AIBU? Would this conversation upset you?

[GroundFogDay]

DH is currently not talking to me and I think he's being a bit ridiculous.

We were talking last night about hypothetical situations, wasn't a serious conversation at first but then he brought one up and asked what I'd do in a situation where both he and DSCs mum had died, he assumed I'd say they'd stay living with me but I answered honestly that they wouldn't and I'd assume would go to some family or another (H doesn't have much family but their mum has some).

It got pretty serious then, the conversation, with DH asking me why I wouldn't want them to live with my and our children and again I answered honestly that I wouldn't want to become full time parent to two more children and I didn't think it was my responsibility.

He was upset by it, we argued and now he's still not talking to me. AIBU to think he's being silly over a situation that is very very unlikely to ever actually happen?! And I guess AIBU to have said what I said when he asked? I'm surprised in that situation he'd expect me to be the one to take on DSC full time rather than their families (DH and exs).

I feel ridiculous having an argument over a situation that's not even going to occur. But he says it shows how I really feel i.e. about them not being responsibility. Would you be hurt if your spouse said what I said?

YABU you'd be hurt if your spouse said the same.

YANBU he shouldn't be expecting it anyway and it's silly to argue over a hypothetical.

100%. I would take my nieces in without a second’s hesitation, as well as the children of my best friend were it required.

I think this is so sad. I can't imagine being with someone who would reject my children if I died :(

It’s easy to say that though. Proof is in the pudding.

I would take my nieces in without a second’s hesitation, as well as the children of my best friend were it required

Good for you.

But it doesn't make you a better person than someone who doesn't feel able to do those things.

Taking on someone else's children isn't for everyone and it would be much worse if the children were forced to live with someone who was unwilling or unable to care for them.

There’s not an iota of a chance I would let my nieces go into care. And I’m designated in my bf’s will so I’d better mean it!

Excellent point.

An auntie very happy to have her niece. See, why is it such a bad thing that children go to live with their relatives? There will be grandparents who feel like this too, extremely happy to provide a home for their grandchild.

Isn’t that so much better for the child to go there, than to be living with their stepmum who understandably doesn’t want the responsibility for them? Better for everyone all round.

100%. I would take my nieces in without a second’s hesitation, as well as the children of my best friend were it required.

Emotionally, I would take my best friend's children in a heartbeat. Realistically though, unless they make financial provisions for them and their futures, there's no way we could. We stopped at one child because that is literally all we can afford, no way could we add three more and give them any quality of life.

I agree it’s not for everyone. But I understand why OP’s DH would be deeply upset to realise his wife wouldn’t feel that way about his children- her step children- siblings to their children- who live with them.

I think I would too, and I don’t doubt your love for them.

But things can change, we can’t know what the future holds, and the will is not binding on you, you could opt out.

In my case, my mums' sister would have taken me in. If she was unable to do so, my godmother was next "in line" and after that, it was my dad's sister.

All women. Women always assumed to be able and willing to take on years of unpaid childcare labour.

Until people start seeing childcare as valuable labour and not just something women are born to do and don't mind taking on, we begin to get close to equality or equity between the sexes.

Well, it's hardly my parents fault that neither of them have any living brothers for me to live with

My point was, my parents made arrangements for my care and those people agreed to take on that responsibility.

So true. Always women.

@Ktime - again, my parents didn't have any living male relatives who could have taken me in.

They didn't pick women because it's "women's work" to raise children.

My dad died and I stayed with my step mum, we were really close. I don’t think they ever had this conversation when he was ill, before he died

Not adopting them is a bit different from rejecting them. I would push myself to have some sort of relationship with whatever relative of DSS from his mum's side that inevitably took him in so my DDs could keep seeing him, but I wouldn't adopt him myself, just like I haven't while their parents are alive.

How did you feel about that?

How did she feel about that?

As I posted above, if my husband and I were both to die, we've put his brother and his brother's partner (also a man) in our wills to look after our children.

Not my sisters, not either of our mothers.

So no. It's not 'always women'.

@GroundFogDay what does not playing mum mean? Are they teenagers who don’t need much hands on parenting?

She’s not here to ask is she?

I’m curious to know how this poster felt as the child in the scenario,

As above, It's my brother in law and his male partner who we have put in our wills as guardians for our children if we both die.

Not my sisters, not my mother or mil.

So no it's not 'so true'.

One of them is 9, and OP has been in a relationship with dad since he was 3!

Understood, sorry!

Would you consider it if there were no relatives on his mum's side? It's not that far fetched - we have hardly any plausible options across both of our families. So if going into care was the only alternative?

I understand you don't feel like he is your child and you wouldn't want to take him in given the choice, but if it were literally a choice between living with you and your children, or going into care?

Have you and your husband had the conversation formally?