The Evil New Wife
cj503
affair and we have a 3 1/2 yearold son together. My divorce was very hard,
I had to leave nothing and start all over. I kept our son pretty much
through the whole divorce, my ex would come and get his son on occasion to
only drop him off at my mothers house an hour later. When my ex did come
and get our son I had to provide him with food and diapers or else he said
he wouldn't feed or change him. Now mind you at the time I only made 8$ an
hour and paying for daycare and I wasn't getting any child support.
Our divorce was finally over and our divorce papers were made to be very
strict because of all the problems I had with him. Well two years ago I
found out that my ex was going to work at the firestation for 24 hours and
leaving my son with his girlfriend (the one he was cheating on me with). I
got very upset because he was breaking the rules of the divorce papers. He
said that he would never do it again and stupid me I belived him.
A year ago my ex got married to his girlfriend and now he is doing it
again. He goes to work for 24 hours and leaves our son with his
girlfriend. It's hard for me to catch him doing this because his
fire-fighter buddies cover for him. And when I do catch him he says that
his new wife is our sons new mother so it's just the same as dropping our
son off with me. I've asked not to do it anymore but he says the divorce
papers are more like guidlines than rule and that when you read them it's
very gray and that he will continue to do it. Our son only see's his dad
about 10 days a month but his dad chooses to work half thoes days.
As far as the new wife she is just as bad. Our son is in a speech program
because he is not talking very well and my ex is supposed to drop him off
and pick him up. But instead he goes to work and lets the new wife drop
him off.
Well I caught him on friday at work when he was supposed to be spending
time with his son and he flipped out on me and said that I would never be
able to do anything about it and to just live with it. Next thing I know
his wife calls me and starts to yell at me and tell me how much of a bad
mother I am and then she likens me to crack ho (she's 23 and never had
kids). Then she tells me that her and her husband can do what ever they
want with our son.
I just don't know what to do? I feel like they have more control of the
situation than I do and he's the one not following the divorce papers.
Need help! Advice Pls!
Living in Arizona
rebecca
"cj503" <cj5...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:603509b7b6efdd06...@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com...
>
> I just don't know what to do? I feel like they have more control of the
> situation than I do and he's the one not following the divorce papers.
> Need help! Advice Pls!
Okay, well, talk to your attorney about the language in your papers, but
court orders are not guidelines, they are _orders_. You don't get to pick
and choose. You can, however, interpret. So if your orders are fuzzy, then
he may well be able to do this.
Is your issue that dad isn't spending time with the kid? Offer to change
the schedule to his days off, then. Is your issue that SM is spending time
with the kid? What kind of relationship does the stepmom have with your
kid? Are they friendly? You say she's dropping him at speech, right? Is
your child complaining about being left with the SM? Is she abusing him?
Is he generally fed and happy when you pick him up?
Because, however the SM came into the picture, she's now a member of your
kid's family. AND, she ostensibly gets along with the dad, which can be
_very_ helpful as your son gets older and starts having trouble
communicating with your ex. She will likely be able to help your son
navigate his relationship with his dad in a way you won't be able to do.
Now, you might get it put in the orders that if the custodial parent is away
overnight, the other parent gets first dibs on having the kid. Are you
prepared for your son to lose 1/2 of the very little time he currently
spends in his father's life? Because that may be a very real outcome. And
having it in your orders really doesn't do much if the other parent ignores
it, unless you are willing and able to go back to court over the issue.
rebecca
FrustratedMom
The BD sounds like a real winner alright. Referring to a discussion
posted on this site, he should never refer to his new wife as his son's
'new mother'. I know some of you may think that I'm contradicting myself,
but I'm not. The distinction is clear: His dad cannot ever say that (and
be morally right).
But, I'd be willing to bet that if the dad leaves you child with his SM,
the courts would likely be only interested in his wellbeing. He has a
right to see his son, evidently. So, if he weren't married, would you
feel better if he was in daycare during that time? I would be surprised
if you'd have any legal say in what the dad does during his time, in so
far as who babysits (once again, unless the courts were provided legal
evidence that he was in jeapordy). At least the SM seems to be taking him
to speech therapy.
Ultimately, consulting with a good attorney would be the best advise I
could suggest, or at least read up on your state's statutes, or the
state's department that oversees these matters.
cj503
a stay at home mom (raising 2 step children with new hubby) and I'm not
planning on going back to work for atleast another 2 years (in school now
for degree). My concern is that if he thinks he can break one rule in the
divorce papers why won't he think he can break another. Our son doesn't
get to see his dad that often and I want my ex to spend time with him. Our
son needs his dad, parenting time to me is: the parent(s) spend time with
their chid, not just the stepmom while dads at work. My ex seems more
concerned with his job than his son and I do have it in my divorce papers
that my ex will have him on only days that he doesn't work. It just
crushes me to my sons dad make his work a priority rather than his son.
The Watsons
I'm going to toss out that I might be a bit tactless, since it's getting
pretty late here.
I see you having two main objections-that your ex's new wife (irregardless
of how she came to be that way) is dropping ya'lls son off at speech therapy
and doing that stuff with him on the day his father has to work, and the
objection that you have it in court orders that he only gets his son on the
days he doesn't work and you're tired of him breaking the rules.
Are you honestly prepared for the very real possibility that if you try to
enforce these court orders (I'm assuming school's started), that your son
will see even less of his father than he does now, seeing as his father
probably gets a day off during the week-which means your son is in school?
And given that I see your two main objections being that his wife is
dropping ya'lls son off at speech therapy while he works that day, are you
sure that's really a battle you want to fight? Your son isn't being
neglected, he's not being dumped off on a babysitter while your ex goes out
and parties with some streetwalker, he's being left with his stepmother
while his father is at work making the paycheck that helps support your son.
His work schedule probably won't be this way forever, and then if you've
enforced the court orders, you run the chance of having to go back to court
to rework the schedule.
Jess
Wendy
"cj503" <cj5...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d071001bcf7391d9...@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com...
My ex organises lots of his own activities, like golf, tennis, and squash,
on days
when the children are at his house (they live half the week with me and half
with
him). It still puzzles me, that he'd choose to use the little time he has
with them
for other things. The thing is I wouldn't dream of telling him how to
conduct his
relationship with his children. It's way outside my circle of control. Nor
would
I dream of trying to stop him having equal access, because all the research
says
that children from divorced homes do better if they are involved with both
parents. Let it go. You are trying to control someone else's life. This
isn't
something you get to choose. Just be what you think a parent ought to be
and your child will almost certainly see things and all the people involved
for
what they are in the fullness of time.
Wendy
Buster Van Buren
Work out a payment plan with him/her if you can't afford it. If you can
find a girl lawyer, do it - girl lawyers do more psychological damage to
asshole ex-husbands than guy lawyers do. After the judge has ruled in your
favor, file a civil suit to recover the attorney fees.
Good Luck.
