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.

Not no longer cares for you. Just has a different relationship with their own child. As he probably does with his mother compared to his step mother. The two are not the same, and the one that is actually reality IS possible to kindly explain to a child.

They're not, though.

That link you posted (which I found interesting reading) talks very specifically about parents – there is no mention whatsoever of step-parents, aunts, nannies or any other person in a caregiving role. Just parents.

So you extending that argument to include other adults 'regardless of DNA' is just your opinion, it's not supported by any evidence that every adult in a caregiving role bears the same responsibility for their behaviour. Children wouldn't necessarily assume this of an aunt, or a nanny, or a teacher so why would they assume it of a step-mother?

No, she’s treating her one child like her child. She’s not his mother, and as such her relationship to him will be different.

They do still include him in some things but they also take out Lizzy's daughter by themselves too and just generally make more of a fuss over her.

But they aren’t his grandparents? Not sure what being retired has to do with it. IMO it’s nice they include him by taking him out sometimes, but of course they will spend time with their DGD alone at times. His father should step up when this happens, and the text shouldn’t have been sent to the SM, you’ve got her back up, understandably.

As I said, in this case I was mainly posting this article in response to people saying that Paul and Olivia should teach their son to feel differently/ tell him his feelings are reasonable etc, rather than seeking a compromise with Lizzie (as Olivia is doing).
But the same principles do apply to other people in caregiving roles, although the impact on the child will of course be less, because of the lesser relationship- (will try to find some research). However, Lizzie is more than a teacher/ nanny/ aunt , she is a step parent who he lives with 50%. again there is plenty of research on the formative role of step parents in step childrens lives, development , emotional well-being.

But he feels that she no longer cares for him- so again, you are still thinking along the lines of “the child needs to be taught to feel differently”

Differently treatment like making less of a fuss about his birthday

Good heavens. Kids get upset and see injustices where there are none all the time.

The son is still taken out occasionally by his step grandparents and stepmum. Why is it so wrong that they'd like to do things with just their (grand)daughter every now and then?

After all, by taking his sister out they are allowing him 1-2-1 time with his dad, which surely is the most important thing.

I assume then if DSS says he wants to get his ears pierced because DD is getting hers done (i.e. something the child himself has asked for) Lizzy would have every right to take him to get it done too without reference to Olivia?

The pick and choose aspect of "treat them like your own" causes so much avoidable conflict.

Olivia needs to woman up and speak to Paul direct.

Because maybe they're taking her to an event that's only on for a short time or they have other things going on and fit it in when they're free. Maybe they feel it's nice to give the little boy time alone with his dad.

But he feels that she no longer cares for him- so again, you are still thinking along the lines of “the child needs to be taught to feel differently”

Because from the examples he's actually given, he does! All the evidence suggests he feels she no longer cares because he doesn't get to go on all outings with her family, and he had less of a fuss made by her and her family on his birthday. Kids DO come to unreasonable conclusions based on how many presents etc they get.

He should have had an equal fuss made of his birthday by his dad, but he is unreasonable to think his step grandparents should have made the same level of fuss. This is the kind of area where he needs to be taught to understand the family roles.

Yes but my point is that I don’t think he can be taught not to be hurt by the fact that he’s treated differently / shown less care than his sibling , in his home at his Dad’s house. You can teach him about different roles, that doesn’t mean he’s going to feel less hurt. Teaching him he should not be hurt by this is likely to do more harm than good.
Therefore if the adults in question are unwilling to find compromises that make DSS feel more cared for (/ to “pander” to his feelings as you say ), as his mother I would be reconsidering how I felt about the 50/50 timeshare.

Then that's on dad.

However, I disagree it sounds like that. For all we know they could still take the 10yo out just as often as they did before but because they've taken the 3yo out on a couple of other occasions he sees it as him being left out. Kids do perceive things differently sometimes and see injustice where there is none.

But he feels that she no longer cares for him- so again, you are still thinking along the lines of “the child needs to be taught to feel differently”

My son decided I didn't love him as much as his older siblings because they go to bed later than him, and I didn't stop them ordering a dominos (he found the evidence the next day, they'd saved him cookies).

