Help - how to turn down baby-sitting offer
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
started dating in 2000, and married in 2002 (divorce was final in 2001).
SS22 gets along great with his dad, and he and I have a tentative but friendly
relationship. SD18 was much more open with her anger, and hasn't spent any
regular time with her dad since late 2000. I've never met her, which is her
choice - DH and I agree we're not going to push it.
We added a complication to this mix on May 25, 2004 - our daugher Emily. Both
SS and SD have met Emily, DH taking the baby to visit SD.
Today, DH got an email from SD asking if she could pick up Emily from day care
once a week so they could "spend some time together." Neither DH nor I are
comfortable with this. I'm thinking of my baby in the company of some stranger
who has every reason to resent the hell out of her, and I start conjuring up
movie-of-the-week scenarios in my head. DH isn't quite as paranoid as I am;
but he doesn't really know SD very well any more, and he honestly doesn't know
what goes on in her head. He'd also prefer that he and SD rebuild their
relationship before SD builds a relationship with Emily alone, although he's
happy to have Emily be a part of rebuilding that relationship.
So we're clear that we're going to decline her offer - which is undoubtedly
very nice - but we're a little stuck how to say "no." I've told DH he can
blame it all on me, but he won't do that. I don't want to discourage SD from
having a relationship with her baby sister; but I don't want her as the baby's
primary caregiver, either - even for a few hours. If I knew her and trusted
her...but I guess the issue is I *don't* trust her, whether or not that's
fair.
We've got another two weeks before Emily goes to day care, so we've got a
little time to hash all this out; but DH would really like to give SD an
answer tonight. Any advice from folks a wee bit less emotionally involved
would be greatly appreciated!
TIA,
Liz
--
li...@world.std.com
"No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and
spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they
can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963
Vicki Robinson
>We've got another two weeks before Emily goes to day care, so we've got a
>little time to hash all this out; but DH would really like to give SD an
>answer tonight. Any advice from folks a wee bit less emotionally involved
>would be greatly appreciated!
I like just what you said. Emily is very young, and DH would prefer
to be part of the relationship building between SD and Emily. That
no one, outside of a licensed and inspected day care, takes care of
Emily except her parents. But that he'd be delighted to bring Emily
to spend as much time with SD as she'd like, as often as she'd like,
whereever she'd like, and the three of them would have a great time.
(Tailor that to fit your circumstances.) If SD says "You don't trust
me!" he can say "She's too young, in our estimation, to be spending
time with anyone other than us, or the day care that we carefully
selected. It's not you; it's everyone and anyone. But I'd genuinely
*love* for the three of us to spend time together. Just say the
word."
It might not work, but that's your bottom line, right?
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.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Vicki Robinson <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>It might not work, but that's your bottom line, right?
That sounds great, Vicki, and very sane. :-) Thanks. The one argument we
could get back from SD on that one is that she used to work summers at a
"licensed and inspected day care." Of course, she was an intern or something,
so she herself didn't have certification; but she's got a LOT of experience
caring for infants.
I suspect, though, that no matter how we put it she'll understand what's
really going on. Sigh. I wish there were a way to put it that wouldn't
hurt her feelings...but maybe I have to let that one go.
Vicki Robinson
>In article <cedolh$jau$1...@allhats.xcski.com>,
>
>That sounds great, Vicki, and very sane. :-) Thanks. The one argument we
>could get back from SD on that one is that she used to work summers at a
>"licensed and inspected day care." Of course, she was an intern or something,
>so she herself didn't have certification; but she's got a LOT of experience
>caring for infants.
But not the infrastructure. She won't have all the paraphernalia that
a young baby needs. Where would she take her from day care?
>I suspect, though, that no matter how we put it she'll understand what's
>really going on. Sigh. I wish there were a way to put it that wouldn't
>hurt her feelings...but maybe I have to let that one go.
She chose to let anger get in the way of her relationship with her
father. That was her choice. She's created a lot of the difficulty
here, although she's young and her anger and pain were real and
understandable. Still, she's the reason her dad is no longer involved
with her life in a meaningful way.
Think of this as rapproachment.
jane
>comfortable with this. I'm thinking of my baby in the company of some
>stranger
>who has every reason to resent the hell out of her, and I start conjuring up
>movie-of-the-week scenarios in my head.
Well, this is nuts, but we all do it. It's like a temporary insanity, seeing
the serial killer in every stranger who comes near your baby.
I'd just go with it. "Sorry, SD, but I'm insane in this area right now and
it's not going to happen. Any other ideas on how you can spend time with the
baby? Maybe dinner with your dad and me and the baby once a week? Or maybe I
could snag that time to get a pedicure. What do you think?"
jane
Deborah M Riel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Well, this is nuts, but we all do it. It's like a temporary insanity, seeing
>the serial killer in every stranger who comes near your baby.
Y'know before I had my son, I used to have this insanity about my cat.
Sparky was my firstborn. I imagined when I was at work that someone
would do all kinds of cruel things to him. Danger was lurking around
every corner.
>I'd just go with it. "Sorry, SD, but I'm insane in this area right now and
>it's not going to happen. Any other ideas on how you can spend time with the
>baby? Maybe dinner with your dad and me and the baby once a week? Or maybe I
>could snag that time to get a pedicure. What do you think?"
I think it's a good idea to get to know the SD before just letting her
pick up the baby. Dinner is good. The relationship has to go both
ways. She probably shouldn't expect to have free reign with the baby
if she's not willing to meet the mom and dad halfway.
Deb R.
>jane
Adrienne Winn
She probably shouldn't expect to have free reign with the baby
> if she's not willing to meet the mom and dad halfway.
You know, personally, I don't think she should expect to have any reign
with the baby if she's not willing to meet the mom at all.
How many parents here would honestly hand an *infant* over,
unsupervised, to someone the infant's parent never met and who was
unwilling to meet with the parent at all.
If I had never met my 18 year old SD, (and hypothetically had an infant)
I would be ok with her seeing my child only if she was willing to do
family time with my husband and the infant.
To the original poster: you said
"If I knew her and trusted her...but I guess the issue is I *don't*
trust her, whether or not that's fair."
Screw fair. Frankly, it's your job not to trust her. Why? Because you're
not supposed to trust anyone with your *infant* if you haven't already
met them. I'm sure you didn't pick up the yellow pages to "Daycare",
cover your eyes and just land your finger on a likely looking prospect.
You got references. You met with the people who'll be looking after your
child. You undoubtedly saw the environment that Emily will be in. You
may even have an idea of the other kids she'll be in daycare with.
That's normal. That's what you're *supposed* to be doing with a young
child. Your reaction not to trust her in this situation is completely
normal. (Now, imagining movie of the week scenarios is a different case
-- you may want to examine why you're thinking that way.) But to not
blindly give trust to someone, when it concerns the child it's your
responsibility to look after? Don't feel bad about that. Don't worry
about whether it's fair or not.
Adrienne
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
>the serial killer in every stranger who comes near your baby.
Yeah. Except with SD, add to the "stranger" part someone who has
unresolved issues around both me and her father. She's still really,
really angry about the divorce.
If DH was telling me I was being paranoid, I'd probably find a way to deal.
But he's also uncomfortable, and SD is his kid.
>I'd just go with it. "Sorry, SD, but I'm insane in this area right now and
>it's not going to happen.
LOL! I offered this option to DH, but he won't lay it all on me.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Deborah M Riel <dr...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>
>I think it's a good idea to get to know the SD before just letting her
>pick up the baby. Dinner is good. The relationship has to go both
>ways. She probably shouldn't expect to have free reign with the baby
>if she's not willing to meet the mom and dad halfway.
That's pretty much DH's thinking. We don't even care if she's willing
to meet *me* - he needs to feel like *his* relationship with SD is on
more solid ground before he'll consider leaving her with the baby.
jane
>seeing
>>the serial killer in every stranger who comes near your baby.
>
>Yeah. Except with SD, add to the "stranger" part someone who has
>unresolved issues around both me and her father. She's still really,
>really angry about the divorce.
Well, going from angry about the divorce to hurting your baby is nuts.
>If DH was telling me I was being paranoid, I'd probably find a way to deal.
>But he's also uncomfortable, and SD is his kid.
Yes, well he's supposed to be nuts too.
>
>>I'd just go with it. "Sorry, SD, but I'm insane in this area right now and
>>it's not going to happen.
>
>LOL! I offered this option to DH, but he won't lay it all on me.
>
Tailor it. My point is that you don't have to be rational about this. And
you're not. Just admit it up front. It's fine. Because there's no way you're
going to be able to justify this to your SD otherwise. There's no way you can
get around thinking she's a monster.
Let me think of a better way to say this. I know because I have had a baby
that babies' parents might not want me to go near them. I would never walk up
to a baby and touch it without consulting the parent. I stand a few feet away
and coo at it. I wave and smile. If you told me that you weren't comfortable
with me taking care of your baby it wouldn't cross my mind to be offended. I
know I'd be fine, but you don't, and you have to know. You have to *know* - not
calculate the probabilities.
Your SD doesn't know this. If you tell her you're not entirely sure she
wouldn't hurt your baby, she will be hurt and offended. She will not
understand the context, because she has never a baby.
jane
>Liz
jane
>to meet *me* - he needs to feel like *his* relationship with SD is on
>more solid ground before he'll consider leaving her with the baby.
>
>Liz
This I don't get.
jane
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Adrienne Winn <helto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>But to not
>blindly give trust to someone, when it concerns the child it's your
>responsibility to look after? Don't feel bad about that. Don't worry
>about whether it's fair or not.
Thanks, Adrienne. I don't really feel bad about it; I was just hoping
to find a way to tell SD that wouldn't make her feel bad. I'm
beginning to realize that's probably impossible.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Your SD doesn't know this. If you tell her you're not entirely sure she
>wouldn't hurt your baby, she will be hurt and offended. She will not
>understand the context, because she has never a baby.
Which is, I think, why DH wants to approach it from a different direction.
I suspect if you asked him if he seriously believed his daughter would
harm the baby, he'd say no - but there'd be a smidgen of doubt there,
because he doesn't feel he knows her anymore.
I don't want to speak for DH; I don't understand all the complexities
in his relationship with SD. I do know that their interactions -
which are largely email-only at this point, her choice - are either
extremely superficial, or deteriorate rapidly into the same exchange:
he wants to know what she needs from him to start rebuilding their
relationship, and she says he needs to admit that leaving her and her
mother was the wrong thing to do, and that neither of them were to
blame. He's happy to reassure SD that she had nothing to do with it;
but he won't lie to her and say he feels that leaving her mom was
wrong. At this point SD generally drops off the face of the earth
for weeks or months - generally until she needs money for something -
and then we're back to the superficial again.
This cycle has been going on for years. Regardless of whether his
objections are based on trust or feeling like she's still trying
to avoid the fact of my existence by spending time with Emily
without me OR him, I can't say as I blame him.
(But of course, I wouldn't, since I am admittedly nuts on this issue.)
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
I tried to explain my understanding of it in my previous post. Fair or
unfair, given my feelings I'm not going to try to talk him out of it.
It would certainly piss off SD; but maybe it wouldn't be as hurtful to
her as telling her I'm worried about her throwing tha baby out a
window. Frankly, I still think blaming me is the safest way to go.
Kathy Cole
Bonesteel) wrote:
> (But of course, I wouldn't, since I am admittedly nuts on this issue.)
