Step parents and resident parents matter too !

[fontofnoknowledge]

Having read a number of step parenting threads over the last few weeks related to summer holiday 'issues' . Holidays, unexpected child care etc. I am completely staggered by the hypocrisy demonstrated by some posters against stepmothers in a way it is frowned on other boards.

I'll give an example.
Aibu/relationship post. (I'll précis) I have shacked up with a complete dickhead. He was a dickhead from day 1 but I thought he would change. He is being an unbelievably unsupportive and unengaged partner now I'm pregnant....

There will be loads of posts advising her to ltb but god forbid someone states the bloody obvious. 'Why did you choose to breed with a KNOWN dickhead.' ? . and they will be jumped on. ! 'Why bash someone while they are down' 'Not the babies fault' 'Baby didn't choose to be born'.. 'she needs support not castigation ' . and of course 'it's happened now, she needs to make the best of it for her child'.

Transfer this to 'step-parenting' and a any problem related to the juggling of time and step children. (Especially in the summer holidays) is met with 'you knew he had kids before you had them with him'. 'Should of thought about it before having more kids' (despite the fact that she hasn't had ANY kids, before) . Yes of course you as Step-mother should not expect to take a summer holiday unless you can afford to take ALL the children. Even if this means you yet no holiday nor your children, because your sc might be miffed. Even if they are having a couple of holidays with their dm and dm family. But no, Dsc feelings must always trump Step mothers needs and resident children.
As for a step mother expecting to spend her annual holiday with her DH/DP and not automatically subjugating herself so the Dscs can have one on one time with dad. (Screw the resident Dcs wanting 121 time)
it is looked upon as tantamount to the most selfish act imaginable.

Double standards ?

Perpetrating this myth that all children can be treated equally does no one any favours. Life is not 'fair'. Sometimes it can be worked quite well, sometimes it just can't. All parents (especially step parents) can do is to try and do their best, be kind, and have a fair stab at making it work.

What perplexes me is why people who aren't Step parents hang out on a board that i had (perhaps wrongly) assumed was for step-parents to offer advice to other step parents negotiating the world of non resident children/step children.

I look in here because I had a step mother, my own mum was a step mother and my ex is likely to introduce a step mother to my children. Why on earth should I not feel able to comment?

I've seen some lovely step mums in here and some utter horrors that I would cry at the thought of my children having to spend time with. There was a period of time a few years ago when the spite and weirdness in here was totally out of control - about three or four very regular posters pretty much managed to poison the whole board and would snarl and name call at anyone who dared express even the most gentle dissenting opinion, it attracted a lot of attention even from regular posters who would never normally bother to look on here. It's loads better these days.

Step parents do get a tough rap sometimes. My step child gets treated the same as my children, which he doesn't like, because I insist on manners, helping out and mucking in. He is utterly spoilt at home as "mums only child prince" where he gets his way, doesn't have to share and is babied (he's 7.) I don't baby my children, they are taught responsibility and independence so I'm not about to treat my step son any different, no matter how much he protests/sulks/complains. My dp's ex has never acknowledged he has a partner (my dp was single for 3/4 years after they split and I was his first girlfriend since his ex) which is very telling in itself and she dictates every second he has with his son. I remember when I first met my step son and he told me "you can't tell me what to do," which clearly came from his mum but it was explained that, as an adult, I can within reason tell him what to do.

I won't live up to this "step mum" stereotype role. I'm a mum myself with two dc who are slightly older than my step son so I think I'm qualified on the parenting front and I won't be guilted into treating him any different because, after all, my dc are from a "broken home" also.

I am sorry but that is bollocks, I say that as a step mum and an ex wife

Why? Existing children matter and need to be provided for. If you can’t afford more, that’s the end of it. Or should the children just forgo maintenance so their parent can have additional children?

Being second doesn't mean second best or compromise in any way. That is a mothers right

As above. Understanding your joint financial situation is key. None of us has a right to have children. We need to be able to afford them (and I say that loosely, allowing for benefits). The children should not have to go forgo anything because of some kind of ‘mother’s right’ when their parents break up. Plenty of people curtail their families because of affordability. Why are step parents exempt?

And as always I am always fascinated by the sheer number of tales of ex wives who are utterly terrible parents and the incoming step mother who arrives and saves the situation with their by far superior parenting skills but are meant only with resentment and dislike

Also all women are entitled to a child!

No, they’re really not. It is not written in law. There is no moral argument for it, particularly when there are children out there who need homes. If you are going to get with someone who already has children you have an absolute obligation to factor those children into financial planning. It is about way more than maintenance in the long term but if you take maintenance as a starting point, the glee with which some women on here look forward to the day they can reduce maintenance by just a few pounds says it all. Petty, jealous behaviour with children at the periphery of decision-making.

