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.

Depends how you look at it. One child gets a holiday with both parents. The other two get to spend time with mum only

But that is the nature of having separated parents. It is not ideal for children and I don't think it's fair for OP DH to have to replicate that for his youngest child unnecessarily purely because his older 2 are in that situation.

@ChickpeaCrunch

If mum doesn't care enough about her kids spending time with both parents on holiday enough to invite dad on their holiday then why should the stepmum care about not inviting them?

Loooool that's a bit of a reach! Who would expect someone to invite their married ex on holiday?!

Well then it's obviously not absolutely crucial for the stepkids to have a holiday with both their parents as they don't live together. Why then should it be crucial for the stepkids to go on holiday with their stepmum and dad?! They are having a holiday with one parent and just have to accept they are children of divorced parents.

(Loooool)

@ChickpeaCrunch

Well then it's obviously not absolutely crucial for the stepkids to have a holiday with both their parents as they don't live together. Why then should it be crucial for the stepkids to go on holiday with their stepmum and dad?! They are having a holiday with one parent and just have to accept they are children of divorced parents.

Agree! Obviously a holiday with both parents shouldn't be taken away from a child whose parents are together just because that's the case for their old siblings. Ridiculous that people think that's a good idea.

Children are able to understand that different people have different budgets and enjoy and be grateful regardless. At least, that is how I have tried to bring mine up
Yet the same children could not possibly be expected to understand to understand Dad not being able to afford a holiday for 3 kids during term time? Can't possibly understand that in that case it's fair that everyone just gets one holiday rather than one missing a holiday one year to pay for them to go twice the next year?

@Youseethethingis. Multiple times I have said the issue, for me at least, is about quality time as a family and not being part of that. I fully understand the issue of holiday/no holiday for the resident child and the arguments for why he/she shouldn’t miss out. Sure, children can understand ‘dad can’t afford’ but I’m not sure that cuts it year after year if nothing else is put in place for the step children to get that time. There are ways that can be tackled but the argument for resident child having exactly the same number of holidays as the step children ignores that. Children know when they are being marginalised or side lined in a family. This is not only about everyone getting a holiday. Unfortunately, it seems many people here are unable to see that bigger picture.

I have just been talking about this with my now 18 year old. He is pretty much of the ilk that it wouldn’t have bothered him much, but only because he sees the holiday rather than the time and family. When we discussed it in terms of time and family, he was more upset about the idea of missing out. He was also of the opinion that my youngest (now 12) would have really struggled with it but that his other sibling (now 16) would have done anything at all to avoid spending time with his dad like that! So a mixed bag. It is an interesting discussion and clearly there are no rights and wrongs.

The bigger picture is that the older children are no longer a part of one single family unit. They can no longer be present for everything with both parents or live with both parents, and attempts to behave as if that isn't true inevitably leads to knock on effects and other things being thrown out of balance. You can't pretend their parents never split up, because they did and that's the bottom line. Taking away opportunity for the younger child doesn't change this, it just takes away opportunity from the younger child.
In OPs case, the best is being made of things. They aren't "leaving them behind" or going somewhere lavish while the older kids are stuck at home with mum. The only thing is their dad is getting a holiday too. And whether he gets a holiday paid for by his wife doesn't change the fact that he can't afford to pay for all the kids. So creating equality there just means taking the opportunity for a holiday with dad away from the younger child while not actually changing a thing with regards to the older children.
We could go round and round all night trying to square a circle.

A parent's obligation to provide for all of his or child is in no way tied to the person to whom he or she is married, lives with , or simply hooks up, Those are all mutable relationships that can and in many instances do change with some degree of frequency. The obligation to the child is fixed and does not change

If the dad describes and designates something as a family vacation then he should take all of his children with him on vacation. His obligation to his children are separate and apart from the mother's obligation to provide for her children. Children of different ages can and do find different activities on a family vacation. Generally a well chosen location offers a variety of age range activities.

The need to engage in a variety of activities and have a variety of experiences with each of your parents does not disappear when your family is no longer intact. The parents have the same obligations to provide the best quality of life regardless of the status of the parental relationship.

If the dad describes and designates something as a family vacation then he should take all of his children with him on vacation. ok, so dad just has to make sure he never calls it a family vacation and it's all fine then.

@Youseethethingis makes a really good point, it's all about the bigger picture and everyone accepting that the DSC don't have parents who are together so they are going to miss out on things and that is ok as they are going to experience life with one or other of their parents at the time.

@Youseethethingis. Where did I say opportunities should be removed from the younger child?

