Change of Primary Residential Parent
Rambler
I am in the process of finalizing a divorce, the mother currently has the
children and has returned to the States (we had moved overseas some time
ago), and we are back in the Court system here where I am trying to change
the Care and Control (primary residential parent) status from her to me due
to alienation of the children by her and her family...to make a long story
short. Kids have been in the States for little more than a year.
What I am looking for is experiences or deciding factors when the Court
grants Custody to the father, or changes Custody/Primary Residential Parent
status to the father.
I do come at this with a touch of (perhaps huge) bias, in that I do feel
that attitudes in general discriminate against the father in custody
situations. I have seen that, I believe, in the judge presiding over my
case, who noted that while Victorian attitudes of the better parent have no
place in his court, sometimes young children were better placed with the
mother; to my ex who has recently stated that because she is a woman, she
can deal with the pre-pubescent changes of our eldest (this from a woman who
can't talk about anything); to the attitudes of the Social Welfare workers
in my case (where they felt that my ex's parenting plan was somewhat better
because the maternal grandmother would be part of it (as opposed to mine
where I had a constant live-in domestic helper), even though they failed to
pick up on the fact that the maternal grandmother's marriage was crashing
onto the rocks and, in reality, she has had no hand's one responsibility for
the children as that is left to a coterie of different baby-sitters; to even
some (not all) of the comments made by people here.
So, just for my own clarity, I am trying to understand the experience of
folks as to when the father was awarded primary residential parent. Was it
because the mother had serious issues (i.e., drug dependant, or had caused
the death of another child) or was it something else. I understand that one
of the primary factors is to keep stability for the children, but am
structuring the case around the long-term emotional 'best interests' of the
children, that being that children who are encouraged and supported to have
equal and loving access to both parents do so much better than those that
are denied that same thing, looking at slaying myths along the way.
And yes, I have a solicitor/attorney, but I remain actively involved in
directing my case. What's that maxim? If you want something done well, do
it yourself? Something like that.
Appreciate your folks' time.
Rambler
Rambler
news:8U4Kb.37727$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
> What state does your childrens' mother currently live in? I assume
> the case will be heard there? If not, where? The children currently
> reside with her? What's the current time split? How many children,
> genders, age? What kind of alienation, and do you have documented,
> impartial proof?
>
> While we aren't primary residential, our BM has unsuccessfully
> attempted sole custody a number of times and failed, so maybe I can
> offer some kind of advice/perspective...
Just looking for war stories to piece some thoughts of my own together.
The custody thing is actually being held here (overseas) as that is where
the original Order was made. The mother lives in the state of delusion
(okay, that was a cheap shot). I am actually in a common law country, so
the court cases that might be used as precedent there are not valid here
(they guard their independence pretty fiercely) but I have found ample
"local" precedents (local as we use the UK law here too).
Yes, the children currently reside with her. Access is standard
(alternating holidays, half summer, any time I am in the US, telephone,
email etc. etc.). Three girls, all under 9.
I am not really interested in somebody saying "that won't work" as I am
fairly sure I understand the odds here (that and what I believe to be bias,
but that is my own take). Why has BM (would this be Birth Mother?) failed
in her attempts to gain sole custody, who has custody currently, etc. etc.
Thanks,
Rambler
n...@impactwp.com
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
news:btaved$37...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
I'm in the UK. My husband was told 9 years ago, by a solicititor, never to
bother going for full custody of his son, then 6 years. This was despite the
fact that his mother had alcohol and drug problems (the registered kind),
eating disorders (also under the care of a clinic), details of neglect held
at social services, and many other mitigating factors including denial of
contact to my husband.
Then she checked out of a drug clinic and vanished, and my husband's son did
end up with us. As the mother didn't return to come to the final residency
hearing my husband got full residency in June of 1996. My stepson's mother
is now back in his life, thankfully.
My experience and understanding of the family court, and I'm so sorry to say
this, is that you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell. Unless a mother
seriously physically harms her children or abandons them entirely, you won't
get residency from her. I definitely can't see a UK judge ordering these
kids back from the States.
What you mention about the difference in parenting plans, arrangements for
the kids etc, it's all just petty differences. A live in housekeeper as
opposed to the maternal grandmother? Grandmother wins every time despite any
marital problems. She's the kid's granny.
If I were you, I'd save my cash for visiting my kids and not pour hundreds
if not thousands of pounds into a solicitor and barrister's pocket.
You could talk to fnf.org.uk, not sure if they'd help much. You are right,
fathers don't get the same consideration as women under our system - but I
doubt that your case will be the landmark case that changes everything, you
know? I know you said you weren't interested in someone saying this. But I
think it's true and you'd be putting your head into the sand if you think
what you've got is going to make any difference.
Good luck
Nikki
The Watsons
<n...@impactwp.com> wrote in message
news:10732954...@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
> >
> > The custody thing is actually being held here (overseas) as that is
where
> > the original Order was made. The mother lives in the state of delusion
> > (okay, that was a cheap shot). I am actually in a common law country,
so
> > the court cases that might be used as precedent there are not valid here
> > (they guard their independence pretty fiercely) but I have found ample
> > "local" precedents (local as we use the UK law here too).
> >
> > Yes, the children currently reside with her. Access is standard
> > (alternating holidays, half summer, any time I am in the US, telephone,
> > email etc. etc.). Three girls, all under 9.
what i would suggest is moving back stateside, closer to the kids, and
looking for joint custody....you're right, there is a mother bias in the
courts...but disregarding that, you'd be talking about packing these kids
up, moving them away from their mother and their whole culture and into a
totally different culture; also consider that these are three young
girls...unless there's something pretty drastic going on that you're not
telling us, a judge is likely going to see that as overly traumatic and
unnecessary...
sorry, hon...
Jess
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
<iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote:
>I am not really interested in somebody saying "that won't work" as I am
>fairly sure I understand the odds here (that and what I believe to be bias,
>but that is my own take).
There's not quite so much bias here as you might think. My husband
was awarded sole custody of each of his 3 bio-children, from two
seperate marriages. I was awarded sole custody of my bio-child.
Together, we are raising the younger three (all teens now), the eldest
having been grown and out on her own when we met. We also have an
exchange student and a teenage friend of the family in our home.
Kitten
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, feeds
the hungry, comforts the sorrowful, shelters the destitute. And serves
those who harm it. -- Menno Simons, 1539
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Courage, Real courage, is no quick fix. It doesn't come in a bottle
or a pill, It comes from discipline. From taking everything life hands
you and being your best either because of it or in spite of it.
-- Ty Murray
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rebecca
vaguely remember you saying you basically traded your marital home for your
son, and I can't quite remember what happened to Chewy's exes, but were they
actively seeking custody?
rebecca
"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
news:dhnjvv8su4rfvlfv0...@4ax.com...
Rambler
my news server is cocked up, so I saw no responses save for the first one I
replied to.
Yes, I understand the "snow-balls chance in hell." Went into this with
eye's wide open. No, it is not introducing them to a whole new
culture...kids were resident here for the majority of their lives, one born
here, the other two arriving at 1 and 4 years of age.
Yes, I understand that these are differences in parenting plans...however,
because of the lack of follow-through or real life applicability, it seems
to me to breach the concept of equal before the law (the statute hear says
that no parent shall be considered better than the other.
However, in the deep side of things, I see my children slipping away. I
have had this "discussion" on the other newsgroup that I do frequent, so
won't get into the long and short. Suffice it to say that others have
argued that I should move back to the States...yet I have no real interest
in living where the kids are, never did, never lived there, but will
ultimately establish a residence there once the finances get in order.
The mother has adopted an approach that she will do whatever she
pleases...if it interferes with my access, tough. Up until this latest
filing on my part, the vitriole that was spewing from the kids mouths was
interesting...this has toned down with this latest action. The stuff that
the kids dumped on me over last Christmas, about what was being said and
done byt the BM and Grandmother was tough. Had an eight year old screaming
at me on the telephone telling me she didn't need a Dad, didn't want one,
and wouldn't spend time with me. This is seven months after relocating to
the States, and in the time preceeding that, I had 50%/50% custody of hte
children. Anyway, not defending myself, just re-venting a little.
What I do want my kids to know is that I have tried. I will establish a
residence there, but even that I beleive, given the Mother's attitude, will
not be sufficient. I have read that having a parent excluded from young
kid's lives can be extremely psychologically damaging, giving rise to fears
of intimacy and proper relationshop patterns.
Tough that it is such a long slog.
Anyway, I'll stick around (after I complai nto my ISP) as, having a
girlfriend who has never had kids, some perspective provided here would
probably be useful.
Cheers,
Rambler
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
news:btajph$2re...@imsp212.netvigator.com
n...@impactwp.com
> I appreciate everybodies responses, thanks. unfortunately, it appears
taht
> my news server is cocked up, so I saw no responses save for the first one
I
> replied to.
Hi Rambler
I'm trying to email this to you too. I put my original reply at the very
bottom of this mail.
>
> Yes, I understand the "snow-balls chance in hell." Went into this with
> eye's wide open. No, it is not introducing them to a whole new
> culture...kids were resident here for the majority of their lives, one
born
> here, the other two arriving at 1 and 4 years of age.
I understand that but I can't see a judge forcing their removal from the
States, especially if the mother doesn't want to move back here.
>
> Yes, I understand that these are differences in parenting plans...however,
> because of the lack of follow-through or real life applicability, it seems
> to me to breach the concept of equal before the law (the statute hear says
> that no parent shall be considered better than the other.
Yes but in practice we know that's rubbish. It's not often just that their
favour the mother, it's that they favour the residential parent. My stepson
has lived here full time for almost 8 years now, and I often wondering
during our contact court cases with his mother (nothing now for 4 years)
what would have happened had she gone for custody - I don't think she tried
because she knew that changing the status quo would be extraordinarily
tough. My stepson loves his mother but even he wouldn't have wanted to go
back there had she asked - kids simply don't like changes.
>
> However, in the deep side of things, I see my children slipping away. I
> have had this "discussion" on the other newsgroup that I do frequent, so
> won't get into the long and short. Suffice it to say that others have
> argued that I should move back to the States...yet I have no real interest
> in living where the kids are, never did, never lived there, but will
> ultimately establish a residence there once the finances get in order.
OK I'll challenge you here - not because I want to wind you up, but just
let's see another perspective. You don't want to live near your children?
You want full custody but don't want to disrupt your own life? See how this
comes across? I feel that it would be wise for you to come up with other
reasons as to why you don't want to move - history, extended family, your
career - the above sounds blunt and the way it's phrased it seems as though
you won't make a sacrifice for your children. I think a house there is a
great idea.
>
> The mother has adopted an approach that she will do whatever she
> pleases...if it interferes with my access, tough. Up until this latest
> filing on my part, the vitriole that was spewing from the kids mouths was
> interesting...this has toned down with this latest action. The stuff that
> the kids dumped on me over last Christmas, about what was being said and
> done byt the BM and Grandmother was tough. Had an eight year old
screaming
> at me on the telephone telling me she didn't need a Dad, didn't want one,
> and wouldn't spend time with me. This is seven months after relocating to
> the States, and in the time preceeding that, I had 50%/50% custody of hte
> children. Anyway, not defending myself, just re-venting a little.
This is the kind of stuff that really should be dealt with. This is parental
alienation - which happens in situations like this. And while there's
push/pull in your relationship with the BM it's going to keep on happening.
I feel you'd be far better spending your time and money on establishing a
good relationship with the mother so that she didn't feel a need to create
this alienation.
>
> What I do want my kids to know is that I have tried. I will establish a
> residence there, but even that I beleive, given the Mother's attitude,
will
> not be sufficient. I have read that having a parent excluded from young
> kid's lives can be extremely psychologically damaging, giving rise to
fears
> of intimacy and proper relationshop patterns.
See this sounds to me like a good reason for you going back to court and
firming up your access arrangements and parenting plans. Have you suggested
family therapy or mediation for you and Mom?
>
> Tough that it is such a long slog.
Indeed, cross channel too, it's not easy. How do you maintain contact
between visitations?
>
> Anyway, I'll stick around (after I complai nto my ISP) as, having a
> girlfriend who has never had kids, some perspective provided here would
> probably be useful.
Let's hope so.
Good luck
Nikki
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rambler
My original reply:
Amy Lou
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
<about a custody battle that involves two countries>
You know a custody battle like the one you describe will, in the end, have a
winner and a loser. Why not rethink your whole plan to be one where there
are two winners ( or in your case 5 winners)? Joint custody is the only way
to go these days. If you want to be a major part of your childrens lives be
fair and go for 50-50. Isn't that what the courts see as being the best
option for kids of divorce? Of course in your case it would involve moving
back to the states or enticing your ex to move back to where ever it is you
live. That, in my opinion is what you really need to think about. What kind
of a life is it for those kids if one parent lives on the other side of the
world?
Amy
lilblakdog
news:10733803...@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
> Yes but in practice we know that's rubbish. It's not often just that their
> favour the mother, it's that they favour the residential parent. My
stepson
> has lived here full time for almost 8 years now, and I often wondering
> during our contact court cases with his mother (nothing now for 4 years)
> what would have happened had she gone for custody - I don't think she
tried
> because she knew that changing the status quo would be extraordinarily
> tough.
Ooooh...I don't know about that one. Maybe in the UK, but certainly not
here.
BM's husband was married before her and had two kids. One day, when the
kids were still quite small, their mother decided that she was tired of
being a wife and mother and disappeared. He raised the kids himself,
eventually married BM who had one child, had *another* child together, and
lived as one big happy family. Only one day, the mother came back, didn't
like this, and started out with wanting visitation. The kids didn't want to
see her (not because of anything their father said or did, but because she'd
abandoned them when they were little and they barely knew her), but BM and
their father encouraged them to the point of practically forcing them out
the door with her. Some time later, the notice arrived that they were being
sued for sole custody. We thought it was hysterical...this *was* the woman
who'd abandoned her children, and they now had a secure and happy home with
a stay-at-home SM and other siblings. But she won. She got custody with
child support (which she'd never paid a dime of), and moved the kids several
hours away where their father would be responsible for travel if he wanted
to see them.
It's been my experience that the court could care less what the father's
done if the mother plays the "I'm their mother, they need me" card.
lil
--
http://lilblakdog.tripod.com
Geri and sometimes Brian
>to go these days. If you want to be a major part of your childrens lives be
>fair and go for 50-50.
I disagree. Having been a part of a 50/50 arrangement for over 5 years now,
IMO, if the parents can't get along and have a toxic relationship with each
other, the kid is probably better off with one or the other.
Otherwise the situation just becomes hell for everyone involved.
~~Geri~~
~Veni, vidi, visa~
I came, I saw, I shopped!
The Watsons
"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
news:dhnjvv8su4rfvlfv0...@4ax.com...
> <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote:
>
> >I am not really interested in somebody saying "that won't work" as I am
> >fairly sure I understand the odds here (that and what I believe to be
bias,
> >but that is my own take).
>
>
> There's not quite so much bias here as you might think. My husband
> was awarded sole custody of each of his 3 bio-children, from two
> seperate marriages. I was awarded sole custody of my bio-child.
> Together, we are raising the younger three (all teens now), the eldest
> having been grown and out on her own when we met. We also have an
> exchange student and a teenage friend of the family in our home.
<jaded>
and i have two boxes of records that'll describe the 17+ court hearings in a
3 year period (averaged out, 'bout every six months, which is about
right)...
we have one contempt of court charge, and it's not for the time she left
left town rather than bring sunshine to her father's funeral-which she'd
been ordered twice to do...
know what it took? it took her screaming at my inlaws in a parking lot as
she was throwing my sunshine into the back of a car on their last day in
town that hell would freeze over before she allowed her daughter to see any
of us...and it'll be a year at the end of april...
sorry, i'll disagree...</jaded>
Jess
Geri and sometimes Brian
>3 year period (averaged out, 'bout every six months, which is about
>right)...
Yep, we have about ten boxes of records (they are taking over the world) for
the 25+ visits in a 5-year period and it looks like many unhappy returns to
court to come. Nothin' like joint custody ...
The Watsons
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20040106154412...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >and i have two boxes of records that'll describe the 17+ court hearings
in a
> >3 year period (averaged out, 'bout every six months, which is about
> >right)...
>
> Yep, we have about ten boxes of records (they are taking over the world)
for
> the 25+ visits in a 5-year period and it looks like many unhappy returns
to
> court to come. Nothin' like joint custody ...
i wish-if he'd had joint, some of the crap would've been easier..:(
Jess
Amy Lou
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >Joint custody is the only way
> >to go these days. If you want to be a major part of your childrens lives
be
> >fair and go for 50-50.
>
> I disagree. Having been a part of a 50/50 arrangement for over 5 years
now,
> IMO, if the parents can't get along and have a toxic relationship with
each
> other, the kid is probably better off with one or the other.
> Otherwise the situation just becomes hell for everyone involved.
Maybe, but often it is the fighting over who gets the kids that sends things
toxic in the first place.
Amy
Rambler
little cut and paste:
n...@impactwp.com (n...@impactwp.com)
>
> > However, in the deep side of things, I see my children slipping away. I
> > have had this "discussion" on the other newsgroup that I do frequent, so
> > won't get into the long and short. Suffice it to say that others have
> > argued that I should move back to the States...yet I have no real
interest
> > in living where the kids are, never did, never lived there, but will
> > ultimately establish a residence there once the finances get in order.
>
> OK I'll challenge you here - not because I want to wind you up, but just
> let's see another perspective. You don't want to live near your children?
> You want full custody but don't want to disrupt your own life? See how
this
> comes across? I feel that it would be wise for you to come up with other
> reasons as to why you don't want to move - history, extended family, your
> career - the above sounds blunt and the way it's phrased it seems as
though
> you won't make a sacrifice for your children. I think a house there is a
> great idea.
Yes, I understand this impression. The reason? Ex decided the marriage was
over and she was leaving. She left out one small detail. She forgot to
tell me (much more complicated than that). What she did say as this was
going through her mind was, "Gee, Honey, now that you've lost your job, why
don't you start your own company here in Asia?" This was as she was
emailing her mother trying to arrange for a divorce once she got back to the
States.