Buster Van Buren
www.dearbuster.com
www.dearbuster.blogspot.com
bus...@dearbuster.com
"cj503" <cj5...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:603509b7b6efdd06...@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com...
rebecca
"Buster Van Buren" <bus...@dearbuster.com> wrote in message
news:BVz1d.191674$mD.181622@attbi_s02...
> This is a simple one. Grab your divorce papers and go talk to a lawyer.
> Work out a payment plan with him/her if you can't afford it. If you can
> find a girl lawyer, do it - girl lawyers do more psychological damage to
> asshole ex-husbands than guy lawyers do. After the judge has ruled in
your
> favor, file a civil suit to recover the attorney fees.
>
> Good Luck.
>
> Buster Van Buren
yeah, and while you're at it, always take advice from a guy named Buster.
rebecca
> My concern is that if he thinks he can break one rule in the
> divorce papers why won't he think he can break another.
Okay, while I understand this concern, you have to keep your eye on the big
picture. Since he gets so little time with his dad, it would be nice if
your ex could stay with the child while he has him. But you can't control
what your ex does. And if your son is being well-cared for while he's in
his father's home, do you really want to up the animosity by going back to
court?
Let me come at this from the other side. Our BM feels as you do, that if
she gives an inch, my partner will take a mile. It isn't true, but she is
easily capable of goading him into pushing more than he otherwise would,
simply because she is so obstructionist. When she loosens up, almost 100%
of the time, so does he. I have a huge mommy bias, I think the woman nearly
always sets the tone for how the co-parenting relationship is going to go.
You don't _have_ to enforce the order to the letter, you know. If it isn't
causing damage to your son, and is having a good outcome (i.e., sees dad at
least a little, which he otherwise wouldn't), why fight just to fight? He's
got a job, presumably he's paying his child support, he's married, he's got
a home, his wife is apparently interested enough in your son to be sure he
gets taken care of. He's seeing your son.
If he starts willy-nilly ignoring the rest of the order, then revisit your
decision. But if this is all that's going on, I think you should really
consider whether you and your son need the aggravation, expense and
hostility of a court visit over this.
rebecca
Melissa
>found out that my ex was going to work at the firestation for 24 hours and
>leaving my son with his girlfriend (the one he was cheating on me with)
How far in advance does he get his schedule? Is this a regular thing or just
when he's filling in or making up time. I know often Fire Fighters don't get
much advanced notice as far as going into work, and I've known a few divorced
FF's who've had really big problems with visitation and schedule changes.
>Our son only see's his dad
>about 10 days a month but his dad chooses to work half thoes days.
But again how much of it really is a choice?
>As far as the new wife she is just as bad. Our son is in a speech program
>because he is not talking very well and my ex is supposed to drop him off
>and pick him up. But instead he goes to work and lets the new wife drop
>him off.
Ok I'm not seeing the problem here. Your son is still making it to the
program.
> Then she tells me that her and her husband can do what ever they
>want with our son.
To a certain extent she's right. You might have a hard time getting a court to
enforce the order especially as they are married now. Have you spoken to a
lawyer yet?
>I just don't know what to do? I feel like they have more control of the
>situation than I do and he's the one not following the divorce papers.
>Need help! Advice Pls!
>Living in Arizona
>
Court Orders are often meant really as more of a guideline. They're not set in
stone, and often just plain not enforcable. You should talk to a lawyer, but
you also might want to consider mediating a new order with the ex.
Love,
Melissa
"This virtual sand tastes just like real sand."
-Line from one of the cartoons SS watches.
Melissa
Ok, think this one through. Work has to be a priority for the son to be one
too. Ex has child support, he has a household to maintain for when his son
comes to see him. There are family activities and medical expenses that need
to be paid for. If this things weren't in place then he'd very likely lose
visitation. He works a job that's not always going to be flexible. Ex
probably only has so many options.
If you're that worried about time have you considered offering him more
visitation?
Melissa
>Work out a payment plan with him/her if you can't afford it. If you can
>find a girl lawyer, do it - girl lawyers do more psychological damage to
>asshole ex-husbands than guy lawyers do. After the judge has ruled in your
>favor, file a civil suit to recover the attorney fees.
>
>Good Luck.
>
>Buster Van Buren
>www.dearbuster.com
>www.dearbuster.blogspot.com
>bus...@dearbuster.com
Not getting enough hits on the blog Buster?
The Watsons
"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040914114251...@mb-m20.aol.com...
>>Living in Arizona
>>
>
> Court Orders are often meant really as more of a guideline. They're not
> set in
> stone, and often just plain not enforcable. You should talk to a lawyer,
> but
> you also might want to consider mediating a new order with the ex.
Ooh, someone in Arizona, my stomping grounds.
I can tell you for almost absolute fact that if you try to take this back
into court here, the court is likely going to tell you to deal with his SM
taking him to speech therapy, since the priority is him getting there to
begin with and as long as she's not going too far overboard in the parenting
department (maybe filling out insurance papers, minor crap like that), the
judge isn't going to care.
Also, the trend here is to do as much parenting time as is possible, so if
you push to change the schedule for during the year because your ex is
working, it either won't work (because the judge will look at whether your
son is being adequately provided for and whether he does see his dad *at
all* on those weekends), or the judge will go "fine, but we're doing extra
summer and holiday time to make up for what he's losing by this."
And here in Arizona, you bet those orders are indeed guidelines and very
difficult to enforce unless/until there's a contempt of court charge (and it
literally takes someone dying and more to get that).
If you really want to spend the sixty dollar filing fee and the day at the
courthouse, be my guest. You won't walk out with what you expect.
Jess
jane
See, here's the thing: your ex is right. The papers really are guidelines. He
can break the rules. It is fine to leave his child with his wife. You're not
in control.
I didn't understand what you were afraid of or why you felt you needed to be in
control in the first post. Now I get the feeling that you feel it all slipping
away.
I totally and completely understand your frustration with your ex leaving your
child with his mate. It's absolutely crazy-making. The kid does not need
another mother; he needs a father. IMO that's the single most annoying thing
that exhusbands do.
That said, you're going to have to change your tack. If you want him to spend
more time with his son, you've got to work *with* him. You don't want to go
into court with that piece of paper and say, "See, it says right here that he
only has child when he's not working," only to have the judge say, "Oh, yeah,
that's not going to work" and take that provision out.
That could happen, too. Things have changed since he took the job. He's older.
He has a different job. He's married. He's probably planning another kid.
What fit for him back then doesn't fit for him now, and what fits for him
counts to some extent, because everyone wants to facilitate him having a
relationship with his kid. [Many people will snort in derision here, but it's
true.]
So what could work? If he's taking 24s on the weekend, he's getting days off
during the week. Would you be willing to let your ex have SS any ten days a
month that he is not working or just getting off work?
jane
>From: "cj503" cj5...@yahoo.com
Melissa
>He
>can break the rules. It is fine to leave his child with his wife. You're not
>in control.
>
Which can be enough to make anyone crazy. It sucks having no control over what
goes on in the other house.
Buster Van Buren
> >This is a simple one. Grab your divorce papers and go talk to a lawyer.
