Exactly what I dont get about the trolls on this site with all the kids first stuff. Sure, they should be able to (respectfully) Express their feelings, but why exactly should the parent just do whatever the kid says? Just because they have feelings doesnt mean they're logical and that their perspective is correct. The parents are supposed to be leading the kids.
Like saying a marriage should be an equity partnership and dad should be providing for his wife's kids, but not vice versa.
Like saying it is no big deal if Dad's kids share a room 4 days a month, but big deal if his wfie's kids do. It's the same 4 days. Why should it matter if Dad's kids are not there full time, it is the same 4 days. If Dad's kids, no attention should be paid to ages and what makes sens. If wife's kids, the consensus here is look for some way to jusitfy that dad's kids are the ones sharing.
People here give lip service to dad being an important influence wrt his kids, but the consensus here is that the Wife's kids should get more of the family resources.
Wife is pisssed becasue dad does not want his kids, of vastly different ages to share a room
I do not like this
Submitted by Rags on Mon, 08/26/2019 - 2:42pm
I do not like this manipulative guilt card that DH is playing. On the one had equity life partnership is not a financial balance sheet, but on the other hand the partners do have to deliver on that equity partnership. Sometimes the partnership does require a shift in the financial balance
Rags backing down on equity parternship.
To assume that every time DH sticks up for his kids, he is wrong, and catering to them may not work for him. It does not matter what I think, but it may matter to him.
Nope, not backing down on equity life partnership at all. My thoughts while making that comment were around job transitions. When the usual primary bread winner is in a careeer transition the supplemental earner can become the primary earner.
This is what equity partnership is about. Life is fluid. Sometimes that necessitates a shift in the roles and responsibilities within that partnership.
I think the consensus is generally that kids that are there the least have the least need for a room to themselves. However, there can be so many variables to this equations. The age of the kids. The gender of the kids. The number and size of rooms.
Things get particularly sticky when you throw an infant in the mix because they can require a lot of nighttime visits and checks.. which can be disruptive to the child in that room.
It's unfortunate that these situations come up because ultimately the adults create the problem by trying to fit more children into a home than there are spaces for them to be. Like the woman who wanted both her boys to keep their own rooms while her partner's child was sleeping on a bed in the living room every other week. That may have been minimally acceptable for an EOWE situation.. but expecting a child to sleep in the living room for 14 days a month is ridiculous. Even though her partner's son was there "less".. he was certainly there enough to rate a place in one of the bedrooms.
Don't get me wrong.. you will probably find a bit more bias to the stepmother dealing with stepkids here.. because of who comes here to post.. relatively few fathers etc.. But, I don't see an overwhelming bias from the majority of posters.. most seem able to be objective.
No.. I think the other kids were there pretty much full time.. I believe to recap.. her DH has 2 kids and OP has one from a prior relationship.. but has one child on the way.
So.. clearly.. one child is going to be full time... the one shared baby on the way. So, it makes sense that the baby would have a room of it's own.. unfortunately, sharing with a baby can be difficult for the other children in the room unless they are very close in age because of all the nighttime activity. they could keep baby in their room for a few months.. but that's just kicking the issue down the road, and their room might not accomodate a crib and supplies.
Then there is the OP's daughter.. who it sounded like was there on a more full time basis.. so that would be more than 4 days a month.
The husband's kids are there 4 days a month.. and they are both similar gender but they are pretty far apart in age.. but.. it is only 4 days a month they would share. That is kind of the most logical way to handle it.
Alternately, the older full time teen could be asked to bunk up with her stepsister.. but that really is going to be more difficult unless the girls are close and friendly. Just more reasons for conflict at their age if they aren't.
So.. it's not ideal for the 14 and 6 yo to share.. but there were not any much better options.. You could have the 6 yo in the nursery I guess for 4 days.. probably wouldn't be the end of the world.. but asking the siblings to share wasn't cut and dried bias.
If DADs kids come for 4 days a month, either they share 4 days a month, or one of them and SW's kid shares 4 days a month So no one would be sharing more than 4 days a month.