I have no family where she moved to (I am originally from the East Cost, she
is from the Left Coast), I have never lived there, I have no support network
there and I have no job (well, there or here, actually). However, I have
been here for seven years, I have a support network here, my fledgling
start-up is here, and the kids lived here. I had originally planned (I
consented to her having Care and Control) to let the kids grow up there, and
basically commute once a month (previous salary and role would let me do
that, projected income from the start-up would also allow this). However, I
have unfortunately spent my emotionally energy over the past 16 months
trying to get contact with the kids, which has taken focus off of my
business, dramatically. I also, at this stage, based upon her actions for
the past 16 months, don't think things will change. She has, IMHO, the
approach that she is SuperMom, and that I am nothing more than a bank
account (empty currently which really pisses her off). Her behaviour has
modified slightly since the filing, but not greatly. One of her most recent
comments? "If the kids aren't around for your call, deal with it! If they
are having dinner when you call, Deal with it! I will not structure this
household around your calls." Oh, the calls come in at 7:30 pm each and
every evening.
> > The mother has adopted an approach that she will do whatever she
> > pleases...if it interferes with my access, tough. Up until this latest
> > filing on my part, the vitriole that was spewing from the kids mouths
was
> > interesting...this has toned down with this latest action. The stuff
that
> > the kids dumped on me over last Christmas, about what was being said and
> > done byt the BM and Grandmother was tough. Had an eight year old
screaming
> > at me on the telephone telling me she didn't need a Dad, didn't want
one,
> > and wouldn't spend time with me. This is seven months after relocating
to
> > the States, and in the time preceeding that, I had 50%/50% custody of
hte
> > children. Anyway, not defending myself, just re-venting a little.
>
> This is the kind of stuff that really should be dealt with. This is
parental
> alienation - which happens in situations like this. And while there's
> push/pull in your relationship with the BM it's going to keep on
happening.
> I feel you'd be far better spending your time and money on establishing a
> good relationship with the mother so that she didn't feel a need to create
> this alienation.
I've tried that, I think. I am 10,000 miles away from her so I have little
impact on her life, do not know her new circle of friends, etc. The
problem, I think, for her, is the Access agreement which she agreed to (it
was an Order by Consent). She doesn't like it now that she was able to
leave, and she doesn't live up to it. The main sticking point is that, per
the agreement, I talk to the kids daily. She has frustrated that to no end.
The other contact happens "if the children want to and I won't force them."
The oldest was 8 and the youngest three when that statement was made...and
you are going to tell me that they are going to log onto the internet
themselves, download a piece of software and initiate a video conversation
or make the time to access email and write back on their own? I've tried
rationalizing, I've tried reasoning. SO (no not the reason the BM left, she
was a six month later occurence) suggested that I back off on one of my
Access conditions, a weekly email from her letting me know what was
happenign with the kids (I began sending her reminders two days after they
were due which pissed her off), which I did. The emails stopped three weeks
later and haven't resumed, so I have gotten no communication from the BM for
seven months on what is going on with the children. Strange that this
occured at the same time she started dating and telling the kids that they
should withhold that information from me, (no I didn't ask, didn't know, but
my eldest let slip in a conversation that she wasn't supposed to tell me
something and then lost it because "Mom is going to be so angry because I
told you." She actually didn't tell me, just that there was something that
Mom didn't want them to tell me and it didn't have anything to do with me ya
di ya di ya. Poor kid dissolved in tears, and then her mother walked in the
door.)
> > What I do want my kids to know is that I have tried. I will establish a
> > residence there, but even that I beleive, given the Mother's attitude,
will
> > not be sufficient. I have read that having a parent excluded from young
> > kid's lives can be extremely psychologically damaging, giving rise to
fears
> > of intimacy and proper relationshop patterns.
>
> See this sounds to me like a good reason for you going back to court and
> firming up your access arrangements and parenting plans. Have you
suggested
> family therapy or mediation for you and Mom?
Yep, first thing I suggested when this escalated from direct communication
to that through her lawyers (I ahd the fun time of representing myself for
the majority of the first go round because of spending money on solicitors
(here they are really, REALLY expensive), her flat and club membership, the
kids school, a lawsuit for compensation from my previous firm and starting a
company)). I figured back in August that since she was being a butt, and
the kids were melting down in front of my eyes, that perhaps her solicitors
would say, "Hey, BM, you agreed to this, in front of the judge, and you
can't renege. Remember what the judge said as he closed the hearing? "If
you BM, don't live up to the conditions, that is a cause to switch Care and
Control" " and that that would snap her out of it (she has (or I have) the
problem that her mother a) divorced at the same age that my ex was when this
started, and my ex was the same age as my eldest, b) formed a nuclear unit
of her, my ex, and the brother that nobody penetrated (was warned about this
by my ex, but didn't see that asa red flag), c) was the matriach of her
family, and hence, as the patriach of mine, we clashed from time to time, d)
was secretly in Asia (without my knowledge) supporting her daughter (my ex)
and convinced her to take the children and disappear from the house, and e)
has just now gone through her second divorce). That didn't work, so after
six weeks of no response, I filed a Contempt of Court Application and a
Motion to Modify the Order for access.
I have instructed my solicitor here that the goal is to create and
environment where the kids have equal and unfettered access to both parents.
I don't think this will happen because BM has a different concept of what is
right ... she really didn't have access to her father growing up, so doesn't
see the value I think.
> > Tough that it is such a long slog.
>
> Indeed, cross channel too, it's not easy. How do you maintain contact
> between visitations?
Well, supposed to be daily telephone calls. I have requested that she
install Netmeeting on with her computer since about Feb last year...never
got a response until her latest Affidavit which said that her computer won't
support it, which I will politely point out to the judge is yet another lie
in her affidavit. Grrrr...you got me going, sorry.
> > Anyway, I'll stick around (after I complai nto my ISP) as, having a
> > girlfriend who has never had kids, some perspective provided here would
> > probably be useful.
>
> Let's hope so.
> Good luck
> Nikki
Thanks,
Rambler
Rambler
Amy Lou (amyl...@bigpond.com)
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in
> message news:btd3or$ju...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>
>> <about a custody battle that involves two countries>
>
> You know a custody battle like the one you describe will, in the end, have
a
> winner and a loser. Why not rethink your whole plan to be one where there
> are two winners ( or in your case 5 winners)? Joint custody is the only
way
> to go these days. If you want to be a major part of your childrens lives
be
> fair and go for 50-50. Isn't that what the courts see as being the best
> option for kids of divorce? Of course in your case it would involve moving
> back to the states or enticing your ex to move back to where ever it is
you
> live. That, in my opinion is what you really need to think about. What
kind
> of a life is it for those kids if one parent lives on the other side of
the
> world?
I do agree with you. I had made that decision 16 months ago. In fact, that
was so important to me that I even had it placed in the Order, which her
solicitors watered down that if I established a residence, then the 50/50
thing would be revisited (we had that throughout the Custody trial). I was
even willing to sacrifice (at least to me it was) by having the kids
slightly less than 50% of the time, establish a secondary residence where
the kids are, ya di ya di ya.
However, the steps leading up to this have been anything but encouraging.
The access has been lousy (from my standpoint, and partially my fault due to
my financial situation), but it has led me to believe that if I were to
establish a secondary residence there, it would be a waste of money. BM
isn't going to go for sharing the kids ... in her mind they are hers (maybe
she knows something I don't ;-) ) and I am an intrusion, or at least it
comes across that way.
I do not think that this issue is resolvable through joint custody ... it is
parenting concepts. She has disobeyed court orders with impunity before,
primarily because hte court where the order is in is not in the States, so
has little enforcement power there, and so she kind of just ignores it. I
am hoping to wrap things up here (this is the jurisdiction, and it is local
to me) and then file for enforcement there (whatever comes out here, whether
it is a change of custody or a modification of the agreement) and prepare to
fight the battle yet again in a court in her state. By that time, my
financial act will be together, so I can afford it (there is a legal aid
scheme here that I finally qualified for - took my previous solicitors
filing for my bankkruptcy to do that).
Rambler
Geri and sometimes Brian
>toxic in the first place.
Or toxicity in the relationship caused the breakup ...
Rambler
news:ODIKb.81005$aT.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au
hmm . . . and I got this one.
I kind of agree here, but I think, in my case at least, the problem is not a
question of fighting over the kids and who gets them. I would be perfectly
happy with equal access, and without her believing that she has the right to
disappear the kids whenever she wants, or create environments where they are
too tired, too overwhelmed, too busy or too whatever to speak to their Dad.
Christmas was a fine example. She went down to her Dad's, then across to
her brother's Christmas day so that her Mom could have time with *her*
family (Dad lives six hours away by car, brother lives two hours from Dad
and five from ex, and mother lives *10 minutes* from ex - go figure).
Because I stayed up until 2:00 am on Christmas Day night, I got to call them
in the morning. They were somewhat distracted (obviously, being Christmas),
but they were not available at 7:00 that evening, were exhausted the
previous evening due to the drive, and were not available the two nights
before that, adn the night after Christmas two were in the car driving home
and didn't want to talk, and #3 was with the grandmother somewhere (where, I
do not know).
Rambler
Rambler
>> Maybe, but often it is the fighting over who gets the kids that
>> sends things toxic in the first place.
>
> Or toxicity in the relationship caused the breakup ...
Which, at least IMO, wasn't the overall case in ours. In ours, she got fed
up (I beleive) with her life, and figured she could have the lifestyle (stay
at home Mom, large house, maid, etc. etc. etc.) without the husband. Boy
was she wrong, as she is now a wage earner working 40+ hours a week as the
kids shuffle between daycare and a variety of baby sitters.
Rambler
(Who really isn't trying to ramble or vent, but just dumping out happenings
that might provoke a comment that I ahven't thought about as important in
presenting to the courts)
rebecca
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
>
> Which, at least IMO, wasn't the overall case in ours. In ours, she got
fed
> up (I beleive) with her life, and figured she could have the lifestyle
(stay
> at home Mom, large house, maid, etc. etc. etc.) without the husband. Boy
> was she wrong, as she is now a wage earner working 40+ hours a week as the
> kids shuffle between daycare and a variety of baby sitters.
>
> Rambler
> (Who really isn't trying to ramble or vent, but just dumping out
happenings
> that might provoke a comment that I ahven't thought about as important in
> presenting to the courts)
>
Neiner neiner neiner ain't gonna get you more time with your kids. Is that
the comment you're looking for?
rebecca
rebecca
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
>
> I kind of agree here, but I think, in my case at least, the problem is not
a
> question of fighting over the kids and who gets them. I would be
perfectly
> happy with equal access, and without her believing that she has the right
to
> disappear the kids whenever she wants, or create environments where they
are
> too tired, too overwhelmed, too busy or too whatever to speak to their
Dad.
Ramber, people here often have specific call times put into the court
orders, do you have that? I.e., residential parent must make children
available between x and y times on a and b days for phone contact with
non-residential parent.
TC, didn't/don't you guys have this? What does yours say?
rebecca
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
wrote:
>Kitten, isn't that a little misleading? Were your cases contested? I
>vaguely remember you saying you basically traded your marital home for your
>son, and I can't quite remember what happened to Chewy's exes, but were they
>actively seeking custody?
Mine wasn't initially contested, but BF has tried twice to reverse
custody and is now talking to YS about joint custody.
Custody of OD(now 22yo) was contested - by Chewy's father and SM.
They felt that a single man shouldn't have custody, that they would be
better suited to raise OD. Custody of OS and YD wasn't contested; it
just took a while to track down BM and have her sign the divorce
papers.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
<warped...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
>news:dhnjvv8su4rfvlfv0...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:15:39 +0800, "Rambler"
>> <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I am not really interested in somebody saying "that won't work" as I am
>> >fairly sure I understand the odds here (that and what I believe to be
>bias,
>> >but that is my own take).
>>
>>
>> There's not quite so much bias here as you might think. My husband
>> was awarded sole custody of each of his 3 bio-children, from two
>> seperate marriages. I was awarded sole custody of my bio-child.
>> Together, we are raising the younger three (all teens now), the eldest
>> having been grown and out on her own when we met. We also have an
>> exchange student and a teenage friend of the family in our home.
>
><jaded>
>
>and i have two boxes of records that'll describe the 17+ court hearings in a
>3 year period (averaged out, 'bout every six months, which is about
>right)...
Ya know, I read the original post to include some bit of question
about whether or not there is bias *here*, in the NG. That "BM is
best to have custody" bias is *NOT* here in this NG.
<sigh>
Rambler
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:58:52 -0700, "The Watsons"
> <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> and i have two boxes of records that'll describe the 17+ court
>> hearings in a 3 year period (averaged out, 'bout every six months,
>> which is about right)...
>
>
> Ya know, I read the original post to include some bit of question
> about whether or not there is bias *here*, in the NG. That "BM is
> best to have custody" bias is *NOT* here in this NG.
>
> <sigh>
No, as the OP, there wasn't a question as to bias in the NewsGroup about BM
being best to have custody. From what I have read, this place seems to be
fairly even, and perhaps even tilts more towards bias towards fathers (who
don't have the access/custody) but it is mostly about step parenting, so the
people that post seem to be not the Bio parents, but their partners.
I was stating Bias in society and the court system.
Rambler
Rambler
Nope, wasn't actually looking for any comment on that. Or if I was, it
would have been more along the lines of "Point out to the judge that her
original parenting plan was based on x, y and z, and those never happened,
and you can provide x, y and z. Make sure that you reinforce the fact that
the kids are up and out of the house 4 days of the week by 6:00am to be
dropped at before school daycare from 6:30 until 8:20am, in school until
three, and back in daycare until 5:00 or 6:00pm, spending two hours (maybe)
with the Mom a day (and that is a big maybe). Make sure that you point out
that the Mom works weekends and has a boyfriend (apparently) and so the kids
spend the weekends with a coterie of different babysitters, so they have no
steady influence in their lives." Those types of comments.
In all honesty? Sure, I do say, "I told you so," in my mind when I look at
her situation now. I do say, "I told you that this decision that you held
out as being best for the kids is actually wrong." But I also know that it
is her life. I take no responsibility for her actions (I did for the
longest time which sunk me quite frankly). Neither does her situation
affect my actions. I would not do anything to intentionally screw her ...
these are my kids too, and I want what is best for them, even if she gets to
benefit from it, which she will, ultimately.
Rambler
Rambler
Thanks. Yes, I kind of blew that one. The Order says "daily telephone
contact." Prior to the Order, we had daily contact at 7:30pm each night,
the parent with the kids placing the call to the other kids. When she
relocated and the calls stopped, I pushed that issue, "Is there a 7:30 as
you have the kids?" She came back with (eventually), "There is a 7:30 call
if possible," and "It is too expensive to call" and "the kids don't want to
call all the time" and "I am not going to force the kids to talk to you if
they do not want to talk to you." When things deteriorated, I notifed her
that I woudl originate the calls. So she stopped answering the telephone.
Now with the court action, the calls get answered, though I may have to call
two or three different numbers (the home, the cell, her mother's) but by and
large, the kids are doing somethign else. Tonight, for example, eldest is
watching Hollywood Squares so doesn't want to talk, youngest is playing a
game with mom and somebody else (new name for me), and middle is building a
house of cards (her I got to talk to). At least I only had to call one
number tonight.
Rambler
The Watsons
> Ramber, people here often have specific call times put into the court
> orders, do you have that? I.e., residential parent must make children
> available between x and y times on a and b days for phone contact with
> non-residential parent.
>
> TC, didn't/don't you guys have this? What does yours say?
we did too..didn't do a lot of good...
Jess
The Watsons
> Ya know, I read the original post to include some bit of question
> about whether or not there is bias *here*, in the NG. That "BM is
> best to have custody" bias is *NOT* here in this NG.
is that a good thing? :)
Jess
lilblakdog
> From what I have read, this place seems to be
> fairly even, and perhaps even tilts more towards bias towards fathers (who
> don't have the access/custody)
I think that's true, to some extent, but only because the overwhelming
majority of us are women and stepmothers. Most of us wouldn't be here if
there weren't issues involving our husbands/SOs. If we had more
stepfathers, you'd be hearing a lot more about deadbeat fathers and mother's
rights, I'm sure.
lil
--
http://lilblakdog.tripod.com
Wendy
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
She came back with (eventually), "There is a 7:30 call
> if possible," and "It is too expensive to call" and "the kids don't want
to
> call all the time" and "I am not going to force the kids to talk to you if
> they do not want to talk to you." When things deteriorated, I notifed her
> that I woudl originate the calls. So she stopped answering the telephone.
> Now with the court action, the calls get answered, though I may have to
call
> two or three different numbers (the home, the cell, her mother's) but by
and
> large, the kids are doing somethign else. Tonight, for example, eldest is
> watching Hollywood Squares so doesn't want to talk, youngest is playing a
> game with mom and somebody else (new name for me), and middle is building
a
> house of cards (her I got to talk to). At least I only had to call one
> number tonight.
I'm going to play devil's advocat for a moment. I can see this all
transpiring and it not necessarily being malicious. Daily phonecalls aren't
going to work. There's no way I could have my children by a phone at 7.30
pm every night. They have lives and would begin to resent it. Phone
conversations just aren't the same thing. They will become stilted if they
don't have something natural to talk to you about. What's going to happen
when they hit their teens, like my girls. One has a job, a boyfriend, a
social life, school work to do. The other is growing up too and both are
trying to become independent of their parents.
I'd also worry about an ex trying to continue to control our lives using
this arrangement.
I've heard parents make the excuse of economic necessity before for not
moving to live close to children and I'm afraid that it doesn't wash that
well. So you're unemployed, but are you unemployable? Move back to the
states and get a job and then start your battle for access.
I say this as a Canadian who lives in England. My ex and I split up 8 years
ago and I made the decision that I'd stay here, despite all my family being
in Canada, because I believe children need to have access to both parents.
I don't move to the lucrative southern regions of the country because access
and daily involvement with my children is more important than money. The
daily phonecalls happen, because the children ring me themselves to tell me
things, ask permission about things and I ring them about things.