It's nowhere near nuts to say no to a stranger taking charge of your
newborn.
jane
>>>We don't even care if she's willing
>>>to meet *me* - he needs to feel like *his* relationship with SD is on
>>>more solid ground before he'll consider leaving her with the baby.
>>>
>>>Liz
>>
>>This I don't get.
>
>I tried to explain my understanding of it in my previous post.
Yes, I got it.
> Fair or
>unfair, given my feelings I'm not going to try to talk him out of it.
>
>It would certainly piss off SD; but maybe it wouldn't be as hurtful to
>her as telling her I'm worried about her throwing tha baby out a
>window. Frankly, I still think blaming me is the safest way to go.
>
So do I.
jane
>Liz
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Kathy Cole <ka...@scconsult.com> wrote:
>
>It's nowhere near nuts to say no to a stranger taking charge of your
>newborn.
I was thinking about this. She's not a stranger to DH, of course -
except she is, really. Which is an awful shame; but there you are.
I wouldn't have a problem with someone DH knew and I didn't looking
after Emily, if he was comfortable with their references, and/or had
seen them in action with Em often enough to be comfortaable with their
skills. But I'd want to at least meet them myself first; and if that
wasn't possible, it better be due to scheduling conflicts and not
because they wanted to keep on pretending I didn't exist.
The whole situation is sad and unfair; but I'm not leaving SD alone with
my child just to make her feel better. (I don't mean for that to sound
defensive, BTW - it's just that I've just figured it out.)
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Frankly, I still think blaming me is the safest way to go.
>
>So do I.
Well, he didn't; but I think he handled it pretty well. He went the
Vicki route of being straightforward and factual: he thanked her fir
the offer, and said he thought they had some relationship-building to
do first.
Then he invited her over to spend some time with him and Emily - he's
going to be home with the baby for a couple of days over the next few
weeks, so there will be multiple opportunities. We'll see how she
responds.
jane
>Kathy Cole <ka...@scconsult.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's nowhere near nuts to say no to a stranger taking charge of your
>>newborn.
>
>I was thinking about this. She's not a stranger to DH, of course -
>except she is, really. Which is an awful shame; but there you are.
>
>I wouldn't have a problem with someone DH knew and I didn't looking
>after Emily, if he was comfortable with their references, and/or had
>seen them in action with Em often enough to be comfortaable with their
>skills. But I'd want to at least meet them myself first; and if that
>wasn't possible, it better be due to scheduling conflicts and not
>because they wanted to keep on pretending I didn't exist.
>
>The whole situation is sad and unfair; but I'm not leaving SD alone with
>my child just to make her feel better. (I don't mean for that to sound
>defensive, BTW - it's just that I've just figured it out.)
>
>Liz
I think you're blurring two issues, though. a. You have a right to protect
your child. b. Your child has a right to know her sister.
I don't see a real conflict between them right now, but at some point you may
have to weigh and balance. You'd be scum to hold your daughter hostage to get
your SD to accept you. Ditto with DH using one child to force the other to
reconcile with him. I'm not saying you're doing that. I just think you're
better off having it clear in your head.
jane
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
H Bonesteel) wrote:
>In article <20040801104524...@mb-m29.aol.com>,
>jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Frankly, I still think blaming me is the safest way to go.
>>
>>So do I.
>
>Well, he didn't; but I think he handled it pretty well. He went the
>Vicki route of being straightforward and factual: he thanked her fir
>the offer, and said he thought they had some relationship-building to
>do first.
>
>Then he invited her over to spend some time with him and Emily - he's
>going to be home with the baby for a couple of days over the next few
>weeks, so there will be multiple opportunities. We'll see how she
>responds.
Sounds to me like a very reasonable approach. Good luck.
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Deborah M Riel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>I think you're blurring two issues, though. a. You have a right to protect
>your child. b. Your child has a right to know her sister.
>
>jane
Except that there are many ways for the sisters to get to know each
other without giving the 18 yr old permission to pick up the infant
from daycare, when the 18 yr old refuses to meet the mother of the
infant and admittedly is hostile towards her.
When my former SIL used to babysit for my son when he was an infant,
she developed a hostility towards me for reasons I never understood.
As soon as that became clear (*very* clear) I picked up my son and she
no longer was permitted to watch him. I no longer trusted her
intentions.
When she made an effort a year later to reestablish a relationship
with me, and recognized & apologized for her hostility, I once again
allowed my son to have contact with her, although not without
reservations.
Deb R.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
>have to weigh and balance. You'd be scum to hold your daughter hostage to get
>your SD to accept you. Ditto with DH using one child to force the other to
>reconcile with him. I'm not saying you're doing that. I just think you're
>better off having it clear in your head.
I agree. I actually feel pretty clear. I'd very much like my daughter
to know SD. SD doesn't have to like or accept me for that to happen;
neither does she need to have a hearts-and-flowers relationship with her
dad. As long as she's willing to be courteous, she can see the baby in
the company of her dad whenever she wants. However, I do think at least
one of us has to know the child well enough to trust her as a caregiver
before we consider leaving the baby with her alone. I guess I see that as
different from interfering in SD's relationship with her sister.
WhansaMi
>one of us has to know the child well enough to trust her as a caregiver
>before we consider leaving the baby with her alone. I guess I see that as
>different from interfering in SD's relationship with her sister.
>
>Liz
>
I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, to
have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing her
opinion about you or your marriage.
Sheila
jane
>one of us has to know the child well enough to trust her as a caregiver
>before we consider leaving the baby with her alone. I guess I see that as
>different from interfering in SD's relationship with her sister.
>
>Liz
I don't think you ever have to choose SD as a caregiver for your child. I
certainly don't think you should leave the baby alone with anyone you don't
trust.
I'm just spinning it out. My experience here and IRL is that it could be less
than totally pleasant and convenient for you and DH for the two girls to have
contact. When it's a huge hassle to facilitate your perfect baby's
relationship with her shit sister, that bright line can get pretty dim.
Do you see what I mean? How courteous is courteous? Is it okay to shoot
daggers at her father while she coos and murmurs to the baby? If she doesn't
want to come to your house, does DH schlepp everything to neutral ground? What
if it's snowing? When does SD's mother get to meet her sister?
You can resolve all this stuff just fine. I'm not trying to scare you. It's
just that *for me* to do it, I have to untangle everything. I have to figure
out what is my feeling of resentment and what is my genuine concern. You're
probably much, much nicer and more clearheaded than I am, and you will never
have to admit to yourself that you are playing the concern card when you really
want to prove to the little bitch that she can't yank your chain and see your
baby. I'm just throwing it out there because that's what I do.
jane
charlene
I think you did the right thing. I only have had one babysitter for my
son and he is 6, other than the schools or therapists. What about
having her babysit at your home for an hour or so to start while you
and hubby go out to a movie or something and go from there. Good Luck
charlene
jane
>I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, to
>have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing her
>opinion about you or your marriage.
>
>Sheila
Oh good. This is a perfect example of the kind of situation where I (I, I, I)
would start out thinking that I was acting out of concern and end up realizing
that I was acting out of annoyance.
It would burn my ass that my SD was telling my kid that I broke up her parents'
marriage and that their father abandoned her and her mother. I would tell
myself that it was harmful to my child to hear these things. Upon reflection I
don't really believe that it is all that harmful. It's part of her
relationship with her sister even if it does impinge a little on my
relationship with my kid. I wouldn't like it, I'd just figure I bought it.
jane
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
>It would burn my ass that my SD was telling my kid that I broke up her parents'
>marriage and that their father abandoned her and her mother. I would tell
>myself that it was harmful to my child to hear these things. Upon reflection I
>don't really believe that it is all that harmful.
Actually, yes, it *can* be harmful to kids to hear things like that
about their parents. The degree of harm would depend upon how the
individual child deals with such things, but for some, something of
that nature can be extremely harmful.
WhansaMi
>to
>>have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing her
>>opinion about you or your marriage.
>>
>>Sheila
>
>Oh good. This is a perfect example of the kind of situation where I (I, I,
>I)
>would start out thinking that I was acting out of concern and end up
>realizing
>that I was acting out of annoyance.
>
>It would burn my ass that my SD was telling my kid that I broke up her
>parents'
>marriage and that their father abandoned her and her mother. I would tell
>myself that it was harmful to my child to hear these things. Upon reflection
>I
>don't really believe that it is all that harmful.
I believe very differently. Yes, it would be annoying, but the major reason
I'd have trouble with it is because of the impact it could have on my child.
And, it wouldn't just be the SD. That would apply to any person who said
things like that to my child.
Sheila
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Deborah M Riel <dr...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>When she made an effort a year later to reestablish a relationship
>with me, and recognized & apologized for her hostility, I once again
>allowed my son to have contact with her, although not without
>reservations.
This is exactly where things start getting cloudy for me. When Emily is
older and can start sharing her feelings and impressions of her sister,
I can factor those into the equation. Right now all I have to go on is
SD's behavior toward her dad, and I have to make Emily's decisions for
her.
I don't *think* I'm doing any of this to punish SD; but her hostility
toward her dad definitely factors into my thinking.
rebecca
"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040801174122...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> When does SD's mother get to meet her sister?
Ooh, this was a funky one for me. My first answer was over my dead body.
Then it was really no big shakes, by the end of little league he was
wandering past her at will.
Now, if the question is - when does SS's brother get to play at SS's
mother's house, your answer is just kill me now.
rebecca
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
WhansaMi <whan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, to
>have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing her
>opinion about you or your marriage.
While I agree with you, I don't think "reasonable" means it'll work
that way - Emily's likely to sense some tension whether SD says anything
specific or not.
I've actually thought a lot about what to tell Emily about me and DH -
questions will come up, whether or not they're provoked by comments
by SD.
WhansaMi
>WhansaMi <whan...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older,
>to
>>have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing her
>>opinion about you or your marriage.
>
>While I agree with you, I don't think "reasonable" means it'll work
>that way - Emily's likely to sense some tension whether SD says anything
>specific or not.
That may be, but I think there is a difference between tension (which may or
may not be felt by the child.... many are oblivious!) and out and out negative
things being said. For me, the first is manageable, the second is not.
When my ex and I first got divorced, we were on the opposite coast from my
family. Within a year, we moved within 7 hours drive. The very first time I
went down, I laid down the ground rules: no bad-mouthing the ex, or they'd not
be seeing me/us. And, this was *my* family.
Sheila
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I'm just spinning it out. My experience here and IRL is that it could be less
>than totally pleasant and convenient for you and DH for the two girls to have
>contact. When it's a huge hassle to facilitate your perfect baby's
>relationship with her shit sister, that bright line can get pretty dim.
FWIW, neither one of us thinks of SD as our baby's "shit sister." (Neither
is our baby perfect, although she's close. ;-)) SD actually met Emily
very early on - and yes, DH went out of his way to drive the baby to BM's
house so SD could meet her on an evening she had free.
I take your point, though - it's an emotionally cluttered situation, and
SD *has* been the center of a fair amount of angst around here. Neither
DH nor I want to use the baby as a bargaining chip; but on some level,
I think it's unavoidable. For instance, if she's bitchy to her dad, she's
not likely to get invited back any time soon. If, however, she's not
comfortable with anything more than neutral pleasantries about the
weather - well, that'd be OK.
>When does SD's mother get to meet her sister?
