Would you choose to be a step parent if you had the choice again?

[Cigent]

I posted this in AIBU and it was suggested I post here.

I’m in the very early stages of beginning a relationship with a man with two young kids. Probably better described as dating than an early relationship. I’m very interested in him, but I’ve always been reluctant to get involved with men with kids. I’ve never wanted children myself either.

I am being over the top to consider putting an end to things now because of his children? Or is being with someone with kids when you’ve not got any yourself workable? If you had the choice again, would you still choose to get together with someone with kids?

@funinthesun19

I agree there is enough love to go around so everyone has enough. You don’t need to martyr yourself regarding your children and treat your partner like a second class citizen with constant reminders that they come second/last/bottom of the pile. Wow that’s love isn’t it?

In together families, the parents love each other without overthinking it, and without people reminding the mum that the dad loves the children more and she can get stuffed if she wants some quality time with him and vice versa. Why is it different when it comes to second families? Or more specifically, the dad’s second family? Because I’m pretty sure the mum is allowed to love whoever she wants and not be reminded to tone it down “for the sake of the children”.

It's also viewed as perfectly acceptable on here for Dad to cancel a commitment with his partner to pander to the kids (eg if they want - not need - to see him on his non contact time). If the partner had an issue with their plans being cancelled and voiced it on here, there'd be cries of "it's their home too / they should be able to see their Dad whenever they like / they come before you!! ..." etc etc.

Yet... can you just imagine these lines in a nuclear family set up, given the same scenario? "Dad cancels planned evening out with Mum because kids decided last minute they wanted to cuddle Dad on this specific evening instead of staying with granny / the babysitter". There'd be uproar and cries of "why are you letting the kids dictate to your husband? That's not healthy... your relationship will suffer..." etc etc.

Interesting, isn't it, how many of these rules about children "coming first" are only really applicable (at least on MN) when it comes to new partners of separated men with kids ... 🤔

Interesting, isn't it, how many of these rules about children "coming first" are only really applicable (at least on MN) when it comes to new partners of separated men with kids ... 🤔

Yes. Very interesting.

The ‘needs’ of children is often a very fluid proxy for the wants and desires of parents in separated families.

No stepmum on here is advocating their DSC’s actual needs not being met. No one is starving them or keeping them locked in a basement. Asking them to share a bedroom is not neglect. Nor is them being a bit bored because they’re not being constantly entertained.

Tbh it isn’t just in blended families you get this ridiculous neontocratic (actual anthropological term for societies that put children at the top of the tree) nonsense or stupid expectations. I’m on a thread where someone has in all seriousness claimed that it is mean and joyless to expect two primary school aged children to share a Nintendo switch for Christmas. They need one each. 🙄 But in blended families this nonsense gets amplified to the point of absurdity. Sharing rooms 4 nights a month becomes unacceptable. Being asked to eat things they don’t adore is reprehensible.

It’s no good for anyone at all.

I should point out that the majority of people on that thread are sensible people who think sharing a hands console is not just acceptable but good.

Thing is, if it were a step parenting thread, it would probably go the other way. It’d be unacceptable to not buy them one each and expecting them to play together or, god forbid, take turns with it.

And not just on MN either. This month I have had this very conversation with my bloody husband. I suggested buying a switch for my SDC for Christmas that they could share. I had to convince him that it’s perfectly normal for siblings to share consoles (we all did as kids if we were lucky enough to get one). In fact, a switch and a game each is a really big, exciting present even between the two of them. It’s not mean to DSD (who will monopolise it) to have to share it with her brother.

I had to convince him that it’s perfectly normal for siblings to share consoles

Goodness me, really?!

We've just bought ours a console to share for Christmas. Wouldn't dream of getting one each.

I had a similar thing with my husband a couple of years back.

We bought the older child something pretty expensive that he'd wanted.

He insisted he had to get the same for the younger one so it wasn't 'unfair'. But this item was hugely suited to an older child. There was no way the younger DC would have even been able to use it properly bar a couple of small features that you could get on something way way cheaper.

I had to put my foot down with that. I don't think there is anything wrong with children getting different presents depending on their ages. I wasn't about to spend nearly £800 on something the younger one couldn't actually use barely.

No, I miss her and although there is no animosity between us, the fact that he went on to live with 2 other women (DSD lived with him/us) meant we just couldn't remain close.

I see her with her own child now and wish things could've been different.

It's also viewed as perfectly acceptable on here for Dad to cancel a commitment with his partner to pander to the kids (eg if they want - not need - to see him on his non contact time). If the partner had an issue with their plans being cancelled and voiced it on here, there'd be cries of "it's their home too / they should be able to see their Dad whenever they like / they come before you!! ..." etc etc.

Yet... can you just imagine these lines in a nuclear family set up, given the same scenario? "Dad cancels planned evening out with Mum because kids decided last minute they wanted to cuddle Dad on this specific evening instead of staying with granny / the babysitter". There'd be uproar and cries of "why are you letting the kids dictate to your husband? That's not healthy... your relationship will suffer..." etc etc.