>>Work out a payment plan with him/her if you can't afford it. If you can
>>find a girl lawyer, do it - girl lawyers do more psychological damage to
>>asshole ex-husbands than guy lawyers do. After the judge has ruled in
>>your
>>favor, file a civil suit to recover the attorney fees.
>>
>>Good Luck.
>>
>>Buster Van Buren
>>www.dearbuster.com
>>www.dearbuster.blogspot.com
>>bus...@dearbuster.com
>
> Not getting enough hits on the blog Buster?
> Love,
> Melissa
>
You know...I get ragged on plenty, and I've got a pretty thick skin, but you
would think that when I take the time to honestly answer someone's question
with legitimate non-sexist advice, you would think that little
itty-bitty-titty trolls wouldn't be so quick to take a jab. My job is to
dispense advice. My goal is to educate and help people...even people I
don't particularly like or care about. Had I signed this post with "Abigail
Van Buren" or "Dear Abby", would you have instead answered with a "Right On,
Sister!"? (And by the way, Buster happens to be my real name - and I like
it - so kiss my ass.)
As far as my website - I get plenty of hits - hundreds of people visit every
day. But I often go to these types of use-nets in order to broaden my base
of readers. Why? Because of the following reasons...try to follow along if
you can Melissa and Rebecca....
1. In the 50's and 60's, Dear Abby and Ann Landers each received over
30,000 letters a week from people needing help and they helped a lot of
people. I've got nothing but respect for what they did for the generation of
people they advised. The advice columnists (and I use that title loosely)
that NOW answer these columns (using the same pseudonyms) are not in touch
with the generation of people born after 1960. Furthermore, the limitations
imposed by the newspapers that print their lame dated advice requires that
all their answers be politically correct and sensitive to a fault. When
people have problems, they want honest answers, and honest answers are not
always pleasant and accompanied by a 1-800 number to call for assistance. I
am serving a two-fold purpose in providing honest uncensored advice and also
providing advice from a man's point of view - both which are sorely lacking
in the publishing world (in my not-so-humble opinion).
2. The more people that know about my website, the more avenues they have
available to seek help and the more visitors I get.
3. The more people that come to my site, the more letters I receive.
4. The more letters I receive, the more that it improves the selection of
letters I can choose to publish.
5. The bigger the selection of letters, the more chances that I will be
able to address a topic or problem that someone may have been to afraid to
ask about, or was unaware of.
6. The end result? More people possibly helped or amused or made aware
that they aren't alone with their problems and issues.
So, in conclusion...I'll continue trying to help when someone asks for it.
I'll give them advice that I think is right - even if others think I'm
wrong. I'll continue signing all my posts with my websites and email
address - and when my syndicated column (which is already being published in
six newspapers across the U.S.), eventually gets around to your local news
stand - feel free to write in to the Editor and tell him what an asshole I
am....It will be good publicity for me and my growing group of regular
readers.
Your Favorite Living Columnist,
Vicki Robinson
>"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:20040914114804...@mb-m20.aol.com...
>> >This is a simple one. Grab your divorce papers and go talk to a lawyer.
>>>Work out a payment plan with him/her if you can't afford it. If you can
>>>find a girl lawyer, do it - girl lawyers do more psychological damage to
>>>asshole ex-husbands than guy lawyers do. After the judge has ruled in
>>>your
>>>favor, file a civil suit to recover the attorney fees.
>>
>> Not getting enough hits on the blog Buster?
>>
>
>You know...I get ragged on plenty, and I've got a pretty thick skin, but you
>would think that when I take the time to honestly answer someone's question
>with legitimate non-sexist advice, you would think that little
>itty-bitty-titty trolls wouldn't be so quick to take a jab. My job is to
>dispense advice. My goal is to educate and help people...even people I
>don't particularly like or care about.
The problem here is that you don't seem to have any experience with
this kind of situation. "After the judge has ruled in your favor..."?
PLEASE! Do you have any idea how much of a crap shoot that is? Do
you have any idea of the number of people that have come through this
group with what they thought were slam-dunk court cases (and often
they *did* have good cases) only to come back, numb and disbelieving
when they found out that "the best interests of the child" mean
something different to the judge than it does to them?
Breezily recommending that people go to court, with the assumption
that they'll win, is just plain bad advice. Court should be an
absolute last resort, and people have to realize that there's a good
chance that they'll lose. A *very* good chance. It's expensive, it's
divisive and frequently simply ups the emotional strain and bad
feelings between the parties for no benefit to anyone.
This group is populated by people who have been in the trenches for
years. Collectively there are decades of experience with
step-parenting and the courts right here. If you can add something
*from your own experience* then please feel free. Otherwise, watch
and learn something.
Oh, and "non-sexist"? "GIRL-lawyer"? GIRL? There are some lawyers
on this newsgroup who could probably set you straight, but
I won't out them.
Vicki
--
Power may be justly compared to a great river; while kept within its
bounds it is both beautiful and useful, but when it overflows its banks,
it is then too impetuous to be stemmed; it bears down all before it,
and brings destruction and desolation wherever it goes." -- Alexander Hamilton.
jane
>years. Collectively there are decades of experience with
>step-parenting and the courts right here.
I was thinking about this regarding another thread recently. I think the best
thing this group does is help people work things out without going to court.
jane
>Vicki
jane
>of readers.
I'm KFing you. I don't like your using this group to develop your business.
jane
The Watsons
> You know...I get ragged on plenty, and I've got a pretty thick skin, but
> you would think that when I take the time to honestly answer someone's
> question with legitimate non-sexist advice, you would think that little
> itty-bitty-titty trolls wouldn't be so quick to take a jab. My job is to
> dispense advice. My goal is to educate and help people...even people I
> don't particularly like or care about. Had I signed this post with
> "Abigail Van Buren" or "Dear Abby", would you have instead answered with a
> "Right On, Sister!"? (And by the way, Buster happens to be my real name -
> and I like it - so kiss my ass.)
> that they aren't alone with their problems and issues.
> So, in conclusion...I'll continue trying to help when someone asks for it.
> I'll give them advice that I think is right - even if others think I'm
> wrong. I'll continue signing all my posts with my websites and email
> address - and when my syndicated column (which is already being published
> in six newspapers across the U.S.), eventually gets around to your local
> news stand - feel free to write in to the Editor and tell him what an
> asshole I am....It will be good publicity for me and my growing group of
> regular readers.
You're not interested in dispencing advice, you're interested in what looks
pretty in your column, and I hope you don't think your column alone
qualifies you enough to give advice.
Jess
* Calinda *
Yeah, I see he's all over the groups I read regularly. It doesn't appear
he has any experience in the subject matter, but feels he is expert
enough to give advice.
Something he should remember, is those other advice columnists didn't
rely simply on themselves for answers but routinely went to experts in
whatever field the question arises from to get answers that are truly
helpful to the questioner.
This guy seems to have an over-inflated ego that seems to think he knows
it all. His condescending attitude toward anyone who *dares* question
his advice doesn’t bode well.
