What "Kids Come First" REALLY Means, and Why SPs Hate It
I wrote this in the forums, but liked what I wrote and thought it might be good for others to read. We debate frequently about whether kids or a new partner should come "first" and why it's different in a step/blended family than it is in an intact family. So here are my likely incoherent ramblings on the topic:
Kids in (healthy) intact families know that every decision their parents make is in their best interest because there isn't a third party telling the kids that they should come first. Or a third party modeling unhealthy behaviors. Or a third party modeling a different relationship structure that the kids may prefer. The modeling is internal and constant.
In blended families, there is always a third party. And that third party isn't a friend, aunt, grandparent, or cousin. It's their other parent. It's the one other person in their life that they are supposed to trust and respect wholeheartedly and unconditionally.
How is a child supposed to reconcile one parent modeling healthy relationships and another modeling unhealthy ones? I'm telling you from experience, it's a 50/50 shot on whether the kids are okay with healthy or if they prefer dysfunction. If they prefer dysfunction, then there will be a real, emotionally-charged battle for the parent to have to decide if they will continue to model a healthy relationship at the possible expense of a meaningful relationship with their children OR to begin modeling unhealthy behaviors in order to maintain any type - healthy or unhealthy - with their kids.
Loving someone doesn't mean the relationship is healthy. Love is what sustains you through hard times. It's the last little flicker of hope when you want to give up, and that's what makes it so tempting and so hard to put out.
When you're a SP, there is ALWAYS a third party interjecting their thoughts and feelings into your relationship, whether that is directly or indirectly by trying to motivate the actions of your partner. A good partner recognizes that those external forces need to be picked through carefully to determine if there is ANY merit that should even be considered (because, sometimes it has to be, like if you want to move 1000 miles away from the other parent). A bad partner accepts that those factors dictate their life, ergo putting the children "first".
THAT is what we fight on here. THAT is what upsets us. It's not that the kids get put "first" or ahead of us sometimes (because we're adults and know that priorities shift, and we'll snap off at someone who thinks that only they matter). It's that kids get put first not because it's good for them or the relationship, but because it *placates* and *supports* this unhealthy dynamic where there priorities don't exist because the only priority can be what makes kids and parents not feel any discontent at the expense of others, primarily their new partners.
- lieutenant_dad's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
So much yes!! I have tried to
So much yes!! I have tried to articulate that to my husband many times. Us SPs are forced be okay with another man or woman texting/calling our spouse....making plans for our spouse....etc. That would NEVER happen in a million years in an intact family.
This is where I feel the pain and anger the most....I have ZERO control over my own house hold....can't just up and make plans for everyone....can't just plan holidays how I want them....can't even plan a weekend....nothing....why? Because a third party has to be part of the decision making process.
I feel this so much.
I feel this so much.
Lt.Dad you did an excellent
Lt.Dad you did an excellent job of putting into perspective what so many SM's struggle with on a daily basis.
CG bless your heart!
For me, "The kids come first"
For me, "The kids come first", should mean that the parent acts in the best interest of the child. For example, if there is a birthday party they really want to go to and Mom or Dad selfishly withholds them from the party because it is "their weekend", that is not putting the kids first. Or, if it is Mom or Dad's weekend and there is a funeral or wedding etc., on the other parent's side, they should allow the child to go, not selfishly keep them from attending the event.
Putting the kids first does not mean allowing them to choose all activities, decide where to eat all the time, how to decorate the house, etc,
I don't see the need to even use that term at all in a relationship. If you have to use it all the time, there is something wrong in your relatiohship.
Edited to add: I think we as stepparents take "the kids come first" as the kids come first in our spouse's heart as well.
I agree with this sentiment.
I agree with this sentiment. Where it becomes tricky is that the sentiment can become twisted.
A parent may not want to take a kid to a birthday party on their weekend because they live two hours away and have other family plans that were scheduled before finding out about the party. Or the custodial parent ALWAYS schedules something on the weekend of the non-custodial parent, making it difficult for the NCP to do anything with their child they deem meaningful.
In situations like this, it's very easy for one parent parent to say "well, my ex is just putting their own wants above their child!" while the other parent says "no, I have limited time to parent and interact with my child, and certain things have to take priority for what I also think is good for their development". Stepfamilies live in a realm of nuance that can be so easily twisted.
I'm also a big believer that I think it's important for kids to see that if something failed, that doesn't mean it can't be successful later. Kids need to see good, healthy, adult relationships. If that can't be with the parent, for whatever reason, then it's still a necessity to model it elsewhere.
