Arabella001 Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 Hi, I've been dating a single dad with 2 kids for 9 months now and although I've met the kids and hang out with them a lot I still have to sneak out whenever I stay over. The kids are 6 and 8 - both boys. I get the need to take things slow, but will staying over really make much difference to an innocent child? Even if it does, how long should I be expected to be the secret friend for? Is this a sign he wants to keep me compartmentalised? He does have an ex wife that is toxic at times, and likely regrets the marriage breakup - so it is sometimes a blessing his boys can't report on the "girl that stays over". But if we are to have a serious relationship, how long do I humour the sneaking out every morning? Any advice?? Thanks
lollipopspot Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 Yeah, it does make a difference in the kids' psyches if dad is sleeping with a new woman, and good on him for taking it slow. I think you should take it very slowly too, and consider if you want to be a step mom. It may work out great, but this situation by definition has a lot of baggage to it. It might be unpopular to say, but I'm not really sure that divorced people with young kids should even get into serious relationships while the kids are still young. Their attention should be on raising healthy, happy kids, and romantic relationships should be secondary, IMO. 1
Mascara Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 9 months is plenty of time. I'd be making it quite clear now that you're to be introduced as his girlfriend.
Author Arabella001 Posted October 4, 2013 Author Posted October 4, 2013 The marriage ended nearly 2 years ago. I'm fully supportive of taking things slow, but it's been 4 months now of hanging out with his boys. He has 50/50 custody so the 4 nights he has them I am generally around in the evening and then secretly stay the night. So they are very used to my presence. I just don't know if it's still necessary to keep pretending when children don't associate sleeping in a bed to "sleeping with" - especially at their age. I'm just unsure whether to bring this up or keep coasting along. I don't want to put any pressure on, but I also feel I need some security that this is serious for him too...
lollipopspot Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 I'm just unsure whether to bring this up or keep coasting along. I don't want to put any pressure on, but I also feel I need some security that this is serious for him too... Well you should definitely bring it up, and see where he's going with the relationship. It's your life and time too - you have a right to know where he sees the relationship progressing, especially after this amount of time
Author Arabella001 Posted October 4, 2013 Author Posted October 4, 2013 Oh and yes, he is very focused on his children and giving them a happy, healthy life. He has made it very clear that they are his top priority and always will be. I support this 100%
Mascara Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 He has made it very clear that they are his top priority and always will be. Yeah, saying that is a bit of a red flag to me, but that's a personal thing. I have no idea why people feel the need to say it, unless they're trying to pre-warn you that you won't be ANY kind of priority. I'm pretty sure his reluctance has less to do with his kids welfare and more to do with not wanting to rock the boat with his ex. Men generally like a quiet life. 1
lollipopspot Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 No you don't. That is a huge red-flag [and saying you'll always be #2]. Well, at least while the kids are young, the new partner should be #2 - he has a greater responsibility to the young people he brought onto the planet than he does to his love interest. His kids need him more. That doesn't mean it can't be a good relationship, and that she can't get what she needs from it, though. 1
tlegend Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 To the dismay of many of the posters here; my 2 cents: Quit being selfish. You said yourself: He has made it very clear that they are his top priority and always will be. I support this 100% And, back to your question: But if we are to have a serious relationship, how long do I humour the sneaking out every morning? The answer is: As long as it takes. People in here think 9 months has been long enough. Some say 4 months is fine. PERSONALLY, I would wait 3 more months before I even think of introducing you to my kid as my GIRLFRIEND. Why? Because its my ****ing kid. There are no rules, there is no handbook on "how long does it take for my kid to get accustomed to my new woman". And, yes, if his kids are his top priority, and rightfully so, then he's going to make sure that you are a woman who is here to stay. In my mind, one of the worst things I can do is get my kid (or in his case, kids) accustomed to who you are in my life. If I introduce you too fast and things don't work out, then you are the woman who MADE A CONNECTION AND THEN LEFT. Those kids will have to deal with trust and abandonment issues starting at an early age. MORESO than what they are dealing with already with having a broken home. And there isn't many chances to get this right. It's not like he can date someone, introduce them, have them leave, and then rinse and repeat. You have 1, maybe 2 shots, before your kid is old enough to understand what the hell is going on, and why daddy's "friends" keep leaving. If you truly have feelings for him, and you want to respect the way he wants his children raised, then do so. Support him, because to me, it sounds like he has EVERY intention of including you in his life. He's just trying to figure out how to do it the right way. 5
