divorced couples - how often do you see your kids?

steve-L

glitter_fairy wrote: »

If I was you DH I would be looking at moving closer to my children.

This is all assuming he CHOSE to move away.....

Divorces with Kids are rarely simple.... he might have chosen to keep his job to enable him to keep paying child support.... or lots of reasons....

Whatever he might move to be near his kids and the mother might decide to move away....should he just quit a job each time she decides to move?

The OP only asked how frequently other people did, given the distance.

Sambucus_Nigra

Sky_ wrote: »

If you think the above is reasonable and fair for all concerned then there isn't much else to say about it.

I have sympathy for the OP but she chose to be in this situation and will have to manage it as best she can. The children probably had little (if any) say in their father's choices.

Luckily for the older children and her OH, the OP seems to understand that someone wants and what is reasonable are not necessarily the same thing.

Yes, as I said on my first post on this thread - stepmothers are always wrong no matter what they do. They come last at the end of everyone else's wants and needs. So unreasonable to consider wanting time with her OH when she has got a new born. Shame on her.

Rebecca01

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Yes, as I said on my first post on this thread - stepmothers are always wrong no matter what they do. They come last at the end of everyone else's wants and needs. So unreasonable to consider wanting time with her OH when she has got a new born. Shame on her.

But she knew what they were getting into when they fell in love right?:D

As is so commonly read on here.

Sky_

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Yes, as I said on my first post on this thread - stepmothers are always wrong no matter what they do. They come last at the end of everyone else's wants and needs. So unreasonable to consider wanting time with her OH when she has got a new born. Shame on her.

Why would you think that? It is (naturally) it is her OH who is wrong for wanting to spend time with his children and the children who are wrong for wanting to do activities AND see their father. How could they all be so selfish!

Fire_Fox

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

I'm not saying anything - but calling her unreasonable for [shock horror] wanting her baby's father to be there every weekend rather than just half of them is not on.

If weekends are what we are talking about, and the father is not there every other weekend, then that is 50% of the time [simple maths]. I'm sure evenings and nights the father might be tired from working and it's the weekends when the mother gets a little daytime help that the OP is talking about.

Then maybe the father needs to juggle his work commitments and evenings better to spend more time with his partner and new baby? And tough if he is tired from working, as many on MSE often point out the OP will be tired from childcare and housework and night feeds (assume she will do more if at home). This man will have THREE children not one and two sevenths, why shouldn't two of them have the opportunity for quality time with their father every other weekend?

The only way the OP can have her partner present fourteen days out of fourteen is for the children to do a 500 mile round trip every other weekend and for the father to drive 1000 miles, which is hardly going to leave him fresh as a daisy and will eat away at the household finances. Or for the children to see their father less often than two days out of every fourteen. If the OP wanted her and the baby to be the sole focus outside of work she needed to get pregnant by a bachelor. Yes I know it's not that simple but there is no ideal solution here, this man has TWO families now.

Sambucus_Nigra

Rebecca01 wrote: »

But she knew what they were getting into when they fell in love right?:D

As is so commonly read on here.

That doesn't mean she can't want to spend weekends with him. It's not an unreasonable request to actually want to spend time with your OH after having a baby together.

If she'd have posted 'I couldn't care less, I'm happy to be on my own every other weekend' there would be wailing and bashing about not being a fit mother and the baby not bonding - whatever you say on here, there's always wailing and bashing about one aspect.

Rebecca01

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

That doesn't mean she can't want to spend weekends with him. It's not an unreasonable request to actually want to spend time with your OH after having a baby together.

If she'd have posted 'I couldn't care less, I'm happy to be on my own every other weekend' there would be wailing and bashing about not being a fit mother and the baby not bonding - whatever you say on here, there's always wailing and bashing about one aspect.

Totally agree with you.

Thats why I put the silly grin smilie.:D

Errata

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

That doesn't mean she can't want to spend weekends with him. It's not an unreasonable request to actually want to spend time with your OH after having a baby together.

If she'd have posted 'I couldn't care less, I'm happy to be on my own every other weekend' there would be wailing and bashing about not being a fit mother and the baby not bonding - whatever you say on here, there's always wailing and bashing about one aspect.

It's unreasonable not to want the father to parent his existing children in a way that benefits them; a way that allows them to socialise with their friends during weekends, do their activies, homework, and not to be totally knackered every other Monday morning.
As I've said before, children are not parcels to be dragged around hither and thither and I'd be very wary of any father who thought that was a good idea.

clearingout

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

She is allowed to want to spend time with the father of her baby!

And to expect him to be there more than half the time...especially in the early months. Isn't that why they now allow fathers to have paternity - to be there and bond?

OP - you are now a step mum. Nothing you want matters - it's par for the course. Everyone apart from you comes first. That's just the way it is.

and the father of her baby is allowed to spend time with all his children.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the OP's needs can't be considered but ultimately, this is about finding a way that all children are able to have a relationship with their dad. Baby gets to see dad everyday under the arrangement that the OP seems to want (having children visit every other weekend). The other two children get to do two very long journeys and a couple of overnights every 14 days. There's no comparison really, is there?

Many people have babies with people who work shifts, who work away (army, oil rigs, sales reps, lorry drivers....) and don't get the opportunity to be a family in the way that they would like. They either find new jobs or they put up with it. I struggle to see how step parenting should be any different from this - you know when you have a child with someone who has children already (or if you have children already and have more with someone else) that these obstacles need to be overcome. The difference between step parenting and job/work commitments is that new family parenting doesn't seem to recognise the commitment of 'old family' in the way they would if it was work. I think it's that simple.

balletshoes

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

That doesn't mean she can't want to spend weekends with him. It's not an unreasonable request to actually want to spend time with your OH after having a baby together.

If she'd have posted 'I couldn't care less, I'm happy to be on my own every other weekend' there would be wailing and bashing about not being a fit mother and the baby not bonding - whatever you say on here, there's always wailing and bashing about one aspect.

why on earth would there be bashing about that? The OP's husband would be home every night during the week and every other weekend, why wouldn't he be bonding with his baby at those times?