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

@Rocco76
I think that when 2_people get together it is not creating something new or unique . it is simply a effort to blend the personality, and baggage that their bring to their existing realities. Those existing realities do not disappear; they become the components of that which they are attempting to blend.

To me, it is not unlike starting a new job or new position. You are bringing your unique skills into a new setting. You are nor creating a new organization. You may add value, but you must also accept and adapt to significant parts of the existing culture. People who expect the new job to change for them rarely succeed. People who realize that while adding value there a things to which they must adapt and accept tend to do well.

Personally, I think that people who need to be first in any setting or relationship are generally the people who tend to be the most dissatisfied and unhappy in almost every setting. I think that people who are flexible enough to accept that with enough give and take everyone can experience adequate levels of satisfaction and participation tend to have the best chance for happiness.

@Tiredoftattler give and take?

I agree. And in this case the OP should be more than supported in wanting a break with her partner and their child.

I actually make a concerted effort to not make my stepkids or partner feel like this. They came into my life after my DC after all

Me too. I’d hate for DH to feel like he came last just because my DSes were there before I met him. It’s a ridiculous (and utterly twee) statement of the kind thrown about at SMs.

DH and I (for all our faults) have decided that we want to be together for the rest of our lives. We made vows to that effect. Our DC (whatever their parentage) will grow up (or have grown up) and make their own way in the world. Just as we did. When they’re al off doing their own thing, hopefully DH and I will still have each other.

While they are dependent on us we make sure their needs are met - and the burden of doing so falls differently based on their parentage. But it would be utter folly to put our relationship last just because 4 of the 5 kids were on this earth before we met. That’s a sure fire way to ensure the marriage fails.

I think if your planning to have more then one holiday it’s not so bad, one including his daughter and one without. But if your planning one holiday and she misses out that seems unfair.

[quote Tiredoftattler]@Rocco76
I think that when 2_people get together it is not creating something new or unique . it is simply a effort to blend the personality, and baggage that their bring to their existing realities. Those existing realities do not disappear; they become the components of that which they are attempting to blend.

To me, it is not unlike starting a new job or new position. You are bringing your unique skills into a new setting. You are nor creating a new organization. You may add value, but you must also accept and adapt to significant parts of the existing culture. People who expect the new job to change for them rarely succeed. People who realize that while adding value there a things to which they must adapt and accept tend to do well.

Personally, I think that people who need to be first in any setting or relationship are generally the people who tend to be the most dissatisfied and unhappy in almost every setting. I think that people who are flexible enough to accept that with enough give and take everyone can experience adequate levels of satisfaction and participation tend to have the best chance for happiness.[/quote]
In which case, wouldn’t it be useful for DC to learn the world doesn’t revolve around them and their wants?

Op do you have parents you could leave your baby with so you and your dp could go on a couple of nights break ? (Once it's allowed covid etc.) That would make more sense. You and dp get a break together for adult time, grandparents get a couple of nights with their grandchild and neither kids are seen as being left out.

I think that when 2_people get together it is not creating something new or unique . it is simply a effort to blend the personality, and baggage that their bring to their existing realities. Those existing realities do not disappear; they become the components of that which they are attempting to blend. To me, it is not unlike starting a new job or new position. You are bringing your unique skills into a new setting. You are nor creating a new organization. You may add value, but you must also accept and adapt to significant parts of the existing culture.

I can see how this might be the case if you are "blending" two families with older children with established lifestyles, but it isn't the dynamic for everyone. Some children are very young when their parents split and the only family set ups they ever have are the one's established with step parents. It is also somewhat different when only one of the adults has children. I think a lot of parents could really do with realising that it is highly presumptuous and unfair of them to expect a childless partner to sign up to being with them whilst treating the situation as if their family is already "done" and there is no opening to accommodate their partner's needs or wants alongside the other members of the family. If that's how you wish to conduct things, unless the other person is in the same situation and your arrangement is based on that, you are being unfair and should stay single.

My situation is that me and DP are setting up a family and life together, and he brings along his son. I would not have been interested if it was the way you described.

I also don't think it's ever right to say if you didn't come first, your needs should never be first. That's not how it works in any other scenario, including families with two or more children. Can you imagine if it did? It's one thing to say children's needs and wants should always come first (though I don't agree with it), but another to say it's in order of who was there first. That's just not true. If you want to build a family with a partner, you should be agreeing to throw their wants and needs into the mix the same as the rest of the family.

Thank you spongebob and a sofa near you for your honest responses. Of course it's all circumstantial, relational outcomes are moderated by variables such as child's age at the point of entry of the sp, even scarcity of financial resources and tensions created therewith.. A lot of what you're saying is common sense, and of course no one is advocating a child's 'wants' to always come first, regardless of step or not.

