Blended Families
riabiron
member
Question - kids in later relationships
riabiron
member
Are kids in later relationships okay? Is having kids in later relationships irresponsible because it "takes away" from the earlier child?
It is a super personal decision. Where does everyone weigh in? Is it only okay if a certain amount of ther BP's income still goes to the earlier child? Is it only okay if the earlier child doesn't see any change in CS? Is it never okay because the earlier child will inevitably get less? Are there other extenuating circumstances?
I think I have made my opinion pretty clear. I refuse to feel guilty about having child with my husband even though he has a daughter. I think in the long run everyone benefits (except perhaps BM in my situation) and all of our children are well taken care of.
Just curious...
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Question - kids in later relationships
I think it depends on the circumstances and attitude towards all the children.
In our case, we treat our 3 kids equally. BM on the other hand, pays no c/s. She has 2 other younger children, but I don't think she does much to support them either, so maybe she is treating them all equally?
I think it's irresponsible to parent children you have no intention of supporting, past or future.
I think it's irresponsible to parent children you have no intention of supporting, past or future.
I think it's fine to have kids in later relationships. Some people that don't have step kids even space their kids out (I'm 7 years younger than my sister). IMO the only thing that matters is that all of the kids are treated equally and are well take care of.
I agree that you shouldn't feel guilty at all! I'm not going to when I have a child!!!
I don't think that's good logic, if that's someone's opinion. If parents DONT split up, it's the same. One child will get more stuff if they're a single child than if they have siblings. My DH was an only child until he was six and was spoiled rotten (I've seen Christmas pictures..outreageous!) When the other two came along, his Christmas thinned out so it would be equal between the three. Soo....that's just what happens in families with multiple kids in my opinion. Whether divorced or still together, this happens regardless. Don't feel guilty!
I think the most important thing is that all the children feel equally loved and taken care of. As they get older, one of them may need more financially than the other for various reasons-school activities, braces,hobbies, etc-, but then when the younger children age, they will need extras too.
As long as the kids aren't personally brought into CS issues, and know that they will get what is needed from ALL their parents, I believe all will work out. Don't feel guilty for wanting to have a child with the man you love. As long as you are financially and emotionally able to support all the children there is absolutely no reason you shouldn't start a family of your own. Anything worthwhile is worth working for. Good luck to a happy future for all of you!
This.
This. And also the statement about refusing to feel guilty. BM is trying hardcore to do that to DH right now, and its so frustrating. We don't consider it "our own family" we are just expanding on the family that is already there. I assume she will at some point too - and we'd never give HER grief about it.
Exactly what PP have said about the children being treated equally. I refuse to let any child be treated differently in our house.
Each child in our household is treated the same. They each have their own bed, their own toys, their own clothes and they have as long as DH and I have been together. The girls may share a room and the boys do too, but they each have their own space that is permanent. Our baby is rooming in with us eventually, we hope to move to a bigger house.
At DD's BF's, she has a 9 month old sister. BF lived in a 1 bedroom apartment with DD's SM and DD slept on the couch (even when she stayed there a month in the summer) that is until they got pregnant. Then they told DD she was getting a room. They moved into a 2 bedroom apt and set up a bed for her. Her sister was born and of course the room was transformed into a nursery. When her sister was 2 months old, DD came home saying that her sister (a 2 month old) already had more toys than her at their house. At Christmas, they bought DD a Jonas Brothers poster but did not let her hang it up at their house and instead they sent it home with her to my house because they didn't want it hanging up in the baby's room. In other words, the room is not really hers to share with her sister, just somewhere she sleeps when she is there and it really belongs to her sister.
This is what I said in the other thread about this subject:
But it isn't the same as in a traditional family. It is a different dynamic, and a different type of obligation. In a traditional family there are 2 adults who are making the decision as to whether or not more children will have a positive or negative impact on the family dynamic-and that includes financially. In a BF there are 2 separate entities-2 whole family units, and one does not get a say in that decision, that will inevitably have a large impact on all involved.
I know this is not a topic that all participants on this board will ever agree on. But, IMO, one should not continue to have children if that means taking away from the ones who already exist, even in a non-BF situation.
I honestly believe that BF or not, one should only have as many children as they can comfortably afford. And to me that means being able to give them the best education, medical care, life experiences, and emotional stability that you can. If having more children means taking away opportunities from the child/children that you already have, then IMO, no you should not have more.
Paris your theory is also slightly skewed. Lets say my SS is in private school and has top notch medical insurance. Then what you are saying is that I should make the decision not to have any children if we can not continue to provide that for him and all kids. If I want two kids but that means they all have to go to public school and have basic medical cover you think that would be a NO? Really?
Eh, again it is all a matter of opinion. If you can afford the absolute best for one child, but not for two, IMO, you should have one. If it would mean giving them a subpar education (which is not necessarily the case with public schools) I think that is super selfish on the parents part.
And it is not all about practical things. I look at friends who have more than 2 kids, and honestly, it makes me sad. They make good money, but life is expensive. They can't afford to travel with their kids or join museums, or do so many other things. Those things are important to me, they mean giving your child (and yourself) a well balanced life. And, it does not even begin to touch on college-have as many kids that you can afford to send to college. Again, these things are the practical things that I think of. I get that others don't feel that way, and that is their right. But, to me having children is a privilege NOT a right, and with privileges come certain responsibilities.
I agree with you on this riabiron - but also as some stated it is a personal choice.
I refuse to feel guilty.
Actually having kids is a privilege and a right. To expect a SM to give up her right to have a child so her SS can join museums and go to private school seems ridiculous. Sorry I agree with the other posters, I do not feel guilty about wanting kids and wanting more than one.
BTW - we get free third level education in Ireland
It is about best quality of life. It is not about private schools and museums, those were examples. I would want to give my kids the best quality of life possible. If having multiple children meant having to sacrifice on doing that-in any and all aspects-to me it would be the logical thing to only have as many as you can afford to provide the best life possible to. It's not about BF or NonBF. It's not about being wealthy vs. not. It's about being able to give your children the best quality of life that you can afford to do, within your means. Which to me means, that you carefully consider how having 1 vs 2 vs 10 children will affect all involved-which is 10 times more complicated in a BF situation than a nonBF situation, but that does not change the ultimate end result-having as many children as you can provide for in the best way possible.
And you are lucky that college level education is free in Ireland. It definitely is NOT here, and should be a factor when deciding how you will provide financially for your family.
But, again, this is one of the topics that this board will never ever agree on. Some look at it from an emotional point of view (which I DO understand) and others from a logical one. I tend to be more logical on this subject.
If you can't afford to provide for your children, the basic necessities of life then IMO you do not have the right to have children.
I am NOT saying anyone should feel guilty for having children, you are reading into it something that is not there.