Holidays

[harryclr]

DP and I have argued a few times now about holidays.

We have a 7month old and he has a 5yr old DD from a previous relationship. I have expressed that whilst our baby is still young I'd like to go on a couple of more grown up breaks before he gets too old and our holidays have completely changed and are 100% revolved around children. Due to Covid we missed out on our baby moon and my birthday trip to Lisbon.

Is this selfish of me? I just think it would be nice to have time just us and our baby, as he doesn't speak or walk or have wants we are still able to go on a city break for example where he can be in the pram etc. A 5 year old needs constant entertaining and attention and the holiday completely changes. We can also be more intimate and affectionate and have more interesting/adult conversation when a 5yr old isn't around.

Does anyone think it's unreasonable of me?

He called me selfish and 'evil' and insists I want to leave his DD out and exclude her. He gets instantly defensive whenever I suggest anything, almost anything at all without her. He even went as far as to tell me where to go if I don't like it...I never said I never want to go on a family holiday, I am merely saying we have the opportunity at the moment to do a couple of different trips before our holidays are water parks, zoos and chips!

Is it selfish and unfair to just ask for some balance and compromise in this blended family?

I would only ever suggest to go away when DD is at her mums also, she is also at school.

Thanks x

@KumquatSalad - agree, that is a very good point regarding loyalty issues and that the success of SM-SC relation will likely be dependent on whether the Bio-M is not feeling threatened. But isnt there anything at all the SM can do? Is it really that a warmer attitude from an SM doesnt matter? Guess it also depends on SC age and personality e.g. how likely he/she to have their own independent mind...Take this OP's example, assuming that the Bio-M is ok with it, maybe a few days on their own can be an opportunity to bond with SM and the new baby? It is also creating an opportunity for the Bio-M to say 'look they have a new family now, they didnt take you with them'. Hopefully not.

Agree also that the difference between SM and SF is probably largely due to perceived gender roles. I think this was also in a financial context, that the SF was more likely to distribute income evenly, but that also goes back to a father's own perceived gender role and responsibilities.

Was also surprised that SM health and wellbeing with step-relation stress wasn't studied...

But isn't there anything at all the SM can do? Is it really that a warmer attitude from an SM doesnt matter?

You know when children/teens go through that stage of hating their parents? It's rarely because their mum or dad aren't being warm enough or whatever. Now imagine the SM is getting similar grief only it's being actively encouraged by the child's parent(s). And that the child receives open disapproval if they express any positive emotions about their SM. Being "warmer" can't compete (and even if it could, there's only so much emotional battering one can take before needing to detach).

But isnt there anything at all the SM can do? Is it really that a warmer attitude from an SM doesnt matter?

The research tends to suggest that all a SM can do is step back and accept it. The more the child perceives the SM as likeable - and the more s/he wants to like the SM - the more the bond is triggered.

I guess the SM could just take on the evil SM role and be unlikeable. Then the child wouldn’t feel disloyal in any way. But that would defeat the point surely.

It’s out of the SM’s hands.

The thing about a lot of stepfamily research that looks at outcomes (and compares these to some nuclear families) is that the poorer outcomes are often due to the circumstances that pre-dated the stepfamily and which continue to surround it. As well as a set of dynamics and processes within it that SMs, in particular, have little to no control over.

It’s like research that shows that divorce is ‘bad for kids’. Sure, but actually, it’s high conflict families that screw kids up. It’s just that divorce is more common in that kind of situation. And there are few divorces resulting from happy families. The divorce looks like the thing that should be the focus. But actually it’s a dreadful dynamic between a couple that often continues in various ways even after divorce.

Take this OP's example, assuming that the Bio-M is ok with it, maybe a few days on their own can be an opportunity to bond with SM and the new baby? It is also creating an opportunity for the Bio-M to say 'look they have a new family now, they didn't take you with them'. Hopefully not.

Aside form the fact that they already have an opportunity for bonding during their usual access arrangements, the whole purpose of this break is that it's OP's last small window of opportunity to have time away that isn't "100% revolved around children" without having to make special arrangements for the DCs to be cared for elsewhere.

As for the potential for DSD's mum to stir, anyone who would knowingly do that to their child (who'd be happily oblivious to the whole thing otherwise) is someone for whom you wouldn't be able to do right for doing wrong anyway. I can guarantee if a parent is that way inclined it'd be just one of many manufactured conflicts, therefore it'd be a pointless sacrifice to give up the one chance you have to do something to benefit yourself for a change. And in a dynamic where your entire life is sacrifice after sacrifice for someone else's child, attending to your own needs once in a while is essential.

I don’t mind hearing an opinion on Step-parenting from a non step parent, but I can promise I won’t laugh my bollox off afterward.

Also call your partner out op. I wouldn't be with anyone who called me evil and selfish for wanting to do something nice with my partner and my own child, regardless of if their opinion differed from my own.

It is also creating an opportunity for the Bio-M to say 'look they have a new family now, they didn't take you with them'.

