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?

Totally with you OP. My mum married my stepdad when I was 4, and he had a daughter one year older than me. We all lived together, my stepsister and I were very close and treated exactly the same by my grandparents... But my stepdad's parents never treated me the same and it's so sad looking back as I was only a child and didn't understand why.

An example I remember is one Christmas we both received a hand knitted doll from stepdad's mum, but my stepsisters had all these extra attachments and clothes, mine didn't. The saddest thing was there is a family video of us opening our presents, and you can see me going back to my wrapping paper to see if I left my extra bits in it 💔 sounds silly but I remember being so confused and sad at the time.

I think you are totally right in making the point now, otherwise it might become a regular thing to exclude your oldest daughter.

Blood is thicker than water. It just is.

I actually agree with your overall sentiment, but you do know that the actual saying expresses the opposite of what you're trying to say?

You've said it yourself - the legal paperwork.

It's not an indictment of 'worth' or 'added value', somehow, it's a legally formalised relationship that being a step parent isn't.

I had 'proper' grandparents who were rubbish, the couple next door became my nan and granddad with no legal ties whatsoever. I loved them dearly and miss them still. My 'grandparents' get barely a thought ever.

It really isn't about 'better', it's about familial relationships and what they mean to some people. Not many would treat children differently when it comes to gifts and days out; I certainly wouldn't - but, if I have a familial relationship with a child then it makes a difference to my responsibilities to them. Other posters have explained it well. A blood relative remains your relative even in divorce whereas step-relationships can be easily broken.

I think it is always difficult, you would have the same issue if your eldest's dad was more proactive and treated her to things, took her on nice holidays etc. There is absolutely no expectation he would take your youngest (obviously), but you would be forced to manage the expectations of your youngest when she sees the eldest getting nice things that she isn't allowed to have or be part of.. this is really the same thing, apart from there is some expectation they should treat your eldest as part of the family while you live as a family, do they treat her more equally usually?

I don't think I'd force my youngest to miss out, I'd take the time to do something more age appropriate with the eldest so as to not make them feel excluded. Instead of an opportunity to do something nice with both of them, both are now missing out.

That is really very sad. What on earth was the point of giving you a doll just the same - and giving the your step-sister extras? It wouldn't have cost much to have given you exactly the same but it would have made every difference to you.

I'm confused now. I took it to mean that familial bonds are stronger (blood)? I've googled it to check and it says the same. Where am I going wrong?

@housethatbuiltme
I am not ignorant.
You have misunderstood and taken offence totally unnecessarily.

I have made no comment about or comparison of the quality of relationships nor the immense value in many step parenting relationships.
But they differ legally from adoption. The personal commitment of a step parent may be wholehearted and lifelong. And a step parent may choose to be financially responsible for a step child and include their step child in inheritance etc. But those are individual choices by those people. It doesn't make step parenting the same as adoption.

The marriage of 2 people has no legal impact on the existing child(ren) of either of those people. Marriage doesn't impose any legal responsibilities on the step parent.

Adoption however has an enormous legal impact on the both the child and the parent. This is my point. The family of an adopter knows this is a lifelong commitment by their family member which entails all the same legal responsibilities of biological parents.

Not let her go. The kids are siblings however sil wants to play it. Therefore it’s not fair one goes to this and not the other

I guess in the example of your friend - does he have a new wife and his own DD? If he does and still maintains the relationship, that's great. If not, it remains to be seen whether he'd be willing to spend all his weekends with a child who isn't his legally or biologically anymore. What happens when your friend re-marries and the girl has a new step dad - would the ex still be willing to spend weekends with her? Who would the girl consider her most meaningful relationship- her biological dad, her stepdad or her ex step dad - and how would she split time between them all?

I always think if a parent could only save one child - example donate a kidney - would they prioritise their blood child or their step child? It's an awful thought but most people wouldn't admit they'd prioritise their blood child.

