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.

Given the update on the DC ages my previous example of grandparents taking the DD to the farm stands. That’s a big age gap, it can’t be easy finding activities that suit both DC every time. 10 is a lovely age, Paul should be doing things with his son that he enjoys which DD is too young for. The grandparents may not have known DS when he was 3 and so they’re embracing little kid stuff with their granddaughter. They’re doing nothing wrong.

Well not wrong, no, but I think some effort should be made to shield the child from feeling ‘lesser’. Hypothetically If the child lived full time with birth parent and step parent then they had a further child together, would it be ok for the parent of both to treat the shared child as more ‘important’?

step families are complicated!

Is this not about Lizzies parents though, and that they are doing things independently with their DGD?
Even if its about Lizzie, are people really saying that if the DS is there, she cannot do things with her daughter unless the DS comes too?

Hypothetically If the child lived full time with birth parent and step parent then they had a further child together, would it be ok for the parent of both to treat the shared child as more ‘important’?

Hypotheticals are irrelevant. The DS has half his time with his mum and has plenty of time to spend with any family on her side, her friends, his friends. He has two homes and two lots of people caring about him already.

And even if he was with his dad full time, his step mum’s parents aren’t obliged to see him as a grandchild in the same way as their GDD. They’ve known about her since before she was born. They know the DS because their DD started dating a man who had a child. They missed out on knowing him as a baby, watching him grow and develop for years. While I’m sure they try to be considerate it’s unrealistic to expect them to feel as though there’s no difference. The DS needs them no more than they need him. They’ll be aware if lizzy and Paul break up they probably won’t ever see Paul’s DS again and that can bring a level of distance that’s neither wrong not cruel. It’s pragmatism.

You can prioritise your own child without it being detrimental to your stepchild.

Wait, Olivia’s son is 10 and Lizzy’s daughter is only 3? I had assumed they were similar ages.

In that case I think Olivia is being even more unreasonable. It is pretty normal for a three-year-old to require more attention and fuss than a ten-year-old in general. I also think that clearly Lizzy and her parents are not always going to want to find activities and outings that are suitable for both a ten-year-old and a toddler.

I strongly suspect Olivia’s son would have some jealousy issues with his little sister even if they weren’t a blended family. It’s pretty normal.

I also think that clearly Lizzy and her parents are not always going to want to find activities and outings that are suitable for both a ten-year-old and a toddler.

I agree. Their focus is rightly on giving their 3 year old daughter/granddaughter opportunities that are centred around her.

Just a hunch, but I bet Paul isn’t finding activities and outings that are suitable for both a ten year old and a toddler and I bet Olivia isn’t pulling her face at him.

God I hate these vague, trying to be impartial threads. They are almost as annoying as reverses.

I am betting you are Olivia and aren't replying/explaining fully as you are realising from this thread that your DH is stepping up to be a responsible parent so you feel you have to do it. Even more annoying than the attempt at impartially is the "which of these two women is to blame" and total lack of accountability/responsibility of the father who is involved for creating two children and not stepping up. Why does the DC not feel able to confide in him? If she has confided in him, why hasn't he addressed it?

Just explain the situation properly! You have an issue in your life that you want advice/support on. Explain and MNers will help! A "secret" AIBU thread won't help and annoys people like me You want to know if your perspective is unreasonable or not, surely, so explain your perspective! You also can have no full insight to Lizzy's perspective despite the brief texts, so you can't "present her side" here.

Come on, just say who you are and what's going on and you will get better advice, including more help on how to deal with the father of these children!

I think Lizzie was way more reasonable than she could have been, and probably more reasonable than she felt like being. She wasn’t rude imo, she was assertive, and shut that shit down. Olivia has no business dictating to Lizzie’s family. They have no obligation to the DSS just because their daughter married his father. He’s not their grandchild, yet they’ve welcomed him and treated him with kindness. They haven’t even dropped him, they still take him out! He just doesn’t get to go on every occasion. Instead, he got one on one time with his father and stepmother independently of his sister.

Of course they’re going to have a greater bond with their biological grandchild. DSS may have his feelings and be entitled to them, but that doesn’t mean he’s entitled to have them pandered to. Instead of teaching him that he should get his way, his parents would be better served in (kindly) teaching him to manage his expectations. His relationship with his stepmother’s parents is different to the one they have with his sister, it’s more harmful to pretend this isn’t the case than pay lip service to the idea that the relationship is the same.

Olivia needs to accept this too, and not overstep. All she’ll do is make a pleasant relationship acrimonious. Revisiting the custody agreement? Based on what? That he doesn’t get to go out with his stepmother’s parents when they’re spending time with his sister?

