My opinion -- it depends.

In a first marriage -- Spouse.
In a second marriage -- children (if still living with you)

I think in an "original" marriage the spouses should come first with a mutual understanding of supporting their kids as a second priority. Without the marriage being the top priority, the family falls apart. I think that is what happened in my marriage. I definetly was not at the top of my XH's priority list (I'd say I was about #5) And he wasn't my top either (honestly #3 behind kids and work)

Not making your spouse the top priority leads to neglect. And then you're not meeting their EN's. How could my XH meet my EN's when kids activities, work, his parents, and his hobbies were all more important than me?

Ok, so now I don't want to make those same mistakes a second time...but how do you put a new Spouse ahead of your children without causing resentment?
And how do you put your Children first, without causing resentment in your new Spouse?
I have no experience in this; so I'd love to hear from those that have remarried with children / stepchildren in the picture.

And is there a difference in dating vs. marriage?

Thanks!

I think you have to put the team first. Both parties have to decide whether they wish to be on the team.

Me and my fiancee both have kids. Obviously it won't work if each of us puts the kids first, or if we put our own kids ahead of the other's kids.

hey TMMX -- how old are all the kids involved? Do they support the plan?

Hi Lexxxy:

Good topic/good questions. My thoughts:


Agreed in an overall sense.



Don't agree. I feel that spouses should be the #1 priority in any marriage. (For the reasons you state in referring to original marriages.) However our children should be our #1 priority until we remarry - which means that we should never marry someone who is not completely compatible w/our kids. This concept eliminates the possibility of marrying someone our kids do not like; and vice-versa.

FR

Lexxxy,

Thanks for bringing this topic up. I'm very curious to see what others will say.

Now, here are my thoughts, and you'll see that they are different from others (surprise <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />).

I think, the answer is "neither". My belief is that kids and spouses are like apples and oranges - you can have both, and love both, and not have to choose.

Clearly, the couple comes first from the standpoint that if I am planning a vacation, I won't say "kids, where do YOU want to go?", and then inform my spouse of the plans. Or if I am planning a home improvement project, I won't say "kids, what color should I paint the living room?", and then inform my spouse of that decision. Rather, I would POJA all "family" decisions with my spouse first and foremost. So, from that standpoint, the spouse comes first.

Yet, in other ways, I would put my kids "first". If my child has a big school play coming up, I would plan to attend it. I would similarly plan to attend their games, birthday parties, etc - whatever it takes to make them feel loved and valued. Now, of course I would hope to get enthusiastic approval from my spouse on these (heck, I'd want her to attend as well!), but if she in general felt that this was putting the kids ahead of her, then that would be a dealbreaker for me.

Also, I would not let the kids manipulate the situation. If my child started saying that by me making plans with my spouse I was "loving the spouse more than the child", I'd nip that in the bud. We all know how important couples time is, and, like Lexxxy, I believe that it was the lack of it that contributed to the demise of my first marriage - so I don't want that to happen again. But, conversely, if my spouse were to believe that me going to the kids' games meant that I loved them more than her, I'd want to nip that in the bud too.

I have had a couple of experiences with childless GF's, neither good. One was with a woman who adored kids (she wrote children's stories!), and loved my kids. When we started dating, she went out of her way to tell me how much she wanted me to focus on my kids, and that she would never want me to put them second. No wonder I loved her! But, as we continued dating, things changed. She started resenting that I wanted to go to the kids' soccer games when they were with my ex (even though she came along), or that I was willing to "take" my kids when my ex needed to be out of town for something. I think she just did not get the fact that despite being a half-time dad due to custody, in my heart I was still a full-time parent, and these were my kids!

Now, it started similarly with my current GF. G was very into kids, worked at a preschool in the past, and loved learning about my kids. She seems very nurturing. But, recently, some things popped up that puzzled me. First, when I made a comment that I missed my kids (not a whiney type comment, just a statement because I saw a little girl who looked like my daughter nearby), she said that she felt that she should be "enough". Then, when I had a 2 hour activity with the kids on my normally "non-kid" weekend, she felt that the activity took away time from "us", and was concerned about this because I chose them over her. Finally, we had the same issue with my kids' games; she felt that a parent does not need to go to every game. I said that I don't HAVE to go to every game (for instance, this weekend she and I will be out of town, so I have no problem not being able to see the game), but if we are in town and have nothing else going on, why not? We left that pretty much unresolved.

She has the strong feeling that spouses should come first, but I think it is based on her present view of her parents and the "kids", which is silly because the "kids" are all close to 40. Of course when my kids are 40, they hopefully won't need my care, and I would expect that 90% of my thoughts would be focused on my partner. But at this point, when the kids are little, I cannot put them second.

