To have said I wasn't going to feed them?

[chucklechucky]

This happened last weekend but only had chance to post.

Last Saturday I ended up looking after DSS 11 by myself when DH had to work overtime. We also have a 3 year old together.

DSS had asked for a friend to sleep over which to be honest I wasn't keen on as I was by myself and could have done without another child in the house when DH wasnt there but I reluctantly agreed after a bit of guilt tripping!

I did say to DH though that if DSS's friend was staying then he would have to have tea at his own home first and come after that as I didn't want to have to feed him as well (the friend). We didn't have any pizzas to chuck in unless I dragged a 3 year old to the shop for one and what I'd planned to cook was more of a sit at the table kind of meal which I didn't want to have to do with DSS's friend, who I've never met.

Dh seemed a bit put out by this and was making comments like "you wouldn't say that if it was DC3s friend when they are older".

We ended up getting into a little bit of an argument and I basically said he either eats before he comes or he doesn't come. Dh did end up speaking to DSS who asked his friend to have tea first. Friend did so, came over, and they were fine (if not a little loud and had to be told a few times to keep it down once it was late).

Things with me and DH were tense the next day.

Was I being unreasonable? I felt I was doing DH a favour as it was, and then another on top having DSS's friend over when he wasn't there and I just cba cooking tea for another person on top of that too and having to have a sit down meal with a random 11 year old I didn't know.

I don't see how it's a big deal to just simply ask a friend to have tea before coming over. Aibu?

Exactly

What favoritism? Was the 3 year old allowed a sleepover with a full picnic spread that only you know about?

Where has OP said she'd do this for her child? All she actually said was it is different because she'd feel less pressured into agreeing to these things with her own child.

And like I have said multiple times it's not about the sleepover or just op it's about multiple women on this thread making it clear that their stepchildren aren't their problem and that their biological children come first

Again, never usually stops posters from talking about the subtext of a thread. Not here though, when it comes to discussing the man's behaviour its "its just about the aibu and sleepover" and yet at the same time it's apparently "NOT ABOUT THE SLEEPOVER".

In reality posters very rarely give a shit about a man's shitty behaviour when it comes to blended families. It's glossed over, as it has been here. "Well he's not posted a thread" give over. Like that would stop you on any other subject matter.

What she actually said was she wanted a sit down meal but wouldn’t sit with DS’s friend. In what world is that a normal comment ? We are almost giving her the benefit of the doubt that she wouldn’t say that about her own dc ‘s friend as that would be even weirder. It was a bizarre excuse because she resented doing it for DS.

I honestly don't know what is worse. You not wanting to feed DSS friend or you not realizing what you did was not nice at all.

Or their families operate in a a different way to yours? And they don’t wish to emulate yours?

Well there’s no point her posting for our opinion then is there.

No I haven’t.

The law doesn’t come into this.

Gender doesn’t come into this.
Step-parenting isn’t parenting.

Being part of a family of whatever form comes with moral responsibilities in the same way being part of a community or company or relationship comes with moral responsibilities. These vary and can and should balance fine with having very clear boundaries.

If you can’t manage this you aren’t an adult and you are a poor role model for the children and young people in your life.

Sort yourself out. You are desperately inadequate and that will have a negative impact on your own children, never mind any steps.

No a decent step parent would have got to know their step child well enough to grow fond of and care about them, have an interest in their life and not be resentful of sharing their home/chores/stresses that come with having children in the family set up, before they choose to live with/marry their parent. If they don’t want to do that, they have no business getting involved and calling themselves a step parent.

The clue is in the name - step parent.

Step parents have agency, the child doesn’t.

Also if you have children with someone who already has a financial responsibility to existing children and they have to work longer hours to afford them all, then you have no business complaining if you have cover some care to a SC you have accepted into your family if they have to work during contact time to provide for your children too.

Is it though?

How joyous would you find step parenting if you were only ever allowed to parent the way your husband wanted and never say no to have an opinion on anything, unless it was positive and aligned with what your husband agreed with?

There always tends to be some explanation on these threads as to WHY a step parent feels the way they feel, cold/distant/not like their own child etc..

The OPs update that her husband is a hypocrite doesn't shock me at all.

Why not? You can ask for someone’s opinion out of interest, it doesn’t mean you have to agree with them.

This!!!! I read this stuff on here so much these days..

Did you at least give him some breakfast?

I must say reading how horrible someone could be to children has really made me feel sad,

The clue is in the name - yes, it means you’ve married a parent. Conversely, if you divorce a parent you cease to be one.

Someone can absolutely complain about being expected to provide childcare for their stepchildren.

Given the choice I'd probably get something easy and able to be eaten in their room if my kid was going to have a sleepover. So for my child I'd make sure I arranged it that way.

Therein lying the difference, actually being able to say no not tonight when it's your kid and also having the ability to properly arrange these things in advance the way you want them.

You’re going in circles of eristicism now

Then this is an issue between the husband and wife why is an innocent child being dragged into adult problems

Not every woman has to love this though.

This is the difference in opinion I suppose. I don't see what hardship the boy suffered by still having his sleepover but having his friend come after his tea.

Whatever the reason, the adult in charge that evening wasn't feeling up to it but was pestered into agreeing, inappropriately. I really fail to see the abuse in compromising and saying okay to the sleepover but its after tea time.

I think most posters are putting themselves in the kids shoes for this particular decision. It's mean and the stepkid will know it's aimed at him and that she's not happy about the situation.

Regardless of all the failings of the father etc etc. It's how she made the kid (s) feel with her pettiness that's wrong. She just didn't need to do it and be so obvious.

Along with the rest of the thread. When in Rome and all that 🫠

Tbh it's just mean spirited.

Even if OP was just providing childcare for 2 randoms, without having any familial connection, it's quite weird and nasty not to stretch to a bit of food for an extra one.

Did you stretch to a bit of cereal the next day?

No, he went straight from school.