Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never bring a step parent into my child's life. If anything were to happen to my DH, I would remain single until they were out of the house.

You're assuming he dies. What if he's abusive and you choose to leave him? Would that change your answer at all?

No, why would it? I might then be even more concerned that my kids needed my undivided attention. I'd also be concerned that about my "picker" and not want to subject them to future concern about abusive men in the house.

+1000 I would never remarry until kids out of the house. I put my kids needs above my own though.

+1M

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I would never remarry until kids out of the house. I put my kids needs above my own though.

You know this isn't healthy, right? I mean sometimes, yes. Lots of the time, yes. But not all of the time, no.

+1
I have no idea where some people got the notion that that was ideal.

YES. I am a whole person in my own right.

No one is saying you're not a person in your own right. And if everything goes well in your life, then you won't have too much difficult making tough choices. But if you are in the unfortunate position of being a single parent (particularly if the other parent is not very involved in the picture and does not adequately share the responsibility with you), then the right thing to do is prioritize the well-being of your kids above your own desires for a romantic life. Plenty of people lead perfectly wonderful lives without a romantic partner. It is hardly a need.

You say this as if any presence of romantic life in one's life means the well-being of the kids cannot be prioritized anymore, as if romantic life is incompatible with the kids' well-being. That's BS.

Sure, some people who don't find love after a divorce or death can still be WHOLE people, I don't think anyone is saying that, however if you do find love, why would you deny yourself the joys that come along with having a loving partner? You say it is hardly needed, which makes me think you have never really known REAL TRUE ROMANTIC LOVE, and if you have not, then that is fine, but to say "it is hardly needed", makes no sense to someone who is really in love. I do agree the new person needs to be a good fit for your family, etc, but you can still prioritize your kids needs while having a new partner. How do you think it works in a marriage? You have a love that is separate from your children, its a different relationship...right? Also, just because you are a bio parent does not mean that you have your kid's best interests in mind. I know several bio fathers/mothers who basically play no real role in their children's lives! The point is to find a good person/partner who shares in the love you give your children and participates in creating an environment that is healthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I would never remarry until kids out of the house. I put my kids needs above my own though.

You know this isn't healthy, right? I mean sometimes, yes. Lots of the time, yes. But not all of the time, no.

+1
I have no idea where some people got the notion that that was ideal.

YES. I am a whole person in my own right.

No one is saying you're not a person in your own right. And if everything goes well in your life, then you won't have too much difficult making tough choices. But if you are in the unfortunate position of being a single parent (particularly if the other parent is not very involved in the picture and does not adequately share the responsibility with you), then the right thing to do is prioritize the well-being of your kids above your own desires for a romantic life. Plenty of people lead perfectly wonderful lives without a romantic partner. It is hardly a need.

Has it ever occurred to you that the "right thing" might be different depending on the situations and people involved?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I would never remarry until kids out of the house. I put my kids needs above my own though.

You know this isn't healthy, right? I mean sometimes, yes. Lots of the time, yes. But not all of the time, no.

+1
I have no idea where some people got the notion that that was ideal.

YES. I am a whole person in my own right.

No one is saying you're not a person in your own right. And if everything goes well in your life, then you won't have too much difficult making tough choices. But if you are in the unfortunate position of being a single parent (particularly if the other parent is not very involved in the picture and does not adequately share the responsibility with you), then the right thing to do is prioritize the well-being of your kids above your own desires for a romantic life. Plenty of people lead perfectly wonderful lives without a romantic partner. It is hardly a need.

You say this as if any presence of romantic life in one's life means the well-being of the kids cannot be prioritized anymore, as if romantic life is incompatible with the kids' well-being. That's BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I would never remarry until kids out of the house. I put my kids needs above my own though.

You know this isn't healthy, right? I mean sometimes, yes. Lots of the time, yes. But not all of the time, no.

+1
I have no idea where some people got the notion that that was ideal.

YES. I am a whole person in my own right.

No one is saying you're not a person in your own right. And if everything goes well in your life, then you won't have too much difficult making tough choices. But if you are in the unfortunate position of being a single parent (particularly if the other parent is not very involved in the picture and does not adequately share the responsibility with you), then the right thing to do is prioritize the well-being of your kids above your own desires for a romantic life. Plenty of people lead perfectly wonderful lives without a romantic partner. It is hardly a need.

