AIBU to think that equal often ends up being unfair on resident DC not DSC?

[DuggyOnDown]

Another thread got me thinking...

We often see it trotted out on here that everything should be equal between DSC and resident DC.

However, I often find that that is actually unfair on resident DC, something which I think a lot of posters never think (or care) about.

My example on the other thread and the main one for posting is things like Christmas presents.

So according to lots of people here, DSC and DC should get exactly the same (in terms of cost obviously presents aren't always going to be identical) and it doesn't matter what my DSC then go and get at their mums house.

But why doesn't it matter? Especially as children get older, resident DC will be aware that their siblings also then go and get things at mum's house too so why is it totally unfair to expect DSC to understand that resident DC may get a little more at our house because they also get things from their Mum but it's expected of resident children not to care or be upset about it?

For example, my DSC got loads last year for Christmas from their Mum and her parents. Games consoles etc... And couldn't wait to come and tell us all about it, including their half sibling. It seems that our DC is just supposed to accept this and not be upset but that my DSC would be scarred for life if our DC got more spent on them at our house than they did.

Why is one unfair and the other not?

I always feel on this subject that people tie themselves in so many knots trying to be equal that they actually end up being unfair on the resident children.

I'm sure someone will come along and tell me it's fine because 'at least my child's parents are together' but I don't agree that children should have to be grateful for that. It's not how they think.

In reality nothing comes from "Me only" because we have a joint account... So can I not buy my child anything "extra" ever?
As already said, of course this is reasonable as long as it's proportionate. If you use the joint account to get off to Disney in Florida for two weeks but then SCs are told they can't even be taken to Disney Paris for a weekend, because it can't be afforded, something is not right.

@dontdisturbmenow

In reality nothing comes from "Me only" because we have a joint account... So can I not buy my child anything "extra" ever? As already said, of course this is reasonable as long as it's proportionate. If you use the joint account to get off to Disney in Florida for two weeks but then SCs are told they can't even be taken to Disney Paris for a weekend, because it can't be afforded, something is not right.

Yeah clearly that's not what i was suggesting.

Well yes although that's much less likely
Why?

If the SCs mum is able to afford very nice holidays that dad can't afford for all, and equality should prevail, they are only two options.

Mum doesn't take the SCs on nice holidays at all. Clearly bonkers.

Or, dad use all his money to take the RC to equivalent nice holidays and tells his eldest that they don't get to share these special occasions with him because he can oy afford it for one child and for the sake of equality, he is picking the youngest.

That means the youngest gets as nice holidays compare to their siblings, but it's then it favours the resident child who gets to spend nice holiday their mum and dad whilst the eldest have to make do with oy doing so with their mum.

It would be hard not to judge father who thought that was an equitable arrangement and didn't mind never sharing these experiences with their eldest.

@dontdisturbmenow

Well yes although that's much less likely Why?

If the SCs mum is able to afford very nice holidays that dad can't afford for all, and equality should prevail, they are only two options.

Mum doesn't take the SCs on nice holidays at all. Clearly bonkers.

Or, dad use all his money to take the RC to equivalent nice holidays and tells his eldest that they don't get to share these special occasions with him because he can oy afford it for one child and for the sake of equality, he is picking the youngest.

That means the youngest gets as nice holidays compare to their siblings, but it's then it favours the resident child who gets to spend nice holiday their mum and dad whilst the eldest have to make do with oy doing so with their mum.

It would be hard not to judge father who thought that was an equitable arrangement and didn't mind never sharing these experiences with their eldest.

Well I don't know any grandparents who regularly take only their child and grandchildren on holiday, excluding child's husband, every year. Most people take their kids on holiday, though.

I see what you're saying, but essentially youre saying op is right, if the resident child misses out in the interest of equality, that's fine.

If the step child has to "make do" (fucking lol) with a holiday with only one parent that's not okay.

I wouldn't judge because I'm not an arsehole

And I don't think anyone has said never, but some families can't afford school hols prices every year etc...

Absolutely no way - his then DP paid a thing. They split up over her failure to contribute anything and he felt like a cash cow - one of the reasons in the end.

Sadly I do not think this is the extreme end - this is common - Barbados was just one example, Australia, America x2, Mexico, Greece, Spain - in the time they were together my DCS got taken to Centerparcs for a weekend with their family. They stayed 2 days and the rest stayed for 5!!

I have posted about it before - but to say that kids only get resentful if they are told about the disparity is bollocks. It is about parity on your household when both the adults in that house go away.

