Who is being unreasonable?

[User2392]

I know you all hate these types of threads but I wanted to keep it as unbiased as I could so apologies!

Olivia has a child with Paul, they are not together and Paul has another younger child with his wife Lizzy.

Olivia and Lizzy have always gotten on well enough, not the best of friends but amicable and as the years have gone on, friendly.

Olivia's child has recently told her that he feels since his sister was born that Lizzy and her family don't care about him as much and are always doing things with his sister and not him. This upset Olivia.

Olivia and Paul don't really get on so she decided to send a message to Lizzy directly just asking if they could talk about it. The message was polite but to the point.

Lizzy replied saying that she is sorry he feels that way but her daughter will always be number one to both her and her family (her parents, grandparents, siblings etc..) and that if there are any issues with their child, Olivia should take it up with Paul. She also added that it was none of Olivia's business how much or what Lizzy does with her own daughter and she won't be made to feel like she has to justify it. The message was also polite but obviously Lizzy wasn't happy.

Who's unreasonable?

(Flipped a coin for the vote so don't read anything into that)

YABU - Olivia shouldn't have sent the message in the first place.

YANBU - Lizzy's reply was cruel.

He doesn’t have to change his feelings, but no one else has to change anything (when they’re not doing anything unreasonable!) to pander to said feelings.

Olivia should have contacted her ex, not her ex’s spouse. If the issue lies with Paul’s family (so they’re treating one grandchild better than the other) then Paul needs to do something about this, obviously. If you mean Lizzy’s family are treating Lizzy’s child differently to Lizzy’s stepchild then that is sort of inevitable… Olivia shouldn’t be taking this up with Lizzy anyway. If her child is unhappy, she should be contacting the child’s Father.

Not sure why you keep replying to me when you’ve already characterised it as “fucking boring” and me being “deliberately obtuse”. You also aren’t reading my posts properly and so aren’t engaging with the points I’m actually making.

If you reread what you wrote, it said

being upset that your step parent who you live with 50% no longer cares about you

Anyway... having reread the OP, it doesn’t say that, it says

he feels since his sister was born that Lizzy and her family don't care about him as much

as much - not not cared for. You aren’t describing how the DSS feels. He feels cared but just not as much

It is fucking boring, and you are being deliberately obtuse, however as you yourself have pointed out, we’re all free to give our opinions as many time as we like.

Your points have been engaged with. That you don’t agree with/wilfully ignore the responses is no one else’s problem.

That’s a no then to equal status with the actual parents? Funny that.

I said nothing about “unilaterally”changing anything. But it’s perfectly reasonable for Olivia to open the conversation about whether this arrangement is working now that circumstances have changed. A mutually agreed arrangement is exactly that. Things change, and the overriding principle in any custody arrangement should always be “the best interests of the child”, not “the status quo to pacify the adults”.

And if the father says no? She can want to change the agreement as much as she likes, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen though.

if she does try to force it and withhold the boy then that’s a quick way to end up in court. It’s considered to be in the best interests of the child to have a relationship with his father (sans cases of abuse, which isn’t happening here anyway), and it’s highly unlikely that the status quo will be changed. Especially not based on the ‘complaints’ in the OP.

You are free to do exactly as you like, I’m just questioning why you would when it’s “fucking boring”, I’m being “deliberately obtuse”, and you are not engaging with the points I’m actually making (although I appreciate you disagree on the last statement). It just doesn’t seem very productive?

In terms of your answer to your question about “equal status” - I presume you mean legal parental responsibility ? It’s a complex one. Currently as the law stands only two people can have parental responsibility so that wouldn’t be possible. But I don’t actually think it’s what is most important here. You are very focused on the “rights” and “status” of the parents. What I am saying is that the focus should be on the best interests of the child. I don’t believe that parents should be seen to have “rights” over a child per se: children are not property.

But there is nothing in the OP to indicate the outing wouldn’t be appropriate for the elder child? All we know is he wanted to go- thought it was something fun- so why is the default to just dismiss his perspective and assume it’s invalid?

I haven’t said the boy’s feeling are invalid but a 10 year old might think all sorts of things sound ‘fun’ but he doesn’t get to decide because he’s, you know, 10. Do/did your 10 year old make that kind of decision? Because I would politely suggest most families don’t operate like that, whether or not there are step-children involved.

Also the boy isn’t being abandoned, he’s being left with his father! What I would say is that in those circumstances Paul should have anticipated that his son might be a little disappointed and planned something nice to do instead. But that’s on Paul. It’s not Lizzie or Lizzie’s parents' responsibility to compensate for Paul being a bit rubbish. Otherwise we are back to a situation where the woman is the default childcare and the step-mother has a greater duty of care towards a child than his actual father. Just no. She doesn’t.

Ok I should have said “being upset that a step parent doesn’t care about you as much since a new sibling arrived, is not the same as being upset that your parents won’t buy you a pony”.

it doesn’t change the point at all. To be clear, I was describing the child’s feelings . The only person who is presuming to know how Lizzie feels is you -
you keep saying Lizzie probably “loves” her step son despite the fact that the step son clearly doesn’t feel this, and Lizzie’s text- shutting down the conversation about DSS’s feelings, and asserting her child will always be her no 1, does not remotely demonstrate such love.