Interesting, isn't it, how many of these rules about children "coming first" are only really applicable (at least on MN) when it comes to new partners of separated men with kids ... 🤔

It’s ridiculous! And people justify it with the same old lazy argument that the child’s parents are no longer together so they should get their dad’s time whenever they want it so that they won’t have long lasting trauma from the split 8 years ago.

Meanwhile the mum is allowed to have a normal life balancing a partner and children and magically the children suddenly aren’t affected by their parent’s divorce 8 years ago. Bonkers.

I’ve just bought my 2 primary school aged children a Nintendo Switch Lite each for Christmas 😬 Mainly so they can play with each other on Minecraft. I’ve never bought them a console each before so I do feel like I’ve over indulged a bit!

That reminds me of the time I posted that I was getting sick of my husband's ex asking him to cancel our plans so she could go out with her friends on nights out and getting huffy with him if he didn't do it or guilt tripping him into agreeing.

I was told it was unreasonable because that's being a parent and sometimes you can't go to your social plans because you have to look after the kids.

Posters were just completely failing to see that the same rules should apply to mum, who was cancelling her contact days in favour of her social life. But no, apparently it was only our social life that should be affected because 'you knew he had kids'.

Also, wasn't a case of us having EOW. We were the RP at the time with 4 days a week. She just always tried to cancel her days if something better came up, didn't matter that we'd made plans on our few child free days.

It's not about being second best, or children's wishes all being listen to.

It just mean that in case of conflict, when both parties are hurt and unhappy, the wellbeing of the children will come first.

No different to mother's who leave the man they live if they feel that the situation is detrimental to their well-being. Most parents will put their kids mental stability first. It's no different but can be hard to understand when you don't have children yourself yet.

It's no different but can be hard to understand when you don't have children yourself yet

That sounds a bit patronising... Most women on these boards do have their own children.

I think what you're describing comes under need though. I think we all agree that children's needs a paramount, including stability and mental well being. The same as with any child.

That's not the same as generally coming second best though.

In fairness, it was a much easier task than it usually is to convince him of something totally normal, @PokeyPoker. But initially the Disney dad impulse kicked in and he was adamant that sharing was somehow some violation of their human rights.

Partly it’s because my 11 year old has one to himself. But he’s had it for years and had no stepsiblings when he got it anyway. It’s not comparable to the DSC who are 1. much younger, 2. Actual siblings who are always together (they share a bedroom at their mother’s). If DS had a sibling of an even vaguely similar age to him, they’d have been sharing it from the start. But he doesn’t. Suddenly deciding that the DSC are interested in one is not a good reason to tell him that he’s suddenly sharing a possession with them when it predates him knowing them. He’d be (rightfully) resentful of it.

And especially as they’ll probably break the one they’re getting anyway. They’re really rough on things. They’ll be 4 and 7 when they get it. They really don’t need one each. As it is DS is regularly kind enough to have let the DSC have a go on his switch alongside him (all playing mariokart or such like). And he will let them use the games he’s got for it. But it’d be horribly unfair to suddenly tell him it’s a shared possession with them.

@Cigent This kind of negotiation is exactly the sort of thing you don’t realise you’re getting in to when you become a step mum. Things you think would be obvious or in controversial become huge issues, especially when viewed through the Disney dad lens.

I couldn't agree more with everyone saying being a step parent (or any adult partner) should not mean being second best and there is something lacking in their partner if that is how they are being treated, but the fact that people have even had to say that shows just how common it is for people to think and act that way. There are a pretty shocking amount of parents on here, both male and female, who genuinely believe that is an acceptable way to treat their partners, and that is something that anyone considering being in a relationship with someone with kids should be aware of from the offset. It is sadly not at all rare for them to behave in that manner.

@funinthesun19

I’ve just bought my 2 primary school aged children a Nintendo Switch Lite each for Christmas 😬 Mainly so they can play with each other on Minecraft. I’ve never bought them a console each before so I do feel like I’ve over indulged a bit!

This is an actual switch, not a switch lite. And the DSC will be 4 and 7 (just 4 and just 7). They just don’t need one each. Plus, it’s easier for DH to monitor their screen time with a console that gets played through the tv. DH can play games with them too.

Because I’m the sort of evil stepmum that considers things like how something might help them to spend time with their dad (rather than on their own in their rooms). I’m just really horrible. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I’m sure DSD will use it more than DSS right now. But he’ll still enjoy getting to play with it, and would definitely feel left out of his sister got a console and he didn’t. But, equally, a switch lite wouldn’t really be appropriate for him at 4.

Again, I’m the sort of hideous stepmom who considers this stuff.

I think what you're describing comes under need though. I think we all agree that children's needs a paramount, including stability and mental well being. The same as with any child.

Spot on. Of course the children’s needs come first. I wouldn’t have a new partner move in with me because I do not have the space in my house for another human and it would affect my children in such a small house. That’s me putting their needs first.
But, I would still put lots of effort in to seeing a partner and spending time with them. A nice weekend away here and there too etc..