And it does not matter what I think, but I think that DAD is pissed that his wife thnks that consideration should only be given to his kids sharing. Somehow the logic here is always in favor of the wife's kids
Generally, it makes more sense for related siblings to be the ones sharing if they are the same gender. Plus it means that room would be freed up for use as a guest room when the kids weren't there..
I'm not sure who you would have suggested for logical sharing.
having a 6 yo in with an infant has its problems.
Asking two teen girls to share who are unrelated can also cause a host of problems.
If we were talking different gendered kids.. it might be a more cut and dried solution.
I would see a lot more problems of two unrelated teen girls sharing vs siblings for 4 days a month.. But that may just be because I was a teen girl.. and had two stepdaughters and see the drama that can unfold at those ages.
That is the only slight bias is not having to have the oldest two in the home have to share.. because they are the "biggest" people and not being related.. it could be the most awkward set up.
Unfortunately, this situation isn't ideal on any fronts..My two SD's share room.. but I had no kids.. so it wasn't a us vs them kid thing.. it was just how the house was best configured. They were 4 years apart..
In that house.. things should resolve fairly quickly as OP's 16 yo should be out of there in a few years. I might honestly consider bunking the 6 yo in the room with the baby.. just for the 4 nights.. and even would consider bringing the baby into my own room for those 4 nights so the 6 yo wouldn't be bothered.. that is another option too.
I'm biased against 2 teens sharing if they are going to be against it.. I wouldn't want to live in a house with those two girls.
I absolutely think her husband and her should make the decision together.. but it sounded like neither was open to any compromise..so they may be better off buying a bigger home.
Having a benefit in that the kids would not see DH or DW's kids being favored. There seems to be NO concern for that now.
I agree that might be better off buying a bigger house. I think the OP in that post was unncessarily mean regarding her stepdaughters. No one in this group is wiling to compromise
I'm sorry that you only hear what you want to hear. because "no one" is a blanket statement and is untrue.
I suggested some other options... and there is room for compromise.. It isn't necessary to have some proved out accounting that one set of kids isn't getting preference.. because the preference could absolutely not have anything to do with the fact that they are the father's kids. the shoe could easily have been on the other foot.
You are taking one case and making it the rule.. and even then.. there were other possibilities thrown out.. so obviously not "everyone" was uncompromising
There are a lot of factors that can fold into these kinds of decisions.. again.. age of kids.. full time/part time.. how many days a month.. genders .. number of rooms etc.. sometimes they may come down that one parent's kids end up getting their own room while the other's has to share.. the way these facts came down made that the more logical solution.. but of course, they could also explore the two youngest sharing a room.. with perhaps relocating the baby to the parent's room for a while until it is old enough to not be a distraction to the visiting kid. You can make two unrelated and unfriendly teen girls share a room.. and create more problems than you want.. believe me.
annnnd.. let's not forget that it is still much more common for a bio mother to have full custody with their EX.. the husband having part time. So.. it is a lot more likely to hear the situation where a mother has her kids in the home full time.. and doesn't want to make her kids share.. (when they live in the home full time).. when her husband's kids are only there a few times a month.
And.. it is a bit of a false argument to say.. well.. they are only sharing 4 days a month.. but the kid living there full time has to live with another person's stuff in their room full time.. when the other kid most likely has a sacred space room of their own at their other parent's home. It can still feel like an intrusion even if the person isn't there every day.
No.. there is a bias for BIOLOGICAL mothers.. Stepmothers generally are screwed..and their situations are NOT taken into account by the courts at all.
Do a little search on the SM's on here lamenting the fact that their husband is still forced to pay out big bucks for his "first family kids" with no relief when he has new kids with her.. no.. the SM is not favored AT ALL.
Their kids should get the best of the family resources. And if the kids do not want to come, it is called parental alieantion, and dads are chastize for trying to care about his kids.
