DP agreeing to things without talking to me first

[thewhiterabbit1]

I was wondering whether other people's DP's agree to having their DC's more without mentioning it to you first?

Before I get flamed, I like my DSS a lot so it's not that I object to him coming over more at all.

We have DSS every other weekend and one, sometimes two evenings for dinner every week. DP told me last night that he has agreed to have DSS on a Tues and Thurs every week for dinner, on top of the Wednesday (and usually Monday) he has him for dinner already.

I have no issue with this, I'm just wondering whether he maybe should have mentioned it to me first before saying yes to his ex?

[quote thewhiterabbit1]@lucy5236 Thank you

I think the biggest stress about it all for me is the eating. I do the food shop and cook but DSS will regularly reject what I've made. DP will quite often ask (politely) whether I'd be happy to make something else. If DSS is coming for dinner nearly every day then that is likely to end up causing me a pretty big headache! [/quote]
I would actually say no to his "polite request" he can do it

Tell your DH that it's great, but you think he should take over tea for those days.
That he can cook with his son and together they can clean up and wash up and use it as bonding time .
Thinking beans on toast, or spaghetti in sauce, or maybe a BBQ.
Children often extend their food range if they help cook.

We've had the food fussiness with my youngest SS. At his mum's house he gets something else if he doesn't like what's put in front of him. But not here. If he doesn't eat what everyone else does, he goes hungry. Guess what, he eats what we do.

Seriously, tell your husband no. He's just making a bigger problem.

Honestly I think you need to review whether you have fallen into the wifework role - are you now doing the bulk of the shopping, cooking, laundry, thinking, planning for the family unit? If so stop!! He has time to work, coach (his hobby?), run around collecting and dropping off - is this because you are facilitating it all? Don't set a precedent it's a slippery slope.

Wise words from RandomMess. You've had some good advice on the second half of this thread OP. Hope you can make some positive changes at home, your DP sounds like a lazy bastard.

She probably wants him to come for dinner most nights but not stay over night so she still gets the same amount of money from your Partner.

I would try and get the contact changed so SS stays over night when he eats dinner so you pay less. Mum can’t have best of both.

There have been quite a few posts saying about "falling into the wife work role" or "doing the work of a wife without being a wife" when referring to her doing ALL the cooking, cleaning and chores.

Is this the 1950's????? Even if OP was married (or if the DC was her own) i find if ludicrous that in 2021 this would ever be classed as 'wife work'? Sure my it should be split 50/50, married or not?

@lucy5236 "wifework" is the name of a non-fiction book which studied the roles of people in hetro relationships. The statistics show the societal internal misogyny results in women doing the bulk of the work despite also working full time and when DC arrive their workload only increases even if they still carry one working.

Worst of all the work of the mental load just isn't even recognised!!!

If your partner/spouse does 50% or you have equal leisure time then actually you are the odd ones out. Much of what women do isn't even recognised/acknowledged.

I agree Op that your DP needs to do more cooking, shopping and cleaning.

@weddingnamechangedrama yes I am a stepparent. We have a blended family and the children are grown now and most are adults. We blended them from the age of 7 so it worked for us.

I couldn't imagine a scenario where, as a teenager, my mum and dad wouldn't have welcomed me walking through my front door (using my key). My husband's mum and dad had a large family and are the same.

I wanted all our children to experience this, always. Even now, as adults they just come home although often I get a text to say they are coming over. I make more food or we get a take away.

This duel housing was never a problem a child created. That firmly rests with the adults in their lives. It's therefore our responsibility to make sure it affects them as little as possible.

The moment there is a barrier created, the dynamic changes. I don't want this to change as it will, soon enough, when they marry.

I am of the belief that a parent with a child needs to prioritize the child over a new partner. A child should never be made to feel unwelcome or unwanted and I think the idea of a child needing to ask to come over and the parent needing to say, I have to ask my girlfriend first if that is okay for you to come to our house is someone with their priorities backwards. If you don't consider the child part of their family and you don't consider your home to also be the child's home - then you really shouldn't marry or date someone with children. So for the posters saying OP only agreed to have the child there 2 days a week and it isn't fair to her that her partner has now changed the agreement - tough. If OP needs 4 child free days a week, she shouldn't be dating someone with a child.

Then you should be "of the belief" that parents need to abstain from cohabiting with their partners, if they don't want to have to do what everyone else does, and run major household decisions by them.

