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?

So a second marriage couple should choose NOT to have children, just in case it inconveniences any children from either party's first marriage? That's rather like saying a 'together' couple should only ever have one child, just in case a second or third baby causes a change of routine.

If only the OP's DP had taken ALL the children into consideration (like a 'together' couple would) when he was in court, then no one would be in this situation.

If you're responding to my post Petal then you're deliberately misunderstanding (or simply didn't understand), as that is not what I said.

and a conscious decision to move to a rural location. Both of those decisions were made AFTER they got together obviously,
Where is this stated in the thread? It says that the mother moved, not the OP and her DH.
Even if they did move, that wouldn't constitute "poor planning" as you suggest, if the move suited the family in other ways. The issue around school pickups can hardly be the central concern of their lives, trumping employment or whatever other reasons they may have had.
And likewise, the mum may have had very good reasons for moving. Difference is, you seem to think its OK for her to have done so, but somehow it is "poor planning" for the OP/DH if they had done the same. Ah, the joy of the double standard.

and as her DH already had children from a prior relationship, then one would think that she (and he) would have the foresight to realise that as the children got older, contact visits may cause some hiccups in things, especially due to transport... no matter WHERE the other children live - either locally or not. So yes, as I said, it's a bit poor planning on their part. Anyone that gets involved with someone with children from a previous relationship that doesn't at least consider how these decisions may affect them in future are guilty of poor planning.
Ridiculous. In intact families, circumstances change. You sound a bit....frothy.

I doubt the OP's children are suffering that much. Presumably they live with the OP and her DH, so I imagine they see him more frequently than his other children. Unless, of course, you're going to say that he is only home once EOW.Alice* you are doing a masterful job of projection!

Suffering children? Indeed.

Er, I think Petal has the measure of it.
If we are misunderstanding your position, perhaps the fault is with the writer and not the readers.

I would say in a blended family with 5 children, two of the second marriage and 3 from first marriages with 2 lots of contact arrangements to deal with and everyone's needs to balance, there is plenty of scope for all parties to be inconvenienced at some point. OP has use of the car for 19 out of 20 school runs a fortnight and could use a taxi for the other one and send the toddler with her DP to make things a bit easier. I don't think it requires all the angst and outrage at her DP who apparently must make 'sacrifices' and physically pay for the privilege of using the car to pick up his children once a fortnight.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but you make reference to the OP (and her DP) deciding to have children, knowing that there were already 'other' children in the mix.

If only blended families actually did some blending (the clue is in the name!) rather that insisting on 'set in stone' arrangements for the 'first children' that cause chaos for the whole household ....... Too often we hear about arrangements which are ring-fenced against reality, sanity, the passing of time etc etc - just because the arrangements in question relate to 'first children.'

I just think sometimes you have to be inconvenienced. It's not good, and it will be a nightmare for you sometimes but these sorts of things happen with lots of families and you just have to deal.

I know you're resistant towards people's suggestions because you're angry, and rightly so, but you need to move forward and see how you're going to deal with this. Making a deal with a taxi firm would be my first port of call - with DH paying for the taxis.

So you're saying the OP and her DH moved into a rural location BEFORE they got together, as in before they were a couple? Because I'm reasonably certain the children showed up on the scene before the OP did... unless she was the OW for quite some time. (Jeez, and you claim you understood the post? uh huh) That's some pretty slick moves - choosing a rural location to live before they were a couple.

Oh, and I never said the children's mother had a good reason for moving. I don't know why she moved, and I don't much care. Again, people move. It's hardly unheard of. Again, these eventualities need to be considered when making plans for the future. It's hardly rocket science.... to most people. I don't really care if both the mum and the dad moved 15 times over the last few years. Equal opportunity? For all I know they both have made some ill-planned for decisions, but the OP has really only told us about those by her and her DH.

Frothy? Not likely. I'm don't really have that much invested in the situation and am not in the situation myself, so don't have a particular axe to grind about it. I'm simply pointing out the fact that when a couple gets together and there are children from a previous relationship, those children need to be taken into account and a little forethought is not amiss when making big decisions, such as where to live, how many more children to have... because of course it all comes into play at some point. They're not living in a vacuum. If you have a problem with that, well.. then you have the problem, not me. It's just fact.

Is there a point in posting a question saying "Am I being unfair here?" if only those agreeing with the OP are allowed? Last I checked this was an open forum.

Alice I'm pretty sure that they all lived in the rural area from the beginning. Then the EXW moved.

I quite agree, basgetti, that this is not a problem of unsolvable proportions, and indeed it is one that a great many families (of any variety) might face.

Where you and I seem to differ is on the point of who ought to be "more inconvenienced" by the circumstances. I think the OP has the least to do with creating the situation, and ought to be least inconvenienced (she is obviously not going to escape any inconvenience, and I'm not suggesting that she could) - her DH is being a prat to let her and the small children absorb the difficulty.