So, I still would like to believe that it can be "both". I can love and cherish my kids, and I can love and cherish my partner, and neither should feel jealous, because it is a different kind of love. But I also don't think that a spouse should be "enough", any more that the kids should be "enough".

OK, I'll look forward to seeing others' inputs.

AGG

When you have kids, you're choosing a parent for them as well as a partner for yourself. I agree with FR. Put kids first in the choice of a second partner so after the marriage, putting the spouse first doesn't mean choosing between your kids and your spouse. I say this as a childless stepparent who was a better parent to WH's son and his niece and nephew who came to live with us than he was.

I agree with AGG, apples & oranges.

This is so dependent on the situation. Neither one should be saying you picked them over me! I'd sit both parties down & explain we are a group that works together to meet every one's needs to the best of the groups abilities. That means every one compromises & each party will sometimes get just what they want & sometimes not.

AGG, I was disturbed to read G said she "should be enough". That's skewed thinking in my book. That & you shouldn't "have" to go to "every game" when it isn't your time. When you're a parent there is no off time. Just because the kids are with the other parent doesn't mean you no longer have any responsibility for them. Again, skewed thinking. Though not being a parent herself I'm sure it's hard to grasp the devotion one feels toward their children.

This attitude would worry me as much or more than the other issues you're currently wrangling with. It comes off as selfish, demanding, unbending, & without a clue what family is about. Sorry to sound harsh, I hope this can be resolved along with the other stuff.

Oh, you bet, this caused some very tense moments. Heck, I had one foot out the door, because there was no way I was going to buy into the idea that I am only to see my kids half time, and think about them only half time. Nonsense. Nor was I going to accept that by wanting to do something with my kids, I was "choosing" them over her.

We had some very long talks about that, and I explained the very thing that you said so well - that I am always a parent, whether or not I have custody on a certain day, and I will always think about, worry about, and miss my kids when they are not with me. And yet that will not mean that G is not adequate for me in her capacity, which is that of a GF. But no, she will never be "enough" such that I will not think about my kids.

I think she understood my position, and her response helped me to understand her. Her concerns were not as much from the standpoint of "her" vs. "them", rather that at this early point, she wanted to have enough time for "us" to build a bond. I can buy that, and for now we are going with it. But, I made it very clear that there is no bigger dealbreaker to me than this, and no woman should ever ask me to "choose" her over my kids. I asked her if she really wanted me to be like the dad in Cinderella, who put the stepmother "first" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. I think she got the message.

Anyway, I decided to attribute this to her cluelessness since she has no kids and never dated anyone with kids. But, it is very much on my radar screen (like I said, baseball season is starting <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />), and I am ready to have the talk again at the first sign of a relapse.

AGG

The way I looked at it before remarrying was that I plan to be married to my new husband a lot longer than I plan to parent my children. Hopefully 30+ years of marriage vs 8 more years of parenting. So, nurturing my relationship with my spouse is VERY important, however, NOT at the expense of my children. It's not an either/or thing. I made it clear to my children that I will spend time alone with my husband and do special things with him, and they won't be invited. THey understand that he is a priority as my HUSBAND, but they are a priority as my CHILDREN. My husband also understands that right now my children sometimes take up time and energy....but in just 4 years my oldest graduates, and in 8 years they will all be (somewhat anyway, lol) on their own and it will be just us.

First, what does priority in this context mean at all?
If you have a baby 1-2 years old and a guy, and the three of you are hungry, and you have only one piece of bread, who'd take that piece? (I couldn't love a man who'd take it all.)
And, if child needs all of it for consequences are harder if left hungry, who has priority - the child or a hungry partner or hungry you?
Or, if you have your kid crying and your man wants cuddling, do you cuddle him or you confort your child? (It'd be morbid if he enjoyed. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />)
Or, in the middle of night, you get two calls in row, one from your partner, poor drank needing a ride home, or your teenager alone in the night, who do you pick up?
Or, your man wants eggs for breakfast and the child a pancake, what do you make?
(Me both, I love cooking <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)

What?
When I hear 'priority' word, it sounds to me like one thing excluding the other one. - Doesn't have to be, at all.
And I know that my heart is so big that my beloved ones can get quite enough piece of. Unless they selfishly asked for more and more. (Well, that'd be a good ticket not to belong to 'my beloved ones' though.)
I mean, a partner has to understand that he needs less of my time for teaching him, raising him, feeding him, encouraging, being present, than my child needs from me.
Moreover, a 'right' one would be involved in all of that too, not because I want it, but because he accepts ME, and that means my child and his needs and my role in it as well.
I cannot be, morally nor legally, responsible for a man, but I AM for my child and how I influence his future.

