So upset by something H said tonight.

[HighDowny]

I'm so pissed off and upset at something H said this evening.

I'll try to cut a longer story short... We have 1 DS together who is 2 and my husband has two older children.

My son's birthday is coming up in 2 weeks. It was my step sons birthday a week ago.

For reasons I won't go into in depth here, we have separate bank accounts.

I asked H tonight if he could send me some money towards DS's present and a little family party we are having (just some food with family but we've got a cake ordered and some balloons so going to be about £100).

Anyway he said he didn't have the money and he was already in his overdraft. We got into a bit of an argument (money is and splitting of it is a bit of a sore subject) and he said "I guess if you can't afford it you can't do it" meaning because I arranged the party I can pay for it all or not do it if I can't.

I am so upset about this. The reason being he is only in his bloody overdraft because he completely overspent on DSS's birthday the other week (yes Inc for a party!).

How fucking hypocritical can you be? I'm so hurt for DS that his own father would be like that over him having a small party and present for his birthday "if you can't afford it don't do it". It's not even costing half what DSS's extravaganza cost.

I will sort it because I won't allow my son to go without but I'm so fucking pissed at him and the blatant favouritism in that statement.

Maybe if he couldn't afford to pay toward both his children's birthdays then his older son shouldn't have had the big expensive birthday if that's how he thinks. But no obviously not, it's only our son that applies to.

It's ridiculous to suggest not to bother with celebrating a young DC because they won't remember. They'll see pictures in future years and wonder what happened, and why they were treated less than their dads other DC.

Exactly, and also £200 for a party, food and cake (and potentially gifts as well?) is not massively excessive. It's not like OP is wanting money to buy him an iPad. Hardly sounds like she is going massively overboard.

@saleorbouy

It's a bit hypocritical but to be honest your 2 year old won't be that bothered or remember his birthday party so just do something affordable. You can make a cake and a piñata very cheaply. Do some traditional games to work within the budget you have.

Not true at all, my 3 year old is and was very bothered. She talks about the birthday party she's hoping to have almost every day.

Do you mean he won't remember it forever? Because I don't remember my birthday parties from when I was 8, either. Kids do remember things from recent years whilst they are still kids, including toddlers.

Also £100 is not that much to spend on a party, a huge chunk of that would go on food, it's not like she's massively splashing out. Things are expensive.

What's more, those experiences are formative for them. You don't suddenly introduce to kids when they reach an age where they will remember them forever. They learn about things by experiencing them young.

UANU

Oh OP

This is so shit for DS and you

It's not the bloody point, the cost of the party is irrelevant

It's the reluctance of DH to pay towards his youngest child's birthday, Christmas, days out.

He is happy to spend on the older two, but doesn't have the money for the youngest

This is so mean, he needs to budget formally three throughout the year.

Girl, don't take this! It's his child too, yet he's treating him as second best!! That's absolutely disgusting. 🥺

Babe reassess the whole relationship, because this might be the rest of your life xx

I would have little birthday party for DS but not invite wanker father. Constantly favouring one child so obviously would be a deal breaker for me. I would leave or ask him to leave and start claiming child maintenance for your son. They will make him pay. They do a calculation based on salary and how many children he has in total. He would see in black and white that your child would be awarded the same as dsc.

Who put the money into the savings for the holiday fund?

I so get that you might want to spend more on the party of an older child and at 2, toddlers are simply happier with simple things. However, it’s 100 % wrong that you are paying for everything.

What's more, those experiences are formative for them. You don't suddenly introduce to kids when they reach an age where they will remember them forever. They learn about things by experiencing them young.

Exactly. It feels like to some people, you shouldn’t do anything with toddlers because it’s pointless as they won’t remember. That’s a ridiculous thing to say.
My 3 year old was super excited about her birthday a few months ago. She wouldn’t have known what a party is properly like her older siblings, but like you say it’s all formative and shapes their early years every single thing you do with them. Plus the photos will be ace for her to look at when she’s older.

@HighDowny I'm just really interested how he justifies this to you ?

I don't mean the - well you can either cancel or pay for it attitude. But how he justifies the discrepancy between the children. Or does he just not address the elephant in the room by side stepping.

Have you brought up the fact he's never bought anything for DC ? I'm really sorry he's let you down in such a way 💐

I think it's also important to say to him btw when the kids notice and they will, you realise your setting up the siblings against each other from the off and it's damaging to both DC and the SC. They won't have a proper sibling relationship because there will be this weird dynamic that you have created.