It isn't that I'm not sympathetic to your situation, Rambler, I would be
distraught if I couldn't have regular access to my children. I just think
that you've got to be prepared to face unemployment and parenting without a
support network if you really want access to your kids.
Wendy
lilblakdog
> Which, at least IMO, wasn't the overall case in ours. In ours, she got
fed
> up (I beleive) with her life, and figured she could have the lifestyle
(stay
> at home Mom, large house, maid, etc. etc. etc.) without the husband. Boy
> was she wrong, as she is now a wage earner working 40+ hours a week as the
> kids shuffle between daycare and a variety of baby sitters.
But forgive me, what I hear *you* are offering is a man who is in the
process of getting his own business up and running, with little income and a
daycare provider. If I was a judge, looking at that vs. a functioning
existing homelife with the children's gainfully-employed mother and
grandmother for backup, I wouldn't be any too eager to change the custody
arrangements.
You have a limited amount of time to convince a judge that you are better
situated to have residential custody of your children. And as some people
here can testify, judges do not wish to see long lists of everything the
other parent didn't do on this day at that time. So other than the fact
that the kids don't want to talk to you *every* day, their mother won't
force them to, you have to call different numbers to reach them (everybody I
know has at *least* three different numbers--why not be happy you have
access to a cell number or whatever, and don't have to form a close
relationship with her answering machine?), and their mother puts them in
daycare while she's gainfully employed, you might want to seriously consider
*why* somebody would take the children away from her and give them to you.
Because she sounds like 90% of the single mothers I know. Unless there's a
trump card that you haven't told us about, I don't see how you're going to
stand a chance...and it has nothing to do with you being "just the father".
I mean, you don't even seem to *want* them, so much as you don't want their
mother to continue to have them for whatever reasons. I've understood you
to say at least once that you'd be happy with her continuing custody so long
as they continued to do exactly as you wished they'd do.
Rob has a close relationship with his son and--until she died--had a
friendly relationship with his ex. But it was *still* like pulling teeth to
get SS to come to the phone. Kids are like that...if there's something
they'd prefer to do, having to talk to dad on the phone every day becomes an
annoyance. Heck, I'm an adult who loves my family very much and *I* don't
want to talk to them on the phone every night. Perhaps it's time to give
them a little space. If you called them a couple of times a week, they'd be
happier to hear from you, you'd have more to say, and they'd be able to do
whatever it is they'd *rather* be doing at 7:30 each evening once in awhile.
I mean, when I was a kid we went swimming and had gymnastics or Pioneer
Girls or something, but you want your three daughters to be thrilled to be
at home every evening in time for your phone call...and *not* watching
television and *not* playing a game. Kids just aren't always like
that...regardless of what they were like when they were younger. So it
doesn't really matter what the court order says (as someone pointed
out)...kids don't get legalities.
You said that you didn't want to hear anything negative--that you wanted to
hear about our experiences. But most of our experiences in these situations
*are* negative. As a rule, courts don't take the kids away from their
mothers without more compelling reasons then what you're offering. It would
be considerably better for you to figure out a way to compromise.
lil
--
http://lilblakdog.tripod.com
n...@impactwp.com
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> I have no family where she moved to (I am originally from the East Cost,
she
> is from the Left Coast), I have never lived there, I have no support
network
> there and I have no job (well, there or here, actually). However, I have
> been here for seven years, I have a support network here, my fledgling
> start-up is here, and the kids lived here. I had originally planned (I
> consented to her having Care and Control) to let the kids grow up there,
and
> basically commute once a month (previous salary and role would let me do
> that, projected income from the start-up would also allow this). However,
I
> have unfortunately spent my emotionally energy over the past 16 months
> trying to get contact with the kids, which has taken focus off of my
> business, dramatically. I also, at this stage, based upon her actions for
> the past 16 months, don't think things will change. She has, IMHO, the
> approach that she is SuperMom, and that I am nothing more than a bank
> account (empty currently which really pisses her off). Her behaviour has
> modified slightly since the filing, but not greatly.
I guess if you're not working I don't understand why you wouldn't now move
to the States. I know it would be a major move, but I'm sure you are an
employable guy and BM would have a MUCH harder time alienating you from your
kids if you were local. Imagine seeing them every other weekend?!
One of her most recent
> comments? "If the kids aren't around for your call, deal with it! If they
> are having dinner when you call, Deal with it! I will not structure this
> household around your calls." Oh, the calls come in at 7:30 pm each and
> every evening.
I can see her point. But only because I used to believe in alienating my
stepson from his mother. I understand her, I do. She's got herself into a
very small tight space where she sees you through a certain perspective
only, which limits her to this kind of crap. Do you keep a diary of this
kind of statement?
Having said that, as another person said, every night sounds, erm, difficult
to manage. Kids do get bored on the phone, it can be like dragging
information out of a stone. Maybe you could look to update this arrangement.
Mom has indicated it's not working at their end (she may have some
legitimate reasons, just because some of them are fucked doesn't mean they
all are). So here's some ideas instead.
A 'goodnight phone call' where you just say goodnight to each kid, speak to
each one for 1 to 2 minutes max. Then have a twice weekly phone chat, which
you can do around their schedules. There's always going to be at least one
maybe two nights a week where they don't do anything, Sunday is usually
good. I can see how it could genuinely be difficult to manage a phone call
every night.
Do you write to the kids? I'd be sending a letter (registered because then
if it's not delivered you have proof of alienation to show a judge) weekly.
This could be a fun package for all of the kids. Why not buy them a tape
recorder and send them tapes of yourself? You could do music compilations
and tape your voice, read them stories on a tape, the possibilities are
endless.
Get over there and offer to install netmeeting on their computer to save Mom
the bother. Heck maybe even buy one and install it yourself and tell her
it's time the kids had a new machine and you thought you'd use it.
Give the kids a calling card or prepaid cellphone to call you, so even if
you aren't talking to them every day yourself you can tell them that you are
always available to talk to them. Teach them how to reverse the charges and
encourage them how to do it.
Try and negotiate this with Mom. If you give her a hundred options and she
still won't bend even a tiny bit, again you've got info to show a judge that
she's being totally obstructive. If you stay as stubborn as Mom, then the
judge is going to bang your heads together. You're a smart guy, get
creative.
> > > The mother has adopted an approach that she will do whatever she
>
> > > pleases...if it interferes with my access, tough.
OK. But don't polarise from her or you'll end up even farther apart. She
does have a right to a life that does not entirely revolve around your
contact with the kids. Which is why you need to work WITH her to find
something that does work. What would happen if you called her (record it)
and said 'ok this phone thing isn't working for me or you, what can we do
about it? I've had a few ideas about other things, have you any ideas for
improvements? Such as making the phone a twice or thrice weekly thing on
certain nights that were good for you? I personally believe it does need to
be scheduled when the kids are this young as they get to rely on it.
I feel for you though. My husband calls his daughter at 6pm every Thursday
night and has done every week for the last 4 years. Her mother still
occasionally 'forgets'. ROFL!!
<snip>
> > This is the kind of stuff that really should be dealt with. This is
> parental
>
> > alienation - which happens in situations like this. And while there's
>
> > push/pull in your relationship with the BM it's going to keep on
> happening.
>
> > I feel you'd be far better spending your time and money on establishing
a
>
> > good relationship with the mother so that she didn't feel a need to
create
>
> > this alienation.
>
> I've tried that, I think.
I guess I don't view it as a one-time only deal. I had one of the CRAPPEST
relationships with my stepson's mother a few years ago, google me to see how
crap. We're friends now, genuinely friends. Things can change, and you do
have the power to change things, no matter how powerless you feel.
>I am 10,000 miles away from her so I have little
> impact on her life, do not know her new circle of friends, etc.
I don't see that as relevant.
>The
> problem, I think, for her, is the Access agreement which she agreed to (it
> was an Order by Consent). She doesn't like it now that she was able to
> leave, and she doesn't live up to it.
Sure. But perhaps she didn't know how their new life was going to work out,
what their schedule would be, how they'd feel, and actually it's not working
for genuine reasons? I'm not saying she doesn't have some terrible reasons,
it seems that she might. But just because part of her thinking is messed up
doesn't mean it all is. I do think it's reasonable to perhaps reconsider the
arrangement now that it's been lived for a while.
The main sticking point is that, per
> the agreement, I talk to the kids daily. She has frustrated that to no
end.
I know. But perhaps by listening to her genuine reasons she wouldn't feel
such a need to exercise her negative reasons.
> The other contact happens "if the children want to and I won't force
them."
Their contact with their father should be non negotiable.
> The oldest was 8 and the youngest three when that statement was made...and
> you are going to tell me that they are going to log onto the internet
> themselves, download a piece of software and initiate a video conversation
> or make the time to access email and write back on their own?
No, they need direction and encouragement from BM, who doesn't seem to feel
like they need a father. I just think that perhaps you could find a better
working relationship with her if you took some of her concerns seriously. If
she felt that she was being heard and respected it might work out better
overall.
I've tried
> rationalizing, I've tried reasoning.
Well keep trying. I know that's tough, but don't give up.
SO (no not the reason the BM left, she
> was a six month later occurence) suggested that I back off on one of my
> Access conditions, a weekly email from her letting me know what was
> happenign with the kids (I began sending her reminders two days after they
> were due which pissed her off), which I did. The emails stopped three
weeks
> later and haven't resumed, so I have gotten no communication from the BM
for
> seven months on what is going on with the children.
I think that if you want to know what's happening with your kids, you need
to phone up and ask BM. Expecting a woman who's clearly got problems with
you to want to email you weekly just ain't going to happen. Sure, if she was
fully adjusted, she might. When I wanted to repair our relationship with BM
(we're custodial) one of the first things I did was start to email her
regularly just to let her know what SS was up to. But that came from the
place that I was in that your ex obviously isn't in?
Again I'm concerned about your language. 'I have gotten no communication
from the BM for seven months on what is going on with the children'. Have
you asked for info?
Strange that this
> occured at the same time she started dating and telling the kids that they
> should withhold that information from me, (no I didn't ask, didn't know,
but
> my eldest let slip in a conversation that she wasn't supposed to tell me
> something and then lost it because "Mom is going to be so angry because I
> told you." She actually didn't tell me, just that there was something
that
> Mom didn't want them to tell me and it didn't have anything to do with me
ya
> di ya di ya. Poor kid dissolved in tears, and then her mother walked in
the
> door.)
So how did you deal with this with the child and BM?
> > > What I do want my kids to know is that I have tried. I will establish
a
>
> > > residence there, but even that I beleive, given the Mother's attitude,
> will
>
> > > not be sufficient. I have read that having a parent excluded from
young
>
> > > kid's lives can be extremely psychologically damaging, giving rise to
> fears
>
> > > of intimacy and proper relationshop patterns.
>
> >
>
> > See this sounds to me like a good reason for you going back to court and
>
> > firming up your access arrangements and parenting plans. Have you
> suggested
>
> > family therapy or mediation for you and Mom?
>
>
>
> Yep, first thing I suggested when this escalated from direct communication
> to that through her lawyers (I ahd the fun time of representing myself for
> the majority of the first go round because of spending money on solicitors
> (here they are really, REALLY expensive), her flat and club membership,
the
> kids school, a lawsuit for compensation from my previous firm and starting
a
> company)).
And what, she refused? Suggest it again.
I figured back in August that since she was being a butt, and
> the kids were melting down in front of my eyes, that perhaps her
solicitors
> would say, "Hey, BM, you agreed to this, in front of the judge, and you
> can't renege. Remember what the judge said as he closed the hearing? "If
> you BM, don't live up to the conditions, that is a cause to switch Care
and
> Control" " and that that would snap her out of it (she has (or I have) the
> problem that her mother a) divorced at the same age that my ex was when
this
> started, and my ex was the same age as my eldest, b) formed a nuclear unit
> of her, my ex, and the brother that nobody penetrated (was warned about
this
> by my ex, but didn't see that asa red flag), c) was the matriach of her
> family, and hence, as the patriach of mine, we clashed from time to time,
d)
> was secretly in Asia (without my knowledge) supporting her daughter (my
ex)
> and convinced her to take the children and disappear from the house, and
e)
> has just now gone through her second divorce). That didn't work, so after
> six weeks of no response, I filed a Contempt of Court Application and a
> Motion to Modify the Order for access.
Well that's fair.
> I have instructed my solicitor here that the goal is to create and
> environment where the kids have equal and unfettered access to both
parents.
> I don't think this will happen because BM has a different concept of what
is
> right ... she really didn't have access to her father growing up, so
doesn't
> see the value I think.
Perhaps that's true. I think the above goal is a reasonable one and it's not
a 'standoff' position to take to court where you just want one thing
(custody) and are prepared to fight for it. You need to be Mr Flexible and
Mr Reasonable, and I am still concerned that you're not considering moving
to the States.
> > > Tough that it is such a long slog.
>
> >
>
> > Indeed, cross channel too, it's not easy. How do you maintain contact
>
> > between visitations?
>
>
>
> Well, supposed to be daily telephone calls. I have requested that she
> install Netmeeting on with her computer since about Feb last year...never
> got a response until her latest Affidavit which said that her computer
won't
> support it, which I will politely point out to the judge is yet another
lie
> in her affidavit. Grrrr...you got me going, sorry.
I've already addressed this.
>
>
>
> > > Anyway, I'll stick around (after I complai nto my ISP) as, having a
>
> > > girlfriend who has never had kids, some perspective provided here
would
>
> > > probably be useful.
>
> >
>
> > Let's hope so.
>
> > Good luck
>
> > Nikki
>
>
>
> Thanks,
You're welcome.
Nikki
>
>
>
> Rambler
>
>
Rambler
news:btgeiv$ll9$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in
> message news:btg0kj$77...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> She came back with (eventually), "There is a 7:30 call
>> if possible," and "It is too expensive to call" and "the kids don't
>> want to call all the time" and "I am not going to force the kids to
>> talk to you if they do not want to talk to you." When things
>> deteriorated, I notifed her that I woudl originate the calls. So
>> she stopped answering the telephone. Now with the court action, the
>> calls get answered, though I may have to call two or three different
>> numbers (the home, the cell, her mother's) but by and large, the
>> kids are doing somethign else. Tonight, for example, eldest is
>> watching Hollywood Squares so doesn't want to talk, youngest is
>> playing a game with mom and somebody else (new name for me), and
>> middle is building a house of cards (her I got to talk to). At
>> least I only had to call one number tonight.
>
> I'm going to play devil's advocat for a moment.
Thanks, I appreciate the devil's advocacy. I'll play devil's advocate back
a bit, if you don't mind.
> I can see this all
> transpiring and it not necessarily being malicious. Daily phonecalls
> aren't going to work.
Really? Why? Because you couldn't have the children by the telephone? My
ex uses this exact line of argument, which falls apart, for me at least, as
outlined below:
> There's no way I could have my children by a
> phone at 7.30 pm every night.
Okay, which is why she is supposed to make the calls, andthen she can make a
time within a range, say from 7:15 to 8:00.
> They have lives and would begin to
> resent it.
Again, why? Because they don't want to talk to their father? Thing is, for
me, I think I am perfectly capable of judging my children and what they do
and don't want. Sometimes we have real short conversations, because they
don't want to say anything. That's okay with me, as long as it is them and
not influenced by the mother. But when the entire environment is that the
kids are eating, running to the store or whatever, and *then* the kids don't
want to chat, that get's problematic. I have had many occasions (two nights
ago for example) where one kid wanted to speak (the youngest), but she
didn't get to because the mother decided that was the transition time
between her mother's house and her house, and when I called her house 20
minutes later and finished talking to the eldest, the youngest was asleep.
> Phone conversations just aren't the same thing.
The same thing as what? Living in the same house? agreed. But I have
argued this one out before, and I am comfortable in my opinion. My approach
is that we used to be a whole family living here. THe ex decided she did
not want to be married anymore and left. So now we are a split family. One
does the best one can do in that situation.
> They will
> become stilted if they don't have something natural to talk to you
> about.
Only if the resident parent can't handle it, in my opinion. With me,
without the interference of the mother, the kids and I are perfectly able to
have brief 40 second chats.
> What's going to happen when they hit their teens, like my
> girls. One has a job, a boyfriend, a social life, school work to do.
> The other is growing up too and both are trying to become independent
> of their parents.
And I understand that as well. My eldest is going to be 10, so I hope she
has a couple of years until she is dating (say when she turns 40) and that
is something that I can deal with then. Thing is, the interference of the
mother makes that worse in the future, I believe.
>
> I'd also worry about an ex trying to continue to control our lives
> using this arrangement.
Ah, and therein lies the biggest problem. See, my ex feels the same way,
but, in my opinion, she has some responsibility here. Just because one gets
divorced does not mean one can do whatever they want. They have to
facilitate the contact with the other parent (granted, I believe that most
do not do this). But I believe that this "control" issue is much more
subjective and is what really causes the problems. The resident parent
thinks, "He is trying to control me" but can't voice that so says "Phone
conversations just aren't the same thing." See, for me, when one complains
about the fear of being controlled, yet decides what is the best method of
contact between the absent parent and the children, that to me is control,
and the fear of control is hugely passive aggressive.
>
> I've heard parents make the excuse of economic necessity before for
> not moving to live close to children and I'm afraid that it doesn't
> wash that well. So you're unemployed, but are you unemployable?
> Move back to the states and get a job and then start your battle for
> access.
Why? I don't see the connection between your last sentence and your first
(if the first was correct). I have had the whole conversation before about
me perhaps placing my needs first (which I find kind of ripe given the
nature of the end of the marriage), but I do have goals for myself. My
goals do fit in with the family. You may not know this, but I didn't grow
up anywhere near where she was ... in fact, I only spent my highschool and
university years (by and large) in the States. Me moving "back" would be
like somebody from Vancouver moving back to Halifax. Kind of different I
would think.
>
> I say this as a Canadian who lives in England. My ex and I split up
> 8 years ago and I made the decision that I'd stay here, despite all
> my family being in Canada, because I believe children need to have
> access to both parents. I don't move to the lucrative southern
> regions of the country because access and daily involvement with my
> children is more important than money. The daily phonecalls happen,
> because the children ring me themselves to tell me things, ask
> permission about things and I ring them about things.
