Annoyed that DSC are always put first to our detriment

[TractorTam]

DH had his contact hearing last week. He's agreed to collect my DSC eow from school, which is an hour away. Therefore, he'll have the car and so every other Friday I'll have to walk the 2.5 mile each way trip to pick up my DD from school complete with toddler who hates pushchairs but also can't walk far and newborn who'll probably require feeding a couple of times on the journey therefore making it extremely long and difficult for all involved, particularly in winter.

He's also agreed that he'll take DSC to any parties they want to go to, meaning extortionate amounts of money spent on petrol to travel back and forth to their home town and that I'm effectively left with our DC the entire weekend, without a car which is restricting as we're rural and he works the other weekend so it means he parents our DC very little.

We have a weekend away booked in October just before the new baby is born and were planning on travelling Fri morning and returning Sunday afternoon, DSC had a place booked just in case it could get agreed in contact order. He agreed to collect them at 5 on the Friday evening and have their mum collect them at 7 on the Sunday evening from the destination which is 2 hours from us. Therefore we've lost an entire day on the Friday and our DC are likely to fall asleep on the journey home on Sunday which will be disruptive for school.

I just feel like the DC and I have to constantly fit around the DSC to our detriment and am fed up of feeling like I'm the only one responsible for thinking of what's best for our DC as he just thinks of what's best for him and his. Am I being unfair here?

But Morris the OP - specifically - did not choose to have a big family all on her own. The younger kids weren't immaculate conceptions.

Given that there were two adults involved in extending the family, they are both entitled to an opinion about how it would work - and not just him!

I expect the OP is only too aware of the difficulties of living rurally without a great deal of disposable income but I don't think she's being unreasonable to have expected equal input into how their joint resources would be managed fairly across the whole family.

It's just not good enough to effectively say "you knew it'd be hard, so suck it up" (in order to justify favouritism to some children) .... whereas the truth of the matter is probably closer to her knowing full well it wouldn't be "easy" but she fondly imagined that she and her husband would work together to make the most of what little time and money they have in order to benefit all the kids as much as they possibly could.

I do agree that "making do with what you have" is realistic. But "making do" means a fair distribution of what you have !! "Making do" isn't accepting the unilateral decision(s) your partner makes without a murmur of complaint regardless of the impact it creates.

I wouldn't put it as er brusquely as some but I'm not sure what you want to happen here?

You want him to be a good parent I presume and it's only eow...there might not be any parties!

May be it's time to rejig other areas of your life (his job, location etc etc) if you feel that he isn't supporting you enough with the little ones.

Taxi is the obvious solution to the practical problem. £15 stretched out over a fortnight is £1 per day, and nothing like as expensive as running a car. It'd probably cost you half that and then some to collect them in the car as you normally do. (Of course, if you're on the breadline then you might not have £1 per day spare, but it doesn't sound like it?)

As for your husband putting your step-children first, only you can know if your complaint is defensible here. It doesn't really sound like it TBH.

"how did you picture it working?"

Perhaps with an involved and communicative DH, who tells her how contact negotiations are progressing as they go along rather than presenting her with a fait accompli without even lip service acknowledging that it will have an impact on her too?

It's possible that this is the best/only possible contact arrangement, but I don't think that means one spouse can ignore the difficulties it brings for the other, and especialy not on their other children.

Most admin can be solved, but it's easier to do this if the adults are fully engaged, realise the consequences of their actions, and actively seek to minimise the downsides.

when you blend families, all their needs have to be considered. That’s the point of calling it blended!

Totally agree, however in practice there’s often very little blending taking place, (which is what tends to cause a lot of the problems) and whilst people tend not to utter the words ‘first come first served’ that's how it often pans out in reality.

OP said earlier her DH works EOW - so presumably sees his older kids on the other weekend when he's not working. He's now agreed to take older kids to any parties and other activities falling on that weekend, which means, due to distance and costs involved that a) OP will be stuck in rural location with younger kids and that b) from what she's inferred there'll be no spare money to cover off any activities for younger children.

IMO, that does seem to make her complaint valid. They were always going to have not a lot of spare money by the sounds of it but normally most families would try to ensure that was spread around across all the children - who may indeed have to take it in turns to do their "thing". Instead, DH has agreed contact order terms - and if written into an order, he'd be in breach of that if he now turns round and says he can't afford to facilitate xyz activity - which mean the older kids are always prioritised. There may not be parties each time he sees them but that's not really the point as the potential is there for expense they - as a family - can't always afford, and for timings which may not always be convenient. Whatever - the OP gets no say in this and will just have to fit round whatever her DH is doing with the older kids however inconvenient and however inaffordable it is. That is really quite an arrogant approach for him to take - and as the younger kids become more aware I'd have also said there's a real risk of them coming to resent their father and older siblings because they could well see it as them "always getting what they want" while they are far more restricted in what they can do.