I wonder how many families he'll ruin with some of the crap advice I’ve
seen him dispense?
Cal~
Melissa
>You know...I get ragged on plenty, and I've got a pretty thick skin, but you
>would think that when I take the time to honestly answer someone's question
>with legitimate non-sexist advice, you would think that little
>itty-bitty-titty trolls wouldn't be so quick to take a jab
I've been posting regularly on this group since 1999 thank you. :)
>My job is to
>dispense advice.
Um no. It's not. You're spamming this group for your website pure and simple.
>My goal is to educate and help people...even people I
>don't particularly like or care about.
lol How wonderful!
>Had I signed this post with "Abigail
>Van Buren" or "Dear Abby", would you have instead answered with a "Right On,
>Sister!"?
No I wouldn't. As a rule I loathe advice columns.
>But I often go to these types of use-nets in order to broaden my base
>of readers.
i.e. spam.
>So, in conclusion...I'll continue trying to help when someone asks for it.
>I'll give them advice that I think is right - even if others think I'm
>wrong.
How about not doing it on this group. It's clear you don't know what you're
talking about. Perhaps you could simply lurk.
rebecca
"Buster Van Buren" <bus...@dearbuster.com> wrote in message
news:2GS1d.195921$Fg5.18442@attbi_s53...
>
> itty-bitty-titty trolls wouldn't be so quick to take a jab. My job is to
little-itty-bitty-titty trolls? Me and Melissa? All snickering aside,
anyone who uses that epithet loses any right to claim they are "non-sexist".
(And by the way, Buster happens to be my real name - and I like
> it - so kiss my ass.)
okay, okay, sorry for the cheap shot at your name (-:
> try to follow along if
> you can Melissa and Rebecca....
Well, I've got my thinking cap on, Buster, but in reality, I'm not
interested in your advice column. Maybe you can try to follow this....
That poster had a _child_ with someone. Now they're divorced, and she's in
a tough situation. Because however much of a shmuck her ex may be, he's
still the _father_ of her _child_. The _only_ father that kid will ever
get. And -this I know- the fact that the father is leaving the child in the
care of the child's stepmother while he works a legitimate job that he uses
to pay for all of them to live is not a good reason to go to court, no
matter what her court orders say. The fact that she's worried that her ex
_might_ take advantage of her is also not a good reason to go to court.
Because, dear Buster, court is not as simple as dropping by the judge's
chambers to say hi and get some papers signed. It involves attorneys. It
involves money, more than you ever expect. It involves time, also more than
you ever expect. It stresses everyone out. Stressed out parents are not as
good at parenting as not stressed out parents. Poor parents can't buy their
children food, clothing or toys. Parents running to court don't have time
to spend with their children. And children of divorce very carefully watch
how their parents interact, children whose parents are locked in court
battles, whether the kids explicitly know about the court issues or not, are
fully aware that something is very wrong.
So the next time you tell someone to run off to court with a "girl" lawyer
to "inflict psychological damage" to her "asshole ex-husband", maybe you can
consider the fact that when court is over, said asshole will still have a
lot of time with her kid. And maybe she should think about whether she
wants a psychologically damaged man caring for the person/people she loves
best.
All the best in your advising endeavors,
Rebecca
FrustratedMom
do advocate that people stay out of court. It is ture that the only real
winners there are the lawyers, and the big losers usually are the kids.
=======================
Melissa
>little-itty-bitty-titty trolls? Me and Melissa? All snickering aside,
>anyone who uses that epithet loses any right to claim they are "non-sexist".
>
I missed that one. Ugh. Did catch girl lawyer though.
rebecca
time I've been called a troll! Guess those thousands of posts I've put here
over the years really makes it clear that I'm simply trolling this group,
looking for trouble.
The Watsons
"rebecca" <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0j22d.1096$gG4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Hey, I just noticed the subject line! I'm all choked up, for the very
> first
> time I've been called a troll! Guess those thousands of posts I've put
> here
> over the years really makes it clear that I'm simply trolling this group,
> looking for trouble.
I'm still snickering over "itty-bitty-titty", myself. ;D
Jess
Buster Van Buren
news:ci980n$dqh$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> In a previous article, "Buster Van Buren" <bus...@dearbuster.com> said:
>
>>"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>>news:20040914114804...@mb-m20.aol.com...
>>> >This is a simple one. Grab your divorce papers and go talk to a
>>> >lawyer.
>>>>Work out a payment plan with him/her if you can't afford it. If you can
>>>>find a girl lawyer, do it - girl lawyers do more psychological damage to
>>>>asshole ex-husbands than guy lawyers do. After the judge has ruled in
>>>>your
>>>>favor, file a civil suit to recover the attorney fees.
>>>
>>> Not getting enough hits on the blog Buster?
>>>
>
> this kind of situation. "After the judge has ruled in your favor..."?
> PLEASE! Do you have any idea how much of a crap shoot that is? Do
> you have any idea of the number of people that have come through this
> group with what they thought were slam-dunk court cases (and often
> they *did* have good cases) only to come back, numb and disbelieving
> when they found out that "the best interests of the child" mean
> something different to the judge than it does to them?
>
> Breezily recommending that people go to court, with the assumption
> that they'll win, is just plain bad advice. Court should be an
> absolute last resort, and people have to realize that there's a good
> chance that they'll lose. A *very* good chance. It's expensive, it's
> divisive and frequently simply ups the emotional strain and bad
> feelings between the parties for no benefit to anyone.
>
So Vicki...what you are saying is that I shouldn't have advised her to see
an attorney? She should just sit there and accept the fact that he's
breaking the tenets of the visitation agreement? When you go to court, it's
never a sure thing, but this one sounds pretty cut and dry. I've spoken to
a lawyer who's works in family law, and another friend of mine, who is
actually a Superior Court judge. They both agree that if she came in with
the evidence that showed that he was not present when the girl was
supposedly supposed to be "visiting" him, she would have a good chance of an
opportunity to draw up a new visitation agreement that would be more
advantageous to her (and to her daughter, who would then actually only visit
her Dad when he was there to spend time with her). This lady right now, even
without going to court is within her rights to refuse to let the girl
continue these visitation visits that end up with her spending time with
someone other than her father. If he then wanted to contest that, then he
would have to take HER to court.
> This group is populated by people who have been in the trenches for
> years. Collectively there are decades of experience with
> step-parenting and the courts right here. If you can add something
> *from your own experience* then please feel free. Otherwise, watch
> and learn something.
Don't assume that I'm an inexperienced ingenue with little practical advise
just doing this on a whim. I'm a parent, I've been a step-parent, I have a
Bachelor's degree (in Biology), a Master's degree (in Business) and two
doctorates (in Education and Sociology). I am well prepared and educated on
many subjects.
>
> Oh, and "non-sexist"? "GIRL-lawyer"? GIRL? There are some lawyers
> on this newsgroup who could probably set you straight, but
> I won't out them.