Ah, that's the difference. You were there to start with. To me, slightly
different. And your children ring you because they aren't stopped by their
mother. I have been told by the kids that they have been told they can't
call because it is too expensive. The middle has cried because she feels
that she would not be allowed to call.
> It isn't that I'm not sympathetic to your situation, Rambler, I would
> be distraught if I couldn't have regular access to my children. I
> just think that you've got to be prepared to face unemployment and
> parenting without a support network if you really want access to your
> kids.
Perhaps that last part is right. Perhaps I do have to face losing
absolutely everything. Thing is, for me, I think that I would be faced with
a continued problem from the mother even if I was there.
I do appreciate the devil's advocate approach. It actually brought up some
things that will go into my affidavit, so it helped to kick my memory. But
I have been down this line of argument before, had many people tell me what
you have told me, yet decided to pursue my goal my way. Stubborn? Perhaps.
Unrealistic? Maybe. But it is still a conviction in my beliefs and
approachs.
Rambler
Rambler
news:hvPKb.182592$ss5.21725@clgrps13
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in
> message news:btfpvv$77...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>
>> Which, at least IMO, wasn't the overall case in ours. In ours, she
>> got fed up (I beleive) with her life, and figured she could have the
>> lifestyle (stay at home Mom, large house, maid, etc. etc. etc.)
>> without the husband. Boy was she wrong, as she is now a wage earner
>> working 40+ hours a week as the kids shuffle between daycare and a
>> variety of baby sitters.
>
> But forgive me, what I hear *you* are offering is a man who is in the
> process of getting his own business up and running, with little
> income and a daycare provider. If I was a judge, looking at that vs.
> a functioning existing homelife with the children's
> gainfully-employed mother and grandmother for backup, I wouldn't be
> any too eager to change the custody arrangements.
And if the options were that the kids would live with the mother, but see
her for 45 minutes a day, and spend most of the time with day care providers
and paid for babysitters, switching between two or more a day on the
weekends, as opposed to living with the father, seeing him until school in
the morning and then an hour or two after school (or, to draw apples and
apples, even say 45 minutes) with a full time live in helper that has known
the kids (well the youngest) since they were born? And that the father has
demonstrated that he promotes and encourages access with the mother? Does
that help or is it irrelevant?
> You have a limited amount of time to convince a judge that you are
> better situated to have residential custody of your children. And as
> some people here can testify, judges do not wish to see long lists of
> everything the other parent didn't do on this day at that time. So
> other than the fact that the kids don't want to talk to you *every*
> day, their mother won't force them to, you have to call different
> numbers to reach them (everybody I know has at *least* three
> different numbers--why not be happy you have access to a cell number
> or whatever, and don't have to form a close relationship with her
> answering machine?), and their mother puts them in daycare while
> she's gainfully employed, you might want to seriously consider *why*
> somebody would take the children away from her and give them to you.
> Because she sounds like 90% of the single mothers I know. Unless
> there's a trump card that you haven't told us about, I don't see how
> you're going to stand a chance...and it has nothing to do with you
> being "just the father".
> I mean, you don't even seem to *want* them,
This is the comment that stood me at attention first and started my
response. Out of curiosity, whereever did you get this from?
> so much as you don't want their mother to continue to have them for
> whatever reasons. I've understood you to say at least once that
> you'd be happy with her continuing custody so long as they continued
> to do exactly as you wished they'd do.
No, not correct. I would be happy for them to continue living there if the
mother lived up to the agreement that we entered into in front of the court,
in spirit and deed. The reason for that is that if the agreement was
followed, the children would have access to both parents. The reason for
this is that, in my opinion, when you limit contact, in whatever way (and
perhaps worse when one tries and justifies it), then you are creating a bad
space for the children. And because that space is harmful for the children,
and in my opinion very harmful as it creates the next wave of divorcees,
that is why I want to change residency. You destroy, in my unlearned
opinion, the ability to understand what relationships are when you exclude
one of the kids parents (typically the father). Of course, this is a
subjective viewpoint from a man who grew up in a nuclear family (mother and
father remained married until he passed away) and has seen the effects on a
mother who didn't and was denied access to her father by her mother because,
well, father's just weren't important. So it is not "to do exactly as I
wished they would do," it is to do exactly as we both agreed to and which
would give the children a non-restrictive association with the father. It
is an attitude, an attitude that doesn't allow for the "Well, 90% of single
mothers are this way." Sure, you can call me an idealist, but regardless of
how many people are doing it (and this is my issue with "bias"), it is still
wrong.
> You said that you didn't want to hear anything negative--
Hmm, I don't think that I said that at all. What I said somewhere (and it
might not have even been in this newsgroup) was that I had held this thread
of the conversation before. I think I understand the con side of the
arguments ... I have been living them for 16 months.
> that you
> wanted to hear about our experiences. But most of our experiences in
> these situations *are* negative. As a rule, courts don't take the
> kids away from their mothers without more compelling reasons then
> what you're offering. It would be considerably better for you to
> figure out a way to compromise.
Thanks, but I feel that I already have compromised ... my kids moved away.
And I guess the reason of the initial post was ... what, from your
experiences, *are* the compelling reasons that a court changes custody? If
a parent is alienating the children from one parent isn't enough, what is?
If it is, what constitutes alienation?
Rambler
Rambler
appreciated your long response. Helpful.
> From: n...@impactwp.com (n...@impactwp.com)
> Subject: Re: Change of Primary Residential Parent - Nikki
> Newsgroups: alt.support.step-parents
> Date: 2004-01-07 01:53:50 PST
>
>
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
> news:btfnik$77...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> <snip>
> I guess if you're not working I don't understand why you wouldn't now move
> to the States. I know it would be a major move, but I'm sure you are an
> employable guy and BM would have a MUCH harder time alienating you from
your
> kids if you were local. Imagine seeing them every other weekend?!
Yes, I understand that. One of my personal goals is to make my business
work. I don't like failing, and I don't want to have to restart, although I
have paused for the past two years. A personal thing I guess. If I had
effected my plan over the last twelve months, I would now be seeing them
every five weeks for two weeks anyway. I guess I let the emotional stuff
get to me too much.
> One of her most recent
> > comments? "If the kids aren't around for your call, deal with it! If
they
> > are having dinner when you call, Deal with it! I will not structure
this
> > household around your calls." Oh, the calls come in at 7:30 pm each and
> > every evening.
>
> I can see her point. But only because I used to believe in alienating my
> stepson from his mother. I understand her, I do. She's got herself into a
> very small tight space where she sees you through a certain perspective
> only, which limits her to this kind of crap. Do you keep a diary of this
> kind of statement?
Yes. It was actually an email from her to me. Along with the "You do the
kids no good" and a variety of other comments. That and I have a daily
contact journal where I record the content of the telephone call.
> Having said that, as another person said, every night sounds, erm,
difficult
> to manage. Kids do get bored on the phone, it can be like dragging
> information out of a stone. Maybe you could look to update this
arrangement.
> Mom has indicated it's not working at their end (she may have some
> legitimate reasons, just because some of them are fucked doesn't mean they
> all are). So here's some ideas instead.
>
> A 'goodnight phone call' where you just say goodnight to each kid, speak
to
> each one for 1 to 2 minutes max. Then have a twice weekly phone chat,
which
> you can do around their schedules. There's always going to be at least one
> maybe two nights a week where they don't do anything, Sunday is usually
> good. I can see how it could genuinely be difficult to manage a phone call
> every night.
Actually, we have that. All of our calls are goodnight calls. I do ask
questions (what did you do today, how was school) and I pull out little
things, but if they don't want to talk, they basically don't. Tonight, for
example, eldest was again watching Hollywood Squares. I asked about all the
snow, she said "Can I go , Puhlease!!?" and off she went. She was on the
phone for, what, 15 seconds. Maybe. And that is okay, as long as I am not
suffering from the ex popping out the door 10 minutes before the call to go
get dog food.
>
> Do you write to the kids? I'd be sending a letter (registered because then
> if it's not delivered you have proof of alienation to show a judge)
weekly.
> This could be a fun package for all of the kids. Why not buy them a tape
> recorder and send them tapes of yourself? You could do music compilations
> and tape your voice, read them stories on a tape, the possibilities are
> endless.
I used to write emails, but they sat for months. I have written a bit, but
not enough. I know I should do this more. Thanks for bringing it up.
> Get over there and offer to install netmeeting on their computer to save
Mom
> the bother. Heck maybe even buy one and install it yourself and tell her
> it's time the kids had a new machine and you thought you'd use it.
If I could, I would, but the kids have told me that I am not allowed in
Mom's house (not that I want to go in there anyway). Guess I'll take a
laptop and just give it to them.
> Give the kids a calling card or prepaid cellphone to call you, so even if
> you aren't talking to them every day yourself you can tell them that you
are
> always available to talk to them. Teach them how to reverse the charges
and
> encourage them how to do it.
Kids are pretty young for the reverse charges (9, 7 and 4). But thanks for
the suggestions.
> Try and negotiate this with Mom. If you give her a hundred options and she
> still won't bend even a tiny bit, again you've got info to show a judge
that
> she's being totally obstructive. If you stay as stubborn as Mom, then the
> judge is going to bang your heads together. You're a smart guy, get
> creative.
I think I kind of have. As you pointed out below, contact with Dad is
non-negotiable. But I have offered to vary the time, whatever. No, I don't
want to go to calling once a week . . . to me that takes me out of the kids
lives even further and is not good.
> > > > The mother has adopted an approach that she will do whatever she
> > > > pleases...if it interferes with my access, tough.
>
> OK. But don't polarise from her or you'll end up even farther apart. She
> does have a right to a life that does not entirely revolve around your
> contact with the kids. Which is why you need to work WITH her to find
> something that does work. What would happen if you called her (record it)
> and said 'ok this phone thing isn't working for me or you, what can we do
> about it? I've had a few ideas about other things, have you any ideas for
> improvements? Such as making the phone a twice or thrice weekly thing on
> certain nights that were good for you? I personally believe it does need
to
> be scheduled when the kids are this young as they get to rely on it.
Originally, she was to place the calls. I figured that met two needs: 1)
she couldstructure them to meet her needs within a window and 2) the kids
would be more prepared. problem was that she didn't, and when she was at
her mother's, they didn't come at all. When I called, they just refused to
answer.
> I feel for you though. My husband calls his daughter at 6pm every Thursday
> night and has done every week for the last 4 years. Her mother still
> occasionally 'forgets'. ROFL!!
>
> <snip>
> > > This is the kind of stuff that really should be dealt with. This is
> > parental
> >
> > > alienation - which happens in situations like this. And while there's
> > > push/pull in your relationship with the BM it's going to keep on
> > happening.
> >
> > > I feel you'd be far better spending your time and money on
establishing a
> > > good relationship with the mother so that she didn't feel a need to
create
> > > this alienation.
> >
> > I've tried that, I think.
>
> I guess I don't view it as a one-time only deal. I had one of the CRAPPEST
> relationships with my stepson's mother a few years ago, google me to see
how
> crap. We're friends now, genuinely friends. Things can change, and you do
> have the power to change things, no matter how powerless you feel.
>
> >I am 10,000 miles away from her so I have little
> > impact on her life, do not know her new circle of friends, etc.
>
> I don't see that as relevant.
Well, that was in response to me impacting her life and controlling her. I
think it is difficult to do from a distance.
> >The
> > problem, I think, for her, is the Access agreement which she agreed to
(it
> > was an Order by Consent). She doesn't like it now that she was able to
> > leave, and she doesn't live up to it.
>
> Sure. But perhaps she didn't know how their new life was going to work
out,
> what their schedule would be, how they'd feel, and actually it's not
working
> for genuine reasons? I'm not saying she doesn't have some terrible
reasons,
> it seems that she might. But just because part of her thinking is messed
up
> doesn't mean it all is. I do think it's reasonable to perhaps reconsider
the
> arrangement now that it's been lived for a while.
I am really not seeing the problem, save for that she just doesn't want to
do it. With the court action initiated, the rhetoric from the kids stopped.
It is merely her making the time in her schedule, not in theirs per say.
> The main sticking point is that, per
> > the agreement, I talk to the kids daily. She has frustrated that to no
> end.
>
> I know. But perhaps by listening to her genuine reasons she wouldn't feel
> such a need to exercise her negative reasons.
Yes, I guess I have a problem there.
> > The other contact happens "if the children want to and I won't force
> them."
>
> Their contact with their father should be non negotiable.
Now you see, that is what I think too.
> > The oldest was 8 and the youngest three when that statement was
made...and
> > you are going to tell me that they are going to log onto the internet
> > themselves, download a piece of software and initiate a video
conversation
> > or make the time to access email and write back on their own?
>
> No, they need direction and encouragement from BM, who doesn't seem to
feel
> like they need a father. I just think that perhaps you could find a better
> working relationship with her if you took some of her concerns seriously.
If
> she felt that she was being heard and respected it might work out better
> overall.
I have pages and pages of emails where I hear her and validate her thoughts
and concerns. Things like, "I can understand from people that I know that
being a single resident parent is tough to do." What I get back is, "You
have no idea about our life here so don't try and tell me about it!" I
wasn't, I was acknowledging that she has a hard time, which her response
proved to me to be true.
> I've tried
> > rationalizing, I've tried reasoning.
>
> Well keep trying. I know that's tough, but don't give up.
16 months? Is there a cut off?
> SO (no not the reason the BM left, she
> > was a six month later occurence) suggested that I back off on one of my
> > Access conditions, a weekly email from her letting me know what was
> > happenign with the kids (I began sending her reminders two days after
they
> > were due which pissed her off), which I did. The emails stopped three
weeks
> > later and haven't resumed, so I have gotten no communication from the BM
for
> > seven months on what is going on with the children.
>
> I think that if you want to know what's happening with your kids, you need
> to phone up and ask BM. Expecting a woman who's clearly got problems with
> you to want to email you weekly just ain't going to happen. Sure, if she
was
> fully adjusted, she might. When I wanted to repair our relationship with
BM
> (we're custodial) one of the first things I did was start to email her
> regularly just to let her know what SS was up to. But that came from the
> place that I was in that your ex obviously isn't in?
Yes, perhaps I should call BM once a week and say, "Right, I would like to
hear from you what is going on with the kids." I have continued to ask for
the emails. I have asked gently ("any possibility of getting the weekly
emails going again"). I have done nice things, like agreeing to postpone
her filing date because of an illness in her family, as opposed to being a
butt about it. And I think if I called her and said, "Wazzup? Can you tell
me about the kids, she'd resent that too. I thought that email was the
least intrusive, she didn't have to deal with me directly, and she could
just send me information. She now states that she is just too busy, even
though that is part of the Consent Order.
> Again I'm concerned about your language. 'I have gotten no communication
> from the BM for seven months on what is going on with the children'. Have
> you asked for info?
See above.
> Strange that this
> > occured at the same time she started dating and telling the kids that
they
> > should withhold that information from me, (no I didn't ask, didn't know,
but
> > my eldest let slip in a conversation that she wasn't supposed to tell me
> > something and then lost it because "Mom is going to be so angry because
I
> > told you." She actually didn't tell me, just that there was something
that
> > Mom didn't want them to tell me and it didn't have anything to do with
me ya
> > di ya di ya. Poor kid dissolved in tears, and then her mother walked in
the
> > door.)
>
> So how did you deal with this with the child and BM?
With the child, I sat there and said, "Hey honey, that's really okay. You
know what, you didn't even tell me what "It" is (and she didn't, she just
told me that there was something that she shouldn't have told me), and we
can just call it "It." No, Of course I won't tell Mom." To BM, I told her
that I was really concerned because the kids were being told to lie to me,
and that wasn't good, and if she didn't want the kids to tell me something,
then she shouldn't let them know, but doing what she was doing put the
children in the middle (I have had a bunch of these things happen). BM said
into the telephone, "Well, both #1 and #2 (six and nine at the time) stood
side by side and swore that they too didn't want to tell you."
> > will
> >
> > fears
> >
> > >
> > suggested
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > company)).
>
> And what, she refused? Suggest it again.
I have. I have suggested it to her once or twice, and suggested it to her
lawyers in my initial letter, and once I filed the Contempt thing with the
Court, but in mitigation that included her attending a parenting class. I
really don't think at this stage suggesting it again is going to be helpful.
>
>
> Well that's fair.
>
> > I have instructed my solicitor here that the goal is to create and
> > environment where the kids have equal and unfettered access to both
parents.
> > I don't think this will happen because BM has a different concept of
what is
> > right ... she really didn't have access to her father growing up, so
doesn't
> > see the value I think.
>
> Perhaps that's true. I think the above goal is a reasonable one and it's
not
> a 'standoff' position to take to court where you just want one thing
> (custody) and are prepared to fight for it. You need to be Mr Flexible and
> Mr Reasonable, and I am still concerned that you're not considering moving
> to the States.
Yes, many raise that concern. I do want my cake and Edith too. With the
proper concentration, I could be out of this and be there two out of five
weeks. That is the joy of having your own enterprise. Just have to focus
on getting it done.
I appreciate your response and the thoughts included. Thanks again.
Rambler
Geri and sometimes Brian
>> phone at 7.30 pm every night.
>
>Okay, which is why she is supposed to make the calls, andthen she can make a
>time within a range, say from 7:15 to 8:00.
The only way something like this could remotely work in our (50/50) situation
is if SD had a cell phone available to her at the call time. We are frequently
not at home, as a family, in the evenings.
I would see an order like this as huge PITA.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>> best to have custody" bias is *NOT* here in this NG.
>
>is that a good thing? :)
Depends on who you ask.
lilblakdog
news:10734691...@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
> She's got herself into a
> very small tight space where she sees you through a certain perspective
> only, which limits her to this kind of crap.
>
> ...
>
>
> She
> does have a right to a life that does not entirely revolve around your
> contact with the kids.
Nikki, don't these two statements conflict with each other (the first was
based on the comment she made about not rearranging their household based on
his phone calls).