I don't think anyone on this thread, least of all OP, has suggested for a moment that the younger kids take priority instead - so why is her wish that all the kids' needs and wants given equal consideration being brushed aside here (by some) ?

Oh, and of course the other factor in his working pattern means that he could be spending a great deal more time with the older kids EOW when he's not working and when parties/activities are involved - so it's not just about the younger ones feeling jealous of not being able to do the same things but also about missing out per se on spending quality time with their dad and not having the same opportunity to build a relationship/memories with him ....

.... and before someone invariably jumps in with the argument that "they'll see him during the week" that may not necessarily be the case (although obviously the OP would need to confirm this). Just saying that it's not always as simple as resident children seeing loads of their dad during the week - for a long time my DP's hours meant our child saw him just 30 mins each day for example.

I agree, but what's the solution? Drop to every three weeks or just once a month? It sounds like he's had to fight for access (court orders etc) why would he turn it down now?

When he went to court, he was asking for eow from Fri tea time - Monday morning drop at school. His dad lives near us and works near DSC school and could've taken them/collected them as necessary. He went to court of the opinion that while he'd accommodate the most important parties, with 60 DC in two DCs classes, agreeing to attend every party would be excessive and disruptive to our time as a family. What he's agreed to means he'll actually see my DSC a whole lot more than the ones he'll actually be living with, and I'll pretty muchbe a single pparent. I'm not saying he should do more with ours, I'm.saying that his relationship with them and their relationship with their siblings will suffer. I think equal consideration should be given to all, particularly since DH has agreed these conditions since we've got one DC at a far away school, live rurally because of his job, had a toddler and fell pregnant.

The school run in the dark while trying to keep a toddlersstill as I feed the newborn is going to be difficult.

The solution John, would have been to not just have agreed to what his exW demanded because she has said it with the intention (and admitted in court) that their DC are given full priority.

Oh and he's also agreed that only he will collect DSC, so heaven help me if I'm in labour/giving birth/just given birth the day of contact. Because I'll be in that alone, too.

"I agree, but what's the solution?"

Her DH improves his communication skills enormously, and talks to OP about the impact this arrangement will have. He expresses some appreciation for her support, and talks about what these new arrangements mean in practice. He comes up with ideas that reduce the logistic problems. He talks about how they will parent all their children, especially how he will find time for his younger children.

What do you want to happen OP?

I must say that I think eow is not much to ask. Your DH has (or will soon have) FIVE children. I am run ragged with two! Anyone with five children is going to have a hell of a lot of running around to do. This should not be news to anyone!

And tbh your 3 DCs are not the ex-Ws problem.

OP appears to want a pick up time about an hour later on Fridays, plus expectation that they will get th DC to most parties, rather than an absolute obligation they will ensure attendance at every single one.

I find it hard to believe a solution to the OPs school pick up issue cannot be found for one in every 10 school days.

Agree with previous posters, not exactly First Come First served, but with every child you choose to have you need to consider how that affects existing children. You and your husband have chosen to have five children (OK only three were your choice but his previous two needed to be taken into account), many families stop at one, two or three because limited time and finances mean the existing and future children will not have all the opportunities the parents want to offer them.

Different ages mean the children have different needs, by the time your baby needs taking to activities and parties his older children won't, so he will be able to do the same for his younger children as he is now for the older ones.

Regarding walking to school once a fortnight, 2.5 miles is NOT that far, many people walk that far everyday with a pushchair, get a buggy board for the toddler.

As for feeding the baby, do people not go out of their homes for more than 20 minutes in case the baby needs feeding? Yes they can feed that often when at home, but generally if you feed just before leaving they will sleep in the pushchair (or even better a sling) and you can always give a top up at school before the return journey.

It does sound a bit like you are looking for problems rather than solutions. His older children must never feel that their dad does not have time for them because he has had more children.

We’ve had no end of threads about ‘what happens if my baby decides to arrive on a contact weekend’ – and sadly a lot of posters seem to think you should practically deliver your own baby (or ask the cat/dog/postman for help) rather than disrupt any access arrangements.

This is one of the reasons I decided not to have a baby with DH (although admittedly it wasn’t the only reason) because we had years and years of ‘set in stone’ access arrangements, where even the slightest hint of flexibility was forbidden (unless the ex requested the change) making it hard to accommodate Real Life at times.