Dad took his SDCs to x,y and z but took us nowhere. Irrelevant that if it had been his SDCS only holidays - it was not - they have a fully engaged father who takes them away. Dads own DCs did not get to go away because his then DP wanted luxury and was not prepared to compromise for her. He has now split up with her and we have discussed how much harm he did by not defending or standing up for the rights of his own DCS against their then SM.

There are to many threads on here where the SM wants a holiday without the SDCs and tries to justify it.

WE have 5 children between us - 2 mine and 3 his - one holiday all 5 - although oldest less likely to come. I take mine to see my family overseas - explained to his DCs who all wanted to do something else. as did not speak language. Their Dad offered alternatives.

I mean yeah that is a total shit head thing to do and unacceptable

Yet at the time I got my arse handed to me on a plate because I was apparently expecting my kids to get two holidays a year whereas their siblings only got one...

Same with their room. They shared a double room at their fathers. They visited three weekends out of four and more than half the school holidays when he wasn’t on deployment. Their younger half brother had a big double room. There was a spare single room (there was also a guest single room, but that wasn’t for use by children). When their step mother was 13 weeks pregnant with baby no 2 they got kicked out their room and into bunk beds (two 15 year old girls, one nearly 6 foot) so that the nee baby’s room could be decorated. Again on here I was told I was being unreasonable and that obviously the resident children should have the two big rooms.

I think on here people are often so entrenched on being on a “side” they don’t actually comment on the issue. Just their side of the DC/DSC debate.

Some of the comments on the caravan thread the other day convinced me of that.

@JustLyra

I mean yeah that is a total shit head thing to do and unacceptable

Yet at the time I got my arse handed to me on a plate because I was apparently expecting my kids to get two holidays a year whereas their siblings only got one...

Same with their room. They shared a double room at their fathers. They visited three weekends out of four and more than half the school holidays when he wasn’t on deployment. Their younger half brother had a big double room. There was a spare single room (there was also a guest single room, but that wasn’t for use by children). When their step mother was 13 weeks pregnant with baby no 2 they got kicked out their room and into bunk beds (two 15 year old girls, one nearly 6 foot) so that the nee baby’s room could be decorated. Again on here I was told I was being unreasonable and that obviously the resident children should have the two big rooms.

I think on here people are often so entrenched on being on a “side” they don’t actually comment on the issue. Just their side of the DC/DSC debate.

Some of the comments on the caravan thread the other day convinced me of that.

I don't see a problem with some holidays just being resident children, but certainly not all, and I absolutely don't support step children missing out on other things to facilitate holidays they can't go on. Obviously that's not on.

The bedroom thing, I mean I do think children who live there should have a bedroom each. There's an argument to be had whether a baby needs a double room - personally I probably would have left your kids where they were and put the baby in a single room until they were older unless there was a logistical reason why I could (ie room was on a different floor or something)

I can see both sides of it because I've been on both sides of it.

I see what you're saying, but essentially youre saying op is right, if the resident child misses out in the interest of equality, that's fine
That was the exact thread that was shared about 12 months ago. Grand parents having a holiday if lifetime and paying for everyone but SCs. The dad was debating whether to go or not. OP was saying that he should come as she wanted him to share this incredible experience.

Most agreed that dad should go. Not one said that the RCs should not go because it would be unfair on their half siblings as indeed,that would be ludicrous.

I see what you're saying, but essentially youre saying op is right, if the resident child misses out in the interest of equality, that's fine
I am saying that a balance should be found so that resident kids still enjoy some holidays, so without the SCs at times, but SCs should also get to go on quality holidays with their dad sometimes.

I haven't one said step kids shouldn't go on holiday with their mum.... Nobody is saying thats a solution (except you)

That's exactly what I've said and yet you're arguing with me?

I think it's more important to build good relationships, to make everyone feel loved and included and valued, rather than totting up the material value of this and that. You can never make things 'equal' in that way, and they can't be weighed against emotional things.

I would be focusing more on planning nice experiences all together as a family with all the DC& SDC, cooking or making things, decorating, reading aloud, watching movies etc. Turning my thoughts towards things that can bring us all together rather than seeing each child as in competition with each other. If you think of it that way, they are more likely to end of thinking of it that way.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

I disagree resentment only occurs if they are told to be resentful.

Children are very astute and can quite clearly see for themselves when there is a difference in treatment without it being pointed out. When they get to adulthood and understand their parent/s could have done things very differently but didn’t it can bring a new set of issues to deal with.

