The user, who has a son with their ex-partner, discovered they were added to the authorized school pickup list for the ex-partner's daughter, who is the child from the affair that ended the original relationship.
The user has no existing relationship with this daughter and has never agreed to be responsible for her care.
When the user's ex-partner and his wife failed to pick up their son during his custody time, the school called the user, who subsequently picked up only their son and refused to take the step-daughter.
Following this refusal, the ex-partner became angry, accusing the user of leaving his daughter stranded, leading the user to question if their refusal made them unreasonable in this specific instance.










Get the latest stories delivered to your inbox.
The original poster is in a difficult position, balancing their right to maintain strict personal boundaries with the immediate welfare of a child connected to their co-parenting situation.
The central conflict arises from the ex-partner imposing an unexpected and significant responsibility onto the poster without consent, then reacting negatively when that imposed responsibility was declined.
The core question for consideration is whether refusing to provide emergency transport for the ex-partner's daughter on a single occasion, given the complex history and lack of prior agreement, const*tutes being an 'a*shole,' or if the ex-partner was entirely at fault for adding the poster to the pickup list without permission and failing to arrange alternative care.
When the Crowd Speaks, It Echoes Loudly:
The community had thoughts — lots of them. From tough love to thoughtful advice, the comment section didn’t disappoint.