I think that very often, the SC’s mother is not a villain. That’s important to recognise. Even where a parent isn’t intending to cause trouble, you can still end up with horrendous stepfamily issues. While there are going to be some mothers who are just horrible, most of the are probably trying to get by and do their best for their children.

Even with the best intentions, a mother can set up and keep reinforcing a really strong loyalty bind that utterly sabotages a SM’s chances of having a positive relationship with the SC. She might be struggling with the split and her children know it, even as she tries to hide it. She may be telling them how much she loves and misses them and she wishes they were with her all the time. None of that is in the least bit malicious. But it may mean the children feel disloyal for enjoying their time at their dad’s. And even more so for liking the woman he’s married (and replaces their mother).

Or a mother may be actually as frustrated with her ex’s parenting as a SM is. Lots of people are. They’re fed up with the kids coming home exhausted and with an attitude problem. They’re sick of hearing ‘but dad lets us’. Etc etc. That can create all sorts of conflict and, actually it’s easy for the SM to be scapegoated by everyone. She’s the ideal villain for every scenario.

And dad’s parenting is not necessarily malicious. But again SMs easily end up scapegoated because of the dynamics within blended families, and a whole pile of norms and stereotypes around gender and family roles.

All of this can add up to what looks like SMs being the problem. But mostly they’re very nice women trying to do their best in circumstances that will always conspire against them in various ways. Even what might look like classic evil SM moments are generally far more complicated than people ever want to assume. SMs make very convenient villains.

the woman he’s married (and replaces their mother).

Replaces her in their dad’s life and their other home.

Just to be clear for the determined to find fault with all SMs out there.

SMs make very convenient villains.

Absolutely. You only have to see the number of times "my ex's new partner won't let him see his DC" is trotted out to know the blame is often placed at the wrong person's feet.

If a man is genuinely wants to see his children he won't let a new partner get in the way of that. Even if he previously appeared to be an active and engaged dad, if he drops his DC because he's met a new partner then he was never that interested in the first place. The new woman is the symptom, not the cause.

Thank you for balanced views @KumquatSalad.

*If a man is genuinely wants to see his children he won't let a new partner get in the way of that.

I think this may not always be the case. He might be trying to balance the wants of SM and his. It can happen that the SM's decisions (such as in the OP example) actively causes a reduction in the time that can be spent between the DH and SC.

"The research tends to suggest that all a SM can do is step back and accept it."

Not sure about this or maybe i didnt understand what is meant very well. If an SM is just completely neutral and passive, shows no love or emotion towards the child, but just the kind stranger's attitude, why should the child have any reason to bond?

But the ops example isn't a reduction in time fgs. It's in their normal non contact time.

@Balabomy "Won't let" implicitly means nothing is being "balanced" (I'm talking specifically about the example I gave).

If an SM is just completely neutral and passive, shows no love or emotion towards the child, but just the kind stranger's attitude, why should the child have any reason to bond?

Kumquat was clearly talking in context of conflicted children who have issues with loyalty bonds because they've not been given permission to accept the presence of a SM into their lives. It's unlikely there'd be any inner conflict in the first place if the SM had been neutral and passive from the outset.

It couldn't be clearer that you still think we're simply not trying hard enough.

@Balabomy

"The research tends to suggest that all a SM can do is step back and accept it."

Not sure about this or maybe i didnt understand what is meant very well. If an SM is just completely neutral and passive, shows no love or emotion towards the child, but just the kind stranger's attitude, why should the child have any reason to bond?

Because the possibility of bonding is outside of the SM’a control in that situation.

The more appealing the SM is, and the warmer the feelings she might elicit, the more the loyalty bind is triggered. The child feels more guilty and disloyal because the SM is so caring.

The kindest thing you can do to a child in that situation is to step back and offer neutral politeness that won’t trigger those feelings. To yourself and to the child.

The SM will have started out warm and caring. Withdrawing has become the only way to salvage any hope of a relationship at any point.

@Pleaseaddcaffine

But the ops example isn't a reduction in time fgs. It's in their normal non contact time.

This is totally crucial.

@harryclr is not coming between her partner and his child. She’s proposing something for when the child would not be there at all.

"But the ops example isn't a reduction in time fgs. It's in their normal non contact time."

But to me this is additional, possible, potential contact time that can happen that the DH wants and seems to need! Surely contact time that can happen between the DH and DC should be encouraged? we shouldn't be hiding behind these terms to justify our decisions?

@MyCatHatesEverybody "It couldn't be clearer that you still think we're simply not trying hard enough"

No I don't think that at all, and it would be silly to do so, first because I don't know any of you and your experiences that led to your conclusions here, and second, you're here in this forum discussing these issues, which means you care... It feels like some have given up and that's ok, again I don't know individual reasons, and probably there are many, well justified ones. But here when the op, who is at the very start of such complex family dynamics, reads that: the best thing to do is to not to do anything, caring about a sc is the hoped for outcome, or that expecting a motherly relation is insane, I can't help but wonder if these are the right thing to say and she shouldn't be encouraged to cultivate a positive outcome.