^^Meant to say "if" your kids are under 18. Not "just because".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I would never remarry until kids out of the house. I put my kids needs above my own though.

You know this isn't healthy, right? I mean sometimes, yes. Lots of the time, yes. But not all of the time, no.

+1
I have no idea where some people got the notion that that was ideal.

YES. I am a whole person in my own right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I would never remarry until kids out of the house. I put my kids needs above my own though.

You know this isn't healthy, right? I mean sometimes, yes. Lots of the time, yes. But not all of the time, no.

+1
I have no idea where some people got the notion that that was ideal.

I see nothing wrong with waiting till the kids are out of the house to remarry.

NP. That part wasn't bolded. I think we can all agree if someone chooses to wait, there is nothing wrong with that. PP's point is that there is also nothing wrong with choosing to be open to dating/remarrying just because your kids are under 18.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I would never remarry until kids out of the house. I put my kids needs above my own though.

You know this isn't healthy, right? I mean sometimes, yes. Lots of the time, yes. But not all of the time, no.

+1
I have no idea where some people got the notion that that was ideal.

I see nothing wrong with waiting till the kids are out of the house to remarry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband walked out on us a few months ago. My son is two. I'm in my early 30s and was hopeful that I could find love again, get remarried and have another child. Guess that's off the table for me! Bummer.

Do whatever you want, but your son needs you. His father just walked out. The man you picked to be his father, by the way. The least you could do is not leave him with babysitters while you're off trying to find a new man and a new half-sibling without his consent.

Ummm do you know any children who were asked for consent before their biological parents decided to have another child?
Lol

Living in a house with 2 bio parents and siblings is completely different than living in a house as the odd-man out while a new family is formed, and you damn well know it.

When my DH and I got married, DD was 3. Second DD wasn't born until she was 8. It didn't create a new family anymore than my younger brother being born crewed a new family. DD wanted a sibling and was delighted to have one.

You are willfully dismissing anything that doesn't fit your narrative of step-parents as monsters who ruin kids' lives. No one is saying that doesn't happen or that people should remarry willy-nilly, but the suggestion that all remarriage is bad, selfish, and disregarding of previous children is completely ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I would never remarry until kids out of the house. I put my kids needs above my own though.

You know this isn't healthy, right? I mean sometimes, yes. Lots of the time, yes. But not all of the time, no.

+1
I have no idea where some people got the notion that that was ideal.

Anonymous wrote: I would never remarry until kids out of the house. I put my kids needs above my own though.

You know this isn't healthy, right? I mean sometimes, yes. Lots of the time, yes. But not all of the time, no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband walked out on us a few months ago. My son is two. I'm in my early 30s and was hopeful that I could find love again, get remarried and have another child. Guess that's off the table for me! Bummer.

Do whatever you want, but your son needs you. His father just walked out. The man you picked to be his father, by the way. The least you could do is not leave him with babysitters while you're off trying to find a new man and a new half-sibling without his consent.

Ummm do you know any children who were asked for consent before their biological parents decided to have another child?
Lol

Living in a house with 2 bio parents and siblings is completely different than living in a house as the odd-man out while a new family is formed, and you damn well know it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband walked out on us a few months ago. My son is two. I'm in my early 30s and was hopeful that I could find love again, get remarried and have another child. Guess that's off the table for me! Bummer.

Do whatever you want, but your son needs you. His father just walked out. The man you picked to be his father, by the way. The least you could do is not leave him with babysitters while you're off trying to find a new man and a new half-sibling without his consent.

Ummm do you know any children who were asked for consent before their biological parents decided to have another child?
Lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is college even an issue? Both parents pay for college. Stepparent should not pay for college in less they offer/want to. That is the parents or child's responsibility (would I help as a stepparent if I could, of course, but it is not my responsibility).

It's an issue because the reality is never cut and dry. Most married couples do not maintain completely separate finances. So when it comes time to pay for a child's college, it's hard to say "oh, it will come out of the biological parent's money only."

It's also an issue for financial aid - it was for me. Tax returns for my parents showed my stepdad's income, which prevented me from receiving any need-based money, even though he wasn't paying for my college.

This is really serious. I wish all the people who cluelessly say that college is the bio parents responsibility only would consider this. If mom marries a guy who make decent money and she doesn't make a lot - guess what? She just screwed over her kids! Get ready for high interest unsubsidized student loans that. Oils have been avoided if mom hadn't remarried.