am I being unreasonable to think she's an absolute ****

[ooominn]

This happened yesterday but I'm still so angry about it.

I asked my ex about a week ago if he was alright with me going to work Sunday night as overtime (not usually his night with the kids but he said it was fine). We don't speak much unless about the kids (7&9) so hadn't really said anything else about it.

Came to drop them off on the way last night and he wasn't in. Tried ringing he wasn't answering then got some rushed reply saying he was at work and he'd forgotten and that I should have reminded him.

His wife's car was on the drive and the lights were on so tried knocking and ringing her, firstly she pretended to not hear the door or miraculously any of our calls and then when I finally got hold of her she said ex hadn't mentioned anything and refused to have them.

I had to go home in the end and cancel my shift at short notice fucking over my boss and colleagues.

I'm so annoyed though and want to message her asking what kind of step mother would refuse to let her stepkids in when they were on the door step. My ex is a POS too in this situation I know but seriously why wouldn't you just agree to let them in for the night considering it was her husband who fucked up??

WIBU to message her? AIBU to be mad? Or is it just nothing to do with her as she said last night.

My ex said afterwards she was tired lol.

Exactly 😂😂

Or for all we know she could have been on the bog.

'On the bog' 😂 Love it! I feel like you are from Yorkshire

Apologies, perhaps it was my poor execution, perhaps it was your misinterpretation, but I meant end of to be the final of my comment that if I were with someone I would expect them to take on my children. To me, that is factual, it is what I would expect.

I wouldn't force anybody to do anything, I just wouldn't be with anyone who treated my kids as the SP in this post. End of.

Better...?

They are married, so are a team and jointly responsible

They aren't though. A stepmum in no way has the same level of responsibility as the actual parents.

But you've decided that the SM is rude and a coward, with absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between her and the OP. It also argue that labelling another woman a because your ex partner fucked up is more than venting and gives a hint that OP might just be rude and/or abusive if SM did answer the door. Which according to you would be fine to do in that situation.

It's interesting that you'll find reasons to excuse the OPs behaviour while also inventing ones to crucify the SM.

Its an excuse when you don't know either parties financial situation. As I said, how do you know that taking the kids wouldn't have had a knock on effect for the SM with regards to her own work and finances during the cost of living crisis? Why have you decided that the OP's needs trump SM's without any knowledge of the situation?

I wonder if all the people bleating about stepmums having responsibility for the step kids would argue the same point if we wanted a say in their schooling, discipline, house rules, parents nights, GP appointments etc.? Or does our responsibility end at helping the mum out when she needs a favour?

For what it's worth, I would have taken my DSD in. And I would have given my useless DH a bollocking for fucking things up. Because HE'S the one that's fucked up here.

Bear in mind, we're hearing one side of the story here. In our situation, my DSD's mum takes the piss regularly, makes life as difficult as she possibly can and has said+done absolutely awful things over the years. I've posted on the stepparents board about it many times. So funnily enough my willingness to do her favours would be very, very low were she to turn up unannounced banging on my door.

We don't know the stepmums side of the story. And trust me, there will be one. We're not all wicked ogres you know.

Yup and they can open the door to their angry mum once their dad lets them inside

I'm worried how many people believe this

The stepmum is not responsible for helping OP with the cost of living ffs

Who the fuck does the SM think she is to refuse those kids entry to their own home just because their 'D'F isn't there? They might only live there part time but it's supposed to be their other home.

The crux of the matter, is that their 'D'F's house is clearly not the kids' "home", despite how much it is bleated on about on Mumsnet about how much "the father's new house is the children's home and they should have their own room/space/time etc".

If the DF had taken on an OT shift, and told their mum that he had to bring them back a day early, and their mum had forgotten which she wouldn't and he had brought them home that day early, and mum's OH had been home with, for eg. Their toddler while mum had been at work, but her OH had refused them entry, then all fucking hell would be wreaked on the rotten child neglecting interloping bastard who didn't give them entry to THEIR OWN HOME!! (And rightly so btw).

So fine, daddy and his new wife their step mum get to refuse the kids entry to their own home (which it's clearly not), so they don't get to moan when they don't get things their own way re visitation (which it clearly is if they're being denied entry to the house, they obviously don't actually live there, even part time), holidays, birthdays etc.

Can't have it both ways. Either it's the kids home (their other home) and the step mum was a cunt for refusing them entry, or it's not their home, and step mum had every right to refuse her husband's ex's kids entry to her home.