@kumquatsalad, if you have it at hand, could you direct me to that bit of research please? (I'm just curious about its context, not contesting it)

Surely additional contact could happen during the many nights and days of the year that OP is not wanting to have an adult centric break?

That's a really ungrounded argument. It isn't during their contact time so it's is a reduction in any form. End of discussion.

This is very much going off point....the op in their non contact time can do as they wish. The same as the rp can in their non contact time. I would no dream of ever implying dp exw couldn't go away in their contact time which they often, as that is entirely unreasonable.

But to me this is additional, possible, potential contact time that can happen that the DH wants and seems to need! Surely contact time that can happen between the DH and DC should be encouraged? we shouldn't be hiding behind these terms to justify our decisions?

But that it not just free time that could be contact if her dad wanted it. It’s the contact time she has with her mother. That is equally important for the child.

The child has two parents and spends time with both of them. I know that I value my time with my son and would not be encouraging of his father trying to monopolise all his time. We’ve worked out a schedule that ensures he gets plenty of time with each parent. I’m not going to try to claim my ex’s time; he doesn’t try to poach mine. DS enjoys seeing both of us.

I’m on maternity leave right now, but I’ll see if I can find some references to the relevant research.

@Balabomy "But here when the op, who is at the very start of such complex family dynamics, reads that: the best thing to do is to not to do anything, caring about a sc is the hoped for outcome, or that expecting a motherly relation is insane, I can't help but wonder if these are the right thing to say and she shouldn't be encouraged to cultivate a positive outcome."

Your optimism makes sense on paper if you've not lived through the unique set of dynamics that step parenting brings. A bit how like how if I had children of my own I would never plonk them in front of a TV screen or allow them to tantrum in the supermarket or pander to their fussy eating... I think you get the jist.

Btw you might think we're doing nothing more than egging on our fellow step mothers to be overly pessimistic and view everything through a negative lens. The thing is, we are living or have lived through the challenges that step parenting brings and we know what's it's like to be judged and rejected day in, day out.

You seem to be assuming there is a infinite amount of emotional capacity for a person to keep banging their head against a brick wall when their efforts to reach out are rejected. No one is saying it's insane that a motherly bond could be built between step mum and step child. But posters for whom the circumstances make this possible don't tend to be posting on here for help.

Thank you @Courtney555 that is exactly what I was trying to do, Covid is not going to allow that to happen anyway unfortunately so the argument will be on hold.

I have been reading all replies and been thinking a lot over the last few days.
I'm actually quite surprised at how much interest and talk the post has received.

I hadn't mentioned anything to my DP, hardly really even spoken to him, I've just been waiting, waiting for him to make a move/say something but he is remarkably stubborn.

But when it is time to have the proper conversation, because it will come, where we lay everything out, our needs/wants, children's needs etc then I think from this post I am well prepared for what I'm going to say!

So thank you all x

@MyCatHatesEverybody I think what you've said is spot on. Sacrifice after sacrifice.

For everyone that has made comment, her mother wouldn't care at all; she isn't the sort of mother that makes comments like that, plus DP and herself only communicate about the child so no need to mention anything like what we do in our personal life, plus I've never met her, she isn't interested in meeting me.

When I was still with my exDP, his children went through an out and out phase of completely shutting down around me and completely ignoring me. There was a change in them almost overnight and at the time it was hard to pinpoint why.
But in essence their mother was completely non supportive of any form of a relationship with me.

I spoke to two professionals about it. Both advised me, in no uncertain terms to back off from the children as they were clearly struggling with loyalty conflicts. The more I read up on it, I very quickly realised that the more I tried/ was warm/ kind, it actually made it worse for the children. And put them under more conflict, my heart goes out to them. It’s not of their doing and as many have said on here, there is absolutely nothing I can do to remove that internal conflict.

So I ended up removing myself almost entirely from contact. So that the children could fully enjoy their time with their NR parent - without feeling conflicted. It categorically was the beginning of the end, because it was the start of my knowing that the best thing for these kids, was just being with their dad. With no other person playing ‘mummy.’

I am fortunate that I had not already moved in with their dad/ set up home, so logistically there was very little to unravel. But have no doubts, there was absolutely nothing I could have done to change that dynamic. The only person who could have done so was their mother, and I think she’d rather set herself on fire before she accepts anyone else having any form of relationship with her children.

I agree with the PP, there is very little control (certainly IME) the SM has in these situations.
Ongoing hostility/ rejection absolutely takes a toll on your mental health. Especially when it’s happening, repeatedly in a home you pay for. It’s like a form of abuse you are being subjected to and yet you have no power to put a stop to it.

Honestly? I would never ever date a man who had any conflict with the mother of their child. I don’t think I’d date a man with children in a hurry ever again tbh. I’m not cut out for it, I want a peaceful and happy home.