I was in a relationship of some sort or another with an NC father for over
ten years. I know what it's like to have a BM pull the strings, based on
the fact that she thinks because the kid came out of her she owns and
controls it. But really. If Rob called her *every* day and wouldn't budge
more than half an hour on the time frame, and when SS wouldn't come to the
phone his attitude became one of, "You will have him come to the phone
because the court has ordered that I will talk to my child on this day at
this time!" *I* would have a few choice things to say about it. It's not
about keeping the child from him; it becomes about what things are worth
getting into a pissing contest over and what aren't...not just with him, but
with the kids. We went through several years of phone calls (at the age his
kids are) where Rob talked and SS looked at the television. One would think
that a father interested in communication with his children would rather
have half as many somewhat meaningful phone calls than daily forced and
hostile ones.
lil
P.S. - Rob says hi. Actually, what he said was, "*My* friend Nikki? Did
she send naked pictures?" Can't do anything with him....
--
http://lilblakdog.tripod.com
lilblakdog
> I was in a relationship of some sort or another with an NC father for over
> ten years. I know what it's like to have a BM pull the strings, based on
> the fact that she thinks because the kid came out of her she owns and
> controls it.
That was for his benefit, not yours. :)
lil
--
http://lilblakdog.tripod.com
n...@impactwp.com
> news:10734691...@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
>
> > She's got herself into a
> > very small tight space where she sees you through a certain perspective
> > only, which limits her to this kind of crap.
> > does have a right to a life that does not entirely revolve around your
> > contact with the kids.
>
> Nikki, don't these two statements conflict with each other (the first was
> based on the comment she made about not rearranging their household based
on
> his phone calls).
Well I don't mean them to. I think both are true. I think she's sometimes
obstructing his contact, but mainly just not encouraging it and providing
herself with lots of justifications (none true) as to why that's ok. But,
she does have a right to a life that doesn't entirely revolve around that
contact too. Geri said her family is often out in the evenings and this kind
of order would be a real PITA. We're not often out in the evening, but
everytime we are you can guarantee it's the night DH is supposed to call SD
and forgets, or, when SS had scheduled phone contact with his Mom it was
that night and we forgot she was supposed to call. And that was with one
phone call a week! And each phone call was 30 mins, so it wasn't right or
fair that we should miss out on that family time while either SS or DH was
not available to us during that special night out.
Of course we got better at it, remembering the day before we'd be out and
arranging another time for the call. But this is different to what Rambler
is in as he only wants 30 seconds to say goodnight, not a long phone call
everynight. It's not working for his ex though is it? If he can find out
when it's genuinely not working for her as opposed to when she's not making
it work and work with that it could help. I mean, I understand both of them
when he's pissed because she won't allow him to talk to the youngest in the
car and then she was asleep when they got back, and her for not wanting to
listen to her kid on the phone with Dad while they're all in the car (it can
be uncomfortable even if not well adjusted). Of course she could have worked
to make sure the youngest spoke to Dad first when they got back, but she's
not doing that because she's so wound up about other stuff. And, I can see
why after a long day and night out with the kids you just want to get them
home and in bed without dealing with a contact phone call.
I think all of these kinds of things are in conflict, but they're both
working from polarised and stubborn positions, which isn't helping anyone.
Hi to Rob. Anyone who had ever taken naked pics of me would already be dead
so can't help him there :-)
N
Wendy
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
> Really? Why? Because you couldn't have the children by the telephone?
My
> ex uses this exact line of argument, which falls apart, for me at least,
as
> outlined below:
I'm not sure you're listening to her. She works full time, right?! After
which she has to collect kids from child minders, get supper, baths,
homework, bed. The last thing she needs is someone insisting on a nightly
phonecall ritual. This is her quality time with the children too and I can
understand her not wanting to fight with them to make sure they're all ready
by the phone waiting.
> Okay, which is why she is supposed to make the calls, andthen she can make
a
> time within a range, say from 7:15 to 8:00.
It's still an imposition on her. Look, I share custody with my ex 50:50.
If my ex comes over and tells me what I'm to do on my nights with the
children, it annoys the hell out of me. He makes rules at his place, I make
the rules at mine. Simple.
> Again, why? Because they don't want to talk to their father?
It isn't a question of not wanting to talk to their father, but life goes
on, they get engrossed in what their current lives consist of. Don't take it
so personally, they're only children.
Thing is, for
> me, I think I am perfectly capable of judging my children and what they do
> and don't want.
Even the most attuned relationship has people in it who will say what they
think you want to hear because they don't want to hurt you, whether
children or adults.
Sometimes we have real short conversations, because they
> don't want to say anything. That's okay with me, as long as it is them
and
> not influenced by the mother. But when the entire environment is that the
> kids are eating, running to the store or whatever, and *then* the kids
don't
> want to chat, that get's problematic.
Good grief. I leave work at 5.00 pm and get home at 5.30 if I'm lucky.
Some nights I have to get groceries en route. The life of a working single
parent is a constant dash and a logistical nightmare. Why not be a little
more sensitive to how stressed she may be?
I have had many occasions (two nights
> ago for example) where one kid wanted to speak (the youngest), but she
> didn't get to because the mother decided that was the transition time
> between her mother's house and her house, and when I called her house 20
> minutes later and finished talking to the eldest, the youngest was asleep.
Sure, it sounds inflexible, but can you imagine how hard it is if a child
falls asleep in the car and then wakes when she gets there and won't go back
to sleep?
> > Phone conversations just aren't the same thing.
>
> The same thing as what? Living in the same house? agreed.
The same as conversations in person, whether living in the same house or
not.
But I have
> argued this one out before, and I am comfortable in my opinion. My
approach
> is that we used to be a whole family living here. THe ex decided she did
> not want to be married anymore and left. So now we are a split family.
One
> does the best one can do in that situation.
That just makes you sound entrenched in your viewpoint. She may well feel
comfortable with her opinions too. It's not going to get either of you onto
a level playing field.
> Only if the resident parent can't handle it, in my opinion.
I disagree. I have stilted conversations with some people who I love all
the time.
With me,
> without the interference of the mother, the kids and I are perfectly able
to
> have brief 40 second chats.
Personally, I think longer more detailed conversations are more likely to
keep you actively involved in their lives.
> is something that I can deal with then. Thing is, the interference of the
> mother makes that worse in the future, I believe.
You're so busy looking to blame the mother that you aren't hearing that it
gets harder with children as they get older whether you have access or not.
If you're only having 40 second phonecalls, that's not a basis for
sustaining whatever relationship you had with them.
> >
> > I'd also worry about an ex trying to continue to control our lives
> > using this arrangement.
>
> Ah, and therein lies the biggest problem. See, my ex feels the same way,
> but, in my opinion, she has some responsibility here. Just because one
gets
> divorced does not mean one can do whatever they want.
It certainly does to some extent. In my home, I can set rules and
boundaries that the ex has no say over.
They have to
> facilitate the contact with the other parent (granted, I believe that most
> do not do this).
There's an extent to which the other parent has to do their own
facilitating. Why do I live in England? It isn't just to make it easier
for my ex, it's to make it easier for all of us, myself included.
But I believe that this "control" issue is much more
> subjective and is what really causes the problems. The resident parent
> thinks, "He is trying to control me" but can't voice that so says "Phone
> conversations just aren't the same thing."
My ex used to do all sorts of little controlling things, like saying he
didn't want me to drive my children long distances in the car, and didn't
want this and didn't want that. Sorry, but when the children are in my
care, I'm a mature adult who is capable of making appropriate decisions
without an ex interfering.
See, for me, when one complains
> about the fear of being controlled, yet decides what is the best method of
> contact between the absent parent and the children, that to me is control,
> and the fear of control is hugely passive aggressive.
You yourself are deciding the method of contact to a large extent, by not
being willing to return Stateside.
> Why?
Do you want contact, or not? Adopting an entrenched position of insisting
on your own terms is not going to get her to relent on her terms.
I don't see the connection between your last sentence and your first
> (if the first was correct). I have had the whole conversation before
about
> me perhaps placing my needs first (which I find kind of ripe given the
> nature of the end of the marriage), but I do have goals for myself. My
> goals do fit in with the family. You may not know this, but I didn't grow
> up anywhere near where she was ... in fact, I only spent my highschool and
> university years (by and large) in the States. Me moving "back" would be
> like somebody from Vancouver moving back to Halifax. Kind of different I
> would think.
So what? I live in England, which is about the same distance away from
where I grew up. In eight years, I've built a life, made friends, found a
new partner, and worked amicably with my ex co-parenting. Sure it's not
easy, but life never is really.
> Ah, that's the difference. You were there to start with. To me, slightly
> different.
The only difference being my deciding to stay in a country to make it easier
for my children, my ex and myself to work together as a family but in two
households.
And your children ring you because they aren't stopped by their
> mother.
I am their mother. They aren't stopped by their father, though, any more
than I stop them ringing him when they are here with me. But it's
comparable with conversations with their grandparents, aunts, uncles,
cousins, etc. Conversations aren't easy or natural if they happen too
frequently and are forced.
I have been told by the kids that they have been told they can't
> call because it is too expensive. The middle has cried because she feels
> that she would not be allowed to call.
Long distance between continents isn't cheap and I certainly wouldn't want
little ones running up big phone bills uncontrolled.
> Perhaps that last part is right. Perhaps I do have to face losing
> absolutely everything. Thing is, for me, I think that I would be faced
with
> a continued problem from the mother even if I was there.
You'll only find that out if you try.
> I do appreciate the devil's advocate approach. It actually brought up
some
> things that will go into my affidavit, so it helped to kick my memory.
But
> I have been down this line of argument before, had many people tell me
what
> you have told me, yet decided to pursue my goal my way. Stubborn?
Perhaps.
> Unrealistic? Maybe. But it is still a conviction in my beliefs and
> approachs.
Well, my experience is that relationships work on give and take. If you are
accommodating and put yourself out, people generally return that in kind - a
kind of karma if you will.
Wendy
The Watsons
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
> Thanks, but I feel that I already have compromised ... my kids moved away.
> And I guess the reason of the initial post was ... what, from your
> experiences, *are* the compelling reasons that a court changes custody?
If
> a parent is alienating the children from one parent isn't enough, what is?
> If it is, what constitutes alienation?
if you're going to take alienation into the court and try to modify custody
based on that...
then what are the judicial standards for alienation? does the court even
recognize alienation? does the court typically modify custody, or does the
court do something else? what specific, long term actions do you have that
are alienation (and don't give me that she lives stateside-i'm an army
brat/dual national, so that doesn't impress me)? do you even know the
definition of parental alienation, who came up with the concept, what the
statistics/symptoms on it are, and who wrote the books on it?
typically, courts here don't recognize parental alienation...here in
arizona, it usually takes an incidence of domestic violence or misdemeanor
drug conviction for a judge to modify custody..there are provisions in
statute for the abuse/neglect and for interference with visitation/contempt
of court, but those aren't as common and much harder to prove...this is the
standard you could be facing, hon...you need to be prepared for
that....don't try just walking into a courtroom and telling a judge about
the phone calls and no visitation-a judge is just going to look at her and
enforce the visitation order...
Jess
The Watsons
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
> Why? I don't see the connection between your last sentence and your first
> (if the first was correct). I have had the whole conversation before
about
> me perhaps placing my needs first (which I find kind of ripe given the
> nature of the end of the marriage), but I do have goals for myself. My
> goals do fit in with the family. You may not know this, but I didn't grow
> up anywhere near where she was ... in fact, I only spent my highschool and
> university years (by and large) in the States. Me moving "back" would be
> like somebody from Vancouver moving back to Halifax. Kind of different I
> would think.
it was, but i managed just fine, thank you very much....and i did much
farther from vancouver to halifax...:) how's about moving from southern
germany where i was born and raised, and moving to a Tiny town in north
carolina? the culture shock was definently interesting....still is, at
times...:D
Jess
rebecca
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
>
> Ah, that's the difference. You were there to start with. To me, slightly
> different. And your children ring you because they aren't stopped by
their
> mother. I have been told by the kids that they have been told they can't
> call because it is too expensive. The middle has cried because she feels
> that she would not be allowed to call.
Can you get a toll-free number? One that you automatically get billed for?
That would eliminate that argument.
rebecca
Melissa
>judge switch for alienation. Never.
It's my understanding that once one parent starts screaming alienation, the
court people will stop listening.
The problem with PA and PAS is that everyone is an alienator to some extent.
It's pretty easy to accuse the other parent of alienation, and pretty easy to
provide evidence for that. That's almost nothing in terms of changing custody.
Love,
Melissa
"The old Tom didn't poison your fish either!"
-Carson Kressley, from Queer Eye
The Watsons
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
> And if the options were that the kids would live with the mother, but see
> her for 45 minutes a day, and spend most of the time with day care
providers
> and paid for babysitters, switching between two or more a day on the
> weekends, as opposed to living with the father, seeing him until school in
> the morning and then an hour or two after school (or, to draw apples and
> apples, even say 45 minutes) with a full time live in helper that has
known
> the kids (well the youngest) since they were born? And that the father
has
> demonstrated that he promotes and encourages access with the mother? Does
> that help or is it irrelevant?
irrelevant-the children are provided for somehow during the workday, and you
encouraging access at this point is irrelevant too, honestly...:)
> No, not correct. I would be happy for them to continue living there if
the
> mother lived up to the agreement that we entered into in front of the
court,
> in spirit and deed. The reason for that is that if the agreement was
> followed, the children would have access to both parents.
how old were the children when the agreement was first signed? maybe it's
time for a modification...the girls are 8, 9, and how old? just the right
time for things like brownies and sleepovers and field trips and all kinds
of things, right?
So it is not "to do exactly as I
> wished they would do," it is to do exactly as we both agreed to and which
> would give the children a non-restrictive association with the father. It
> is an attitude, an attitude that doesn't allow for the "Well, 90% of
single
> mothers are this way." Sure, you can call me an idealist, but regardless
of
> how many people are doing it (and this is my issue with "bias"), it is
still
> wrong.
>
not necessarily, just different...it is possible to have a close
relationship with a father figure through a few letters a week, a phone call
or two, and visits during significant breaks...
> > You said that you didn't want to hear anything negative--
>
> Hmm, I don't think that I said that at all. What I said somewhere (and it
> might not have even been in this newsgroup) was that I had held this
thread
> of the conversation before. I think I understand the con side of the
> arguments ... I have been living them for 16 months.
ok, well, i think we're all gonna help you stand back from it and look at it
the way a judge might...:) helps me a lot...:)
> Thanks, but I feel that I already have compromised ... my kids moved away.
"for reasons of health, safety, and employment"....her moving for those
reasons is fine...now, if you want to try compromise (and earn brownie
points with a judge), the next time you call, spend five or ten minutes
talking to her, trying to hammer out when a good time Is for you to call....
now if it comes out that the girls have brownies on monday, daycare on
tuesday and don't get home until 8 so they can't talk, ballet on wednesday,
soccer on thursday, lots of homework on friday, playdates on saturday,
church on sunday and then all afternoon with relatives or whoever, Then
there's a problem...
just out of curiousity, what kind of involvement do you have with their
school, and do you know who their daycare is?
Jess
The Watsons
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20040107100104...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >That "BM is
> >> best to have custody" bias is *NOT* here in this NG.
> >
> >is that a good thing? :)
>
> Depends on who you ask.
i think i need more coffee, because i'm not sure how to interpret her
statement...that's why i was asking...:)
Jess
Geri and sometimes Brian
>arizona
Our court does.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>> >> best to have custody" bias is *NOT* here in this NG.
>> >
>> >is that a good thing? :)
>> Depends on who you ask.
>
>i think i need more coffee, because i'm not sure how to interpret her
>statement...that's why i was asking...:)
Take it at face value. I don't think that BMs are necessarily best to have
custody, but I bet there are some BMs who disagree.
The Watsons
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >> >That "BM is
> >> >> best to have custody" bias is *NOT* here in this NG.
> >> >
> >> >is that a good thing? :)
>
> >> Depends on who you ask.
> >
> >i think i need more coffee, because i'm not sure how to interpret her
> >statement...that's why i was asking...:)
>
> Take it at face value. I don't think that BMs are necessarily best to
have
> custody, but I bet there are some BMs who disagree.
>
thanks..:)
Jess
The Watsons
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >typically, courts here don't recognize parental alienation...here in
> >arizona
>
> Our court does.
the only reference to alienation in family law statute is that the
"alienation of affections" statute was repealed..:(
Jess
The Watsons
"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comspamzap> wrote in message
news:20040107125507...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> The problem with PA and PAS is that everyone is an alienator to some
extent.
> It's pretty easy to accuse the other parent of alienation, and pretty easy
to
> provide evidence for that. That's almost nothing in terms of changing
custody.
and IIRC, one of the "treatments" for is involves severing all contact with
the alienating parent for a significant chunk of time...no way is a court
going to do that...
Jess
Geri and sometimes Brian
>> >arizona
>>
>> Our court does.
>
>the only reference to alienation in family law statute is that the
>"alienation of affections" statute was repealed..:(
>
alienating behavior regarding the other parent, I will make a custody change".
It is the only thing that keeps my mouth shut sometimes. :-)
The Watsons
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> Our judge actually said, "If I find that either one of you are engaging in
any
> alienating behavior regarding the other parent, I will make a custody
change".
>
> It is the only thing that keeps my mouth shut sometimes. :-)
*snerks*
Jess
Melissa
>any
>alienating behavior regarding the other parent, I will make a custody
>change".
>
Right, but how would he find that? Seriously. You guys could probably find
evidence fairly easily, but so could BM. Then it becomes about who is doing
the most alienating.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
<warped...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
>news:kd0nvv0d9bf3k3ido...@4ax.com...
>> Ya know, I read the original post to include some bit of question
>> about whether or not there is bias *here*, in the NG. That "BM is
>> best to have custody" bias is *NOT* here in this NG.