I’ve no idea how the courts work, but do they really make orders in favour of step children without any consideration at all for other children (or imminent babies) in the household? And could you seriously be in breach of a court order if you tweaked access one week to assist your wife whilst in labour?

Actually, further to my last,

I think what the OP wants, more than small changes to ease the logistics, is a DH who realised what he's done.

That is tough- especially not having anyone else collect them- written in the contract? Ex sounds like a cow.

I don't think it's necessarily as bad as you feel now (sorry) things like, the parties - you can all go/some of the kids can go- and then play with their dad at soft play, pool, wherever. There are also holidays and it won't always be like this, when they are teens they will set their own contact times more likely.

If access has been restricted, I can understand how your dh has agreed to anything...

I’ve no idea how the courts work, but do they really make orders in favour of step children without any consideration at all for other children (or imminent babies) in the household?

Yes.

CAFCASS confirmed that to DH - the court doesn't even consider potential risk to other DCs in the household, for instance, if allegations are made.

There have been cases where overnight contact orders have been made preventing contact between a NRChild and their stepparent/stepsibs even though they share a home with the NRP!

As for breach - well, no, no court would penalise a NRP for not fulfilling a contact order because of the imminent/recent birth of another child. But a RP could apply for enforcement and a court would be required to consider it.
I'm increasingly of the opinion though that Courts place a lot less weight on Orders they issue than the parents who are receiving them!

OP, is your DH sympathetic to the way you feel? I have a feeling that he just expects you to go along with it all with no concern for your opinion on the matter.

And tbh your 3 DCs are not the ex-Ws problem

Of course the younger 3 DCs aren't Ex's problem - but they are still their father's responsibility and he should have factored their care in to whatever decision he made at court (assuming that the terms of the order weren't foisted upon him against his wishes - which would obviously put a different perspective on this).

I must say that I think eow is not much to ask

On the face of it, it doesn't sound so does it and EOW is a fairly common arrangement for NRPs ... however in this case, there are just 2 weekends each month where the DH is available to see any of his kids due to his work hours, so it seems rather unfair to make a commitment to just 2 of them, guaranteeing he will always see them but which, depending on what's happening, may mean that he won't see his younger ones.

His older children must never feel that their dad does not have time for them because he has had more children.

Of course not - but the opposite should also apply and the younger ones are very unlikely to understand - and why should they? - that their dad prioritises his time with older children because they were born before them. That is just as much NOT their fault as it's not the older ones' fault they were born first. The kids should be equal in the eyes of their father.

Different ages mean the children have different needs, by the time your baby needs taking to activities and parties his older children won't, so he will be able to do the same for his younger children as he is now for the older ones.

Fair enough to a point - although if the oldest of the younger 3 is at school and the 2nd oldest is a toddler it won't be very long before the older one starts to get party invites and obviously, there are any number of activities a primary age child might like to do. A toddler is also able to do various different activities. However, it's not just logistics, but the commitment he's made to facilitate older kids' stuff means that the small amount of available money this family has will always go to them first and consequently arranging activities for younger kids may then be financially impossible.

I think what the OP wants, more than small changes to ease the logistics, is a DH who realised what he's done.

Yes ..... this. I want to know how the DH thinks this is going to work and how he thinks it's being fair to all his children. Does he even care ?

I’ve no idea how the courts work, but do they really make orders in favour of step children without any consideration at all for other children (or imminent babies) in the household? And could you seriously be in breach of a court order if you tweaked access one week to assist your wife whilst in labour?

I'm not an expert but in my personal experience of court orders very little consideration at all is given to the impact of orders upon other children in the family. Their terms can therefore end up being horribly divisive IMO, and condoning favouritism. I doubt though that if you were technically in breach of a court order for a genuine emergency - and I think labour qualifies - that any judge in their right mind would punish you for that. There are plenty of resident parents who obstruct contact repeatedly in spite of a contact order on the flimsiest of excuses and the most most of them ever seem to get is a verbal rap across the knuckles as opposed to a meaningful punishment.

Cheese I don't think it's patronising at all, there's no way to know what the individual baby will be like until it's born and at this point you cannot assume that the baby will be one of few who won't wake up for 5 hours when newborn even if out walking.

Alita, equally you cannot assume that the baby won't be one of the few who won't wake up for 5 hours.

Especially as you haven't had your first baby yet and only have stories from friends to go by, rather than first hand experience of your own baby.