To think if one parent can't look after the DC, it's the other parents responsibility to do so?

[looop114]

And not their partners?

If two parents are separated and one of them becomes unwell (not just a cold but actually very poorly and unable to look after the DC kind of unwell), it should be automatically the other parents responsibility to look after the children and not the unwell parents partner or spouse?

They can if they want to obviously but the initial assumption should be that the other parent will parent their children even though its not "their time" when the other is not able to? Providing both are involved parents.

Aibu to think this is the case and that it's quite entitled to make assumptions that your co parents partner/spouse will look after your DC when the other parent is unwell intstead of you?

But the OP has explained that they have the children extra when the ex needs them to,

Also, as I've said, there have been times where he has done this. For example, she suffered a sudden and sad loss last year and said she felt unable to have the children at the time. There was no question that they'd come to my husband, their dad, whilst their mum dealt with that. Maybe he should have said don't be silly, it's not my time, get a babysitter?

So OP and her DH clearly support the ex and the children when it is needed, why shouldn't they be able to ask for the same support? Arguably, the ex could have looked after her own children then, which there is no way OP's DH can do from a hospital bed. Especially given how ill you need to be to get a hospital bed at the current time!

It's more complex than that. Many separated parents utilise the time spent without children working. Three don't necessarily have childcare arrangements in place so dealing with this kind of situation can be difficult. And I agree, I would rather the children be with me but each parent needs emergency plans in place. The world does not stop for a sick ex, unfortunately.Bills still need paying.

Their mother would be penalized for not taking care of her kids. Her parental responsibility doesn’t cease to be because it’s the father’s custodial time. Like I said, the first person social services would call would be their mother, because they’re her responsibility. Edited

It’s interesting to consider how things would pan out, in an emergency, if Social Services did get involved. So obviously the first person they would call would be the children’s mother, I do wonder how many mothers would actually say “I’m not taking them, they’re due to be with their Dad til Tuesday (or whenever)” and watch their children be fostered, just to make a point?

I suspect very few.

A fair number of fathers are quite happy to do this though.

If it is a court agreed contact time why do you think the mother would be expected to ignore that legal ruling and come to the rescue if there is an adult there capable of looking after the children

The contact time is agreed between the parents. No court is going to oblige a step parent to have them when they can't even oblige an actual parent to show up.
OP isn't currently capable of looking after the children in any case. Are you missing the fact that she has her own small kids, work and seriously ill husband to contend with?

That's interesting.
My DSDs mum stopped him seeing DSD and he had to go through the whole legal carry on to reinstate, and even then it was only EOW and half the holidays. I asked why he didn't take her to court for more and he said "don't need to, she needs the childcare, this is just the minimum" and do you know, he was absolutely right.
Now we have DSD every days she's not at school for whatever reason because her mum has developed quite serious complications of a lifelong medical condition. So weekends, in service days, sick days, snow days, holidays, all of it.
Because DSD is his daughter 24/7, not just EOW as legally agreed.
Are you saying that DH would have been quite right to tell his seriously ill ex to sort it out herself as the legal agreement was he'd see DSD in two weeks as legally agreed?
Or would he have been a monumental dickhead and a piss poor father?
Oh and he still pays the same maintenance as he did when it was EOW (and even then he "overpaid") as ex's capacity to work is now limited.
Would he have been right to stick rigidly to the legal minimum set?

If it is a court agreed contact time why do you think the mother would be expected to ignore that legal ruling and come to the rescue if there is an adult there capable of looking after the children

Because when someone's unconscious in A&E etc, legal rulings may be subject to a bit of flex - and the mother is still the mother, irrespective of whether a step parent is in existence or not.

If it is a court agreed contact time why do you think the mother would be expected to ignore that legal ruling and come to the rescue if there is an adult there capable of looking after the children

it’s court agreed contact time for the parent. If that parent is incapacitated and can’t be responsible for dc then that legal ruling is broken. It does not filter to the next available adult.

if the person with PR cannot be responsible, then that legal responsibility lies with the other parent with PR.

a parent is not absolved from all legal responsibility for a child because they are with the other parent.

you are both the legal parents. It is not up to anyone else to “come to the rescue”. They are your children.

if your ex died would you still expect the step parent to be keeping to the “legal ruling” for contact time? Why not? Same logic, if the parent can’t be responsible it’s any other adult there capable of looking after the children.

@DearestGentleReader sounds like you're married to a decent guy - I wish my ex was more generous like him!

it’s court agreed contact time for the parent. If that parent is incapacitated and can’t be responsible for dc then that legal ruling is broken. It does not filter to the next available adult.

@toomanytonotice i agree. It amazes me how many people think the step parent (where there is one) actually has more responsibility/accountability than the mother under these circumstances

I’ve posted this before, but I always used to think separated parents argue because they both want more time with the children, but in reality it’s quite the opposite, both parties often want as much child free time as possible. It’s very sad.

Even if the children are with their father, if he becomes incapacitated and is thus unable to provide or arrange care for them, then the responsibility to do so falls upon the other parent
Exactly. This is what it means to be a parent, you don’t stop being responsible just because it is the other parent’s time.
A step parent can choose to help but they are under no obligation (moral or legal) to do so.

