A
female
age
36-40,
anonymous
writes:Hi. I'd like to know, what do the aunts and uncles and others mean when they say: "children come first" if a childless person is dating or married to another personwho has a child or children? Does that mean the person with children does not have the same responsibilities and obligations in the partnership? If it does should anyone date a person with children? I would not like to see my sister who is a wonderful kind and giving person be put in "second place" if she continues to see her new guy, who has 2 sons of 10 and 8 from a previous marriage because she deserves way more. Thanks. Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (15 September 2014): The children do come first, but only in the fact that they were there first, and within reason. The person with the children not only has the same responsibilities and obligations in the partnership, but actually they choose to take on more of them, as they are the single parent. If they want to have a romantic relationship with anyone, they cannot let the children berate or abuse that person, and they will have to facilitate a healthy relationship between the children and the new spouse. They cannot always neglect the partner with using the kids as an excuse. The couple will need to discuss what they each need from the other, and try to make compromises that work. It does not mean that the person without children has to do all the giving up and compromising either. The parent/children side should do thier part as well to make a happy family.I think if the parent really wants another relationship they will be willing to facilitate a good environment for both parner and children and try to encourage a bond there. Also they are the ones that need to create bounderies and expectations for the children on how to behave to the new spouse, and punish if they do not. If your sister's love interest doesn't do this she should leave him.
A
reader, anonymous, writes (14 September 2014): Well, lets put it this way. Children don't ask to be born.
Once we bring them into this world; they are our full responsibility. We see to their needs, their protection, financial-support, and their overall psychological and physical well-being. If they are infants, or toddlers to teens; they are still developing and quite dependent on their parents. Thus referred to as "dependents." It's not just a word on a tax form.
Unlike adults, they are totally vulnerable, defenseless, and dependent on our care.
Fortunately, there are laws and legal consequences that protect them from people and parents who don't know this.
They are growing and undergoing daily-development. This responsibility does not rest only on their parents. It is shared by all society. We all have some responsibility for their safety, education, medical-care, and protection. It takes a village. I will listen to a whining child, over a whiny adult any-day!
Adults who ARE NOT needy, clingy, or insecure are understanding of single-parents. Offering full support when the needs of the children of their partners must be met. If parental-instincts override the needs of a date, so be it. If you're not up to the task, take a hike. There are plenty of single-people with no kids.
Intelligent grown-ups realize that if an emergency arises requiring a parent to be a parent; help if you can; or step aside and hope to be of some help if necessary. You are mature enough to know that children pose no threat, and you don't compete with their needs; or be jealous of their attention. A devoted parent is a good parent. So if you're looking for someone to have kids with someday, you get a preview of their parenting-skills.
If they are adult or adolescent-children, and the parent is behaving flaky or ridiculously. Dump the idiot. Why waste your time with a flake?
Baby-mama drama is not what I'm talking about. Whole different topic. If you see it coming, run for the hills. It isn't worth it. Your fault if you decide to stick around.
Don't blame the kids for stupid adults that become dysfunctional parents. That's a red-flag-warning anyway!
Real adults don't see issues with dating people with children; because they are understanding, and can be supportive. Even proactively participating, if allowed to.
Anticipating that someday they might share the responsibility of raising their children together as a whole family. Or, there may be half-brothers and half-sisters raised in a separate household. All that working-out successfully, is placed completely in the hands of parents.
Wise parents have already put their children first; if they've selected partners who respect the inconveniences that arise for a dating single-parent.
Parents with children should be very careful to avoid people who are insecure; and feel they should compete with children. Children who were already in the lives of those people they "voluntarily" decided to date. They have choices. The kids don't.
That's my position on the topic.
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (14 September 2014): Well for you to even ask this question you obviously don't have kids.
Children come first no matter what or whou you are with, yes that mean new partner too. Girlfriends, husband, wife, boyfriends etc... Or all replaceable, children are their for life and because of that no matter what they come first.
To be honest if a person wasn't like that then I would even want to be with them.
Also it's your sisters choice not your so I would keep your opinions to your self.
...............................
A
male
reader, olderthandirt  +, writes (14 September 2014):
 None of that makes any difference. Ifsomething has a negative impact on the kids no matter whose they are then it wrong.. I know what I mean by it.It means me that adults shouldput their priorities second to that of the minors in ANY reolationship. Just because Jack and Jill can't get along all at well and wish they could go out withther people. That doesn't mean they should ust run down to the nearest divorce court and traumatize the children for life. It means they need to work harder on the problem and stay a family for as long as possible. Place the child's welfare first is what I mean anyway.