Children see and feel things that aren't actually real. Hence his parents need to talk to him and explain in a way that he can understand while acknowledging his feelings.

For all you or I know prior to his sister's arrival he did something with his stepmum and her parents once a month, he still does yet his sister does things with them slightly more often. In his eyes he's not getting what he did before, simply because his sister is getting more, even though the reality is his level of contact/days out remains the same.

Yes but my point is that I don’t think he can be taught not to be hurt by the fact that he’s treated differently / shown less care than his sibling , in his home at his Dad’s house. You can teach him about different roles, that doesn’t mean he’s going to feel less hurt. Teaching him he should not be hurt by this is likely to do more harm than good.
Therefore if the adults in question are unwilling to find compromises that make DSS feel more cared for (/ to “pander” to his feelings as you say ), as his mother I would be reconsidering how I felt about the 50/50 timeshare.

Not taught that he "should not" feel that way, taught that he doesn't need to feel that way. There is a difference between shutting down his feelings and kindly explaining the situation to him. You say that it is impossible to guide his thinking but this is not my experience. My DSS has asked many questions over the years about how the family works, who I am to him, who my family is to him, even things like who his mum is to my DD. He has had his view of things guided by us and at this point has no trouble hearing about nice things DD does with/gets from me or my parents. He is aware he has his own grandparents she doesn't share.

I do agree that all that sounds healthy, to talk about who everyone is in the family etc, and it sounds like it’s working well in your household x

But the same principles do apply to other people in caregiving roles, although the impact on the child will of course be less, because of the lesser relationship- (will try to find some research). However, Lizzie is more than a teacher/ nanny/ aunt , she is a step parent who he lives with 50%.

And here is where I don’t think step-parents will necessarily agree with you. Some step-mothers are not involved any more than an aunt or a teacher might be, and to be honest they aren’t actually obliged to be. It varies from household to household and depends on the specific set-up of each individual family. Furthermore some mothers do not want the step-mother to parent their child at all so it’s really impossible to generalise.

As anyone with more than 1 DC will tell you, it isn’t always possible to include every DC in every activity or outing, particularly if there is a large age gap between them. No one would criticise a mother for taking 1 of her DCs to an age-appropriate activity while leaving another in the care of his or her father. That happens all the time, all over the country. It’s patently absurd to hold a step-mother to a higher level of responsibility for a child than its actual mother.

Yes, the stepmother and her parents made a fuss of their granddaughter on her birthday.

His parents and maternal grandparents are welcome to make the same amount of fuss for him.

You may advise that the OP (if she is in fact Olivia) revisits the custody agreement based on that, but on the information provided, and the fact that she can’t just unilaterally change it, she would be unlikely to get anywhere, at the cost of her time and money . Her achievement would be to turn a generally amicable relationship into an acrimonious one whilst looking like a bit of a dick in the process. Something most people would look to avoid.

Children's "feelings" should never be invalidated. But nor does that mean that children's emotive reactions to events should be accepted as the only possible response to those events or as logical. As parents it's our job to teach children that whilst their feelings are real, they can choose how they react.

So Olivia should be telling her son that whilst it might feel like Lizzy has dismissed him, she still cares about him, but that its perfectly normal for him not to be included in everything that Lizzy, her daughter and her parents do, just as it's entirely normal for his half sister not to be included in everything that Olivia, he and her parents do. it's a great opportunity to teach him that people can care for you even if you are not the centre of their world and that other people making choices that don't revolve around you and your needs is not rejection but a healthy human relationship.

Not sure why you are assuming there is a legal agreement? Anyway you and I will just have to disagree.
As a mother, I would never personally want my child to feel such a way in his home, and entrust them into such type of care.

But the son considered it to be a fun activity so obviously was age appropriate?
also if your step child lives with you 50%, I don’t think you get to opt out and you ought to treat him like his sibling.

@Tandora

Unilaterally changing a contact agreement is a very quick way to see yourself with a non flexible court order.

Are you the op sock puppeting?

Sorry I just don’t think you can teach a child who feels excluded that it is fine for them to be excluded, and at the same time validate their feelings.

I didn’t say she should “unilaterally” change anything, and also I have no idea why people are assuming there’s some kind of legal contract? Maybe there’s an amicable agreement that has worked until now.