>
>is that a good thing? :)
I think it's a good thing that the bias isn't here. In our situation,
I feel that Chewy was the best choice for all three of his
bio-children and I was the best choice for my bio-child. (But then, I
may be a bit biased. ;-) )
It's not always true that the BM is best to have custody. As much
damage as was done to OS and YD by their BM, I hate to think how much
more damage would have been done if she had had custody.
Kitten
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, feeds
the hungry, comforts the sorrowful, shelters the destitute. And serves
those who harm it. -- Menno Simons, 1539
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Courage, Real courage, is no quick fix. It doesn't come in a bottle
or a pill, It comes from discipline. From taking everything life hands
you and being your best either because of it or in spite of it.
-- Ty Murray
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lori
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote
I think this is a very good point. I can vividly remember my SS's mother
saying (in front of the child, no less!) that "plenty of boys are raised by
single mothers with no input from the father, and they are just fine." and
"you won't give in to me so I'll do what I have to to keep you from being
part of this child's life".
> Thanks, but I feel that I already have compromised ... my kids moved away.
> And I guess the reason of the initial post was ... what, from your
> experiences, *are* the compelling reasons that a court changes custody?
If
> a parent is alienating the children from one parent isn't enough, what is?
> If it is, what constitutes alienation?
>
Personally, even if one parent has an edge on every other factor considered,
I feel that if they can be shown to be alienating the child from the other
parent they should lose custody. No second chance to "play by the rules",
they are told (at least here, they are) right from the beginning that they
are NOT to do this, in fact told that they have a very serious
responsibility to their kids to PROMOTE and FOSTER a strong relationship
between the child and the other parent, regardless of how they themselves
(the custodial parent) feels about the other parent. It goes without saying
that this presumes the non custodial isn't non custodial because they were
proven to be an abusive parent. In our case, mom did an awful lot to
alienate the child from us, and actively prevented a relationship for some
time. She always had plenty of nasty things to say both to us and about us,
loudly, in front of the child. She undermined us any time she could, and
made him feel disloyal if he let on that he loved us and enjoyed being with
us. Since he's been living with us, we've upheld her authority where he is
concerned, and her love for him. We have initiated the majority of contact
between them - he was here a month before he even spoke to her because she
never called or visited or anything. We finally used an excuse to call her
so her child could speak with her on the phone, at least. It's long
distance to call, and we've been the ones making most of the calls for him
to talk with her. I have difficulty understanding someone who could just
ignore their young child like that, until maybe once a month or so they feel
an urge to see him for a couple hours. It breaks my heart for him. :-(
Lori
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/04
Geri and sometimes Brian
>evidence fairly easily, but so could BM. Then it becomes about who is doing
>the most alienating.
>Right, but how would he find that?
I am guessing that we would have to provide some pretty serious evidence, which
is not actually that easy to come by.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
<warped...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Rambler wrote:
>> No, not correct. I would be happy for them to continue living there if
>the
>> mother lived up to the agreement that we entered into in front of the
>court,
>> in spirit and deed. The reason for that is that if the agreement was
>> followed, the children would have access to both parents.
>
>how old were the children when the agreement was first signed? maybe it's
>time for a modification...the girls are 8, 9, and how old? just the right
>time for things like brownies and sleepovers and field trips and all kinds
>of things, right?
From the reactions I've seen from kids whose NCP forced parental
access over the kids doing things with their friends, the
relationships greatly suffer. The kids see the NCP as an selfish ogre
who doesn't want them to have any fun. They don't see the issue of
need for access.
Lori
"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:m7YKb.49123$m83.41338@fed1read01...
Which is sad, because that is exactly what should be done. A parent who
would do this to their child (who they claim to love) should not be
permitted anywhere near that child. If you LOVE your child, how could you
actively seek to destroy any chance they have of a parent/child relationship
with the other parent? A parent who cannot put love of the child (and doing
what is right) above the hate they feel for the other parent is not a fit
parent in any way shape or form.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
sometimes Brian) wrote:
>>> There's no way I could have my children by a
>>> phone at 7.30 pm every night.
>>
>>Okay, which is why she is supposed to make the calls, andthen she can make a
>>time within a range, say from 7:15 to 8:00.
>
>The only way something like this could remotely work in our (50/50) situation
>is if SD had a cell phone available to her at the call time. We are frequently
>not at home, as a family, in the evenings.
>
>I would see an order like this as huge PITA.
Especially, as was pointed out earlier, as the girls get to a point
where they want to do more things outside the house - Girl
Scouts/Campfire/whatever, 4-H, sports, other extra-curricular
activities, sleepovers, etc. If they feel they can't do those things
because they *HAVE* to be home for their daily phone call, they may
well come to resent those required phone calls.
Melissa
>where they want to do more things outside the house - Girl
>Scouts/Campfire/whatever, 4-H, sports, other extra-curricular
>activities, sleepovers, etc. If they feel they can't do those things
>because they *HAVE* to be home for their daily phone call, they may
>well come to resent those required phone calls.
SO and SD had a scheduled phone call. When activities got in the way he and BM
would just change nights. It was never a big deal.
I wish SO and SS had a schedule. There are times when two months have gone by
and SO and SS haven't been able to get one another on the phone. (and yes my
theory is that BM does this on purpose) The judge won't do anything beyond
"Hey there should be a schedule of some kind. You guys work it out." and of
course nothing worked out in mediation is binding, even court ordered
mediation.
_calinda_
>
> From the reactions I've seen from kids whose NCP forced parental
> access over the kids doing things with their friends, the
> relationships greatly suffer. The kids see the NCP as an selfish
ogre
> who doesn't want them to have any fun. They don't see the issue
of
> need for access.
I've seen this first hand, when my ex used to call a day or less
before he wanted his access and the kids already made plans. He
would insist and make everyone miserable if he didn't get his way
(okay.. so he does that regardless). Anyway, I put my foot down &
now we get the kids work/activity schedules as well as my & the ex's
schedule and plan in advance what days they will get together.
It's worked out much better overall as far as their resentments over
missing out on various activities, though the ex feels that he
always comes last. What he doesn't seem to understand is that due
the kids activities/work, he actually has more "awake" time with
them than I do per week.
I can't imagine having had to schedule a set time within a time
frame of only 45 minutes every single night. I am a very
'spontaneous' type of person, I don't in any other area of my life
"plan" well (probably due to my ADD?)
We could be eating dinner anywhere from 5:30pm to 9:30pm, we run to
the store on an as needed basis. If we had to always make sure we
were home at a certain time of day *every* day, I'd want to shoot
myself, or at least the person that is 'forcing' me to be there.
Getting to work on a certain time frame is difficult enough and I'm
lucky that the current position I have is rather flexible on that
front.
One thing I can suggest to you, Rambler is that once you've got the
money available to you would be to consider getting an 800 number
for your girls to use to contact you. Even the youngest is old
enough to dial a phone, my two knew how at age three or so. (They
even knew how to look up phone numbers & make crank calls at that
age as well.. and yeah.. there's a story there, LOL).
Their being able to just pick up the phone and dial you at anytime,
and without consent from their mother may be the ticket to the phone
access you're looking for.
Good luck
Cal~
_calinda_
> Why not be a little more sensitive to how stressed she may be?
Sorry, I haven't read your whole reply, though I will. The one
thing I wanted to comment here is that I can *totally* understand
Rambler's not feeling very sympathetic to his ex's "Stress".
This was a woman who was a SAHM in Asia, had a housekeeper (and
possibly a nanny, IIRC?).. and wanted out because she wasn't happy.
Fine, there is no law saying you must stay in an unhappy marriage
and No.. I don't know the specifics, however.. after they separated,
she agreed to 50/50 custody which, according to the OP was working
as far as he knew and then she tried to sneak off to the states with
the kids w/o his knowledge. He found out in time and got a court
order to stop her and then they ended up in court. (Please correct
me if I'm wrong, Rambler).
The agreements she's made were agreements she accepted for the
right/ability to remove the girls from their home in Asia and their
father. He gave his consent for them to move to the states under
the conditions of that agreement, and now she doesn't like them.
I wouldn't like them much either, but at the same time, I *totally*
understand Ramblers frustration. All of this was Her choice, the
divorce and the move to the states as well. She made her bed, now
she's gotta lie in it.. only problem is.. now she's decided that bed
is too hard and so she's refusing.
Anyway.. my only (belabored) point is to say I understand his lack
of sympathy over the trials and tribulations of *this* particular
single mother ..
P.S. to Rambler.. did you *ever* think it'd be *Me* coming to your
defense? :-P
Cal~
_calinda_
> Can you get a toll-free number? One that you automatically get
> billed for? That would eliminate that argument.
>
> rebecca
Ahhh.. GMTA, and I should have read the whole thread before I
replied.. you said it in many paragraphs less than I, lol..
Cal~
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
<calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It's worked out much better overall as far as their resentments over
>missing out on various activities, though the ex feels that he
>always comes last.
Heh. We sometimes start feeling that way around our house, and we all
live together! When our schedules get busy, I usually wind up with at
least one of the kids feeling like s/he isn't getting enough
one-on-one time, regardless of how much time I may be spending with
that particular child.
Rambler, as your kids get older, they're going to be even busier. I
agree with everyone else who's suggested that now might be a good time
for you to consider relocating closer to your children if you're not
satisfied with how things are going now. BUT...
If you decide to move, you'll need to watch how you handle things with
your ex. If she's already feeling like you're trying to control her,
with you being thousands of miles away, just think how she'll feel if
you move right down the road and start telling her what she's going to
do and when she's going to do it.
The Watsons
> Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> I can't imagine having had to schedule a set time within a time
> frame of only 45 minutes every single night. I am a very
> 'spontaneous' type of person, I don't in any other area of my life
> "plan" well (probably due to my ADD?)
"ooh, shiny"....:p
Jess
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Hey! Watch the attributions! That was Cal's post. LOL...
But I've got it, too.
<watches the moth flutter by...>
The Watsons
> Hey! Watch the attributions! That was Cal's post. LOL...
>
> But I've got it, too.
>
> <watches the moth flutter by...>
thought i took care of that oooh, pretty puppy....;)
Jess
lilblakdog
news:aB_Kb.385$Ka....@fe01.usenetserver.com...
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote
> > Sure, you can call me an idealist, but regardless
> of
> > how many people are doing it (and this is my issue with "bias"), it is
> still
> > wrong.
> I think this is a very good point. I can vividly remember my SS's mother
> saying (in front of the child, no less!) that "plenty of boys are raised
by
> single mothers with no input from the father, and they are just fine."
You'll forgive me, but where on earth did I say that?
He was complaining that she worked full time and the kids were with
babysitters. Well pardon me, but unless he's willing to continue to provide
everything they will ever need, SHE'S GOING TO HAVE TO WORK. It's not a
sin. It's not a reason to lose custody. *It's* *what* *most* *single*
*mothers* *do*. Hell, it's what he's planning to do.
And I don't want to hear all about the fact that he was perfectly willing to
do that but *she* left...boo hoo hoo...the ungrateful cow. It takes more
than one person to destroy a marriage. The more people who wake up and
realize that, the more successful second marriages we'll see.
He doesn't want to "input" anyway...he wants his phone call every day at a
specific time as is written in the little sheaf of papers he's clinging to.
Otherwise he wouldn't be satisfied with 40 second conversations.
lil
--
http://lilblakdog.tripod.com
Rambler
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in
> message news:bth1tl$j5...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>> away. And I guess the reason of the initial post was ... what, from
>> your experiences, *are* the compelling reasons that a court changes
>> custody? If a parent is alienating the children from one parent
>> isn't enough, what is? If it is, what constitutes alienation?
>
> custody based on that...
>
> then what are the judicial standards for alienation?
In the US, the Frye test (passed supposedly)
In the UK, it is a different case (B v B I think). Has it passed DVI II (or
something like) that in COmmonwealth countries? No, but getting there.
Typically in my jurisdiction, the court recognizes it as Parental Posioning.
> does the court
> even recognize alienation?
Yes. Something like 80 plus cites, in the US, UK, Australia and a bunch of
other countries.
> does the court typically modify custody,
> or does the court do something else?
Depends. Modification of Orders does happen. Modification of Custody (i.e.
switching resident parent) is recommended to happen (Gardner) in severe
cases.
> what specific, long term actions
> do you have that are alienation (and don't give me that she lives
> stateside-i'm an army brat/dual national, so that doesn't impress
> me)?
Sorry, longish list. No, it has nothing to do with the kids living
stateside. I have moved and traveled all of my life, so the distance is not
an issue. It revolves, to me around contact being cut off for weeks at a
time, the mother instructing (repeatedly) the kids not to discuss things
with me (not that I ask, but just, "we are not telling Dad about X),
comments by the grandmother about me being a mean and horrible man, but that
she is not "afraid" of me, that the kids must be very careful because there
are "sides" in this; refusal to let the paternal grandparents talk to the
kids... to name a few.
> do you even know the definition of parental alienation, who came
> up with the concept, what the statistics/symptoms on it are, and who
> wrote the books on it?
yes, I do (original author mentioned above). I've read the stuff, read the
rebuttals, read the rebuttals to the rebuttals, looked at the clinical
notes. Have read the arguments as to what is and what is not and how people
misdiagnose and how to present or defend against PAS. However, I am not
claiming PAS per say. Just the characteristics and then the sociological
research that says "children who experience alienation by one parent agaisnt
the other do worse."
I'm stupid, sure, just not dumb.
> typically, courts here don't recognize parental alienation...here in
> arizona, it usually takes an incidence of domestic violence or
> misdemeanor drug conviction for a judge to modify custody..there are
> provisions in statute for the abuse/neglect and for interference with
> visitation/contempt of court, but those aren't as common and much
> harder to prove...this is the standard you could be facing, hon...you
> need to be prepared for that....don't try just walking into a
> courtroom and telling a judge about the phone calls and no
> visitation-a judge is just going to look at her and enforce the
> visitation order...
Yes, this I understand. I understand the odds. However, in this instance,
the judge has another issue. He knows, and he knows that I know, that he
has little enforcement power here. The ex has disregarded his Orders twice
now, three times if we include her non-compliance with the original order,
so I have "hope" there. My hope is that the judge will be slightly ticked
at her, that he will either modify or change custody, and that I can take
this to a judge Stateside for enforcement - not for a retrial, though that
will happen I am sure. But I feel that I am better placed walking into a
court in the US saying, "the judge who has jurisdiction has ruled that x, y,
and z. Please issue orders to enforce this. Additionally, where she lives,
there is a two strikes and you are out rule, i.e. two contempts in a three
year period for access and they entertain a change of custody.
Rambler
Vicki Robinson
>"Lori" <real...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:aB_Kb.385$Ka....@fe01.usenetserver.com...
>
>> I think this is a very good point. I can vividly remember my SS's mother
>> saying (in front of the child, no less!) that "plenty of boys are raised
>by
>> single mothers with no input from the father, and they are just fine."
>
>You'll forgive me, but where on earth did I say that?
>
Lil, are you Lori's stepson's biomom?
Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton
Rambler
My judge gave that speach too. However, now it goes to "slowly, slowly" to
get this moved forward.
Rambler
Rambler
news:bti86j$7jvis$1...@ID-178944.news.uni-berlin.de
> Wendy wrote:
>
>> Why not be a little more sensitive to how stressed she may be?
>
> Sorry, I haven't read your whole reply, though I will. The one
> thing I wanted to comment here is that I can *totally* understand
> Rambler's not feeling very sympathetic to his ex's "Stress".
>
> This was a woman who was a SAHM in Asia, had a housekeeper (and
> possibly a nanny, IIRC?).. and wanted out because she wasn't happy.
> Fine, there is no law saying you must stay in an unhappy marriage
> and No.. I don't know the specifics, however.. after they separated,
> she agreed to 50/50 custody which, according to the OP was working
> as far as he knew and then she tried to sneak off to the states with
> the kids w/o his knowledge. He found out in time and got a court
> order to stop her and then they ended up in court. (Please correct
> me if I'm wrong, Rambler).
Very close Cal. She actually decided to sneak off first, and then we went
50/50.
<snip>
> P.S. to Rambler.. did you *ever* think it'd be *Me* coming to your
> defense? :-P
Chuckled a little there.
Rambler
The Watsons
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
> Sorry, longish list. No, it has nothing to do with the kids living
> stateside. I have moved and traveled all of my life, so the distance is
not
> an issue. It revolves, to me around contact being cut off for weeks at a
> time, the mother instructing (repeatedly) the kids not to discuss things
> with me (not that I ask, but just, "we are not telling Dad about X),
> comments by the grandmother about me being a mean and horrible man, but
that
> she is not "afraid" of me, that the kids must be very careful because
there
> are "sides" in this; refusal to let the paternal grandparents talk to the
> kids... to name a few.
do you have a professional opinion to back this up?
> yes, I do (original author mentioned above). I've read the stuff, read
the
> rebuttals, read the rebuttals to the rebuttals, looked at the clinical
> notes. Have read the arguments as to what is and what is not and how
people
> misdiagnose and how to present or defend against PAS. However, I am not
> claiming PAS per say. Just the characteristics and then the sociological
> research that says "children who experience alienation by one parent
agaisnt
> the other do worse."
then what exactly are you petitioning for custody on?
>
> I'm stupid, sure, just not dumb.
neither one...
> Yes, this I understand. I understand the odds. However, in this
instance,
> the judge has another issue. He knows, and he knows that I know, that he
> has little enforcement power here. The ex has disregarded his Orders
twice
> now, three times if we include her non-compliance with the original order,
> so I have "hope" there. My hope is that the judge will be slightly ticked
> at her, that he will either modify or change custody, and that I can take
> this to a judge Stateside for enforcement - not for a retrial, though that
> will happen I am sure. But I feel that I am better placed walking into a
> court in the US saying, "the judge who has jurisdiction has ruled that x,
y,
> and z. Please issue orders to enforce this. Additionally, where she
lives,
> there is a two strikes and you are out rule, i.e. two contempts in a three
> year period for access and they entertain a change of custody.
do you know what it would take to enforce the order stateside, specifically
where she's at?
