I'd hate it if everything were equal all the time

[TrulyGruly]

Am I the only one who feels like this when they read it on here?

I don't want my DC to have to be treated equally to DSC all the time.

There are some things that are obvious but things like, I want DC to feel special to me, I want them to know they are the most important thing to me. I want DC to have a unique relationship with their grandparents (my parents) who aren't always worried about doing everything the same all the time for DSC too.

My DSC know that they are the most important thing in the world to their Mum, they get spoilt by their grandparents on that side etc... Why is it unfair for my child to have the same? I'd hate it if they didn't and tbh I'd be really pissed off if people tried to make it 'equal' for the sake of it all the time.

Totally agree with you

It’s fine if you prefer your own children to your stepchildren, as long as your partner tries to treat all his kids equally.

I would hate it too, but we just don't subscribe to any of those things. My DSS gets the biological reality of whose child is whose, even though we have a great relationship, and my parents have a totally different relationship with my DD and very little to do with DSS. Absolutely no dramas about it, everybody gets it.

If you're experiencing pressure about these things that it's worth considering that the person applying it is just being an arse, don't let them fool you into thinking it actually HAS to be that way.

I think you're right in the examples you give, but I also think that a lot of step kids can feel like outsiders when having contact time with their NRP, which is really sad. Maybe trying to aim for equality, even if you accept that it can't always be achieved, makes that less likely to happen?

I think this is fine. The issue is when all the children are together with grandparents for example and the biological children get bought an ice cream and the step ones don't

I think fair, equal and the same all mean different things and being fair is what's important.

@brokendownagain

I think this is fine. The issue is when all the children are together with grandparents for example and the biological children get bought an ice cream and the step ones don't

This is just mean!

Own relationships with grandparents yes.

I’d expect the parent with children with more than one parent to ensure they treat their children equally regardless of their residence.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

Own relationships with grandparents yes.

I’d expect the parent with children with more than one parent to ensure they treat their children equally regardless of their residence.

Sometimes it's just not possible to do so though.

The NR children aren't there all the time, but resident (shared) children are. The NR children have influences from another house and parent that may not be what either the NRP or the SP want for their shared child.

Treating all your children well in complex circumstances is all you can do. But there are often situations where you have to decide to put one set of children before the other. It's often unavoidable.

Our son sees much less of his father than he would if it weren't for his half siblings because his father has decided to arrange his working hours around the other children and what's convenient for his ex. So he finishes early and starts late to accommodate them (both entertaining them and doing school runs that require him to leave before DS is up for breakfast), which means he always finishes late and starts early if it's just DS here. If his half siblings are here, daddy will be spending time with them (Disney dad style, lest they decide it's not worth their while coming) and doing their (elaborate) bedtimes, etc. If they're not here, that's his opportunity to go to the gym/on his bike/out with friends/etc. My husband doesn't treat the kids equally in this regard. Realistically the alternative would be to reduce contact to share his time more equally among his kids while still fitting in his work and leisure choices. But that doesn't seem fair to the SC, does it?

It's fine for you and your parents but it's important that your partner their dad treats all his children equally. You taking your kids away alone is fine for instance but if dp comes all the kids should be invited in my opinion. We have invited all of ours away (adults) for instance

I agree; if things are equal all the time then DSD ends up with far more than my DC do. I sometimes feel that if I’m putting my DSD first and so are her mum and dad then who is putting my DC first.
It comes down to individual circumstances a lot of the time though; how often you have DSC etc

@motogogo

It's fine for you and your parents but it's important that your partner their dad treats all his children equally. You taking your kids away alone is fine for instance but if dp comes all the kids should be invited in my opinion. We have invited all of ours away (adults) for instance

How does this equality work when the partner is a parent to all the children, but the SM only to some though? Do the younger children have to be treated like mum is a single mum when their half siblings aren't there because it'd be treating his children unequally if dad went out for lunch/on a trip/on holiday whatever? Do they only get to do nice things with mum and dad if the half siblings are there?

People often just say 'so long as their parent treats all their children equally' without actually thinking through what that means with some children there all the time and others more often not there.

