Am i just being impossible to please

[607rst]

Im a single mother and my boyfriend of 17 months has never met my kids. We see each other 3 nights a week when my kids are with their dad. I feel like this a dead end relationship if he has no interest in involving them in our relationship to any extent. I told him i wanted to end the relationship because of this. He would prefer to continue exactly as is till my kids grow up then we can live together and grow old together. There is very strong love between us and he has said that he doesnt want to split and may decide to start involving my kids to save our relationship. My problem is that he has been very verbal in that this is only to satisfy me and not something he wants to do and may very well not like or enjoy it. I have stated i am not interested in forcing someone to do something they dont want to do, and that i only want him to do it if he is happy doing it. He feels i am being difficult and not just being happy with what he is willing to offer to make me happy. Am i being negative? i think this is a bad idea and will destroy what has been an amazing relationship if he isnt happy doing it and i dont want to do that to my kids if it isnt going to work out and if they sense he doesnt want to be around them, they are only 5 and 8. any opinions? positive or negative i would appeciate them all, i cant decide what to do, we really love each other greatly, there is no question of that.

[agent1607307371]

You're a mother, and if he doesn't want to be involved with your kids, or if he does it's only under sufferance; then it seems that the relationship can't really progress past the point it's at now.

 

Is it worth investing more time in someone who will not become more a part of your life?

[DN]

What is it that you want to happen?

 

Why do you think that him not being involved in their lives will adversely affect them.

[Seraphim]

He wants to wait till they are grown-up and they're five and eight? Then you can have a real relationship? Seriously? That sounds ridiculous. He wants a woman with no kids and you want someone to include your kids. Someone who did not want to include my son would be gone. I would not care how much I love them.

[buddha55]

The problem is... Even when they are past 18 (in 12 years!!!) they will not be out of your life. They may choose to go to a local college and live at home, or will be home from breaks, or for holidays. HE is the one who is being unrealistic.

[607rst]

Dn,

 

its not that i think him not being involved with my kids will negatively affect them, they have a father that is very involved. This for me, my idea of a long term relationship involves living with someone, sharing day to day things, sharing an every day life together and i have kids so i dont see how i can have that with someone that doesnt want to be around them. He thinks its ideal, i can spend time w my kids, then him and all is well but how do you progress into a life with someone that way? i dont know.

[DN]

Dn,

 

its not that i think him not being involved with my kids will negatively affect them, they have a father that is very involved. This for me, my idea of a long term relationship involves living with someone, sharing day to day things, sharing an every day life together and i have kids so i dont see how i can have that with someone that doesnt want to be around them. He thinks its ideal, i can spend time w my kids, then him and all is well but how do you progress into a life with someone that way? i dont know.

Well, it is not what people usually think will happen but I have heard of it before and it worked out OK. It requires that both people be on the same page but there is no intrinsic reason why he must be involved with your kids - let's face it, when new partners do become involved it doesn't always work out well.

 

Perhaps there is room for compromise here whereby he lives with you but, other than being polite and friendly, he does not become a father- figure or even a step-father figure. You remian responsible for discipline, homework, food and clothing etc. and his involvement stops with you and does not encompass them. Obviously, they would sometimes be with you for outings etc. but the same thing can apply - when they are with both of you, the kids remain your responsibility.

[ExcitedtoSleep]

You're a mother, and if he doesn't want to be involved with your kids, or if he does it's only under sufferance; then it seems that the relationship can't really progress past the point it's at now.

 

Is it worth investing more time in someone who will not become more a part of your life?

 

I agree with Agent. Do your kids even matter to you?

[607rst]

Thanks, I agree with agent as well, my kids are my life that's pretty much who I am a mother. I guess I'm just having a hard time breaking up with him even though I know I need to. It has been the only conclusion I seem to be coming to in my mind.

[DN]

my kids are my life that's pretty much who I am a mother.

see why he might be a little antsy about moving in with you?

[ExcitedtoSleep]

see why he might be a little antsy about moving in with you?

 

What does that mean? Aren't we supposed to be taking her in the right direction?

[catfeeder]

Unless I feel seriously enough about this man to consider marrying him, I would feel no need to involve my children with him.

 

Moving in together wouldn't be an option for me with kids. They've already had the rug pulled out from under their world with divorced parents, so I wouldn't want them to meet a man I had any doubts about, and I certainly wouldn't raise them to live in the same home with my lover. At a time when they're growing into their own sexuality, it's not necessary for them to deal with mine unless and until I consider remarrying. I wouldn't intend to teach them that relationships are disposable, but living together without marriage would feel like I'm giving them that message.

 

If I'm not considering marriage, the rest isn't all that relevant.

[Seraphim]

Unless I feel seriously enough about this man to consider marrying him, I would feel no need to involve my children with him.

 

Moving in together wouldn't be an option for me with kids. They've already had the rug pulled out from under their world with divorced parents, so I wouldn't want them to meet a man I had any doubts about, and I certainly wouldn't raise them to live in the same home with my lover. At a time when they're growing into their own sexuality, it's not necessary for them to deal with mine unless and until I consider remarrying. I wouldn't intend to teach them that relationships are disposable, but living together without marriage would feel like I'm giving them that message.

 

If I'm not considering marriage, the rest isn't all that relevant.

 

I feel exactly the same . Excellent post.

[ExcitedtoSleep]

I wish someone had been there to give this sort of advice to my mother when my parents got divorced.

[DN]

What does that mean? Aren't we supposed to be taking her in the right direction?

Depends what the 'right direction' - there is no right answer here just a clash of priorities.

 

For someone to write that their children are their life leaves no room for a partner. So why would he want to move in while the children are still there?

 

Children are important but they are not exclusively important and to make them one's only priority effectively excludes a partner or makes them a convenience at best to be discarded whenever the children want something (note 'want' not 'need'). Many people do that in a marriage where both partners are the parents of the children and it is most unwise. It is even more so when bringing in a non-parental partner.

 

There are other practical reasons for someone to be wary of becoming a parental figure - in the event of a separation they can be separated from children for whom they have developed an affection and a relationship, and at the same time find themselves paying child support.

 

These things are not as simple as they may appear at first blush. That is why it is better to talk and try to find compromises rather than advocate immediate endings.