Invitation for one child

[ThatRubyMoose]

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?

That would be a completely different situation because then your parents would be excluding one of their own grandchildren who they have known and loved since birth

exactly. Thank you.

This is exactly what I was saying.

The issue isn’t the boundary set by mum - it’s not “toxic”, or “blackmail* (as said by a pp) so can we stop pretending it is.

The issue is biology , and the different values we attach to it. You think the step child doesn’t deserve the same treatment a biological child would deserve.
you think she is less relevant and more disposable, because she is only a step. I completely disagree.

Your post makes no sense to me.

The problem here is blending a family where one child is excluded/ left out/ treated differently to the others.

That is a completely different scenario to a separated family where kids have different dads and separate relationships with each. That happens a lot and I don’t hear children talking about how miserable their childhoods were. Not saying there aren’t challenges in that scenario , I’m sure there always are, but they are different sorts of challenges that don’t cause the same level of pain.

The issue is being forced to integrate with people who treat you like you don’t matter. Thats what hurts children.

I think this is quite mean of your dh family. If the child didn't live with you both then I could perhaps see her point. While she is perhaps technically in the right it is very weird, rather unkind behaviour, assuming she knows your dd well. You are not related to ger kids but still buy for them so I don't understand her behaviour really.

How does this extend to step parents then?

Do we really believe that a step mother should treat her step children as if they are her biological/adopted children? Pretend there is no difference between her relationship with them and their actual mother?

my aunt remarried and acquired 3 teen step children.

are you seriously saying that my parents and grandparents should have gone to every school event for these children who they met once? That my grandparents should have loved these kids in the same way they loved the rest of us? Added these kids to their wills?

They We’re invited to all family functions - and got an Easter egg and a small Christmas present. Everyone was kind and welcoming. But they had their own family - we were just extra people.

Your update sounds even worse. The private svhool and other gifts etc. I would be tempted to send my youngest and her dad and stay home. There are many people who treat non blood relatives as their own family. Your is not a short term relationship. You are married and in a family. Your dd lives with you and your dh as a full member of that family. I would be telling them to jog on.

The issue is biology , and the different values we attach to it. You think the step child doesn’t deserve the same treatment a biological child would deserve.
you think she is less relevant and more disposable, because she is only a step. I completely disagree.

No, I don’t think a step child deserves lesser treatment or is less relevant or more disposable at all. I just think that she isn’t her step parent’s extended family’s responsibility.

Ensuring that her daughter always feels important and included is OP’s job. It is not OP’s SIL’s job.

@Tandora The issue is being forced to integrate with people who treat you like you don’t matter. Thats what hurts children.

I agree with this completely. It does hurt children. Which is why OP shouldn’t have brought her child into this situation and then made it worse by having another child to a man whose family don’t want to embrace step children as their own. OP’s SIL cannot fairly be expected to pay and care for a child she has no natural relationship with because of OP’s poor choices.

I get these things are complicated and there’s no easy answers. I think a lot honestly depends on the details of the circumstances/ context.

We can’t have a blanket rule that if every situation every child is treated exactly the same - eg your example- should your parents attend a school event for a teenager they met once , because they attended their step siblings? No. Obviously that would be absurd.

Equally we can’t have a blanket rule that it’s ok to treat the step child differently simply because they are just a step/ not related. As some posters are saying on this thread.

Both blanket principles are wrong.

What matters are the circumstances context. In this circumstance/ context the behaviour sounds hurtful to the step child, and her mother - closest to the situation- believes that it would be upsetting and feel like a deliberate snub/ exclusion.

Im sure the same couldn’t be said for your teen steps and school events scenario. They’d probably find it very weird if your parents attended.

This is why I’m saying what matters is how it looks to the child. That is the measure of what is ok.

Ensuring that her daughter always feels important and included is OP’s job

And she’s doing her job when she refuses to facilitate the exclusion. She said no to the panto for both children, so that her older child wasn’t made to feel unimportant and excluded. She did her job and should continue to do so. And her DH should support her.

OP’s SIL cannot fairly be expected to pay and care for a child she has no natural relationship with because of OP’s poor choices.

OP’s poor choices? Last I checked a marriage , and making a baby, requires two consenting parties.

Sure, I guess it’s up to SIL whether she wants to support her brother’s marriage/ family or not 🤷🏼‍♀️. But if she doesn’t, she can hardly be mad at being told where to go. She doesn’t get to pick and choose is the point.

Except that she wants to do the job of protecting her older child’s feelings at the expense of her younger daughter’s feelings, and those of her partner who understandably wants his child to have a good relationship with his family.

It would be wrong of OP to try and do right by her older child by limiting the relationship her younger child is allowed to have with her aunties, grandparents and cousins. OP already made the choice a long time ago that one of her children will miss out for the sake of the other. She needs to take responsibility for creating this mess instead of blaming her in laws for it.

