AIBU to just have a photo shoot of one child?

[AnotherAwkwardPost]

For context, this is for DD who is having a newborn photo shoot which I am paying for 100% myself.

I want to have only photos of DD at the session and not DSS as he has already had newborn photos, the session is 4-6 hours so will have to battle to keep DSS entertained and the photographer only does sibling photos at special request for an additional cost, which I have not budgeted for.

AIBU to want this, I am paying for everything at the end of the day.

Didnt think I'd have to justify my finances, we have a joint account for bills and whatever is leftover we half so we can have our own money to spend it on stuff we want to spend on, it's important for me to have some financial independence.

Nothing wrong with your wish for newborn photos, OP.

This is a great opportunity to discuss with your DH that DD and your DSS do not have to do or have the same thing every single time in the coming months and years.

Op I think you are being intentionally wound up by the first wives club. They have a mantra that effectively means that as a first time mum you are absolutely forbidden from any first time mum activity . You may not enjoy your child (and your parents first grandchild) in a way that you would have done if your DH hadn't had a previous child.

This is of course mean, mealy mouthed, bollox. Your only duty to your husbands child is to be as inclusive as possible. Be kind. However do not be a dogs body. Your DSS care does not default to you because you are female. Care of your DSS is the duty of his father and his mother.

Go to your NEWBORN photo shoot with your NEWBORN. Your DSS should be with your husband or his mother at this time. Please don't miss out on the joy of first time motherhood. Your DH ex was afforded this. You are a second wife not second class.

It's a shame someone has made you question this. Not in a million years are you being unreasonable, just do it and ignore anyone who whinges x

@aSofaNearYou

Rather more to the point, given that the OP and her partner have a baby together: why do they have separate finances? Why aren't they a (step)family?

Lots of people in all manner of families have separate finances.

Fair enough. However, I think it gives a very clear message that you're not really a unit. I also think that it's women with children who tend to draw the short straw, as they're likely to earn less so will have less disposable cash to spend on themselves.

My XH was a bad person, but we did at least share everything, and we did get married. The latter saved my financial bacon 20 years later.

@TheQueenOfProcrastination
A message to whom? OP has stated they simply split equally whatever is left after bills. So the message I'm getting is that they honour their joint responsibilities as a unit then their discretionary spending is up to them as individual human beings to decide upon.

The last I will say on the matter, thank you for all the people who have given nice and pleasant responses.

Re the people who disagree with me, that's fine it's your opinion we are both different.

Re finances, me and DP put money in to one pot for the bills and the leftover we keep for ourselves, at the end of the day DP pays maintenance and childcare for DSS and doesn't want that coming out of my money which I agree with. We each want to have Atleast some financial independence and it's not uncommon at all, everybody I know who has a house together does this! I luckily am paid my full wage on maternity so I don't have to rely on DHs wage and the way we work it has worked really well for us.

@Stripedfrenchfancies

Book on A day you don’t have dss! Problem Solved :)

Until he sees the photos...

Until he sees the photos..

Heaven forbid he sees a few photos he isn't in beside the many photos he is in!

@KalvinPhillipsManBun

Already creating a divide between the two siblings is wrong. You decided to have a baby knowing your partner already had a child, include everyone or not at all.

It's a NEWBORN shoot. The clue is in the name. Better take DH along too OP as he can't be left out! The family dog, your parents, grandparents, fuck it just bring everyone.

It's a shoot for a newborn ffs. It's intended for the newborn, not the whole family. Even OP isn't getting in the photos.

Will DSS even care? My DSC wouldn't give a toss and would likely be thanking me for not expecting them to endure such a thing.

Until he sees the photos..

BREAKING NEWS - CHILD SEES A PHOTO OF THEIR SIBLING IN WHICH THEY DONT, NOR ANYONE ELSE, FEATURE.

(cue bloodcurdling screams, maybe a few explosions, and general end of the world chaos)

Fair enough. However, I think it gives a very clear message that you're not really a unit. I also think that it's women with children who tend to draw the short straw, as they're likely to earn less so will have less disposable cash to spend on themselves

It depends on the marriage doesn't it?

Like OP, some form of financial independence is very important to me. I have been abused financially in the past and, even though DH isn't the type of course, it meant having access to my own money was a priority for me.

I haven't drawn any short straws. I earn less than DH and likely always will. We have a joint account for bills and separate accounts for spending money however as my husband isn't a twat, we get the same amount of disposable income into our sole accounts each month. Basically we pool it together, pay bills, savings etc, then split it 50:50. He doesn't get thousands whilst I have twenty quid. It's very much joint money in that sense, we just have it in separate bank accounts.

I like it, it's good for buying presents too, especially since NatWest send you a bloody phone notification now saying what you've spent and where every time you buy something.