I.e., there is time for mothering, and time for... womaning <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
And time for both at the same time.

Also, he wouldn't have me while I'm at work and he'd accept that, but wouldn't accept not having me during my time with my child? (I couldn't respect that).
The same with the child; (a bigger) child has to accept also that I have my own needs and that sometimes I need that time just for myself (and someone else I love too).
So, 'priorities' are moving back and forth and in ALL directions, depending on daily life situations.
And only their optimal 'switching' makes all involved to be pleased and happy.

However, IF I had to chose, it'd be - my child.

But I don't think I'd ever have to... I couldn't be with someone demanding to change 'who comes first'.

My son's needs comes before my own needs (if both of our needs cannot be satisfied at the same time).
If a partner needs so much to be 'priority # 1', then he needs his mom TOO. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

This shouldn't be an issue, if both parents agree that the kids come first. I wouldn't want to be married to someone who didn't make the kids his first priority.

There is a good chance that a woman will not remain a wife all her life, either due to divorce or widowhood, but she normally will remain a parent all her life.

Ah, when will I learn to say all in just two sentences. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm another one who thinks it's a strange question.

If you're going to be married, to me that means a commitment to be there for your spouse including 15 hours a week UA time minimum, more when things are tough, period. That includes contingency plans for cutting back other things to get that important time in when life gets crazy. If you're not willing to do that, you've got no business being married.

Likewise, parenting has similar commitments. You owe your kids your time and attention in healthy quantities.

If you have kids but no spouse, and you haven't realistically got room in your life to meet the commitments of both, the answer is simple -- don't get married.

Personally, I don't believe children should come first be it in a first or second marriage, especially if the marriage is going to be a strong one.

I'm not saying the kids should be ignored, but at the same time they don't come first.

But then I don't believe kids need to be involved in every single activity out there that take them away from home every waking hour of the day either.

I know parents whose kids are involved in every sport and school activity there is for them to be a part of and then complain they never have a free moment because they are always taking their kids to this activity and that activity.

Each of my kids have been involved in various activities but
not at the same time, where I was running to and fro everyday never finding a moments peace.

There needs to be a balance between family and outside activities, so that the kids activities aren't running the lives of everyone in the household.

If the kids activities are taking presidence over everything in a families life, then the parents need to learn to say NO on occassion, so that the marriage isn't placed way back on the back burner.

Don't believe the lies that kids will some how suffer emotionally if they aren't involved in every activity life has to offer.



make sure you keep schedules balanced. It's more difficult when you have kids living in different homes, and have two parents putting kids into various sports and such, but just remember you may not be able to make every sporting event your child or their child is involved in, if your dating or remarried to someone who has kids not living with you.

It's as if parents have a problem with kids learning how to handle disappointments in life at a young age, the only thing that does is prolongs learning something that will actually HELP them in life.



We make use of the calender, it's an awesome tool for letting everyone know when various activities are taking place, and so that we don't over schedule things where we need to be in two or even three places at once.

Something else that is REALLY helpful, especially as your kids get older and they want to do things with friends, talk to the parents of your childrens friends and make plans for one of you take the kids and the other to pick them up. That way your not doing all the running.


Most certainly, sometimes it's a matter of doing both activities, going to one for awhile, leaving and going to the other. And sometimes it's just a matter of just saying, "I'm sorry, but I already have other plans."

My husbands ex-wife used to be really bad at calling at the last minute to let him know of activities their kids were doing, we nipped that, by explaining they need to let us know in advance when at all possible so that WE can try not to schedule something else those days, it's not always possible because my kids have lives too, but we do try to make it work as much as possible.

That question is loaded no matter what you decide, imho.

I do remember that I told my second H that I would never marry him for the kids, but that I would certainly NOT marry him for the kids.

My kids were 2 and 4 years old when I remarried so it is not like they could voice an opinion when I did decide to remarry.

I mean, what would you do if your teenagers didn't want you to marry someone because they didn't like him/her? If you go ahead and do it, the marriage is doomed from the start. To tell them that they will always come first gives them just the ammo that they need if they want to break you apart.

I guess I wouldn't want to be in a marriage where that question would even need to be addressed.

committed

Regardless of whether first or second marriage -- SPOUSE. The bible says it, so it must be true...

A healthy, respectful, and loving marriage gives children security. If that is a marriage between biological parent and step, then it still lends security to a child's life.