Needs on the other hand are different, as parents we can agree children's needs trump our own, whether if they're step or not. That's the case because your partner is a father, and if you'd say his child isn't before your needs than you're putting him in a position to choose, which a recipe for disaster. I know whom I'd choose. I agree with Tiredoftattler here, as old fashioned as it sounds, blood is thicker. That's not to say sp doesn't have agency, just that if a partner is a parent it should be expected that the child's needs, if they're genuine needs, should be treated as the sp's biological child.

And on the point of expectations of parental role and love from sp being unrealistic, we'll have to disagree. It is reasonable to expect a pseudo mum role or at least the sp to try here (with lots of ifs, e g if the child is open due to being young or just open minded, if the ex isn't crazy etc.) After all the word stepmom contains the word mom. If one starts with the minimal expectation of liking or caring about, that doesn't really get anyone much far, I would imagine those verbs are wishes for just a decent relation with any random person in our lives..assuming an automatic, equally loving role is the easiest way to mitigate these issues imo.

My mother in law is not my mother and my step daughter is not my daughter. It’s a description based purely on their relationship to my spouse.
I don’t even call her my DSD in real life. She’s DHs daughter and I am Yousee, not SM. Works for us 🤷‍♀️

@Youseethethingis

My mother in law is not my mother and my step daughter is not my daughter. It’s a description based purely on their relationship to my spouse. I don’t even call her my DSD in real life. She’s DHs daughter and I am Yousee, not SM. Works for us 🤷‍♀️

Few SC want a pseudo mother. Their actual mothers are rarely up for it either. Trying that is often the worst possible course of action.

Sadly too many fathers may have been hoping for a pseudo mother when they embarked on a relationship - they wanted someone to take on the bulk of the parenting, everything their ex did.

@Balabomy Well, firstly, I wouldn't say I place SCs needs before my own, I leave it to his parents to do that if necessary. The problem is that it's very rare to be faced with a situation where the SCs needs and SPs needs are opposing in a clear cut manner, where it is indisputable that they are both "needs". We're not talking about situations where both are drowning and the dad needs to decide who to save. Usually, we are talking about what the dad perceives the child's emotional needs/wants to be vs what the step parent perceives their own needs/wants to be. In most cases that aren't life or death, whether something is a need or a want is subjective, so saying "kids needs come first" can very easily be abused.

I don't see any sense at all in saying "assuming an automatic, equally loving relationship with them is the easiest way" to mitigate "issues". It isn't easy in the slightest to automatically love a child as if they're your own, and I fundamentally disagree that your relationship with them resembling other relations besides parents is an issue in the first place.

And on the point of expectations of parental role and love from sp being unrealistic, we'll have to disagree. It is reasonable to expect a pseudo mum role or at least the sp to try here (with lots of ifs, e g if the child is open due to being young or just open minded, if the ex isn't crazy etc.) After all the word stepmom contains the word mom.

The word stepmum has the word “mum” in it because someone decided to call it that a few hundred years ago. It doesn’t mean every woman who is with a man with a child in 2021 is now a second mum to a that child.

"It doesn't mean every woman with a man with a child in 2021 wants to be a second mum."

Definitely! I'm [my name] and nothing else. I'm already mum to two, I feel no need to play mum to anyone else's child.

" I wouldn't say I place SCs needs before my own, I leave it to his parents to do that if necessary. The problem is that it's very rare to be faced with a situation where the SCs needs and SPs needs are opposing in a clear cut manner "

Let me give an example (hopefully op will forgive me for diverging, but this might be relevant to issues she may face in the future) Suppose you landed a new job, that you want to accept, which is further away, and requires you to upgrade your car or move. At the same time sd is starting uni and her parent doesn't have enough to pay for expenses. You can't afford to do both. Whose needs are first? (ignore this if you'd not make a sacrifice for your own child either, as then this is not about step parenting anymore but another discussion)

@Balabomy Depends if it's my wages I'd be spending, or my DPs. If it was coming out of my own money I would prioritize myself.

@Balabomy if it was my money I would prioritise my needs, not the needs of a child towards whom I have no PR.

In the same way that my exp prioritised all of his money towards fighting to secure contact with his children via the courts. Leaving him with next to no disposable income for much else. His money, his choice. But my income will not then prop up his lifestyle / lifestyle for his children.

That's an insane example, of course you'd prioritise yourself as a step parent your income is yours and your dc not your partner childrens from a previous relationship.
The only exception would be if it was dp funding the change in circa then they could quite fairly prioritise their dc or if the step mother had parental rights in any way. But if it is the stepnothers money then it isn't in the calculation for uni funding etc if there is spare money then yes I'd help.but anything else nope as that's for dp and his exw, the actual parnents to sort.

I agree that’s an insane example. I’d upgrade my car. Obviously.