I have also said that I think some concerns of the OP deserve more weight than others (the safety of a small baby in winter weather in a bike trailer versus a toddler not liking to go on car journeys).

It is the "angst and outrage" being turned against the OP with which I have a problem.

Don't know, don't care really. They knew the situation with the traffic, the local roads, the fact that there would have to be contact arranged (regardless of where the dcs lived) and that transport would likely be involved (such as for parties and so on). It's not like this sprang out of the blue and they woke up one day with a couple more kids and a long school run. For heaven's sake, it's not like this happened overnight that they couldn't start organising alternatives.

Their additional children showed up, what, last week? The mum moved, what, last week? Long school run started last week? Come on, the OP and her DH have had ages to consider this. And what couple goes into a court hearing over contact and doesn't expect to have to compromise a little? Seriously?

pffffft Get a taxi. Cut back somewhere else to cover it. Start thinking ahead from now on. Not rocket science.

Precisely, Morphine.

It seems that it was the decisions made by DP/the court/the ex that have caused the problems here, not the OP. She's the one who's struggling to work round a decision reached without her input, or any thought for her or her children.

Alice - either you've not read this thread properly, or you've never been a step parent. Or both.

Actually I have been a step parent for a number of years, thanks. And I've had children from a previous relationship when entering into another relationship. It's all about thinking and planning ahead. Things can sometimes be inconvenient, but that's life. You just deal with it and move forward.

Well I agree with one thing you've said Alice, that it's all about thinking and planning ahead. If the OP's DP had done either of those things, the OP wouldn't be in her present predicament.

I'm not saying he's not guilty of that. But it's all a combination of things, not JUST him. And to be fair, in court proceedings, it's very likely that he was not given the option to change that - or that he was told by the judge or by his solicitor that it was not advised that he squabble over that. The court is really not well known for looking at how arrangements may inconvenience one party or another. So it may not necessarily be his fault in that respect. Only he (and I imagine his solicitor) know, really.

But I still maintain that major decisions such as remarriage, having more children, and the like are all decisions that can and most likely will affect contact to some degree. So proper discussion and planning for any eventuality (such as perhaps putting aside money previously if possible for a car or taxi fees or the like) is very important, and seems to be something that is missing here.

Also a point that if the OP and her DH don't have £30 per month to spare at all (for the taxi), then perhaps they need to sit down and do some serious budgeting discussions, as that's a pretty precarious position to be in when having another child.

I agree with petal

Has your DH acknowledged that this situation is not going to be easily resolved and is his own making? What efforts is he making to sort it out?

Planning for any eventuality? That's pretty impossible to be honest. Unless you've got crystal ball.

second class citizens, dealbreakers for 20/365 days of the year.

Get a grip Sister - his eldest DCS are still getting the arse end of the whole deal and the OP, while annoyed is going ott in the outrage front.

No one is second class here - the kids are not being expected to trudge in the snow, there are viable, sensible alternatives, that the OP has for 20 days of the year.

So he should not see his kids eow etc becuase his new kids might be inconvenienced............

if my dp agreed to this without my input I'd be livid.
All the kids should be considered and I think the toddler in particular is at risk if they have to walk.

I agree a taxi must be made feasible somehow but the op is being totally inconvenienced while her dp gets the easy bits and then he goes to work on the other weekends...

The money for a taxi or for a lift has to be found, somehow. OP you need to ask your DH what he's going to give up to make that money available. It's just not on for him to expect you to do the walk, even if it is only EOW, given the other circumstances.

One other thought - is there another parent with a big car who could fit you & the little ones in and who would accept petrol money for giving you a lift? That should be much less than a taxi fare.

There's no one else from school near where we live - it isn't the catchment school, I picked it for its good reputation for SN so we don't qualify for transport.

Alice the DSC were within walking distance and enrolled in school before their mum decided to move them out of the blue, it was unforeseeable to be in this situation. As we were having them over 50% of the time before they moved, I assumed DH would apply for a residency order to keep them here and in school - but he didn't. He didn't have this situation foisted upon him, it's his complete avoidance of confrontation that has left him an eow parent to his eldest DC and even less than that to our DC.

" I assumed DH would apply for a residency order to keep them here and in school - but he didn't. He didn't have this situation foisted upon him, it's his complete avoidance of confrontation that has left him an eow parent to his eldest DC and even less than that to our DC."

That's truly awful.

What he has agreed to is ridiculous.
I KNEW he had agreed to it because no judge in the land would actually force a NRP agree to all parties or activities on the NRP time. He had to have agreed to it. They are called consent orders for a reason.

If he was my "dear" H, he wouldn't be for long.

Then again this hasn't be foisted on me, heavily pregnant, with a toddler, a young child at school, no transport and little money.

I understand you're in very vulnerable position.