Going on holiday

[LuckyGrace]

We can never afford to go away during the school holidays all of us together. We have one DC under school age and my husband has 2 older DC.

Are we unreasonable to go away when DSC are away with their mother? The past few years we have done this, when we know when DSC go away, we will book something for the same week so contact isn't affected.

He didn't want to. He wouldn't have organised one for LO. I did.

My LO isn't missing out cos her dad can't be bothered to organise her a birthday party.

Ah yes I misread it sorry, thought it was your dp moaning not his ex

@SpaceshiptoMars we also experienced hardships, my mum had to work 2 jobs to provide the bare minimum for myself and my 2 sisters (dear old dad was too busy with the new fam to help support)
The holiday thing was just one small example of how our relationship broke down. It's where it always starts. They prioritise their new family over their other children.

But @converseandjeans your "solution" means that the older kids will get say 1 X abroad hol with mum per year and 1 X UK holiday with dad, but the younger kids will only ever get 1 X UK holiday with both parents and never get the chance to go abroad in the name of "fairness" for the older kids

The children concerned have 2 different sets of parents with different financial circumstances. They will never have the exact same opportunities. Plenty of threads on here say ‘tough’ when it comes to mum being the one who is financially disadvantaged.

I think people overestimate how much kids are bothered by which parent they go on holiday with, rather than the fact they get to go t all

I think you under estimate the impact of missing a so-called ‘family’ holiday on non-resident children. Just about all the comments see this as a purely financial issue. And whilst I understand you can’t magic money out of thin air, ignoring the potential emotional impact on non- resident children is nothing short of abuse. All children want to feel their parent views them equally with their younger siblings. Doesn’t matter how pragmatic they are and understanding of 2 holidays vs no holidays, they are still being excluded from important family time.

There are no easy answers but it pains me that in pursuit of the best thing for younger children, the older ones are dismissed as spoilt, money-grabbing or anything else just because they might like to spend that same quality time with dad.

Surely if you believe that kids don't get damage as long as things re explained to them, younger kids won't be affected by having less total holidays then their siblings?

So you expect the older children to develop some pragmatism and understand they can’t always be part of the family because they are also part of another one, but the resident younger child doesn’t need to develop that same pragmatism and understand that he is part of a larger family that requires fair treatment even if those family members can’t be present all the time?

The children concerned have 2 different sets of parents with different financial circumstances. They will never have the exact same opportunities. Plenty of threads on here say ‘tough’ when it comes to mum being the one who is financially disadvantaged.

But what you're saying is its okay for the second children to be worse off but not the first kids.

I think you under estimate the impact of missing a so-called ‘family’ holiday on non-resident children

No, I'm not.

Just about all the comments see this as a purely financial issue. And whilst I understand you can’t magic money out of thin air, ignoring the potential emotional impact on non- resident children is nothing short of abuse. All children want to feel their parent views them equally with their younger siblings. Doesn’t matter how pragmatic they are and understanding of 2 holidays vs no holidays, they are still being excluded from important family time

Nobody is ignoring the emotional impact, we just don't agree that it's as severe as you think it is. All children want to feel their parent views them equally to their older sibling, too. And so often resident children actually get far less real quality time than non resident children do, and apparently that's totally fine because their parents are together. They're not being "excluded" at all, and again, family time comes in all different shapes and sizes and they'll get time with dad that the resident children don't. Swings and roundabouts.

There are no easy answers but it pains me that in pursuit of the best thing for younger children, the older ones are dismissed as spoilt, money-grabbing or anything else just because they might like to spend that same quality time with dad

That's just pure bollocks. Nobody is dismissing anyone as spoilt or money grabbing, I think the only person using those words is you

@Getawaywithit

Surely if you believe that kids don't get damage as long as things re explained to them, younger kids won't be affected by having less total holidays then their siblings?

So you expect the older children to develop some pragmatism and understand they can’t always be part of the family because they are also part of another one, but the resident younger child doesn’t need to develop that same pragmatism and understand that he is part of a larger family that requires fair treatment even if those family members can’t be present all the time?

It's not fair treatment is it?

All children having one holiday is fair.

One set of children having two and the other having one is unfair.

My child understands dss gets more at birthdays Christmas etc because he has a mum, he understands that he gets to go on hol with his mum and obv Ds can't go and we explain it to him but it's not fair.

Like fuck would I sacrifice his only holiday because dss couldn't go, if dss was already on holiday with his other parent. In what world is that ever fair?

It's like you think first kids can't be disadvantaged but second kids can. Why is that?

