Late Introduction-sorry
ms_cal
of myself. I thought it time to rectify the error, so here goes.
I am a BM who is trying to navigate the pitfalls of just being a BM (does
that make sense?) What I mean is my kids will be having to deal with having
a BM, BD and SM. The ex is living with his g/f and they recently announced
they are getting married next year.
My ex decided to end our 19 year marriage last year. He told me he was
leaving me 3 weeks before I was scheduled for major surgery. I spent the
next few months begging him to reconsider, to try counseling etc. Since he
already had a g/f, so he wasn't interested in even trying to save the
marriage. Nine months of mediation later and we filed to end it jointly in
Feb of this year. He moved in with her in Sept of last year, and our
divorce was final July of this year.
For the custody situation, we currently bird-nest, where the kids stay in
the former family home, and every week my ex and I move in and out. We have
kids house, Mom's apt. and Dad's house, and we share 50/50 custody. He says
that he plans on continuing this arrangement even after he's married, due to
the kids school location vs. her house. He lives over an hour away when he
does not have custody. Either of us can end the birdnesting at any time, if
we wish.
I am having a hard time dealing with the future SM, as she has already
demonstrated her desire to entirely cut me off from my kids when they are at
her house. To the point of not even letting me talk to them on the phone--
I had posted about that earlier. I ended up buying them a cell phone, as
the cricket phones suggested by you good folks aren't in my area as of yet.
As of now they don't spend a great deal of time over at her house, but they
do spend many weekends over there and I am not to sure how long we can
realistically continue the birdnesting and am concerned about how we handle
all this.
So anyway, my purpose here I guess is to gain insight on how to be the best
Mom I can be to two kids (15 y/o boy and 13 y/o girl) who will be having a
SM. I hear some of the horror stories here of some of the BM's and I don't
want to be one of them, if for nothing else but my kids sake. As for
pissing her off, well......the only reason right now I can think of for not
trying to do that is I don't want to do anything that can cause any problems
for the kids.
When she asked me if it was an emergency when I tried to call my kids with
congratulations on getting first place at their competition, and then not
'allowing' me to talk to them kind of made any desire to 'work' with her
sort of evaporate.
And I sometimes still resent the fact that the woman who now will have such
an influence on my daughter as SHE grows into a young woman is a woman who
had an affair with my husband while both of them were married to others, and
even lived with him, while WE were still married (for that matter, I'm
not entirely thrilled with the example their father set for them, either)...
but I will continue to try to take the high road, for my children's sake...
So hopefully you all can help me do that.
Cal~
Geri and sometimes Brian
>I am having a hard time dealing with the future SM, as she has already
>demonstrated her desire to entirely cut me off from my kids when they are at
>her house.
Her attitude seems extreme, even to me, but it could be possible, since they
(meaning SM2B and your Ex) have been together only about a year (right?), that
she is trying to establish a boundary to separate the households a little bit.
Does she go along when it is dad's turn at the kids' house, or is it just dad
who goes?
Whichever it is, you have to at least give her credit that she is willing for
the birdnesting to continue, for the sake of the kids. I think that would be a
major pain in the patootie, as an adult, to be moving back and forth from house
to house. I don't think I would be willing to do that. So, she has a pretty
open mind.
Now, didn't you say you have only called over there maybe three times in a
year? That is certainly not excessive. But, from a SM point of view, she is
trying to establish her own household now, with the kids coming in and out and
all of this moving around of people. Whew! Maybe she is (perhaps
inappropriately) using the phone as a boundary that she can exercise some
control over. I am not defending her - just pointing out a possible POV she
could be coming from.
Geri
"No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the
American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
(President Franklin D. Roosevelt)
Penny
> I have posted a few times now, and regretfully never did a real introduction
> of myself. I thought it time to rectify the error, so here goes.
W
>
> I am a BM who is trying to navigate the pitfalls of just being a BM (does
> that make sense?) What I mean is my kids will be having to deal with having
> a BM, BD and SM. The ex is living with his g/f and they recently announced
> they are getting married next year.
>
> My ex decided to end our 19 year marriage last year. He told me he was
> leaving me 3 weeks before I was scheduled for major surgery. I spent the
> next few months begging him to reconsider, to try counseling etc. Since he
> already had a g/f, so he wasn't interested in even trying to save the
> marriage. Nine months of mediation later and we filed to end it jointly in
> Feb of this year. He moved in with her in Sept of last year, and our
> divorce was final July of this year.
>
> For the custody situation, we currently bird-nest, where the kids stay in
> the former family home, and every week my ex and I move in and out. We have
> kids house, Mom's apt. and Dad's house, and we share 50/50 custody. He says
> that he plans on continuing this arrangement even after he's married, due to
> the kids school location vs. her house. He lives over an hour away when he
> does not have custody. Either of us can end the birdnesting at any time, if
> we wish.
