Holiday Advice - what's the right thing to do?

[WalkingDead02]

Just a bit of background info...

My husband has a 12 year old from a previous relationship. He lives over 300 Miles away with his mum, and comes to stay with us for 1 week during each of the school holidays. We also have a 2 year old together.

My parents are offering to pay for a trip away for us all together (my parents, my brother's family and our family) and have asked when we can go. My husband has said that unless everyone can agree on a date that means his son (my step-son) can come too, then we aren't going as it isnt fair that he misses out.

I am torn on what is the 'right thing' to do. I obviously want my step-son there and will do everything I can to ensure this, but the situation is very difficult. I also dont want our 2 year old missing out on a holiday because of this. What is the right thing to do? Argh!

It probably isn't a huge ask in OP's case, we don't know, but due to how little her partner sees his Son I wouldn't blame him for wanting to prioritise seeing him over a holiday with his in laws.
If he had a more normal contact schedule, I'd struggle to find any reason why the holiday shouldn't just go ahead with out the child, but it isn't such a normal schedule and I know if there was any chance it could mean I'd see less of my son I wouldn't go for it.
Unless we hear the reasonings behind OP's partners annoyance with it, we'll just keep going round in circles guessing who's right and who's wrong

That could be the case for sure.

For me, I just think it's a bit strange that, as Fishy said above, this man lives the majority of his life without his son but one week's trip with his wife's family is what he chooses to make the stand about? Surely he could at least make the effort to see his child some weekends and then maybe he wouldn't need to put his wife into such an awkward position when her family have offered to pay for a holiday for them?

Tbh a big issue as well is it doesn't sound like he's approached this in a very nice way. From the OP it sounds like he's been fairly brash about it and it's not a case of "I'm happy to go but I'd love for SS to come with us too, do you think your family would mind? I would offer to pay for him".

[quote Bumblebee1980a]@TrulyGruly

So it's not a huge leap to assume if DSS came it would need to be during the school holidays which as everyone knows triples the price.

Hence why I said the dad should pay for his son whether it's term time or not.

I think it gets quite confusing for the OP when posters keep replying to each other 🙄[/quote]
It's not about just paying for DSS though. It's whether it means the rest of the family have to pay school holiday rates when they could just go in term time.

My point was that yes obviously Dad should pay for his son, but if his son coming means the holiday as a whole costs triple the amount for everyone then that's not a fair expectation.

He could take him out of school during term time and pay the fine I guess but it doesn't sound like that's what he was suggesting by saying it had to fall on when DSS was there.

Didnt the Op say that her DSS only wouldn't come if he wasn't available? So this would mean he's not missing time with his dad as he wouldn't be with him anyway?

Nah, you just can't cope with hearing that there's a possibility a NRP might actually care about all of their children.

Innocent until proven guilty.. apart from on the SP board when it just isn't possible that there could be a bit more to a story.

This is so unfair, I don't think any of us have claimed that NRPs don't care about all of their children, or that they shouldn't.

On the whole of mumsnet, every poster is only replying to what has been said by the OP. We could all invent other scenarios around that to explain various aspects of the OP, but it renders the whole forum pointless surely?

In this OP, all we have is the fact that OP's DH sees his son 5 weeks a year, her family have offered to pay for a holiday and he has said "we aren't going" unless his older son is also included.

Surely it's reasonable to deduce from that that he doesn't expect himself, OP or their child to go without SS, at the very least.

It's not about just paying for DSS though. It's whether it means the rest of the family have to pay school holiday rates when they could just go in term time.

My point was that yes obviously Dad should pay for his son, but if his son coming means the holiday as a whole costs triple the amount for everyone then that's not a fair expectation.

Agree totally if there are no other school-aged children in the equation. In fairness there could be though as OP does mention her brother's 'family' will also be on this trip.

@Bibidy

It probably isn't a huge ask in OP's case, we don't know, but due to how little her partner sees his Son I wouldn't blame him for wanting to prioritise seeing him over a holiday with his in laws. If he had a more normal contact schedule, I'd struggle to find any reason why the holiday shouldn't just go ahead with out the child, but it isn't such a normal schedule and I know if there was any chance it could mean I'd see less of my son I wouldn't go for it. Unless we hear the reasonings behind OP's partners annoyance with it, we'll just keep going round in circles guessing who's right and who's wrong

That could be the case for sure.