Mascara Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 Well, at least while the kids are young, the new partner should be #2 - he has a greater responsibility to the young people he brought onto the planet than he does to his love interest. His kids need him more. That doesn't mean it can't be a good relationship, and that she can't get what she needs from it, though. This is what a lot of people don't get, and why I hate seeing it on profiles, or hearing people say it about their kids. Of COURSE kids are utterly important. But... Kids DON'T always come first. Sometimes, what the adults want or need takes precedence over the kids. That's the way it is in "intact" families, yet when there's a separation and a new partner, all of a sudden the kids are always number 1. There should be NO pecking order. Sometimes the kids will come first, sometimes the adults will have to. The #1 and #2 positions are fluid. So in this situation, the kids might not like that dad has a new partner for example (although I don't actually think that's the case) But one way or another they are going to have to deal with it - they will not get to dictate that it shouldn't happen. Hopefully it will be dealt with with love and understanding, but the end result will still be that it's going to happen.
HighheelsAries Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 He shouldn't be hiding you, not after nine months. He is being dishonest towards his kids and you. Also the kids know he is divorced. He is not a monk so why can't you stay over openly when his kids are there? I think you should discuss this with him. If you two are going forward as a couple then this situation needs to change.
tlegend Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 But one way or another they are going to have to deal with it - they will not get to dictate that it shouldn't happen. This is entirely subjective. To you, they may not be your #1 priority. To you, they don't get to dictate your decisions. However, to me, my kids are #1 and their feelings will dictate my actions. 2
lollipopspot Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 There should be NO pecking order. Sometimes the kids will come first, sometimes the adults will have to. The #1 and #2 positions are fluid. Generally, yes. But the real needs of young kids (not their wants), should come before the needs of the adults. Some people who are involved with divorced parents (not saying anything about this poster, because I don't know) have a hard time with that. And the above is true of intact families too.
Mascara Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 When I was a kid, my dad got a job cross country and we had to move. None of us kids wanted to go, and my parents explained about how great it would all be etc etc. We still didn't want to go. We still had to. Because kids DON'T always come first. Sometimes, adults make decisions that kids don't like. Unless there's a divorce, then adults trying to compensate let their kids ALWAYS COME FIRST 2
TheBladeRunner Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 I'm pretty sure his reluctance has less to do with his kids welfare and more to do with not wanting to rock the boat with his ex. Men generally like a quiet life. Yup! That's it! IMO, 9 months is long enough. The question I have OP is how has he explained it to his kids this long?
lollipopspot Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 Heck, your partner should be #1 even when you are married for the first time and have kids. When you bring a helpless being onto the planet - literally all of their needs must be met by you. It decreases as they get older, but the real needs of a young child must be met by adults. Their real needs have to take precedence. When I was a kid, my dad got a job cross country and we had to move. None of us kids wanted to go, and my parents explained about how great it would all be etc etc. We still didn't want to go. We still had to. Because kids DON'T always come first. Sometimes, adults make decisions that kids don't like. You didn't have a need to stay. You had a want to stay. Needs vs. wants. If you needed medical care and the only way to get it was to stay where you were, then the family should have stayed and not moved cross country, because that would be a need.
Mascara Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 You didn't have a need to stay. You had a want to stay. Needs vs. wants. If you needed medical care and the only way to get it was to stay where you were, then the family should have stayed and not moved cross country, because that would be a need. Yeah, and his kids don't *need* him to not have a girlfriend. They might not want him to, but that's a different thing isn't it? By that logic, nothing that isn't life and death is a "need".
lollipopspot Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 Yeah, and his kids don't *need* him to not have a girlfriend. They might not want him to, but that's a different thing isn't it? By that logic, nothing that isn't life and death is a "need". They might have a strong need for stability right now. I don't know those kids and how they're dealing with the separation of their family and other things going on in their lives, nor do you. The parent in this case needs to be determining their needs (vs. wants) to the best of his ability.
