Page 17 | Invitation for one child

ThatRubyMoose · 2024-12-19T14:18:59+00:00

When I first met my in-laws I bought Christmas presents. My elder sister-in-law who has always been friendly as have they all, thanked me profusely said that she gave up buying presents and writing cards. Fair enough. Her choice. The following year I asked her if she minded me buying for her children. She didn’t but reiterated that she didn’t. Totally transparent not an issue. What she did do though was take MiL and SiL and the kids to The Palladium every year and a meal in a chain like Spaghetti House, Pizza etc. Fair enough again. A few weeks ago she asked DH if our daughter who has just gone 4 is now old enough to join them. He said she was. But I have a daughter who is 9 who lives with us all the time and only sees her father around her birthday and if she’s lucky at Christmas for a ‘tea’ with the rest of his family. I said no to pantomime, I texted SiL saying it would be unfair to eldest, a child the same age as two of the kids going. Her reply was ‘that was a shame.’ MiL said to DH that it was none of her business how he raised his child but she thought that not being allowed to go on this t outing with them was a slippery slope. DH would have let her go but won’t challenge me. What would you do?

Tandora · 26/12/2024 21:14

Onlyonekenobe · 26/12/2024 21:05

But why isn’t the second child forced to blend in with the first, when the relationship between (say) the grandparents of one child to the other is exactly the same regardless of whether it’s the first child or second? That is to say, unrelated. It just so happens that the second child’s grandparents are there - so the onus is put on them.

Imagine if the eldest DD’s grandparents were absolutely minted. The new DD’s grandparents struggling to make ends meet. Stark difference come birthdays and Christmas. You never hear the common parent saying “my eldest child’s grandparents are excluding my youngest DD, making her feel awful and excluded by lavishing gifts on their GDD but not her half-sister”. That would be daft, you’ll say, because the second child has nothing to do with the first lot of grandparents. She came later. Well, same goes the other way. The second lot of grandparents can well feel they have nothing to do with the first child: she was already there so no need to be intentionally cruel and exclude her (my very first post on this thread said as much, because in this particular situation it’s no skin off anyone’s nose and very detrimental to the elder DD potentially). Generally speaking, though, it’s the same point: they’re unrelated, so there’s nothing on which to build ties of duty and responsibility.

It absolutely is about parity. That’s what the OP is complaining about: the difference in the way her children are being treated by the same people. Nobody wants to force the second DD to be a part of the first DD’s family…so they can both be treated equally poorly. It only ever goes one way, these complaints. The family with more resources (emotional, space, time, money) required to give more to make up for the failings of the other lot of absent family. This is for the new family to give freely if they want to, not for anyone else to expect because to do so would be unreasonable.

Show quote history

But why isn’t the second child forced to blend in with the first, when the relationship between (say) the grandparents of one child to the other is exactly the same regardless of whether it’s the first child or second?

it’s not “exactly the same” relationship, at all.
In one scenario the GPs are in-laws: family. In the other scenario they are not. It’s completely different . One family is blended; the other is not. One situation has little if anything to do with the other.

This isn’t about money, it’s about not being blended with a family who treats you like you matter less than other children in the family. because that affects children’s self esteem.

SpatulaSpatula · 26/12/2024 21:22

InterIgnis · 26/12/2024 21:12

Why should she, when she isn’t? She’s being treated differently because she is different. The relationships in a blended family are not the same as nuclear ones, and you can’t force them to fit that mould, however much you may like to.

Op’s daughter has her own paternal family she visits, so she can already grasp the concept of being different to her sister.

Show quote history

I guess we disagree. I can understand your perspective but I don't think it's fair to the developing child. She's different, but for that difference not to feel like something integrally wrong with her and grow up always feeling inadequate, it's only fair for the adults around her to make every effort to treat her the same. I might think differently if the relationship were new, but it isn't. It's about being kind and considering the long-term impact of childhood relationships. The OP did the right thing.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe · 26/12/2024 21:22

Tandora · 26/12/2024 21:14

But why isn’t the second child forced to blend in with the first, when the relationship between (say) the grandparents of one child to the other is exactly the same regardless of whether it’s the first child or second?

it’s not “exactly the same” relationship, at all.
In one scenario the GPs are in-laws: family. In the other scenario they are not. It’s completely different . One family is blended; the other is not. One situation has little if anything to do with the other.

This isn’t about money, it’s about not being blended with a family who treats you like you matter less than other children in the family. because that affects children’s self esteem.

Edited

Show quote history

No, the family is still blended, just blended three ways. There are familial relationships - oldest daughter with family 1 and her own - youngest daughter with her own and family 2.

There have been some incredibly thought-provoking and well-written posts on this thread explaining why it's not all Disney. The you-go-OP posters are doing her a great disservice - and her children - because they're perpetuating an expectation that cannot be backed up.

