I feel nothing for them

[SarahM333]

Hi everyone

I'm 10 weeks pregnant with my first child. My OH has a son from a previous relationship, and sees him every second weekend. His ex (and therefore his child) live 5 hours from us, therefore he has to keep a rented house up there, so that he has somewhere to take his son to stay when he's there. He gets him for longer in the holidays etc.
When he takes his son, he also takes another of his ex's children (she has 5, she youngest is his and he takes the second youngest as well. All the rest of her children are late teens early twenties, meaning that when he has the kids she is "free").
My problem is that I feel nothing for his child, and even less for the one who isn't biologically his. Our baby is due in May, and we will move in together after Christmas. If I'm honest, I don't want his other child and the one that isn't his in the house. I think I'll also start to resent the money that he spends to keep a house up there, which only gets used about 4 nights a month but can't see another option.
Does anyone have any ideas as to how I can become more accepting?

Prettybrightfireflies

How do you know this child has a father?

Maybe the father is dead, maybe the father has gone awol, or maybe the father is happy for Op's partner to play an important or fatherly role in their child's life!

Whatever, it doesn't matter who the 'real' father is, what matters is that this child is being included in the life of Op's partner, and therefore he/she should be made an equal priority amongst the other child and unborn baby.

Mascara

So, look at this scenario. If the Op already had her own child by someone else, then meets her new partner and gets pregnant by him, partner moves in and they become a family unit, does that mean that the partner should exclude Op's first child from things and make HIS biological child the number one priority?

After all Op's child wouldn't be related either would they? Would you expect Op's child to have less emotionally and materially from Op's partner, even though they would all be living together?

Can't you see that this man has decided to take this child on board also and, therefore who are you to spitefully say that the new baby should now be top priority?

Some people absolutely amaze me.

Some really vile posts here about the step child, it really shows up Peoples true colours.

Well surely you're smart enough to see that that's a completely different scenario? :)

If you're with someone with children, you're a family unit and you accept those children as part of the package. That is an obligation of a stepparent.
If you split with that person and no longer live with them, then you no longer have to consider those children in any aspect of your life, and the children's upbringing reverts back to being solely the child's parents' responsibility.

How is that so difficult to grasp?

Also didn't say the baby should be alone top priority. The baby is the same priority as the dad's biological Ds. I meant the baby is way above the stepson.

Mascara
I'm actually shocked at your stupid fucking reasoning take on this.

So, you're saying (in my hypothetical example) that if Op's partner moved in with Op, and Op's (non related) first child, and they went on to have their own child/children together, and say after a number of years they split and the partner moves out, that means that the partner should have no more to do with Op's child anymore because the child isn't his? even though this child likely looks on this man as 'dad'?

Are you serious?

If the Op already had her own child by someone else, then meets her new partner and gets pregnant by him, partner moves in and they become a family unit, does that mean that the partner should exclude Op's first child from things and make HIS biological child the number one priority?

Yes - a parent should prioritise his own DCs over a stepDC, even if he lives with his stepDCs. While there is an implied financial responsibility within legislation, there is no legal responsibility beyond that of a babysitter or lodger. All to often, step mums on this board are flamed for expecting their DP to treat his StepDCs equally to his own - but in this case, a man is treating a former stepDC as his own and is hailed as some type of hero for doing so?

It doesn't matter whether the DCs father is dead, awol, or just deadbeat, he and his family still have more legal responsibility for the DC than than OPs DH does.
And while it's admirable that he considers himself to have a moral responsibility, that cannot be at the expense of his biological DCs.

If the OPs DP had adopted the DC, then each of the DCs would be equal. If he was a foster parent, then the OP and her DCs would be required to engage with fostering agency to ensure they understood and supported the placements. This is neither. And while he may be displaying admirable qualities - if that is at the expense of the OP and her DC, then his priorities are misplaced.

Ps if anyone is not very smart (and utterly spiteful) it's you.