I would guess when she asks. I would also guess that'll never happen -
when she and DH run into each other, she literally behaves as if he
doesn't exist.
>You can resolve all this stuff just fine. I'm not trying to scare you. It's
>just that *for me* to do it, I have to untangle everything. I have to figure
>out what is my feeling of resentment and what is my genuine concern. You're
>probably much, much nicer and more clearheaded than I am, and you will never
>have to admit to yourself that you are playing the concern card when you really
>want to prove to the little bitch that she can't yank your chain and see your
>baby. I'm just throwing it out there because that's what I do.
For which I thank you - you're one of the saner heads I was hoping would
reply!
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe <kitt...@stbrigidsgatefarm-at-peoplepc.com> wrote:
>On 01 Aug 2004 22:11:02 GMT, janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote:
>
>>
>>It would burn my ass that my SD was telling my kid that I broke up her parents'
>>marriage and that their father abandoned her and her mother. I would tell
>>myself that it was harmful to my child to hear these things. Upon reflection I
>>don't really believe that it is all that harmful.
>
>
>Actually, yes, it *can* be harmful to kids to hear things like that
>about their parents. The degree of harm would depend upon how the
>individual child deals with such things, but for some, something of
>that nature can be extremely harmful.
I suppose it depends on what's said; but surely many of the same
concerns will crop up naturally? I'm already thinking of what to say
when Emily asks me if her dad and I will get divorced like he and BM
did.
jane
>>that way - Emily's likely to sense some tension whether SD says anything
>>specific or not.
>
>That may be, but I think there is a difference between tension (which may or
>may not be felt by the child.... many are oblivious!) and out and out
>negative
>things being said. For me, the first is manageable, the second is not.
I don't see it so much as a manageability question as outside your purview.
You bring children into the world already standing in a variety of
relationships with different people. As a parent you can influence those
relationships, but you cannot define or erase them.
SD is Emily's sister. One of the perquisites of a sibling relationship is
criticizing and finding fault with parents. Stepparenting skews the situation
because the parents are not entirely shared, but virtually all of us who have
siblings have ripped our parents to shreds with them at one time or another.
In this situation with SD being so much older than Emily, I would worry more
about them not having much of a relationship at all. It happens really easily
and it leaves people feeling incomplete. I don't know how many kids Liz is
planning to have, but you can't buy family. In the big picture, putting up
with a little hostility is nothing compared to her child having a sister.
jane
>Sheila
jane
>I'm just throwing it out there because that's what I do.
>
>For which I thank you -
You're welcome and thanks for taking it in the spirit in which it was intended.
jane
>
>Liz
WhansaMi
You and I would, apparently, have different goals in this scenerio, then. My
goal would be to protect my child from that hostility when she was young.
(When she gets to be an older teen, or an adult, different story.)
I understand there is a risk of their being no relationship between them if I
set down this groundrule, but it seems to me that if the SD is unwilling to
abide by that rule, her presence in my child's life would be more harmful and
disruptive, than positive.
JMHO.
Sheila
Sheila
jane
>You and I would, apparently, have different goals in this scenerio, then. My
>goal would be to protect my child from that hostility when she was young.
>(When she gets to be an older teen, or an adult, different story.)
I meant hostility towards DH and possibly towards Liz. I don't think I ever
felt Lee had to be protected from my SKs hostility towards me. I can't imagine
how I could have shielded her from it if I had wanted to, and it was such a
good tool in helping her deal with her own hostility towards her own SM.
>
>I understand there is a risk of their being no relationship between them if I
>set down this groundrule, but it seems to me that if the SD is unwilling to
>abide by that rule, her presence in my child's life would be more harmful and
>disruptive, than positive.
I presume that you see some underlying logic in that deduction. I can't
rationally get from unwilling to abide by my rule to harmful. I don't see the
connection there. And that's what I have to do when emotions are entangled in
a decision. I have to question myself and make sure that all the steps from
point A to point B are sound, not just what I want to believe.
jane
>
>JMHO.
>
>Sheila
WhansaMi
>My
>>goal would be to protect my child from that hostility when she was young.
>>(When she gets to be an older teen, or an adult, different story.)
>
>I meant hostility towards DH and possibly towards Liz.
So do I.
I don't think I ever
>felt Lee had to be protected from my SKs hostility towards me. I can't
>imagine
>how I could have shielded her from it if I had wanted to, and it was such a
>good tool in helping her deal with her own hostility towards her own SM.
I don't think it is healthy for young kids to hear their parents "run down". I
don't think it is healthy for them to hear it from the parents, or from others.
Again, JMHO.
>>
>>I understand there is a risk of their being no relationship between them if
>I
>>set down this groundrule, but it seems to me that if the SD is unwilling to
>>abide by that rule, her presence in my child's life would be more harmful
>and
>>disruptive, than positive.
>
>I presume that you see some underlying logic in that deduction. I can't
>rationally get from unwilling to abide by my rule to harmful.
Harmful in that she would continue to run down me or my marriage in front of my
child/children. I believe that this is, a priori, a harmful act.
I also think that if someone were to insist on being able to engage in such
behavior, despite my wishes, that the relationship within the family would be
toxic.
I don't see
>the
>connection there. And that's what I have to do when emotions are entangled
>in
>a decision. I have to question myself and make sure that all the steps from
>point A to point B are sound, not just what I want to believe.
Because you don't agree with me (if I am reading this correctly) that running
down parents in front of small children is harmful. I do. Different set of
assumptions.
Sheila
>
>jane
>>
>>JMHO.
>>
>>Sheila
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Watsons
"rebecca" <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZVfPc.5773$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Now, if the question is - when does SS's brother get to play at SS's
> mother's house, your answer is just kill me now.
I might be joining you, then-one of SO's son's questions is when his sister
can come spend the night. My snap answer to that one was "not a snowball's
chance in hell."
Jess
jane
>>My
>>>goal would be to protect my child from that hostility when she was young.
>>>(When she gets to be an older teen, or an adult, different story.)
>>
>>I meant hostility towards DH and possibly towards Liz.
>
>So do I.
>
>I don't think I ever
>>felt Lee had to be protected from my SKs hostility towards me. I can't
>>imagine
>>how I could have shielded her from it if I had wanted to, and it was such a
>>good tool in helping her deal with her own hostility towards her own SM.
>
>I don't think it is healthy for young kids to hear their parents "run down".
>I
>don't think it is healthy for them to hear it from the parents, or from
>others.
> Again, JMHO.
I don't see why you're jumping from hostility to the parents being "run down."
People in your child's life feel hostility towards her parents. Her parents
feel hostility towards each other. Kids grow up hearing their brothers and
sisters telling their parents they hate them and fighting in school yards with
kids who rank their parents and watching their mothers yell at their aunts over
the phone. It's just a part of life.
>but it seems to me that if the SD is unwilling to
>>>abide by that rule, her presence in my child's life would be more harmful
>>and
>>>disruptive, than positive.
>>
>>I presume that you see some underlying logic in that deduction. I can't
>>rationally get from unwilling to abide by my rule to harmful.
>
>Harmful in that she would continue to run down me or my marriage in front of
>my
>child/children. I believe that this is, a priori, a harmful act.
It can be harmful to a child to have her relationship with a parent undermined.
But how harmful does it have to be to justify undermining a relationship with
her sibling? That's a harmful act too.
It's a different situation dealing with people who are related to your kid but
not to you. Liz doesn't know SD from a hole in the wall, but she's her baby's
sister. You can't just tell her she can't see her own sister. I mean you can,
but she'll resent you for it. And justifiably so. Screwing with a
relationship with a sibling is right in there with screwing with a relationship
with a parent.
>
>I also think that if someone were to insist on being able to engage in such
>behavior, despite my wishes, that the relationship within the family would be
>toxic.
I'm not getting your point. What relationship would be toxic? What do you
mean by "the family"?
I'm not asking this rhetorically. It's a complicated question. Liz's SD is
part of her child's family and her DH's family, but she's not really a part of
her family. It's a weird situation. On several occasions I have run into
Lee's brothers and not recognized them. Are they part of my family? I'd do
whatever I could for them, but because they're Lee's brothers not because of
anything I feel for them personally.
>I don't see
>>the
>>connection there. And that's what I have to do when emotions are entangled
>>in
>>a decision. I have to question myself and make sure that all the steps from
>>point A to point B are sound, not just what I want to believe.
>
>Because you don't agree with me (if I am reading this correctly) that running
>down parents in front of small children is harmful. I do. Different set of
>assumptions.
No, it's not that. I can see that some degree of parent bashing at certain ages
could be harmful to the child. I just don't see how you get to "her presence
in my child's life would be more harmful and disruptive, than positive." If
you were saying that it could be inconvenient or require you to monitor and
supervise the relationship more closely than you'd like, I could see that. But
her presence in your child's life? That's quite a leap.
jane
>
>Sheila
>>
>>jane
>>>
>>>JMHO.
>>>
>>>Sheila
>>
The Watsons
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:cek30r$peu$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> I take your point, though - it's an emotionally cluttered situation, and
> SD *has* been the center of a fair amount of angst around here. Neither
> DH nor I want to use the baby as a bargaining chip; but on some level,
> I think it's unavoidable. For instance, if she's bitchy to her dad, she's
> not likely to get invited back any time soon. If, however, she's not
> comfortable with anything more than neutral pleasantries about the
> weather - well, that'd be OK.
I'm going to jump in, mainly because we just got through handling this with
my parents. The basic terms were that they had to play nice (no
trashtalking), and in my father's case, he has to be sober, and we reserve
the right to question that at any time. Ironically enough, it's been my
father that's been the better behaved of the two of them.
You're not using your baby as a "bargaining chip", you are laying down the
boundaries for contact with her that would make the contact not be
detrimental to her now, or in the future. With her being this young, she is
going to pick up on some tension, and trying to calm a screaming baby down
isn't exactly the most soothing thing in the world, and it only gets worse
as she gets older.
While some "dad is such an ass" griping between siblings is normal, it is
not normal or appropriate (to us, at least) for there to be constant
slamming of either or both parents, and the relationship between the parents
is most definently not a topic of conversation-that's not their business at
any point in time. You're not out of line to tell your SD "sure, you can see
her, but it has to be here where *either* of us can supervise and the first
negative comment sees you out the door." She gets to make the choice of
whether or not she brings her behavior into line, though I will tell you
that enforcing that boundary isn't the easiest. Yes, Sheila's standard of
whether or not her presence was more detrimental or more beneficial is a
good one, and exactly the one we used for my parents. :)
And no, you don't get to go out of your way to make life easier on her-your
life is already difficult enough with a newborn. She comes to you. :)
Jess
WhansaMi
being "run down." >>>
My original statement was:
I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, to
have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing her
opinion about you or your marriage.
That is what I meant by "voicing her opinion about you or your marriage" --
running Liz or her marriage down.
>>>Kids grow up hearing their brothers and
sisters telling their parents they hate them and fighting in school yards with
kids who rank their parents and watching their mothers yell at their aunts over
the phone. It's just a part of life>>>
That's within the context (we would hope) of a loving family -- that's
different. Also, as you know, it would not be okay for the kids who live with
me to tell me they hated me, anyway. There would be the expectation of an
apology, to me, and anyone who witnessed it. This type of situation would not
lend itself to that kind of thing.
Again, I know we disagree about that, but there it is. That is how it is in my
household.
>>>>It can be harmful to a child to have her relationship with a parent
undermined.