"Why? Existing children matter and need to be provided for. If you can’t afford more, that’s the end of it. Or should the children just forgo maintenance so their parent can have additional children? "

I think I more than most people would realise that kids need to be paid for, My ex doesnt pay a penny for my kids, He doesnt see my kids he doesnt care at all. Would I blame his wife for having two more kids with him when he doesnt pay for or see his first set of children he had with me?
NO I blame HIM they are HIS responsibility not HERS.

I do agree with you Ohreally that maintenance should not be changed or dropped. But I still feel a new partner should be able to have a child still if they can afford to.
I see things differently as I am currently providing for my sc and I would like a child of my own. I have to take their existence into account as I live with them and care for them.

Why are step parents exempt?

Stepparents can work to provide for their own children and will receive benefits for their own children.
They are NOT completely financially dependant on their partner and have every right to have their own children.

I hate this assumption too that it's the man who must have left the wife and gone off to start a family with someone else whilst leaving the poor ex wife to fend for the children.

In a lot of cases the wives have left the husband, taking the kids and then make it difficult for him to see the dc.

It's not always feckless dads going off and having second families with a horrible "step mum!"

particularly when there are children out there who need homes.

Oh did you adopt your children then? Or do first wives not have to think about stuff like that...

Apparently if you are childless and meet a man with kids the only selfless option is to adopt

Stepparents can work to provide for their own children and will receive benefits for their own children. They are NOT completely financially dependant on their partner and have every right to have their own children

Assuming that’s the case, not an issue. But rare is a parent who is entirely financially independent in their own right. And no, they won’t receive benefits for their own children they will receive benefits based on a joint financial calculation including their income and that of their partner. There are many who would say that if benefits are payable, then children should not be brought into the mix. In other words, you can’t afford them.

I am more realistic and think tax credits etc are essential for low income families but I think it is naive to suggest that the majority of women posting here are financially independent in their own right. Indeed, how many would cope without recourse to bandits if the relationship broke down? And how many of those same women would be more than happy to slag off an ex ‘on benefits’. That is a frequent feature of these boards.

Oh did you adopt your children then? Or do first wives not have to think about stuff like that
My children were planned within a long marriage where a business had been built that employed 20 people and gave us a very good income. No recourse to,public funds, thanks. Yes, I did think about it.

recourse to bandits?

Benefits!

Apparently if you are childless and meet a man with kids the only selfless option is to adopt

Erm...no. What I am talking about is the right to have children and financial planning. There is no right to have children. None at all.

But how many "first time" parents/marriages really think about long term finances when having children?

And no, they won’t receive benefits for their own children

Child benefit and child tax credits. That money is meant for the children it isn’t paid for.

There are many who would say that if benefits are payable, then children should not be brought into the mix. In other words, you can’t afford them.

Oh fuck off with that. So what about first wives who are on low incomes does it include them as well? There would be far less people on this forum then as there would be less stepchildren in existence.
So only people earning over £50,000 are allowed to have children going by our logic. The rest of us paupers can just stop reproducing. Yeah right.

I am more realistic and think tax credits etc are essential for low income families but I think it is naive to suggest that the majority of women posting here are financially independent in their own right.

I didn’t say completely independent did I. But if a stepmum is working to provide for her children who are you’ve to say she shouldn’t have a child? She’s not working to provide for her stepchildren is she, the dad is.

meant for the children it is* paid for.

My children were planned within a long marriage where a business had been built that employed 20 people and gave us a very good income. No recourse to,public funds, thanks. Yes, I did think about it.

Oh well jolly for you. Doesn’t make you better than anyone else. It certainly doesn’t give you the right to have a say in other people’s family planning.

But how many "first time" parents/marriages really think about long term finances when having children?

If you read my posts, you will see that I have said that many people fall into relationships without the necessary financial planning. It is not something limited to blended families.

I believe very strongly that too many people marry and have children quickly and long term planning doesn’t take place. But it absolutely should. And it absolutely should where there are existing children and their needs to take into account. I have managed to go 10 years post divorce without having additional children because I can’t afford any more. Why should my ex get together with someone and have more children when he’s not supporting the ones he has?

But how many "first time" parents/marriages really think about long term finances when having children?

most of us, I would imagine. Anyone with a lick of sense, anyway.

And if you are considering additional children, you work out if you can afford them and if its fair to your existing children. You aren't exempt from this requirement if the existing children only belong to half the couple!

As someone said, there is no entitlement or right to have children. If you want to have your own children without considering your partners existing children, you must pick a partner without existing children.

You cannot claim a right to have children without considering your step children and come on here wondering why people are sometimes negative to step parents. You're why.

ah right. We can’t debate without telling people to fuck off. Classy.

Why should my ex get together with someone and have more children when he’s not supporting the ones he has?

Let’s face it, even if he was supporting them you still wouldn’t be happy if he has more children. It’s not just about the money with some people....

Throughout history couples have had families, sometimes larger, than they cannot afford. It's not a new thing. If everyone planned children when they could afford them then they would either be too old or wouldn't ever have any! There's never a "right time " to have children.

I can't really comment on your ex because I don't know your/his circumstances but ex's do have a right to move on and carry on with their lives.