How does this birdnesting workout for you? Are you ok with it? Since
he left you, it seems you would have gotten the house anyway.
>
> I am having a hard time dealing with the future SM, as she has already
> demonstrated her desire to entirely cut me off from my kids when they are at
> her house. To the point of not even letting me talk to them on the phone--
> I had posted about that earlier. I ended up buying them a cell phone, as
> the cricket phones suggested by you good folks aren't in my area as of yet.
> Kids are pretty smart. They're going to figure her out. She might think she can move into your place in their hearts while they are visiting at her house, but by taking the stand she did (not allowing them to talk to you) she sealed her fate. Your kids will be loyal to you.
> As of now they don't spend a great deal of time over at her house, but they
> do spend many weekends over there and I am not to sure how long we can
> realistically continue the birdnesting and am concerned about how we handle
> all this.
>
> So anyway, my purpose here I guess is to gain insight on how to be the best
> Mom I can be to two kids (15 y/o boy and 13 y/o girl) who will be having a
> SM. I hear some of the horror stories here of some of the BM's and I don't
> want to be one of them, if for nothing else but my kids sake. As for
> pissing her off, well......the only reason right now I can think of for not
> trying to do that is I don't want to do anything that can cause any problems
> for the kids.
> It sounds to me like you are already being a great mom. You've
already taken the initiative to look for solutions to possible
problems. You seem more that understanding in regards to the future
sm. Just remember one thing, the kids know who mom is. There is
nothing this new woman can do to destroy the bond you have already
established. You're kids are going to go through some strange
emotions, they might even blame you for some of the problems, but,
they will know who loves them.
> When she asked me if it was an emergency when I tried to call my kids with
> congratulations on getting first place at their competition, and then not
> 'allowing' me to talk to them kind of made any desire to 'work' with her
> sort of evaporate.
I would have a problem with this, definately. Hopefully you won't have
this problem now that you have given the kids cellphones.
>
> And I sometimes still resent the fact that the woman who now will have such
> an influence on my daughter as SHE grows into a young woman is a woman who
> had an affair with my husband while both of them were married to others, and
> even lived with him, while WE were still married (for that matter, I'm
> not entirely thrilled with the example their father set for them, either)...
> but I will continue to try to take the high road, for my children's sake...
> So hopefully you all can help me do that.
>
You started the influence, way back. Just keep being there for your
daughter. She'll know who to look up to.
Penny
> Cal~
jane
>Mom I can be to two kids (15 y/o boy and 13 y/o girl) who will be having a
>SM. I hear some of the horror stories here of some of the BM's and I don't
>want to be one of them, if for nothing else but my kids sake. As for
>pissing her off, well......the only reason right now I can think of for not
>trying to do that is I don't want to do anything that can cause any problems
>for the kids.
>
>When she asked me if it was an emergency when I tried to call my kids with
>congratulations on getting first place at their competition, and then not
>'allowing' me to talk to them kind of made any desire to 'work' with her
>sort of evaporate.
>
>And I sometimes still resent the fact that the woman who now will have such
>an influence on my daughter as SHE grows into a young woman is a woman who
>had an affair with my husband while both of them were married to others, and
>even lived with him, while WE were still married (for that matter, I'm
>not entirely thrilled with the example their father set for them, either)...
>but I will continue to try to take the high road, for my children's sake...
>So hopefully you all can help me do that.
>
>Cal~
I've got advice. Well, I've got a story.
I have one of the better relationships with my ex and his SO. We're all
cordial and we are pretty good at group parenting if I do say so myself. My ex
and I ask each other's advice about issues that arise with BD. I speak less
often with his SO, but we're comfortable when we do. I'm appreciative of all
she does for my daughter. I'm never sorry that I combined my genes with this
man. I never question his choice of mate. The only thing DH ever says about
my ex is, "I love that guy."
In the decade he's been living with his SO, I've never seen his house.
This doesn't bother me. In fact, until you brought the subject up, I don't
think I'd thought about it in years. I remember in the beginning I thought it
was stupid. Being me, I'd torture my ex about it somewhat (well if I can't
drop her off at your house, you'll just have to drive 20 miles and pick her up
here). But it was their house and if they were going to be goons about it,
there wasn't much I could do about it.
Then I started thinking, "Hell, if the idea of me being in her house bothers
her so much, then it's probably better this way." I wanted things to go as
smoothly as possible for me and for my kid (probably in that order). As long
as I didn't push the house issue, my ex's SO had her zone of privacy. The
decided chill between us gradually faded away. The icicles fell off her voice.
They stopped keeping clothes they bought BD there. BD felt more comfortable
calling me during her time with her father.