For me, I just think it's a bit strange that, as Fishy said above, this man lives the majority of his life without his son but one week's trip with his wife's family is what he chooses to make the stand about? Surely he could at least make the effort to see his child some weekends and then maybe he wouldn't need to put his wife into such an awkward position when her family have offered to pay for a holiday for them?

Tbh a big issue as well is it doesn't sound like he's approached this in a very nice way. From the OP it sounds like he's been fairly brash about it and it's not a case of "I'm happy to go but I'd love for SS to come with us too, do you think your family would mind? I would offer to pay for him".

Oh I totally agree, the contact schedule is absolutely shit. There is no way in a million years I would see my child so infrequently, and to hazard a guess that's due to OP's dp possibly being a shit dad - I can't think of many reasons that could justify it - but we don't know and I don't think it's fair to make up our minds on a bit of guesswork.

Ultimately contact is for the son, his Dad may not be good at seeing him regularly, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't make the absolute effort to see him the 5 times a year that he is meant to.

@Bibidy

We don't know how much time OP's dp spends with his in laws? Maybe he sees them on a very regular basis and is very respectful of them?

I'm sure he is, but does that really change the situation? I don't feel like the issue is that he doesn't like OP's family and just doesn't want to go.

My DP sees my parents most weeks and gets on well with them, but if this scenario happened to us it would make things difficult and awkward for me, and would probably make my parents worry that they had upset my partner.

My point was more that most step-parents have to be way more involved and spend lots more intense time with their partner's children than anyone ever usually has to with their in-laws, so one week away with them without SS shouldn't really be a big ask from the DH here.

Exactly.

I think people really underestimate the practical effect of having a partner like this. My family is as important to me as his is to him, and having a partner who abstains from social events with them due to his son not being able to go, when his son is not there the vast majority of the time (making him coming rare and impractical), is just going to make the whole situation really difficult and awkward. Especially if there's any kind of tension on his end about his son not being invited. He's going to end up disliked within the family, or I'd end up having to hide his displeasure with them from them and that sort of thing sucks the joy out of time with them. The end result is the same - his entitlement about his son always being invited is spoiling my relationship with my family. And this from someone who expects extortionate amount of time and effort from me to facilitate him having good relationships with HIS family. It's selfish.

Also, I can't speak for anyone else's family obviously, but there's no way if my DP put my parents in this position that they'd feel comfortable getting him to pay for my SCs separately? Surely most people would feel very awkward around that whole situation as it's totally marking SS out as 'not family', which I don't think many would want to do.

The whole scenario is so awkward now. Either OP goes with her child alone and has to explain why her DH has refused to come along despite it being a free holiday for him, or she has to tackle her family about SS coming as well and all of the impact that has on available dates they can go, or she has to tell her family none of them will go because SS isn't invited and then deal with the resulting awkwardness from that.

Surely, surely the best scenario for everyone would have been that DH just goes along on this holiday - even just for a few days of it

• without SS, who wouldn't have been with his dad that week anyway, and will likely not think twice about it since it's with a bunch of his stepmum's family who, given he only sees his dad 5 weeks a year, he very likely has rarely, if ever, met?

@Bibidy

Nah, you just can't cope with hearing that there's a possibility a NRP might actually care about all of their children.

Innocent until proven guilty.. apart from on the SP board when it just isn't possible that there could be a bit more to a story.

This is so unfair, I don't think any of us have claimed that NRPs don't care about all of their children, or that they shouldn't.

On the whole of mumsnet, every poster is only replying to what has been said by the OP. We could all invent other scenarios around that to explain various aspects of the OP, but it renders the whole forum pointless surely?

In this OP, all we have is the fact that OP's DH sees his son 5 weeks a year, her family have offered to pay for a holiday and he has said "we aren't going" unless his older son is also included.