>
As far as "girl-lawyer"...it isn't meant as a put down, and I think you knew
that. The monikers of "Guys/Girls" are often used in common conversation,
and most people understand that unless they are all juiced up on being
politically correct. My 75-year old mother is still a girl, and I don't see
any women complaining when Oprah yells out to her audience, "Hey Girls!".
Give me a break. I happen to love "women" lawyers (happy now?), especially
in cases of divorce and family law, as their ability to become emotionally
involved with their cases makes them superior to boy lawyers (better for
you? See...all even!) who more often than not tend to be a little more
pragmatic and non-emotional.
Buster
"Better to keep your mouth shut and have people assume you are an idiot,
than to open it and confirm it." -- Abraham Lincoln.
Buster Van Buren
news:20040915100348...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> I'm KFing you. I don't like your using this group to develop your
> business.
>
> jane
Oh NO! Anything but that! It burns, it burns!!!!! Well, since you've
already KFed me, then you won't read this...
KISS MY ASS. I don't like judgemental people, so I'll KF you right
back...and then I'll tell the teacher on you and I won't play catch with you
any more, and you can't play with my Power Ranger dolls anymore...so there.
Buster Van Buren
news:_UY1d.159838$4o.109719@fed1read01...
>
> "Buster Van Buren" <bus...@dearbuster.com> wrote in message
> news:2GS1d.195921$Fg5.18442@attbi_s53...
> looks pretty in your column, and I hope you don't think your column alone
> qualifies you enough to give advice.
>
> Jess
>
If I was interested in what looked pretty in my columns, I'd write all day
about daisies and puppy dogs.
And I hope you don't think that just because you joined this use net group,
it qualifies YOU enough to give advice.
Buster
Buster Van Buren
"* Calinda *" <CalindaSin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns956572D18...@130.133.1.4...
> The Watsons wrote in news:_UY1d.159838$4o.109719@fed1read01:
>
>>
>> "Buster Van Buren" <bus...@dearbuster.com> wrote in message
>> news:2GS1d.195921$Fg5.18442@attbi_s53...
>
> I wonder how many families he'll ruin with some of the crap advice I've
> seen him dispense?
>
> Cal~
Hopefully just yours, because heaven knows, the "crap" I advise is so far
out in left field that it is unusable to anyone. A jealous troll is not a
pretty troll...be a nice troll and crawl back into your hole "Cal".....
Buster
* Calinda *
I'm *heartbroken* that I didn't get a headline like Melissa and Rebecca,
LOL.
You really are scum of the earth...
Cal~
Buster Van Buren
"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
Yeah, I threw that comment in just to get your attention (and your goat).
Sometimes you have to do little asshole things to make a boring usenet group
just a little more entertaining and a little less hopeless for one day. For
just a few moments in time, you were all able to forget all your step-parent
problems/spouse problems/kid problems and have a little fun. You're
welcome.
By the way, it bugs me when passive-aggressive people say nothing nice about
you, and then sign the post "Love"...You don't love me.....or DOOOO YOU????
lol
Have a nice day and feel free to ask me for advice anytime. I'll be waiting
anxiously by my screen....lol
Buster
Melissa
>just a little more entertaining and a little less hopeless for one day.
If you find ASSP to be boring and hopeless than perhaps you should go somewhere
else.
BTW what papers are you syndicated in? I'm sure they'd love to know about your
other writing activities. Your prose on this ng is just so... well I have not
the words actually.
>For
>just a few moments in time, you were all able to forget all your step-parent
>problems/spouse problems/kid problems and have a little fun. You're
>welcome.
No for just a few moments I was annoyed by a troll.
Buster Van Buren
Sorry to disappoint you Cal, but Mel and Reb got there first and so the get
special consideration. I don't mind that you think I am scum...at least it
means you are thinking of me....I'll have to start watching my website
statistics a little closer, as I'm sure you'll become the kind of "hater"
that will love to hate me, and won't stop coming to my site every week.
Just in case you forgot the website address - it's www.dearbuster.com (This
last sentence was just for Melissa and Rebecca, since I'm a shamless spammer
who just posts ads and doesn't do anything else interesting).
I am scum of the earth - and proud of it.
Buster
Melissa
>never a sure thing, but this one sounds pretty cut and dry
HA!
>I've spoken to
>a lawyer who's works in family law, and another friend of mine, who is
>actually a Superior Court judge. They both agree that if she came in with
>the evidence that showed that he was not present when the girl was
>supposedly supposed to be "visiting" him, she would have a good chance of an
>opportunity to draw up a new visitation agreement that would be more
>advantageous to her (and to her daughter, who would then actually only visit
>her Dad when he was there to spend time with her
You don't even know what state the poster is in. This kind of stuff varies
*wildly* even from county to county, and from judge to judge.
>This lady right now, even
>without going to court is within her rights to refuse to let the girl
>continue these visitation visits that end up with her spending time with
>someone other than her father. If he then wanted to contest that, then he
>would have to take HER to court.
Again you don't know that, and advising something like that without knowing is
just irresponsible.
Melissa
>LOL.
Rebecca and I are just special I guess. :)
The Watsons
"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> BTW what papers are you syndicated in? I'm sure they'd love to know about
> your
> other writing activities. Your prose on this ng is just so... well I have
> not
> the words actually.
*snickers* He's not. His so-popular "advice column" is his webblog.
Jess
Buster Van Buren
The papers I'm syndicated in are fully aware of what I'm about and what I
say. It's items like these posts and advice like I have on my website that
get me the jobs. If they wanted dull writers, they wouldn't have dropped
Dear Abby for me. Controversial writers are "in vogue" right now, and I'm
riding that wave until it crashes. At least I'm a little less sexist and
less blatently crude than some of the radio talk-show hosts that have a much
bigger audience than I do....
and stop telling me you love me...you are creeping me out.
Buster
Buster Van Buren
Sorry to disappoint you Jess..I actually am syndicated. But I'm not about
to sit here and prove myself to you and give you a nice listing. If someone
wants to write in and tell you what paper they read my columns in, then
fine....otherwise, KMA.
B
The Watsons
> Sorry to disappoint you Jess..I actually am syndicated. But I'm not about
> to sit here and prove myself to you and give you a nice listing. If
> someone wants to write in and tell you what paper they read my columns in,
> then fine....otherwise, KMA.
Oh, spare me. You won't tell us where you're syndicated because you're *not*
syndicated.
Jess
jane
>Love,
>Melissa
>
Yes, you are.
jane
Tai
Tai
"Buster Van Buren" <bus...@dearbuster.com> wrote in message
news:pz52d.441047$%_6.88789@attbi_s01...
>> Love,
>> Melissa
>>
<snip>
> and stop telling me you love me...you are creeping me out.
>
> Buster
Ooops... (Oh well, I'll delurk properly now since I just did it by
accident.)
That is so funny I have tears running down my face.
Tai
(And, unlike me, Buster hasn't had years of silent appreaciation and
enjoyment of this group to know why I'm laughing)
* Calinda *
Hehe..I saw your other 'non' post and laughed, wondering if you meant to
do that or not. So, now that you've outted yourself.. come on in!