So, I'm recommending you accept and respect SM's boundaries. It doesn't matter
if you think she *should* feel invaded when you call her house. She does, end
of story. Way to go with the cell phones.
jane
Melissa
>matter
>if you think she *should* feel invaded when you call her house. She does,
>end
>of story. Way to go with the cell phones.
>
>jane
It's hard being an AM and suddenly having your apartment or home invaded by an
SO and his kids.
I love my SO, I love his kids but I remember having alot of boundry issues.
Phone calls were a particular issue. Most of you know about my SS's BM's old
habit of call every 15 minutes or every hour on the hour. I remember more
than one time being on the phone seeing her number on call waiting, picking up
so that I could take a message and getting yelled at for not letting her speak
to SS. I rued the day I ever let SO give her the number.
I'm not saying that the OP is in any way like BM. I'm simply saying that I can
understand where SM is coming from about the use of the phone in her home.
Love,
Melissa
http://ryangiglierano.homestead.com/WTC.html
http://ryangiglierano.homestead.com/home.html
"Hell is full of musical amateurs."
-George Bernard Shaw
Tracey
--
Tracey
Indigo: What sailors do when they see a bar
---Funky Winkerbean---
M is for Malapert
"ms_cal" <ms_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1%MA7.1187$Sd.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> My ex decided to end our 19 year marriage last year. He told me he was
> leaving me 3 weeks before I was scheduled for major surgery. I spent the
> next few months begging him to reconsider, to try counseling etc. Since
he
> already had a g/f, so he wasn't interested in even trying to save the
> marriage.
Betcha he has told her a different story, though.
> For the custody situation, we currently bird-nest, where the kids stay in
> the former family home, and every week my ex and I move in and out.
How does that work out for all of you? Kudos to you for trying it. The two
or three kids I know who live in joint custody and move from one parent's
house to another are miserable about it. The ones who live mostly with one
parent and visit the other are happiest. I don't know any teenagers who
would sit still for 50-50 shared custody with moving back and forth.
> I am having a hard time dealing with the future SM, as she has already
> demonstrated her desire to entirely cut me off from my kids when they are
at
> her house. To the point of not even letting me talk to them on the
phone--
> I had posted about that earlier. I ended up buying them a cell phone, as
> the cricket phones suggested by you good folks aren't in my area as of
yet.
That was good advice. My DH carries a cell phone when he's at his ex's
house, so that we can communicate without using her phone. That just seems
like courtesy to me.
> As of now they don't spend a great deal of time over at her house, but
they
> do spend many weekends over there and I am not to sure how long we can
> realistically continue the birdnesting and am concerned about how we
handle
> all this.
Is the problem with birdnesting mainly financial, or what?
> So anyway, my purpose here I guess is to gain insight on how to be the
best
> Mom I can be to two kids (15 y/o boy and 13 y/o girl) who will be having a
> SM.
As a SM and a mom to my own child, I think the best thing you can do for
your kids is to not make it hard for them to be with their dad. It will
probably require a lot of grace and sacrifice to do this, and it sucks that
you have to do it, but remember that things are always changing. It could
be so different in a few years that you will be astonished. Try to react as
minimally as possible to everything as it flies by.
I can see where the future SM thinks that maybe her space should be
offlimits to you because there is already a home that your ex and you share
with the kids. Maybe this will change if the birdnesting stops.
> And I sometimes still resent the fact that the woman who now will have
such
> an influence on my daughter as SHE grows into a young woman is a woman who
> had an affair with my husband while both of them were married to others,
and
> even lived with him, while WE were still married (for that matter, I'm
> not entirely thrilled with the example their father set for them,
either)...
It's no secret that this kind of thing does happen, though. Your daughter
will develop her own set of values based on much more than this particular
example of behavior, although it may actually make her lean towards more
"traditional" values as a result. Or not. You never know.
Personally, I have no objection to the "living together while married on
paper to other people" part, as long as it was all out in the open. If your
husband could have made a wholehearted commitment to staying with you and
trying to work things out, that would be one thing. If he couldn't do that,
I think it's better to end things cleanly. It's like having surgery - messy
and painful, but then the healing can begin.
Wendy
M is for Malapert <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>How does that work out for all of you? Kudos to you for trying it. The two
>or three kids I know who live in joint custody and move from one parent's
>house to another are miserable about it. The ones who live mostly with one
>parent and visit the other are happiest. I don't know any teenagers who
>would sit still for 50-50 shared custody with moving back and forth.
That's interesting. My girls are with my ex and I 50:50 and they're both
well adjusted happy individuals, and largely wouldn't want it any other way
now that it has been going for a while. All the research here in the UK
suggests that the happiest children are ones who have regular and frequent
access to both parents.
As to teenagers being any more difficult, I wouldn't say so. You have to live
close to each other so they can go to school from both homes and access their
friends, etc.