I think you will see a bias for the SM POV.. its a site that is almost 100% SM's.. but you will see people on here who definitely hold a variety of views... and aren't automatically "you are a SM? I am on your side"..
I think in the grand scheme of things.. SM's probably get the short end of the stick in life more often than not.. so if there is "one" place that they can come to get some support? probably not a terrible thing.
I don't have Bio kids.. just the two SK's.. so, I didn't have that conflict in my home. but I got plenty of the other crud.. even when a person's situation isn't abysmal.. it's still not easy being a SM.. just as it probably isn't always easy beiing a stepkid to certain SM's.
You see what you want to see on this site, and ignore quite a bit of what people actually say. I’ve never expected my skids to get less now that I’ve got a BK with my DH. Plenty of SM’s on this site provide for their own children and keep finances separate, yet you insist there’s consensus that all SM’s want tonpush the skids out & begrudge any financial contribution or time spent with skids. It must be exhausting to spend that much time combing through comments just to further your own agenda that way.
It was really refreshing to see something like that. Most people don't understand. I watched a video with a coworker where the daughter was picking a date for her mom... I made a face. The coworker didn't understand, they were like "it's cute! She should be involved! The kid will have to deal with them too!"
I just gave them a look and calmly explained. "No... It's like elevating the kid to the status of an adult... AND saying f*** boundaries. I think as long as they both can be respectful of each other, liking isn't necissary... The mom is the one who will be with that person forever. Not the kid, the kid will have their own family one day."
They still didn't understand it. But I really thought about it... I would have made the cut, THANKFULLY my skids and I really clicked. I think largely because we were allowed to bond, skyped a lot BEFORE I was there, the girls genuinely liked seeing their dad happy. Also because they were young, and my DH had my back in that regard our entire relationship. Also helps that Psycho was pretty well always AWOL, so they didn't have her negative influence when we were getting to know eachother and bonding. I think her abandoning them for over a year, plus being VERY rarely around prior, worked in our favor. They've really become my girls (mostly, we have off days. LMAO) But I think about other situations that I've read about on here. Where the kid is a little s***, or the BM is trying to PAS the kid against the SM, sometimes before they've even met. The kid shouldn't get the say. A relationship is between TWO people. Not two people and the kids. The kids are part of the family unit, but they all really move on eventually. Why shouldn't their parent get to choose their own spouse?
To be honest, I might have serious reservations about staying in a relationship where the child was clearly telling me that I was not "wanted". I am not saying that children should have a vote.. (at least not an equal vote in a traditional sense).. in who their parents are in a relationship with, but I don't think you can expect them to not have an opinion.
So, I do think a parent should understand what their kids are feeling and going through. Their job is to listen and help the child adjust to changes. It's also entirely possible that a parent might want to hear what the kid has to say.. it might be inciteful.. but It shouldn't be approached like "I'm thinking about marrying Mara.. should I do it?"
The person who might truly want to pay attention to the children's attitude is the prospective stepmother. Because kids with lots of problems are often products of their parents parenting... and that includes the parent you are in the relationship with. Do you think a ring on your finger is all of a sudden going to bestow magical parenting powers upon them? Probably not. A high conflict EX.. stirring the pot.. do you have it in you to stomach that? The kids out of control? They will impact your home.. and will impact your kids.. and any future kids.. do you want that in your life? If not, cut and run before it's too late.
Comments
Good for him, it’s nice to
Good for him, it’s nice to see people being the adults and not letting the kids run the show.
"Y'all dont have any
"Y'all dont have any relationship experience"
Exactly what I dont get about the trolls on this site with all the kids first stuff. Sure, they should be able to (respectfully) Express their feelings, but why exactly should the parent just do whatever the kid says? Just because they have feelings doesnt mean they're logical and that their perspective is correct. The parents are supposed to be leading the kids.
And some people are hypocrites
Like saying a marriage should be an equity partnership and dad should be providing for his wife's kids, but not vice versa.