I think if your DH family don't want to take a child that is not related to them then it's not the kindest thing but they're not obligated. DH chose to marry someone with a child and the children should be treated the same within your house but you can't dictate what the wider family do.

I think it's a bit of a shame you passed up a chance to have some lovely 1:1 time with your eldest daughter, who probably would have really loved to have you to herself.
Both my dc (teens) still love having 1:1 time with me, and I think it's really important as sometimes they just need to off load about their sibling. I think so long as it's all handled with sensitivity, there is no reason for your eldest to feel despondent about her step dad's extended family. I actually think an experience (like the panto) is far less 'in the face' than a pile of presents.

But ultimately all family dynamics are different, you know your two girls better than anyone, and if you feel it could cause a rift or upset then 100% stick to your guns.

Also funny people think a divorce after raising the step child would mean he wanted to stay as her step dad after. If biological fathers can wave bye and piss off you can bet your bottom dollar 90% of step dads wouldn’t actively bother with their step children if they separated from the mother.

I know of one step dad who is still step dad out of many failed blended families, most only care about the children while simply put and crudely getting to bed their mother.

This is an ongoing theme on here where one parents wants her in-laws to treat her first child or children the exact same as their biological grand children or niece/nephew .and is disappointed when they don't.
I think it's always more prevalent when the first child(ren) other parent is shit or absent and their parent wants their in-laws family to almost adopt them too to make up for shit dad .
It rarely work out in real life I'm afraid

@renoleno I think anyone who said they wouldn’t prioritise their own child in that scenario is a liar.

Stick to your guns how awful doing that to a little girl and 9 is young .my eldest grandaughter is not our biological gc been in our life from a baby really .she knows the truth about everything her adoption by my son and so on .she is not in the least bit bothered because she knows her place in our family eldest much adored gc eldest niece. Know one even thinks any different .her mother would have been horrified if anyone was to pull a stunt like that .sorry but if you live together you are treated as one family .I can't believe folk saying it's OK it's never OK to hurt a child never

I think both children should have been included.

Bit crap to leave out the 9 year old. I'm glad neither know about it. Stop buying for her kids. Clearly you're a nice person, they're not blood related to you so use the same principle.

I cannot believe some families are okay with having a child feel less than, yes they are not blood related but like others have said your partner has chosen to be part of your family and should make it quite clear that the other child will not be treated differently. It is quite frankly all to do with integrity some people have it others don’t, definitely stand with your elder daughter with this.

I've been thinking about this post this afternoon and you made the right decision. I think a lot of it comes down to the age of your eldest daughter. I think if the situation were reversed and your 9 year old was invited but the 4 year old wasn't, it would be different and I'd probably allow them to go.

Being 9 is a tricky age, and awareness of your identity and fitting in/not being rejected is becoming more and more apparent. Add to this a Dad who doesn't seem to care, and of course you want to protect your 9 year old from any more trauma. You are absolutely doing the right thing.

the actual quote is "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb".

i.e. the bonds between people who have something significant in common, or have experienced something important together (I think in the original bible quote it's referring to men who have been to war together, for example) are stronger than those between people who just happen to be related.

it's often incorrectly shortened to "blood is thicker than water" which suggests the complete opposite.

I would have let her go and then taken the older DC out for a treat.

No, it isn’t. ‘Blood is thicker than water’ is the original quote that dates back centuries. ‘The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb’ dates back to 2004.

In the case of the OP, there aren’t 4 others there is 1. In your example you are not the family, it’s completely different. You’ve also answered your own question really,using your argument OPs 9 year old doesn’t have the privilege of living with both parents like the 4 year old does so certainly deserves to be treated.

I’d have done the same as you. No way would one of my kids be going and not the other

I can't believe anyone would even make this comparison.

Yeah, I cant even beloeve that a 4 year little girl would be jealous that she is growing up in a stable nuclear family while her "lucky" older sibling had the joy of divorcing parents and a shit dad who might appear twice a year, if shes lucky, to take her our for pizza.