Now that's not to say co-parenting is easy, nor that it doesn't have the
potential for its own problems, but on the whole I feel it's in my children's
interests to have access to both us of us.
Wendy
Tracey
Well, I ain't Mrs. Cal, but I can see a couple of problems
with continuing bird-nesting after her ex re-marries. One,
the second wife probably wouldn't appreciate having her new
husband gone every other week. Two, Second wife might not
want to move into a different house every other week. Three
Mrs. Cal might not exactly like the idea of her staying in
what I would presume is the marital house.
Jennifer
> In article <X8%A7.13808$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> M is for Malapert <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >How does that work out for all of you? Kudos to you for trying it. The two
> >or three kids I know who live in joint custody and move from one parent's
> >house to another are miserable about it. The ones who live mostly with one
> >parent and visit the other are happiest. I don't know any teenagers who
> >would sit still for 50-50 shared custody with moving back and forth.
>
> That's interesting. My girls are with my ex and I 50:50 and they're both
> well adjusted happy individuals, and largely wouldn't want it any other way
> now that it has been going for a while. All the research here in the UK
> suggests that the happiest children are ones who have regular and frequent
> access to both parents.
I was going to make the same point. DH and BM were never married, and SD's gone
back and forth for the past 15 years. We're on a 50/50 schedule (SD alternates
each week), and she finds it works well. SD's school is in our neighborhood,.
Her BM lives in a different county, but BM's home is only about 15 minutes away.
BM makes the effort to invite some of SD's school friends out every now and then
when SD's at BM's house for the week.
BM, DH and I all coordinate SD's swimming and school activities, and SD has never
been hurting IRT social activities :-) It does take some work, but I know if SD
weren't satisfied she'd have something to say about it, lol. A *lot* of SD's
friends are in shared custody situations, and they seem as happy as any other
teenagers.
Jennifer
em
laa...@aol.commmmmmmm says...
> >So, I'm recommending you accept and respect SM's boundaries. It doesn't
> >matter
> >if you think she *should* feel invaded when you call her house. She does,
> >end
> >of story. Way to go with the cell phones.
> >
> >jane
>
> It's hard being an AM and suddenly having your apartment or home invaded by an
> SO and his kids.
AM?
>
> I love my SO, I love his kids but I remember having alot of boundry issues.
> Phone calls were a particular issue. Most of you know about my SS's BM's old
> habit of call every 15 minutes or every hour on the hour. I remember more
> than one time being on the phone seeing her number on call waiting, picking up
> so that I could take a message and getting yelled at for not letting her speak
> to SS. I rued the day I ever let SO give her the number.
Yup. I had issues like this as well. I confess I am not a fan
of my SKs mum, but that is just a personal thing. I make no
comment on her parenting as I am not there to see it. My SO
moved in with me (in my little bachelorette flat) there wasn't
the problem. When we moved to our flat together there was a
spate of her turning up in _our_ house. Now my SKs were 14 and
16 when I met my SO so they didn't need escorting the mile and a
half. She just kept coming to see what the house was like.
Ohh, I could get bitter, but I won't. This is the woman who
every time she sees my SO about something to do with the kids
tries to play footsie with him under the table. Grrrrrr...
mine... gerroffhim. :) I've never been the jealous type before.
:) Anyway, I don't think I would have minded as much had there
been some kind of notice, but she just used to turn up when she
felt like it with or without the kids.
>
> I'm not saying that the OP is in any way like BM. I'm simply saying that I can
> understand where SM is coming from about the use of the phone in her home.
Phones as well. Ringing at 3am. Argh, because _she_ has had a
row with SD and wants SO to sort it out. It's your house, it's
your argument, you fix it for once.
*cough*. Oops, that got a bit cross didn't it? But yeh, I can
totally understand the boundaries issues as well. I am a very
controlling terratorial person anyway.
--
em
M is for Malapert
"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9r23gc$rcv$1...@warwick.hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk...
> In article <X8%A7.13808$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> M is for Malapert <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >How does that work out for all of you? Kudos to you for trying it. The
two
> >or three kids I know who live in joint custody and move from one parent's
> >house to another are miserable about it. The ones who live mostly with
one
> >parent and visit the other are happiest. I don't know any teenagers who
> >would sit still for 50-50 shared custody with moving back and forth.
>
> That's interesting. My girls are with my ex and I 50:50 and they're both
> well adjusted happy individuals, and largely wouldn't want it any other
way
> now that it has been going for a while. All the research here in the UK
> suggests that the happiest children are ones who have regular and frequent
> access to both parents.