Jess
Rambler
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in
> message news:bth041$j6...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>> Why? I don't see the connection between your last sentence and your
>> first (if the first was correct). I have had the whole conversation
>> before about me perhaps placing my needs first (which I find kind of
>> ripe given the nature of the end of the marriage), but I do have
>> goals for myself. My goals do fit in with the family. You may not
>> know this, but I didn't grow up anywhere near where she was ... in
>> fact, I only spent my highschool and university years (by and large)
>> in the States. Me moving "back" would be like somebody from
>> Vancouver moving back to Halifax. Kind of different I would think.
>
> it was, but i managed just fine, thank you very much....and i did much
> farther from vancouver to halifax...:) how's about moving from
> southern germany where i was born and raised, and moving to a Tiny
> town in north carolina? the culture shock was definently
> interesting....still is, at times...:D
Sorry, not following. Are you saying that after the divorce, you picked up
to follow your kids from Germany to Southern Cal? having never been there
before?
Rambler
(who notes that since he responds to every post (almost) on this thread, he
is going to be pegged for a troll pretty soon)
Rambler
news:bthge2$o34$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in
> message news:bth041$j6...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>> telephone? My ex uses this exact line of argument, which falls
>> apart, for me at least, as outlined below:
>
> I'm not sure you're listening to her. She works full time, right?!
> After which she has to collect kids from child minders, get supper,
> baths, homework, bed. The last thing she needs is someone insisting
> on a nightly phonecall ritual. This is her quality time with the
> children too and I can understand her not wanting to fight with them
> to make sure they're all ready by the phone waiting.
>
>> Okay, which is why she is supposed to make the calls, andthen she
>> can make a time within a range, say from 7:15 to 8:00.
>
> 50:50. If my ex comes over and tells me what I'm to do on my nights
> with the children, it annoys the hell out of me. He makes rules at
> his place, I make the rules at mine. Simple.
Absolutely. And I agree with that. The point you miss is, those telephone
calls are *my* time, not hers. In fact, they are *the only* time I have
with them now. Your "she is a stressed out full time Mom" garners a "so
what?" from me (sorry to be so blunt). She *chose* this. Not me. She has
the kids 99.99% of the time. When I went to see them (which was a while
ago) she threw up several barriers. She refused to acknowledge my plans,
and I was not prepared to (nor could I afford to) fly to the States only to
be told "sorry" and "deal with it." You are mistaking her time with *my
time.*
>
>> Again, why? Because they don't want to talk to their father?
>
> It isn't a question of not wanting to talk to their father, but life
> goes on, they get engrossed in what their current lives consist of.
> Don't take it so personally, they're only children.
Again, I think that you might be missing the point, or our approaches are
different. Your approach seems to be that the children now live with the
Mom, they have a life, and whichever residential parent they are with
controls or "wins." My approach is that they are children with two parents.
Their new living situation must take into account that one of their parents
is not there. Your approach seems to work for the parent (in this case the
mother) but sacrifices the rights of the children, and the needs (in my
opinion) of the children. I think we create our children's lives. They
have soccer lessons, then they learn to love soccer. They don't, they don't
care. They learn that they do their homework before playing after school,
they do that, they don't and they don't. The inclusion of the "other
parent" is important for the children. To me, what I get from your point of
view is that it is not about the kids, but about the resident parent. Is
that right? Shouldn't it be about the kids? I mean, with this reasoning,
if Mom is a tired, stressed out single Mom, and so decides to go out an
party all night to relieve that stress, then she shouldn't have to worry
about the children, right?
> Thing is, for
>> me, I think I am perfectly capable of judging my children and what
>> they do and don't want.
>
> Even the most attuned relationship has people in it who will say what
> they think you want to hear because they don't want to hurt you,
> whether children or adults.
>
> Sometimes we have real short conversations, because they
>> don't want to say anything. That's okay with me, as long as it is
>> them and not influenced by the mother. But when the entire
>> environment is that the kids are eating, running to the store or
>> whatever, and *then* the kids don't want to chat, that get's
>> problematic.
>
> Good grief. I leave work at 5.00 pm and get home at 5.30 if I'm
> lucky. Some nights I have to get groceries en route. The life of a
> working single parent is a constant dash and a logistical nightmare.
> Why not be a little more sensitive to how stressed she may be?
(Okay, so you are a single Mom. I don't know the players here yet.)
All it would take is for her *not* to take structure things to interfere.
She can do this in many ways. Gonna be late? Call Dad Early. Not gonna be
at home? Pop Dad an email and let him know. Set a time for the kids to
write or whatnot. You know, I did. When the kids were with me, over (last)
Christmas, with their cousins and uncles and aunts, they called every night.
For almost a month (3+ weeks). They emailed. I emailed. I even took them
shoping for presents for Mom and we mailed them because they wanted to (my
suggestion actually, so that they would know that I wanted them to have a
good relationship with Mom).
Oh, and? And when we had "50/50" custody during the trial, I ran software
development, sourced investment, dropped the kids off from school, picked
them up, cooked dinner and gave them baths, and played and had sleep-overs.
The only thing I didn't do was the cleaning (laundry, house, dishes). So
I've been a single Dad. When I didn't have them, I worked. When I did have
them, I worked.
> I have had many occasions (two nights
>> ago for example) where one kid wanted to speak (the youngest), but
>> she didn't get to because the mother decided that was the
>> transition time between her mother's house and her house, and when I
>> called her house 20 minutes later and finished talking to the
>> eldest, the youngest was asleep.
>
> Sure, it sounds inflexible, but can you imagine how hard it is if a
> child falls asleep in the car and then wakes when she gets there and
> won't go back to sleep?
You are missing the point. I am not begrudging the child. It is all about
the children. What I am dissatisfied with is the mother's approach. Could
she not have left earlier? (In this case she says she is a 10 minute drive
away).
>
>>> Phone conversations just aren't the same thing.
>>
>> The same thing as what? Living in the same house? agreed.
>
> The same as conversations in person, whether living in the same house
> or not.
Ah, but these are the dynamics of the "new world order." To some that (and
I think I have had this discussion before) have grown up in a nuclear
community, this makes sense. To others who have spent their life moving
around, but had a nuclear family unit, this doesn't.
> But I have
>> argued this one out before, and I am comfortable in my opinion. My
>> approach is that we used to be a whole family living here. THe ex
>> decided she did not want to be married anymore and left. So now we
>> are a split family. One does the best one can do in that situation.
>
> That just makes you sound entrenched in your viewpoint. She may well
> feel comfortable with her opinions too. It's not going to get either
> of you onto a level playing field.
Perhaps. I have looked at both sides. I re-evaluate periodically, but am
still comfortable with my decision. This is my decision to stay here. It
is not contigent on her.
>
>> Only if the resident parent can't handle it, in my opinion.
>
> I disagree. I have stilted conversations with some people who I love
> all the time.
Sorry, don't know the context here.
> With me,
>> without the interference of the mother, the kids and I are perfectly
>> able to have brief 40 second chats.
>
> Personally, I think longer more detailed conversations are more
> likely to keep you actively involved in their lives.
Ah, the beauty of Usenet. You only get partial information. We are able to
have 40 second chats. I spoke 55 minutes with my eldest the night that the
youngest fell asleep.
>
>> is something that I can deal with then. Thing is, the interference
>> of the mother makes that worse in the future, I believe.
>
> You're so busy looking to blame the mother that you aren't hearing
> that it gets harder with children as they get older whether you have
> access or not. If you're only having 40 second phonecalls, that's not
> a basis for sustaining whatever relationship you had with them.
See my comment above. No, I am not discounting the children getting older.
We are talking about a year. I am not projecting into the future. It
sounds to me as if we are playing opposite sides of a coin - you saying that
I am too busy blaming the mother to see that the children change as they get
older, and me hearing that the mother's actions are perfectly justifiable
because perhaps the children will change when they get older.
>>>
>>> I'd also worry about an ex trying to continue to control our lives
>>> using this arrangement.
>>
>> Ah, and therein lies the biggest problem. See, my ex feels the same
>> way, but, in my opinion, she has some responsibility here. Just
>> because one gets divorced does not mean one can do whatever they
>> want.
>
> It certainly does to some extent. In my home, I can set rules and
> boundaries that the ex has no say over.
To that extent, yes. I understand and agree with that. My ex does a great
number of things that I do not agree with. She has in the course of the
past year grown the house to include 4 cats and three dogs (I think she has
three). To me, way too many, but that is her choice. She has extended the
kids bed times unilaterally. I don't disagree with that, but she did do it
unilaterally and she is allowed to do that.
There is another level where I feel like I should comment. She got a
Rottweiler. I mentioned this was her choice but that I wanted to voice my
concern for the safety of the kids.
She let a 12 year old take the then three, six and eight year old swimming
and used her as a day long baby sitter. That one to me is a dangerous no
no.
She has decided that she wants the kids to get religion (or her mother has).
I am not religious. We went to church once or twice a year (Christmas and
Easter). That one is a breach of the parental rights/responsibilities, I
feel.
>
> They have to
>> facilitate the contact with the other parent (granted, I believe
>> that most do not do this).
>
> There's an extent to which the other parent has to do their own
> facilitating. Why do I live in England? It isn't just to make it
> easier for my ex, it's to make it easier for all of us, myself
> included.
I think I mentioned the difference previously. You stayed. Yes, I have to
do my own facilitating. But, she *chose* to relocate. Now, in the US I
believe, is it not common that if one parent moves away, they are
responsible for the increased communication and travel costs? Same
difference.
>
> But I believe that this "control" issue is much more
>> subjective and is what really causes the problems. The resident
>> parent thinks, "He is trying to control me" but can't voice that so
>> says "Phone conversations just aren't the same thing."
>
> My ex used to do all sorts of little controlling things, like saying
> he didn't want me to drive my children long distances in the car, and
> didn't want this and didn't want that. Sorry, but when the children
> are in my care, I'm a mature adult who is capable of making
> appropriate decisions without an ex interfering.
This might be baggage then, for you, and a lot of this conversation you
might be having with your ex, which, of course, I am not.
<snipped stuff here>
>> Ah, that's the difference. You were there to start with. To me,
>> slightly different.
>
> The only difference being my deciding to stay in a country to make it
> easier for my children, my ex and myself to work together as a family
> but in two households.
No, I disagree. I hear very few stories of one parent deciding to
unilaterally move, and the other parent chucking everything to follow to a
strange locale.
>
> And your children ring you because they aren't stopped by their
>> mother.
>
> I am their mother.
Sorry, projection on my part I am sure.
> They aren't stopped by their father, though, any
> more than I stop them ringing him when they are here with me. But
> it's comparable with conversations with their grandparents, aunts,
> uncles, cousins, etc. Conversations aren't easy or natural if they
> happen too frequently and are forced.
>
> I have been told by the kids that they have been told they can't
>> call because it is too expensive. The middle has cried because she
>> feels that she would not be allowed to call.
>
> Long distance between continents isn't cheap and I certainly wouldn't
> want little ones running up big phone bills uncontrolled.
The average phone bill is about US$ 30, or about, what, 20 quid? It seems
to me that you are making arguments to make arguments. I guess this is
Devil's Advocacy at work. US rates to here (or anywhere in a calling plan)
are about 11c a minute. an average of a 10 minute telephone call a day is
$33 for the month, $50 if it is for 15 minutes. My cost here is much, MUCH
more expensive. It costs me about $100 a month for the same 10 minute phone
calls. Calling rates to/from countries are not comparative.
>
>> Perhaps that last part is right. Perhaps I do have to face losing
>> absolutely everything. Thing is, for me, I think that I would be
>> faced with a continued problem from the mother even if I was there.
>
> You'll only find that out if you try.
That is not an acceptable approach for me. That is like saying, to me, "Go
ahead and jump out of the airplane without a parachute. maybe you'll land
on a soft spot."
Rambler
Rambler
> "Melissa" <laa...@aol.comspamzap> wrote in message
> news:20040107125507...@mb-m04.aol.com...
>> The problem with PA and PAS is that everyone is an alienator to some
>> and pretty easy to provide evidence for that. That's almost nothing
>> in terms of changing custody.
>
> and IIRC, one of the "treatments" for is involves severing all
> contact with the alienating parent for a significant chunk of
> time...no way is a court going to do that...
In extreme cases. Only in extreme cases.
Rambler
Rambler
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in
> message news:bth1tl$j5...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>
> how old were the children when the agreement was first signed? maybe
> it's time for a modification...the girls are 8, 9, and how old? just
> the right time for things like brownies and sleepovers and field
> trips and all kinds of things, right?
8.5, 6 and 3 when it was signed. I really don't think that is a material
change. Kids were having sleepovers then anyway. They still do. That I
understand (it does not *have* to be everynight).
> So it is not "to do exactly as I
>> wished they would do," it is to do exactly as we both agreed to and
>> which would give the children a non-restrictive association with the
>> father. It is an attitude, an attitude that doesn't allow for the
>> "Well, 90% of single mothers are this way." Sure, you can call me
>> an idealist, but regardless of how many people are doing it (and
>> this is my issue with "bias"), it is still wrong.
> ok, well, i think we're all gonna help you stand back from it and
> look at it the way a judge might...:) helps me a lot...:)
Yes, I understand that. I also think (and that's 'think') I know how a
judge is going to look at it, which was the reason for my post. How do I
get him to look at it differently.
>> Thanks, but I feel that I already have compromised ... my kids moved
>> away.
>
> "for reasons of health, safety, and employment"....her moving for
> those reasons is fine...now, if you want to try compromise (and earn
> brownie points with a judge), the next time you call, spend five or
> ten minutes talking to her, trying to hammer out when a good time Is
> for you to call....
Right. I can give that a try. I have tried that. Honestly. I have asked
(last time on the telephone was August, and in subsequent emails thereafter
before this went to her lawyers), and she responds, "Nope. 7:30 is as good
as any." I'd change the call time, I mean, it is the middle of the day for
me when we are supposed to speak, so 1/2 hour here or there is no problem.
One of the problems is, however, that I have heard so much negativity from
her (like her from me I am sure) that I am preconditioned to thinking
calling and talking to her does no good, and "hammering out" a time would be
counterproductive. Frankly, I know how I'd ask the question ("Listen, the
call things, as I have mentioned in my email, are still troubling for me. I
really am flexible on what time the kids and I speak, and I chose 7:30
because that is what we have always done, and that is the time that you
recently said was as good as any, but truthfully, is there a better time to
call?) but I do not know how to frame the question so that she won't a) take
offense and b) actually respond with something more than, "Nope, 7:30 is as
good as any because the above won't do that, IMO.
> now if it comes out that the girls have brownies on monday, daycare on
> tuesday and don't get home until 8 so they can't talk, ballet on
> wednesday, soccer on thursday, lots of homework on friday, playdates
> on saturday, church on sunday and then all afternoon with relatives
> or whoever, Then there's a problem...
>
> just out of curiousity, what kind of involvement do you have with
> their school, and do you know who their daycare is?
I took up contact with the school directly, first through the principal, and
then with the teachers. The middle child's teach last year is the eldest's
teacher this year. She sends me nothing. No reports, no notes, nothing. I
get the Report Cards from teh school. I now have the email addresses for
the school counsellor as well. The other teachers (eldest last year and
middle this year) were great, keeping me informed. I provided information
on Asia for a class project they were doing, sent along Chinese characters
for a report that the eldest was doing, etc. etc. The day care is run by
the YMCA at the school. I have no contact point for them. Perhaps I
should. The youngest I have scant information on. She goes to a school,
which is at the YMCA, and then a playgroup, atthe Y. In the latest
affidavit, I learned that they send home a daily note on her activities. I
never knew that before.
Rambler
Rambler
> Rambler, as your kids get older, they're going to be even busier.
I understand this, and accept it. it is all part of growing up. It is not
their activities that bother me.
> I agree with everyone else who's suggested that now might be a good time
> for you to consider relocating closer to your children if you're not
> satisfied with how things are going now. BUT...
>
> If you decide to move, you'll need to watch how you handle things with
> your ex. If she's already feeling like you're trying to control her,
> with you being thousands of miles away, just think how she'll feel if
> you move right down the road and start telling her what she's going to
> do and when she's going to do it.
Now see, here's the rub. I understand this comment, based upon the fact
that it is a "relationship" that I ahve with the ex and so therefore I need
to be careful of her feelings. But on the other hand, why should I care.
Actually, quite frankly, if it was me and the situations were reversed, I
would do basically anythign I could to keep me away from moving to where
they are because I wouldn't want me ruining my *new* life, if you get my
drift.
Rambler
Rambler
> I can't imagine having had to schedule a set time within a time
> frame of only 45 minutes every single night. I am a very
> 'spontaneous' type of person, I don't in any other area of my life
> "plan" well (probably due to my ADD?)
>
> We could be eating dinner anywhere from 5:30pm to 9:30pm, we run to
> the store on an as needed basis. If we had to always make sure we
> were home at a certain time of day *every* day, I'd want to shoot
> myself, or at least the person that is 'forcing' me to be there.
> Getting to work on a certain time frame is difficult enough and I'm
> lucky that the current position I have is rather flexible on that
> front.
I guess that, to me, if there were some other actions there, then I wouldn't
mind. If the kids weren't going to be home at a certain time, if they would
call me or let me know where they are (if the mother would) then no problem.
if there was a pattern of regular consistancy, then okay, we miss some. No
worries. My problem is that this occurs on a background of no information
from the other parent. It occurs when contact is specifically excluded (eg,
one week they stayed at the grandmother's house with the mother, I pulled
this information from the ex, I agreed that I would call, at 7:30 at the
grandmother's, and, for a week, nobody answered the telephone. On the last
day, I left a message (I always leave messages) and said I was worried, get
an angry call back from the eldest who screams at me (I said I was worried
and wanted to hear that they were okay otherwise would think about calling
the police to check things out) about calling, and how they had been sitting
around the dinner table having a "nice dinner" and that they didn't want to
be interrupted and that they all laughed at Dad and called Dad crazy and
stupid but decided to return the call just in case Dad was also serious and
how this had happened at least twice that week. Ex's response in her
affidavit. We were probably outside and didn't hear the telephone. Now, at
least according to the conversation I had with my daughter, that wasn't
true, and if it was, they knew that I was calling at that time, and if they
forgot the time they could have called me. That's the problem in that those
things happen. I'll happily call whereever, but I don't want to call around
town trying to track them down. Is it that difficult to send an email
saying, "The kids will be here" or, horror of shocks, pick up the telephone
themselves?