I don't think resentment ONLY occurs because of being told to be resentful either. I do think that plays a big part in it and is common, but I think a lot of children (and indeed adults) are just naturally inclined to feel that way about things. A lot of people on MN seem to think this way. I was not like that as a child and am not like that as an adult now. That is why I think people are a bit biased when they say "kids WILL think this", "kids WILL be upset by this", because in all honesty I would not have been upset by those sorts of things as a child and from my experience, neither is my SS (who by all accounts is a very different type of child to me). Personality has a big part to play.

@bogoffmda

Magda - fundamentally disagree re holidays. Kids do recognise disparity without anyone saying anything - they are not stupid. EX and SM told my 2 they could not afford to take her DCS x2, their jointDC x1 and EX Dcx2 on holiday together - it was too expensive.

Circa 2 weeks later - they all flew off business class to Barbados and my 2 were left behind. Ex proceeded to call them every night - first 2 nights denial - then her DCS wanted to speak to them and regaled my 2 with tales of swimming, sun, turtles etc.

I am unable to articulate the hurt that caused and was repeated over the 2 years they were together. My 9 yr old articulated it - Mum we could have all gone to Spain for a week for less than that cost - so the lack of money was a lie.

Like I said parity in your house for all the children when both parents are invovled. One taking their own away to see family, have a holiday etc not an issues. Luxury holidays where SDCs are excluded on the basis of cost - are going to cause trouble, kids are not stupid.

Mine just wanted time with their Dad - location was irrelevant but he had used his holiday - so not ime for them. It sets a very poor example to all the children,

That's really not on. But because Dad went I think. If SM had taken hers to Barbados without your ex I honestly wouldn't think that was wrong.

I don't concern myself with what happens in other houses - in our house they are treated exactly the same.

The same spent on presents/holidays and "big" days out like theme parks or the beach etc only happen when all kids are there.

If my DC said "BUT MUM, SDC got a games console from their mum AND a skateboard from you & dad!" I'd say "that's nice dear, lucky SDC", the exact same as if they said "but mum, X from school got a games console from Santa and I only got a skateboard!"

Things are 100% fair in our house when they are with us. What happens outside doesn't concern me and isn't taken into account.

Things are 100% fair in our house when they are with us
This is where there is potential for disharmony. They are only with you sometimes but your DC are there all the time. Depending on geography, many people wouldn’t consider the beach a particularly “big” day out. Would you not go to the beach this weekend when the weathers nice but wait til next weekend when the weather is crap because that’s when SDC are there and it’s “allowed”? And will your SDC be missing out while your Dc aren’t allowed to go to the beach?
Your stance is admirable but it doesn’t take much of a tug on a string for it to start to unravel.
This is why I think a case by case approach is better. Try to be fair overall but don’t get tied in knots by it and understand that fair isn’t always “the same”.

I don't think resentment ONLY occurs because of being told to be resentful either. I do think that plays a big part in it and is common, but I think a lot of children (and indeed adults) are just naturally inclined to feel that way about things. A lot of people on MN seem to think this way. I was not like that as a child and am not like that as an adult now. That is why I think people are a bit biased when they say "kids WILL think this", "kids WILL be upset by this", because in all honesty I would not have been upset by those sorts of things as a child and from my experience, neither is my SS (who by all accounts is a very different type of child to me). Personality has a big part to play.

I think on MN you often get resident parents (or people putting themselves in RP shoes) projecting their feelings about the situation and insisting that is how children will and, indeed, should feel about a situation.

I think an approach where it’s equal when the SDC are with you is fine. That means that the SDC are not the main consideration for what happens the rest of the time. And so long as it doesn’t mean putting things off so they only happen when the SDC are there.

Except where there’s a big disparity in ages. Then actually ‘equal’ never is even vaguely reasonable in any kind of family. Equitable or fair is something totally different.

Although none of that really helps when you’re talking about how to allocate a finite number of unequally sized rooms. Especially when what feels ‘fair’ to some of the children may not take the whole situation into account. Even more so when you’re hearing it second hand via those children. And even more so when that is then filtered through an RP’s perception.

It’s a bit like when your son comes home complaining that the teachers all favour the girls because X, Y, Z. You need to consider that he might not be accurate, he might not really understand the full picture, he might be anticipating a specific response from you and so on. Still you find people taking it at face value and coming on AIBU insisting the teacher is being awful to their son.

I think equal/same/fair aren't the same thing and that's where things get messy.