I cannot understand the cognitive dissonance of thinking that because parents need to prioritise their relationship with their children, it's everybody else that must accept substandard behaviour in their relationships so that that need is fulfilled. No. The parent needs to live alone if they want total freedom to make any decisions about what happens in the home without mentioning it to the other adults living there.

If you cannot consider your partner an equal adult in your household and welcome their judgment in major household decisions, then you really shouldn't marry or date ANYONE. There you go.

To summarise Sofa,
"You knew you had children when you chose to get into a serious relationship"

@aSofaNearYou

I am of the belief that a parent with a child needs to prioritize the child over a new partner. A child should never be made to feel unwelcome or unwanted and I think the idea of a child needing to ask to come over and the parent needing to say, I have to ask my girlfriend first if that is okay for you to come to our house is someone with their priorities backwards. If you don't consider the child part of their family and you don't consider your home to also be the child's home - then you really shouldn't marry or date someone with children. So for the posters saying OP only agreed to have the child there 2 days a week and it isn't fair to her that her partner has now changed the agreement - tough. If OP needs 4 child free days a week, she shouldn't be dating someone with a child.

Then you should be "of the belief" that parents need to abstain from cohabiting with their partners, if they don't want to have to do what everyone else does, and run major household decisions by them.

I cannot understand the cognitive dissonance of thinking that because parents need to prioritise their relationship with their children, it's everybody else that must accept substandard behaviour in their relationships so that that need is fulfilled. No. The parent needs to live alone if they want total freedom to make any decisions about what happens in the home without mentioning it to the other adults living there.

If you cannot consider your partner an equal adult in your household and welcome their judgment in major household decisions, then you really shouldn't marry or date ANYONE. There you go.

Much better 👍

@Youseethethingis

To summarise Sofa, "You knew you had children when you chose to get into a serious relationship"

Precisely! I might get this printed.

@Youseethethingis
The answer is not to avoid getting into a serious relationship. The solution is to get into a serious relationship with someone who shares your perspective and point of view. Hence, the importance of compatibility and a shared willingness to discuss and compromise when possible. If you are so wedded to a position that you cannot compromise, you are not necessarily wrong, but you are absolutely with the wrong person. You need to find a person who is also wedded to your poverty.

There is no universal relationship play book. What is essential is that both parties are in agreement as to how their particular relationship will work.

People are not necessarily wrong because they disagree. They are perhaps wrong when they expect their partner to share or embrace their point of view simply because they are the partner or spouse

Some people think that they are entitled by virtue of being in a relationship to have their point of view adhered to and accepted.
Neither life nor relationships work that way. Comparability and mutual understanding trump simply being the spouse or partner. Failure to have compatibility and an acceptance of mutual agreed upon goals and direction will have you marching in different directions and headed to different goal post.

@Youseethethingis
It should read pov and not poverty

That's a long old post in response to a very simple line.
My point stands. If you want to be in a relationship, be in one. If you want someone else to pivot around your needs (and in this case your childrens needs) then you'd better be prepared to pivot back sometimes or you will find yourself out of the relationship.

Why are you doing all the cooking, shopping and housework as well as working full-time? Just why?

This really has nothing to do with how often your DSS comes over or how welcoming you are to him its to do with being treated like the family skivvy. I expect you also contribute amply to the family coffers if you are working FT.

You need to have a very blunt discussion with your partner about this imbalance. He needs to step up and contribute much more actively otherwise you are setting yourself up for a future of being downtrodden and paying for the privilege of being the housekeeper.

@Youseethethingis you seem to have got this right.

No child chooses divorce, no child chooses having two homes.

They should be welcomed home, whenever, however, whatever. Otherwise it stops being their home.

I stand by what I wrote earlier, that I couldn't imagine a scenario where, as a teenager, my mum and dad wouldn't have welcomed me walking through my front door. My husband's mum and dad had a large family and are the same.

I wanted all our children to experience this, always. Even now, as adults they just arrive home although often now they are adults I get a text to say they are coming over. I just make more food or we get a take away.

This duel housing was never a problem a child created. That firmly rests with the adults in their lives. It's therefore our responsibility to make sure it affects them as little as possible.

This thread is sounding like a lot of you are considering having the children to stay rather than them returning home.

It's essential they feel it's their home. The second they have to ask for a drink, ask for a snack, ask to have a shower, ask to visit, it's not their home.

Children and their mental well-being is first. We are adults. Ours comes second. They are not children fir very long. Their future adult functioning depends entirely on their childhood and the bonds they make.

It's essential they feel it's their home. The second they have to ask for a drink, ask for a snack, ask to have a shower, ask to visit, it's not their home.