Like saying it is no big deal if Dad's kids share a room 4 days a month, but big deal if his wfie's kids do. It's the same 4 days. Why should it matter if Dad's kids are not there full time, it is the same 4 days. If Dad's kids, no attention should be paid to ages and what makes sens. If wife's kids, the consensus here is look for some way to jusitfy that dad's kids are the ones sharing.
People here give lip service to dad being an important influence wrt his kids, but the consensus here is that the Wife's kids should get more of the family resources.
That’s absolutely not the
That’s absolutely not the consensus here.
See these comments
https://www.steptalk.org/forum/parenting/blended-family-issues/step-kids...
Wife is pisssed becasue dad does not want his kids, of vastly different ages to share a room
I do not like this
Submitted by Rags on Mon, 08/26/2019 - 2:42pm
I do not like this manipulative guilt card that DH is playing. On the one had equity life partnership is not a financial balance sheet, but on the other hand the partners do have to deliver on that equity partnership. Sometimes the partnership does require a shift in the financial balance
Rags backing down on equity parternship.
To assume that every time DH sticks up for his kids, he is wrong, and catering to them may not work for him. It does not matter what I think, but it may matter to him.
So one comment made by one
So one comment made by one person at one point makes it the consensus of the site? Okay.
Nope, not backing down on
Nope, not backing down on equity life partnership at all. My thoughts while making that comment were around job transitions. When the usual primary bread winner is in a careeer transition the supplemental earner can become the primary earner.
This is what equity partnership is about. Life is fluid. Sometimes that necessitates a shift in the roles and responsibilities within that partnership.
I think the consensus is
I think the consensus is generally that kids that are there the least have the least need for a room to themselves. However, there can be so many variables to this equations. The age of the kids. The gender of the kids. The number and size of rooms.
Things get particularly sticky when you throw an infant in the mix because they can require a lot of nighttime visits and checks.. which can be disruptive to the child in that room.
It's unfortunate that these situations come up because ultimately the adults create the problem by trying to fit more children into a home than there are spaces for them to be. Like the woman who wanted both her boys to keep their own rooms while her partner's child was sleeping on a bed in the living room every other week. That may have been minimally acceptable for an EOWE situation.. but expecting a child to sleep in the living room for 14 days a month is ridiculous. Even though her partner's son was there "less".. he was certainly there enough to rate a place in one of the bedrooms.
Don't get me wrong.. you will probably find a bit more bias to the stepmother dealing with stepkids here.. because of who comes here to post.. relatively few fathers etc.. But, I don't see an overwhelming bias from the majority of posters.. most seem able to be objective.
So what is the rationale for a kid who there the least having to
share. Aren't we talking about kids sharing for the same number of days?
No.. I think the other kids
No.. I think the other kids were there pretty much full time.. I believe to recap.. her DH has 2 kids and OP has one from a prior relationship.. but has one child on the way.
So.. clearly.. one child is going to be full time... the one shared baby on the way. So, it makes sense that the baby would have a room of it's own.. unfortunately, sharing with a baby can be difficult for the other children in the room unless they are very close in age because of all the nighttime activity. they could keep baby in their room for a few months.. but that's just kicking the issue down the road, and their room might not accomodate a crib and supplies.
Then there is the OP's daughter.. who it sounded like was there on a more full time basis.. so that would be more than 4 days a month.
The husband's kids are there 4 days a month.. and they are both similar gender but they are pretty far apart in age.. but.. it is only 4 days a month they would share. That is kind of the most logical way to handle it.
Alternately, the older full time teen could be asked to bunk up with her stepsister.. but that really is going to be more difficult unless the girls are close and friendly. Just more reasons for conflict at their age if they aren't.
So.. it's not ideal for the 14 and 6 yo to share.. but there were not any much better options.. You could have the 6 yo in the nursery I guess for 4 days.. probably wouldn't be the end of the world.. but asking the siblings to share wasn't cut and dried bias.
OMG, basic math
If DADs kids come for 4 days a month, either they share 4 days a month, or one of them and SW's kid shares 4 days a month So no one would be sharing more than 4 days a month.