Surely it's reasonable to deduce from that that he doesn't expect himself, OP or their child to go without SS, at the very least.

bibidy, it's like it has to be a competition. I see it frequently on this part of MN, like NRP are expected to choose between seeing their older children and keeping their partners and younger children happy. Why is it not possible to just want the best of both worlds? Why does it often look like "well he's obviously going to prioritise his first child and forget about yours OP!" "Don't forget first children are the most important OP wink wink"

OP wanting to have a holiday with her parents isn't a crime, neither is her dp wanting to be able to go away with both of his children - yet the second one is so often seen as wrong

Ultimately contact is for the son, his Dad may not be good at seeing him regularly, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't make the absolute effort to see him the 5 times a year that he is meant to.

I do agree with this. Would just be surprised if he does only ever use his holiday for his son as otherwise OP would have already automatically known this trip would be a no from him.

Nah, you just can't cope with hearing that there's a possibility a NRP might actually care about all of their children.

Oh come on, you're taking making things up a bit far now. That has literally no connection to what I said.

But sofa, again if we're talking about OP's scenario, we don't know whether her dp abstains from every social event due to his DS, we have no idea why he's insisting his DS has to be able to go. It seems unfair to decide that he's obviously a wrongun who shirks his son in law/husband responsibilities for his precious first born. Nobody knows that, apart from OP.

I agree that a man/woman who does behave in that manner is appalling - it's unacceptable and helps no one, but the point of this thread was OP asking if she was being unfair, something that without knowing the context none of us can really say.

bibidy, it's like it has to be a competition. I see it frequently on this part of MN, like NRP are expected to choose between seeing their older children and keeping their partners and younger children happy. Why is it not possible to just want the best of both worlds? Why does it often look like "well he's obviously going to prioritise his first child and forget about yours OP!" "Don't forget first children are the most important OP wink wink"

OP wanting to have a holiday with her parents isn't a crime, neither is her dp wanting to be able to go away with both of his children - yet the second one is so often seen as wrong

See I don't see it as a competition, but I do think that sometimes NRPs make things unnecessarily awkward by not living in the realities of their situation that frequently do mean it's a balancing act between keeping everyone happy.

Like in this scenario, this man has his son literally 5 weeks out of the year and yet is refusing to go away for 1 of the other 46 available weeks with his wife's family out of some odd principle that it matters more than the fact that he doesn't see his son throughout the rest of the year. And I do totally take your point that he may always use his annual leave only to see his son, and that could be the reason, but would just be doubtful given OP raised this holiday to him. Also as we've said, he could make the effort to see him some weekends as well if he was so inclined, 300 miles is not so far to prevent that.

Meanwhile, OP's younger child also doesn't get to have this holiday with his dad. Not the end of the world of course, but it doesn't really need to happen.

So it's not so much that I think it is or should be a competition between who he cares about more, I'm sure he loves them all equally, but just that there are times when it doesn't make much sense and you should concede that it does no harm to SS - let's face it, the amount of time he's around they could take this holiday and he wouldn't even know - but yet does upset your wife and impact your younger child.

The problem was that Op's husband wanted them to all forfeit the holiday if they. Couldn't find a date that worked for his son. No one has said that the holiday would take place during what would usually be contact time but that dss wouldn't be included.

@ALevelhelp

But sofa, again if we're talking about OP's scenario, we don't know whether her dp abstains from every social event due to his DS, we have no idea why he's insisting his DS has to be able to go. It seems unfair to decide that he's obviously a wrongun who shirks his son in law/husband responsibilities for his precious first born. Nobody knows that, apart from OP.

I agree that a man/woman who does behave in that manner is appalling - it's unacceptable and helps no one, but the point of this thread was OP asking if she was being unfair, something that without knowing the context none of us can really say.

No we don't know if he abstains from everything but he is abstaining from this. Which is, in my opinion, part of a shitty pattern of behaviour, so naturally it follows that I don't think it is a good thing. As someone mentioned above, given the Covid situation this event could mean a lot to OP and her whole family. If he was a loving partner who considered her feelings he would have thought of that.

Again, you are the only person banging on about context, so perhaps it would be good for you to just wait for OP to come back, since you seem to need a lot more clarity than everyone else?