...............................
A
female
reader, Honeypie  + ♥, writes (14 September 2014):
 I think it's self evident what most people mean when they say, kids should be your FIRST priority.
I married a man with an ex wife and kids. I didn't feel "slighted" that he spend time with his children (without me) whenever he could get the chance (and the ex-wife didn't F it up). I think it was a NATURAL thing for a PARENT to do.
I would have his son (from a different woman) and the son's half brother over for dinners, out for a movie, school shopping while my husband was deployed. They aren't MY kids, but BECAUSE I married the boy's FATHER they are then part of MY family.
There is a WHOLE lot of baggage that comes with dating a parent. But they are also a PACKAGE DEAL.
She won't be #2. SHE will be his partner, his GF/Wife/lover - there will be times where the kids needs will supersede hers. BUT she is an ADULT who can fend for herself. Who should fend for the kids, but the parents? even IF the parents AREN'T together.
Not everyone is cut out to date a parent. I usually advise against it. WHY? Because I really had NO idea what I got into all those years ago. And I KNOW, I could have avoided a LOT of drama had a dated a nonparent - but what I don't know is.... would another guy have made me as happy as content as my husband has? Funny thing is, it was smooth sailing UNTIL we actually married.
The two people who are dating will have to work that out. And make it work, or walk away. I get that you want your sister happy, maybe despite him being a parent... he can still make her feel special and happy.
...............................
A
female
reader, celtic_tiger +, writes (14 September 2014):
 I'm guessing you don't have children, or have never been a child in a broken relationship?
Children can be greatly affected by relationship breakdowns. As a parent, who created the child, it is your responsibility to continue to care, nuture and support that child even if the partnership with their other parent breaks down. There are moral responsibilities.
Just because this man has got a new girlfriend (your sister) does not mean his parental responsibilities stop.
Yes, Children ALWAYS come first. So that means, he might have the kids 2 days a week. This means that he will not be able to see the new GF on those days. She might get upset, throw a strop, but he has a responsibility.
Perhaps those children are in a school play, football match etc etc etc, but new GF wants to go out somewhere. Which is more important? Does Dad potentially upset the child or the GF? Who would YOU put first?
Breakups can damage children way into their adult lives, especially if they feel that the parent no longer cares about them. Absent parents can create many emotional issues.
So... a question to you OP. IF you were a child, how would you feel taking second place to a new GF who might not be around next month?
...............................
A
female
reader, CindyCares  +, writes (14 September 2014):
 Yes, obviously you have more obligations ( and you FEEL more obligations ) to your own flesh and blood than to someone else, who , no matter how lovable, has just waltzed in in your life, with the status of bf or gf, and could equally waltz away , at some point. And , even if they decide to STAY, as in, legally wedded, what can I tell you, it may be wrong, it may be unpleasant at times, but children DO come first, by laws, tradition, social costumes and simple brutal blind INSTINCT.
Then, is it a good bargain for a childless person to date someone with children ? well, no. Obviously not, and that's the reason why so many people decline to take up with a single or divorced parent : because it takes a special kind of person, of character, and of love, to do it. If your sister really cares about this guy and his kids, and she is the type who does not care about sharing the limelight and not always being center stage, in fact being just a comprimary in some occasions- all will be fine,though. It's a situation that's not for everybody; which does not mean that lots of people adjust to it with no traumas, or even thrive in it.
...............................
A
female
reader, janniepeg  +, writes (14 September 2014):
 It means if his child is sick on your sister's birthday then the dad has to attend to the child and delay going to the party. Children are family for life but girlfriends could come and go. I think that statement would sound less patronizing when the couple become serious that they consider themselves life partners. They would share everything assets and children. Some don't play on a parental role as a step. If your sister is a giving person she would probably want to be a step mother. I would not date anyone who says to me, "I am not looking for a mother" as it spells potential baby mama drama. It depends on what your sister wants. Can her boyfriend financially take care of her if she got pregnant? Does he even want another child?" Everyone knows that children are important. Positively it can mean he is a good responsible father, not a dead beat. Negatively it can mean that he has a lot on his plate, don't demand too much from him. A guy who emphasizes it in a tone which is like "you are childless so you won't understand" like you are stupid, it would rub me off the wrong way.
I would not like a family member to be treated second place either, like a girlfriend on the side who has to wait and earn her way to be liked by the children's extended family. I would also suggest a childless person to look for similar, first, unless the love is so strong it's undeniable that they have to be together from the start. Right now it seems like she wants to give love when the other person just wants some space to himself.
...............................
|