Gosh I wish it was as simple as children just wanting a holiday 🤷🏼‍♀️

@Getawaywithit

Surely if you believe that kids don't get damage as long as things re explained to them, younger kids won't be affected by having less total holidays then their siblings?

So you expect the older children to develop some pragmatism and understand they can’t always be part of the family because they are also part of another one, but the resident younger child doesn’t need to develop that same pragmatism and understand that he is part of a larger family that requires fair treatment even if those family members can’t be present all the time?

The younger one does have to understand there needs to be fair treatment but I think the issue here is what is fair.

"I think people overestimate how much kids are bothered by which parent they go on holiday with, rather than the fact they get to go to all*

I don't think they underestimate at all. It's pretty obvious. Even the PP trying to gain this angle, said she'd asked her teenage son, who'd replied "to be honest it's about the holiday itself, not which one of you took me.". For 99% of children, this is the reality.

But you can't be a martyr and convince your children they are victims if you admit that. And that doesn't suit the woman scorned's narrative.

They don't have to be concerned about the resident child (quite the contrary, they often love it if this child is disadvantaged because of their antics) but it takes a pretty shitty mother to sell it to their own children that they aren't as loved as their siblings, just so they can hope their own child develops the bitterness towards the father that matches hers. And again as PP say, it's frequent.

I think it's very telling when people think younger children's lives are not compromised by the dad having older kids, as demonstrated by the last few comments
I never implied that younger children didn't have to make compromises, they certainly do in other ways. I just pointed how quick SMs are to talk about the compromises the elder kids should accept. One big difference is that the older kids are made fully aware of these compromises because of what they used to have and now don't. Younger children don't know any different, they've always lived with these compromises. It is their normality and always have been. There is no adjustment.

Sofa, you insist that you don't know any kids who care when their father go away on holidays without them. I don't know how many separated children or adults who were in this situation, but I got to know many in my life (as a child of separated parents myself, and then befriending single parents, and now with older children with friends whose parents separated), and all that I know to whom it happened have been affected one way or the other. Again, we are not talking about a long weekend away, or even a standard week away in their life, but fathers who went away every year without them, or on very exotic/fun holidays without them, only taking them on cheap holidays. This was usually only one example of how they dad showed them that they were low on his priority list compared to the new family.

In the end, only time will tell whether it was ok or not. In most cases, it will be. In some, it might come to bite dad in later years just like it did with my ex. They will be the one who will be left with the consequences. It's up to the dad to decide what is right for all his children and deals with the outcome of his decisions.

@vivainsomnia

I think it's very telling when people think younger children's lives are not compromised by the dad having older kids, as demonstrated by the last few comments I never implied that younger children didn't have to make compromises, they certainly do in other ways. I just pointed how quick SMs are to talk about the compromises the elder kids should accept. One big difference is that the older kids are made fully aware of these compromises because of what they used to have and now don't. Younger children don't know any different, they've always lived with these compromises. It is their normality and always have been. There is no adjustment.

Sofa, you insist that you don't know any kids who care when their father go away on holidays without them. I don't know how many separated children or adults who were in this situation, but I got to know many in my life (as a child of separated parents myself, and then befriending single parents, and now with older children with friends whose parents separated), and all that I know to whom it happened have been affected one way or the other. Again, we are not talking about a long weekend away, or even a standard week away in their life, but fathers who went away every year without them, or on very exotic/fun holidays without them, only taking them on cheap holidays. This was usually only one example of how they dad showed them that they were low on his priority list compared to the new family.

In the end, only time will tell whether it was ok or not. In most cases, it will be. In some, it might come to bite dad in later years just like it did with my ex. They will be the one who will be left with the consequences. It's up to the dad to decide what is right for all his children and deals with the outcome of his decisions.

Do you think SMs think they older kids should accept compromise because everyone else in the situation including the younger kids has to as well?

I don't think the fact they didn't have to compromise previously is a good enough reason for them not to have to compromise. I say that as a step child myself, btw.

You seem happy that your kids dislike your ex.

Where does Viva sound pleased?

your "solution" means that the older kids will get say 1 X abroad hol with mum per year and 1 X UK holiday with dad, but the younger kids will only ever get 1 X UK holiday with both parents and never get the chance to go abroad in the name of "fairness" for the older kids
This I really don't get. Why does it matter what they do with their mum? What if the SCs never got to go with mum or her family. Your children however get to go twice a year with your parents? Would you think it was fair that your OH took his elder kids only on holiday, twice a year, without his youngest, so that they all had the same number of holidays at the end of the year? I very much doubt SMs would be happy with this scenario. And indeed, it would be ridiculous and unfair to the younger child to miss out on a holiday with their dad.

