Can someone explain how a parent could not invite their child on holiday?

[Tunisbaby]

I just don't get it. How could any parent invite one of their biological children, not the other? How does that thought process go? 'What about... DS1... nah'
I could never ever imagine forgetting to invite my child or thinking about booking one child place and not even giving a second thought to enquiring with the other parent.
I get kid free holidays completely. But choosing to only be a parent to one child for the week when you have a seven year old at home is just bizarre.
Can any parents explain why this is ever thought to be ok?

I think each family needs to weigh up their own circumstances regarding holidays.

For example, my EXH has never taken our shared DC on holiday, but he goes with his wife and step kids. I am fine with this because I take our DC away so they get a holiday. If he had to take our children along with him it would become unaffordable so therefore no one in that family gets a holiday. Why should those DC miss out on any holiday at all because they can't afford to include my two DC who already had a holiday.

If I wasn't in a position to take them I would probably feel differently but as long as everyone is getting a nice break I am not fussed.

I've never been close to my partners son, we've been together 12 years, for various reasons distance being one of them. His girlfriend is now having a baby in labour as I write and I can't feel excited. I don't feel part of it. How can I support my partner and fake feelings?

I agree with you in terms of my own personal feelings. I also have small kids but adult SC and feel sad for them having different opportunities but thats just the fact of them having grown up in different circumstances when their Dad had less but actually mainly because their mum was very different from me in terms of minimum wage part time work with no qualifications whereas I am what people would call a career woman and had kids later so most of our improved financial situation is due to me. If my SC was small I wouldn't exclude them from things like holidays - we actually took her when she was small pre our kids. But unevitably there will be differences because just as her mum isn't responsible for my kids, I am not actually responsible for her so it makes sense that I make provisions for my own children that she is not included in (like savings for future) just as her mum can for her (she has a house my kids obviously won't inherit).

Thats a really reasonable and practical response

I agree. It's horrible for the child.

If you want your child to be included in everything his dad does with his wife and child, you need to hand over residency and allow the child to live with them.

it simply isn’t possible for one child to be included in everything two families do. For a start finances often don’t stretch to it, secondly it’s unreasonable to expect people to only plan activities for when the child is with them, and sit at home not doing anything when they aren’t.

throw in uncertainties like wanting a holiday, but not being possession of the child’s passport, and knowing the other parent could easily decide the day of travel that she’s not handing it over. Or the child deciding not to come. It’s very different to a residential child.

unless its a scenario where all children live in the same home I.e. one parent isn't involved anymore. There will always be inequalities and frictions imo

I agree with this tbh. I do think it's easier to treat DSC like your own when the other parent isn't on the scene.

And I think in the other scenarios where children are splitting time between two active parents, it doesn't do anyone any good to act like there should never ever be any differences and that everything should be entirely equal all of the time. It's never going to be in that situation. Not when a group of children have different parents who are all involved and have different views, different priorities, different finances etc..

My child (sorry OUR child, don't want to confuse PP) is always going to have a slightly different upbringing that DSC. Because they have different mothers. There are things I agree with that perhaps DSC mum doesn't, there are things perhaps she'll prioritise that I won't and so on. Their dads may be the same but they do have different mums and therefore there will always be some differences. It's stupid to suggest there never will be or shouldn't be.

i have one child who is school age and one who is not, I can’t just choose to take the younger one on term-time holidays but not the other. They have chosen to have a child knowing there is an older sibling with this sort of age gap which rules out term time holidays, similar to the rest of us who have slightly larger gaps between siblings.

The older child ‘belongs’ to both parents.

Everyone supporting this seems to have been the underlying idea that the older child just doesn’t really ‘count’.

it simply isn’t possible for one child to be included in everything two families do. For a start finances often don’t stretch to it

But aren’t finances a consideration when you plan for subsequent children? When I planned for a second child it was taken into account we would now have 2 children and all the expenses that entails.

OPs ex and his new partner would have needed to consider that their baby already had a built-in sibling from the off, so future plans holidays trips houses etc etc would all need to be considered with a family of 4 in mind. Just as any other family planning another child would have to.

My eldest dad took his new kids to disney land missing my childs birthday. Never understood how he could do that

Babysitting? Its his child

If someone posted a thread on here saying they wanted a 2nd baby but wouldn’t be able to afford to take two on holidays etc. lots of people would advise them to stick with one child. If it’s financial OPs ex really shouldn’t have chosen to have another child.

This explains it perfectly and are our reasons for taking our young babies away and not my older step child.

