takeittakeit I find your stance very difficult to understand. It seems to be all about 'fairness' for the sake of it rather than 'what is actually fair'** in reality. Your last post also shows absolutely no understanding of what it's like to HAVE to share with step siblings that , but for your parents falling in love with each other, they would never seek out as friends and yet are expected to embrace these children with enthusiasm.
You seem to forget that the majority of Non resident children (at their fathers) are resident at their mothers. My children get 'more' from the household they live in, but 'less' as part of their dfs family. My Sc get 'more' in their household and less with us. (Only now the eldest are with us so now receive 'more' from us). It is the nature of divorce.
The over concentration on material luxuries is to take the focus off what is actually important. In my experience- as long as they get the goodies (phones, iPads, trainers, holidays etc) from someone, they really don't care who it is. The only people keeping count are the combative parents looking for ammunition to throw.
So back to Fairness, vs What is fair. This is the scenario.
Janet in new marriage to John. Janet has 3 kids. John has 4.
Janet and John both work full time. Earn roughly the same. After mortgage/bills/ Cm there is just sufficient to live on until the next month.
Janet receives CM and has small savings. This gives her slightly higher disposable income for a holiday.
Janet has a friend with a Gite in France. 3 beds. Mum can afford the mates rates , and ferry crossing. Plus spends for a week. Resident children haven't been on holiday for 2 yrs as both parents subscribed to 'equal treatment' and couldn't afford anywhere with 7 kids.
So the 3rd year together panned out like this.
Non resident children live in a household with much higher disposable income. Their stepfather has no children at home (all grown up and independent) and is very high earner. Children's mother doesn't work but receives monthly child maintenance. (From my DH. This is an agreed amount above CM basic). Step children's grandparents also wealthy and very generous.
Step children go on foreign holiday with mum and step dad, followed by ten days at all inclusive resort with lots of activities, with grandparents. ( thrilled for them it sounded amazing and their GP's are amazing, stable anchors in the children's lives at a time of great turbulence).
So what is fair ?
A. Resident children have to fore go a holiday because insufficient funds for all children to go and NR children could be upset about missing a holiday with dad.
B. Mother takes her children but leaves her husband behind 'on principle' so dad isn't seen to be having fun without them. Mum has a hugely diminished holiday experience doesn't enjoy it without her new husband (it was to be their first holiday together). one that she has paid for.
C. Mum and Johns household have a holiday. (In non contact time).
A few years down the line, incomes increase and costs diminish. (2 resident children leave home/have own holiday plans with Uni friends - making the annual holiday 3 of Johns and 1 of mums) 3 Sc now have 3 holidays over a summer. Janets last child at home gets holiday invites from friends, Janet took her away for post GCSE celebration (for a week abroad) and no- did not take my same age step daughter. All in all in now balances out.
To my mind, C is the only possible 'fair' outcome. Having 121 time with your Non resident father is of course important but to my mind that doesn't need to mean a holiday abroad. The children were spoken to about the situation and did not blink. In fact couldn't understand why we hadn't taken mine away for 2 years because of this 'principle'.
We of course did C and the only person to care was children's mother who actively sought out things to complain about - on behalf of the children, even when they clearly could not give a fuck.
The 'expense' of the activity does not mean it is better quality time. In my DHs case, he took a second weeks leave to just be at home with his children, whilst I was at work. He still does this even now we can afford to take them away. It's the time with them that's important not the desperate need to 'divvy up the spoils' so the kids can have a game of 'my mum loved me more than dad did because he spent £723 net less on us over 10years..'
I do not understand why people who criticise blended families cannot understand that their are real practicalities that prevent 'complete equality'. It is almost always cost that prevents equality. Given a limitless pot, these 'choices' do not need to be made.
Blended families are normally the result of divorce , where usually the person doing the leaving has to set up home again from the beginning, new mortgage/rent/deposit/ furniture.
In my DH case he felt so guilty about leaving his children (no guilt about leaving their mother) that he gave her the house outright to ensure the children had the stability of their home and no worries about moving /moving schools/losing friends. This was a selfless act but meant he needed to get a mortgage from scratch at 46yrs old with our very small deposit.
We did NOT have own bedrooms for Dsc. we would of liked a 7 bedroom house with a bedroom for all but sadly not possible . We got a 3 bed with a dining room and a sofa bed and made do. My Sc were NOT part of our household. They were part of our family who visited. With my 2 girls and a boy , The girls shared and my Son had the Box room.
EOW the Dining room got converted into a bedroom for his Girls and boys got the Sofa bed. As they got to know one another/older ones spent weekends on sleepovers, everyone swapped around to give themselves space and some private space when required.
The household is the day to day unit. The everyday costs . The everyday time commitments of work, school, extra-curricula activities. None of these involved step children who visit EOW Friday 6pm-Sunday 6pm (no flexibility tolerated without full scale row). They lived in their own household with their Dm and DSF. When the older 2 left their mother to live with us, they joined OUR household and we adjusted our lives accordingly.
The common parlance that children who visit 4 days out of 28 and need to be treated as integral members of that household is just a nonsense and unrealistic. My children are a part of their fathers family, they (when younger) saw him regularly, when convenient for them and dad but averaged at least a couple of days a fortnight. They were not members of his household. They were much loved regular visitors in the same way my adult children are now to me - as they have their own household.
To pretend that all is the same as it used to be when Mum and Dad lived with their kids in one household , is just unrealistic and simply not true. It's different. Very different and just as with all things in life they will need to adapt and change to the new circumstances. To pretend otherwise, post divorce is a serious case of emperors new clothes. Just saying it, doesn't make it so when it blatantly isn't.
.