You are trying desperately to find a way where it’s OK for the younger child to get a holiday whilst ignoring the emotional needs of the older children. The issue could be solved in a variety of ways from considering a wider range of options (cheaper hotel or airline, caravan rather than cottage), taking a shorter holiday or going on holiday less frequently. Instead, you prefer the older children to be left out entirely and to hell with the consequences for those children.

You are trying desperately to find a way where it’s OK for the younger child to get a holiday whilst ignoring the emotional needs of the older children

It is ok for the younger child to get a holiday. The DSC miss out on things all the time, this is just another one of those things.

And if it bothered their parents that much they should have considered it when they split up

And if it bothered their parents that much they should have considered it when they split up

Wow.

I think you're being really unfair. Once yes but to go on holiday several times without dsc is giving them a clear message that they aren't as important. What kind of dad thinks this is acceptable

@ChickpeaCrunch
Kids do not have to misupport t on most things. They simply do those things with mom and dad on separate occasions. A parent does not get to opt out of experiences simply because the other parent in meeting the obligation to provide experiences.

In this situation, it seems that perhaps that this man has more children than he is prepared to adequately support. I say this because the implication is that not only can he not take his children on a vacation, but he has to rely on his partner to fund his vacation.

Certainly, he can choose to call it something other than a family vacation, but his children will always know that a vacation was something that dad took for himself and with their younger brother but never felt that it was an experience that he should have with them.

The lessons that their may take away are that: some men selectively provide experiences for some of their children, some men think that certain positive experiences should be only provided to the children of the woman with whom they are currently involved, some men have more children than they can equitably support, and some men are so me centered that they put their personal enjoyment ahead of the good decision making for their children.

No matter how you slice it, the OP has a family of 3 but her husband has a family of five. It is a good thing that these children have at least 1 parent who treats them like family.

@ChickpeaCrunch

And if it bothered their parents that much they should have considered it when they split up

Pretty low

The issue could be solved in a variety of ways from considering a wider range of options (cheaper hotel or airline, caravan rather than cottage), taking a shorter holiday or going on holiday less frequently
All of those things take away from the younger child, the SM and and the dad too. Meanwhile SCs mum can carry on as she likes so they won't be getting shorter/shitter/absent altogether holidays. So you have created more inequalities than you have solved, which was my main point.
Instead, you prefer the older children to be left out entirely and to hell with the consequences for those children
No, I'd prefer it if that Dad was able to afford to take all his children away together and failing that I'd prefer it if his relationship with his children and ex overall was such that his children understood that their younger sibling deserves a nice holiday just like they do and this was how das could manage it, rather than packing an emotional bag to carry for the rest of their days.

Ultimately, a SM has no responsibility to ensure her SCs happiness and bonding with their father and she certainly doesn't have to want to spend her holiday with them.

The issue is the father. The man who has more than 1 child, who he should love equally and should want to spend time with them all. My father would have never ever agreed to go on a special holiday with my SM and their DD without me, or certainly not if that was the main family holiday, purely because HE wouldn't have enjoyed as much without me. It was just non negotiable.

What resident parent would be happy to go with one child and leave the other one behind? Surely it is the same than when it comes to giving money, the same unfairness when a parent gives a deposit for one child for their house but not the other because the other has a better job and enough money of their own for a deposit. Same rationale, they get it from elsewhere so they don't have to some.

Can you imagine a dad saying that he's going to leave his inheritance to his elder kids only because the youngest one will get more from their mum's side of the holiday, so it doesn't have to be shar equally. I bet the tone of the thread would be very different, posters would say how a dad should treat all his kids the same regardless or what they get from another source.

The reality is that any parent happy to go on a nice holiday with only one set of children is either a dad who has bonding issues with his other kids or one who is under the thumb of his new partner, knowing he is doing wrong, but to weak to challenge them.

@Willyoujustbequiet

I think you're being really unfair. Once yes but to go on holiday several times without dsc is giving them a clear message that they aren't as important. What kind of dad thinks this is acceptable

Sadly, it seems a common occurrence after a spoilt and a new partner and children come onto the scene. I know many adults who have very little to do with the NRP as adults due to treatment like this.

No, I'd prefer it if that Dad was able to afford to take all his children away together and failing that I'd prefer it if his relationship with his children and ex overall was such that his children understood that their younger sibling deserves a nice holiday just like they do and this was how das could manage it, rather than packing an emotional bag to carry for the rest of their days
How about your children understanding how lucky they are to live with both their parents, to enjoy seeing them every day, and share only one home with only one set of rules, and therefore can appreciate that spending a less fancy holiday, so that these children get to share special moments with their dad too is more than a fair compromise.