For me it all comes down to making sure there's no obvious preference in front of the children themselves.

I wouldn't give my children preferential children in front of my SCs, like buying them a treat and not getting one for everyone. I'm not going to sit and play with or cuddle my own child while ignoring my SCs for the whole time they're here, or take my kid out somewhere fun and leave them at home with their dad if they wanted to come. But obviously those things will happen when my SCs aren't around.

I would hope my child would be secure enough that I love them and they are special to me that they wouldn't need me to demonstrate that by treating my SCs visibly differently (ie, worse). I wouldn't do that and wouldn't be happy if my child wanted that either tbh as it wouldn't really be very kind of them.

My DSD would probably never come here again if I insisted on cuddling her like I do my son. She knows who her mother is. She knows who her brothers mother is. It’s all very straightforward.
I would not and have not, however, left her behind when taking DS to the park or bought him a sweetie and not her. That’s just behaving like a decent person though - no need to act out the part of her mother.

@Youseethethingis

My DSD would probably never come here again if I insisted on cuddling her like I do my son. She knows who her mother is. She knows who her brothers mother is. It’s all very straightforward. I would not and have not, however, left her behind when taking DS to the park or bought him a sweetie and not her. That’s just behaving like a decent person though - no need to act out the part of her mother.

It would be odd to buy only one child an ice cream and not the other etc.

OTOH, I would (and have) taken my son out somewhere without the SC. He's much older than them and I'm not taking the SC because then the whole thing becomes centred around them or he doesn't get to go where he wants to because there's nothing for them to do. For example, he can't go bouldering at the local climbing centre because they wouldn't just sit in the cafe and wait (and they can't do it). Going swimming means the adults have to attend to the clingy non-swimmer SC in the baby pool/shallow end and it's not much fun for him. And so on.

Their father takes them out to do all sorts of things just the three of them all the time. Far more often than anyone else goes anywhere. Frankly, they're all welcome to the playpark as a group of three. It's not much fun for a 12 year old.

Because, as always, it's about the actual circumstances. No one is being horrible to the SC by leaving them with their father.

This is just mean!

It’s not uncommon, sadly.

@EnoughnowIthink

This is just mean!

It’s not uncommon, sadly.

Do you really think so? Surely most people would never do something like that to a child? (buy an ice cream for one and not the other because they're an SC since no quote!)

The only time I can see a similar scenario being relevant to many is maybe at Christmas where grandparents may have bought gifts/more gifts for their own grandchild than for their stepgrandchild because they just don't really know them as well and have either not got them anything or have given something as a token to open.

But I can't imagine many people would make a point of not buying sweets or an ice cream for a child just because they're not related to them? Surely.

@Youseethethingis

My DSD would probably never come here again if I insisted on cuddling her like I do my son. She knows who her mother is. She knows who her brothers mother is. It’s all very straightforward. I would not and have not, however, left her behind when taking DS to the park or bought him a sweetie and not her. That’s just behaving like a decent person though - no need to act out the part of her mother.

Oh definitely, totally agree.

I couldn't treat my SCs exactly as I would my own children because it just wouldn't even be appropriate. I let them come to me if they want a cuddle, I wouldn't feel right to go and do it myself, and I also don't tell them off or discipline them or nag them about table manners etc to the same extent I would my own kids. Some things just can't be the same.

@FishyFriday that’s just rubbish for you and your DC. Sorry but it is.
It’s why I refused to even entertain family number 2 with my exp (I’m not saying that to say you should have done the same but out of empathy for your situation). Fortunately I was able to get enough time to see the wood for the trees to see that for my exp, his Children were his North Star. What had driven that? The fact that they weren’t with him. When he talked about an ‘our’ DC I just deep down knew that there would be zero ‘equality’ between children.

What would happen is his world would continue to orientate around the NR children, and the one who was ‘lucky’ enough to live with him would get the scraps of when he had the time to spend with them.

