My DC will always be my priority

[MarkUp]

Does anyone else read things on here sometimes and feel like SPs are expected to prioritise their DSC over their own DC?

I feel it from my own husband sometimes too.

But I refuse. My DC will always, always be my priority, yes I love them more, yes I care more, and yes I want to treat them more.

I will take them on holiday if I can afford to whether or not DH can afford to take his DC. I'll not make them save all fun and days out for when their half siblings are here. I will not reduce any inheritance they receive so it can be split 'equally'. I will not tell my parents they can't buy more presents at Christmas and birthdays for their own grandchild. I will not stop treating them to nice things if I want to just because I can't afford 3 lots of it.

It's wild, not it's will.

@Nancydrawn

Although I'm sure some people are of the opinion 'DSC don't ever get to go out with both their parents' although imo, whilst maybe sad (I never really thought about it tbh), it doesn't mean another child should never be able to.

I agree with your latter point. In fact, I agree with many of the conclusions you've come to about step-parenting. But it's will that you've never even thought about the fact that your step-children won't get to go places with their family all together.

It's basic empathy, which is lacking overall in all of your posts. I don't think anyone is saying that you should love your step-children the same amount that you love your own. But the remarkable defensiveness of your replies has been so stark, and you sound like you deeply resent the fact that you have to think about your step-children when thinking about things like holidays, etc.

You misread me although I agree it wasn't clear. I meant I never thought about it when my parents divorced as in I never thought 'well they get to do that with both parents and I only get to do it with one'.

and you sound like you deeply resent the fact that you have to think about your step-children when thinking about things like holidays, etc.

What is it I've said that makes it sound like I resent having to think about DSC?

[quote SquashedTomatoesAndStew]@FishyFriday
I think that’s a risky strategy and really depends on the child’s age, personality, etc

I’ve been in DSC life since they were very, very young. I love them to bits!

That said, our relationship is ever evolving as they get older. SC and mum are very, very close which is lovely and she knows I love her but I can tell she doesn’t quite get how I fit into the picture.

I think nurseries, schools, etc can help more in educating children in different family dynamics. SC has never had parents together yet all role play is still “mummy and daddy”. I try and encourage another dialogue but I feel it’s a bit pointed and blunt when I do it, like people will think it’s me trying to fit in[/quote]
I disagree that it's risky.

I'm not suggesting you say 'well Brenda loves Tom more than you' or similar. But it's perfectly possible to start with a clear and positive understanding that mummies and daddies are special. You have a really special relationship with them and other children have that with their mummies and daddies.

So Tom can be doing something with his mummy, just as they get to do things with their mummy. Isn't that wonderful? Etc.

It doesn't have to be framed as a loss to the DSC that their SM isn't their mother.

It doesn't have to be framed as a loss to the DSC that their SM isn't their mother.

Also, I genuinely don't think that most SCs are looking for another mother and it's the adults around who expect an SM to act like one, rather than the kids themselves.

I would say I am close with my SCs but I don't even come close to their mum, at all. In fact, I am fairly certain I don't even factor in their minds as being on a par with their parents to any extent, in terms of who they think of as family. I am actually not even sure they would include me if they drew a picture of their family.

But we get on great, we do loads together, have laughs and cuddles....it's not a bad relationship just because we're not pretending to be mother and child.

@FishyFriday
Again though, I think it depends on the individual and their relationship.

I know that SC would be heartbroken to think that our relationship was different to that of DC.

SC once thought this when DH took her to GP for one on one time (against my better judgement). DC had just been born and she thought she was being kept out of the way. DC was only 2 at the time....maybe a particularly sensitive child though

i feel like all of this is just passing the less pleasant bits of having separated parents from the older kids to the younger, even though the younger children aren't even in that situation at all.

This is so true. It feels like children of second families need to compensate and suffer to make up for the fact that children of divorce have had to suffer to a degree.

I think a lot of it is based on who spends more time with who, so SCs often get less time with their dad than resident children so emphasis is placed on them getting one-on-one time. Which logically I can see, but equally this doesn't help when you've got little ones sitting at home upset that they're not allowed to join in with their brothers/sisters on a day out with their dad.

I can see the logic too. But then at the same time, the younger ones won’t be getting that quality time during the week when he’s at work so I really feel like the emphasis placed on his first children getting that time with him is a bit unfair when it’s obvious the other children won’t be getting it either just because they live under the same roof as him full time. So I don’t know, I just feel like the argument of the younger ones seeing daddy everyday is a bit straw-like sometimes.

And I also feel for children in situations where the man is the only father figure they have and even they are told (on here) that they should be left out in order for his bio children to know they're more important, just because this child happens to live there with his mum.