This is only as long as the parents are not in conflict, according to what I
have seen. However, in the case of the 50-50 custody kids, the parents
aren't in conflict and the kids still don't like it. I remember one
friend's five-year-old leaving messages on his answering machine: "Daddy...I
miss you...I wish I was at *your* house...I forgot my barette that I wanted
to wear tomorrow, can you please bring it to me?" All in the saddest voice.
He told me that the nights she's with him, she calls and says exactly the
same things to her mom.
There was *always* some book, toy, item of clothing or such left at the
other house. Always. Either the parents had to bring it/pick it up, or the
little girl was weeping about it.
> As to teenagers being any more difficult, I wouldn't say so. You have to
live
> close to each other so they can go to school from both homes and access
their
> friends, etc.
That's probably why the teens I know would never want 50-50 custody, because
the divorced families I know don't fit that. Where do you live in the UK?
Where I am, it's semi-rural, semi-suburban. Teens who live in towns don't
want to move to the country even for half the week. There are no buses, so
kids either get driven around by parents or stay put. They want to stay in
the area where their friends are. My own son was sooooo depressed when we
moved into the country a year before he could drive. (Not a divorce
situation.)
The younger kids don't like being uprooted constantly, from what I can tell.
Frankly, I wouldn't either. If moving back and forth is so easy, why do
adults rarely birdnest and have such a hard time with it when they do?
M is for Malapert
"Tracey" <rbra...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3BD4FCF9...@mediaone.net...
> >Is the problem with birdnesting mainly financial, or what?
>
> Well, I ain't Mrs. Cal, but I can see a couple of problems
> with continuing bird-nesting after her ex re-marries. One,
> the second wife probably wouldn't appreciate having her new
> husband gone every other week.
I bet the kids don't appreciate having their old dad gone half the time
either...
In other words, too bad for Mrs. Second. If she doesn't like sharing her
husband with his family on the terms they worked out, she shouldn't have
married him. It's wrong for her to come on the scene and expect to change
everything around to meet her needs. Just MO, of course.
> Two, Second wife might not
> want to move into a different house every other week.
See above. She would be ideally situated if she kept her own place and only
visited the nest when she felt up to it.
> Three
> Mrs. Cal might not exactly like the idea of her staying in
> what I would presume is the marital house.
Maybe not. However, she seemed to want to do what is best for the kids and
could probably overcome that.
rebecca
"M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:9FhB7.14635$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
>
> "Tracey" <rbra...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3BD4FCF9...@mediaone.net...
> > >Is the problem with birdnesting mainly financial, or what?
> >
> > Well, I ain't Mrs. Cal, but I can see a couple of problems
> > with continuing bird-nesting after her ex re-marries. One,
> > the second wife probably wouldn't appreciate having her new
> > husband gone every other week.
>
> I bet the kids don't appreciate having their old dad gone half the time
> either...
>
> In other words, too bad for Mrs. Second. If she doesn't like sharing her
> husband with his family on the terms they worked out, she shouldn't have
> married him. It's wrong for her to come on the scene and expect to change
> everything around to meet her needs. Just MO, of course.
>
Mal, remember, we're only getting one side here. May be that the new
fiancee is already objecting to the birds nesting, or the husband has
indicated to her that he's not happy with the arrangements, or is willing to
change them, or whatever. The family "worked out" birdnesting under
different circumstances (two single parents), that no longer exist. Her
joining the family may make birdnesting no longer a viable solution. It's
not out of line for her to expect some accomodations be made for her needs
and desires.
<snips>
>
> > Three
> > Mrs. Cal might not exactly like the idea of her staying in
> > what I would presume is the marital house.
>
> Maybe not. However, she seemed to want to do what is best for the kids
and
> could probably overcome that.
You think? I'm way reasonable and I would never agree to what is a de facto
sharing my home with my husband's ex wife. The damage it would cause to me
and my new marriage would far outdo the benefits to the children.
JMO, of course.
rebecca
Wendy
M is for Malapert <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>This is only as long as the parents are not in conflict, according to what I
>have seen. However, in the case of the 50-50 custody kids, the parents
>aren't in conflict and the kids still don't like it. I remember one
>friend's five-year-old leaving messages on his answering machine: "Daddy...I
>miss you...I wish I was at *your* house...I forgot my barette that I wanted
>to wear tomorrow, can you please bring it to me?" All in the saddest voice.
>He told me that the nights she's with him, she calls and says exactly the
>same things to her mom.
>
>There was *always* some book, toy, item of clothing or such left at the
>other house. Always. Either the parents had to bring it/pick it up, or the
>little girl was weeping about it.
To be honest, that sounds like she's just not happy about the separation at
all, and is finding childish ways of trying to get everyone together. That
doesn't mean that she'd be happier with a less even custody situation, though
it might take away her excuses for drawing the other parent towards the current
custodial home.