Ultimately, people feel guilty for divorcing and don't want their kids to hurt more than they have to. That translates, for some, into NEVER allowing their children to hurt again. If their child disagrees with something, a parent placates versus parents through that situation to help the child cope with uncomfortable feelings, situations, etc. That is a very important skill that every person needs to have. I'm not advocating that kids should be forced to suffer everything, but they won't come out damaged If they miss a birthday party in exchange for quality time with their parent.
See, I tried to make sure my
See, I tried to make sure my kids' lives were impacted as little as possible by the divorce if I could. So, if they had a birthday party (say someone from their class) and it wasn't like you said, two hours away, I made sure they got to it, even if it was during my limited time with them. That to me, is putting the child's best interests first. I made sure they got to all their sports events as well. It wasn't their fault their parents divorced. Now, I am not child centric, that is just my point of view.
Which is good, except when
Which is good, except when the other parent books up all of your time with parties and sports and you get no say in it.
But you are still
Basing an new adult relationship, with the kids in control. When two people enter a relationship the children should not dictate anything. Bio must take care of there kids, but also respect there partner. Not make Plands with there ex, or kids with out input from there partner.
If it's a step free weekend , and plans are made, they should not be change unless kid is in the hospital type of emergency. Not ex is going out. Adults need adult time. They need kid free vacations, dinners . New partner did not make there kids. They want to help out but want what the ex had also.
In some ways, the kids will
In some ways, the kids will always be in control if they are minors. They don't have the ability to act independently, so their needs have to be given first consideration.
BUT, I do mean "needs". Clothing, food, stable housing, access to health care, education - those types of things. A SP has to accept that their partner has a responsibility, morally and legally, to meet those needs. You can't tell your new spouse that they should just stop paying on their car because you don't want the money flowing out of the house every month. The car has to be paid for, and you have to accept that with that comes some sacrifice on behalf of your spouse. Same with kids.
But you are absolutely right that those responsibilities can't dictate EVERYTHING. If your car payment is too high, what do you do? Sell the car and refinance the loan, take on a second job, cut out frivolous expenses, etc. You don't look at your spouse and say "well, it's our debt now, so I guess you need to find a second job and pay for my car."
You absolutely have to have adult time, and you can't cancel plans with your spouse because someone else had a date that night. There is not a way where you can separate a person from their responsibilities completely, but that person should be making sure that those responsibilities don't impinge upon the rights and freedoms of someone else.
Adding a relationship to your life as a single parent only adds to your responsibility. It does not give you another avenue by which to share it.
If you are saying that as a general rule, absent emergencies,
there should be no concessions on seeing steps, then the conflict is that at least one adult does not treat the stepchild as his own. Which I think is unrealistic to expect a step to treat the stepchild as his own, but I think this is rife with conflict, and this theory that a blended family acts in best interest of the child is suspect
I feel like I'm lucky and in
I feel like I'm lucky and in the minority here where my DH and I have decided to put our little family unit of four first, for lack of a better term. To us, this means minimizing the inconvenience and cost to our household because of skid. While DH has his obiligations to pay child support and see SS11, everything revolves around our family unit's needs. For example, he has a certain amount of visitation, but will take it at times that are best for our household. Since he pays substantial child support, he reduces unnecessary spending on skids when it comes to gifts and optional spending. He doesn't strive to make things "equal" between skid and our two. He never makes unilateral decisions that affect our household without discussing with me first. While there are constraints (school holidays, vacations), when it comes to skid's visits, we decide when it's best for him to visit (for example, if we think it's best for him to visit later in the summer vs earlier, then that's what we do).
Since I tried going on vacation with skid once and he was horrible, I told DH that I wouldn't be going on vacation with him anymore.
We have two littles, and their needs come first. DH said it this way: Since our two have two parents who are on the same page when it comes to parenting, they are his priority since he feels he can influence them more than he can skid, who has BM raising him in contrary ways to what DH would prefer. DH sees our two as his best opportunity to raise productive, kind, non-materialistic, charitable members of society. He does try with SS, but at times feels like he's pissing in the wind because skid will go back to BM's influence. FWIW, DH has skid a little over 20% of the time.
I know this means that we are operating as two family units (DH and SS) and DH, me, our two, but this is what works for us. Forcing a "blended family" doesn't work. This also means that we do not foster a relationship between SS and our two.
So this is what we do. We put our little family unit's needs "first."
In a healthy family of any
In a healthy family of any sort, the adults are at the top of the hierarchy. They make decisions with or without the input of children. A healthy stepfamily needs to be the same - the two adults are at the top of hierarchy, with the kids below. The way of making decisions might be different because the children don't belong to both parents, but still, the adults are on top.