I would also be careful of "only marrying someone your child likes". My friend's daughter was fine with her boyfriend; they got along great. But she always nurtured a fantasy that her parents would get back together -- so when mother and beau asked her if she would like for them to get married, she all of a sudden didn't like him. They got married anyway. Once it was a done deal, she was back to liking him.

A child should know that their NEEDS will always be most important to their parents (AND their stepparents, if applicable). One should marry with that in mind -- will your second spouse feel your child's needs are a priority?

A child should also know that their WANTS will come second to the wants of our spouse and to the health of the marriage and the family.

What a child wants isn't always what's good for them or their family...

Lexxxy - our kids are 7, 10, 12, 12, and 14. To answer whether they support the plan is a little complicated. Generally they get along and like their prospective step-parent. There is some developing territorialism, but not much different than what occurs among natural siblings.

Her kids will have to leave their neighborhood and school, and also their 2 cats (my oldest is allergic). But their father is already re-married, so they already seem used to the idea and seem happy about it. But they don't know about the cats yet.

My kids are with me about 1/3 of the time, and when they come over after I'm re-married, it might feel like they are guests. Right now they each have their own room at my house. It won't be immediately practical to get more space.

My oldest (14 y.o.) started out thinking my fiancee is great (she works with kids and is good with kids), but lately has come up with a laundry list of concerns. Most of them bogus. For instance, he somehow got the idea that money will be tighter and there will be more work involved, when actually the opposite is true.

My ex is going to be the biggest problem. Her first meeting with my fiancee did not go well - she acted out a scene in front of the kids. There is a cycle of her planting ideas in the kids, and then I have to address them when my kids come over. But that's been the case all along.

We've learned that we have to stick together as a team. The kids are important, and we are making the best decisions for their future.

Belle -- I like the "needs" vs. "wants" distinction.
I am probably guilty of elevating my kids "wants" into my "must do". And that's where the schedule gets crazy. Add to that the divorce scenario where neither parent wants to be the bad guy that says NO to an activity (for no good reason other than to eliminate the crazy scheduling....)

TMMX -- just curious, cuz I won't face this issue (my BF has no children...) How are you going to handle their rooms? Are your children being asked to give up their rooms? Will your step-children take those over? Seems like a big challenge to me. How soon are you getting married?


I agree with those that have the opinion that a spouse should come first. I guess where I am having confusion is in that in-between time. I was married -- the kids always came first and now in hindsight I recognize that as a mistake. Now that I am divorced, my kids have been my first priority. How do I transition my kids out of that position if/when I remarry. They are very accustomed to being in first place.

I also think that my kids tend to be overscheduled, but me and my XH don't work well together in scaling back their activities.
Youngest is a very good athlete. He competes at traveling A levels in 3 sports. He loves them all. And my XH is his coach for 2 of those sports. Its darn near impossible for me to say he can't play.

I've been divorced for 12 years and have not remarried. One reason is because I didn't want a stepfather in my home with my children. I decided that while they lived with me, I would put them ahead of any relationship I might have. It was easier that way. I dated but never had anyone move in with me or anything. I wasn't interested in being put in the middle. And it takes a lot of energy to work full-time, be a homeowner AND a single parent of 2 sons.

Any man that would ask me to choose between him and my children is not the man for me, in my opinion. Any man that loves me understands how important my children are to me and would NEVER ask me to choose between him and them. Period.

I have found that dating men with children is easier. Men with children understand what I go through. (And men that have actually RAISED children--even better!) If you don't have children you can't possibly understand what it's like to love your child. I couldn't understand it if I didn't have kids.

AGG, I've read your threads and I think you have some red flags with your relationship with G which you seem to be aware of. (Good for you!!) She doesn't have children so therefore she doesn't understand what it is like to be a parent. She can't, it's impossible.

I have learned a lot in the last 12 years and one of the most important is this: your children are only young for a short time. Before you know it they are grown and out of your home. Enjoy it fully while you can. Savor every moment.

Second marriages have a high divorce rate so I've learned that I need to choose very wisely the second time around. Now that my sons are grown, I feel more ready for this stage of my life.

"AGG, I've read your threads and I think you have some red flags with your relationship with G which you seem to be aware of. (Good for you!!) She doesn't have children so therefore she doesn't understand what it is like to be a parent. She can't, it's impossible."

While we are preparing for the arrival of a child this year, I did not have a child before I was married to my husband. While I know it wasn't intended in a hurtful way, I have to say that the above statement felt disrespectful to me. I don't think that I am in any way incapable of comprehending parenthood simply because I haven't given birth yet.

Furthermore, I know a lot of stepparents (and foster parents); they aren't "less than" birth parents.