Glad to see another known face around here :)
Cal~
The Watsons
"Tai" <tain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2qscr2F...@uni-berlin.de...
> Ooops... (Oh well, I'll delurk properly now since I just did it by
> accident.)
>
> That is so funny I have tears running down my face.
>
> Tai
> (And, unlike me, Buster hasn't had years of silent appreaciation and
> enjoyment of this group to know why I'm laughing)
*waves* hi Tai...:D
Jess
Kathy Cole
> It's me again. I understand what your saying but the thing is I'm
> currently a stay at home mom (raising 2 step children with new hubby)
> and I'm not planning on going back to work for atleast another 2 years
> (in school now for degree).
Then consider how much easier things will be when you get a break from
the work load of raising your kids because one of them has other parents
to hang out with sometimes. Our older kids are teenagers; trust me,
you're likely to be grateful for a good working relationship with the
other parents.
> My concern is that if he thinks he can break one rule in the
> divorce papers why won't he think he can break another. Our son doesn't
> get to see his dad that often and I want my ex to spend time with him.
Okay, well, try to focus on that actual goal. Talk to dad about
swapping his working days for his days off. If he gets the number of
contact days ordered spent with his child, you have solved the problem
in accordance with the spirit of your divorce decree, and saved a ton of
grief and strain (not to mention money).
Also, please take a serious look at the extent to which you're pissed
off merely that the person in the affair that broke up your marriage is
anywhere near your kid. To the best of your capability, it's imperative
to set aside your very reasonable distaste for her continuing to have a
connection to you from the fact that you're stuck with her as a member
of your child's family. You're stuck, and it sucks. (My hubby's ex
married the party in the affair that broke them up, so trust me on
this.) But it's the kid who needs to catch the break, so you do have to
hold your nose and cope.
> Our son needs his dad, parenting time to me is: the parent(s) spend
> time with their chid, not just the stepmom while dads at work. My ex
> seems more concerned with his job than his son and I do have it in
> my divorce papers that my ex will have him on only days that he
> doesn't work. It just crushes me to my sons dad make his work a
> priority rather than his son.
Please rethink this position of yours. It looks to me like an
irrational viewpoint, that will in my opinion not get sympathy for you
in court; the man has to make a living, and he may not be in charge of
his work schedule. Adjust the visitation schedule to allow the
visitation days to happen, even if they happen on different days than
originally planned.
If he is unwilling to swap days so he can spend time with the kid,
_then_ a consult with an attorney may be appropriate. That would
indicate a whole different problem.
Vicki Robinson
>If he is unwilling to swap days so he can spend time with the kid,
>_then_ a consult with an attorney may be appropriate. That would
>indicate a whole different problem.
I was with you up to here, Kathy. If the guy is deliberately
scheduling things so that he gets half of his days off child-free,
then that tells you that he wants leisure time without his child. As
hard as that can be to swallow, if that's the way it is, *forcing* him
to spend all his off-time with his child will only result in
resentment and possibly baby-sitters other than the stepmom.
If he never spends time with his child that's one thing. But you
can't force someone to be a doting father when he's not.
Vicki
--
Power may be justly compared to a great river; while kept within its
bounds it is both beautiful and useful, but when it overflows its banks,
it is then too impetuous to be stemmed; it bears down all before it,
and brings destruction and desolation wherever it goes." -- Alexander Hamilton.
Melissa
>scheduling things so that he gets half of his days off child-free,
>then that tells you that he wants leisure time without his child.
But that's *if* he is. Alot of times Fire Fighters, especially ones with
little or no seniority, don't get much of a choice when they do and don't work.
Vicki Robinson
>>I was with you up to here, Kathy. If the guy is deliberately
>>scheduling things so that he gets half of his days off child-free,
>>then that tells you that he wants leisure time without his child.
>
>But that's *if* he is. Alot of times Fire Fighters, especially ones with
>little or no seniority, don't get much of a choice when they do and don't work.
Oh, I agree. That's why I said "if." It's one possibility, that's
all. Something to think about.
Win
"Buster Van Buren" <bus...@dearbuster.com> wrote in message
news:pz52d.441047$%_6.88789@attbi_s01...
Kathy Cole
Robinson) wrote:
> I was with you up to here, Kathy. If the guy is deliberately
> scheduling things so that he gets half of his days off child-free,
> then that tells you that he wants leisure time without his child. As
> hard as that can be to swallow, if that's the way it is, *forcing* him
> to spend all his off-time with his child will only result in
> resentment and possibly baby-sitters other than the stepmom.
Not what I meant. If I misread and mom and dad have 50/50 custody, then
yes, there's a possibility that shifting the days would lead to all
non-work time as time with his child, and I didn't mean to require that.
However, if he's working 24 hour shifts, dad's not working five days a
week, and if he's got anything like standard visitation we're talking
about what are likely a small number of days per month total at dad's
house. If that's the circumstance, it should not be impossible to
rearrange full day shifts to dad when he's not working and still leave
him with non-child non-work time.
> If he never spends time with his child that's one thing. But you
> can't force someone to be a doting father when he's not.
Then he shouldn't bitch about following the agreement and should give
mom the option of having the time back. If this was a regular eight
hour-ish shift and there was some possibility of actually seeing dad on
a work day, that would be different.
Michael and Amanda
"rebecca" <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KTD1d.123$gG4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...> news:BVz1d.191674$mD.181622@attbi_s02...
> > This is a simple one. Grab your divorce papers and go talk to a lawyer.
> > Work out a payment plan with him/her if you can't afford it. If you can
> > find a girl lawyer, do it - girl lawyers do more psychological damage to
> > asshole ex-husbands than guy lawyers do. After the judge has ruled in
> your
> > favor, file a civil suit to recover the attorney fees.
> >
> >
> > Buster Van Buren
>
> yeah, and while you're at it, always take advice from a guy named Buster.
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Michael and Amanda
"rebecca" <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KTD1d.123$gG4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Buster Van Buren" <bus...@dearbuster.com> wrote in message
> news:BVz1d.191674$mD.181622@attbi_s02...
> > This is a simple one. Grab your divorce papers and go talk to a lawyer.
> > Work out a payment plan with him/her if you can't afford it. If you can
> > find a girl lawyer, do it - girl lawyers do more psychological damage to
> > asshole ex-husbands than guy lawyers do. After the judge has ruled in
> your
> > favor, file a civil suit to recover the attorney fees.
> >
> > Good Luck.
> >
> > Buster Van Buren
>
> yeah, and while you're at it, always take advice from a guy named Buster.
>
>
He's just answering her problem with an answer, actually his answer is in
alot shorter form than anyone else's.
Amanda
Vicki Robinson
>He's just answering her problem with an answer, actually his answer is in
>alot shorter form than anyone else's.
But it's bad advice. "Short" doesn't mean "good."
Tai
>
> Hehe..I saw your other 'non' post and laughed, wondering if you meant to
> do that or not.