But how harmful does it have to be to justify undermining a relationship with
her sibling? That's a harmful act too. >>>
I think the relationship with the parent is paramount. It comes first,
siblings second.
>>>>It's a different situation dealing with people who are related to your kid
but
not to you. Liz doesn't know SD from a hole in the wall, but she's her baby's
sister. You can't just tell her she can't see her own sister. I mean you can,
but she'll resent you for it. And justifiably so. Screwing with a
relationship with a sibling is right in there with screwing with a relationship
with a parent. >>>>
If she refused to agree not to run down me or my marriage in front of the
child, then it is *her* choice, not mine. I wouldn't be stopping her from
seeing her sister, she would be making that choice.
>Because you don't agree with me (if I am reading this correctly) that running
>down parents in front of small children is harmful. I do. Different set of
>assumptions.
>>>No, it's not that. I can see that some degree of parent bashing at certain
ages
could be harmful to the child. I just don't see how you get to "her presence
in my child's life would be more harmful and disruptive, than positive." If
you were saying that it could be inconvenient or require you to monitor and
supervise the relationship more closely than you'd like, I could see that. But
her presence in your child's life? That's quite a leap. >>>
I'm not willing to tolerate any parent bashing when the kids are young.
<shrug> Different cut off points, I guess.
And, Liz, please know that, at this point, I, at least, am approaching this as
a philosophical discussion. I don't know your SD, what you expect, and what
the situation is. I certainly don't want to argue that this applies to you and
your family at all.
Sheila
heather m.
>
>
> >I'm just throwing it out there because that's what I do.
> >
I think this would make a funny quote with your name attached Jane. Can I
use it?
Heather
Deborah M Riel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>It can be harmful to a child to have her relationship with a parent undermined.
> But how harmful does it have to be to justify undermining a relationship with
>her sibling? That's a harmful act too.
I think you have to weigh carefully the goal of the hostility. In the
case I mentioned earlier (my former SIL who was my son's daycare
provider when he was an infant) the goal of her irrational hostility
was to use my son to try to destroy me. She tried to file unfounded
reports with CPS about what I was packing for his lunch, believe it or
not. She also tried to plant the same type of doubts about my
parenting (and my marriage) to my (then) husband and in-laws. It was
irrational and frightening. I didn't see it coming--I thought we were
friends.
So, if I *knew* someone was openly hostile towards me, and wanted to
be able to pick up my infant from daycare without having met me or
dealt with those feelings of hostility, I wouldn't trust her motives,
or the direction that the hostility could take.
Deb R.
>jane
jane
>>>>Kids grow up hearing their brothers and
>sisters telling their parents they hate them and fighting in school yards
>with
>kids who rank their parents and watching their mothers yell at their aunts
>over
>the phone. It's just a part of life>>>
>
>That's within the context (we would hope) of a loving family -- that's
>different.
See, I'm assuming that it is within the context of a loving family. You're
just not necessarily part of it. If the SD turned out to be actively hostile
to her sister, that would be a different kettle of fish. IMVE that's not
likely. What is likely is that she will love her sister and continue to feel
hostile about her father leaving and marrying Liz.
> But how harmful does it have to be to justify undermining a relationship
>with
>her sibling? That's a harmful act too. >>>
>
>I think the relationship with the parent is paramount. It comes first,
>siblings second.
Whatever the ranking, both are huge. Because she's the parent, it is Liz's job
to do her best for her kid. That includes supporting the parent relationship
and the sibling relationship. SD OTOH is a sibling, her job is the her own
relationship with her sister. Although, to be fair, in this case since she is
so much older, I would expect her to have some sense.
>
>If she refused to agree not to run down me or my marriage in front of the
>child, then it is *her* choice, not mine. I wouldn't be stopping her from
>seeing her sister, she would be making that choice.
Not seeing her sister is not an automatic consequence of criticizing your
marriage. It's not like getting wet from going out in the rain. She'd be
choosing to run down your marriage. You'd be choosing to stop her from seeing
her sister.
>>>>No, it's not that. I can see that some degree of parent bashing at certain
>ages
>could be harmful to the child. I just don't see how you get to "her presence
>in my child's life would be more harmful and disruptive, than positive." If
>you were saying that it could be inconvenient or require you to monitor and
>supervise the relationship more closely than you'd like, I could see that.
>But
>her presence in your child's life? That's quite a leap. >>>
>
>I'm not willing to tolerate any parent bashing when the kids are young.
><shrug> Different cut off points, I guess.
I understand that you believe that criticism of a parent is the ultimate bad
for the child. I haven't dropped this yet because I'm not seeing
acknowledgement of the importance of sibling relationships and the harm that is
done by interfering with them.
This is one of those situations that I find you have to flip to see fully. How
would you feel if your ex had another child and prevented your children from
seeing her because they wouldn't swallow the party line about the end of your
marriage? Or he told your son that he couldn't see his younger sister because
he complained that their father never had time for him?
Your son and his sister would have to work out *their* situation to have a
satisfying relationship, and you and your DH and your ex and his new wife would
all have some relation to that. It's not always comfortable and your kid faces
complex issues and may come to you with hard questions. But it's all part of
the territory of serial marriage and second families.
jane
>
>Sheila
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Help - how to turn down baby-sitting offer
>Path: lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>Lines: 67
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>From: whan...@aol.com (WhansaMi)
>Newsgroups: alt.support.step-parents
>Date: 02 Aug 2004 05:30:11 GMT
>References: <20040802011600...@mb-m10.aol.com>
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Message-ID: <20040802013011...@mb-m14.aol.com>
>
jane
Deb, you just can't draw conclusions from that relationship to what you would
do with a sibling. DSS is extreme. That placing doubts about your parenting
and your marriage with your husband and inlaws part - that's standard. I can
almost guarantee that if you had a child with your SO now, your son would have
a million complaints about his parenting of his brother. And if your SO
decided that that meant he couldn't see his brother, the top of your head would
blow off.
jane
>
>Deb R.
>
>>jane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Help - how to turn down baby-sitting offer
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsreader.com!news
reader.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.sta
nford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!bigboote.WPI.EDU!not-for-mail
>From: dr...@wpi.edu (Deborah M Riel)
>Newsgroups: alt.support.step-parents
>Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:05:18 +0000 (UTC)
>Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA
>Lines: 27
>Message-ID: <cele6e$1kh0$1...@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
>References: <20040801233551...@mb-m14.aol.com>
><20040802011600...@mb-m10.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: rational.wpi.edu
>X-Trace: bigboote.WPI.EDU 1091451918 53792 130.215.56.155 (2 Aug 2004
>13:05:18 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@wpi.edu
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:05:18 +0000 (UTC)
>X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
>Originator: dr...@wpi.edu (Deborah M Riel)
>
jane
>use it?
>
>Heather
Sure. I said it on usenet.
jane
jane
>I'm going to jump in, mainly because we just got through handling this with
>my parents.
Okay, at the risk of being redundant, you can't equate grandparents with
siblings in this area.
>While some "dad is such an ass" griping between siblings is normal, it is
>not normal or appropriate (to us, at least) for there to be constant
>slamming of either or both parents, and the relationship between the parents
>is most definently not a topic of conversation-that's not their business at
>any point in time.
It is totally the business of the parents' offspring. It's not just that the
parental relationships define the parameters of their lives; it's that
examining, tearing apart, and discussing the parental relationships is their
classroom for their own relationships.
jane
>
>Jess
The Watsons
> I understand that you believe that criticism of a parent is the ultimate
bad
> for the child. I haven't dropped this yet because I'm not seeing
> acknowledgement of the importance of sibling relationships and the harm
that is
> done by interfering with them.
First off, any relationship with Emily is going to primarily through her
parents right now, with Emily as a common interest.
> This is one of those situations that I find you have to flip to see fully.
How
> would you feel if your ex had another child and prevented your children
from
> seeing her because they wouldn't swallow the party line about the end of
your
> marriage? Or he told your son that he couldn't see his younger sister
because
> he complained that their father never had time for him?
IMO, it's not about swallowing the party line, it's about putting the
argument to the side. I'm not seeing any requirement that she completely
change her view, I'm seeing a requirement that she not voice that view and
remain courteous while she's with Emily, and that's not at all unreasonable.
Jess
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
WhansaMi <whan...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <20040801134955...@mb-m14.aol.com>,
>>WhansaMi <whan...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older,
>>to
>>>have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing her
>>>opinion about you or your marriage.
>>
>>While I agree with you, I don't think "reasonable" means it'll work
>>that way - Emily's likely to sense some tension whether SD says anything
>>specific or not.
>
>That may be, but I think there is a difference between tension (which may or
>may not be felt by the child.... many are oblivious!) and out and out negative
>things being said. For me, the first is manageable, the second is not.
I've just finished reading through this thread, so I hope y'all will forgive
me if I don't respond to everyone.
I think I take a position somewhere between yours and Jane's. I do see Jane's
point that a sibling relationship is important; but I think it has to be a
*healthy* sibling relationship. When Emily is older, she gets to have input
into whether or not it's healthy; right now, I get to decide.
As far as hostile comments go - to me, it depends entirely on how Emily takes
it. If it's general bitching about how the divorce sucked; well, that's the
truth - it did suck. If she starts down a path that makes Emily question her
own familial security - well, I think it depends on how old Emily is and how
much she can comprehend. At some point in her life she'll understand that
some people, when they're hurt, need to lash out at other people, and that
sometimes the opinions they state have everything to do with their own history
and nothing to do with fact. If Emily is consistently disturbed by SD's
comments, then I have absolutely no problem laying down the law with SD: let
me know when you can knock it off, and then you and your sister can hang out
again.
I have no problem asking SD not to bad-mouth her dad or me; but realistically
I know she'll slip from time to time, even with the best of intentions. I
guess my gague for when to intervene depends entirely on Emily's response to
the situation.
As to the importance of siblings - well, I think that largely depends on the
sibling. I have a friend who found out when she was an adult that she had
two sisters and a brother (from her late father's previous marriage) that
she'd never known about. She was SO excited - she'd thought she was an only
child. But after many years, she discovered that her sisters really weren't
all that nice, and weren't terribly inclined to behave like adults. Her
brother, on the other hand, was a sweetheart.
I am really and truly hoping that Emily and SD get along well. I have this
fantasy that SD will teach Emily about clothes and make-up and all the girly
stuff that I've never been any good at (that she'll certainly want to at
least experiment with at some point). I feel like SD is my family, even if
I am not hers. She's most certainly Emily's family.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>I don't know how many kids Liz is
>planning to have
This one would be it.
>In the big picture, putting up
>with a little hostility is nothing compared to her child having a sister.
I agree, up to a point. I think it's a matter of degree.
Liz
(who has one brother and no sisters)
rebecca
"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FjjPc.3041$wz.1589@fed1read01...
my mom meet the baby?' was to sever my tongue with my teeth. And it was
really nothing. I really didn't care. Providing we weren't in active
litigation at the time, and we felt Sam were old enough to spend the night
away from us at all, if the boys asked, and BM were cool with it, I'm
guessing I'd say okay. Just guessing, mind you. Then I'd jump off the roof
after they left, probably.
rebecca
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>You're welcome and thanks for taking it in the spirit in which it was intended.
I've hung around long enough to be pretty familiar with people's posting
styles!
The Watsons
> Okay, at the risk of being redundant, you can't equate grandparents with
> siblings in this area.