>That's probably why the teens I know would never want 50-50 custody, because
>the divorced families I know don't fit that. Where do you live in the UK?
>Where I am, it's semi-rural, semi-suburban. Teens who live in towns don't
>want to move to the country even for half the week. There are no buses, so
>kids either get driven around by parents or stay put. They want to stay in
>the area where their friends are. My own son was sooooo depressed when we
>moved into the country a year before he could drive. (Not a divorce
>situation.)
There's an extent to which I feel that proximity is vital when you are
sharing custody. When my marriage ended, I'd have loved to have moved
back to Canada to be near my family, but I couldn't live without access to
my children and, as such, wouldn't dream of expecting their father to do so
either, never mind the children not having access to one or the other of us.
It is restricting. It does mean that both the ex and I are committed to
staying in this area while the children are at home. It does mean that
career opportunities are constrained, but both of us feel that the children's
happiness and well being is our paramount priority.
I live in Warwick and the ex lives in Royal Leamington Spa, which are virtually
the same town, but a hop skip and *sproing* to the country (you can hear the
sheep bleating from our house. My teen already wishes we were in a more
thriving metropolis though, but wouldn't leave her friends here for the world.
>The younger kids don't like being uprooted constantly, from what I can tell.
>Frankly, I wouldn't either. If moving back and forth is so easy, why do
>adults rarely birdnest and have such a hard time with it when they do?
Perhaps it depends on how it is done? My girls take things back and forth.
My ex has a key to my home to collect things, and the girls come back here
after school where he collects them. I have a key to his as well.
They don't live in one place at a time, more like they move back and forth
freely. They like spending time with both parents and in both settings.
They have rooms in each house, so they feel very much that they belong in
both.
My ex suggested we moved to a larger house and lived together but spearately
IYSWIM. I wasn't keen on that idea, for a number of reasons, not least of
which was that I didn't want my children dealing with the emotional turmoil
that might have come about if we'd had to be in the same home.
To be honest, in the UK, unless you are extremely wealthy it would be
impossible to run three homes, and a stretch for two. Our cost of living
is much higher, our salaries don't approximate those of NA either. Property
here is phenomenally expensive. I've got maybe a quarter of my parents floor
space (they live in Ottawa) and my home is worth much more than theirs.
Renting is more expensive than buying in the UK. To rent an equivalent
sized home would cost more than twice the mortgage on this place.
Besides, it's irrelevant, as both girls like spending time at both homes
and wouldn't want it any other way. I don't believe they are unusual
either, certainly their friends see the arrangements here in a positive
light and have said they wish their own arrangements following divorce
were as happy and accommodating as this.
Wendy
M is for Malapert
"rebecca" <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cShB7.5170$Sd.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:9FhB7.14635$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
> > In other words, too bad for Mrs. Second. If she doesn't like sharing
her
> > husband with his family on the terms they worked out, she shouldn't have
> > married him. It's wrong for her to come on the scene and expect to
change
> > everything around to meet her needs. Just MO, of course.
> >
>
> Mal, remember, we're only getting one side here.
And I'm talking general principles again - probably inappropriately.
> May be that the new
> fiancee is already objecting to the birds nesting, or the husband has
> indicated to her that he's not happy with the arrangements, or is willing
to
> change them, or whatever. The family "worked out" birdnesting under
> different circumstances (two single parents), that no longer exist. Her
> joining the family may make birdnesting no longer a viable solution. It's
> not out of line for her to expect some accomodations be made for her needs
> and desires.
Am I some kind of masochist or something? I think that divorce is a
terrible blow to children and a huge disruption of their lives, while also
being something that may be necessary to save the sanity and well-being of
the parents. I simply can't see coming into a pre-existing arrangement
between two divorced parents that works for them, and disrupting it by
angling to have *my* needs met. I could have picked another man who was
free to cater to my needs; having picked someone who wasn't, I'd feel extra
obligated not to add that burden to all the others. I'm not a Dr. Laura
type who says "No divorce if you have kids, but if you do divorce, you can't
date until the kids are 18." On the other hand, I think that adults -
because they *are* adults and have a better perspective on the long-term
nature of things - should be expected to postpone getting things exactly the
way they want while the children are still in the nest, so to speak.
And if we're talking about *this* case in particular, remember that the dad
and the girlfriend were already hooked up together before the divorce was
even filed for and before the birdnesting began. So the arrangements were
made between one single parent and one already-coupled parent.
Perhaps the girlfriend didn't feel confident enough to object at first, or
felt guilty, or the dad did, or whatever. Maybe it's just not working out
as they hoped it would.
> > Maybe not. However, she seemed to want to do what is best for the kids
> and
> > could probably overcome that.
>
> You think? I'm way reasonable and I would never agree to what is a de
facto
> sharing my home with my husband's ex wife. The damage it would cause to
me
> and my new marriage would far outdo the benefits to the children.