Not really, I was content to simply read and enjoy. It had something to do
with my 3 year old dumping an armful of matchbox toys on the keyboard and
the hurried fumblings that followed!
> So, now that you've outted yourself.. come on in!
I'd love to, but it's a sad fact that not only do I not know any
step-parents, I also don't know any step-kids so I don't feel qualified to
post. I've enjoyed this newsgroup for years both because of its content wrt
older children (I'm interested in parenting groups) but also because I've
enjoyed the discussions of the complex kinds of relationships that blended
families have to deal with all the time.
> Glad to see another known face around here :)
I'll be watching - even if you can't see me. ;)
(Hi Jess, kiss that bonny babe for me!)
Tai
Joy
>
> "* Calinda *" <CalindaSin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9565EC26A...@130.133.1.4...
> >
> > Hehe..I saw your other 'non' post and laughed, wondering if you meant to
> > do that or not.
>
> Not really, I was content to simply read and enjoy. It had something to do
> with my 3 year old dumping an armful of matchbox toys on the keyboard and
> the hurried fumblings that followed!
LOL! Actually, just a moment ago I thought my pc had gone nuts - things
were uncontrollably scrolling and typing nonsense. Then I realized that my
cat's big fat rear end had overflowed my lap onto my keyboard...
> I'd love to, but it's a sad fact that not only do I not know any
> step-parents, I also don't know any step-kids so I don't feel qualified to
> post. I've enjoyed this newsgroup for years both because of its content
wrt
> older children (I'm interested in parenting groups) but also because I've
> enjoyed the discussions of the complex kinds of relationships that blended
> families have to deal with all the time.
Me too.
>
> > Glad to see another known face around here :)
Seems like there is a lot of overlap, group to group!
Melissa
>alot shorter form than anyone else's.
>
>Amanda
>
>
His answer will also only lead to disaster.
Buster Van Buren
"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> >He's just answering her problem with an answer, actually his answer is in
>>alot shorter form than anyone else's.
>>
>>Amanda
>>
>>
>
> His answer will also only lead to disaster.
> Love,
> Melissa
>
And you know that for sure, right Melissa? You are just a little too
sanctimonious for your own good. Heaven knows that my advice will "lead to
disaster", but your advice is manna straight from heaven. Give me a break.
Ignoring this problem and not even bothering to consult with a lawyer (most
who offer the first consultation free) is the worst thing she could do.
Even if the lawyer says she's screwed, at least she'd have some resolution
and would stop obsessing over it.
Love, (NOT!)
Buster
The Watsons
Gladly. :D
Jess
Melissa
Actually I do. Family court and court related things are a subject I know alot
about. Believe me when I say that I wish I didn't.
>Ignoring this problem and not even bothering to consult with a lawyer (most
>who offer the first consultation free) is the worst thing she could do.
No one suggested that.
rebecca
>
>
> And you know that for sure, right Melissa? You are just a little too
> sanctimonious for your own good. Heaven knows that my advice will "lead
to
> disaster", but your advice is manna straight from heaven. Give me a
break.
> Ignoring this problem and not even bothering to consult with a lawyer
(most
> who offer the first consultation free) is the worst thing she could do.
> Even if the lawyer says she's screwed, at least she'd have some resolution
> and would stop obsessing over it.
>
Wow, am I bored to be answering this. Hey, Bust? You didn't advise her to
"consult a lawyer" - you told her:
"If you can find a girl lawyer, do it - girl lawyers do more psychological
damage to
asshole ex-husbands than guy lawyers do. After the judge has ruled in your
favor, file a civil suit to recover the attorney fees."
So, in 3 little lines, you advised her to sue the father of her child twice,
and to cause as much damage to him as possible in the process. Not to
mention, you're showing off your quite impressive lack of knowledge of how
family court works by not knowing that attorneys fees are (a) a family
court, not civil court issue and (b) not automatically granted, especially
to people that sue for stupid shit.
Have a nice day,
Rebecca
Lori
> "Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
> news:ci980n$dqh$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> > In a previous article, "Buster Van Buren" <bus...@dearbuster.com> said:
> >
> >>"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> >>> >This is a simple one. Grab your divorce papers and go talk to a
> >>> >lawyer.
can
> >>>>find a girl lawyer, do it - girl lawyers do more psychological damage
to
> >>>>asshole ex-husbands than guy lawyers do. After the judge has ruled in
> >>>>your
> >>>>favor, file a civil suit to recover the attorney fees.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > The problem here is that you don't seem to have any experience with
> > this kind of situation. "After the judge has ruled in your favor..."?
> > PLEASE! Do you have any idea how much of a crap shoot that is? Do
> > you have any idea of the number of people that have come through this
> > group with what they thought were slam-dunk court cases (and often
> > they *did* have good cases) only to come back, numb and disbelieving
> > when they found out that "the best interests of the child" mean
> > something different to the judge than it does to them?
> >
> > Breezily recommending that people go to court, with the assumption
> > that they'll win, is just plain bad advice. Court should be an
> > absolute last resort, and people have to realize that there's a good
> > chance that they'll lose. A *very* good chance. It's expensive, it's
> > divisive and frequently simply ups the emotional strain and bad
> > feelings between the parties for no benefit to anyone.
> >
>
> So Vicki...what you are saying is that I shouldn't have advised her to see
> an attorney? She should just sit there and accept the fact that he's
> breaking the tenets of the visitation agreement? When you go to court,
it's
> never a sure thing, but this one sounds pretty cut and dry. I've spoken
to
> a lawyer who's works in family law, and another friend of mine, who is
> actually a Superior Court judge. They both agree that if she came in with
> the evidence that showed that he was not present when the girl was
> supposedly supposed to be "visiting" him, she would have a good chance of
an
> opportunity to draw up a new visitation agreement that would be more
> advantageous to her (and to her daughter, who would then actually only
visit
> her Dad when he was there to spend time with her). This lady right now,
even
> without going to court is within her rights to refuse to let the girl
> continue these visitation visits that end up with her spending time with
> someone other than her father. If he then wanted to contest that, then he
> would have to take HER to court.
I would think this would be dependant on what state they are in. We are in
MI, and For a considerable time during the first year or so that we had
visitation, my husband worked a shift that had him at work during most of
the "extra day during the week" that was allowed as part of visitation. I
picked up and returned my SS, and took care of him (along with our own
child) for most of that time. We were specifically told that if we didn't
use the time (because of DH's work schedule) BM could go back to court and
take it away. *SHE* was told that her feelings regarding me were not
relevant - whether she liked it or not I was her child's SM and *would* be a
large part of his life. She was entitled to absolutely no control over how
his time was spent while with us (though she did attempt to impose a moment
by moment schedule on us before the first visit), just as how she handled
things at her home was not ours to control. here's the thing - if BM is
going to insist on control over whether or not the other parent allows
his/her spouse to be in charge of the child in the absense of the parent,
then the NCP should also be allowed to control whether or not the CP is
allowed to leaver his/her spouse in charge of the child while they are away
at work.
Lori
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/04
Amy Lou
"cj503" <cj5...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d071001bcf7391d9...@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com...