Giving birth or impregnating a woman does not automatically empower one with parenting skills. Spiders reproduce, but they don't parent. Likewise, those of us who have been foster parents, highly involved uncles/aunts, or stepparents, are just as capable of parenting well.

As I said, I know the intent of the post was not to hurt. But I think our society tends to be a bit ignorant on the whole issue of "parenthood".

Bellemere,

That statement is not disrespectful - it is true. You can not understand what it is like to be a parent until you have children. The bond between (most) parents and child is like nothing else you can ever experience. Especially when my kids were tiny babies, I sometimes literally did not know where I ended and they began.

You can not simply divide things up into needs and wants. There is a huge grey area between something that is universally accepted as a need, such as providing enough calories to grow on, and something that is obviously a want that is not good for them, such as dinners of potato chips and cookies. For instance, when it comes to activities - filling every waking moment may be a want, and probably not a good idea, but having some activities IS a need. They probably won't die without it, but it may affect their ability to have a fulfilling life.

I completely disagree with the statement that their wants should come after those of the spouse. You're not even willing to allow that the kids' wants are equally important? WHY???? There are probably certain instances where the adults wants might come first - if the adults never get any relaxation, they might burn out - but certainly not across the board. If the child had a soccer tournament and your spouse felt like going out to dinner instead, would you force the child to miss the tournament? Would you miss his school play if your spouse said he would rather stay home and drink beer? Would you make your kids drink powdered milk while you went to fancy restaurants? You will always have to balance important wants against minor ones, but given two equally important wants, the child's should virtually always come first.

tmmx,

You are going to make her kids not only move but give up their cats?? And you expect them to take that lying down? My parents gave away my dogs for what I know they thought was a good reason, and I have never forgiven them for that. And they were my parents, whereas her children do not have a parental bond with you or a sibling bond with your kids. They are going to resent you horribly. I can think of no better way to screw up your chances of having a good relationship with her children. These are their pets, not a piece of furniture.

And you are going to make your kids give up their own rooms? This sounds like a recipe for disaster. Either the marriage won't last, or you and your fiance will manage to alienate one or both sets of kids.

I agree with tb45 and Nellie


Well, very soon you will understand what these mothers said.

I agree that there are people with no children but with their excellent parenting SKILLS, in some cases better than the children had from their biological mothers... but we are not talking about that (feeding kids, educating them, disciplining them... upbringing is much more...) but UNDERSTANDING what it IS like to be a parent...
Glad soon you will know that too. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If you don't mind, what do you mean 'you make best decisions for their future'?
(I guess taking away their cats and rooms from them isn't good enough argument against... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)

Btw, can't you, for example, wait to be able to buy a bigger house, or renovate existing one to accomodate properly everyone?

I think that this is exactly the poster's point - until you have kids of your own, you will not comprehend what it means to be a parent. It doesn't make you any less of a human being than a parent would be, and no one impled that your parenting skills wouldn't be good.

The point, as Nellie stated, is whether a non-parent can understand the bond that exists between parents and their children, and I think the answer is typically "no". Sure, you can intellectually know that it is a strong bond, and no doubt you are a great aunt to nieces/nephews, but it is entirely on a different level than being a parent.

No offense was intended by that comment, but I agree that non parents will not "get" the full depth of the parent/child bond until they have their own kids. When you do have your child, I bet you'll agree <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

And, so far, my experience with childless women has confirmed this. While both of them were very much into kids, were superb aunts, and loved my kids, they still didn't "get" why I might want to see my kids on a weekend when they were with their mom. I bet no parent would have any difficulty understanding that want.

AGG

Didnt read any of the posts, but spouce if you want to be married long after the children are gone.

Besides children disown you after 10 or 12 years anyway. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

IMHO, The children should always come first. My reasoning is, your children are your children today tomorrow and always but, your spouse is your spouse today and tomorrow well, who knows, they could be your Xspouse.

So there you have it.

Again this is just my opinion.

MND2K <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If a spouse doesn't make his children and family their priority, making him priority won't help; consequences for M are the same (i.e. why we are here)...

I wonder, how many of us really learnt...
... for nobody said - 'Priority? Me!' (Then my children, etc. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)

Agree

And I understand that, I have not been the mother all my life... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

What is the most sad for me is, in most cases, they can like/love your children before marrying you, but after having their own child, they quite change (negatively) toward her/his children from previous relationship... 'my child comes first'...

Lexxxy - we'll probably put the 2 youngest girls together, and my 2 boys together, and the 12-y.o. girl (who's reached puberty) in her own room. Two-thirds of the time, my two step-daughters will have their own room, which is an upgrade from their current situation. My two boys have previously shared a room in the marital home, and for a couple years after I separated we were all in the same room at my apartment.