Still, no skin off those posters' noses, is it?

InterIgnis · 26/12/2024 21:27

SpatulaSpatula · 26/12/2024 21:22

I guess we disagree. I can understand your perspective but I don't think it's fair to the developing child. She's different, but for that difference not to feel like something integrally wrong with her and grow up always feeling inadequate, it's only fair for the adults around her to make every effort to treat her the same. I might think differently if the relationship were new, but it isn't. It's about being kind and considering the long-term impact of childhood relationships. The OP did the right thing.

Show quote history

I’m not sure why she would feel like something was wrong with her if she understands that she isn’t their grandchild/niece, and isn’t being led to believe that she should expect to be considered one.

Lol, ‘fair’ - it’s not ‘fair’ to expect the in laws to compensate for the failings of the eldest’s paternal family, nor for the youngest to miss out.

SpatulaSpatula · 26/12/2024 21:29

UndermyShoeJoe · 26/12/2024 21:06

Because she’s step step step.

Because if the op and her husband divorce the child is gone. Long long gone.

She is not connected legally by adoption or biologically. Just as family’s connected wife’s and husbands by marriage. Family sticks together and love it or hate it that means legally and biologically and even as such often when shit hits the fan and push comes to shove pit legal vs biological and biological will win again.

Your mother in law and father in law love you nothing like their son or daughter. Just as they wouldn’t love your child like a biological grand child.

Edited

Show quote history

If no one believes in the relationship, that's a separate issue. For the time that she is part of the family, why not be kind and treat her the same, even if you feel different? Adults need to take responsibility for their part in shaping the children in their lives. Why damage a child when it would be so easy to include them? Of course the child knows she's different. Why make her feel less because of it? Why drive a wedge between the siblings? And who knows? The OP might even stay with her partner.

InterIgnis · 26/12/2024 21:34

SpatulaSpatula · 26/12/2024 21:29

If no one believes in the relationship, that's a separate issue. For the time that she is part of the family, why not be kind and treat her the same, even if you feel different? Adults need to take responsibility for their part in shaping the children in their lives. Why damage a child when it would be so easy to include them? Of course the child knows she's different. Why make her feel less because of it? Why drive a wedge between the siblings? And who knows? The OP might even stay with her partner.

Show quote history

Because they don’t want to, and don’t feel it’s necessary to pretend that they do, presumably. They treat her kindly as the in law she is to them.

Tandora · 26/12/2024 21:48

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe · 26/12/2024 21:22

No, the family is still blended, just blended three ways. There are familial relationships - oldest daughter with family 1 and her own - youngest daughter with her own and family 2.

There have been some incredibly thought-provoking and well-written posts on this thread explaining why it's not all Disney. The you-go-OP posters are doing her a great disservice - and her children - because they're perpetuating an expectation that cannot be backed up.

Still, no skin off those posters' noses, is it?

Show quote history

Totally lost

Tandora · 26/12/2024 21:50

InterIgnis · 26/12/2024 21:34

Because they don’t want to, and don’t feel it’s necessary to pretend that they do, presumably. They treat her kindly as the in law she is to them.

Show quote history

They treat her kindly as the in law she is to them

their treatment isn’t kind, it’s rude af.

SpatulaSpatula · 26/12/2024 21:50

InterIgnis · 26/12/2024 21:34

Because they don’t want to, and don’t feel it’s necessary to pretend that they do, presumably. They treat her kindly as the in law she is to them.

Show quote history

It doesn't sound very kind to me. 😕 Sometimes I don't like other people's kids, but I'd never not buy them an ice-cream if I were buying them for the group. Sometimes being an adult is about putting aside your immediate reactions or personal desires in order to do the right thing. You have to consider the child's perspective, ask yourself how your behaviour will make them feel and if that will have any long-term impact.

RitaIncognita · 26/12/2024 21:50

InterIgnis · 26/12/2024 21:34

Because they don’t want to, and don’t feel it’s necessary to pretend that they do, presumably. They treat her kindly as the in law she is to them.

Show quote history

But they are not kind to her. Exclusion is the very opposite of being kind.

Onlyonekenobe · 26/12/2024 21:51

Tandora · 26/12/2024 21:14

But why isn’t the second child forced to blend in with the first, when the relationship between (say) the grandparents of one child to the other is exactly the same regardless of whether it’s the first child or second?

it’s not “exactly the same” relationship, at all.
In one scenario the GPs are in-laws: family. In the other scenario they are not. It’s completely different . One family is blended; the other is not. One situation has little if anything to do with the other.

This isn’t about money, it’s about not being blended with a family who treats you like you matter less than other children in the family. because that affects children’s self esteem.