Why are you? I’ve been a stepmum for over 20 years and I believe it. It was part of the contract. I’m much more worried that many people don’t believe it.

It's perfectly normal to not answer the door if you know you don't want to speak to that person, you aren't obliged to answer. I regularly ignore the door when I can see it's a salesperson. It's just like not answering the phone.

I don't understand the obsession from some on here with the idea that it would have been much more polite to answer the door to directly say "I'm not having them". Not answering the door sends the same message, people should be able to take the hint.

They’re not teenagers being refused entry to their home.

They’re young children who have no childcare in that home, so can’t be left there (SM is not prepared to provide it, therefore there is none).

Completely different scenarios.

No, they're not. A husband and wife don't suddenly become one person when they're married. I'm not responsible for my DH's actions... if he's having issues at work, commits a crime, doesn't pay his car tax or organise his MOT on time, forgets to do his washing so he has no clean work clothes, or similar things, I'm not responsible for fixing things for him (though I might help (apart from with the crime!) if asked nicely and it didn't put me out too much). Similarly, step-mums don't become responsible for their husbands' children just because they marry them and I don't think the parents would be happy with this view either... for example, if a step-mum thought she had the right to interfere with the children's upbringing - diet, education, activities etc.

I never understand comments like this that imply some sort of "gotcha!" contradiction has been found.

It's the SAME school of posters on here that "bleat" about the NRPs home being the child's second home (and about step dad's being responsible for their step children, which is the other thing people falsely claim is a double standard). Not the people on the other side of the debate.

The SM in this case is unlikely to be deeply bothered about the house being described as their home, or vague threats to visitation. This is not the comeback you think it is.

@aSofaNearYou yep because a salesperson is the exact same as your stepchildren. Bonkers.

She didn't have to directly say she wasn't having them. She could have made an excuse. It would have sent a better message to the kids than being ignored and refused entry to somewhere that they are supposed to feel welcome and safe.

What a lot of semantics.

You are suggesting that deliberately and callously being left on the doorstep of your fathers home by your step mother matters less if you're younger? And you have less of a right to see your parents home as your home at an age when arguably you are more vulnerable, understand less and you need it most?

FWIW and as an aside it well known that when children are young they believe that everything is about them. They are the centre. There's a term for it. Anyway it effectively means they are far more likely to draw negative conclusions and internalise shit like this.

No wonder kids of divorced parents so often end up fucked up.

Ah yes, clearly I said they were the same 🙄

Ignoring the door/phone call/whatever else is more polite than answering to say "I don't want to talk to you" in my opinion. She was being put in an awkward position and put on the spot, and probably thought the easiest way of NOT having to say in front of the SK's that she wasn't willing to have them, was to pretend not to be in. Perfectly logical. It would have been much harsher to answer the door and explain in front of them.

They haven’t been left on the doorstep have they.
And if they had, that would be in their mum.

SM doesn’t have to provide childcare - it’s not more complicated than that.

And calling her a cunt (as a PP did) is ridiculous.

It’s not semantics though, is it? Children that age can’t have access to ‘their home’ unless someone is there to care for them.

Tbh SM likely thought that opening the door and saying no would result in an argument in front of the children, and wanted to avoid that. Of course if she had have done that she’d be criticised anyway and called a bitch for turning them away.

@aSofaNearYou - no gotcha involved here - just facts. Step mum might not care much about her home being seen as the kids home (despite the fact that it is), but I can guarantee that daddy does (and it will be rolled out whenever he doesn't get his way re holidays and birthdays and SM will cop the flack for not
making their kids welcome when it mattered).

@aSofaNearYou pretend not to be in with all the lights on?

You seen to be missing my point. I didn't say she should answer and say she wasn't doing it. I suggested she could have answered and made an excuse - "I'm so sorry dsc your dad forgot to tell me and I'm going out now but I'll see you at the weekend" - would have gone down a whole lot better than flat out ignoring them. Of course the op would have seen through it but the dsc (who should be the priority here) would have at least felt like there was a genuine reason for the change of plans instead of being ignored. In my opinion it is just the decent thing to do if you really are hell bent on not having them.

Thankfully my dc have two stepparents who would have done it in a heartbeat for which I'm very very grateful. I would hate to have to leave them with someone who could behave like this.

And? This is just another undue bit of flack she might have to put up with. What are you trying to say - she should feel obliged to stop everything to provide childcare whenever either parent feels like it, in case mum decides to deny contact out of spite in retaliation, and dad decides to unfairly blame her for it, if she doesn't?

Hardly makes her look bad. That's just both of them being twats again.