For example,
Take a family where man has 2 children with his ex, woman has 2 children with her ex and they both have a child together. I'd say that for Christmas:
Child A and B (man's from previous relationship) should get Christmas presents from their mum based on her finances, plus presents from their dad that's comparable to what he gives Child E, who he has had with his new partner. This is fair across his children.

Child C and D (woman's children who live with her and new partner) should get Christmas presents based on what their mum's finances, plus whatever presents they get from their own dad.

Child E (the child from the man and step mum's relationship) should get the same sort of input as their mum's other children and their dad's other children. Mum would chip in the same as she does for C and D & Dad would chip in the same as he does for A&B.

If A and B's mum chooses to spend more on her children, that doesn't mean C and D should get extra from their mum and step dad to match whatever their step-sibling's mother spends on her children.

The children don't all have to have the same financial outcome because they have different parents with different circumstances, but each parent has a responsibility to treat their children the same.

OP - I agree in my DCS case. If SM had just taken her DCS and EX not gone - no issue.
However, as he went and paid the whole bill and left his 2 DCS behind on the basis of cost then it is absolutely not right.
Him for being weak willed and not standing up for his DCS and her for being a bitch and putting him in the position where he abandoned his DCs.

Now he has left her he gets what was fundamentally wrong with what happened. Luckily his new DP is lovely and would never suggest what happened - she is a fab SM

but each parent has a responsibility to treat their children the same

I do agree that each parent should treat their own children the same yes. Obviously where this becomes blurred in blended families is that not all the adults involved are parents to all of the DC.

So I don't agree that there is anything wrong with step mother buying her own DC additional presents from herself. As PP said, you can tell DSC that those are from X from their Mummy. Whether finances are joint or not is sort of irrelevant imo, children will likely not know about how your family finances are structured so its unlikely that their response to that would be 'but don't you have a joint bank account with our Dad?'. The step mother is still putting HER money into the household whether it's mixed with the dad's or not so I do believe she should then be allowed to spend some of said money on things for her own children if she wishes to.

But again, the gift example was just that, an example. It's become the sole focus which I didn't really intend it to be, more as a discussion on the other side of the blended family which no one ever seems to consider.

DuggyOnDown
It doesn't have to be divulging lots of detail, just that:
A&B, your presents are from your mum and from your dad
C&D your presents are from your mum.and your dad
E your presents are from your mum and your dad

If Dad is spending the same for A, B and E then that's fair.
If Mum is spending the same amount on C, D and E then that's fair.

I know what you mean that money is only one part of it, but in general it's good to consider what it equitable and that is usually based on parents treating their respective children fairly. It doesn't take much to say "A, you might think that's unfair, but C's mum covered the trip/buys her birthday presents, just as your mum does yours".

If a situation occurs where the resident children (C,D,E) are routinely getting a substantially different treatment from the dad/step dad then that's where resentment builds. EG. A and B being told that Dad can't do something with them because he is doing something with C and D, Dad won't buy them something because he's too busy playing happy families with C/D/E. Too often the non-resident children are expected to slot in when it suits Dad's new family and that's where issues occur.

@Mumbo1234

Again though, I don’t think it’s just about presents or holidays.

In society, children with separated parents are constantly considered with regards to how it affects them, making them feel secure, etc..

Very rarely do people look at or consider how the children born of the new relationship are feeling. How the coming and going of their half sibling could potentially confuse them, how sharing their parents and only home might make them feel, how different cultures each child is being brought up in can affect their relationship, etc.

It’s predominantly about the step child and their feelings

Yes this is it exactly. It's just an element that is rarely considered it seems.

I agree with the OP and with this:

I honestly think the only fair way to do wills is to leave yours to your DC. That way all children have 2 parents to inherit from, not one having 2 and the other 3 (potentially 4 if the other parent is in a relationship too).

@Mumbo1234

Again though, I don’t think it’s just about presents or holidays.

In society, children with separated parents are constantly considered with regards to how it affects them, making them feel secure, etc..

Very rarely do people look at or consider how the children born of the new relationship are feeling. How the coming and going of their half sibling could potentially confuse them, how sharing their parents and only home might make them feel, how different cultures each child is being brought up in can affect their relationship, etc.

It’s predominantly about the step child and their feelings

Yes I do think there is a lot of truth in this and it is a bit odd that nobody ever considers that a child might be bothered by their parents being with somebody else and having other kids with them BEFORE they were born, when they definitely do think it likely they would be bothered by them doing so afterwards.

And that's without even taking into consideration how the younger kids feel about the actual dynamics at play- only being allowed to do fun things when the SC are at home, the SC resenting them for existing etc.