As long as you get a balance it can work. But ramming your children’s existence down your partner’s throat every 5 minutes is not the way to go. “Can’t do this with you I have children, can’t go there with you I have children, can’t buy this for you I have children.” It would soon get very tiresome. But that’s what some women expect their exes to be like!

KumquatSalad I wouldn’t buy two in your situation either. I think every situation is just different and only you can be the judge of it! I definitely wouldn’t have bought two if it was just for the sake of buying them.

It's funny because it's generally the parent who thinks they need to be put first over all others who doesn't even consider their mental well-being. A lot of the time when dps ex insists we put DSS first, she actually means we should put HER first. She doesn't give a shiny shit about anyone elses mental well being but her own.

Actually, I’d say that the important thing is to ensure everyone’s needs are met. The children aren’t more important than the adults when we are talking about basic human needs (food, warmth, shelter, care, etc). Any relationship is just untenable if anyone’s needs have to be sidelined and the children prioritised over that.

But, actually, the issues that come up in step parenting are almost never actual needs. They’re usually about wants (often the parents’ wants). There’s a great deal of slippage such that a parent’s want (for their children not to have to share a room, for example) is presented as if it were a child’s need. Having somewhere safe and clean to sleep is a need; having your own room is a want.

Indeed, some of the parental wants we see time and time again on MN are actually the direct opposite of meeting the child’s needs. Even if that parent insists on presenting it as meeting their child’s needs. Children need consistent boundaries to feel psychologically safe, for example; so much Disney style parenting completely fails to meet this need to the detriment of children. Still, Disney style parents will present their i unbelievably permissive parenting as the child’s need to feel loved (through continual validation, whatever the behaviour, and rewards).

@funinthesun19

KumquatSalad I wouldn’t buy two in your situation either. I think every situation is just different and only you can be the judge of it! I definitely wouldn’t have bought two if it was just for the sake of buying them.

I totally agree. Different situations require different responses. I’m sure you’ve made the call that’s right for your kids.

@TrustTheGeneGenie

It's funny because it's generally the parent who thinks they need to be put first over all others who doesn't even consider their mental well-being. A lot of the time when dps ex insists we put DSS first, she actually means we should put HER first. She doesn't give a shiny shit about anyone elses mental well being but her own.

Absolutely.

And often when it’s your husband insisting that his kids must come first, what he means is that HE comes first. You are of secondary importance to him. Your feelings matter less than his and you should just do what he wants.

Because there just is no need for any fixed hierarchy or priority system like this in a healthy relationship. You can find ways to meet everyone’s needs and an appropriate level of their wants without insisting the MY child comes first.

Because there just is no need for any fixed hierarchy or priority system like this in a healthy relationship. You can find ways to meet everyone’s needs and an appropriate level of their wants without insisting the MY child comes first.

Precisely. We manage this balance in our relationship, so I know it's possible to not have to accept "second place" because I never have five years in, and here we still are! All functioning and no one sectioned, traumatised or dead yet.

Actually, I’d say that the important thing is to ensure everyone’s needs are met. The children aren’t more important than the adults when we are talking about basic human needs (food, warmth, shelter, care, etc). Any relationship is just untenable if anyone’s needs have to be sidelined and the children prioritised over that.

Oh I agree completely with this.

• I don’t think a child needs some Next clothes or other more expensive brands while their stepparent sits there in some clothes with holes in. Get cheaper clothes and buy for both!

• Equally, a child can cope with beans on toast for a few nights so that everyone can eat a meal.

• A child can walk to school rather than get the bus (if walking distance) so that the stepparent has bus fare to get to work to pay the rent.

Otherwise, the child would be in Next clothes while being the only one having a meal and the adults sit there starving in their scruffy clothes. Then tomorrow the stepparent has to do a 2 hour walk to get to work and back when the child could have walked for 20 minutes to school.

Otherwise, the child would be in Next clothes while being the only one having a meal and the adults sit there starving in their scruffy clothes. Then tomorrow the stepparent has to do a 2 hour walk to get to work and back when the child could have walked for 20 minutes to school.

And, if she posted about it on here, she’d have loads of replies about how the child should come first and she should be grateful that she has the privilege of watching the next wearing child eat.

the privilege of watching the next wearing child eat.

😂😂

No. I would not do it again.

I would rather date younger child free men away from my children for a few years until my children are young adults. Then I may consider a relationship with a person with older (non dependent) children.

Why?

1. how myopic the NR fathers are over their children.
2. how unhealthy the dynamic around SC is
3. how much control the EXW has over the children, the father of the children and by proxy the new partner.

Never again

No household should ever pivot around children. A family world should meet everyone’s needs. A partner should be equally available to prioritise a partner dependent on circumstances at the time.

My children (their whole lives) have moved from first place to third place. They move up and down depending on other factors. They understand completely, most importantly they understand that they are not the Center of the universe. As such as they have a healthy, balanced perspective about their role in the world.

My ex? Nothing like that