Sarah - look at it this way - you are involved with a man who loves and cares not only for his own biological child, from a former relationship, but also for his child's half-sibling, with whom he has, presumably, had a dad-type relationship. This shows that he is a responsible, loving man - and that is a really good thing. It says a lot about his character - all good. I think being a parent is as much about a state of mind as it is about biology - it sounds as if your dp has been 'parenting' this child and sees the child as his - and to me, that bond is a good and precious thing, that will mean a lot to the child and to your dp - and I respect him for valuing that bond by carrying on spending time with the child, even though he's not with the child's mum any more.

I have not been in your position, so I would not presume to try to tell you how you should feel - but as others have said on here, I can understand why you don't have much, or any, emotional attachment to children you hardly know - but if you spend time with them, hopefully that will change.

I do think that, if you start a relationship with someone who already has a child or children, you have to accept that those children should be in your life. They don't have to be, of course - you could put your foot down and say the children are not welcome in your house - and then either your dp will choose his children over you (and you won't have to have them in your house because he won't be there either), or he could accept your dictat, and stop seeing his children - but do you really want to be with a man who could shrug off his children that casually?

Yes I am being serious. Not everyone has anything to do with their ex's children when they split. Are you seriously saying that they should be obliged to? What about if they have future stepparents and then they split, and so on? It could get quite ridiculous.

Pretty and Mascara

I wonder if you'd both have this same selfish attitude if YOUR child was the child in question? Somehow I think not.

disco When those cases are considered by a court, it's rarely a straight forward decision.

Any adult who has lived with a child as part of a family for over 2 years has the "right" to apply for contact with that DC. But, in considering whether contact should be granted, the welfare of the DC both short and long term is considered.
Only if there is strong evidence that cessation of contact would be detrimental would a parent be ordered to make their DC available for contact with an unrelated adult.

Where did I say they were obliged to have contact mascara?

If a relationship has been built up with a step parent and child and both want to continue contact even if the parents relationship breaks down, Wtf is wrong with that?

Your comments are actually unbelievably vile

I wonder if you'd both have this same selfish attitude if YOUR child was the child in question? Somehow I think not.

If which child was mine?

Is certainly be unhappy if my DCs biological father was AWOL. I wouldn't have shoehorned someone else into that role, and certainly wouldn't expect my younger DC to share all his contact time with his dad with his half-sibling.
It's impossible to put myself in that position, because I just wouldn't be there.

Actually Disco, my children wouldn't be calling a man "dad" who isn't their dad in the first place anyway. So they wouldn't get that emotionally attached. Perfect way to screw up your kids by allowing them to do so.

If a relationship has been built up with a step parent and child and both want to continue contact even if the parents relationship breaks down, Wtf is wrong with that?

Nothing, unless that choice is detrimental to further biological DCs that the former stepparent chooses to have.

Pretty
Why the hell are you on about Courts now?

We're talking about a man who although his relationship has broken down, has continued to care for this child and treat him/her as a part of his family. Nothing more.

Yet you and Mascara can't seem to accept that this ok, it doesn't matter one iota thar the child is not ' officially' related!

Fucking hell I need to go off for now as it still won't sink in, especially to Mascara,

you and Mascara can't seem to accept that this ok, it doesn't matter one iota thar the child is not ' officially' related!

I totally accept that it's ok - but not at the expense of other biological DCs.

If the OPs DP is so committed to his EOW with both DCs miles away from where he works, then having a baby with a woman living near his workplace is bound to create a conflict of priorities.

Nothing, unless that choice is detrimental to further biological DCs that the former stepparent chooses to have.

Even existing children that were born before or during the relationship. The stepparent would have their own house to run with now only one income, might have to downsize the house or move across the country to be closer to support from family after the breakup. it might not even be possible to maintain a relationship with their ex's child even if they wanted to, because their own children are their priority.

Gosh how is that so hard for people to understand??

Nothing, unless that choice is detrimental to further biological DCs that the former stepparent chooses to have

I am struggling to see how the relationship with the non-biological child is at the expense of a biological one? The biological child in question isn't even born yet.

