AITA for refusing to stop feeding my kids certain foods because my ex’s new husband demands it?

My ex’s new husband sent me a list of foods my boys (8 and 9) aren’t allowed to eat because his daughter is allergic — he expected me to enforce it at my house. I refused to be ordered around by him, the court backed me, and now my ex isn’t taking her parenting time.

My ex and I divorced seven years ago; we share two boys, ages 8 and 9. Two years ago she remarried and her husband brought two kids into the household. About five months after their marriage he emailed me a list of foods he said I couldn't give my sons because his daughter is allergic. He claimed our boys told his daughter they ate those things at my house and insisted “anyone coming into their home needs to avoid” them — and that I must cut them from my kids’ diet during my custody weeks (which at that time were every other week).

I’m the dad who refused to be dictated to by my ex’s new husband about what I feed my kids — the court said feeding decisions are mine, and now my ex won’t exercise her parenting time.

The foods on his list were: Peanut Butter, Eggs, Cheese, Strawberries, and Chocolate. At first I thought it was a weird request, then I got an email berating me the next time the kids had been at their mom’s. My ex tried to get the restrictions added to our court custody order and even sought custody changes — the judge refused both requests and told them they couldn’t control what I feed my children.

"He sent me a list of foods I could not feed my kids because his daughter is allergic."

For the past year my ex has stopped taking her parenting time because her husband isn't comfortable having our boys over if they've eaten those foods at my house. He says his daughter could die and frames it as a safety issue; my ex says I should simply follow the list so the kids can be with her. I won’t let a step-parent dictate my household rules, especially after a judge said feeding choices are not theirs to make.

"The judge told them they could not decide on what I feed my kids."

Our boys miss their mom but not necessarily the home where those rules apply; she hasn’t led on arranging neutral meetups or coming here to see them. I’ve tried to facilitate contact, but she refuses to see them outside her house on her parenting time. I’ve been accused of alienating them, but I’m following the court ruling and protecting the routine at my house.

🏠 The Aftermath

Currently, my ex is not exercising her parenting time; our boys are primarily with me because her household won’t accept them after they’ve eaten certain foods. The judge's decision stands: feeding choices remain my responsibility when they’re with me.

At her house: tensions remain high and her husband refuses visits unless the boys comply with his list. At my house: the boys eat normally and miss their mom; I continue to offer neutral options, but she won’t meet outside her home during her scheduled time. The result is reduced contact between mother and children and ongoing friction between adults.

Concrete consequences include strained co-parenting, children missing out on regular time with their mother, and a stalemate rooted in safety concerns versus overreach. The boys have people supporting me who know the situation, but that doesn’t replace the parenting time they’re lost.

"In the end, it’s the kids who are losing access to their mom’s house over a list of banned foods."

I’m caught between respecting a genuine allergy concern and refusing to let a step-parent issue orders that the court said he can’t enforce on me. The boys are safe, but the family relationship is fractured.

💭 Emotional Reflection

This situation sits awkwardly between legitimate allergy worries and an overreach by a non-parent into another household. If a child truly has a life-threatening allergy, reasonable accommodations and communication are essential. But demanding control of what another parent feeds their children — and refusing visits when the court ruled otherwise — creates harm for the kids.

I could have tried more compromises: documenting what foods are actually a risk, offering allergy-safe meetups, or proposing neutral supervised visits. At the same time, following an external person's ultimatum when a judge said feeding decisions remain with me felt wrong and unenforceable.

Reasonable people might split: some will say prioritize safety and comply where possible; others will insist parental autonomy and court rulings matter. The real takeaway is that communication, medical documentation, and good-faith compromise are missing here — and the children are paying the price.

Here’s how the community might see it:

“If the allergy is life-threatening, get medical documentation and work on practical solutions — but a step-parent can’t unilaterally order another household.”

“Your ex refusing parenting time is wrong — she’s choosing her partner’s comfort over her kids’ relationship with her.”

“You could've offered neutral meeting spots or temporary food rules during transitions to keep visits happening — courts don’t like perpetual stalemates.”

Readers will weigh safety against autonomy and likely urge documentation, mediation, and solutions that prioritize the children’s access to both parents while addressing real allergy risks.

🌱 Final Thoughts

This isn’t just about peanut butter or chocolate — it’s about who gets to make decisions for children and how adults negotiate safety without weaponizing demands. A court sided with you on feeding decisions, but the human cost is missed parenting time and kids caught in the middle.

If the allergy is serious, get clear medical guidance and propose practical safeguards (supervised visits, hand-washing rules, or swap-location meetings). If it’s about control, mediation may be the only way to get everyone back to the table for the kids' sake.

What do you think?
Would you follow the step-parent’s list to keep visits possible, or stand by the court's decision and demand other compromises so the kids can see their mom? Share your take below 👇