It doesn’t really matter what the SIL wants though, it’s about one of OPs daughters being made to feel less important than their sister, which is inevitable whether one of them goes to the panto or not.

Yes, OPs poor choices. I believe it is a very poor parenting choice to force your child into a blended family situation where they will end up with fewer opportunities than their sibling.

With all due respect have you read all of the comments? I genuinely believe that some of these people would think the same about adopted kids. The amount of adults talking about excluding kids because they are ‘non-blood relatives’ is sad.

They don’t have to consider her their niece no, but to exclude her is just cruel. That’s where I’m coming from with this.

My cousin’s step-son is not my blood relative but I would never even consider excluding him in a family event where I would invite his half siblings (my blood relatives) because it’d just be down right mean.

Inequalities between siblings is something OP was responsible for considering before she had another child with her husband, knowing the situation with her eldest.

The in laws have made their feelings clear, whether OP and her daughter like it or not. OP declined on this occasion, but in the future her husband isn’t going to deny his daughter time with her own paternal family.

Except that she wants to do the job of protecting her older child’s feelings at the expense of her younger daughter’s feelings

Again it’s not though. If the scenario was two biological siblings , rather than one biological and a step, you wouldn’t be saying this, or pitting the two children’s needs against each other.

DH’s family can easily have a relationship with the youngest ; it doesn’t require them to treat the elder like she doesn’t matter.

They’re not treating her like she doesn’t matter, they’re just not treating her like she’s related to them because she isn’t. And DHs family will struggle to have a relationship with the younger child if OP continues to kick up a fuss and refuse to let the younger one spend time with them unless they pay for her older one too.

It sounds like what you’re saying is that there should be no distinction between biological family children and other children, but that’s just not the reality of life. I care very much for some of my friends children, but I wouldn’t prioritise them over my sisters children because my sisters children are family. Humanity has always put an emphasis on protecting our own children before other people’s. It’s natural and normal. It would be lovely if every blended family always worked perfectly but when it’s made up of humans, it’s never going to happen.

I care very much for some of my friends children, but I wouldn’t prioritise them over my sisters children because my sisters children are family

Your friends’ children? This isn’t even remotely relevant .

People are acting like marriage - blending a family - the social, legal, practical bonds that generates - means nothing and has no consequences . It’s bizarre.

Put that theory to a group of children who’ve grown up in blended families and see what they have to say…

I feel like we are just going round in circles. At the end of the day I think we just have to accept that people have different values.

It’s about the emphasis placed on the importance of biology vs the best interests of children, whatever their DNA.

Your friends’ children? This isn’t even remotely relevant .

It’s just an example of how biology does matter, and it is disingenuous to keep insisting that it’s irrelevant.

People are acting like marriage - blending a family - the social, legal, practical bonds that generates - means nothing. It’s bizarre.

It creates those bonds between the two people that have chosen it. It extends to in-laws and existing children of one of the people getting married when they also choose that. The marriage does not automatically force that on them.

Put that to a group of children who’ve grown up in blended families and see what they have to say…

I did grow up in a blended family with a step parent and step siblings. But I also had my own father around, so I never had any desire to pretend I was a grandchild to my step dad’s parents. I would have found it very uncomfortable if that had been expected of me. Maybe it’s different when a child’s own father is absent, but I don’t think we should assume that the OPs older daughter automatically wants to hang around playing cousins with cousins that aren’t really hers, or with an aunt and grandparents that she knows she’s not related to. The difficulties that came from being in a blended family were my mums fault, just as the difficulties in this situation are OPs fault and not her in laws.

It’s just an example of how biology does matter, and it is disingenuous to keep insisting that it’s irrelevant.

I never said biology was “irrelevant*, I only said that it doesn’t justify making a child feel excluded and unwanted in a blended family. I stand by that.

It creates those bonds between the two people that have chosen it. It extends to in-laws and existing children of one of the people getting married when they also choose that.

But it’s not that simple is it? The extended family are involved because they have a relationship with DH, OP and youngest child. Eldest child is there, whether the extended family ignore her or not. She is there in reality - tied to the situation by the marriage of her parents , regardless of your theoretical ideas about who is bonded to who.

I did grow up in a blended family with a step parent and step siblings. But I also had my own father around, so I never had any desire to pretend I was a grandchild to my step dad’s parents. I would have found it very uncomfortable if that had been expected of me.

This is your experience and it’s totally valid.

I don’t think we should assume that the OPs older daughter automatically wants to hang around playing cousins with cousins that aren’t really hers, or with an aunt and grandparents that she knows she’s not related to.

