Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Original poster

I feel nothing for them

319 replies

SarahM333 · 28/10/2015 10:55

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?

OP posts:
cannotlogin · 30/10/2015 12:37

The money spent on that extra theme-park ticket could pay for an antenatal class. The extra costs of housing/feeding his former DSS every other weekend could be the difference between a new, or second hand, travel system

I personally find the suggestion that the OP's partner should drop his step child because it might mean his biological child has a second hand travel system as opposed to a new one...crass. And it misses the point entirely.

And yet again, this is just supposition. We have no indicator of the OP's finances (she appears self-reliant, her house is 'my house' not 'our' house) or that of her partner. As they don't live together, there is no way of telling what the impact might be - remembering of course that the OP needs to accept that maintenance must be paid and that with a 5 hour distance between her partner and his children, there is going to be some cost (probably significant) in maintaining contact.

I am not sure how a 10 hour round trip twice in a weekend is going to work if the OP's partner is going to care for his children in the OP's home (not 'their' home). It will tire everyone out and be a simple case of travel and no quality time whatsoever. A hotel in the ex's town will probably work out cheaper than the current arrangements, but at what cost his ability to actually parent his children (rather than be on some kind of permanent holiday)?

Actually, the treatment of the step child by some posters makes me want to weep. Deeply distressing as a mother sending her child into the unknown every other weekend. And thankful that I am with a man who's priorities mirror my own.

MascaraAndConverse · 30/10/2015 12:52

lunar FYI I am a stepparent. I went in to it too young and although I get on really well DH's DS, it's not to the point where I would love to maintain a contact arrangement with him if I was to split with his dad. I wouldn't be able to accommodate him or provide for him, and my children would have to come first. I'm sorry if that upsets you. His mum is firmly in his life as well so I don't know what you expect.

PrettyBrightFireflies · 30/10/2015 12:53

But legalities do matter.

How many times has it been argued on MN that it is unfair that a NRP is permitted to pay less to support his biological DCs because he has chosen to live with a woman with DCs?

Why is that the case?

If it the emotional bond between adult and child that matters, not the legality, then surely, a NRP should be able to decide how to prioritise his support between his resident DSCs and NR biological DCs?

MascaraAndConverse · 30/10/2015 13:00

How many times has it been argued on MN that it is unfair that a NRP is permitted to pay less to support his biological DCs because he has chosen to live with a woman with DCS?

EXACTLY!! How is this any different?! He's paying less towards his own children in order to provide for a former stepchild. It's quite laughable really.

MascaraAndConverse · 30/10/2015 13:03

If it the emotional bond between adult and child that matters, not the legality, then surely, a NRP should be able to decide how to prioritise his support between his resident DSCs and NR biological DCs

The next time one of those threads pops up I'm going point this out and link this thread Grin. Brilliant!

cannotlogin · 30/10/2015 13:14

He's paying less towards his own children in order to provide for a former stepchild

how? he is treating his existing biological child exactly the same as his step child. His 'new' biological child is only at 10 weeks past conception. Not even confirmed by an ultrasound yet. How on earth is he paying less towards his/her upkeep?

MascaraAndConverse · 30/10/2015 13:40

He's not treating them the same if providing anything for former stepchild means his biological children get less as a result. Its a bit like continuously spending money on your niece or nephew or the kid next door when you don't need to and your children get less spent on them as a result. That's not being a responsible parent. The child has a mum and she should be footing the bill.

MascaraAndConverse · 30/10/2015 13:41

And of course, his dad!

Petal02 · 30/10/2015 13:42

Totally agree Mascara.

Petal02 · 30/10/2015 13:56

And there would be no harm at all in maintaining a close relationship with a niece or nephew, or a neighbour's child - but if a new bio child comes along, things may need to shift slightly, to accommodate the new arrival.

I'm trying to imagine how I'd feel if I needed my husband to help with childcare for our small baby (we don't have a small baby, but I'm still trying to imagine) only to find he was taking his nephew to a football match.

cannotlogin · 30/10/2015 14:23

jesus wept...there is no new arrival yet. The foetus is at no known disadvantage. Furthermore, the OP hasn't suggested that the foetus is at a disadvantage - she has just expressed concern that on-going costs related to maintenance may turn into something of a sore point for her. There is no disadvantage to the OP's child. None.

DiscoDiva70 · 30/10/2015 14:25

Pretty
Why can't you get your head around the fact that it doesn't matter whether there's been a piece of paper confirming that Op's partner has officially taken on his stepchild? All that matters is that the partner and the child have that bond, and it appears that they do.

You assume that this child has a 'real' father but, as I pointed out before, you don't KNOW that. The partner may have actually bought him/her up with the mum, from being a baby. Therefore, the poor kid may know only this man as a father figure.

Who the actual fuck are you to wade in to say that this child should no longer be on a list of priorities? especially as the child was there BEFORE the Op. She knew there were two children in her partners life, so she should've accepted it or walked away before getting herself pregnant, shouldn't she?