I'd expect my own sons to ask for snacks, not just help themselves. And to check with me about a shower (someone else might be showering or the washing machine might be on, and that means they'll get no water pressure).

It's not any less their home because they can't just help themselves to everything and anything.

Some people think that they are entitled by virtue of being in a relationship to have their point of view adhered to and accepted.
Neither life nor relationships work that way. Comparability and mutual understanding trump simply being the spouse or partner. Failure to have compatibility and an acceptance of mutual agreed upon goals and direction will have you marching in different directions and headed to different goal post.

Some people think that by virtue of sharing a child with someone, you are entitled to these things. Etc etc etc. You see how this works?

Sofa is totally failing to address the housework and cooking asymmetry here, whcih is the problem. I have children willingly with my dh. I have done this on the assumption he will be an equal parent and be able to do things like shop and cook them a meal. And if he doesn’t do that, then yes I deliberately had children, but there is still some shit that needs sorting out between us. The children are loved and not at fault, but my dh would most certainly be at fault. That’s whats happening here. She welcomed his children in. She didn’t welcome in a life of cooking and skivvying to fussy eaters. She probably imagined her dp would do more active parenting. His coaching hobby probably misled her that he jumped in to actively do things with dc. But turns out his active parenting is suggesting his partner turn around and cook another meal for his snowflake as they don’t love the one she’s already cooked. The problem is 100% the dad here.

It's not a question of DSS being welcome, but of the DP here expecting the OP to do a significant amount of extra meal prep without asking.

[quote Tiredoftattler]@Youseethethingis
The answer is not to avoid getting into a serious relationship. The solution is to get into a serious relationship with someone who shares your perspective and point of view. Hence, the importance of compatibility and a shared willingness to discuss and compromise when possible. If you are so wedded to a position that you cannot compromise, you are not necessarily wrong, but you are absolutely with the wrong person. You need to find a person who is also wedded to your poverty.

There is no universal relationship play book. What is essential is that both parties are in agreement as to how their particular relationship will work.

People are not necessarily wrong because they disagree. They are perhaps wrong when they expect their partner to share or embrace their point of view simply because they are the partner or spouse

Some people think that they are entitled by virtue of being in a relationship to have their point of view adhered to and accepted.
Neither life nor relationships work that way. Comparability and mutual understanding trump simply being the spouse or partner. Failure to have compatibility and an acceptance of mutual agreed upon goals and direction will have you marching in different directions and headed to different goal post.[/quote]
But how come, where a perspective or POV isn't shared, it is always the SP that is expected to change theirs purely because the other person has a child??

To me, one partner announcing that there will now be an extra person for dinner almost every single day of the week when the other partner does all of the cooking and shopping is WRONG. It's out of line and he should have checked with her first. If it concerned literally anyone else except this man's child, everyone would agree. But just because the extra person happens to be his child, OP just has to suck it up and change her point of view so she's not annoyed about not being asked anymore.

I just don't get it at all, and I completely agree with Sofa that parents choose to be in relationships just as much as step-parents do and, in your own words, this doesn't mean they are entitled by virtue of being in a relationship to have their point of view adhered to and accepted.

If 2 adults choose to be in a relationship with eachother and they want it to be successful, then there needs to be communication and compromise from both sides.

If 2 adults choose to be in a relationship with eachother and they want it to be successful, then there needs to be communication and compromise from both sides.

Apparently that's only true if you are a stepmother. Even if you have your own children. You do the compromising because it would get ridiculous to expect your partner to in anyway way consider it accommodate you in relation to his children.

So if both parents have partners who should make the decision about when the child is allowed in the home - where does the child go on days they are not wanted by either parent's partner?

For those of you insistent that it is the partner's home and they should not be inconvenienced in their own home by a child - who feeds and houses that child?

If the partner's schedule is to be prioritized over the child, who cares for the child?

I find this viewpoint that if you marry someone with a child, the child should not factor into the decision making made by the partner to be a very odd view. I am there are a few people on this thread with live in nannies - who themselves are never inconvienced by their own children. They live their life as they wish and call for their children if they wish to see them here and there.

A single parent can definite cohabit but they should only cohabit with someone who accepts that the child will be part of their lives and welcome in the home. Cohabiting with someone who sees your child as an unwelcome inconvenience and that they should only allowed over if the partner has no other plans and feels it is a suitable time for them, is the wrong person to cohabit with.

It is odd to me that a parent prioritizing their own child over a girlfriend or new partner is seen as controversial and that many on here feel the new girlfriend or boyfriend should be the priority.