Nobody is assuming this. The mother of the child who is the closest to the situation believes it would hurt her to be excluded from the panto. Of course if she is wrong about that then there’s no issue. But what we are debating is -assuming she is right - is it still to be expected that she should facilitate this treat for her younger child , knowing that her older child will be hurt.

You say it’s fine because she’s a step (you acknowledge it wouldn’t be fine if she were another biological child). I say the biology of the child is irrelevant - her feelings should be given the same priority in the blended family as any other child in the blended family , regardless of her DNA.

But biology is relevant because it gives rights and responsibilities and makes someone a permanent family member. It would be entirely different if the OP's DH actually adopted DD1, and he would always have the right to be her father. But she already has a father.

As long as DH is only a stepparent and not an adoptive parent, I don't think it's wrong for his family to keep some distance from DD1. If DH and OP broke up, OP could block all access to DD1 by DH and his family. She couldn't do the same thing for DD2. DH has parental rights, and he can choose to take DD2 to spend time with his family when he has custody.

The OP cannot erase her DH's relationship with DD2. She can with DD1. His family are clearly very aware of that.

I think it's a shame you couldn't let the little one out to have fun with her relatives. Why not treat the other one yourself at the same time ?

If you said that you can only ever take all of the kids together or none, yes, you'd be toxic. If they took three 8 year olds and left the 4 year old, fine. My in laws have often taken one or two or more if my children out separately for any number of reasons, it's perfectly ok. They are people, not just "my children", I don't own them and I'm not there to control their relationship. .

One child is there grandchild/niece, the other isn't. You don't seem able to grasp a fundamental difference here. You want them to be cut off from their grandchild/neice entirely....yes, you're toxic (your word).

But subconsciously maybe, hence the disappointment that it's not like that in reality.

If your in laws don't see your eldest as family now, they never will. Some families would embrace her as a niece/granddaughter, others treat her like a great niece at best. Neither is wrong, because you can't control how people inherently feel. You can't fake a sense of family.

I was chatting to some friends last night about another friend of theirs. I expressed how much I disliked him because of certain behaviours I've witnessed. They acknowledged that but said he's actually the kindest man you could meet. Maybe to them he is, but that's not what I've observed. People think and feel differently based on their own standards, values and experiences. You can't force anyone to feel anything.

You say it’s fine because she’s a step (you acknowledge it wouldn’t be fine if she were another biological child). I say the biology of the child is irrelevant - her feelings should be given the same priority in the blended family as any other child in the blended family , regardless of her DNA.

I don’t think it’s fine at all. I think it’s a very sad situation and OP needs to take responsibility for the position she has put her daughters in instead of blaming the in-laws for it. OP has said that she wouldn’t offer to pay for her daughter and that her SIL can afford to pay for it. I find that to be an incredibly rude and entitled position to take and it shows no consideration for anyone except her oldest dd. Instead of recognising that expecting the SIL to pay for and babysit a child she isn’t related to is a big ask, she is criticising them for not doing what she wants.

I agree with you that in an ideal world the step child’s feelings would be given as much priority, but if the OP didn’t consider this when she chose to create a blended family then she can’t expect her in-laws to. The older child’s feelings are OPs responsibility, but if she can’t bring herself to even offer to pay for her daughter to go then clearly she’s more bothered about her own feelings than her daughter’s.

But what we are debating is -assuming she is right - is it still to be expected that she should facilitate this treat for her younger child , knowing that her older child will be hurt.

Of course she should still let her younger child go, otherwise she will be equally hurt when she’s old enough to understand. She could easily feel the unfairness of being made to miss out because of her sister and that could lead to resentment towards both her sister and her mum. OP has done her younger child a massive disservice by forbidding from going on her family’s outing, especially as she’s hoping that her invitation is gone forever.

Neither child deserves the hurt that will inevitably come to them as a result of being sisters who have fathers with significantly different levels of involvement but that is what OP chose for her children. She doesn’t get to blame her sister in law for choices she made.

I would view any relatives of SILs, including any children who SIL had who my DB was not the father of, as SIL's relatives rather than my relatives.

I remember when DB and SIL got married her parents (i.e. DB's PIL) kept saying that we were all one big family now and started suggesting that going forward we should do big annual family holidays - with DB, SIL, SIL's parents, SIL's siblings, DB's parent's (i.e. my parents), DB's siblings (including me) and all the children and partners/spouses. I am glad that this never happened because I have no desire to spend significant periods of time with DB's PIL. DB opted to get married into that family but I never did!

Having said that, I still would offer to take a young child who was staying with my niece to the panto if I was taking my niece (whether that was a half-sister, or a cousin from SIL's family, or a completely unrelated friend), as long as I could easily afford it/someone else was covering the cost and I could manage looking after all the kids. It would be something that I felt obliged to do to avoid an upset child though, and not something that I would be otherwise doing out of some idea that the other child is equivalent to my niece.