This, I do this is an exception. My brother is the only father figure to his stepchildren who he has now adopted so they are now his children legally now. I don’t think he could have left his stepchildren out and just taken his two biological children out.

Miles and miles away from a situation where the stepchildren have a very involved and loving mum and the stepmum wants a day out with her own children. I.e. me when I was a stepmum.

Don't get me wrong, I think all children should get to spend time with their parents, but not when it's almost showboated on purpose in the face of another child who it has the potential to hurt.

Oh no there doesn’t have to be a need for that.

Naturally there are times when older kids would want to do things that younger children wouldn't enjoy/it wouldn't be suitable for them, and that should be when the opportunity is seized to spend time with individual children separately.

Exactly. And it was the other way around for me. I had younger children and I wanted to do things with them at times without an older one changing the whole dynamics of the day. I know that works both ways, and because I was the mum of the older ones I naturally had their interests more at heart. I’m sure people like my brother would juggle them all, but I didn’t feel the need to put that on to myself if that makes sense.

Seems like on here it's all about "you're one family, treat them all the same, as your own" except when it comes to dads being encouraged and applauded for doing things with their older kids at the exclusion of the younger.

Exactly.

I know that works both ways, and because I was the mum of the older ones I naturally had their interests more at heart.

Younger ones, that should say.

"I think nurseries, schools, etc can help more in educating children in different family dynamics. SC has never had parents together yet all role play is still “mummy and daddy”. I try and encourage another dialogue but I feel it’s a bit pointed and blunt when I do it, like people will think it’s me trying to fit in"

Just to let you know but you can get different types of books to help you explain different families to them.
I think things like that are helpful in regards to getting them to understand a bit more.

I had a step mum (dad and her now divorced). My mum had died.

She resented every penny that had to be spent on us.

My dad did his best to provide for us and paid all of our costs and the majority of any household costs. While she poured thousands down her throat (alcohol). My Dad had to sell so much of his stuff to keep paying the bills.

When they had a daughter together - she got the world. Private school, trips abroad, horse riding lessons. You name it. She got it. We didn't. Ironically private school would have benefited my full sister and I more than our half sister.

That's the sort of thing that breeds resentment. This is unfair. Not what you describe.

@MarkUp

and you sound like you deeply resent the fact that you have to think about your step-children when thinking about things like holidays, etc.

What is it I've said that makes it sound like I resent having to think about DSC?

I think it's statements like this: "Quite honestly, I often WANT to have alone time with my DC doing fun things, I love spending time with them doing stuff together and no I honestly don't always WANT that to include DSC. It's not about not caring for them, I just like spending time with my DC on my own without them there all the time."

It's not that you're wrong to do it, it's that it seems pretty clear you think your life would be easier, less complicated, and potentially happier if you didn't have to think about your step-childrenthis post sounds a bit defensive about the idea that you might want to do things alone with your kid (no idea why you'd be defensive about that! makes sense to me) and slightly guilty about the anticipatory judging. The same is true for the first post. I read it and was like...okay? Good for you? You will not do this and you refuse to do that and yes you love them moreit all reads as very defiant and frustrated and urgent.

Reading through the lines, it sounds like maybe your husband is feeling the difference between your kids and your step-kids and is letting you know this? Is that the real root of the post?

@DinoHat

i feel like all of this is just passing the less pleasant bits of having separated parents from the older kids to the younger, even though the younger children aren't even in that situation at all.

This is so true. It feels like children of second families need to compensate and suffer to make up for the fact that children of divorce have had to suffer to a degree.

Exactly.

I just can't get my head around the logic that people feel so sorry for kids with separated parents but yet are happy to make younger children suffer the same pattern, in terms of only getting to do enjoyable things with their dad every other weekend or when the SCs are around in school holidays.

It's unfortunate for them that the older children have lost their 'family unit' but that was a choice their parent(s) made, it's doesn't mean that a younger child whose parents are still together should be forced to live in the same way and feel the same upsets just to make it 'fair'.

As for your first response to me: aha. That makes more sense (that you never thought about it as a child of divorce, not that you never thought about it as a step-parent). Though I'd suspect that plenty of children of divorce do think about it, and it might be worth considering even if it didn't occur to you when you were a kid.

@Thisnamewasnttaken123

"I think nurseries, schools, etc can help more in educating children in different family dynamics. SC has never had parents together yet all role play is still “mummy and daddy”. I try and encourage another dialogue but I feel it’s a bit pointed and blunt when I do it, like people will think it’s me trying to fit in"

Just to let you know but you can get different types of books to help you explain different families to them.
I think things like that are helpful in regards to getting them to understand a bit more.

These books are great but you do still sort of need to go out of the way to get them. In today's world, schools must know that many of the children in their classrooms have separated parents, step-parents or single parents, it would be nice if it was reflected in a bit more of a mainstream way.