And it does not matter what I think, but I think that DAD is pissed that his wife thnks that consideration should only be given to his kids sharing. Somehow the logic here is always in favor of the wife's kids
Generally, it makes more
Generally, it makes more sense for related siblings to be the ones sharing if they are the same gender. Plus it means that room would be freed up for use as a guest room when the kids weren't there..
I'm not sure who you would have suggested for logical sharing.
having a 6 yo in with an infant has its problems.
Asking two teen girls to share who are unrelated can also cause a host of problems.
If we were talking different gendered kids.. it might be a more cut and dried solution.
The SW's girl and her DHs oldest are much closer in age than dad
6 YO.
And if the two older girls shared when dad's kid's visited, the room for the 6 YO could double as a guest room when they were not there.
Again, logic rules here are always interpreted to favor the stepmom. Dad may regard it as BS
I would see a lot more
I would see a lot more problems of two unrelated teen girls sharing vs siblings for 4 days a month.. But that may just be because I was a teen girl.. and had two stepdaughters and see the drama that can unfold at those ages.
That is the only slight bias is not having to have the oldest two in the home have to share.. because they are the "biggest" people and not being related.. it could be the most awkward set up.
Unfortunately, this situation isn't ideal on any fronts..My two SD's share room.. but I had no kids.. so it wasn't a us vs them kid thing.. it was just how the house was best configured. They were 4 years apart..
In that house.. things should resolve fairly quickly as OP's 16 yo should be out of there in a few years. I might honestly consider bunking the 6 yo in the room with the baby.. just for the 4 nights.. and even would consider bringing the baby into my own room for those 4 nights so the 6 yo wouldn't be bothered.. that is another option too.
I'm biased against 2 teens sharing if they are going to be against it.. I wouldn't want to live in a house with those two girls.
I absolutely think her husband and her should make the decision together.. but it sounded like neither was open to any compromise..so they may be better off buying a bigger home.
I see having the two older girls share
Having a benefit in that the kids would not see DH or DW's kids being favored. There seems to be NO concern for that now.
I agree that might be better off buying a bigger house. I think the OP in that post was unncessarily mean regarding her stepdaughters. No one in this group is wiling to compromise
I'm sorry that you only hear
I'm sorry that you only hear what you want to hear. because "no one" is a blanket statement and is untrue.
I suggested some other options... and there is room for compromise.. It isn't necessary to have some proved out accounting that one set of kids isn't getting preference.. because the preference could absolutely not have anything to do with the fact that they are the father's kids. the shoe could easily have been on the other foot.
You are taking one case and making it the rule.. and even then.. there were other possibilities thrown out.. so obviously not "everyone" was uncompromising
There are a lot of factors that can fold into these kinds of decisions.. again.. age of kids.. full time/part time.. how many days a month.. genders .. number of rooms etc.. sometimes they may come down that one parent's kids end up getting their own room while the other's has to share.. the way these facts came down made that the more logical solution.. but of course, they could also explore the two youngest sharing a room.. with perhaps relocating the baby to the parent's room for a while until it is old enough to not be a distraction to the visiting kid. You can make two unrelated and unfriendly teen girls share a room.. and create more problems than you want.. believe me.
annnnd.. let's not forget
annnnd.. let's not forget that it is still much more common for a bio mother to have full custody with their EX.. the husband having part time. So.. it is a lot more likely to hear the situation where a mother has her kids in the home full time.. and doesn't want to make her kids share.. (when they live in the home full time).. when her husband's kids are only there a few times a month.
And.. it is a bit of a false argument to say.. well.. they are only sharing 4 days a month.. but the kid living there full time has to live with another person's stuff in their room full time.. when the other kid most likely has a sacred space room of their own at their other parent's home. It can still feel like an intrusion even if the person isn't there every day.
They can store stuff in her younger sisters room.
Yes, I realize women are more likely to have custody. The rules are rigged for SMs.