Edited

Show quote history

Ah, well. There you have it. The in-law relationship that you think is the basis of a family relationship is between OP and her parents-in-law. There is no “in-law” relationship between OP’s child by another man, and her DH’s family. There is no relationship at all. Imagine if OP’s eldest were an independent 22yo young woman. Is she still “family” to her new husband’s parents? The relationship is the same.

Or are you trying to say that merely by virtue of being OP’s parents-in-law they are obligated towards her eldest child? If so, that’s what this whole thread is about. You can’t impose anything on a person. Nobody asked her parents-in-law if they consented to this. Their son just brought the child into their lives.

I do agree with you re not being blended with a family that treats you as less than your half-sibling. 100%. Touched on this in previous posts. But that ship has sailed for OP. The damage has been done. In order to “protect” one child she’ll have to “damage” the other if she really intends to follow through with both-or-neither. And if she doesn’t follow through, and acquiesces to her husband’s wish that his child be treated as a full member of his family, regardless of the eldest child’s situation, well what does that say. Blended families are so, so, so rarely successful.

RitaIncognita · 26/12/2024 21:53

You have to consider the child's perspective, ask yourself how your behaviour will make them feel and if that will have any long-term impact.

Exactly. I think this is what it ultimately comes down to, considering the child's perspective.

Tandora · 26/12/2024 21:54

Onlyonekenobe · 26/12/2024 21:51

Ah, well. There you have it. The in-law relationship that you think is the basis of a family relationship is between OP and her parents-in-law. There is no “in-law” relationship between OP’s child by another man, and her DH’s family. There is no relationship at all. Imagine if OP’s eldest were an independent 22yo young woman. Is she still “family” to her new husband’s parents? The relationship is the same.

Or are you trying to say that merely by virtue of being OP’s parents-in-law they are obligated towards her eldest child? If so, that’s what this whole thread is about. You can’t impose anything on a person. Nobody asked her parents-in-law if they consented to this. Their son just brought the child into their lives.

I do agree with you re not being blended with a family that treats you as less than your half-sibling. 100%. Touched on this in previous posts. But that ship has sailed for OP. The damage has been done. In order to “protect” one child she’ll have to “damage” the other if she really intends to follow through with both-or-neither. And if she doesn’t follow through, and acquiesces to her husband’s wish that his child be treated as a full member of his family, regardless of the eldest child’s situation, well what does that say. Blended families are so, so, so rarely successful.

Show quote history

The in-law relationship that you think is the basis of a family relationship is between OP and her parents-in-law.

yes exactly. That’s a completely different scenario for the child, from a scenario where her/ his parents have no relationship with the GP.

Or are you trying to say that merely by virtue of being OP’s parents-in-law they are obligated towards her eldest child? If so, that’s what this whole thread is about. You can’t impose anything on a person. Nobody asked her parents-in-law if they consented to this. Their son just brought the child into their lives.

Their son just bought his wife into their lives as well? Do you think it’s fine for them to treat her however they please too? Because he didn’t ask for their consent? I’m pretty sure if they treated their DIL like crap , their son would tell them where to stick it. So it should be with the child . They don’t matter less because they are a child. They matter more.

Onlyonekenobe · 26/12/2024 22:07

Yes of course! The DH made all the decisions and imposed them on his parents. They’re HIS decisions. They don’t have to like them, tolerate them, put up with them. They may love them, revel in them. Or just go along with it. Basically, they are free to choose. And if the DH doesn’t like it, he can take an “agree to disagree” approach, he can distance himself and his new family, he can put his head in the sand. Whatever.

In this case, the DH has said that if the situation arises again he’s going to “side” with his sister/parents. So, per MN mantra, it’s a DH problem not an in-law problem. And yet, OP chose this man to be her eldest’s stepfather, and chose to have another child by him. CHOSE this. Of course it matters more when it comes to the child. Tell that to the OP.

ETA: as to your first point, the significant relationship in that scenario is the grandparent-grandchild relationship which is permanent. The OP’s turned out to be a temporary relationship with them. But she remains the mother of their grandchild - there’s just no word for it in English. She will always be related, for that. Fact remains, any subsequent child is totally unrelated to her first set of in-laws.

NotARealWookiie · 26/12/2024 22:08

@ThatRubyMoose “When I texted to say youngest wouldn’t be going because eldest would be jealous”

I think you should have been clearer about the reason as jealousy isn’t the reason and you’ve diverted the attention from the real issue to a 9 year olds alleged jealousy. You should have just been upfront and said you don’t agree with your daughter being excluded. Then they would at least be responding to the real issue.

allclassics · 26/12/2024 22:15

Who would be so cruel to a 9 year old. Im with you op.

InterIgnis · 26/12/2024 22:21

RitaIncognita · 26/12/2024 21:50

But they are not kind to her. Exclusion is the very opposite of being kind.