(no idea why you'd be defensive about that! makes sense to me)

The post you referenced was in response to another poster saying if you cared about DSC you'd WANT (they put the capitals!) to take them with you. My reply was that I don't always want to take them and it's not because I don't care about them, I just want to spend time alone with my DC.

And I've said several times earlier on in the thread why I posted. Because it feels like this sort of thing needs saying and posters think it's wrong, as evidenced by the replies here.

It's not that you're wrong to do it, it's that it seems pretty clear you think your life would be easier, less complicated, and potentially happier if you didn't have to think about your step-children

Surely every step-parents life would be easier and less complicated, at the least, if they weren't step-parents and only had their own children to think of? I feel like that's not an insult, just common sense, and not like most would ever express that to the children.

Bibidy, are you really saying that a child who doesn't see one of their parents on a daily basis is comparable to a child not doing much between their half siblings contact time? Really? Do you have children who only see one of their parents on a part time basis? My DS would have given his right arm to live with his Dad, even if it meant they didn't do much.

I absolutely don't disagree with OP, I think she's very much in her right to prioritise her children (who wouldn't?!) but I find it so hard reading about children of first relationship (not sure how to word it) having the better world. In some instances maybe, but I can't imagine it's all rosy for most children.

Because it feels like this sort of thing needs saying and posters think it's wrong, as evidenced by the replies here.

But posters are allowed to think its wrong. For them it might be. You’re not right. It’s just opinion.

@KaleSlayer

Because it feels like this sort of thing needs saying and posters think it's wrong, as evidenced by the replies here.

But posters are allowed to think its wrong. For them it might be. You’re not right. It’s just opinion.

They can think it's wrong of course, I can ask why because I'm genuinely perplexed why people feel the way they do about this subject. We've been over this I thought?

[quote SquashedTomatoesAndStew]@FishyFriday
Again though, I think it depends on the individual and their relationship.

I know that SC would be heartbroken to think that our relationship was different to that of DC.

SC once thought this when DH took her to GP for one on one time (against my better judgement). DC had just been born and she thought she was being kept out of the way. DC was only 2 at the time....maybe a particularly sensitive child though[/quote]
I think your DSD may be unusually sensitive in that case. And it may also have been the kind of reaction many toddlers have to the arrival of a new sibling (they worry they'll be pushed out etc) rather than anything else.

Most children don't want to think of SM as like their mother. They'd be perfectly happy with her as a benevolent adult in their life and not in any way mind that she's mum to another child/other children.

@ALevelhelp

Bibidy, are you really saying that a child who doesn't see one of their parents on a daily basis is comparable to a child not doing much between their half siblings contact time? Really? Do you have children who only see one of their parents on a part time basis? My DS would have given his right arm to live with his Dad, even if it meant they didn't do much.

I absolutely don't disagree with OP, I think she's very much in her right to prioritise her children (who wouldn't?!) but I find it so hard reading about children of first relationship (not sure how to word it) having the better world. In some instances maybe, but I can't imagine it's all rosy for most children.

What I'm saying is that in a scenario where there is one set of children with separated parents and one set with together parents, I don't think it's fair to make the second set live with this 'every other weekend' rotation when they don't have to. To me, that is just bringing all of the children down to the same unfortunate level.

I genuinely do appreciate that it can be hard for children not to live with both parents, I honestly do. But equally, all of the children can only live in their own experiences and I think it's unfair to expect the younger children to be appreciative of the fact they get to live with both parents because they have never known it any other way and so that isn't 'special' to them.

All they will feel is that they never get to do anything fun when their siblings aren't around and, in the same way the older children may feel excluded if they thought things were being planned specifically without them, the younger children may feel that their own mum and dad only want to do things with their big brothers/sisters and not with them.

@ALevelhelp

Bibidy, are you really saying that a child who doesn't see one of their parents on a daily basis is comparable to a child not doing much between their half siblings contact time? Really? Do you have children who only see one of their parents on a part time basis? My DS would have given his right arm to live with his Dad, even if it meant they didn't do much.

I absolutely don't disagree with OP, I think she's very much in her right to prioritise her children (who wouldn't?!) but I find it so hard reading about children of first relationship (not sure how to word it) having the better world. In some instances maybe, but I can't imagine it's all rosy for most children.

I've got a child whose dad is a NRP. I've got SC. I have a younger child with DH. I have a SM and a SF. I have a SMIL too.

There is no need to play misery top trumps about any of it.

I'll let DS know, thanks @FishyFriday

PS. My thoughts are that all combinations should happen without drama.

Dad, SM & all kids do things together. Dad, SM & younger kids do things together. Dad & older kids do things together. Dad & younger kids do things together.

I just don't think it always needs to be managed so 'politically', for want of a better word.