being in a relationship does not automatically mean sharing all of your responsibilities, that's just your view of relationships. Me and DP share the ones we take on together. I don't automatically love anyone like I do my DD on the basis that they are part of my "family unit", that's just how you feel. To be honest, I think "automatically" loving someone is nonsense. You love people based on your actual connection with them. It is also entirely your opinion that it is exactly the same when a step parent doesn't stay in touch with their step children post split as when a parent doesn't. I think it's completely different, and the law does attest to that.

More than half the posters on MN agreeing with someone is not the measure of foolishness IMO. I am not a sheep, my outlook is not based on popular opinion; it is based on the best interests of the child. Based on your comments, to be seen as arrogant and a fool by you is very much a compliment.

All I can say to this is likewise, except my opinion is based on the best interests of everyone, not just the child 🤷‍♀️

Maybe it comes up repeatedly as there are many who don't see the difference between caring for your DSCs as your own whether it is 50% or 100% of the time in your home.

My point is that you should have embraced the responsibility of your DSC when you got into a serious relationship with someone who already had children, before you came along.

If either the OP or her DH is at home, the DSS should be able to come over, just like the OPs DC could stay in the house if either are there.

It isn't that MNs is anti SPs. It's just selfish SPs who fail to consider the best interest of the child over their own, that give all SPs a bad name.

The best interests of the child has long been a consideration that is of paramount importance legally and otherwise.

@Aquathest

Maybe it comes up repeatedly as there are many who don't see the difference between caring for your DSCs as your own whether it is 50% or 100% of the time in your home.

My point is that you should have embraced the responsibility of your DSC when you got into a serious relationship with someone who already had children, before you came along.

If either the OP or her DH is at home, the DSS should be able to come over, just like the OPs DC could stay in the house if either are there.

It isn't that MNs is anti SPs. It's just selfish SPs who fail to consider the best interest of the child over their own, that give all SPs a bad name.

The best interests of the child has long been a consideration that is of paramount importance legally and otherwise.

Where you're going wrong is that you simply cannot see that we do embrace our responsibility to our DSC, we just completely disagree with you about what that responsibility is.

The children have two parents to put their best interests over and above their own, just like everybody else. As a step parent, I'm not taking anything away from them in that regard, I'm just not adding as much as you'd like. But that's just what it is - what YOU'd like. It isn't an actual requirement.

The best interests of the child has long been a consideration that is of paramount importance legally and otherwise
Indeed. The best interests of my child are of paramount importance to me, legally and otherwise.
Just as my DSDs best interests are of paramount importance legally and otherwise to her parents, of which I am not one.
The best interests of my child include my marriage being a success and for my marriage to be a success my DH is going to have to continue to do his bit as his child's father and not palm her off on to me. The best interests of my child include learning that the entire family doesn't revolve around him and what he wants - everyone else is also important and deserving of respect and consideration, even his mother.
Still unclear why it's not in a childs best interests to allow one of their parents to duck out of caring for them but I guess we will never see eye to eye on that one.

I don't understand how it's in the best interest of the child to have his Dad pass off the parenting of him to another person. How is it in the best interest of the SS to spend multiple days a week with neither of his parents?

I don't believe PPs who say they'd be happy for their husband to swan off building his business and checking out of everything else entailed in his family, financially, physically and emotionally. They are liars.

I don't understand how it's in the best interest of the child to have his Dad pass off the parenting of him to another person. How is it in the best interest of the SS to spend multiple days a week with neither of his parents?

Careful there, you are also condemning many working mothers who use nurseries by assuming that parental care is always in best interest of the child.

Careful there, you are also condemning many working mothers who use nurseries by assuming that parental care is always in best interest of the child.

No she isn't FFS, stop trying to play that card.

Yes, the new baby seems to be the tipping point..."well, you're home all day with the baby anyway, so you might as well have SDC too...hmm". Except many women aren't home the whole day with the baby and don't want to be... they have friends to meet, classes to go to, days out planned and their family to visit. I took my baby down to Cornwall on the train to visit a friend for a week while I was on mat leave... just because I could! Definitely wouldn't have dragged a 9yo along as well.

Exactly, it’s not as simple as you’ll be at home all day. And even if you are at home all day, it still doesn’t mean you’ll want dsc with you.

It might come as a shock to some people, but a stepmum might want to make plans during her own maternity leave that she doesn’t want to involve dsc in.
Imagine if there’s a group a stepmum would really like to go to, but older siblings aren’t allowed to attend. Dsc now suddenly comes extra days because she’s off work for a while, and she now can’t go. That’s just unfair and not for the “greater good of the family” that she looks after dsc at all. It’s selfish and thoughtless of the parents and a recipe for resentment.

Like a PP said, the dsc isn’t the only person who matters. Other people exist and have lives, feelings and want to make plans. The parents are the ones who should be compromising, because they’re ya know, the parents.

@aSofaNearYou

Careful there, you are also condemning many working mothers who use nurseries by assuming that parental care is always in best interest of the child.

No she isn't FFS, stop trying to play that card.

Yes she is. And besides, if parents are best, surely a step parent is second best? The hypocrisy is strong on this thread.

Yes she is. And besides, if parents are best, surely a step parent is second best? The hypocrisy is strong on this thread.

Why surely? Step parents are about as good as other family members, childcare settings etc. Only parents are parents, everybody else it depends on the person in question.

Someone willing and eager is surely best, though.

The point is, as an adult with autonomy, rather than a vessel that exists purely for the betterment of the children, I would expect their dad to be there to be "best", rather than delegate to me regardless of whether I was second best.

What hypocrisy do you see?

Not if the step parent had absolutely no interest in being un paid au pair while their step childs parents skip off and leave them to it.

Childcare is the sole responsibility of the childs parents only.

Some step parents wish to be heavily involved, others clearly don't.

Somehow much more is expected of women, and it's wrong.

Parents need to sort themselves out between them and not impose on others.

A first mat leave is a special time.

Having the care of a 9 year foisted on you is NOT acceptable.

@PlanDeRaccordement

I don't understand how it's in the best interest of the child to have his Dad pass off the parenting of him to another person. How is it in the best interest of the SS to spend multiple days a week with neither of his parents?

Careful there, you are also condemning many working mothers who use nurseries by assuming that parental care is always in best interest of the child.

🤣 give over. Putting your child in nursery, a paid childcare setting specifically set up for the purpose of looking after young children whilst you work is not the same as just telling someone else that they are now looking after your kid on X days during the week and you get no choice in it.

And it's also not the same because the SS doesn't NEED outsourced childcare. His Mum or his Dad COULD look after him, they just are choosing not to and expecting that from someone else.

That PP said it was in the best interest of the child to be with the SM those evenings. How is it when he could be with either of his parents?

not the same as just telling someone else that they are now looking after your kid on X days during the week and you get no choice in it.

But that’s not what has happened? Read the OP and updates. The OP hasn’t been told and does have a choice. I just happen to think refusing outright is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the step child, her child or the blended family as a whole. And I don’t agree that just giving up on a business is a realistic choice for the dad to make? It’s rather like a step dad telling his wife, we she COULD CHOOSE to quit working so he didn’t have to watch HER child even though he’s home not working....

[quote sotiredofthislonelylife]@billy1966

Yes, I did read the OP, and most of the PP’s.
And yes, I did describe my life, which of course was very different to the OP’s, as are ALL our lives.
I guess some people just expect their roles to be mapped out on a spreadsheet of ‘fairness’.[/quote]
It's easy to say you don't want a spreadsheet of fairness when you're in a marriage that's fair.

Is it hard to imagine that people who are with selfish people might need one to stop being taken advantage of?