to think a parent should prioritise all of their children equally

[noonki]

I just read a post in which it was argued that a father should prioritise a child they are living with over children from a previous relationship.

And that financially he should prioritise his new family over that of his old. TBH I am incensed.

I am a stepmum and would be shocked if my DH didn't view all of his children equally. In fact it would make me question him as a father.

He definitely has a different relationship with his first son but I think does with all of his kids.

I think attitudes like this can aggrevate issues such as father's (or in some rare cases mother's) not contributing finacially and emotionally to their children.

Jammi - I don't think anyone is criticising that kind of father - he obviously does prioritise his kids equally, but is being hindered by his ex. He is trying to do the decent thing. I believe that fathers should care equally for all their children, and i think that mums who stop dads from seeing their kids while still demanding money are entirely wrong.

What people are against here is dads who decide not to bother with kids from a previous relationship. My DP's dad has recently remarried, and thankfully in his case his four children are grown up. However, none of them now speak to him, because he prioritises his new wife's children. When they ask him to do anything he says 'I have other children to think about now' they're not even his kids. Yes he has to pay attention to his Step-children, but his biological children aren't asking for money even, just his attention. And he lets his new wife verbally abuse his children. It's wrong, he should stand up for his kids. I'm pg and have never met DP's dad. He doesn't know hes going to be a grandad!

Hi Jammi -

I started this OP not because I am in anyway against second families,

my DH has a child from a previous relationship.

I have a huge amount of empathy for men who for are denied access to their children (unless they are emotionally or physically abusive). My DH had huge problems with access on the whim of his ex and I think that is disgraceful.

What I am arguing is that a parent (mother or father) should prioritise all their children equally.

Thinking about it I don't think it matters whether they are the DCs of a first, second or more families.

At the end of the day we as parents, and by that I mean ALL adults involved, have a responsibilty to ensure that we prioritise all of the children caught up in our relationships. It may not always be easy or possible but at the end of the day it is not any of these children's fault.

noonki
You are so right. I'm surprised that anyone would think otherwise. How could it be reasonable to disregard your first children just because you are in a new relationship.

Actually now I think about it a bit more I dont know why I'm shocked, the "parent" part of me is shocked, because I cant imagine doing that to my children. As a child though that is what happened to me, my dad moved on, started a new family, and we were left behind. Had very clear feelings of not being tha same as his new family.
Interestingly now that marriage has split up too, and my father and his now ex-wife are suddenly both very keen to be friendly, but as far as I'm concerned its too late for that. Especially his ex-wife, who was so quick to be the wicked step-mum when they were married, but regrets it now that my dad has left her in the same way he left my mum.
Anyway, bit of a rant there, sorry

i dont.

Hi Notdoinghousework - that is very good of you to withdraw the claim, a lot of people wouldn't do the same in your situation.

I think looking at your boyfriend treats any ex - children is a good indication of the kid of father he will be to your child.

What about a situation where, say, the resident parent is very rich (really extremely well off) due to their second marriage, say, or an inheritance or even an extremely highly paid job. The parent who was told to leave but is financially worse off then remarries and has another child/more children. £50 to the family of his first child is mere pocket money. £50 to his current family is a completely different deal. Should that man be expected to pay (on top of his CSA obligations) for lots of extras for his first child who lives in luxury and who will never go without, even if that means his current family go without?
I know a family in this situation. More of the father's salary goes to the second family than his first child, but the first child has much, much more than the other children including private education, designer clothes and luxurious holidays.
If I left my dh and married George Clooney (Ok, ok...it's not going to happen, dammit!) and we had babies (so not going to happen) I wouldn't expect him to make himself poor in order to give me money while I lived in luxury.

I don't think that it has to be entirely equal spread of income and I would hope that the first mother would have some consideration for the new children.

The father should view all of his children as as equally important. In this circumstance he is first children don't require him to prioritise his income equally. But all of the other parts of parenthood (emotional, etc) should be equal as possible.

Please note - when I leave my partner for Brad - I am going to have loads of step children, yet I will expect him to treat all of his kids and ours the same, but I would let my Dh off maintence!

noonki - You started this OP to attack me and wasn't you wasn't strong enough in your arguments to do it on the other thread.

So you started this one to discuss the other thread.

Which is completely against MN etiquette.
You are meant to discuss issues on the thread they are started on instead of running like a coward.

Janni understands what I meant, its a shame you didn't take more time to understand instead of running and starting a new thread.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I can't see anything noonki has posted on this thread which is unreasonable or attacking anyone. noonki's posts seem to express an entirely reasonable pov - ie that anyone who has children should treat them equally.

hughjarss - noonki is fully entitled to start a thread to discuss issues arising on another thread. Otherwise it would derail the other thread and take it off topic.

Anyway, it isn't up to any of us to censor other MNers or say what they can and can't discuss.

I found your views, that parents should discriminate against their elder children if they start new families, abhorrent and said so on that thread.

Message withdrawn

Maybe you should go back and read the responses since Edam.

That is problem with using one thread to discuss another is that you don't know all that has happened.

I never said I treated them any dfferntly, i said I prioritse d's needs first as she lives with us.

You would know this if you bothered to read the rest of the thread instead of jumping in

I still can't see the problem with the principle that anyone who has children has a responsibility to regard them as equally important i.e. NOT prioritise any one child over the others. Whether the child lives under the same roof is not the point. Children don't choose for their parents to split, or move away, or whatever, so why should they be treated as any less important? Of course, treating children equally doesn't always mean treating them the same. A finanicially independent 25 year old won't have the same needs as a two year old. But they are both equally important.

Of course you are not unreasonable.

But maybe it's inevitable that the child always present gets more attention/time/money than those that live away. And if there is a resentful stepmum present it won't help. Sadly in the 2 step families I know, with children still at home, there is a resentful stepmum present

Completley agree with Jammi on this.

NDTH - If you have a partner, their income wouldn't be used to claculate maintence so why should the NRP's partner?

I read your post saying, very clearly, that first families weren't as important as second, hughjarss. It's not just you, you said you expect your dp to treat your step-child less favourably than your own. Despicable.