Let's say a bio parent thinks his child should go to private school and the other bio parent agrees. That decision needs to be made by discussing it with the stepparent - can we afford it? How will it affect us? though ultimately the final decision is made by the bio parent. If it's a healthy situation, he takes his new wife's needs and perspective strongly into consideration - more so than the kids' or the ex's.
To me, "putting the kids first" means they are the top of the hierarchy along with the adults, and in some cases ABOVE a new stepparent. This is a recipe for disaster, which we see over and over again on this board. In a lot of those cases, as you say, Lt. Dad, an outside party encourage it. All the BMs who don't make kids bathe or do homework or go to school are putting the kids equal to themselves in the hierarchy (hence why the kids get so messed up) and so the kids want/expect that at Dad's home too.
I don't think guilt is what motivates men to give kids too much power - it's fear of losing the kids that does it. Some are able to do it right (like my DH) despite, as you said, OP, a lot of pressure to be unhealthy (buy the kid's love, cater to their wants) to keep the kid around. But many can't deal with the fear of losing their children.
Lt Dad.... SPOT ON!!!
Lt Dad.... SPOT ON!!!
DH and I were recently discussing this shite where people put children on a pedestal over the parents. SHITE.
My Dad was the breadwinner of the family. My Mom was a Super SAHM who raised 5 children (2 foster children for a few years). She was a member of the PTA, a Home Room Mother, Art Teacher Assistant, and Field Trip Chaperone. Once the youngest (me) was a teenager, she became the defacto Teacher's Babysitter. They had such respect for my Mom, that they wanted her caring for their babies, who essentially became extended family members.
Mom and Dad came first. Dad earned the money that paid the bills and gave us food, clothing, shelter. Mom took care of Dad and both of them took care of us. But THEY CAME FIRST. How can the children be supported if there is no money coming in? How can the children be cared for if no one is there to care?
They showed us with actions and words that we were being groomed to become responsible adults - JUST LIKE THEM.
We were expected to launch and be able to take care of our finances, our household, ourselves. JUST LIKE THEM.
Children First is what uninformed craptastic fools with rotten kids blather on about. Especially those who have ZERO experience in stephell.
Nailed it!
I live this every day...BM and MIL are constantly telling DH that he needs to do "what's in the best interest of his children", which apparently means either doing whatever BM wants or whatever the children want.
In our case, BM tries to dictate everything that goes on in our home - she tries to tell DH what he can do and what he can't do. What we need to buy for the children, even down to the food in our home. One SS clearly prefers the dysfunction because he goes home and gives BM a run down of every second during his weekends with DH. I'm surprised he can even remember that much, I used to suspect she had bugged his phone to hear conversations it got so creepy.
This SS has also recently begun messaging DH to tell him that he should do what BM wants "for me and Other SS", as if DH now has no say in his own life and this child has the right to tell him what to do.
Who would ever want to exist in a life where a third party was trying to control every aspect of their lives? No one, that's why many stepparents are miserable. We don't have a voice, even in our own home.
Ironically, DH does do all the things listed above that would be considered "putting the children first" including making regular revisions to his visitation schedule to allow them to see BM's family, see their friends on our weekends. Does BM return the favor? No way. It's all about power and control and I don't care what any adult says, they would not be okay living in a world where a third party that had competing interests and incentives was calling the shots and using "poor, innocent children" to gain sympathy for what is really a power play.
When DH and I went on our honeymoon, several of his family members were upset that we had the nerve to go on the trip without SSs. I told DH, if they were my children too, people would be applauding us for "getting away" and "spending some time as a couple". That all goes out the window when there are stepchildren involved. The same thing happens when it comes to "inheritance", all of a sudden a spouse is expected to manage on their own in their "golden years"...that would never happen in a "first family".
strugglingSM, you just summed
strugglingSM, you just summed up my life perfectly! That last paragraph about the honeymoon is dead on. I'm so tired of the "children first" "poor COD" BS! In our case it is all about BM wanting the power and control and dictating our lives. It is disgusting. Plus these BM's say "children first" but they mean only their children. They expect SPs to put their children above theirs essentially making our biological children last....so it is highly hypocritcal.
Just today...
Just today, DH received a nastygram from BM telling him "you need to put the children first!!" because she's upset that they won't spend Christmas Eve with her - in 2020! How dare DH deprive SSs of spending time with her family, by having them spend time with his family (who has always also celebrated Christmas Eve every year, even though BM had every Christmas Eve for the five years after the divorce until now).
https://www.steptalk.org/blog/strugglingsm/you-need-put-kids-first-holid...
Another reason why SMs hate "put the children first!" is because it's never actually about the children, it's really about the other adults. In my case, BM can't separate her own feelings from those of her children...or rather she forces her children to take on her feelings as their own.