When I read these threads, I so understand why there are also regular threads on AIBU where posters say they stopped having any contact with their dad as soon as they could because they clearly favoured the new family. Ultimately, the SM gets what she wants, and the dad is left feeling sorry for himself not understanding why his eldest kids can't be bothered to see him any longer, which of course, then turns into 'my kids are selfish brats, brainwashed by their mother' because that excuse is more easy to live with them than accept that they were just a shit dad.

[quote Getawaywithit]@Youseethethingis. Where did I say opportunities should be removed from the younger child?

You are trying desperately to find a way where it’s OK for the younger child to get a holiday whilst ignoring the emotional needs of the older children. The issue could be solved in a variety of ways from considering a wider range of options (cheaper hotel or airline, caravan rather than cottage), taking a shorter holiday or going on holiday less frequently. Instead, you prefer the older children to be left out entirely and to hell with the consequences for those children.[/quote]
Look, since the thread is about not being able to afford to take them, I'm going by the assumption that money is so tight that the ONLY way a holiday abroad could be taken, is if it did not include SC, not that they are taking first class flights or staying in a 5 star hotel so could easily afford to take them if they just tweaked at their luxury level.

This is not a dissimilar situation to my actual life. Mine and DPs lives are deeply enmeshed together, we live together, work together, feel the brunt of every financial decision together, scrimp and save together. I am a human being too and I do not do all those things in order to only ever stay in caravans, tents, or 1 star hotels (which is the only level down from what we could actually afford by going term time without DSC, the holiday we booked would already be cheap). I'm sorry but that's just not going to happen. Getting into a relationship with somebody new as a parent when you are not rich enough to pay for your kid to go anywhere, often practically means you might be confronted with the limit of how much sacrifice you can reasonably expect the other person to make just to ensure your kids don't feel upset.

I notice that almost all of the comments people are leaving are precluding a situation where the SC never gets taken away, and the rest of the family goes every year, which is not what anyone is advocating. But as a step mum and mum to a younger child there is just no way that we would pass up on what would be a rare opportunity to go on holiday, and condemn myself and my daughter to only caravans and tents because my DP can't afford the extra for DSS. Especially knowing he had those experiences elsewhere, but really regardless of that. Yes I'm aware in an ideal world it would be lovely for him to go with DP too. But if that can't happen, I'm not going to declare that me and DD will never have that experience, either. A decision would have to be made, and we would do our best to ensure DSS either understood, or wasn't impacted at all. He's never really been aware of what we do when he isn't around.

How about your children understanding how lucky they are to live with both their parents, to enjoy seeing them every day, and share only one home with only one set of rules, and therefore can appreciate that spending a less fancy holiday, so that these children get to share special moments with their dad too is more than a fair compromise.

Why do people insist on assuming people are talking about holidays so luxurious that they could easily bring two more people along if they just dialed down the luxury level?

My father would have never ever agreed to go on a special holiday with my SM and their DD without me, or certainly not if that was the main family holiday, purely because HE wouldn't have enjoyed as much without me. It was just non negotiable. What resident parent would be happy to go with one child and leave the other one behind?

My DP would rather go with one child, and actually more crucially, get to go himself and go with me, than not go at all. Regardless of whether he'd enjoy it "as much", taking both wouldn't be an option in this scenario so he would take what he could get rather than stubbornly expect his DP and younger child to not get to go anywhere. He would do it outside of contact time with DSS and in the knowledge that he never asks a single question about what we get up to when he isn't there so he very likely wouldn't even need to know about it.

I really wonder what SMs who insist that fairness is about equal treatment across the two families woul think of my circumstances. My dad married my SM when I was 6yo. She had a 3yo DD. My dad adopted her a year later.

My SM didn't work and then only PT so my dad was the sole provider. My SM's family was very rich. She was an only child so she received a large amount when they passed away. My sister will get everything when she dies. My sister also got a nice trust fund when she turned 21. That allowed her to buy a property outright. I however had to raise the fund myself and never received any help, even as a single mum. My mum doesn't have much to give away and that will be shared with my two siblings.

So if we were to apply the same rationale than many believe is right here, that the kids should all balance out, have the same opportunities wherever which family these come from, it would only be fair that my dad left everything to me only, since my sister is already sitting on a fortune and leave her out of his will?

I can just imagine if my sister was to post this scenario here. There would be uproar at how unfair this would be, how dad should be treating all his children equally regardless of the maternal financial situation.

This is why I get annoyed with these threads. It is so biased against the SCs no matter what angle it comes from with the use of whichever justification suits the situation.