*shrugs* I understand, but it's the closest parallel I have.
> It is totally the business of the parents' offspring. It's not just that
the
> parental relationships define the parameters of their lives; it's that
> examining, tearing apart, and discussing the parental relationships is
their
> classroom for their own relationships.
If SO's son were to come up to sproglette and start talking about how much
of a slut I am because his father left his mother for me, my immediate
response would be to turn around to him and to tell him that whatever
happened between his father and I was not his business and not open for
discussion at any point in time, and it was the same with my parents. I
don't care if they agree or not with the relationship, but it's not their
place to discuss it. The relationship is between us, and it's up to us to
manage without other people commenting on it.
SO's comment is that if his son has a problem with the relationship, he
needs to be addressing it with his father, not anyone else; the same thing
for anyone else. As far as my mother is concerned, he's not going to allow
someone to be rude to him/us.
I routinely told my mother (and more recently, my father) that their
relationship was not any of my business, that we didn't need to discuss it.
Did I look at their relationship and decide for myself what I thought was
wrong and make an effort to not repeat it? Absolutely. Do I discuss it? Not
a chance-not my place. My nose does not belong in their bedroom.
Jess
rebecca
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>
> I think I take a position somewhere between yours and Jane's. I do see
Jane's
> point that a sibling relationship is important; but I think it has to be a
> *healthy* sibling relationship. When Emily is older, she gets to have
input
> into whether or not it's healthy; right now, I get to decide.
Hey, Anne Robotti, where are you? Liz, talk to Anne about this, she deals
with this stuff a lot with her SD and her kids.
> If she starts down a path that makes Emily question her
> own familial security - well, I think it depends on how old Emily is and
how
> much she can comprehend.
Liz, you seem really worried about this. It's really common even for kids
in intact families to worry that their parents are going to split. Emily
will understand the reality of it earlier, maybe, since she'll know that her
dad was married before. But it's not going to send her into therapy if her
sister worries out loud that the two of you might split.
rebecca
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I presume that you see some underlying logic in that deduction. I can't
>rationally get from unwilling to abide by my rule to harmful. I don't see the
>connection there.
I guess I see it as a contiuum. Hostility does not necessarily equal harm;
but after a point it does.
I don't think the decision to enforce or not enforce a no-bitching rule can
be made absolutely at any point. I think the rule can be made, and the
situation can be evaluated over time to make sure it's still working
comfortably for the people involved.
As an example, I see a big difference between "Oh, my dad is NEVER going to
let you borrow the car! Let me tell you what happened when *I* asked him..."
and "Watch out, because any day now he's going to turn around and disappear
on you." I also see a big difference between "Geez, your mom really needs
to wear more make-up" and "You know, your mother totally destroyed my life,
and she doesn't care."
>And that's what I have to do when emotions are entangled in
>a decision. I have to question myself and make sure that all the steps from
>point A to point B are sound, not just what I want to believe.
I think I tend to fly more on intuition than that. I do often question my
motives (often thanks to issues I read on this newsgroup!); but I believe I'm
pretty clear when it comes to SD. I'm much fuzzier on her relationship with
her father, actually.
The Watsons
> I'm with you, sister. Except, like I said, my first reaction to 'when can
> my mom meet the baby?' was to sever my tongue with my teeth. And it was
> really nothing. I really didn't care. Providing we weren't in active
> litigation at the time, and we felt Sam were old enough to spend the night
> away from us at all, if the boys asked, and BM were cool with it, I'm
> guessing I'd say okay. Just guessing, mind you. Then I'd jump off the
roof
> after they left, probably.
My brain splattered when he got back from the first hearing and told me that
she was hoping we "could all get together, and maybe her and I could go
shopping while you're with your son." Spending time with her brother, I can
manage. Spending the night at his ex's house or going out shopping with the
woman that accused me of killing my husband? I'm sorry, but I'm not that
good a person. I did send thank-you cards for the baby gift she sent,
though. :D
Jess
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
>could be harmful to the child. I just don't see how you get to "her presence
>in my child's life would be more harmful and disruptive, than positive." If
>you were saying that it could be inconvenient or require you to monitor and
>supervise the relationship more closely than you'd like, I could see that. But
>her presence in your child's life? That's quite a leap.
In my specific situation, I don't think monitoring and supervising the
relationship would be an option. I think if it got to that point SD
would choose not to see Emily at all rather than be supervised when they
were together (assuming she was, at that point, behaving the same way she
does now). In that case, it'd be SD removing herself from Emily's life.
Sure, it'd be sad; but it'd be her choice.
So maybe we're back to using the baby as a bargaining chip!
The Watsons
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> In my specific situation, I don't think monitoring and supervising the
> relationship would be an option. I think if it got to that point SD
> would choose not to see Emily at all rather than be supervised when they
> were together (assuming she was, at that point, behaving the same way she
> does now). In that case, it'd be SD removing herself from Emily's life.
> Sure, it'd be sad; but it'd be her choice.
>
> So maybe we're back to using the baby as a bargaining chip!
Not if it's her choice what she does. That's the key difference.
Jess
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
The Watsons <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Yes, Sheila's standard of
>whether or not her presence was more detrimental or more beneficial is a
>good one, and exactly the one we used for my parents. :)
That's where we're coming from at this point. Additionally, I'm not going
to argue if SD still doesn't want to meet me, as long as she's willing to
have her dad there when she sees the baby.
And all of this is for now - over time, things might change for the better
(I hope). It'd be damn nice, frankly, to be able to trust SD as a baby-
sitter.
>And no, you don't get to go out of your way to make life easier on her-your
>life is already difficult enough with a newborn. She comes to you. :)
Fortunately (sort of!), BM's house is about three miles from ours. As long
as SD isn't working or out with friends, the travel time isn't significant.
news.eclipse.co.uk
I think this one is one of those absolute *classic* stepmom things that we
negatively fantasise about, until it actually happens, and we find we don't
mind.
While pregnant, or when Kiera was a baby I would have thrown myself under a
car before letting her go to stay with her sister at BM2's house. BM1 I
don't mind, we have a relationship anyway, her kid and my kid have a
relationship (not SS, I mean her other child not related to my child) - it's
different. But BM2 is a viable looney. Kiera sees her more than me, I've not
been to a pick up or drop off for ages, and even then it was once and ages
since before then too. Kiera often goes to get her sister (although she
often wants to stay in the car because of the dog).
Oh, she probably will never want to go because of the dog. I just realised.
But, if Kiera did want to go, I think I'd be fine with it now. I can't see
it happening for a long time, apart from the dog, Kiera's just not
'sleepover' age yet. She sleeps at my Mom's sometimes, but she's not done
that with anyone else. But when she does, and if she wants to go to BM2's, I
don't think I'd mind anymore. Hey it's a night off, isn't it?!
Did I mention when xDH told BM2 about our split she said to him 'well, if
you ever need to talk to someone, I'm here'. We both pissed ourselves over
that little story.
Nikki
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
WhansaMi <whan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>And, Liz, please know that, at this point, I, at least, am approaching this as
>a philosophical discussion. I don't know your SD, what you expect, and what
>the situation is. I certainly don't want to argue that this applies to you and
>your family at all.
Sheila, please don't worry about me! One of the things I love about this
group is how specific questions become larger philosophical discussions.
All the questions coming out of this are worth thinking about.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Deborah M Riel <dr...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>
>I think you have to weigh carefully the goal of the hostility.
This is a hard one for us. At this point, I'm not sure the hostility has
a goal; I think she's still injured, and still feels the need to bleed over
it.
Her stated goal is to get her father to say he made a horrible mistake, and
he shouldn't have divorced her mother. Since I doubt hearing that would
really make her feel better, I don't think she knows what her goal is either.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Although, to be fair, in this case since she is
>so much older, I would expect her to have some sense.
This is the part I can't count on. SD is a very young 18, and I think she
will be for a while. Acting out is still her reflexive response.
>This is one of those situations that I find you have to flip to see fully. How
>would you feel if your ex had another child and prevented your children from
>seeing her because they wouldn't swallow the party line about the end of your
>marriage? Or he told your son that he couldn't see his younger sister because
>he complained that their father never had time for him?
Again, I get hung up on specifics. Complaining that Dad never has time for
him might be OK. Complaining *to the new sibling* that Dad never has time
for him because of the *existence* of the new sibling would be crossing the
line, at least for me. (And I like to think if it were Emily doing that, I'd
tell her to complain directly to her dad but to leave the new sibling out of
it.)
The Watsons
"news.eclipse.co.uk" <nikn...@impactwp.com> wrote in message
news:YfadnRbAJu-...@eclipse.net.uk...
> I think this one is one of those absolute *classic* stepmom things that we
> negatively fantasise about, until it actually happens, and we find we
don't
> mind.
This time, I think I'd mind. The biggest hangup (and yes, it's all mine, so
shut up jane) is that this is the woman that accused me of killing my
husband maybe three weeks after he died.
> Did I mention when xDH told BM2 about our split she said to him 'well, if
> you ever need to talk to someone, I'm here'. We both pissed ourselves over
> that little story.
Jesus, is that one of those stock line things? Tim's ex used to do the
"wanna be friends" thing that SO's ex is doing right now. All I can think of
when they pull their stunts is "with friends like this...."
Jess
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
The Watsons <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>IMO, it's not about swallowing the party line, it's about putting the
>argument to the side. I'm not seeing any requirement that she completely
>change her view, I'm seeing a requirement that she not voice that view and
>remain courteous while she's with Emily, and that's not at all unreasonable.
That's exactly what I mean.
If I thought just asking SD to keep her mouth shut would truly change her
view, I'd have done it long ago!
WhansaMi
>jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>I presume that you see some underlying logic in that deduction. I can't
>>rationally get from unwilling to abide by my rule to harmful. I don't see
>the
>>connection there.
>
>I guess I see it as a contiuum. Hostility does not necessarily equal harm;
>but after a point it does.
>
>I don't think the decision to enforce or not enforce a no-bitching rule can
>be made absolutely at any point. I think the rule can be made, and the
>situation can be evaluated over time to make sure it's still working
>comfortably for the people involved.
>
>As an example, I see a big difference between "Oh, my dad is NEVER going to
>let you borrow the car! Let me tell you what happened when *I* asked him..."
>and "Watch out, because any day now he's going to turn around and disappear
>on you."
Well, yeah. I guess I need to be more specific. I'm not talking about things
about you DH's parenting. This is common ground for them. But, **you** aren't
SD's parent, and never will be. You are your daughter's parent. You are also,
in the SD's mind, the interloper. Therefore, I think criticism of you should
be off-limits, again, at least while your daughter is younger.
>I also see a big difference between "Geez, your mom really needs
>to wear more make-up" and "You know, your mother totally destroyed my life,
>and she doesn't care."
Well, I would wonder why she would need to say the first too. My guess would
be to stir up discontent, and no, I wouldn't be okay with that, although I
probably wouldn't draw the line in the sand over that one comment. As far as
the second goes, if she needs to say that, she should say it to you. Not to
your daughter. And, also IMO, if she had your daughter's best interests at
heart, and not acting out her own anger, she wouldn't say it to start off with.
Sheila
WhansaMi
>The Watsons <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>IMO, it's not about swallowing the party line, it's about putting the
>>argument to the side. I'm not seeing any requirement that she completely
>>change her view, I'm seeing a requirement that she not voice that view and
>>remain courteous while she's with Emily, and that's not at all unreasonable.