No.. there is a bias for
No.. there is a bias for BIOLOGICAL mothers.. Stepmothers generally are screwed..and their situations are NOT taken into account by the courts at all.
Do a little search on the SM's on here lamenting the fact that their husband is still forced to pay out big bucks for his "first family kids" with no relief when he has new kids with her.. no.. the SM is not favored AT ALL.
Sorry, I meant to say the rules on ST are biased for SMs.
Their kids should get the best of the family resources. And if the kids do not want to come, it is called parental alieantion, and dads are chastize for trying to care about his kids.
I think you will see a bias
I think you will see a bias for the SM POV.. its a site that is almost 100% SM's.. but you will see people on here who definitely hold a variety of views... and aren't automatically "you are a SM? I am on your side"..
I think in the grand scheme of things.. SM's probably get the short end of the stick in life more often than not.. so if there is "one" place that they can come to get some support? probably not a terrible thing.
I don't have Bio kids.. just the two SK's.. so, I didn't have that conflict in my home. but I got plenty of the other crud.. even when a person's situation isn't abysmal.. it's still not easy being a SM.. just as it probably isn't always easy beiing a stepkid to certain SM's.
You see what you want to see
You see what you want to see on this site, and ignore quite a bit of what people actually say. I’ve never expected my skids to get less now that I’ve got a BK with my DH. Plenty of SM’s on this site provide for their own children and keep finances separate, yet you insist there’s consensus that all SM’s want tonpush the skids out & begrudge any financial contribution or time spent with skids. It must be exhausting to spend that much time combing through comments just to further your own agenda that way.
It was really refreshing to
It was really refreshing to see something like that. Most people don't understand. I watched a video with a coworker where the daughter was picking a date for her mom... I made a face. The coworker didn't understand, they were like "it's cute! She should be involved! The kid will have to deal with them too!"
I just gave them a look and calmly explained. "No... It's like elevating the kid to the status of an adult... AND saying f*** boundaries. I think as long as they both can be respectful of each other, liking isn't necissary... The mom is the one who will be with that person forever. Not the kid, the kid will have their own family one day."
They still didn't understand it. But I really thought about it... I would have made the cut, THANKFULLY my skids and I really clicked. I think largely because we were allowed to bond, skyped a lot BEFORE I was there, the girls genuinely liked seeing their dad happy. Also because they were young, and my DH had my back in that regard our entire relationship. Also helps that Psycho was pretty well always AWOL, so they didn't have her negative influence when we were getting to know eachother and bonding. I think her abandoning them for over a year, plus being VERY rarely around prior, worked in our favor. They've really become my girls (mostly, we have off days. LMAO) But I think about other situations that I've read about on here. Where the kid is a little s***, or the BM is trying to PAS the kid against the SM, sometimes before they've even met. The kid shouldn't get the say. A relationship is between TWO people. Not two people and the kids. The kids are part of the family unit, but they all really move on eventually. Why shouldn't their parent get to choose their own spouse?
Thanks for posting Rags
I liked watching it.
To be honest, I might have
To be honest, I might have serious reservations about staying in a relationship where the child was clearly telling me that I was not "wanted". I am not saying that children should have a vote.. (at least not an equal vote in a traditional sense).. in who their parents are in a relationship with, but I don't think you can expect them to not have an opinion.
So, I do think a parent should understand what their kids are feeling and going through. Their job is to listen and help the child adjust to changes. It's also entirely possible that a parent might want to hear what the kid has to say.. it might be inciteful.. but It shouldn't be approached like "I'm thinking about marrying Mara.. should I do it?"
The person who might truly want to pay attention to the children's attitude is the prospective stepmother. Because kids with lots of problems are often products of their parents parenting... and that includes the parent you are in the relationship with. Do you think a ring on your finger is all of a sudden going to bestow magical parenting powers upon them? Probably not. A high conflict EX.. stirring the pot.. do you have it in you to stomach that? The kids out of control? They will impact your home.. and will impact your kids.. and any future kids.. do you want that in your life? If not, cut and run before it's too late.