The kids come first but should they?
Forums:
At what point should the kids not come first? I’ve always found that putting your children before your marriage is dangerous for many reasons. Am I wrong on this? Also is it normal for your spouse to completely ignore you when they are mad at you (for something stupid) and to coddle and give affection to their kids excessively all the while ignoring you at the dinner table as if pretending you aren’t even there?
What she’s doing to you at
What she’s doing to you at the dinner table is abusive. Get up and leave the house next time she does that. Kids don’t come first. The marriage comes first unless she wants to lose you.
I don't believe the children
I don't believe the children should come first and I don't understand why people would get remarried if that's how they feel. It's like a set up for misunderstandings, hurt feelings and often, another broken marriage.
I agree with Areyou - that's abusive BS. It's immature at best, disrespectful and damaging at worst. She's not only disrespecting you but she's subconsciously teaching her children that you don't matter. That's a recipe for disaster.
I'm sorry about that.
I think, with minor chidlren,
I think, with minor chidlren, it is sometimes necessary that their immediate needs come first but the marriage should always be the top priority. A parent is legally and morally responsible for their minor child. But your spouse is the person to whom you should be fully committed. The goal of rearing children is to ensure they become self-sufficient adults who leave home, find their life partner and build their own lives. The goal of marriage is to build a solid relationship with your own life partner (forsaking all others!)
Making the kids the center of
Making the kids the center of your world may seem like a good idea but its generally not. You run the risks of entitlement and drawn out dependency. Making your children's happiness your highest priority can result in consequences you never predicted.
When kids are worshiped at home by a parent they tend to go out into the world with an unrealistic view- like they are owed everything. Children who are raised to beleive that they are the center of the universe have a tough time when their status deteriorates as they approach adulthood.
Parents who live entirely child centric lives can lose touch with one another to the point where they have nothing left to say once the kids leave home. Kids also lose out on the kind of support they needed to become more independent and responsible and missed the opportunity to grow up under the guidance and example of a loving relationship.
I think raising kids should
I think raising kids should come first. That is one of the reasons I did not get remarried before my kids were much older.
But for people who do remarry, I think it is always situational on who comes first. Sometimes it will be the spouse and sometimes the kid.
Lets say…spouse is winning an award at work and JR has a regular baseball game the same night. The spouse should come first. On the other hand…lets say the spouse is winning an award at work and JR is playing at the national level, in a world series baseball game. The kid should come first. Yes I know I know…most will disagree with me on that but that is the way I feel.
I just recommend not living together or getting married until skids are out of the house or at least almost out of the house.
Personally, I think it is a
Personally, I think it is a myth that kids come first. That generalization just cannot be made. For one thing, if that were truly the case, then divorce would either not exist or occur much less than the close to 50% that it does. After all, who cares what the parents think or want. . . if kids come first.
If you want to see what happens when a kid truly does come first, check out or google Gordon Stewart Northcott, and his mother, Sarah Louise. This is a mother who said, "she would 'do anything' to protect her son," always putting her son first. When a kid rules the roost, this is what can happen. An extreme case, but it does show that child worship can cause wa-a-ay more damage than benefit.
priority vs. responsibility.
priority vs. responsibility. Chidren are the repsonsibility. Marriage is the priority.
The basic needs of the kids SHOULD be met first. But after that it's anythign the marriage needs as the priority.
That is generally
That is generally why the first marriage broke up. The kids came along, they stopped being people and became only parents, and that was that. You would think that they would learn and want to avoid that happening again.....
IMO this shouldn’t even
IMO this shouldn’t even really be an issue that exists.
There should be energy spent in both directions, but they shouldn’t be competing.
If someone is neglecting their kids for the sake of their relationship there are probably codependency issues going on, and the same would apply if the spouse is being neglected. But this is also subjective to the expectations of the partner or the children and must consider whether they are reasonable as well.
That was what was driving me
That was what was driving me away from my fiance.
He said I was his number one- but his daughter reappeared in his life and my place in his life drifted to about #5 because his family all wanted to be involved suddenly too.
He also ignored me- I felt humilated, alone, frustrated, uncertain, nervous, self esteem dropping, worried, angry
To be honest- the ignoring was the #1 reason I left- it was turning me into a person I hated.
Ignoring is cruel- I will never tolerate being ignored again- if someone ignores me on purpose ONE time I'm done with them.