@AnotherAwkwardPost

Re the 4-6 hours, the photographer has advised this is how long it usually takes for other clients and they have facilities for feeding, changing etc also in the 4-6 hours has factored time for a break that's why it's that amount of time.

She is a popular photographer who has photographed footballers babies so I'm sure she knows what she is doing. I've only ever had school photos myself so no clue how long these things take!

'Footballers babies'

I'm howling

@aSofaNearYou Glad you've got it sorted OP, but why on Earth were so many people assuming she was planning to do it when DSS was there? There was nothing to suggest that

Except it says in the actual opening statement of the entire thread the session is 4-6 hours so will have to battle to keep DSS entertained seriously rtf or at least the first couple of paragraphs.

[quote eveningbubble]**@aSofaNearYou* Glad you've got it sorted OP, but why on Earth were so many people assuming she was planning to do it when DSS was there? There was nothing to suggest that*

Except it says in the actual opening statement of the entire thread the session is 4-6 hours so will have to battle to keep DSS entertained seriously rtf or at least the first couple of paragraphs.[/quote]
I did read the OP. Within context it sounded to me like OP meant IF he came it would be a struggle to keep him entertained, as a reason not to.

Have you considered that perhaps you need to read it better?

The only thing I find odd is that your dp isn’t paying anything towards photos of his new baby.. Of course you can have photos of her without the older sibling.

This is a newborn photo shoot. That means the pictures will be of the newborn baby funnily enough. DSS had his own done when he was a baby, which I bet his mother was heavily involved in arranging and was excited about. OP should have the same enjoyment and have some lovely photos of JUST her baby.

There are sibling shoots available. Her DH could always pay for one of those.

And shock horror about DSS seeing the photos. He probably won’t even care.

I'm not sure the 'step' bit is even relevant here. If OP had said: 'I've just had a second baby and want some pictures of him/her without their sibling (who incidentally had their own newborn pictures done a few years ago)' would anyone think that was unreasonable? And if not, does it only become unreasonable because it is a stepchild involved not another biological child?

And what about when the 2 children are older? I have individual school photos of my DC which only have 1 child in because, you know, they went to different schools. Should I have refused to allow this? The whole thing becomes ridiculous.

@thing47

I'm not sure the 'step' bit is even relevant here. If OP had said: 'I've just had a second baby and want some pictures of him/her without their sibling (who incidentally had their own newborn pictures done a few years ago)' would anyone think that was unreasonable? And if not, does it only become unreasonable because it is a stepchild involved not another biological child?

And what about when the 2 children are older? I have individual school photos of my DC which only have 1 child in because, you know, they went to different schools. Should I have refused to allow this? The whole thing becomes ridiculous.

Absolutely this !

The annoying and completely unreasonable assumption that all kids need to be treated the same is bollox. It doesn't happen in non step families so why should it in a step. ?

When my and DH dd was 2 we went to Spain for a week because my mother had a breast cancer op out there (where she lived) . DH daughter aged 5 stayed with her mum because she was at school and didn't know my mother having only met her at our wedding. DH ex also offered as she is a normal human being.

So far. 24 years later Dsd does not appear to be suffering any trauma from missing out. (Dad and I also took her to centre parcs without her toddler sister who would have been annoying. We parked her with my in laws...

The type of poster who insists on this 'equal treatment at all costs' smack of meanness . Having enjoyed all the 'firsts' and 'newborn' experiences with their own child/children they want to justify the denial of that for their ex husbands new wife. It's not a competition.

You don't need to be equal. You need to be fair.

I think you’re being ripped off by the photographer.
You’re paying for the photographers time, so you get to call the shots of how that time is used. I’d have some time with both children then dh can take his child out and you can do the rest with the baby.

DSC will not explode when they see photos without them in it. As long as there are photos of them with their parent I don't see what the issue is. It's the adults making a big deal about things that will lead to it being an issue.

@Soontobe60

I think you’re being ripped off by the photographer. You’re paying for the photographers time, so you get to call the shots of how that time is used. I’d have some time with both children then dh can take his child out and you can do the rest with the baby.

That's not how hiring a professional that offers a specific service works.

@FleaBagLarry

Until he sees the photos..

BREAKING NEWS - CHILD SEES A PHOTO OF THEIR SIBLING IN WHICH THEY DONT, NOR ANYONE ELSE, FEATURE.

(cue bloodcurdling screams, maybe a few explosions, and general end of the world chaos)

Hahaha

Go for the photoshoot!

If its going to take so long though do it on a day you don't have dss or get dh to go do something nice with dss while you go on the shoot

YANBU your paying for the photos so you decide who's in them your allowed to want photos of just her