Of course every situation is different. There are multiple factors to consider. It depends on the severity of the dads illness and how long they were in hospital for. Also whether it was sudden or was talked about in advance. If the dad truly has no one other than the partner (so no other extended family like grandparents, brothers and sisters etc). Also whether you trust the stepparent enough to leave your child in their sole care. Also it depends on whether the biological mother is even available.

If you are a full time working single parent you are incredibly time poor. Consequently your free time is likely to be very organised and booked up in advance. I often work or go away when my children are at their dad's. I have lost money in the past because I have planned something knowing the schedule in advance only to be told the night before sorry can't have the kids because of x,y,z. I should not be cancelling prior engagements to rush back for an emergency at their dad's that is not to do with my children. In that situation I would expect his family (he has his siblings, mum, extended family living in the same city) to be his resort. But alot of men like my children's father will not ask their family in an emergency because they would regard that as owing them a favour which they feel uncomfortable with. Im assuming that stepparents may also feel like they cant ask their partners extended family because of how it may make them look. However they don't see that they are infringing on their children's mums free time by relying on her in an emergency.

The thing that is annoying me is the sense of entitlement to the mothers time that the dad and stepparent would be displaying in this scenario. If you are not together you can not rely on the mother of your children to be your emergency childcare, personal assistant etc. Thats the job of the dads current partner.

Parental responsibility is ultimately on the parents, but when you are separated you have very clear boundaries that need to be agreed on. If they need to be renegotiated due to long term illness then of course that can happen but it needs to be agreed. For example if I was seriously ill long term I would definitely be expecting the biological dad not my family to have the kids. Then in that situation I would probably agree to stop child maintenance as the kids are not in my care and would also contribute financially so their needs are met. The same is for the reverse. If it's not 50:50 in actuality for an extended period of time then you need to be paying more in child maintenance because now mum has additional costs and losses due to having the children more than what was initially agreed. I hope that makes sense.

It's also naive to think that marrying a man with children would or should not have an impact on your life. Marry a single guy with no kids then if you don't want to be involved in looking after other people's children. It's actually unethical to me to marry a man with children and have the attitude that it should have no bearing on your life. What if their mum died, what then? Would you still insist you have no responsibility? Would you leave your partner because now you have to do more for his children then you initially anticipated?

Parental responsibility is only on the parents.

No matter how busy the mother is, she’s still their mother and thus the one responsible for them. The stepmother isn’t. It may be your opinion that she should be, but that doesn’t mean that she in fact is. ‘Stepparent’ is merely a title, and being one doesn’t make someone legally responsible for the children of their spouse. Any problems that having to assume responsibility for her children may cause her, are her problems to deal with. Not OP’s.

Similarly, the father’s family have no obligation to provide childcare either.

That would be up to the individual in question. Yes, in the event the mother died a stepparent could absolutely maintain that they have no responsibility, and would absolutely be free to leave (as indeed anyone is free to leave a relationship for any reason).

It’s unethical to you - okay, so don’t do it then 🤷🏻‍♀️ it being unacceptable to you isn’t going to impact anyone else, given that your acceptance and approval isn’t required.

@Chillpill22

50/50 doesn't mean you stop being a parent 50% of the time. You are still a parent 100% no matter where your children are or who they are with. If their dad is in hospital, they are still their mother's responsibility. She doesn't stop being their parent just because this is supposed to be their time with their dad.

The thing that is annoying me is the sense of entitlement to the mothers time that the dad and stepparent would be displaying in this scenario

This is so backwards to me.

How am I displaying entitlement to her free time when I am under no obligation to give her free time in the first place? Their children are not more my responsibility than their own living and breathing mothers just because I married my husband.

Children inconvenience you as a parent sometimes in life. That's how it is. Frankly I do not care that her free time is being inconvenienced. So is mine. So is my work, so is my life, I am also having to deal with everything she is for my own children, I am not required to ensure she gets free time or provide that to her because really the long and short of it I am not responsible for her and DHs children - they are. The fact that her co parent being in hospital may mess with her free time is absolutely nothing to do with me.

It's also naive to think that marrying a man with children would or should not have an impact on your life

And its naive to have children and think that they would or should not have an impact on your life.

I’m sure most mothers would rather not have their children stay with a woman who gives absolutely zero shits about them and who goes to great lengths to make it clear they are nothing to do with her anyway.

You'd think most mothers first thought in this situation wouldn't be when is the earliest opportunity I can get rid of my kids again but hey ho. Fine for her but not for me obviously.

Well said @looop114 . Hope your DH is ok and on the mend.

I really have to wonder what some of you were thinking would happen when you married a man with young children. No, you don’t have “parental responsibility” and if you don’t want to care for them when their father is ill, that’s your prerogative. However the general attitude coming off some of these posts from stepmothers is vile.

Posters still haven't acknowledged what I have going on either. Always very quick to say oh but what about her work. What about mine??? Am I supposed to take a week off to look after my stepchildren? Can't have their mum risking her job but it's fine for me to. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I have to work! What do you expect me to do?!

Sorry boss can't come in today because my husbands ex won't look after her own children in case it messes up her job.