What do you mean by he
What do you mean by he ignored you? I'm just curious about your story. I remember being on a road trip with my (now ex) boyfriend and his kids and mother. Literally he ignored me the whole ride then got annoyed with me at the end because I didnt make much conversation with him. His daughter acted up the whole ride and threw tantrums and his mother kept encouraging it with how she reacted to them. Then she started singing. Then my ex loudly turned the ballgame on the radio for his son who was in the back seat without asking me. I put my earphones on to listen to music and tune everyone out and he blames me for lack of conversation. Needless to say I felt completely ignored. He also would make plans for his ex to come and get the kids without asking me what I thought first and it was always at an incovienient time which made our dates rushed and short. I also felt ignored at dinner when his kids would eat very messy and not say please or thank you then I would have to clean up after them and no one seemed to care. We would also watch whatever his kids wanted to watch on tv and no one would even ask me what I thought nor cared.
What a bloody nightmare
What a bloody nightmare
Not in a second marrage
If kids come first in a second marrage, That marrage will not last. The non bio partner want a life at times away from kids. They want to go out and on vacation with out kids. They did not make the kids. Bio parents had a life before kids. Why should not non bio parent have a life with out kids
If you put your kids first
If you put your kids first your marriage will not last. This is likely why the first marriage failed. The kids came along then the spouse was neglected and ignored. People say that just happens when you have kids but it shouldnt. To an extent yes you will be busier and more tired because of the kids. However the dymanics of the household should not change and that is where problems set in if you allow them to change those dynamics. If you are always putting your kids first you are teaching them to be entitled, spoiled and that your husband/wife does not matter. This is a recipe for divorce because eventually your spouse will have enough, or they will meet someone outside of the marriage who will pay them the attention and respect they are not getting at home. I've seen it so many times.
Even the bible says the
Even the bible says the marriage comes first (second to God) before kids. One of the oldest publications in existance recognizes that marriages should come first. And pair it with a society that has stopped doing that, resulting in the highest divorce rates in history, and a generation of entitled children, it's hard to believe that anyone WOULDN'T believe that the marriage should come before kids. The exception, for me, is the child's health and safety. But little Jimmy isn't in danger because he doesn't get attention at the dinner table. *rolls eyes*
I just left my situation because things weren't changing. He's now coming around promising things will change. We will see, but I'm done dealing with it. I doubt things will change long-term, and I will likely have to remain in a situation where I can leave when things get bad, but at least I'm sticking up for myself.
New Phenomenon
“Kids coming first” is a relatively new phenomenon. When I was growing up, I was well cared for, loved, and got a lot of things I wanted, but I also knew that my parents had lives and oftentimes we had to wait or not get something because they were attending to their own lives. For example, my dad had his own business and worked a lot because of that. We never questioned why we couldn’t go somewhere or why he couldn’t go somewhere because he was working. My mom also worked and there were things we didn’t do or couldn’t do, because she didn’t have time to do them. I never questioned that. When we were home, my parents always deferred to one another, neither deferred to us.
I think if a spouse puts kids before their spouse, that’s a sign of serious dysfunction. Being a second spouse when there are children from the first marriage complicates things because there are misplaced loyalties, but I still think in a healthy relationship, the spouse comes first. The spouse is the one who will be around after the kids are gone, so you should make sure you build a relationship with them over your children, otherwise you’ll have nothing when the children are gone.
"Being a second spouse when
"Being a second spouse when there are children from the first marriage complicates things because there are misplaced loyalties..."
This is a real issue, and there didn't even have to be a first marriage. In my case, my wife was never married to her daughter's father. BUT, since I came into the picture afterward - her daughter was there before me. It's one thing when two people have a child together because they both precede the child. But when there's an established child/parent relationship before a second spouse comes around, the parent feels a loyalty towards the child, and suddenly putting a new spouse ahead of that child results in feelings of guilt, so they end up putting the child first which angers the spouse.
Who came first makes no
Who came first makes no difference. It is a question of treating children like children (even adult children), spouses like spouses, and exes like exes (whether officially married or not). Putting the children "first" doesn't anger the spouse per se. What angers the spouse is that the child is being treated more like a spouse vs. like a child. Meanwhile, the actual spouse may wind up being treated more like a child. Case in point, in intact families, husband wife are more than likely gonna be seated together, up front in the car together and about 99.9% of the other time, together. But after a seperation, when a GF comes along (prospective future SM), suddenly the kids all want to sit up front with dad. Dad says, perhaps, "Sure you can sit up front with daddy!" GF isn't even taken into thought or just is supposed to act like it is no big deal, and maybe once or twice it isn't. But, the message being sent to all, if such continues to occur, is that GF/ SM gets relugated to the back, more like a child, anytime one of dad's kids wants it. a/k/a: The kid rules with dad more like a spouse. Then, when GF finally does become SM or a real spouse, she finds herself being treated as if invisible, relegated to the back of just about any "family" event she attends with her husband and so on. THAT is what angers the spouse. AND, this all occurred because early on, DH, GF/ SM, kids, BM all throught there was nothing wrong with letting the poor kid rule the roost, even once in awhile.