It is not my job to go without to finance my SKs. Or compromise my ability to earn.

DH wouldn’t do it for my kids, so I wouldn’t even consider it. Tbh, DH would tell DSD to get a job. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I couldn’t ever imagine expecting my DC’s SM to artifice her career so she could find my adult child’s higher education. It’s just so ridiculously unreasonable.

OK, I see.. Thanks for your responses, it just goes to show how different people's approaches to and definitions of family can be :D For me (and I'm no exception in my thinking based on examples I've seen, and neither an angel nor a marytyr definitely) the answer to this question would be completely different. A marriage or partnership is a union of finances, union of children, and of problems and finding solutions to problems. So that sc (provided of course that she/he is has been fin amily for long and we built a bond) would be priority. If they are unhappy, so is my dp, so would I be...

Peoples approaches most certainly are different. It wouldn’t cross my mind to sacrifice my earning power and my sons financial future because DH and his ex have not made any plans to cover uni expenses. His ex certainly wouldn’t be prioritising DS further down the line to make up for the loss to his own uni fund because I had to turn down a better job.
My financial/legal/moral obligations are to my son. Anything I can or am willing to provide for DSD (and I do - a lot - but not to the detriment of DS) is voluntary. Expectations again. As long as everyone knows where they stand there’s no reason for conflict.

Where my SC are concerned - they have two parents who are financially responsible for them - my DP and his ex.
Me and my ex-DH are financially responsible for our DC.
On the approach suggested above, I would be responsible for the SC as well. That would significantly reduce funds available for my own DC - who surely have a right to expect their own parents to support them financially to the best of their ability?
As @KumquatSalad says - I would never expect my ex-DH’s DW to contribute financially towards the upbringing of my DC.

Maybe a part of the real problem in attempting to merge families or accept a partner with an existing child is the reticence or unwillingness to say up front that " I expect to be first," "I expect my needs to be the priority in this relationship" "I do not like your children" " Your children need to learn that the world does not revolve around them," ,etc.

If there were more upfront honestly in relationships, there would be far fewer problems on the back end. A man or woman with a child should be perfectly capable of articulate their view of the status and place that the child holds in his or her priority system. A man or woman who expects to come first in any relationship or situation is pretty much aware of this need by the time that they reach adult status. These are all things that men and women know about themselves, but many seem hesitant to be honest about their expectations and needs before they become involved or commit to a relationship.

How many of you can honestly say that it surprised you that a man who already has a child was not viewing a baby moon as a necessity or remotely significant need in his life? How many are surprised that in a situation where both time and resources may be limited that a parent would limit or prioritise vacations to include all of their children?

Women often seem to overlook the fact that many or most men tend to find a way to make the things that matter to them happen. If a man wants to get away with you for a weekend or a few days , he will make it happen. When his interest or priorities shift, it is not the existence of children biological or step that make him no longer interested in adult time or alone time as a priority, and yet few women will ever ask " what has changed in our relationship such that he no longer needs or wants to spend time alone with me?"

That question requires you to evaluate the relationship between the 2 of you. It is so much easier to make the children the focus rather than the relationship between the adults.

Thing is, I do financially contribute towards my DSC. We own a house in which they have enormous bedrooms of their own bought using my deposit from my old house and with a mortgage calculated with my salary as well as DH’s. I contribute to the mortgage every month. I contribute to the bills.

DH earns far more than me but once all the deductions from his salary and his enormous child maintenance payments come out, he contributes only about £50 more than my net salary and the child maintenance I receive. In fact, if I factored in the loss of my child benefit based on his salary (not mine), then I contribute more than him to the communal pot.

Even before were married, I paid half on holidays with my DS and the DSC. Except I was paying more than it would cost for just me and one child. Same with meals out. And so on.

So I do contribute. And I’ve looked after them to save DH in childcare. And picked them up from places in my car, which I owned before I knew DH.

But I would not even consider it my duty to make an adult DSD happy by paying their HE expenses. She’s got a mother who can do that if she chooses.

As others have said, my responsibilities are to my DC. And I share the responsibility for DS2 with my ex. If he needed something, it would be us he’d come to.

If there were more upfront honestly in relationships, there would be far fewer problems on the back end
I’d take this further and say there would be far fewer relationships full stop.
If my DH had told me at that start that I and by extension our relationship, future home, life and children, would never ever under any conceivable circumstances be his priority over his DD, there would have been no relationship. Who needs or wants that for a life?
As it happens, DH is a pretty sensible man and his priority list seems to be flexible according to severity of need, circumstances, what’s going on generally. Most adults should be able to work out these things without resorting to the blunt instrument of “my first child first in all things and in all circumstances”. That’s fine, but don’t expect anyone with any self worth to want to be with you.