@funinthesun19

What's more, those experiences are formative for them. You don't suddenly introduce to kids when they reach an age where they will remember them forever. They learn about things by experiencing them young.

Exactly. It feels like to some people, you shouldn’t do anything with toddlers because it’s pointless as they won’t remember. That’s a ridiculous thing to say.
My 3 year old was super excited about her birthday a few months ago. She wouldn’t have known what a party is properly like her older siblings, but like you say it’s all formative and shapes their early years every single thing you do with them. Plus the photos will be ace for her to look at when she’s older.

Exactly, plus this 'logic' only seems to apply when it comes to a stepfamily. Most people DO bother to celebrate their child's birthday, at any age.

It's fine and natural to spend less when they are younger because they want less, but that doesn't equate to doing nothing at all.

I have memories from before I was 2, so don't bank on children forgetting! This is heartbreaking .

Assuming your 'D'H didn't appear to be a complete shit when you married him, is there something else going on? Is the ex running him down as a deadbeat dad to his son? Does your H have attention deficit/hyperfocus issues and won't admit to it? (So when his son is there, he literally sees no-one else and forgets they have needs at all).

It sounds as though this is a case of yet another man reproducing more children than his finances and income will allow him to adequately provide. These kinds of discussions should have been had prior to his deciding to have yet another child. Limited resources mean that uncomfortable and unpleasant decisions have to be made. Xmas and Birthdays for infants and toddlers are not particularly meaningful to the child , so if cut backs and limitations are necessary that is a reasonable age and stage to make those cut backs. It is tied solely to the father's lack of resources, and the age of the children. It has nothing to do with the maternal parentage. The moms of these various children are certainly free to provide as much or as little as their resources and inclinations permit.

@Tattler2

It sounds as though this is a case of yet another man reproducing more children than his finances and income will allow him to adequately provide. These kinds of discussions should have been had prior to his deciding to have yet another child. Limited resources mean that uncomfortable and unpleasant decisions have to be made. Xmas and Birthdays for infants and toddlers are not particularly meaningful to the child , so if cut backs and limitations are necessary that is a reasonable age and stage to make those cut backs. It is tied solely to the father's lack of resources, and the age of the children. It has nothing to do with the maternal parentage. The moms of these various children are certainly free to provide as much or as little as their resources and inclinations permit.

How convenient that you think birthdays and Christmas' are not meaningful to young children, making it an acceptable place to make "cut backs" (ie, get them nothing). Really allows you to once again promote consideration and equality whilst actually ensuring it only ever benefits the SC.

Yes, he should have thought about whether he could afford gifts for all of his children before having them. Discussion wasn't really needed- HE needed to think about that. Given that he didn't, he now needs to split what he does have between them. Not buy nothing for his youngest. No rational parent of three kids would make the "uncomfortable and unpleasant" decision to simply not buy anything for their youngest child, that's absolute bollocks and the fact that you would even try and pass it off as the normal, logical thing to do just proves how incredibly biased you are.

Ps. Birthdays and Christmas are very meaningful to my toddler. They are her favourite things.

@Tattler2

It sounds as though this is a case of yet another man reproducing more children than his finances and income will allow him to adequately provide. These kinds of discussions should have been had prior to his deciding to have yet another child. Limited resources mean that uncomfortable and unpleasant decisions have to be made. Xmas and Birthdays for infants and toddlers are not particularly meaningful to the child , so if cut backs and limitations are necessary that is a reasonable age and stage to make those cut backs. It is tied solely to the father's lack of resources, and the age of the children. It has nothing to do with the maternal parentage. The moms of these various children are certainly free to provide as much or as little as their resources and inclinations permit.

It's not about his finances and income not allowing him to 'adequately provide' though.

It's about him allocating ALL of his resources to 2 children when he has 3.

Not sure how you can think that is ok.

@Tattler2

It sounds as though this is a case of yet another man reproducing more children than his finances and income will allow him to adequately provide. These kinds of discussions should have been had prior to his deciding to have yet another child. Limited resources mean that uncomfortable and unpleasant decisions have to be made. Xmas and Birthdays for infants and toddlers are not particularly meaningful to the child , so if cut backs and limitations are necessary that is a reasonable age and stage to make those cut backs. It is tied solely to the father's lack of resources, and the age of the children. It has nothing to do with the maternal parentage. The moms of these various children are certainly free to provide as much or as little as their resources and inclinations permit.

Quite honestly Tattler I have no interest in anything you have to say.

My son is not a cut back to be made because he's completely over spent spoiling his other children.