>
>That's exactly what I mean.
>
>If I thought just asking SD to keep her mouth shut would truly change her
>view, I'd have done it long ago!
>
>Liz
LOL!
Then I guess it comes down to where you draw your own line regarding what you
feel is harmful enough to the child to warrant setting limits on their
relationship. I can see the entire range of options from "She can say what she
wants, and I'll work it out later" to "She can only see the child in my
presence, and she can never say anything even mildly derogatory about me, my
DH, or our relationship." My own place of comfort is with the angry SD keeping
quiet about the child's *mother* and the marriage in front of the child.
Jane's is somewhere else. I can see all of them being valid opinions, given
different goals and different assumptions about the situation.
Sheila
rebecca
>
> "news.eclipse.co.uk" <nikn...@impactwp.com> wrote in message
> news:YfadnRbAJu-...@eclipse.net.uk...
> > I think this one is one of those absolute *classic* stepmom things that
we
> > negatively fantasise about, until it actually happens, and we find we
> don't
> > mind.
>
> This time, I think I'd mind. The biggest hangup (and yes, it's all mine,
so
> shut up jane) is that this is the woman that accused me of killing my
> husband maybe three weeks after he died.
Yeah, and my BM is the one that accused us of "plotting" to get SS to the
town my parents lived in so he could attend my mom's funeral. Two weeks
after I'd given birth. Who then insisted he come home on time from the
weekend, threw an absolute *fit* that SO said no, and then called him on his
cell the entire weekend until he agreed to leave the service early so SS
could 'get a good night's rest' for school the next day. Which she then
kept him home from. Who then went to the special master to get 24 hours of
our time cancelled to 'make up' for the time SO had inappropriately kept him
from. And did I mention that we haven't seen SS in almost 2 weeks now
because BM's _COUSIN_ died?
As you can probably tell, shit yeah, I'll be holding a grudge over that one
until hell freezes over. But you just can't let it rule your decisions.
She's an inconsiderate ass. Life goes on. Doesn't change that SS and son
are brothers, and I want them to have a good, non-anxious relationship.
Just a little noodle for you...
rebecca
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
WhansaMi <whan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Well, yeah. I guess I need to be more specific. I'm not talking about things
>about you DH's parenting. This is common ground for them. But, **you** aren't
>SD's parent, and never will be. You are your daughter's parent. You are also,
>in the SD's mind, the interloper. Therefore, I think criticism of you should
>be off-limits, again, at least while your daughter is younger.
I think I'd be fine setting this rule. I also think it'd be naive of me to
believe it would always be obeyed, and I wouldn't want to put Emily in a
position of having to lie in order to keep seeing her sister. I think if
the rule was followed 95% of the time and Emily was undisturbed by any
transgressions, I'd be inclined to let it go (depending on the severity of
the comments, of course).
>>I also see a big difference between "Geez, your mom really needs
>>to wear more make-up" and "You know, your mother totally destroyed my life,
>>and she doesn't care."
>
>Well, I would wonder why she would need to say the first too.
I chose that one because a) it's something SD might actually say - even
if she were my own kid; and b) it's something I'd easily laugh off if Emily
repeated it to me. If SD is just exploding to take a shot at me, I'd just
as soon it was over my appearance!
>My guess would
>be to stir up discontent, and no, I wouldn't be okay with that, although I
>probably wouldn't draw the line in the sand over that one comment.
I would certainly try to be alert for attempts to stir up discontent. If a
comment about my appearance was off-the-cuff, fine. If it was the beginning
of a trend, I'd deal with it when the trend became apparent, or when Emily
became palpably uncomfortable.
I'll cheerfully facilitate the sibling relationship, but not once my daughter
starts becoming uncomfortable with it.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
WhansaMi <whan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Then I guess it comes down to where you draw your own line regarding what you
>feel is harmful enough to the child to warrant setting limits on their
>relationship.
If she makes Emily cry, she's toast.
Liz, overprotective mom
WhansaMi
>things
>>about you DH's parenting. This is common ground for them. But, **you**
>aren't
>>SD's parent, and never will be. You are your daughter's parent. You are
>also,
>>in the SD's mind, the interloper. Therefore, I think criticism of you
>should
>>be off-limits, again, at least while your daughter is younger.
>
>I think I'd be fine setting this rule. I also think it'd be naive of me to
>believe it would always be obeyed, and I wouldn't want to put Emily in a
>position of having to lie in order to keep seeing her sister. I think if
>the rule was followed 95% of the time and Emily was undisturbed by any
>transgressions, I'd be inclined to let it go (depending on the severity of
>the comments, of course).
That sounds about right to me.
>
>>>I also see a big difference between "Geez, your mom really needs
>>>to wear more make-up" and "You know, your mother totally destroyed my life,
>>>and she doesn't care."
>>
>>Well, I would wonder why she would need to say the first too.
>
>I chose that one because a) it's something SD might actually say - even
>if she were my own kid; and b) it's something I'd easily laugh off if Emily
>repeated it to me. If SD is just exploding to take a shot at me, I'd just
>as soon it was over my appearance!
LOL!
>
>>My guess would
>>be to stir up discontent, and no, I wouldn't be okay with that, although I
>>probably wouldn't draw the line in the sand over that one comment.
>
>I would certainly try to be alert for attempts to stir up discontent. If a
>comment about my appearance was off-the-cuff, fine. If it was the beginning
>of a trend, I'd deal with it when the trend became apparent, or when Emily
>became palpably uncomfortable.
>
>I'll cheerfully facilitate the sibling relationship, but not once my daughter
>starts becoming uncomfortable with it.
>
Right. I just don't think that a five-year-old needs to hear her adult sister
say, "You know, my life was pretty near perfect, but then Dad abandoned us, and
married your mother, and screwed up my whole life." I don't think a
five-year-old needs to be burdened with that. And, if I felt that this was a
real possibility, I would be pro-active in addressing it.
Sheila
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
rebecca <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>news:celm8s$6o9$1...@pcls4.std.com...
>
>with this stuff a lot with her SD and her kids.
IIRC, Anne is dealing with her own little bundle of joy. Typing with one
hand sucks - the only time I can really post is when somebody else is
watching the baby.
>> If she starts down a path that makes Emily question her
>> own familial security - well, I think it depends on how old Emily is and
>how
>> much she can comprehend.
>
>Liz, you seem really worried about this. It's really common even for kids
>in intact families to worry that their parents are going to split. Emily
>will understand the reality of it earlier, maybe, since she'll know that her
>dad was married before. But it's not going to send her into therapy if her
>sister worries out loud that the two of you might split.
Oh, DH and I already joke about the therapy fund.
I've just been thinking about how to explain the whole situation, without
lying or making excuses. I didn't wreck DH's marriage; but meeting me was
the reason he left when he did. And we didn't have a physical relationship
before he was separated; but we did discuss a future together. There is a
lot there she might feel ethically ambivalent about; and I'm not sure how
that'll play into what I hope is a secure and happy family life.
Then again, if I can think it all through and tell her in a non-freaking-out
fashion, maybe she'll just accept it all at face value.
Yeah, I overthink stuff.
WhansaMi
>Right. I just don't think that a five-year-old needs to hear her adult
>sister
>say, "You know, my life was pretty near perfect, but then Dad abandoned us,
>and
>married your mother, and screwed up my whole life." I don't think a
>five-year-old needs to be burdened with that. And, if I felt that this was a
>real possibility, I would be pro-active in addressing it.
>
>Sheila
One thing that has definitely influenced my thinking on this, but that I
haven't said directly is this:
SD and Emily may be siblings, but they are not *peers*, and will not be peers
for some time to come. What I am saying here is that, if I were in this
situation, I'd want to feel that SD acknowledges this, and acknowledges that
Emily is a child, who should not be dragged into conflicts between adults
(which SD is).
When they are both adults, or Emily is close to it, then they can be peers.
But, in the meantime, I'd want to feel that SD respects Emily's position as a
*child* in this situation, and treat her accordingly.
Sheila
The Watsons
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> IIRC, Anne is dealing with her own little bundle of joy. Typing with one
> hand sucks - the only time I can really post is when somebody else is
> watching the baby.
The reason I'm so prolific today is because he has the diaper watch right
now. :D Otherwise, I'd be sleeping or doing bottles right now.
> I've just been thinking about how to explain the whole situation, without
> lying or making excuses.
IMO, you don't. But then again, I'm pretty hardcore about the relationship
being between you and your DH and not open for discussion.
>There is a
> lot there she might feel ethically ambivalent about; and I'm not sure how
> that'll play into what I hope is a secure and happy family life.
Well, hate to say it, but ethics don't come in a comfortable black and white
package. She'll figure her own out. :)
> Then again, if I can think it all through and tell her in a
non-freaking-out
> fashion, maybe she'll just accept it all at face value.
Hopefully. :)
Jess
heather m.
certain things to her (when E is older) about leaving, etc. then maybe they
don't really need to have a relationship right now, because in SD's world
(at the moment) he did leave her, and that is very real to her. I don't
know where I'm going with this or what I'm trying to say, but something's
bugging me and I have no idea what it is. :-/
I feel like, in a relationship, a *real* relationship that is not false, you
don't have to hide your feelings. Maybe you shouldn't talk about them all
the time, but when you are relating to someone they know how you feel. Of
course I agree with not allowing SD to babysit, I would be the same way.
But I feel that it's detrimental to their relationship to dictate SD's
expression of her views and feelings. Now, I would have a problem with SD
manipulating E or saying mean things intentionally to her just to hurt her
Dad or you, just to be hateful, but as far as SD making her feelings known
when it comes to her relationship with her sister I feel is her right. If
your and your DH's relationship with your daughter shows differently than
what SD says she feels, then your daughter will see that. If she asks if
daddy will leave her and why her sister said that, then you tell her in the
best age appropriate terms you can.
I just *hate* the idea of hiding things. I believe you should keep things
age appropriate, but I feel that when you start to actively hide things,
even if it *seems* like the right thing to do, it's like a red flag or
something. I don't know if this is making sense. I just don't think there
is a "plan" you can have for this, you have to just go with it, do what you
think is best, as things arise and time passes on.
Where is Anne R.? I think she kinda has a similar situation where she has
to keep her SD from saying things to her kids. I don't know Liz, it's a
tough situation. I agree with you mostly, but I'm bothered by Sheila's
attitude of "you don't tell your sister you don't like me or you can't see
her". As much as you want to (trust me I constantly struggle with this)
keep your kid in a bubble you can't. Maybe things will be easier when E
gets to an age where she can understand things and isn't a helpless little
baby, which she is right now and will be for a couple of years, and you (of
course) want to guard that with your life, which I totally agree with. I
just think that as she gets older, if SD still feels the way she feels, you
might have to just accept it somewhat and make sure your daughter and you
have the type of relationship where she'll see by your actions that what SD
says/feels isn't necessarily true. It's life. I myself had to realize that
I can't keep DS from things like this, I have to guide him through them.
Anyway, this is really long and I know doesn't make much sense, but there it
is.
Heather
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:celmvi$dps$1...@pcls4.std.com...
heather m.
completely realistic about the situation. What you write here is
open-minded and probably the way I would go about it as well. And your kind
to be understanding of SD's feelings of abandonment and hostility, I really
think that's awesome of you to not take it personally (assuming you don't,
it doesn't sound like you do).