On top of that, the OP's partner needs to travel to be able to see his actual biological child. He keeps a house in the biological child's home town so that he can have a relationship with his biological child. We know nothing at all about why/how/what/where/when the OP's partner and his ex have come to an agreement over the non-biological child (not that that has stopped some people filling in the gaps in the most preposterous way).

As the OP's partner is travelling and keeping a house to maintain his torelationship with his biological child, it's not unreasonable to assume that the actual cost of seeing the non-biological child at the same time is pennies - the odd meal, fee to enter a theme park/museum/soft play - the same pennies it would cost if the biological child were to bring a long a friend, perhaps?

Or are you suggesting that the issue here is that the OP's partner shouldn't be able to travel to see his child and keep a house to be able to maintain a normal parenting relationship with his actual biological child?

But if they move in together, what then?

then presumably the OP and her partner need to discuss how their joint finances will work and agree how to move things forward?

or if they move in together is the OP's partner not allowed to see his biological child? Remembering, of course, that the OP isn't particularly keen on having said child in her house? Are you suggesting that if he commits to the OP, he should play by her rules, not have his biological child in her home and not be able to spend money on visiting his biological child in his home town? Because it sounds very much like you are expecting the biological child to just disappear?

I don't understand why a child won't, or shouldn't, get emotionally attached to a man who is their mum's dp/dh and parent to their half-sibling?

If my marriage had broken down, and I had formed a new relationship, I would want my new partner to treat my children from the previous relationship in a kind and caring fashion. If we went on to have children together, I would want him to treat all of the children equally, and I would hope that he had a loving, parental relationship with all of them.

I don't think I would be able to carry on a relationship with a man who didn't care for my children from the previous relationship - I cannot see how it would be good for them to see me choose to stay with someone who didn't treat them kindly.

The alternative would be him treating my children differently, and less well to the way he treated our child/ren - and who would think that was a good thing?

And if my dp/dh was treating my children in a loving, kind way, and developing a parent-type relationship with them, surely they would, over time, become attached to him?

IMO, family is not just biology - it's about loving, caring, nurturing relationships. I am not related to dh by blood - but no-one batted an eyelid when we got married and called ourselves a family. Equally, no-one bats an eyelid when people adopt a child and the child calls them mum and dad, and no-one would think it at all strange if the child became attached to their adoptive parents.

If I had a blended family, I would want it to be as strong a family as it could possibly be - and I don't think that would be possible if my new partner didn't at least try to have as good a relationship with my children as he did with our children.

are you suggesting that the issue here is that the OP's partner shouldn't be able to travel to see his child and keep a house to be able to maintain a normal parenting relationship with his actual biological child?

Not at all. I would suggest that there are a wider range of options available to maintain the relationship between the OPs DP and his one biological child (currently aged 6) than just "renting a house close by", however.

The fact that there are two DCs makes those alternatives less cost effective - such as returning to his own home with his DC by train, for instance.

The inclusion of the older DC creates a totally different set of emotional and financial expectations on the OPs DP.

Since the OP has made it very clear that it will be her house only and that his other children won't be welcome there, I think he would be very sensible to maintain his own property. He wasn't very sensible to procreate with someone with such views about his children in the first place, but that's done now.

We live in a world where for various reasons, children often no longer live in nuclear families with their 'blood' Mum and Dad. Extended families all helping to raise a child and to make them feel secure are becoming rarer.

It's refreshing to hear about a situation where the estranged family have worked to continue to give the children security without making a child feel 'less' for not having a 'proper' nuclear family.

My daughter has never met her father. He left the country before she was born. She calls my DH 'Dad', they both love each other very much and he has never made her feel 'less' than his 'real' children (who, incidentally, call her their sister. Not 'step-sister'. Sister. It's what they choose to call her). How dare someone judge whether that's allowed or not?

The jealousy and judgemental/superior comments on here about ranking children in order of importance are horrible. A child is a child and has the same needs for love and security regardless.

A baby in a new relationship does not 'trump' the ones who were already there. It's up to the adults to carefully and sensitively work on including them all, no matter if it is complicated. Families often are complicated nowadays.