Right now I have 3 real bedrooms plus 1 in the basement. Realistically we might find a place with 4 real bedrooms, plus 1 in the basement. The main impetus for moving is to establish "our" house rather than "my" house.

Everyone has already bonded with our dog. The cats could possibly end up with the step-daughters's dad and his wife, or with another family member, as has already happened with a previous cat.

Nellie2 and Belonging2Myself - those replies meet the textbook definition of disrespectful judgement. I'll just point out that people move quite frequently for a variety of reasons, and the same with pets.

tmmx,
Caring people do NOT get rid of their pets "quite frequently for a variety of reasons." It is quite possible, nay, even highly probable that your fiancee's children will resent not only your separating them from the four legged members of their family, but see it as an additional betrayal that you get to keep your dog. Aside from the fact that suggesting that someone is making a mistake is hardly a "disrespectful judgment," and the obvious point that it doesn't matter if I do make disrespectful judgments, because I am, thank goodness, not married to you, I think you are acting extremely disrespecfully toward both your and her kids - making decisions about their feline loved ones without consulting them, referring to your son's ideas as "bogus," stating that it is possible for your ex-wife to "plant" ideas in his mind, like he isn't perfectly capable at the age of 14 of thinking for himself, thinking that somehow you can make life-altering decisions that are "best" for the children without consulting or even notifying them. The children are people, with thoughts, feelings, and opinions that are no less valid or important than yours.

I absolutely meant no disrespect by my comment regarding not being able to understand what it's like to be a parent until you have children. Before I had my first son, I had lots of nieces and nephews whom I loved with all my heart. I love my son quite differently. Until you have a child, you can't possibly understand this.

I also think parents that raise children are probably a little more understanding than parents that don't raise their children. That at least has been my experience.

tmmx,
Don't worry about the disrespectful judgements. This is after all, only a chat board! LOL Personally, I've known a lot of intact families that have had to get rid of pets because one of the family members developed an allergy to the pet. Really, what is more important, a child's health or keeping an animal? Additionally, Children need to be taught at a young age to look beyond their "wants", to other people's real "needs". Many relationships end because of this very reason. One person in the marriage hasn't developed the ability to look beyond their wants to other's real needs.

When looking for guidance or advice regarding how to create and maintain a successful marriage, you might want to ask people who actually have a successful relationship. Look around you in life and find a couple or two that do have a great marriage and use them as a sounding board and example. Just my opinion. (BTW, I do have a long term loving, successful marriage and blended family)

For many children, having to give up a beloved pet would be devastating. Keeping a beloved pet often falls in the "need" category, not the "want" category. I am guessing that you are not an animal person.

Many families with allergic children have no trouble keeping their pets - there are many alternatives, including special dander-reducing shampoo, keeping them out of the children's bedrooms, etc. Actually, research has shown that children raised in multiple-pet households are less likely to develop allergies.

I have a friend whose daughter has asthma, and who was allergic to many animals. They managed to have a dog, a cat, and some kind of lizard, and the first thing the daughter did after graduating from college was to get herself a dog.

by John Rosemond

There is but one proper place for children within a family-the backseat. Exclusive possession of the front seat belongs to the marriage.

The marriage is the bedrock upon which the family is built and everyone in the family depends. The marriage is "where it's at" and always will be. The marriage precedes the children and was meant to succeed them. But if you put your children first, if you plan your life around their presence, if you think that the meaning of "family" is synonymous with their existence, then the fabric of your relationship may not be able to endure the wear and tear of life together.

The marriage is the nucleus of the family. It creates, defines, and sustains the family. It transcends the identities of the two people who created it, and yet a healthy marriage not only preserves those identities but also brings them to full flower.

To say that your commitment is to your marriage, rather than to your spouse, it to recognize that YOU are an equal partner. For the marriage to remain vital, you must take care of your OWN selves as well as take care of each other – no more and no less.

But what about the children? Well…what about them?

Children's needs are met if the needs of the marriage are met. Children who experience their parents' relationship as an ever-present core of stability at the center of the family will feel as secure as they can possibly feel.

From their parents' example, they learn how to share, how to disagree in ways which don't compromise anyone's dignity, and they learn the human art of caring. They learn that their parents' relationship does not include them-and yet they eventually realize that they are protected and nurtured BECAUSE of it.

Children discover who they are by first having it defined for them who their parents are, and who they are not. They discover their OWN place by first being told where it CANNOT be.

It is this clear sense of "separateness" that encourages the growth of autonomy and pushes children toward the fulfillment of their own promise.