Heather
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:celm8s$6o9$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> In article <20040801203824...@mb-m14.aol.com>,
> WhansaMi <whan...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>In article <20040801134955...@mb-m14.aol.com>,
> >>WhansaMi <whan...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets
older,
> >>to
> >>>have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing
her
> >>>opinion about you or your marriage.
> >>
> >>While I agree with you, I don't think "reasonable" means it'll work
> >>that way - Emily's likely to sense some tension whether SD says anything
> >>specific or not.
> >
> >That may be, but I think there is a difference between tension (which may
or
> >may not be felt by the child.... many are oblivious!) and out and out
negative
> >things being said. For me, the first is manageable, the second is not.
>
> I've just finished reading through this thread, so I hope y'all will
forgive
> me if I don't respond to everyone.
>
> I think I take a position somewhere between yours and Jane's. I do see
Jane's
> point that a sibling relationship is important; but I think it has to be a
> *healthy* sibling relationship. When Emily is older, she gets to have
input
> into whether or not it's healthy; right now, I get to decide.
>
> As far as hostile comments go - to me, it depends entirely on how Emily
takes
> it. If it's general bitching about how the divorce sucked; well, that's
the
> truth - it did suck. If she starts down a path that makes Emily question
her
> own familial security - well, I think it depends on how old Emily is and
how
> much she can comprehend. At some point in her life she'll understand that
> some people, when they're hurt, need to lash out at other people, and that
> sometimes the opinions they state have everything to do with their own
history
> and nothing to do with fact. If Emily is consistently disturbed by SD's
> comments, then I have absolutely no problem laying down the law with SD:
let
> me know when you can knock it off, and then you and your sister can hang
out
> again.
>
> I have no problem asking SD not to bad-mouth her dad or me; but
realistically
> I know she'll slip from time to time, even with the best of intentions. I
> guess my gague for when to intervene depends entirely on Emily's response
to
> the situation.
>
> As to the importance of siblings - well, I think that largely depends on
the
> sibling. I have a friend who found out when she was an adult that she had
> two sisters and a brother (from her late father's previous marriage) that
> she'd never known about. She was SO excited - she'd thought she was an
only
> child. But after many years, she discovered that her sisters really
weren't
> all that nice, and weren't terribly inclined to behave like adults. Her
> brother, on the other hand, was a sweetheart.
>
> I am really and truly hoping that Emily and SD get along well. I have
this
> fantasy that SD will teach Emily about clothes and make-up and all the
girly
> stuff that I've never been any good at (that she'll certainly want to at
> least experiment with at some point). I feel like SD is my family, even
if
> I am not hers. She's most certainly Emily's family.
The Watsons
> Yeah, and my BM is the one that accused us of "plotting" to get SS to the
> town my parents lived in so he could attend my mom's funeral. Two weeks
> after I'd given birth. Who then insisted he come home on time from the
> weekend, threw an absolute *fit* that SO said no, and then called him on
his
> cell the entire weekend until he agreed to leave the service early so SS
> could 'get a good night's rest' for school the next day. Which she then
> kept him home from. Who then went to the special master to get 24 hours
of
> our time cancelled to 'make up' for the time SO had inappropriately kept
him
> from. And did I mention that we haven't seen SS in almost 2 weeks now
> because BM's _COUSIN_ died?
>
> As you can probably tell, shit yeah, I'll be holding a grudge over that
one
> until hell freezes over. But you just can't let it rule your decisions.
> She's an inconsiderate ass. Life goes on. Doesn't change that SS and son
> are brothers, and I want them to have a good, non-anxious relationship.
>
> Just a little noodle for you...
Spending time with her brother, I can manage. I might even get so far as to
be semicomfortable with her spending the night over there. Me spending the
night over there or going shopping with her? Not likely. :/
Jess
Wendy
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> Again, I get hung up on specifics. Complaining that Dad never has time
for
> him might be OK. Complaining *to the new sibling* that Dad never has time
> for him because of the *existence* of the new sibling would be crossing
the
> line, at least for me. (And I like to think if it were Emily doing that,
I'd
> tell her to complain directly to her dad but to leave the new sibling out
of
> it.)
Okay, but sibling rivalry is part of being siblings too. I can see that the
age difference is going to make a difference in the value of that for a
period of time, but ultimately this is something they will both have to deal
with. The most important part is for your DH to anticipate it as a potential
problem, and try to spend time with both girls together and both separately
too.
When my ex and I were new parents, I'd never have contemplated having anyone
else collect my children from day care. It's hard enough being separated
from them during the day, let alone sharing the little time you have with
them in the evening.
Were I your DH, I'd simply create lots of opportunities for SD to join in
with him and Emily in a variety of pursuit. Keep throwing out those
invitations. Send her photos. Have lots of pictures of your SD too. Make
up songs and tell stories so that Emily has a sense of who is part of her
family, even if she doesn't see her sister regularly it will make a
difference. My girls are enormously close to my family in Canada, yet they
see them very rarely.
Wendy
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
WhansaMi <whan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Right. I just don't think that a five-year-old needs to hear her adult sister
>say, "You know, my life was pretty near perfect, but then Dad abandoned us, and
>married your mother, and screwed up my whole life." I don't think a
>five-year-old needs to be burdened with that. And, if I felt that this was a
>real possibility, I would be pro-active in addressing it.
Likewise. Of course, I'd also be taking the chance that SD might say such a
thing anyway, and I'd be stuck dealing with the fallout. I'm hoping she'll
care enough for her little sister to keep her mouth shut on that point.
I'm hoping by the time Emily is 5, I'll know SD well enough to have some idea
how likely she'd be to say such a thing. Heck, I'm just hoping I've met her
by then. ;-/
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
WhansaMi <whan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>One thing that has definitely influenced my thinking on this, but that I
>haven't said directly is this:
>
>SD and Emily may be siblings, but they are not *peers*, and will not be peers
>for some time to come. What I am saying here is that, if I were in this
>situation, I'd want to feel that SD acknowledges this, and acknowledges that
>Emily is a child, who should not be dragged into conflicts between adults
>(which SD is).
>
>When they are both adults, or Emily is close to it, then they can be peers.
>But, in the meantime, I'd want to feel that SD respects Emily's position as a
>*child* in this situation, and treat her accordingly.
>
>Sheila
I know this is bad nettiquette, but I didn't want to snip anything. I agree
with you 100%.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
The Watsons <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I've just been thinking about how to explain the whole situation, without
>> lying or making excuses.
>
>IMO, you don't. But then again, I'm pretty hardcore about the relationship
>being between you and your DH and not open for discussion.
Sure, but there are always the "How did you and Daddy meet?" questions that
come up. There's enough cuteness and innocence in my relationship with DH
that I could cover most of it; but there is no denying the timing doesn't
look good. I'd rather tell her the truth (in age-appropriate chunks!) than
leave her to draw her own conclusions. If she's anything like her mom,
she'll have a tendancy to imagine the worst.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
heather m. <heather...@ipa.net> wrote:
>I feel like, in a relationship, a *real* relationship that is not false, you
>don't have to hide your feelings. Maybe you shouldn't talk about them all
>the time, but when you are relating to someone they know how you feel.
I do agree with you. I think Sheila hit it on the head, though: SD and Emily
are not peers. Emily does not have the emotional capacity to deal with all
of SD's feelings about the divorce, and she won't for many years. (Okay,
she doesn't even understand what we're saying to her yet; but you know what
I mean. ;-)) When Emily is old enough, if she's comfortable being SD's
confidant, I think that's fine. And I certainly wouldn't expect SD to
pretend to be in a good mood when she wasn't, for example.
I agree that having a real relationship means you don't hide your feelings.
I also believe that having a real relationship means you sometimes pick
and choose the timing of revealing your feelings. And sometimes you choose
to keep things to yourself, especially if they'd damage the relationship.
(Not sure I'd have thought that way before I got married!)
Deborah M Riel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>So, if I *knew* someone was openly hostile towards me, and wanted to
>>be able to pick up my infant from daycare without having met me or
>>dealt with those feelings of hostility, I wouldn't trust her motives,
>>or the direction that the hostility could take.
>
>Deb, you just can't draw conclusions from that relationship to what you would
>do with a sibling. DSS is extreme. That placing doubts about your parenting
>and your marriage with your husband and inlaws part - that's standard. I can
>almost guarantee that if you had a child with your SO now, your son would have
>a million complaints about his parenting of his brother. And if your SO
>decided that that meant he couldn't see his brother, the top of your head would
>blow off.
>
>jane
>>
>>Deb R.
But I just can't get around the part where Liz said that her SD was
hostile and *refused to meet her*. I just wouldn't let someone who
was known to be hostile towards me *and* refused to meet me pick up my
infant from daycare. I'd want to meet anyone who was going to pick up
my infant from daycare. Y'know how when your kids are small you want
to meet their friends, and the parents of their friends? Isn't that a
normal parental thing to want to do? This SD is 18. If Liz has never
met her, how does she know whether or not she's a good, responsible
driver, a responsible caregiver, etc., etc. Just because she's a
sibling doesn't mean she's *necessarily* any of those things. And to
top if off, if she's openly hostile towards Liz, I really don't blame
her for requiring more before agreeing to allowing the SD to just pick
the baby up.
It just seems like common sense to me. No one has suggested that the
siblings shouldn't be allowed to have a relationship--I haven't seen
that at all in Liz's post. Just that the not meeting Liz part, and
the hostility part can be addressed before just allowing the SD to do
whatever she wants unsupervised with Liz's baby--her sibling, yes, but
still Liz's baby. The meeting part would be the *least* I'd require.
See, if my ex and his wife happened to have a baby, and my son flat
out refused to meet my ex's wife, I'd fully expect her to have
reservations about allowing my son to just pick up her new baby from
daycare, all the while refusing to ever come face to face with her.
I'd think he was crazy to expect her to allow it.
Deb R.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
heather m. <heather...@ipa.net> wrote:
>I really
>think that's awesome of you to not take it personally (assuming you don't,
>it doesn't sound like you do).
How can I take it personally? I've never met SD.
Wait until I meet her - *then* I'll take it all personally. ;-)
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
Wendy <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Okay, but sibling rivalry is part of being siblings too. I can see that the
>age difference is going to make a difference in the value of that for a
>period of time, but ultimately this is something they will both have to deal
>with. The most important part is for your DH to anticipate it as a potential
>problem, and try to spend time with both girls together and both separately
>too.
This is part of the problem. SD *won't* spend time with DH alone. The last
time the two of them spent time together was last September, I think. He
asks, and she either simply doesn't answer or flies off the handle, depending
on what's going on in her life. Their relationship isn't anything close to
stable.
>Have lots of pictures of your SD too.
No worries - she's all over the house. ;-)
>Make
>up songs and tell stories so that Emily has a sense of who is part of her
>family, even if she doesn't see her sister regularly it will make a
>difference.
This is a good idea.
Deborah M Riel
The Watsons <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Jesus, is that one of those stock line things? Tim's ex used to do the
>"wanna be friends" thing that SO's ex is doing right now. All I can think of
>when they pull their stunts is "with friends like this...."
>
>Jess
No, it's not. I can assure you that if my ex ever split with his
wife, I'd say "I'm sorry to hear that." I would *not* want to talk
with him about it.
Deb R.
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
>hostile and *refused to meet her*.
