I can understand marriages with different amounts of time for me and time for us, and i can understand marriages that pool money and ones that don't, but this is ridiculous. He is unemployed now? She is pyaing the bills? This isnt about how one sees marriage, she is being used. If they need to hire a sitter so he can go on interview -- one thing. This is just absurd.

Bizarre.

Doesn't reflect well on him, does it?

Well he is just not a god man, period. It is not even about marriage, it is just about being a decent person, he isn't. Unfortunatelly there are men who think it is OK for a woman to work full time, take care of the household chores and the kids, while he is doing whatever. "Nice guy"

"My friend then told me that is not the case. That since the kids are her hubbys stepkids, and not "their" kids that she still needs a babysitter because her hubby does not watch them while she works!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Ummmm...how about NO? If he's home he can watch the kids. J does unless he has lawns to mow and then my mom will watch them. This guy is just lazy.

The only reasonable reason that I could see is if her kids would RATHER go to a sitter. ie.maybe the hubby is depressed and upset that he lost his job and is not nice with the kids all the time. (ie.he could be snappy and cranky). My ex.was like this, kids would rather go to a sitter than stay with Dad because although Dad was working, when he was home he was miserable and crabby and the kids just didn't want to be around that...

I think its lazy but more so that he does not want the responsibilities of being 'their' dad. Especially if the kids are older, and if they dont appreciate him then he would obviously refuse since they view him as a non dad.
We dont know enough info on this.
1. Do they accept him and like him. If they did, he'ld be more willing to take care of them.
2. As a partner in marriage , regardless if they like him or he likes them, its sh*tty of him to do this to his wife.
So when all is said and done, if the relationship is bad with the kids, i think its very difficult on a daily basis to continue with family activities.
Yes , it turns into two people just shacking up. its awful
I know. My dh's ex is this way. She's married for 6 years now. And we hear from the kids that they do not all go out as a family. The first 2 years they did but it fell apart. I'm surprised he's still there. No xmas together, no family thing...bm goes to parents house iwht her kids and he goes with his son to his parents. when bm and the kids are invited, he is not. I dont understand how she,bm that is, can sit back and let her family segregate him. Its a sticky situation. Its an odd arrangement to me. You either sit on the potty or you get off !
In my family we do things wiht the kids and there are times my dh does things with his kids without me. Not because i'm ousted...but because i think its important for him to spend alone time with just them and at times separately between his daughter and his son. I encourage him now to give more time to his son than his daughter. He feels left out whenever he goes to her games or her activities....so its his time now.
Plus i get my time too:) ahhhh...calgon...take me away!!!!
p.s...bm hubby clean the snow off of his car area but wont do it for her's...isn't that disgusting! i feel she is being used by this guy and should boot his *ss out ! As much as i'm not crazy about my dh' ex..i honestly dont think she deserves to be treated as such. But its her fault. She lets it happen.
And your friend lets this happen as well. She should say, your not working, you will watch the kids. Dotn have the cash to spend on a babysitter...sorry.

So just out of curiosity - what would your friend do with her kids if she wasn't married? Why is it his responsibility to provide childcare, regardless if he is working or not? Where is BD at? Why can't he watch his own kids or help BM make arrangements for THEIR children

If I could go back and do it over I would not be used as a free babysitter for many many years, there are too many details left out before I would criticize this SF

Mlly, OP's friend is not currently working -- so assuming we take OP at face value that her friend is paying the bills, I don't see the SF as unpaid. So if she is paying the bills, he should pay rent.

mlly, it wouldn't be his responsibility but his wife is the only one working, so she provides for him while he sits home.

if it is not his responsibility, then it is not her responsibility to feed a grown man and she should kick him out as soon as he lost his job.

But what if the children's BF has demanded that SF not be in charge of his children? Often it is posted here that SMs should not be babysitting their SCs if BD is not available to care for them. Can't have it both ways.
Personally I think in an ideal world that SF would be babysitting, but perhaps there are other factors here we aren't privy to, rather than that SF is just "lazy".

that could be, could be that BD doesn't trust SF with kids, who knows. could be that BD is not even in a picture. could also be that since SF doesn't work, there is no money for babysitter, so SF has to contribute by doing something, watching the kids seems the most logical. I personally don't think stepparents shoud never watch stepkids (especially is bioparent supports the family), but I think that stepparents should not be the ONLY ones who take of the chidlren. i doubt mom was going to dump kids on SF 24/7.

I don't recall anyone saying SMs should not babysit their SC's. I do recall, and I beleive, that the bioparents should be in charge of educational and medical communications and the other bioparent should be given the option to take the child ("Right of First Refusal") -- but depending on time and distance that may not work. If mom needs an hour before school becuase her work is starting earlier, that may be a situation where to have bioparent come over and pick the child up doesnt work so well. It could also result in biodad saying, OK, I will take kids during the week, we'll get them up and take them to school. There would be a disruption in the kids routine and for providing a minimal amount of child care, the kids are with biodad for the week, and he may want an adjustment of child support (either him paying less or mom paying her). So mom has to evaluate what is best for the kids, etc. I still think from the way OP writes this, her DH is a leech. But I welcome further clarification from her.

"the other bioparent should be given the option to take the child ("Right of First Refusal") -- but depending on time and distance that may not work"

A lot depends on how the parenting plan is written, as well. In DH's case, we recently discovered it says that there is ROFR only if the child is going to be cared for by someone other than bio-parent for longer than 8 hrs.
THIS is a sore subject for us now b/c BM is having a HISSY fit about SS doing a soccer camp next week that HE is excited about.

It's from 9-3, and BM is irate about this. She says she is not taking him on Mon or Tues, and if DH is just going to "dump him" at camp, she would prefer to watch him on DH's days. GRRRR. It is so frustrating b/c this is something SS WANTS to do. Dh has tried to reason w/BM and say that kids DO go to summer camps, etc. but BM is just not going for it.

Me, personally, I don't get it. My DD is doing a camp at the zoo that same week---all day long for one week and she is super excited. I want her to have fun and she has been wanting to learn about animals and specifically asked me to find a camp about animals. Why wouldn't I want her to have fun?

ANYWAY..I am being long winded...BM and DH read through the plan and discovered that BM does not get ROFR for this camp for SS b/c it's 6 hrs.

I am sure she really won't take him on Mon or Tues, though, which is really sad b/c it means SS will miss half of the darn camp.

Back to OP--I do think there is not enough information here to determine the reasons for kids going to sitter, etc. Maybe it is to keep things stable and normal for them. I am assuming they pay a sitter on a reg. basis. If SF was to watch them temporarily, maybe they would lose their spots with the sitter and then what would happen when SF does get a new job?

Again, this is all speculation. We don't know.