As a half-sister to three siblings and the mom of a daughter who'll have her first half-sibling (from her dad) this summer, I'll chime in with my few cents.
From our point of view, we are siblings, no "half" involved. The only time we make that "half"/"full" distinction is when it is necessary to clarify something that just doesn't compute for someone who doesn't know our family well yet.
For example, I would say (if that were the case, it's a hypothetical, I'm going to the wedding but not to CA): "I'm going to WI for my sister's wedding and then flying to CA to see my father." Which would get a "but won't your father be at the wedding?". To which I would respond, "no, she's my half-sister, we have different fathers." Or something similar.
We know the distinction, and the mechanics of our technical relationship. We also don't care about the distinction, for us, but understand that other people may need the clarification from time to time.
For my daughter, with the upcoming birth, I've explained the difference between "half", "step" and "full" siblings... she's going to have a half-sibling soon and has a step-brother (her father's girlfriend's son).
She knows that my brother and sisters are "really half-siblings because we have different fathers but in our hearts we are just siblings, no halfs at all, because that's how we feel about each other."
I've told her that the baby-on-the-way will be her half-sibling, and her step-brother's half-sibling because it will share one biological parent with each of them. AND that, just like with me and my siblings, that half-sibling will also just be her sibling, no-halfs, if/when she/they feel like not-halfs.
Now that she's clear on the biological relationships involved, I just refer to the baby as her future "brother or sister" (don't know which yet) and don't use the term "half". But she's 7 so explaining the biology first seemed easier, especially since we have the real-life concrete example of my (half)siblings to refer to.
And, in the future, I'll follow her lead once she starts to get to know the baby. If/when she wants to drop the distinction, I will continue to do so. Except when necessary to clarify, for instance if she says she's "going to see her sibling in France" and someone asks me why my other child lives in France, then I'd explain that it's her half-sibling from her father, who lives in France.
That said, and as much as I'm willing to encourage her to drop the "half" (and "step") in her mind and heart, for *her*, I think it is unreasonable for her father to expect me to place the same importance on her being there for the birth as he does.
She will, because of when the baby is due and when her regular summer visit is scheduled. And, if we had nothing else going on, I'd be more than willing to shift the dates on her regular visitation schedule to accomodate him if there wasn't anything else important going on.
BUT I would be upset if he expected me to re-schedule an important trip or event in my family, or miss and important event in my family here at a time when DD's supposed to be with me, just because he and his gf are having a baby.
For example, my sister is getting married next fall. The date's been set for a long time. If his gf had gotten pregnant *after* the wedding plans were made (or even just told us she was pregnant after the plans had been made) and then he expected her to not attend the wedding so she could visit him around the time of the due-date (with absolutely no guarantees that she'd even be there at the "right" time if the baby came early or late), I'd tell him to pound sand. Politely, of course.
She's 7. Not being there when the baby is born will not do any long-term damage to their future sibling relationship. Heck, in non-divorced/non-blended families, kids are often "vacationing with grandparents" or whatever on purpose when new babies join the family...
The new baby will be her brother or sister, no question about that. And I support that. But the new baby will *not* be *my* baby in any way, shape or form, and it is not reasonable to expect me to cater to every life-event in his life just because he and I share a child and were once married.
If I were to remarry someday (not likely, but not impossible), I would not ask him to alter or give up any of his time with her to accomodate my wedding. I'd schedule it at a time when she's supposed to be with me. My important life-events are not his concern any more than his are mine.
Does any of that make sense?
From our point of view, we are siblings, no "half" involved. The only time we make that "half"/"full" distinction is when it is necessary to clarify something that just doesn't compute for someone who doesn't know our family well yet.
For example, I would say (if that were the case, it's a hypothetical, I'm going to the wedding but not to CA): "I'm going to WI for my sister's wedding and then flying to CA to see my father." Which would get a "but won't your father be at the wedding?". To which I would respond, "no, she's my half-sister, we have different fathers." Or something similar.
We know the distinction, and the mechanics of our technical relationship. We also don't care about the distinction, for us, but understand that other people may need the clarification from time to time.
For my daughter, with the upcoming birth, I've explained the difference between "half", "step" and "full" siblings... she's going to have a half-sibling soon and has a step-brother (her father's girlfriend's son).
She knows that my brother and sisters are "really half-siblings because we have different fathers but in our hearts we are just siblings, no halfs at all, because that's how we feel about each other."
I've told her that the baby-on-the-way will be her half-sibling, and her step-brother's half-sibling because it will share one biological parent with each of them. AND that, just like with me and my siblings, that half-sibling will also just be her sibling, no-halfs, if/when she/they feel like not-halfs.
Now that she's clear on the biological relationships involved, I just refer to the baby as her future "brother or sister" (don't know which yet) and don't use the term "half". But she's 7 so explaining the biology first seemed easier, especially since we have the real-life concrete example of my (half)siblings to refer to.
And, in the future, I'll follow her lead once she starts to get to know the baby. If/when she wants to drop the distinction, I will continue to do so. Except when necessary to clarify, for instance if she says she's "going to see her sibling in France" and someone asks me why my other child lives in France, then I'd explain that it's her half-sibling from her father, who lives in France.
That said, and as much as I'm willing to encourage her to drop the "half" (and "step") in her mind and heart, for *her*, I think it is unreasonable for her father to expect me to place the same importance on her being there for the birth as he does.
She will, because of when the baby is due and when her regular summer visit is scheduled. And, if we had nothing else going on, I'd be more than willing to shift the dates on her regular visitation schedule to accomodate him if there wasn't anything else important going on.
BUT I would be upset if he expected me to re-schedule an important trip or event in my family, or miss and important event in my family here at a time when DD's supposed to be with me, just because he and his gf are having a baby.
For example, my sister is getting married next fall. The date's been set for a long time. If his gf had gotten pregnant *after* the wedding plans were made (or even just told us she was pregnant after the plans had been made) and then he expected her to not attend the wedding so she could visit him around the time of the due-date (with absolutely no guarantees that she'd even be there at the "right" time if the baby came early or late), I'd tell him to pound sand. Politely, of course.
She's 7. Not being there when the baby is born will not do any long-term damage to their future sibling relationship. Heck, in non-divorced/non-blended families, kids are often "vacationing with grandparents" or whatever on purpose when new babies join the family...
The new baby will be her brother or sister, no question about that. And I support that. But the new baby will *not* be *my* baby in any way, shape or form, and it is not reasonable to expect me to cater to every life-event in his life just because he and I share a child and were once married.
If I were to remarry someday (not likely, but not impossible), I would not ask him to alter or give up any of his time with her to accomodate my wedding. I'd schedule it at a time when she's supposed to be with me. My important life-events are not his concern any more than his are mine.
Does any of that make sense?







they are all very close to each other (the 2 oldest are with me full time and always have been, so the kids have always been around each other).

Gotta love the wisdom of children