Aren't we talking about a situation where the kids stay in one place and the
parents move in and out? The mom has her own home and so does the dad.
It's the former marital home (belonging to both of them) that the children
are staying in. Right? So as I understand it, the adults go back and with
their clothes and toothbrush and so on. As the new wife, I wouldn't feel
free to make any changes without household consensus, and I certainly
wouldn't leave any of my things there. Would that make a difference, or is
it just the idea of having the new wife in the home?
As I've said, my ex-husband was staying in my house a lot of the time, with
our grown son, until recently. I was actually the one spending less time
there. It wouldn't bother me at all if he'd brought a new wife to stay with
him. Of course, I look on him more as a somewhat annoying member of my
permanent family than a husband of any kind anyway, so perhaps that makes
the difference. No emotional involvement, no jealousy, no territorial
issues.
Last time I was there, I brought my new husband with me and we all slept
under the same roof with no difficulties...
rebecca
> Am I some kind of masochist or something? I think that divorce is a
> terrible blow to children and a huge disruption of their lives, while also
> being something that may be necessary to save the sanity and well-being of
> the parents. I simply can't see coming into a pre-existing arrangement
> between two divorced parents that works for them, and disrupting it by
> angling to have *my* needs met. I could have picked another man who was
> free to cater to my needs; having picked someone who wasn't, I'd feel
extra
> obligated not to add that burden to all the others. I'm not a Dr. Laura
> type who says "No divorce if you have kids, but if you do divorce, you
can't
> date until the kids are 18." On the other hand, I think that adults -
> because they *are* adults and have a better perspective on the long-term
> nature of things - should be expected to postpone getting things exactly
the
> way they want while the children are still in the nest, so to speak.
Okay, no one argues that divorce doesn't suck for kids. No one argues that
they shouldn't be protected as much as possible. But multiple marital
failures of a parent doesn't do much good for kids; it is in the children's
best interest for the parents to be able to maintain a stable, happy
emotional (love) relationship. Sometimes keeping a kid's long term best
interest at heart means prioritizing your marital relationship and what it
needs. Because the end of 2nd, 3rd whatever marriage isn't going to help
your kids at all.
<Shrug> I don't know, I don't know what this SM is thinking. Just offering
the perspective that in my life and situation, I couldn't birdnest. I think
it would take either a remarkable SM or a doormat to accept arrangements
like that.
<snip>
> As I've said, my ex-husband was staying in my house a lot of the time,
with
> our grown son, until recently. I was actually the one spending less time
> there. It wouldn't bother me at all if he'd brought a new wife to stay
with
> him. Of course, I look on him more as a somewhat annoying member of my
> permanent family than a husband of any kind anyway, so perhaps that makes
> the difference. No emotional involvement, no jealousy, no territorial
> issues.
>
> Last time I was there, I brought my new husband with me and we all slept
> under the same roof with no difficulties...
You do have something of an unusual situation. I have an ex-boyfriend like
this, but my ex-husband doesn't even get to know where I *live*, let alone
sleep here. <Shudder> Everyone's got their individual circumstances, and
comfort levels.
r
Jennifer
> "Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9r23gc$rcv$1...@warwick.hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk...
> > In article <X8%A7.13808$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> > M is for Malapert <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > >How does that work out for all of you? Kudos to you for trying it. The
> two
> > >or three kids I know who live in joint custody and move from one parent's
> > >house to another are miserable about it. The ones who live mostly with
> one
> > >parent and visit the other are happiest. I don't know any teenagers who
> > >would sit still for 50-50 shared custody with moving back and forth.
> >
> > That's interesting. My girls are with my ex and I 50:50 and they're both
> > well adjusted happy individuals, and largely wouldn't want it any other
> way
> > now that it has been going for a while. All the research here in the UK
> > suggests that the happiest children are ones who have regular and frequent
> > access to both parents.
>
> This is only as long as the parents are not in conflict, according to what I
> have seen. However, in the case of the 50-50 custody kids, the parents
> aren't in conflict and the kids still don't like it.
I assume you mean in those situations you know, not in general :-) DH and BM
were *very* much in conflict in the early years. BM was the one who initiated
the custody fight, b/c she wanted to move away from the D.C. metropolitan area
(until then, DH and BM had been agreeing to a schedule on a regular basis, and
no custody was established, though BM erroneously presumed she had custody). SD
was 4 when it all started, and it went on for 18 months. By the time it ended,
DH had been granted sole custody and BM was given very little time with SD,
which we felt was unfair (as much as we now look back, at times, and wonder what
if...).