I don't have any doubt that OP is not being unfair - her parents not inviting her step son on a holiday is not unfair in any context other than her insisting they all go during contact time with DSS, which the OP disproves.

@Bibidy

Ultimately contact is for the son, his Dad may not be good at seeing him regularly, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't make the absolute effort to see him the 5 times a year that he is meant to.

I do agree with this. Would just be surprised if he does only ever use his holiday for his son as otherwise OP would have already automatically known this trip would be a no from him.

There's no harm in asking surely, and his response was yes we go but it'll have to include DS as otherwise I'll run out of AL, cutting short how much time I can have him and that's not fair on him.

Who knows!

But sofa, again if we're talking about OP's scenario, we don't know whether her dp abstains from every social event due to his DS, we have no idea why he's insisting his DS has to be able to go.

Surely it's a reasonable assumption that he doesn't abstain from every social event due to his son not being able to go though?Otherwise OP wouldn't just be posting about his response to this one scenario and would more likely be posting that her husband refuses to do anything with her and their younger son at all outside of the 5 weeks her SS is with them.

I like clarity sofa, because I'd rather not just make up my mind based on what I want to believe

@Bibidy

But sofa, again if we're talking about OP's scenario, we don't know whether her dp abstains from every social event due to his DS, we have no idea why he's insisting his DS has to be able to go.

Surely it's a reasonable assumption that he doesn't abstain from every social event due to his son not being able to go though?Otherwise OP wouldn't just be posting about his response to this one scenario and would more likely be posting that her husband refuses to do anything with her and their younger son at all outside of the 5 weeks her SS is with them.

That was me responding to to Sofa who was saying about abstaining from all social stuff with the in laws. I was saying that we don't know that's the case and it's unfair to assume that. For all we know he's a doting son in law

@ALevelhelp

I like clarity sofa, because I'd rather not just make up my mind based on what I want to believe

Meanwhile, everyone else is basing their opinion on what she's actually said, while you try and tell them they're the one's making stuff up!

sofa, I'm not trying to make stuff up, I'm trying to think about all the different reasons that OP's dp may have felt it necessary for his son to go on the holiday and why it wouldn't have been fair if he'd missed out. I don't think it's fair to assume that the partner is just a bad guy, that's all

That was me responding to to Sofa who was saying about abstaining from all social stuff with the in laws. I was saying that we don't know that's the case and it's unfair to assume that. For all we know he's a doting son in law

I wasn't saying HE does this every time. I was saying PEOPLE who do this every time are selfish. And this is the first step of him doing it. If he was only ever going to do it this once then it wouldn't really matter, but why would he hold the belief so strongly he would accuse OP of not caring enough, if he wasn't going to respond this way if the situation arose again? Does he think it's a problem for his son to not be invited, or doesn't he?

Yes yes, I know what you're going to say, he may have been purely motivated by having enough AL and OP may have just forgotten to include that very relevant detail...

Are people not allowed to comment on step parent threads unless they agree to go along with the "he's a absolute prick, no excuse" line? I thought this was a discussion forum

@ALevelhelp

Are people not allowed to comment on step parent threads unless they agree to go along with the "he's a absolute prick, no excuse" line? I thought this was a discussion forum

No of course not. There is enough evidence here for some of us to come to the conclusion that he WAS being a prick in this case, barring a drip feed that ought to have been in the OP.

Why are you so determined to paint us as biased in ways there is no evidence of, whilst simultaneously claiming you can't form an opinion here without concrete evidence?

@ALevelhelp

Are people not allowed to comment on step parent threads unless they agree to go along with the "he's a absolute prick, no excuse" line? I thought this was a discussion forum

I don't think he's a prick, just think he's being a bit tunnel vision and selfish in not considering other members of his family as well as his son here.

I'd also say potentially that when he had another child with OP he should have realised at that point that sometimes he'd need to do things without SS given how little SS is actually around, even if it's not his preference. And that likely includes using some of his annual leave at times, even if he had only used it for SS up until this point. It's not sustainable to have two children but only ever take time off work to be with one of them. This might be the first time it has come up for him but it won't be the last.