Show quote history

They treat her as extended family, in the same way they treat their second cousins. They don’t treat her as their niece or grandchild because she isn’t. I don’t believe that’s either rude or unkind .

Tandora · 26/12/2024 22:37

InterIgnis · 26/12/2024 22:21

They treat her as extended family, in the same way they treat their second cousins. They don’t treat her as their niece or grandchild because she isn’t. I don’t believe that’s either rude or unkind .

Show quote history

What matters is whether it feels hurtful/ rude/ unkind to the child.
I suspect that in this context it would, and so does OP-the child’s mother.

InterIgnis · 26/12/2024 22:50

Tandora · 26/12/2024 22:37

What matters is whether it feels hurtful/ rude/ unkind to the child.
I suspect that in this context it would, and so does OP-the child’s mother.

Show quote history

Then OP needs to both adjust her own expectations, as well as those of her child, and help her child manage those feelings without putting the onus on her in laws.

OnlyMabelInTheBuilding · 26/12/2024 22:53

The real issue, as always, is the deadbeat dad. If the OP’s ex was rich and involved, and the gap between the two was that the elder DC had more than the younger DC, it would be expected for the second DC to just accept it. No one would be expecting the new family to step in and compensate as much.

1HappyTraveller · 26/12/2024 22:58

Your older DD is part of the family. They either treat both kids or they treat neither. The eldest child is 9, your youngest child is 4. To put that into context your eldest daughter has been part of your partners family for more than half of her little life. To exclude her is just mean and your MIL can get f*cked. Your partner needs to grow a pair too. Stand up for your child, she will remember this!

StormingNorman · 26/12/2024 23:35

InterIgnis · 26/12/2024 21:34

Because they don’t want to, and don’t feel it’s necessary to pretend that they do, presumably. They treat her kindly as the in law she is to them.

Show quote history

All the women and children in the family are invited except one 9 year old girl. It’s not a blood-only trip. So she is not being treated as an in law.

She is being deliberately excluded from the family. It would cost them nothing to allow her to attend with her mum and sister.

It says a lot about them that they would rather their niece NOT attend than allow her sister to tag along. This is not a family that are kind to her. This is a family which has closed ranks on a primary school aged child.

BettyBardMacDonald · 26/12/2024 23:37

Agree, @StormingNorman

This says a LOT about these people. I'd be distancing my family from them, including the child who is the "blood" relative. She doesn't need this ilk in her life.

Lassofnorth · 27/12/2024 00:10

ThatRubyMoose · 26/12/2024 15:44

People are criticising me for not offering to pay and saying that my refusal is my pride. I absolutely accept that it is my pride that would not allow me to ask them to make an exception for my child. My eldest sister-in-law and her husband have City jobs; money is not an issue. If I asked that she be included she would have said no, that it was a family thing. Women and children. They don’t invite my husband or his brother and not I assume their dad.

When I texted to say youngest wouldn’t be going because eldest would be jealous she could easily have offered to take her then but she said it was ‘ a shame’ .

I will continue to buy presents for her children as I buy presents. I have no issue with her not buying presents or sending cards. She is transparent about that.

Younger sister was told that my youngest wouldn’t be invited again but my husband who does treat my eldest as his own said that my youngest will be allowed to go if asked. He wants her to have a relationship with his family. I won’t go against him as I don’t want youngest to resent me or her sister as I imagine stuff like this gets out.

Well we are spared The St Stephen’s Day gathering because of a vomiting bug. It will happen on New Year’s Day instead. Youngest will get a present and eldest a bath bomb like the second cousins!

Oh and trust me private secondary has already been discussed for youngest if she doesn’t pass 11+.

We had distant (in law ) cousin and kids here on Xmas day. As a family ( adults and à child) we decided to open our presents before they arrived because we had only got them small presents and we didn’t want the children to sit and watch us open lots of pressies ( even though they’ll have had their own at home) It’s just nicer. I understand your position but I don’t know how you can stand watching them give a lovely present to one child and bath bombs to the other. I don’t know what the answer is though.

Lassofnorth · 27/12/2024 00:31

Lassofnorth · 27/12/2024 00:10

We had distant (in law ) cousin and kids here on Xmas day. As a family ( adults and à child) we decided to open our presents before they arrived because we had only got them small presents and we didn’t want the children to sit and watch us open lots of pressies ( even though they’ll have had their own at home) It’s just nicer. I understand your position but I don’t know how you can stand watching them give a lovely present to one child and bath bombs to the other. I don’t know what the answer is though.

Show quote history

I think I actually just wouldn’t go on New Year’s Day. DH could go with younger daughter and I’d make some excuse and take my eldest to my own parents or something. If they didn’t want her at the panto they could do without us at the NY gathering. No need to make a fuss or explain . I’d just say we can’t come and let them make of that what they will.