Mascara
So, you're a step parent? well, I feel sorry for the poor kid who has you in their life, with the attitude you have!

Let's get this straight, you believe that Op's partner shouldn't be really involved with his step child. Yet YOU have a step child, I take it that means that you ensure when he comes to visit your home that's if you allow it you treat him less equally than your biological children?

Obviously you must.

I'd bet you hate the fact your partner will have to pay child support, and would instead want him to provide as much financially to you. In other words, YOU are disadvantaging your partners biological child!

Talk about different fucking standards!

MascaraAndConverse · 30/10/2015 14:43

Wow, you're assuming g a lot there disco!
Whilst me and DH are together, we are a partnership and altogether a family, and therefore I will not treat him less favourably than my own children. I never make him feel unwelcome in his own home and would never begrudge him anything including the CM DH pays; because as I keep saying in this thread, parents need to take responsibility for their children!

BUT if we were to split, my own responsibilities and priorities would be my own children, not DSS. As long as I am with DH I will treat DSS equally to my own children.

No "different fucking standards" here love. And I love it how you assumed I hate him paying CM. step mum bingo anyone?

Petal02 · 30/10/2015 14:47

Discodiva - could you refrain from swearing? It's not necessary.

DiscoDiva70 · 30/10/2015 14:57

Petal
You and especially mascara and pretty would make a saint swear!

Mascara,
I'd say I've got the 'measure' of you as a step mum.

MascaraAndConverse · 30/10/2015 15:01

Haha yeah sure you have Wink

TillITookAnArrowToTheKnee · 30/10/2015 16:18

You're still missing the point. Her DP loves this child.

Why in the blue fuck would he sack off this child because the woman he's currently with says so?! Just because she happens to have fallen pregnant means he has to cater to her every whim?

PrettyBrightFireflies · 30/10/2015 16:47

knee I'm not missing the point.

I'm sure the OPs DP and his former stepson have a very strong bond.

But, he should have thought about how that bond would be affected before he conceived a child with the OP.

And, regardless of whether there is a biological father in the DCs life or not - he does have one. He was not immaculately conceived. And the biological father is responsible for his dependents. Even if, sadly, he is dead (as someone suggested up thread), then his estate would have been dispersed to support the dependants as much as possible. If he is alive, then he is liable for CM.

swingofthings · 30/10/2015 16:53

I said upthread swing that I'm a fully paid-up member of the MN club that believes that if a man doesn't want to be a father, then he shouldn't have a sexual relationship.

Oh I see, so a man should give up on sex all together forever if he doesn't want a child or it's his fault if it happens and he should expect to do as told when it comes to his role as a dad whether he agrees with it or not.

Meanwhile, the woman is free to decide whether to become a mother or not and impose on the father to prioritise the child she decided to keep over his other children. Wow, speechless, talk about a sexist attitude!

This man has also decided to have another baby with the OP. He has therefore chosen to change the responsibilities he has to fulfil.

Regardless of you views, you don't know whether he did decide to have another baby as as you've pointed out, he might have had no say in the matter.

Just to be clear, responding to Pretty's attitude to parental responsibility, not commenting on your situation OP, we just don't know how the pregnancy came about.

swingofthings · 30/10/2015 16:56

But, he should have thought about how that bond would be affected before he conceived a child with the OP

Why are you putting all the onus on the man in this situation? What about OP thinking how having a child with OP under the circumstances would affect the father that he could be to her child before she decided to conceive with him?

DiscoDiva70 · 30/10/2015 17:01

But he should have thought about how that bond would be affected before he conceived a child with the OP

that is priceless
Pretty, I think you and Mascara are now neck and neck in the most ridiculous and stupid comments 'competition'

What did you expect this man to do? Say to his stepchild (when he was tiny) "oh I can't form a bond with you because if I ever meet someone else and have a child with her then you'll have to be last on my list "

How the fuck could this man predict the future?

He could have just as likely not met anyone else to have children with!

Why haven't you written that maybe the Op should've thought more about the fact she was effectively taking on two children before she got pregnant?

Pretty and Mascara, I've gotta ask, are you on a mission to goad?

swingofthings · 30/10/2015 17:16

No, you got it wrong Disco, what Pretty means is that the moment he separated from his ex, he should have accepted that he was never ever going to have sex again, because he couldn't prevent the risk of becoming a father resulting in no other choice but to give up on his step-child.

Might as well have got castrated as we know that even vasectomies are not 100% safe.

DiscoDiva70 · 30/10/2015 17:23

Yes I agree with you Swing, this man should never have put himself in that position!

Oswin · 30/10/2015 17:28

Ahh for pretty unless there's a guideline or law somewhere she cant handle it. Like a robot.
Can you two just not expand your mind that someone could love there stepchild as much as there child. Must fucking pickle your head.

DiscoDiva70 · 30/10/2015 18:02

We've got more chance of finding rocking horse shit than we have of those two expanding their minds, in my opinion

Swipe left for the next trending thread