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.

Maybe he is thinking of it as keeping all his kids together. I can see both sides to be honest but obviously keeping them together could only work if you wanted to do it.

That's very sad, but realistically, what do you think the alternative was?

OP if you turned it round and it was you and your ex that died would he keep your DC with him?

Sorry I haven't read the full thread so someone mayhave asked, I will go back and read.

The other child's father could have kept them together. He had been a father figure to both children as his relationship with their mother was off and on.

Don't listen to the "fairy tale" responses on Mumsnet

It is a sad indictment of our society when basic human kindness is relegated to fairy tales.

Quite frankly, the only good thing about my DH dying will be never having to set eyes on his children again.

DH is alive and well, but once he's gone they will never darken my doorstep again.

Why is the mother's occupation relevant?

Bob Geldof raised Paula Yates youngest daughter after her death and it was a lovely thing to do, to keep her with her sisters. But I don't think anyone would have called him names if she had gone to live with a different family member.

She was killed by a punter so it was relevant to the murder and the youngest child had no known father so it was sort of assumed a punter was the father and no way to trace him, not like if she'd been in a relationship with someone and people would likely know who he was even if he wasn't involved. I suppose that could be the case with a one night stand as well.

It was a terribly sad case and the only positive thing was the killer was caught and convicted so at least he couldn't do it to someone else.

How old are the children and how long have you known them?

Adopting a child is not basic human kindness, it's an absolutely monumental expectation.

If you knowingly marry someone with kids, it’s what you sign up for.

Exactly. Some responses on here are just ludicrous.

When you marry someone, you don't gain any parental rights over their existing children. If you want to take on parental responsibility, then you need to go to court and apply for adoption - it's a totally separate arrangement and relationship.

Why on earth should he have been expected to take life-long responsibility for a child that isn't his?

If you knowingly marry someone with kids, it’s what you sign up for.

No it isn't, on any level. There's no legal precedence for this, and the amount of people who disagree with you on a moral level should show you that there is no one size fits all, dominant view on this and if you want your DP to sign up to that, you need to actually ask them to, because they haven't done so automatically.

Oh ok, if you’re not legally required to do that, it must be alright then? Do you also apply the same logic when deciding against helping someone in the street?

I am aware there may be extenuating circumstances, for eg if the kids are almost grown up and actively dislike you, or you don’t actually see them much or they resent having to spend time with you or something. If so, the OP has not said so. These are kids she’s seen grow up from very little for 6 years now, and are still quite young. If their mum died and they moved in with her full time, and then a few years later their dad unfortunately died too, she would turn them out.

Helping someone in the street isn't remotely comparable to taking on parental responsibility for someone else's child for the rest of both of your lives

The default common sense approach is that yes, she would be involved with those children, it goes without saying that rejecting someone else's child means that you are rejecting them. This is not unusual, this is standard common sense. Both should have brought up this conversation, not just him, the aberrant element here is her approach.

LMAO, no. No it is not.

Because he was the father figure in her life. She didn't know she wasn't in the same position as her sister. I didn't say he should be expected to, I said it was sad. Don't you think it is sad that a small child is alone, no parents and not kept with her older sibling?

The default common sense approach is that yes, she would be involved with those children, it goes without saying that rejecting someone else's child means that you are rejecting them. This is not unusual, this is standard common sense. Both should have brought up this conversation, not just him, the aberrant element here is her approach.

No, it isn't common sense at all, it's a totally random conclusion you keep presenting as fact. Rejecting someone does not mean rejecting somebody else. It does not mean that.

She had already died some years ago, before their Dad remarried.

Of course it's sad.

But it's not an unrelated person's responsibility to fix that. Taking on someone else's child for life is a massive undertaking - not just practically, but emotionally and financially too.

It shouldn't be a role anyone feels pressured to take on, regardless of the circumstances.

If you (as a parent) want your biological children to remain together when you die, you have a responsibility to make sure that happens by making arrangements in advance.

The logic is the same.