Revisiting the custody agreement? Based on what? That he doesn’t get to go out with his stepmother’s parents when they’re spending time with his sister?

No , based on the fact that he does not feel equally cared for / valued in the blended family home. That’s a awful situation for a child to grow up in.

Contrary to popular opinion on this thread, Im better the OP is Lizzie.

*betting

Olivia is totally unreasonable. Do she and her family include the younger sibling? No.

Mm.. so based on that update and those ages..

Paul needs to up his game to make it clear to his son that the younger childs GP's are doing 'baby' stuff that he won't enjoy and to make sure they do fun stuff together too.

I suspect its more of a 'child B is getting a treat whereas child A is doing boring normal stuff' type issue than the GP's themselves.

I still think it is pretty heartless of the GP's to form a relationship and bond with the older child and then ditch him when the new one comes along, that is still on them... (if that is what occurred!)

But over all it is Pauls job to manage that, manage his sons expectations and ensure equality between his children.

Instead, he got one on one time with his father and stepmother independently of his sister.

It’s like dss having time with his father isn’t quite so important when Lizzy and her DD are out and about doing something. I’m sure in her next breath, Olivia will be wishing her son could have some time alone with his dad, but only when Lizzy and dd are locked in at home.

Why do men so often have it so easy?

Okay, so based solely on the kids feelings? Because kids aren’t prone to irrational/unreasonable feelings, ever? If a kid feels something, he must therefore be right, and pandered to? Bollocks. What he needs to be taught is to manage his feelings. No one is treating him unkindly because he has a different relationship to his stepmother’s parents in comparison to his half sister. OP even said they include him, just not every time. He’s 10 years old, he’s capable of understanding that.

I worked in a legal office. If anyone came in and presented this alone as justification for altering a custody agreement that has up until this point worked well, the reaction would be a rolling of eyes and a ‘fucking seriously?’ amongst ourselves.

Even more annoying than the attempt at impartially is the "which of these two women is to blame" and total lack of accountability/responsibility of the father who is involved for creating two children and not stepping up

So true @WeBuiltCisCityOnSexistRoles. I reckon OP is Paul! Looking for excuses for his rubbish parenting of his 2 DCs…

@Tandora

That is not a reason to alter a custody arrangement, let’s be realistic.

It’s not about the kid’s feelings of eg “I feel like I want some chocolate cake”, “I feel like wearing the dinosaur shoulder”. this is about whether a child feels cared for / valued/ treated as a person of equal worth by his caregivers in his home.

Emotional neglect in childhood is a form of abuse and has profoundly harmful and permanent psychological effects. There’s no telling a child who doesn’t feel loved / valued that they need to “manage their feelings”, they won’t be “pandered to”, they are being irrational/ unreasonable. That is a profoundly harmful attitude.
(This differential treatment is clearly not a construct of the child’s mind /
projection either; Lizzie has apparently acknowledged herself that the differential treatment is real).

There is no way that I would want my children spending 50% of their time in a blended family setting where they weren’t treated with equal love and priority as the other children in the household. I would do everything in my power to protect my children from that.

you work in a legal office- good for you. I work in research on violence and abuse against children and impacts on emotional well-being and development.

*dinosaur shoes

‘Caregivers in his home’ - except they’re not in his home. They’re his stepmother’s parents. They also treat him kindly. On this occasion they wanted a day out with their 3 year old granddaughter at an age appropriate activity. The boy was quite safe with his father and stepmother. In your world this is clearly unreasonable and a cruelty inflicted, but for most people it really isn’t. It’s also not something a 10 year old would generally fail to comprehend.

There is nothing in this particular situation that even hints at abuse. ‘Treated differently’ is not interchangeable with ‘treated abusively’, which is just as well really, otherwise every parent that gives a teenager more leeway than a 7 year old would be fucked.

Also, it’s ‘worked’, so past tense. I mentioned it because your advice was ludicrous in relation to using this event alone as justification for changing their agreement.

I’m not talking about the grandparents, that was just one example of how he is left out. I’m talking about the broader situation of how he is treated differently at his 50% home to his half sibling.

All Pauls are total wankers, without exception.

I imagine he is treated differently, as he’s 10 and she’s 3. You mean how he’s abused and neglected, presumably, which OP hasn’t even claimed him to be.

You appear to be building you own narrative here.

I’m not talking about the grandparents, that was just one example of how he is left out. I’m talking about the broader situation of how he is treated differently at his 50% home to his half sibling.

There's nothing to back this up though, no actual reason to think DSS is upset about more than missing out on day's out.