Because the batshittery keeps pulling me back in I suppose.

if it’s in the best interests of the child to have equal status in the eyes of stepparents to their biological children, then it’s follows that they should have parental responsibility that reflects this.

Also, you’re information is incorrect. As the law stands, only two people can be recognised as parents, but more than two people can have parental responsibility for the same child. So yes, it absolutely would be, and is, possible. I’m surprised you don’t know this, considering you apparently work with vulnerable children and should be informed as to laws concerning then.

Your*

Sorry yes you are right, two legal parents. They can have financial responsibility and confer citizenship rights. Would Lizzie want this? Again I am not interested in the “status” of the parents - only in the well-being of the children.
I work in research on violence against children/ child protection etc- not a legal expert myself- I work more on the social side , although my company does a lot of legal work.

But there is a big different because i suspect almost every 7 year old that has been a single child for 7 years and all of a sudden has a baby which leaves both parents exhausted and is very time consuming feels pushed out and not cared for as much. These are normal feelings the child needs supporting through. And then add in the fact it is a blended family and it is more complicated and he needs more support.

in my post I assumed that all 3, Paul, lizzy and Olivia were trying their best and were caring people. I don’t think Lizzy sending a defensive text means that she cannot love her step son. I think the fact her parents still take DSS out, the fact that she stayed at home with DSS and Paul, indicate she does care.

out of interest, why have you picked up on my favourable view of Lizzy and not my favourable view of Paul?

if you expect Lizzie to treat the boy as her own child, then why wouldn’t you want her to have the status that reflects this? It would, after all, enable her to have equal say in his life, exactly as she does over that of her own child.

At risk of being sucked back in because this discussion is seemingly endless and OP hasn't added to it in ages - the outings are not appropriate for him because the grandparents don't want to take him. That's all there is to it really. Taking an additional, older child is much more work and often much more expensive than multiple adults dividing their attention between one, young, cheap to entertain child. They may also feel less able to discipline him as he is their SILs child, not their daughter's, and we don't actually know what his behaviour is like, it may not be all sweetness and light. For whatever reason, they don't want to do this more than they are, and this is fair enough. It is kind of them to do it at all.

I can understand why people would consider it unkind of them to drastically reduce the amount they do with him, but it's more likely that these solo trips with DD are in addition to what they used to do with him, not instead of. It's less likely they were once taking him out constantly and now aren't, they are probably just taking DD out more than they ever did him and still doing the occasional thing they used to do with him too. This is where gently educating him about who they are to him, is necessary. Most kids do not have another set of older people, alongside their grandparents, who sometimes take them out. It's a bonus that he has that in his life, not a source of sadness that they aren't grandparents number 3.

I take your points, and I agree DSS needs supporting through his feelings. I suppose where I disagree is the idea that all that needs to change is for DSS to be educated to change his feelings. I also don’t think Lizzie’s response was indicative of a step mother who was doing her best. At minimum there should be a willingness to have a conversation and consider where DSS may be coming from.

I focused on Lizzie because according to the OP , DSS was discussing how Lizzie and her family treat him, not his dad. I agree that there is no doubt a whole other story here about Paul which has not been told and deserves more attention.

Agree with all of this.

Lizzies's parents should be regarded as a bonus rather than an obligatory set of extra grandparents. How much or little they choose to do with Olivia and Paul's child is fair enough. They are bound to feel more closely bonded to their own grandchild imo.

I think you are derailing here? I haven’t expressed an opinion about whether she should have legal responsibility or not. If that is something she wants and all the others want too (and thought to be in DSS best interests ) I would have no issue with it certainly! Why would I? But I don’t think it’s the question OP asked?
What matters is that DSS feels loved and cared for in his home at his Dad’s house , and that he doesn’t feel he is second priority to his sibling.

I’m not detailing, I’m taking your logic to a natural conclusion. Does it matter if the other parent/s agree? If stepparents are to consider children as equal, then shouldn’t parental responsibility be conferred upon marriage? Would make (your) expectation as to their role pretty unequivocal then.

He does not have the same relationship to Lizzie as she goes to his sister. She is only mother to one. Not treating him like her child does not mean she doesn’t love him, or is cruel and neglectful towards him.

I think we are going round in circles here!

Do I think parental responsibility should be automatically incurred on marriage - no. I think it should be up to the families in question to decide and could depend on a range of complex factors.

Do I think the social and legal questions are the same? No.

Do I think DSS should feel equally loved and cared for in his home and it Dad’s house as his sibling? Yes.

Do I think failing to provide such an environment at his Dad’s home will harm his development (and therefore should be a matter of serious concern to his mother, Olivia) - yes.

Do I think Lizzie- as DSS’s step mum who he lives with 50%- has a responsibility / duty to do her best to create such an environment in collaboration with Paul - yes.

I have to go work now, but will check back later 😆

You haven’t mentioned Paul’s parents or Olivia’s parents OP. Are they not in the picture?

This is ridiculous. Lizzys parents are not Olivia's childs grandparents. If they want to take their grandchild out for the day they should be allowed to. Olivia's child was home with his Dad who is the one supposed to be looking after him.

OP doesn't say if Olivia has parents but if she does then her child has grandparents/aunts/uncles who could be spoiling him but never doing the same for Lizzys child.

It think an important question here is - do Paul and Olivia have parents? How do Paul's parents treat the GC?