In all fairness, I don't know how hostile SD is toward me (the hostility
is generally aimed at her father). I really believe her refusal to meet
me is an extension of her mother's tendancy to behave as if DH simply isn't
there when they run into each other. (When they saw each other at SD's
graduation, DH said hi to her. She ignored him - wouldn't look at him at
all. This in front of both of their kids and DH's parents, with whom she
still has a relationship.) This pretending-something-doesn't-exist seems
to be the default defensive mechanism.
>This SD is 18. If Liz has never
>met her, how does she know whether or not she's a good, responsible
>driver, a responsible caregiver, etc., etc. Just because she's a
>sibling doesn't mean she's *necessarily* any of those things. And to
>top if off, if she's openly hostile towards Liz, I really don't blame
>her for requiring more before agreeing to allowing the SD to just pick
>the baby up.
You know, I just wrote out that if DH were closer to her and trusted her,
that I'd leave the baby with her without reservation. But in thinking
about it, I realized that's a total lie. If DH came to me and insisted my
concerns were groundless, and that SD would be a wonderful and safe
caretaker for our daughter, I think I'd demand to meet her. I wouldn't
expect best-buddy status, by any stretch of the imagination - but if she
doesn't have the self-control to at least shake my hand and nod hello, I
don't want her watching my kid.
Jane, I think this would be one of those emotional responses you were talking
about.
rebecca
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>
> You know, I just wrote out that if DH were closer to her and trusted her,
> that I'd leave the baby with her without reservation. But in thinking
> about it, I realized that's a total lie. If DH came to me and insisted my
> concerns were groundless, and that SD would be a wonderful and safe
> caretaker for our daughter, I think I'd demand to meet her. I wouldn't
> expect best-buddy status, by any stretch of the imagination - but if she
> doesn't have the self-control to at least shake my hand and nod hello, I
> don't want her watching my kid.
>
> Jane, I think this would be one of those emotional responses you were
talking
> about.
Hey, Liz? No one watches my kid that I haven't met. And I absolutely DEFY
anyone to tell me that's nuts. I don't care who it is, or how they are
related, I don't leave my child in the care of someone I haven't clapped
eyes on and had at least a conversation about child care with.
rebecca
Wendy
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> This is part of the problem. SD *won't* spend time with DH alone. The
last
> time the two of them spent time together was last September, I think. He
> asks, and she either simply doesn't answer or flies off the handle,
depending
> on what's going on in her life. Their relationship isn't anything close
to
> stable.
Chances are that's a combination of factors, not least of which is age. My
OD is 18 and she's working, or out with friends, or with her boyfriend, or
over here, or at school during term time. My ex counts himself lucky if she
comes to his for supper before work, or before heading off on her other
activities. It isn't much better here, either. The fact that she's keen to
spend time with Emily is a huge compliment. She's probably as smitten as
you and your DH are.
Besides that, I can understand how she could see her father's rejection of
her mother and their marriage as a rejection of her and their family too.
She'll be feeling protective of her mother, as well, and not wanting to
betray her by consorting with the enemy. We see it often enough on this
group where people want to blame the ex rather than their
husband/wife/partner. The only way through that is for your DH to
communicate to her from the heart. IME, men gemerally aren't good at
sharing their feelings and thoughts on emotional issues. She wants him to
admit he made a mistake, maybe he should admit that he made lots of them,
though not necessarily the ones she's thinking of. If he were doing it
again, would he try to talk to her about the problems before he made his
decision, maybe before he even met you? If he were doing it again, might he
not take the decision to end the marriage much earlier? I know that my
sister's ex left her for someone else. I could forgive him for ending the
marriage, but it was harder to forgive him for not seeing that before he
found someone else. Maybe he had good reason for not talking to her about
his unhappiness, the last thing you want is to put your problems on your
children, or put them in a position of feeling they are taking sides. Has
he ever written to her? Sometimes it's easier to communicate in writing.
And lest anyone feel any of the above sounds judgemental, Barclay and his ex
had talked about ending their marriage, but was still living in the same
house with her when we got together. She phoned me and asked me to wait six
months before I started seeing him so she could adjust to it all, and my
response was that this was something she had to talk to Barclay about, it
was nothing to do with me. I guess even though they talked about separation
and had separated on previous occasions she still hoped it would resolve
itself, even though she wasn't prepared to make the effort to fix things.
They did not divorce over me, but she still wanted to cite me as cause in
their divorce.
Wendy
rebecca
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>
> I've just been thinking about how to explain the whole situation, without
> lying or making excuses. I didn't wreck DH's marriage; but meeting me was
> the reason he left when he did. And we didn't have a physical
relationship
> before he was separated; but we did discuss a future together. There is a
> lot there she might feel ethically ambivalent about; and I'm not sure how
> that'll play into what I hope is a secure and happy family life.
>
> Then again, if I can think it all through and tell her in a
non-freaking-out
> fashion, maybe she'll just accept it all at face value.
You know, the operative bit, for me, is you didn't wreck the marriage. Your
husband and his ex are not divorced because of you. The kid isn't going to
care about the rest of it. Maybe, in an extended conversation, you can say
the ex's feelings got hurt because you and DH didn't handle everything as
smoothly as you could have, but really, no child (step or bio) really needs
to hear the blow-by-blow.
I don't think your daughter's going to have much of an issue over this, even
if SD makes it a big hoo-ha, your kid is more likely just to feel sorry for
her and glad that daddy likes *her* mommy better than *SD's* mommy.
rebecca
Lori
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
If it were me, I wouldn't agree to having her anywhere *near* my child, if
she refused to even meet with me and deal with the fact of my existence. As
many here may remember, when SS was a baby, his mother insisted that the
only way DH would be allowed to see him at all wouyld be if he came and did
visitation with her, her child from another relationship, and the baby, as
if they were a family together, and would totally exclude both me and our
child from any time with SS. he refused, and until we could afford an
attorney to fight her for visitation, we were not allowe4d to see the child.
it was a paternity case so the law was on her side.
> Jane, I think this would be one of those emotional responses you were
talking
> about.
>
Yes, but not just emotional. it's logical, too.
Lori
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/04
The Watsons
"Deborah M Riel" <dr...@wpi.edu> wrote in message
news:cem6v0$21s8$2...@bigboote.WPI.EDU...
> No, it's not. I can assure you that if my ex ever split with his
> wife, I'd say "I'm sorry to hear that." I would *not* want to talk
> with him about it.
I know-it was one of those uber-sarcastic-needed-to-be-rethought comments.
:) No offense intended. :)
Jess
_calinda_
<snip>
> Right. I just don't think that a five-year-old needs to hear her
> adult sister say, "You know, my life was pretty near perfect, but
> then Dad abandoned us, and married your mother, and screwed up my
> whole life." I don't think a five-year-old needs to be burdened with
> that. And, if I felt that this was a real possibility, I would be
> pro-active in addressing it.
>
> Sheila
As I've been reading this thread, I keep saying to myself.. but how much
older is the SD? 17 years older?
It will be at least a few years before Emily is able to understand much
of that kind of talk if the sister should decide to go that route, but
by then she will fully be an adult.
I don't think I would have a difficult time cutting off an _adult_ that
would pull anything near to what anyone has been saying so far in this
thread. We're not talking about a kid that is just a year or two or
ever five years older. We're talking about someone that will be 23
years old when Emily is five (unless I have something out of whack here
age-wise)...
In the scenario that is being discussed, IMO the onus is on the SD, as
the adult sibling to ensure a decent relationship with the younger
sister by not bad-mouthing the SM.
I would have serious problems with an adult of any sort bad-mouthing a
child's parent to that child *regardless* of the relationship of the
adult to the child.
Cal~
_calinda_
Ahh.. should've waited one more post before replying. This is what gets
me about this whole thing. SD *is* already an adult, whether she's a
young 18 y/o or not. There shouldn't be any bad-mouthing of the child's
parent by *any* adult to that child. Regardless of their relationship,
IMO.
Cal~
WhansaMi
>me about this whole thing. SD *is* already an adult, whether she's a
>young 18 y/o or not. There shouldn't be any bad-mouthing of the child's
>parent by *any* adult to that child. Regardless of their relationship,
>IMO.
>
>Cal~
>
Yep. That's pretty much how I feel too.
Sheila
heather m.
I'll never say that!
Heather
"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:cem64v$3fc$1...@pcls4.std.com...
Anne Robotti
H Bonesteel) wrote:
>I take your point, though - it's an emotionally cluttered situation, and
>SD *has* been the center of a fair amount of angst around here. Neither
>DH nor I want to use the baby as a bargaining chip; but on some level,
>I think it's unavoidable. For instance, if she's bitchy to her dad, she's
>not likely to get invited back any time soon. If, however, she's not
>comfortable with anything more than neutral pleasantries about the
>weather - well, that'd be OK.
My SD and I discussed resuming visitation for the first time today. It
was very difficult for me. Brooke is ready, now I'm the holdout. It's
just been so damn *nice* not having to contend with SD! <sigh> But I
told SD on the phone that it really upset me *and* all the kids when
her and her father fight loudly, so if she's (or he's) not ready to
resume visitation without doing that, then it's not time yet.
She insisted that she doesn't even fight with her mother anymore so it
wont' be a problem. Which was more lies, but let's not go there.
Not trying to hijack your thread Liz, I'm just saying that I know how
it is when these lines get all blurry.
Anne
Hanging on by a thread
>For which I thank you - you're one of the saner heads I was hoping would
>reply!
Tell us more about hte baby, and where are the PICTURES!!!!
Anne
Anne Robotti
>>
>>You and I would, apparently, have different goals in this scenerio, then. My
>>goal would be to protect my child from that hostility when she was young.
>>(When she gets to be an older teen, or an adult, different story.)
>
>I meant hostility towards DH and possibly towards Liz. I don't think I ever
>felt Lee had to be protected from my SKs hostility towards me. I can't imagine
>how I could have shielded her from it if I had wanted to, and it was such a
>good tool in helping her deal with her own hostility towards her own SM.
You know something though? I think I would deal with SD's hostility
toward me and her Dad the same way that I dealt with BM's hostility
toward me. I would say, "Well, everybody has their own perception of
things. You have to look into *your* heart and see if you think that's
true." You know what I mean? SD can say anything she wants about me,
and I'm still The Mommy to my kids. I have nothing to be threatened
about.
Where I personally draw the line is at SD's relentless emotional
manipulation of my kids, telling them that Dad will "throw them out
too" and that she hopes she doesn't have to run away from her mother's
because her mother will beat her. Lying on purpose to make them worry
about her and to upset them. *That* I stomp on hard, I take SD to task
for that right in front of them.
>>
>>I understand there is a risk of their being no relationship between them if I
>>set down this groundrule, but it seems to me that if the SD is unwilling to
>>abide by that rule, her presence in my child's life would be more harmful and
>>disruptive, than positive.
>
>I presume that you see some underlying logic in that deduction. I can't
>rationally get from unwilling to abide by my rule to harmful. I don't see the
>connection there. And that's what I have to do when emotions are entangled in
>a decision. I have to question myself and make sure that all the steps from
>point A to point B are sound, not just what I want to believe.
See, what I prefer to do is not to do that. Because my way I get to
say SD can never come here because it'd be harmful to the kids and
sleep secure in the knowledge that I'm a superior mother. Your way I
have to let her back in the house (FOR VISITSVISITSVISITSVISITS) and
suck it up.
Anne