There is no ‘equality’ with certain NR children and the NRP’s. So I would absolutely and unequivocally support a SM putting her child first.
This notion of ‘equality’ between NR children and resident children is rhetoric drummed up by mothers who want to ensure their children rule the roost in the fathers home.

The icecream example? That’s not even close to being about equality. It’s a stupid comment thrown in to undermine the thread. Any half decent human being (money issues aside) will happily buy all children in their care an icecream fgs. The only caveat being if the SC are rude and ungrateful in which case, they don’t deserve one.

Any half decent human being (money issues aside) will happily buy all children in their care an icecream fgs

Not all human beings are anywhere near decent though, are they? My ex’s last partner was pretty awful, she would stomp into the kitchen of a morning and make her child pancakes and stomp back out again. This was inspite of the fact my ex would give her child breakfast if she didn’t appear - and he got the same as my children. On days out she would disappear and return with drinks, ice creams and on one occasion, a whole picnic for her and her child and again, nothing for my children. I suspect, of course, that her behaviour was everything to do with some kind of disagreement with my ex (and she may not even have been unreasonable, I’ll never know!). But my children found it upsetting and really didn’t understand why they were being left out of what seemed to be nice treats for a child they were sharing their home with. . It happens.

@EnoughnowIthink I think (as you say) it’s hard to comment without knowing the dynamics of what was going on in that household. Of course it’s unfair on the children if they have no wider context.

I’m sure my exp could post a dozen stories about me and my ‘behaviour’ re his children on here that would make most people clean pass out from the trauma incited on this children.
His rhetoric however would not be based on the facts. The facts of the reality of trying to partner with a NRP whose whole world revolves around his children. Everyone was secondary to that.

Now I never went as far as to buy something for my children and return empty ended for his. I did however eventually tell him to not bring to them my home any longer. As I was sick to death of ‘masking’ the true reality of how I felt around him and his children. And I instead decided I would rather spend that time prioritising my own children who were basically far more important to me than his.

I’ll never prioritise another persons children over mine. And nor should anyone even expect that.

I never expected my exp to be ‘equal’ with his children and mine. Why should I? He’s not their father. The only adults required to do that are me and their father. Why then should all the children be ‘equal’ for me? It’s complete nonsense

No one says you have to treat your DC equally to your DSC - most parents would like them to be treated kindly.

I think this is an SM belief - the father of all the children does have to treat his children fairly and equitably.

It is indeed a sad world in which we live when the question of how should you treat a child can be subject of debate and disagreement. Parents should treat all of their children equitably.

Absent some extreme situation, all children should be treated with kindness.

I feel sad for people who think that they need some kind of feelings rating scale to justify their treatment or regard for the various children in their environment. That must be an unpleasant living environment if that kind of dialogue has a place in your household or personal experience.

@Tiredoftattler it’s a sad world? Why?
Your post makes absolutely no sense to me and it feels like it’s designed to make people who have this debate feel ashamed of themselves. Specifically stepmums.

Unless you have lived with the dynamic of a NRP doing the red carpet/ pedestal EOW treatment of their children, you have no insight as to how stressful (and confusing/ disorientating) it is to deal with that. That behaviour in itself removes ‘equality’ as resident children become the second class citizens and the whole family/ home is expected (by the NRP) to pivot to cater for the poor poor children who are only there for 2 or 3 days. As soon as that dynamic arrives, any sense of ‘equal’ is removed. There are multiple threads on here re resident children being disciplined/ mucking in with chores/ being part of normal/ mundane family life. Then the NR children arrive and every weekend is like HRM visiting as they are waited on hand and foot and not expected to

Yes it may be sad that these conversations have to be had, but they need to be had. It’s the reality for a lot of step parents and they have every right to say ‘enough’ I don’t want (as society seems to expect me to say/ do) for me to treat all the children ‘equally’. Because the whole dynamic of some NRP (their exes) removes any chance of ‘equal’.

So I think it’s good it’s being discussed. I think more SM’s should not put pressure on themselves to treat everyone ‘equally’. Be kind, be fair, be welcoming. Beyond that, just as the NRP prioritises ‘their’ child, crack on and prioritise your own.