You seem happy that your kids dislike your ex.

And that's what truly drives this. Not the children who genuinely don't give a rat's arse.

@howtodealwithit

Where does Viva sound pleased?

Where she says it might come back to bite etc

You seem happy that your kids dislike your ex
Where did I say they dislike her, let alone that I am happy? If it wasn't a term I hate, I would say that you are projecting!!

They don't dislike her at all. The youngest is neutral towards her. It's their dad they have an issue with. The eldest gets along well with her SM. I like her. Not to start with, but as the years went on. She has been a better role model than their dad.

Why does it matter what they do with their mum? What if the SCs never got to go with mum or her family

Because the children are the same children. They aren't two different people at mum and dad's house they get to experience a holiday. This means it doesn't matter as much that the younger child gets to experience a holiday.

If you didn't consider what they do with mum then where do you draw the line?

One of my SDC has lessons for a hobby when she's with her mum, there's no need for that to be duplicated when she is with her dad, even if my LO later takes up the hobby.

If SC never got to go out with their mum then that changes things, but again if dad only sees the SDC 50% of the time then they should have at least 50% of a family holiday, so every 2 years they should be included really.

@vivainsomnia

your "solution" means that the older kids will get say 1 X abroad hol with mum per year and 1 X UK holiday with dad, but the younger kids will only ever get 1 X UK holiday with both parents and never get the chance to go abroad in the name of "fairness" for the older kids This I really don't get. Why does it matter what they do with their mum? What if the SCs never got to go with mum or her family. Your children however get to go twice a year with your parents? Would you think it was fair that your OH took his elder kids only on holiday, twice a year, without his youngest, so that they all had the same number of holidays at the end of the year? I very much doubt SMs would be happy with this scenario. And indeed, it would be ridiculous and unfair to the younger child to miss out on a holiday with their dad.

Of course it matters.

You're not honestly telling me you'd be able to sit and explain to your child that, sorry we can't go on holiday again this year because we can't afford to take your two teenage siblings in school holidays so we're going nowhere at all. And then your child says but my two teenage siblings went to X y and z place with their mum (because they will know if they have any interaction with the older kids) and you're gonna go yes that's right, sorry.

Its not fair, we all know it's not fair but because it's a resident child well tough shit.

With your below scenario I would think it wasn't fair and I would take the kids away if we could afford it, but it would be down to their actual parents to facilitate it and not me. However in years gone by dss didn't go anywhere with his mum and we did shell out to go in school hols and take him when we otherwise would have had a cheapo term time hol. But if my parents wanted to take ds away I wouldn't stop them.

We all put out own children first and that's natural, but what you seem to think should happen is everyone puts the first kids first and nobody puts the second kids first.

@vivainsomnia

You seem happy that your kids dislike your ex Where did I say they dislike her, let alone that I am happy? If it wasn't a term I hate, I would say that you are projecting!!

They don't dislike her at all. The youngest is neutral towards her. It's their dad they have an issue with. The eldest gets along well with her SM. I like her. Not to start with, but as the years went on. She has been a better role model than their dad.

I said your ex, so their dad, no?

What if the SCs never got to go with mum or her family.

Gaaaaargh that's a completely different scenario. The whole point is that they are not going to give it a second thought because they're on holiday with their mother at the exactly the same time.

OPs thread is not "SC have never had a holiday. It's cheaper for us not to take them, so we won't. That's ok, yeah?"

@TwinsandTrifle

What if the SCs never got to go with mum or her family.

Gaaaaargh that's a completely different scenario. The whole point is that they are not going to give it a second thought because they're on holiday with their mother at the exactly the same time.

OPs thread is not "SC have never had a holiday. It's cheaper for us not to take them, so we won't. That's ok, yeah?"

Exactly, if the SC never had a holiday that is a whole different kettle of fish

If it's a money issue Is it at all possible that the older children's mother give back the children's maintenance money for the week or however long the older children would be on holiday for to help pay for food and or flights (as she won't be looking after the children at that time, or feeding them etc) ?

@BigGooseyLucy

If it's a money issue Is it at all possible that the older children's mother give back the children's maintenance money for the week or however long the older children would be on holiday for to help pay for food and or flights (as she won't be looking after the children at that time, or feeding them etc) ?

This made me laugh out loud.

If we'd have asked dps ex that I think she would have burst into flames. She didn't even give ds any spending money let alone anything else for "extra" time we had him.