> One thing I can suggest to you, Rambler is that once you've got the
> money available to you would be to consider getting an 800 number
> for your girls to use to contact you. Even the youngest is old
> enough to dial a phone, my two knew how at age three or so. (They
> even knew how to look up phone numbers & make crank calls at that
> age as well.. and yeah.. there's a story there, LOL).
>
> Their being able to just pick up the phone and dial you at anytime,
> and without consent from their mother may be the ticket to the phone
> access you're looking for.
Will have to try that. Still irks me that the mother ... aaarrrrrgh!
Rambler
Rambler
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in
> message news:btiec7$hn...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>> Sorry, longish list. No, it has nothing to do with the kids living
>> stateside. I have moved and traveled all of my life, so the
>> distance is not an issue. It revolves, to me around contact being
>> cut off for weeks at a time, the mother instructing (repeatedly) the
>> kids not to discuss things with me (not that I ask, but just, "we
>> are not telling Dad about X), comments by the grandmother about me
>> being a mean and horrible man, but that she is not "afraid" of me,
>> that the kids must be very careful because there are "sides" in
>> this; refusal to let the paternal grandparents talk to the kids...
>> to name a few.
>
> do you have a professional opinion to back this up?
To back what up? That this is occuring or that this is harmful. To the
latter, not yet, as that will be part of the directions hearing upcoming to
bring in a child psychologist.
>> yes, I do (original author mentioned above). I've read the stuff,
>> read the rebuttals, read the rebuttals to the rebuttals, looked at
>> the clinical notes. Have read the arguments as to what is and what
>> is not and how people misdiagnose and how to present or defend
>> against PAS. However, I am not claiming PAS per say. Just the
>> characteristics and then the sociological research that says
>> "children who experience alienation by one parent agaisnt the other
>> do worse."
>
> then what exactly are you petitioning for custody on?
Here it is called parental poisoning or something like that. That was the
"per say" part of my post.
>
>>
>> I'm stupid, sure, just not dumb.
>
> neither one...
>
>> Yes, this I understand. I understand the odds. However, in this
>> instance, the judge has another issue. He knows, and he knows that
>> I know, that he has little enforcement power here. The ex has
>> disregarded his Orders twice now, three times if we include her
>> non-compliance with the original order, so I have "hope" there. My
>> hope is that the judge will be slightly ticked at her, that he will
>> either modify or change custody, and that I can take this to a judge
>> Stateside for enforcement - not for a retrial, though that will
>> happen I am sure. But I feel that I am better placed walking into a
>> court in the US saying, "the judge who has jurisdiction has ruled
>> that x, y, and z. Please issue orders to enforce this.
>> Additionally, where she lives, there is a two strikes and you are
>> out rule, i.e. two contempts in a three year period for access and
>> they entertain a change of custody.
>
> do you know what it would take to enforce the order stateside,
> specifically where she's at?
I believe so. According to something presented at trial by her side, I
would need to "register" the Order in the courts in Washington State, where
she and the children are. Then I would have to get Orders of enforcement or
persue Contempt charges there. Now, the initial hearings, I believe, would
be ex party, i.e. between me and the judge, however, I am led to believe by
the judge here (who serves on a bunch of international panels - not a family
court judge, more like a Supreme Court judge, but since she first absconded
with the kids, that is where I had to go to get the kids made wards of the
court and that is where it has stayed) that a judge there would want his own
hearing. What I am hoping (again, 'hoping') is that I get a favorable
ruling here, and while courts protect their own areas of influence, they
would say, "Well, I really don't want to deal with this, and another court
already has, so let's just follow that order" kind of like I hear they do
with precedence anyway. I feel that, for me, it is easier to push here
because I am here. If I had to do the whole court thing there, it would be
hugely taxing.
Rambler
Rambler
news:q%2Lb.185232$ss5.1996@clgrps13
> He doesn't want to "input" anyway...he wants his phone call every day
> at a specific time as is written in the little sheaf of papers he's
> clinging to. Otherwise he wouldn't be satisfied with 40 second
> conversations.
Wrong. Completely. I understand that there is a give and take in a parent
child relationship. Just like when the kids are around the house.
Soemtimes they talk, sometimes they don't. That's why a 40 second
conversation is okay ... it is a touching base, a "hi, I'm still here and
we're okay with that." It seems that your concept of parenting and mine are
about as at odds as mine and my ex's. There is more to jsut *deep, indepth*
conversations. There is laughing, sharing stories, and just knowing that
one's father is there. 40 seconds reinforces that, just like a kid might
see their Mom or Dad for 40 seconds at night, but knows they are there.
I see it in a much broader context than apparently you do. It is not about
papers. Hell, it's not even about principles or agreements. And it
certainly isn't about, "well gee, single working Mom's are like that anyway,
so learn to deal with it. (sound's like my ex)." It is about the kids,
which seems to be so oft forgotten.
Rambler
_calinda_
>> One thing I can suggest to you, Rambler is that once you've got
the
>> money available to you would be to consider getting an 800 number
>> for your girls to use to contact you. Even the youngest is old
>> enough to dial a phone, my two knew how at age three or so.
(They
>> even knew how to look up phone numbers & make crank calls at that
>> age as well.. and yeah.. there's a story there, LOL).
>>
>> Their being able to just pick up the phone and dial you at
anytime,
>> and without consent from their mother may be the ticket to the
phone
>> access you're looking for.
>
> Will have to try that. Still irks me that the mother ...
aaarrrrrgh!
>
> Rambler
OH damn, can I relate to THAT Rambler.. I don't think you were
around either here or ASD when I was forced by the ex & his wife to
buy cell phones for both of my kids, as he said he would not
obstruct contact with the kids while in his custody, but I was not
allowed to use "his resources to access the kids".. Yes, I could
have fought it, and hindsight being what it is, I *should* have.
But I didn't, as I was trying to "pick my battles".. Unfortunately,
they see that as just one more time I bent over looking for the KY.
Anyway.. not much help here, but I do understand..
Cal~
(shoot.. twice in one day?? <eg>)
The Watsons
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
> > it was, but i managed just fine, thank you very much....and i did much
> > farther from vancouver to halifax...:) how's about moving from
> > southern germany where i was born and raised, and moving to a Tiny
> > town in north carolina? the culture shock was definently
> > interesting....still is, at times...:D
>
> Sorry, not following. Are you saying that after the divorce, you picked
up
> to follow your kids from Germany to Southern Cal? having never been there
> before?
not quite-moved from germany to north carolina as part of a military
family...was only the third (? think there were two doctor's visits in there
or might've been one, can't remember for sure) time i'd Ever set foot
stateside....
some disparities, but at the same time, moving across the lake is complex,
granted, but....:)
Jess
The Watsons
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
> change. Kids were having sleepovers then anyway. They still do. That I
> understand (it does not *have* to be everynight).
*nods* perhaps instead of a custody change, how's about modifying the terms
of access?
> Yes, I understand that. I also think (and that's 'think') I know how a
> judge is going to look at it, which was the reason for my post. How do I
> get him to look at it differently.
we'll help as we can...:)
> Right. I can give that a try. I have tried that. Honestly. I have
asked
> (last time on the telephone was August, and in subsequent emails
thereafter
> before this went to her lawyers), and she responds, "Nope. 7:30 is as
good
> as any." I'd change the call time, I mean, it is the middle of the day
for
> me when we are supposed to speak, so 1/2 hour here or there is no problem.
> One of the problems is, however, that I have heard so much negativity from
> her (like her from me I am sure) that I am preconditioned to thinking
> calling and talking to her does no good, and "hammering out" a time would
be
> counterproductive.
not necessarily....at least shows a constant effort...:)
Frankly, I know how I'd ask the question ("Listen, the
> call things, as I have mentioned in my email, are still troubling for me.
I
> really am flexible on what time the kids and I speak, and I chose 7:30
> because that is what we have always done, and that is the time that you
> recently said was as good as any, but truthfully, is there a better time
to
> call?)
>but I do not know how to frame the question so that she won't a) take
> offense and b) actually respond with something more than, "Nope, 7:30 is
as
> good as any because the above won't do that, IMO.
" i understand you're busy, and i'd like to call at a time that isn't
inconvienent or a big hassle on you...would you think about it, please, and
let me know?"
> I took up contact with the school directly, first through the principal,
and
> then with the teachers. The middle child's teach last year is the
eldest's
> teacher this year. She sends me nothing. No reports, no notes, nothing.
I
> get the Report Cards from teh school. I now have the email addresses for
> the school counsellor as well. The other teachers (eldest last year and
> middle this year) were great, keeping me informed. I provided information
> on Asia for a class project they were doing, sent along Chinese characters
> for a report that the eldest was doing, etc. etc. The day care is run by
> the YMCA at the school. I have no contact point for them. Perhaps I
> should. The youngest I have scant information on. She goes to a school,
> which is at the YMCA, and then a playgroup, atthe Y. In the latest
> affidavit, I learned that they send home a daily note on her activities.
I
> never knew that before.
what does the original order say about contact info and participation in the
school? here, i think it's mandated as a matter of course, and it's also a
federal law under most conditions...but that would be another way to start
keeping in contact with them...
Jess
The Watsons
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
> > and IIRC, one of the "treatments" for is involves severing all
> > contact with the alienating parent for a significant chunk of
> > time...no way is a court going to do that...
>
> In extreme cases. Only in extreme cases.
i know, but a judge is still going to be unwilling to do that...
Jess
The Watsons
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
> > do you have a professional opinion to back this up?
> To back what up? That this is occuring or that this is harmful. To the
> latter, not yet, as that will be part of the directions hearing upcoming
to
> bring in a child psychologist.
ok...
> Here it is called parental poisoning or something like that. That was the
> "per say" part of my post.
so you are petitioning based on PAS, it just goes by a different name there?
:)
> I believe so. According to something presented at trial by her side, I
> would need to "register" the Order in the courts in Washington State,
where
> she and the children are. Then I would have to get Orders of enforcement
or
> persue Contempt charges there. Now, the initial hearings, I believe,
would
> be ex party, i.e. between me and the judge, however, I am led to believe
by
> the judge here (who serves on a bunch of international panels - not a
family
> court judge, more like a Supreme Court judge, but since she first
absconded
> with the kids, that is where I had to go to get the kids made wards of the
> court and that is where it has stayed) that a judge there would want his
own
> hearing. What I am hoping (again, 'hoping') is that I get a favorable
> ruling here, and while courts protect their own areas of influence, they
> would say, "Well, I really don't want to deal with this, and another court
> already has, so let's just follow that order" kind of like I hear they do
> with precedence anyway. I feel that, for me, it is easier to push here
> because I am here. If I had to do the whole court thing there, it would
be
> hugely taxing.
i'd make a phone call or two and double check, because you could be facing a
court thing here too...i know that to domesticate a judgement here calls for
a couple of court hearings...
Jess
Rambler
No, I know it can be done. I first crossed the puddle when I was three,
back again when I was eight-ish (but not Stateside) until two years on,
moved across the BIG puddle when I was 21, back again a year later, and back
again in my early thirties with a family.
To me that is different. I know it is my own issue (perhaps) but I would be
moving to an environment that I consider hostile, isolated and not where I
would choose, with no nothing, support, job, etc.
Actually, as I sit and think, that will be the true test. If all of my
actions fail, will I abandon the kids, or abandon my life? Hmmmmmm.....
Rambler
Rambler
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in
> message news:btihnr$hn...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>> "The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> 8.5, 6 and 3 when it was signed. I really don't think that is a
>> material change. Kids were having sleepovers then anyway. They
>> still do. That I understand (it does not *have* to be everynight).
>
> *nods* perhaps instead of a custody change, how's about modifying the
> terms of access?
Why? Why bother. See, to me, if the parents (read: mother) was responsible
and adult like, there would be no need. Contact would ebb and flow as
dictated between the parties in the relationship, and in this case, since it
is *my* access, the relationship is between me and the girls. See, if we
modify the terms of access, then, in my opinion, she will see that as
justifying her actions to limit contact, and that is a slippery slidy
slope..
>> I took up contact with the school directly, first through the
>> principal, and then with the teachers. The middle child's teach
>> last year is the eldest's teacher this year. She sends me nothing.
>> No reports, no notes, nothing. I get the Report Cards from teh
>> school. I now have the email addresses for the school counsellor
>> as well. The other teachers (eldest last year and middle this year)
>> were great, keeping me informed. I provided information on Asia for
>> a class project they were doing, sent along Chinese characters for a
>> report that the eldest was doing, etc. etc. The day care is run by
>> the YMCA at the school. I have no contact point for them. Perhaps
>> I should. The youngest I have scant information on. She goes to a
>> school, which is at the YMCA, and then a playgroup, atthe Y. In the
>> latest affidavit, I learned that they send home a daily note on her
>> activities. I never knew that before.
>
> what does the original order say about contact info and participation
> in the school? here, i think it's mandated as a matter of course, and
> it's also a federal law under most conditions...but that would be
> another way to start keeping in contact with them...
I have referenced the Federal Law (I have the statute number in Outlook for
easy reference. The Order doesn't say anything about schools. What should
it? if the mother isn't going to send me a brief email letting me know what
is going on in their lives, she most cetainly isn't going to send me copies
of the reports. She actually offered, once, but never did.
Rambler
Rambler
Yes, my point was that it is only recommended in extreme cases, yet I
believe (bias perhaps?) that the judges wouldn't do that. I will bet you
(no statistics, but I would still place a wager) that if the father was the
primary resident parent and the mother said, "Alientation," before the word
parental came out, the kids would have been moved. Colour me jaded.
Rambler
Rambler
> "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in
> message news:btijrf$hn...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>>> do you have a professional opinion to back this up?
>> To back what up? That this is occuring or that this is harmful. To
>> the latter, not yet, as that will be part of the directions hearing
>> upcoming to bring in a child psychologist.
>
> ok...
Oh, and if you are talking about a lawyer, yes, I have one, again, finally.
Long, long story.
>> Here it is called parental poisoning or something like that. That
>> was the "per say" part of my post.
>
> so you are petitioning based on PAS, it just goes by a different name
> there? :)
I am trying to avoid having to do the "syndrome" approach and the
controversary that brings. I thought about it, and wanted to push that
across for the good of human kind, but it is safer (perhaps) for me to not
try and push the judge too much.
> i'd make a phone call or two and double check, because you could be
> facing a court thing here too...i know that to domesticate a
> judgement here calls for a couple of court hearings...
Thanks. I believe that I will ahve to go to court there, and so be it.
Rambler
Lori
> "Lori" <real...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:aB_Kb.385$Ka....@fe01.usenetserver.com...
>
> > "Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote
>
> > > Sure, you can call me an idealist, but regardless
> > of
> > > how many people are doing it (and this is my issue with "bias"), it is
> > still
> > > wrong.
>
> > I think this is a very good point. I can vividly remember my SS's
mother
> > saying (in front of the child, no less!) that "plenty of boys are raised
> by
> > single mothers with no input from the father, and they are just fine."
>
> You'll forgive me, but where on earth did I say that?
Who says that you said that? I said that my SS's mother said it. He
(Rambler) was talking about the BM in his case alienating his kids from him.
It sounds like she is, if what he's describing is true. Not saying he's
perfect, either, but hey, she's taken them to live in another country and is
refusing to accomadate even frequent phone time between them.
>
> He was complaining that she worked full time and the kids were with
> babysitters. Well pardon me, but unless he's willing to continue to
provide
> everything they will ever need, SHE'S GOING TO HAVE TO WORK. It's not a
> sin. It's not a reason to lose custody. *It's* *what* *most* *single*
> *mothers* *do*. Hell, it's what he's planning to do.
I agree. I don't believe that's a good reason to change custody, unless he
can provide more stability with regards to caregivers while he works. I do
happen to think that if he could provide for them to be with one caregiver
whenever he is away at work instead of a parade of sitters, that would be
better. However, I didn't use this as my point, because to me, the biggie
is parental alienation. I think that should be the very top of the list ,
and the most important of the custody factors. A parent who does this is
not just hurting the other parent, they are hurting the child.
>
> And I don't want to hear all about the fact that he was perfectly willing
to
> do that but *she* left...boo hoo hoo...the ungrateful cow. It takes more
> than one person to destroy a marriage. The more people who wake up and
> realize that, the more successful second marriages we'll see.
I agree.
>
> He doesn't want to "input" anyway...he wants his phone call every day at a
> specific time as is written in the little sheaf of papers he's clinging
to.
> Otherwise he wouldn't be satisfied with 40 second conversations.
>
When that's all you have available, you cling to it. Perhaps it wouldn't be
so easy as so many here think it should be for him to move to the states,
expecially now. The US isn't required, so far as I know, to just let anyone
who wishes to do so, to move here to live, you know.
Lori
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/3/04
Lori
"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:btie4s$588$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> In a previous article, "lilblakdog" <lilbl...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >"Lori" <real...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >news:aB_Kb.385$Ka....@fe01.usenetserver.com...
> >
> >> I think this is a very good point. I can vividly remember my SS's
mother
> >> saying (in front of the child, no less!) that "plenty of boys are
raised
> >by
> >> single mothers with no input from the father, and they are just fine."
> >
> >You'll forgive me, but where on earth did I say that?
> >
>
> Lil, are you Lori's stepson's biomom?
>
If she is, then I guess I better shut up! :-)
lori
The Watsons
"Rambler" <iamrambler...@yahooTAKETHISOUT.com> wrote in message
> To me that is different. I know it is my own issue (perhaps) but I would
be
> moving to an environment that I consider hostile, isolated and not where I
> would choose, with no nothing, support, job, etc.
move closer, and you can establish a support network there...nothing like
you have at home, but....:)
>
> Actually, as I sit and think, that will be the true test. If all of my
> actions fail, will I abandon the kids, or abandon my life? Hmmmmmm.....
not one i can answer...
Jess