> It's me again. I understand what your saying but the thing is I'm
currently
> a stay at home mom (raising 2 step children with new hubby) and I'm not
> planning on going back to work for atleast another 2 years (in school now
> divorce papers why won't he think he can break another. Our son doesn't
> son needs his dad, parenting time to me is: the parent(s) spend time with
> their chid, not just the stepmom while dads at work. My ex seems more
> concerned with his job than his son and I do have it in my divorce papers
> that my ex will have him on only days that he doesn't work. It just
> crushes me to my sons dad make his work a priority rather than his son.
You know I don't think it is all that unusual for a person to make their job
a higher priority to their kid. Just out of interest how come *you* are
raising your husbands kids? Does it have something to do with his job? How
come its ok for you to be helping raising his kids but not ok for that other
woman to be helping raising your kid?
Amy
rebecca
"Lori" <real...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:B1t2d.39$Yo...@fe39.usenetserver.com...
>
> (though she did attempt to impose a moment
> by moment schedule on us before the first visit)
ah, the good old days. We once were given a sketch by BM's attorney for how
SS's room should be laid out, including stuffed animal placement.
rebecca
Lori
Yes. That was also included in BM's "schedule" we were to follow, that his
bed must be next to the window, that we must play C&W music for him at
night, and on and on. Our attorney said to just "smile, nod, then go home
and do things your own way".
Lori
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/04
cj503
step-parent to two wonderfull children I can look at it from both sides.
As far as me raising my husbands kids and having that be ok verses "The
step-mom" raising my son it a lot different. I know my place as a
step-parent, I am not THE parent. I have respect for my step-kids mother
because of the simple fact that is their mother and I am not. I don't step
out my boundries and on to hers because I know what it is like. I may take
care of the kids help them when they need it and hold them when they need
it. And I will always be their for my step-kids and love them like my own
but I won't take their mothers place and I won't take their mothers name
(calling me mom)their mother earned that right when she gave birth.
As far as the new wife taking care of my son. Let's see, she calls me a
bad mother in front of my son and let's not forget her calling me a crack
ho in front of my son. Or how she tells me to forget about my son because
she's the mom now. This woman yells at my son in front of me and then
looks at me and says god he's being such a brat and then tells me what a
bad job of parenting I am doing, yet she doesn't have children of her own.
My ex does have a choice to stay home or to go into work, I should know I
was married to him. He chooses to go into work. My son should be at home
with me if his father can't take care of him, I'm at home for a reason and
it's to care for the children.
The Watsons
> My ex does have a choice to stay home or to go into work, I should know I
> was married to him.
See, that's the key point-you *were* married to him. You're not now, so some
of his choices got removed and others are limited. If he pays child support,
then he's required to work.
> He chooses to go into work. My son should be at home
> with me if his father can't take care of him, I'm at home for a reason and
> it's to care for the children.
If you're just upset that your son is spending a day with the stepmother
that you don't like, well, not much you can do about that. You need to
consider that by working, your ex *is* taking care of ya'lls son and that
what goes on in that house (barring abuse) is out of your control.
Jess
Vicki Robinson
>
>"cj503" <cj5...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:54a0381ff27d9ea4...@localhost.talkaboutparenting.com...
>
>> My ex does have a choice to stay home or to go into work, I should know I
>> was married to him.
>
>See, that's the key point-you *were* married to him. You're not now, so some
>of his choices got removed and others are limited. If he pays child support,
>then he's required to work.
I think she meant that he has a choice as to his schedule. He can
choose to work while his son is with him, or he can choose to stay
home and work at other times, when his son isn't with him.
Working, per se, is not the issue.
>> He chooses to go into work. My son should be at home
>> with me if his father can't take care of him, I'm at home for a reason and
>> it's to care for the children.
>
>If you're just upset that your son is spending a day with the stepmother
>that you don't like, well, not much you can do about that. You need to
>consider that by working, your ex *is* taking care of ya'lls son and that
>what goes on in that house (barring abuse) is out of your control.
You're right about that. But I can see why she'd wonder if he chooses
to work while his kid is there, and leaves the child with the stepmom,
and has his free time when the child isn't there. After all, the boy
doesn't go there to see his stepmom. He wants to be with his dad.
rebecca
>
> You're right about that. But I can see why she'd wonder if he chooses
> to work while his kid is there, and leaves the child with the stepmom,
> and has his free time when the child isn't there. After all, the boy
> doesn't go there to see his stepmom. He wants to be with his dad.
Yeah, I get this, I think for me, my response would depend upon just how
often it was happening. Also, if I'd made it easier for him to change the
schedule around when he had unavoidable work commitments, and he was still
doing it a lot, I'd wonder.
That being said, unless the visitation is *extremely* limited, I'm of the
camp that says parenting time is for the child to spend being a part of his
father's *life*, not necessarily sitting on daddy's lap the entire time. I
wouldn't have a problem with the stepmom as a sitter ~ 'tho probably not
overnight, gack I'm very indecisive today, aren't I?
rebecca
The Watsons
> choose to work while his son is with him, or he can choose to stay
> home and work at other times, when his son isn't with him.
>
> Working, per se, is not the issue.
No, it's not; but it was my experience that EMS people don't get much of a
choice in their work schedule. What I'm getting as her issue is that she
really, really, Really can't tolerate the SM (understandable, if she
perceives the SM as the reason for the marriage failing), and she's trying
to find an excuse that's not SM-based to keep their son away from SM.
> You're right about that. But I can see why she'd wonder if he chooses
> to work while his kid is there, and leaves the child with the stepmom,
> and has his free time when the child isn't there. After all, the boy
> doesn't go there to see his stepmom. He wants to be with his dad.
He goes there for him and his father to be involved with each other's life,
and family outside of dad is part of that life. It's kind of like Tim's ex
pitched a conniption fit that we let sunshine spend the day over at her
cousin's, and the judge's comment was something to the effect of "and?
parenting time is intended for family involvement."
Jess
Amy Lou
"cj503" <cj5...@yahoo.com>
> My ex does have a choice to stay home or to go into work, I should know I
> was married to him. He chooses to go into work. My son should be at home
> with me if his father can't take care of him, I'm at home for a reason and
> it's to care for the children.
>
I know this is really hard for you but you have to take the good with the
bad. You are no longer married to this guy. That's good. You share a child
with him and you have to put up with his different style of parenting.
That's bad.
I have a question. As upsetting as this situation is for you how is it for
your son? Does he complain? He's only three so I doubt if he even notices
the things that you notice. Perhaps you would be better off concentrating on
how he is affected instead of how you are affected.
Try it and let us know.
Amy
Wendy
abuse? There is no way she shoud be able to get away with that.
Wendy
Vicki Robinson
>If the SM calls her a "crack ho" in front of the child then isn't that
>abuse? There is no way she shoud be able to get away with that.
"Abuse" is the most misused term in the language. It's not abuse.
It's rude and stupid and certainly will have repurcussions later on,
but no, it's not abuse.