It's not a case if not being able to afford inexpensive birthdays. He managed to pay for a ridiculously expensive present and party for DSS that's not a necessity. He could have split that cost with their Mum and had a joint party if he was so inclined.

My son's age is irrelevant. It's his birthday and his Dad has given it no thought because he was too busy spending all his time, money and effort on his older child (who then went and got the same from his Mum as well so more than double what I'm asking for in relation to DS).

There were plenty of things he could have cut back on at Christmas and DSS's birthday without it affecting it much to ensure he could afford his other child's birthday. He chose not to.

Anything I was contributing toward DSC is now going to my son.

No rational parent of three kids would make the "uncomfortable and unpleasant" decision to simply not buy anything for their youngest child, that's absolute bollocks and the fact that you would even try and pass it off as the normal, logical thing to do just proves how incredibly biased you are.

Some acquaintances of mine did UN type work in an African country. It involved visiting some villages. They went into one hut, and there were several children and severe poverty. In a dark corner there was one child inert on the bed. They asked the parents if the child was sick. No, they were told. It's only starvation. The poverty was such the parents had decided that one child would just not get food any more.

This is extreme, but the attitude is familiar.

No rational parent of three kids would make the "uncomfortable and unpleasant" decision to simply not buy anything for their youngest child, that's absolute bollocks and the fact that you would even try and pass it off as the normal, logical thing to do just proves how incredibly biased you are.

Not to mention how it looks to the older kids?

It couldn't be sending a stronger message that their younger sibling is 'less' and dad loves them more.

@Tattler2 honestly I just can't today.

Your making too many assumptions on what has or hasn't taken place and ignoring the dammed fact that people can say "I will treat all my children equally in terms of of time and money jeeze do you think I'm a animal" and go back on this as soon as the situation hits.

As much as I agree communication is key I would also say that actually your excusing the dads part in this by minimising it.

Xmas and Birthdays for infants and toddlers are not particularly meaningful to the child , so if cut backs and limitations are necessary that is a reasonable age and stage to make those cut backs.

Would you say this if it was the SC you were referring to because I remember a thread where you said the complete opposite and the only difference was you were talking about SC not RC.

@SpaceshiptoMars

No rational parent of three kids would make the "uncomfortable and unpleasant" decision to simply not buy anything for their youngest child, that's absolute bollocks and the fact that you would even try and pass it off as the normal, logical thing to do just proves how incredibly biased you are.

Some acquaintances of mine did UN type work in an African country. It involved visiting some villages. They went into one hut, and there were several children and severe poverty. In a dark corner there was one child inert on the bed. They asked the parents if the child was sick. No, they were told. It's only starvation. The poverty was such the parents had decided that one child would just not get food any more.

This is extreme, but the attitude is familiar.

Many parents in that situation give up younger children to, if the child is lucky, children's homes were they can be adopted if young enough and if they are unlucky they end up in modern day slavery.

@Tattler2

It sounds as though this is a case of yet another man reproducing more children than his finances and income will allow him to adequately provide. These kinds of discussions should have been had prior to his deciding to have yet another child. Limited resources mean that uncomfortable and unpleasant decisions have to be made. Xmas and Birthdays for infants and toddlers are not particularly meaningful to the child , so if cut backs and limitations are necessary that is a reasonable age and stage to make those cut backs. It is tied solely to the father's lack of resources, and the age of the children. It has nothing to do with the maternal parentage. The moms of these various children are certainly free to provide as much or as little as their resources and inclinations permit.

This comment might be peak tattler.

The weirdly Spock-like view of everything where it’s ok to decide the toddler doesn’t matter.

The presentation of the man as simply making reasonable choices with his resources.

Blaming the woman for his failings.

Jesus wept.

@SpaceshiptoMars

No rational parent of three kids would make the "uncomfortable and unpleasant" decision to simply not buy anything for their youngest child, that's absolute bollocks and the fact that you would even try and pass it off as the normal, logical thing to do just proves how incredibly biased you are.

Some acquaintances of mine did UN type work in an African country. It involved visiting some villages. They went into one hut, and there were several children and severe poverty. In a dark corner there was one child inert on the bed. They asked the parents if the child was sick. No, they were told. It's only starvation. The poverty was such the parents had decided that one child would just not get food any more.

This is extreme, but the attitude is familiar.

That's pretty haunting actually as a mentality.

People excuse unbelievable behaviour when it's normalised. It absolutely should be called out or it becomes the norm.

Tattler, do you have children? Do you grossly favour one child over the other because of age? The ops husband has three children. It's really not ok to give ALL your resources to one and not the others.