Author Arabella001 Posted October 4, 2013 Author Posted October 4, 2013 Well, at least while the kids are young, the new partner should be #2 - he has a greater responsibility to the young people he brought onto the planet than he does to his love interest. His kids need him more. That doesn't mean it can't be a good relationship, and that she can't get what she needs from it, though. This reference to children being #1 is generally in reference to relationship decisions. Eg that the timing and how we interact will be based on putting his boys needs first. He has also put me first when clearing time to go away just the 2 of us, but it's more about the progression of the relationship that is going to have to reflect the needs of the children. He has discussed "daddy getting a girlfriend" with the youngest, and he agreed - suggesting me as a potential. However there was no mention of the eldest making any comment Maybe he didn't like the idea and that's why we are still status quo ( that was about a month ago). I also feel this might be because of the unstable ex (it's been mayhem lately) as his biggest fear is her trying to take the boys away. She would never have grounds to do this as he is a great father, but it doesn't make him react less or not worry about it. I'm just feeling a bit flat after leaving his house this morning, wondering if anything will ever progress.... Thanks for all the advice. It does help
Mascara Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 They might have a strong need for stability right now. I don't know those kids and how they're dealing with the separation of their family and other things going on in their lives, nor do you. The parent in this case needs to be determining their needs (vs. wants) to the best of his ability. I had a need for stability too, it was not just "ohh we don't want to". Still had to move hundreds of miles away. Stop making things relevant for one thing and not another. Kids do NOT always come first. Families weigh up the wants and needs of everyone and make the best decision on that basis. I'm done discussing this element of the thread. OP, you need to decide how much you can put up with. This guy has choices, but so do you. Nine months is a long time to just be a bit part in someone's life.
lollipopspot Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 This reference to children being #1 is generally in reference to relationship decisions. Eg that the timing and how we interact will be based on putting his boys needs first. He has also put me first when clearing time to go away just the 2 of us, but it's more about the progression of the relationship that is going to have to reflect the needs of the children. To me that seems like a very reasonable stance. I think it would be good for you though to ask him how he sees this progressing, and tell him about your feelings. I understand you were concerned about putting pressure on him, and you can tell him that, but you should also get to know where things stand and where his thoughts are currently - this is your life too 1
Phantom888 Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 The kids are too young to understand adult relationships. The dad is doing the right thing. Until you and the dad are engaged, or past 1 year mark, you should not be considered a "girlfriend" in front of the kids. Kids will resent it early on, especially if they have no say in it. I think you should consider having the kids involved in making the decision. Kids do what's natural to them, and if they see you as a "girlfriend" to their dad, they will act accordingly. If the kids dislike you, you might as well quit now. A good dad would never choose a woman over his kids.
lollipopspot Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 I had a need for stability too, it was not just "ohh we don't want to". Still had to move hundreds of miles away. Stop making things relevant for one thing and not another. Kids do NOT always come first. Families weigh up the wants and needs of everyone and make the best decision on that basis. I'm done discussing this element of the thread. Well, either your need wasn't that strong or a real need, or they misread it. I wasn't there so I can't say. It sounds like you had both of your parents though and your family wasn't recently split apart. But different children have different needs depending on who they are. Kids should "come first" when they have real needs. Maybe you can't read a child's needs, maybe you don't want to. But children in fact have real needs that parents should try to meet, since they brought them into the world. Some parents don't think so, and mow over their kid's needs based on what they themselves want, and they often end up raising pretty ****ed up people.
Author Arabella001 Posted October 4, 2013 Author Posted October 4, 2013 Yup! That's it! IMO, 9 months is long enough. The question I have OP is how has he explained it to his kids this long? I don't think he has explained my presence to them. At least he hasn't told me, apart from the above mentioned statement about the possibility of him getting a girlfriend. They make their own assumptions, and really, I actually doubt staying over is going to change much in children's innocent eyes. But I'm respecting the decision thus far... He has talked about having a week away together, the 4 of us, in January - shouldn't we do sleep overs first if it really will need an adjustment period?
Recommended Posts