I think there shouldn't be a blanket obligation to take everyone on holiday at the same time every time. Sometimes we go away with my step daughter, sometimes we also take her younger sister who is not even related to my partner. Sometimes my step kid is with us while her mum goes on holidays with the rest of the kids and her new husband, sometimes they all go with mum, sometimes kids go with their respective dads, sometimes my partner and I go away together without kids. It's all very fluid and amicable and I can honestly say nobody's ever been upset over who goes where and when.

I guess I’m just confused at this weird belief that if you are a family, everything has to be done with everyone or not at all.

My parents are still together, we didn’t always holiday as a family of 4! They took me to Lanzarote, and took my brother to the Lake District. Then my mum, grandad, aunt, and brother went to America for two weeks, and me and my dad had a couple of trips to museums and musicals in London, because (and I know this will blow your minds) we have different interests and don’t always want to do the same thing!

Similarly, I have been on holiday with just my mum and my DS, my DH and my DS, my DH, DS and two DSDs, and just my DH! We regularly have days out as a 5, but sometimes DH will have a day out with just DSDs so they can have quality time, but equally we will have days out with just me, DH and DS.

It’s not a “blended family” thing, it’s a “everyone is an individual with different interests and needs at any given time, which are constantly changing and need to be nurtured differently” thing.

I am the higher earner. Before I had children I made sure I was in a position where I could afford to have them.

dh contributes equally to all his children. he does not have much disposable income once child maintenance is paid.

I pay for our holidays, but I can’t stretch to two more children, it effectively doubles the cost.

dh takes his two away with his parents once a year. We go away with our two roughly every 2-3 years.

i am not not having a holiday because we can’t afford to include his kids who have 3 holidays a year anyway (one with dh, their mum takes them abroad x2)

There are loads of circumstances that have a bearing on whether this is acceptable or not. I was a step child who didn’t see their other parent and was not taken to Disney when my half sibling went with my primary parent. That hurt at age 14 but makes more sense as an adult as it was in school term, my brother was 4 and I had been aged 12 with my grandparents so actually not as unfair as aged 14 me thought it was. I am now a step mum that has been away with just my bio, just my step, every single one of us and just me and my husband. I don’t think every child needs to be included in every single thing, it’s just not practical.

@clappyjay True. Children being treated equally should be the overriding concern. If you can't handle that as a steparent then you should get with someone without children. To take one child on holiday but not the half sibling from a previous relationship sends a damaging message of being less worthy, less worth the cost. It is just as bizarre as a family where the mum and dad are together who only take one sibling and leave the other with grandparents as they can only afford to take one. Treating a child differently is emotional abuse whether they share a mum or not. The impact is the same on the child: very damaging.

I have 2 step kids from a previous relationship and my Fiancé has a son.

Ex and I had 1 main family holiday a year with all 3 kids (his 2 our 1). We would have occasional weekends away with just dd. When there is a large age gap it isn't possible to include all kids in all things.

My step kids had several expensive holidays with their mum a year that dd will never have as I cannot afford it.

You seem to have a very peculiar outlook on this and seemintent that your ds is being intentionally isolated but at 7 he isn't old enough for 90% of the rides at alton towers which leads me to think you are massively projecting.

I suggest you find a way to deal with your issues rather than making them your sons in the future.

Hi @clappyjay

Its different when it’s 2 children with the same parents, or when the children have different mothers (and different primary residences).

So I would take our DC away during term time, and not expect to account for older DSC. Older DSC have their own mother, social activities, friends.

However in the future, I would obviously only take all children away in term time, if my own DC were school aged. As, my own DC do not have another mother they usually live with.

This is the problem though with trying to jam a blended family into the mould of a nuclear one. My husband has more children than I do so no I don't plan out my finances based on the amount of children he has.

Sure there are some considerations to be made, can my husband afford his half of the childcare bill etc.. but I don't think I have to consider his older DC every time I make a financial decision though when I'm talking about my own money.

We have separate finances though so probably a lot easier to do that. I know that's like a deadly sin on here though but frankly I will never completely combine finances with anyone. Works fine for us.

There is no such thing as being treated exactly equally. Not between siblings in a nuclear family, and especially not when there are different mums/dads involved.

Someone will have a more/less expensive hobby/present.
Parents will have more/less time/money at different points in time.

im assuming that they all share the same dad.. does he do anything with his other kids to ‘make up for’ a holiday they haven’t been included in. The issue with the OP is a dad with two children being treated differently.

@Plaplablah
agree with you!

It just seems some posters think that the new woman is entitled to have the same experience as a couple who have had one baby together and don’t have previous children. She isn’t, she’s chosen to be somebody who has a child already and like I said their baby has had an older sibling from the beginning, her partner has two kids he needs to treat equally, there are implications for finances etc because he now has two children he is responsible for.