There isn't a child on earth who needs more than that.

... and nobody answered some questions here, re: what does that priority mean in a daily life... it seems rather you go to extreme, stating your child decides all or your spouse (and you) does it... your child has right of voting and no your spouse, or opposite... you take your spouse as equal and not your child, or opposite... and this is NOT white-black picture at all...

so, in general...

I could agree with Mr. John in a sense - happy parents = happy children

but could never agree with this part:

Nor ever this one:

"Separateness" does NOT mean FAMILY, nor marriage either.


Also, nothing easier than find some articles on the web supporting our views...
There are many of them about neglected children, for example...

Like the rest of the article, this is a fluffy statement that says nothing useful. What does a "back seat" mean? What does the "front seat" mean? Does it mean we treat the kids like second class citizens, feeding them only after the "couple" has had its fill? Or does it mean we don't spend thousands on the lastest i-pods for the kids just because their friends have them? If it's the latter, it has nothing to do with "who comes first", it is simply a question of good parenting. Anyway, since the author did not cite a single example of what "front seat" and "back seat" are, I have no clue what to make of it.



This is the other key point here. On this board, most of us are referring not to the original family that created the kids, but rather to one original parent and a step parent. That is a wholly different dynamic than what the author is talking about here.

AGG

IMHO, I don't take the above statement to mean that the children should be treated as second class citizens but, that the parents, whether in a marriage or not, must take care of themselves first in order to take better care of the children.

It's like being in an airplane and the oxygen masks come down, you should put yours on before you put one on your child as your child will have to depend on you if the plane has to make an emergency landing.

I believe that the children should always be first in your heart but, you should remember that you're the adults, the driver of sorts and you must be in the front seat to better navigate your lives as well as their's as you will be making most if not all of the decisions for your children, at least till they're old enough to make them for themselves.

Now as we all know, children are very perspective they know when there's something wrong, whether it be in the marriage or with a single parent, and unfortunately, if the parents are unhappy most times so will the children so please drive carefully through life.

Again, this is JMO.

mNd2k

I don't think anyone is arguing this point. Clearly the parents need to take care of running the household in order to properly provide for the kids' wellbeing and safety.

The question that we are debating is when it comes to "choices", rather than emergencies, who should come "first"? Example - a biological parent wants to go to his child's school performance, while the stepparent says that she would prefer for them to watch a TV show. So this is not an issue of survival, as in the oxygen mask scenario, but rather who do we put "first" when there are conflicting "wants".

Like I said, both need to be first, and this question of choosing sides is inherently flawed. I also disagree that if the parent/stepparent put themselves first, the kids will automatically be taken care of. That is nonsense. There are plenty of neglected kids whose parents have all they happen to need and want. Putting the "marriage" first at the expense of the kids does nothing to assure that the kids' needs and wants will be nmet.

I say still it's important to POJA this, and to keep things in balance. If the parent/stepparent always choose to put themselves "first", i.e. do stuff for themselves without nurturing the kids, the kids will suffer. If the parent/stepparent always do everything for the kids and forget about themselves, then the marriage will suffer.

BALANCE.

AGG

A child should know that their NEEDS will always be most important to their parents (AND their stepparents, if applicable). One should marry with that in mind -- will your second spouse feel your child's needs are a priority?

A child should also know that their WANTS will come second to the wants of our spouse and to the health of the marriage and the family.

That is virtually a guarantee that the child will resent one or both parents, and rightfully so, since the child will most likely end up neglected.

In the case of good, caring parents, the child's wants are often their wants - the child wants his parents to come to the school play, or to take him to soccer practice, and the parents want that too, because they want their children to be happy and watching him enjoy himself gives them pleasure.

As AGG said, it is often a question of balance, just as you have to balance the wants of child #1 and child #2, #3, etc. However, if the child's wants always come last, that is a recipe for disaster, and especially so when the spouse is less likely to care deeply about the children's happiness, because he or she is not their parent.

This only works when you have two loving and caring parents, which cannot be assured even in the "original" family with both biological parents.

And as Nellie said, this is even less likely to happen in a blended family situation, because the stepparent, no matter how good and loving, will not have that unconditional love and connection to the child. So I would not assume that the "wants" of the stepparent will automatically satisfy the "wants" of the child. Doesn't work that way.

AGG

A child should know that their NEEDS will always be most important to their parents (AND their stepparents, if applicable). One should marry with that in mind -- will your second spouse feel your child's needs are a priority?


Please note the second sentence of that paragraph --
One should marry with that in mind -- will your second spouse feel your child's needs are a priority?

Stepparents CAN be and often ARE excellent parents to their stepchildren.

