What do you think of this situation? unreasonable or normal?

[inapickle99]

Sarah and John have a young child together (3) and John has two older children (7&9) who stay with them 40% of the week. They have been together for 5 years.

John is self employed and was working at the weekend, Sarah was at home with all children. Sarah invited to go on a day out with her sister and niece and agrees. She drops off two step children with their dad to spend the day at his work with him and goes with their joint child on the day out (to an aquarium).

Do you think this is reasonable? No option given to the other children to go along.

No, that’s not reasonable. Why was there no option for her stepchildren not to come? However, that being the case she should have refused if not all the kids could go.

I think John should try arrange his work to make sure he’s there when the older children are staying. I understand though that things arise and he may have had to work the weekend.
I imagine Sarah has had enough and wanted to make a stand but the children missed out here. Sarah has been in their lives for a long time now and it was pretty rubbish if her to dump them at the dad’s work whilst she took their sibling to an Aquarium. The children must have felt really excluded and unwanted by this action.

If Sarah is unhappy with how things are going in the relationship and with caring for all the children then she should be discussing it with John, not taking it out on young children.

Assuming no backstory (eg Sarah has to look after the SDC every weekend) then no this isn’t ok imo. Did the SDC know that their half sibling was going on a fun day out?

That sounds pretty awful for the children, but if John is self employed he shouldn't be working weekends when he has his children- he should be taking care of them.

John shouldn’t have assumed that Sarah was okay with being his childcare.

Sarah was not being unreasonable.

Perhaps this is the nth time John has expected Sarah to be childcare for his kids. Perhaps Sarah's sister wanted to spend time with her niece without the other kids around. This sort of thing is why I would never, ever get involved with a man who had kids: if you're not prepared to martyr yourself to put them first, then everyone drags you. Yet you are rarely allowed to discipline them and you tend not to be invited to their special events (which latter is fair enough) It's lose lose and why 'blended families' are a terrible idea.

The audacity of John expecting his partner to spend HIS contact time with HIS children, then coming on a women's forum to encourage a pile on on said partner! I expect there's a ton of backstory about what a lazy, crap parent he is.

It’s mean. But it sounds like John is taking the piss and Sarah has had to make a stand. Unfair on the kids but if John won’t parent his children, what else can Sarah do?

Bet there’s a massive backstory.

Some workplaces are unsafe for children.

so for example if John is an electrician or builder and working on building sites then not ok, clearly.

if John’s workplace is safe for children then I suppose it would stop him working.

How much of the 40% does he dump on Sarah normally?

What if the kid didn't like aquariums. Maybe they should have gone to soft play. 🤔

Of course she should have taken all 3 children. Why exclude them from a trip to the aquarium....

Because she wants to spend time with just her own child

Well maybe the woman shouldn't have married a man with 2 young kids. Just saying

Ultimately, the kids are there to spend time with John. Not to see Sarah, or her friends and family. He was unreasonable for being at work and leaving her as the nanny.

I’m always astonished when people say X shouldn’t be working - where does money come from in your lives?

If he wants to work on weekends then he needs to source childcare for his children, which isn’t dumping them on his wife.

Sarah sounds like a twat.

Not only did she make the SDCs feel left out whilst she swanned off to have a lovely day.

But she also put her DP in a difficult situation which may have cost him his job.

I don’t think I could forgive the selfishness of her.

There’s a big difference between not wanting to be used for childcare vs agreeing to do it and then ditching them because you’ve had a better offer.

The majority of posters have sided with John and think Sarah was in the wrong.

John and Sarah need to get their collective act together and make sure the children don’t get or feel excluded in future. It’s really shitty for the kids.

This could take the form of John not working when he has his kids, if Sarah isn’t happy to look after them all solo, or if Sarah taking them along on outings if she’s happy with John working.

Maybe they're a bit gullible?

Lots of people have given lots of views, but actually from only one post from the op it is impossible to know as there’s not enough information there. Responders have had to make some stuff up and then make their decision depending on what they made up.
Why was John working? What normally happens? Do they even like each other?

I don’t think they are siding with John. I think they are siding with the kids.

We don’t know who the OP is in this, do we?

Could be the children’s Mum, could even be Sarah’s sister. Or just someone making it up for their amusement.

Depends doesn’t it? Depends if all 3 of them including Sarah and joint child rely on this money.

I think this really depends on the agreement about working and childcare that John and Sarah have.

It does seem pretty brutal to the children if they knew what Sarah was going off to do, but so I could also see that it might be pretty brutal to keep going over to your dad's house and him always being off working.

I am always struck by how much women compromise their working lives for children and step children and how little men do.