I'm a firm believer in calling things what they are, and the saying "children come first," is overused, a misnomer, and doesn't really mean much of anything. Basically, the term is used or just thrown out there after a divorce to more or less pacify everybody. As in, "Celebrites Ben and Jen may have just gotten a divorce, but they both say their children will come first!" What does that even mean? Is it meant literally, figuratively or ___? I think what it is really meant for is to convey to the public that Ben and Jen can now go around dating and spawning with others, but they haven't forgotten about their kids! No problem with that ;). But, for some reason people take this "children first," line to heart, as if it were the #1 commandment in the bible, and try to use it to justify treating everyone else like crap; foremost, using it on step-parents to try to "force" them into accepting that they HAVE TO settle for sloppy seconds. I, for one, am not buying that crap. If someone else wants to fine, but I'm not.
Amen to all of this...
It's so true, that putting the kids in the place of preference also puts them firmly in the spouse role and only one person can occupy the role at a time, so if a kid is there, then the new spouse can't be in that role. Same with treating an ex as if they still have some rights of the spouse (like getting to demand things from their ex because they have children together or the ex husband fixing things at the ex wife's house).
That's one of the biggest problems with divorce, I think, that people lose all sense of family roles. Really, parents should still be in the role of parents and children should still be in the role of children, regardless of the marital situation.
My DH used to always say to me, "I feel like I have to give everyone equal treatment" and I told him no he didn't. I reminded him that, as his wife, he relies on me to take care of a lot of things for him and will rely on me to care for him when he gets older. If he's willing to push some of that responsiblity off on his kids, then fine, he can treat us all equally, if not, then he better be willing to treat me like his wife and treat his kids like his kids, including making sure that I can also rely on him, even when his kids are around.
I married a man who put his
I married a man who put his daughter before our marriage. I was raised the marriage comes first. Needless to say, there were alot of issues and arguments.
Then our kids came along so since I was married to a man who did not prioritze me, I prioritzed our children. They come first to me now. I still feel, deep down inside, our marriage should come first but I'm not wasting any more tears or effort on a relationship that I'm putting my all into it and he's putting in left overs.
We're still married after 20+ years but it's more of having a roommate and companionship now.
If something were to happen to him, I'd never consider remarrying again. I've been too jinxed.
Your marriage is a living thing.
Because your marriage is a living thing, your spouse and you put that FIRST. It's more important than either of you as individuals. Under that umbrella, all other things are covered.
Putting kids ABOVE that marriage is just like was said in this thread... it makes for some entitled young adults coming down the pike. Don't do it, and don't allow your spouse to do it.
DW (well, fiance) said her kids come first and said she wasn't going to take my last name when we get married. So I stopped discussing marriage. Screw that... Not that she *has to* be *my subject* or *my property* (believe me, plenty of folks unloaded on me here about that), it was all part of a deeper problem brewing. So I disengaged. She took her kids on a cruise she couldn't afford (I told her I didn't think we could afford it, but with independent finances, she hinted a reminder that I couldn't tell her how to spend her money).
Now she's not working as many hours and is getting really tight financially, wishes she had an "emergency fund." I kept telling her to do this, but NO, she knew best...
Now I'm sorta POd because she's broke and is telling me to not buy this and not buy that - but then her daughter went to the movie theater ("It was only $5!"). This is getting interesting... She's a slippery one about this LOL.
No. Kids DO NOT (automatically) come first. Try this:
URGENT NEEDS come first.
NEEDS come first, after the urgent stuff is handled.
Wants are addressed with what's left.
- And of ^that^, what you and your spouse AGREE that you BOTH want, TOGETHER, comes before what any individual wants, especially kids who don't have all of life's stresses. In a proper loving relationship, you'll both see times you want to throw the kids a bone and take them out to eat or whatever. Parental discretion. But you BOTH set those boundaries, TOGETHER.
And for the wants that the kids have, have them ask themselves: What did they DO to EARN that? My SKids don't do a flippin' thing unless DW asks them, and even then, it's half-a$$ed. Annnnd, since they aren't mine, she makes it clear that I am not to correct them. Load=LIFTED. I stopped trying to count on them months ago, and come Christmas, I will deliver on my promise of no presents, only a really nice card - something that reflects the efforts they put forth for me.