In the case of Nellie's friend -- the birth parent chose poorly. They didn't look at their potential mate's fitness to parent/stepparent.

In my situation, I grew up loving my stepfather and cherishing the memories of a childhood in his home, because my mother chose well.

Blending families can be done with great success -- one must simply take care that one is not blending in a person who is immature, selfish, violent, or destructive.

Bearing that in mind -- YES, I maintain that the wants of ANY child come second to the wants of the parenting team -- biological and step. The child is in the backseat of the car for their own protection; they lack the wisdom to "drive the car" -- or rather, to set the direction of the family.

And that goes for blended families as well as intact biological families.

Does a child who loves music "need" to take piano or guitar lessons? Does a child who lacks coordination "need" to take martial arts? Does a child who loves animals "need" to be in 4-H? Does any child "need" to go to the library regularly, or to have books of their very own? Do they "need" birthday parties or playdates or an an occasional outing to get ice cream? Does a child who wants to be a doctor "need" to go to college? All of these are wants, all of them may be in conflict with the wants of the parents to have time to play golf or plenty of money for retirement, and all of these are important to the welfare of the child. The whole parents setting the direction of the family thing only works if the parents' primary long term goal is to raise healthy, responsible, well-educated and happy children who have every opportunity possible to reach their full potential, even if the attainment of that goal requires the parents to give up some or even most of their "wants."

That's the whole point. The healthy parents and stepparents together make the decision what "wants" are appropriate. They maintain control of the family vehicle. They responsibly make the decision to grant the child's "wants" as they deem appropriate, and to ensure all the needs are met. Every want a child has -- cannot and SHOULD not be indulged. Everything we want isn't necessarily good for us.

Your spouse is your equal, your partner for life. It's a crime to assume that they aren't, just because you've been scarred by a previous divorce.
Your child is a child -- and depends on parents and stepparents to make wise judgements on their behalf.

Deciding whether your children's wants are good for them has nothing whatsoever to do with making their wants a higher priority than those of the adults. Of course I wouldn't give my kids cookies for breakfast even if they wanted them, because that is not a healthy diet. I would not refuse them cookies for breakfast because I wanted to eat them.

Examples of putting your child's wants first include reading them a story when you would rather be reading the paper, or suffering through their clarinet practice when you would rather be watching TV. Good parents do this sort of thing all the time. You may sift through your children's wants and eliminate those that are not good for them in any of dozens of ways, or those that would make it impossible to meet their basic needs, but you almost never reject their wants just because they conflict with yours or your spouses.

Whether or not your partner is your equal or whether or not you have been scarred by divorce also has nothing to do with whose wants have the highest priority.

I had a really long post about this that deleted itself. So, I can either take that as meaning I shouldn't be saying it or simplify it.

Priorities are pretty simple:

God first
Spouse second
Children third
Work forth
Fun and Mayhem next ---

Now, you can go wherever you want with that - but if you have those priorities in tact, lined up the right way - your children are going to have the care they need.

If they don't, then it gets all out of whack and the reality is, many spouses complain that they aren't top priority with their spouse for good reason. If you don't have your priorities lined up correctly, your spouse has to realign their priorities.

To be non-politically correct because PC just isn't my style... If your job is your first priority and you want your spouses attention over your children, you're barking up the wrong tree. If you can't figure that out, you've got a pretty screwy set of priorities anyways.

Jan

Its not too difficult to decide about the situation you're IN...but....how do get there????

how do you manage this in the dating world?

I'm not married. So obviously my kids come #1 on my list.
However, I am in a serious relationship. BF is not part of the "parenting team".

Its not difficult at this point to manage my priorities. But where is the transition point? If this is someone I want to marry, do I begin to put him first at engagement? And how would we get to that point if I'm constantly putting kids first? Do I tell him "honey, right now you're only my BF, but when you become my husband or fiance, then everything will change..."

This stuff gets very messy! I'm very glad that my kids are not under the age of 10 right now!

Lexxy,

When you get more serious with the guy, you'll know.

He will become more involved in your kids activities with you, because he wants to become more involved and wants to spend time with you, even if it is with your kids.

And as your kids get to know him, they will appreciate the fact you also want to spend some time with him alone, just like they want to spend time with their friends.

You will learn to balance it all out, because your relationship with the person and your kids will both be important to you, and it really won't be as hard as you think.

Before my husband and I got married, he wanted to spend time with me, and if it meant going and watching my daughters basketball game then thats what he did.

If it meant he went to watch his daughter cheer and I went to my daughters basketball game and we met up later, then that's what we did.

When you love the person, you will learn to make the compromises.