The judge wasn't about to force joint custody on anyone (I don't think they even
do that anymore, though I might be wrong on that). The judge's thinking was as
follows: DH is amenable to having BM there for SD, while BM is much less likely
to encourage DH's presence in SD's life; also, DH is amenable to having joint
custody, while BM demands sole custody. Therefore, should BM be awarded sole
custody, she would likely cut DH out of SD's life. Joint custody would be
impossible. That left only the choice of sole custody to DH, who, in the
judge's opinion, would facilitate communication between SD and BM.
So DH, with the award in his favor and BM's subsequent appeal denied, went ahead
and gave BM 50/50 custody; he wrote up the agreement, which gave him two things
he felt essential: 1) he doesn't pay child support, and 2) SD's address is with
us (which also means she goes to the school here, not in BM's area, which is
only 15 minutes away but another county).
Bottom line is, we ended up a joint custody situation where the parents didn't
get along. DH and BM would argue, but generally at night or during the day when
SD was at school (boy, that sounds like some carefully scheduled arguing,
doesn't it? LOL). Mostly, they sent pissy letters back and forth. And over
time...lots of time...the animosity dissipated quite a bit. SD is now 15, and
the court order came in 10 years ago this month.
SD seemed pretty oblivious to the anger, though I know that BM has been much
more angry toward DH in her household than we have been toward BM in ours. I
think a lot of that is due to having a bunch of little kids who keep us busy, so
honestly we just can't take the energy to waste on BM's foolishness. There were
a few hugely terrible incidents over the past decade, but I don't think SD was
aware of any of them.
So here's your one disproving case, again, not to be rude :-) Joint custody
50/50, angry parents, successful child.
As for why adults don't prefer to birdnest, it's just not generally practical,
though my hat is off to anyone who can accomplish it. We just have so much more
baggage, physical and emotional, while a child just has to move herself (and not
even clothes, if she has a 2nd wardrobe and room, as our SD has) from home to
home. If DH and I were to move every week, we'd have to move all our personal
and business financial records, computers, etc. :-)
Jennifer
Geri and sometimes Brian
>follows: DH is amenable to having BM there for SD, while BM is much less
>likely
>to encourage DH's presence in SD's life; also, DH is amenable to having joint
>custody, while BM demands sole custody. Therefore, should BM be awarded sole
>custody, she would likely cut DH out of SD's life. Joint custody would be
>impossible. That left only the choice of sole custody to DH, who, in the
>judge's opinion, would facilitate communication between SD and BM.
This is how it is "supposed" to work.
M is for Malapert
"Jennifer" <gaz...@theironpig.com> wrote in message
news:3BD606F5...@theironpig.com...
> M is for Malapert wrote:
>
> > "Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:9r23gc$rcv$1...@warwick.hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk...
> > > All the research here in the UK
> > > suggests that the happiest children are ones who have regular and
frequent
> > > access to both parents.
> >
> > This is only as long as the parents are not in conflict, according to
what I
> > have seen. However, in the case of the 50-50 custody kids, the parents
> > aren't in conflict and the kids still don't like it.
>
> I assume you mean in those situations you know, not in general :-)
Yes and no. In general, according to the research, kids fare worse when
they have lots of contact with both parents if those parents are in
conflict. In the situations I know of personally, the parents are not in
conflict, yet the kids aren't happy with the custody situation. Again,
perhaps that's because they are small and would really rather be in just one
house most of the time. Or the parents can't handle it. I'm not sure I'd
permit the tearful phone call to the other parent each and every night
(sometimes several of them), for example.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>they have lots of contact with both parents if those parents are in
>conflict.
Absolutely correct. The research shows that in those cases joint custody is no
better for the child than sole custody.
>In the situations I know of personally, the parents are not in
>conflict, yet the kids aren't happy with the custody situation. Again,
>perhaps that's because they are small and would really rather be in just one
>house most of the time. Or the parents can't handle it. I'm not sure I'd
>permit the tearful phone call to the other parent each and every night
>(sometimes several of them), for example.
I think this is a situation that depends on the individual kid(s). My SD
started with the every other week 50/50 custody situation when she was three
years old. She is totally used to it. She knows what day her exchange day is,
and adapts herself to the different lifestyles of her two households amazingly
well*, considering all of her disorders. She has different sets of everything
in her different houses and none of them go back and forth. But, because this
is all she has known for just about as long as she can remember, it is business
as usual for her. Because of the nature of one of her disorders (SID), she
doesn't "attach" to people or stuff like you normally think of kids doing, so
maybe that helps make it work (as well as it can) for her. Or maybe it is a
chicken and egg deal.
*The past few weeks SD has departed from this and we are still trying to get to
the bottom of why. SD has shown a significant (documented by school officials
this time) difference in behavior between BM's custody weeks (volatile,
violent, out-of-control - suspended from school x 1 and several trips to the
principal's office) and ours. We have several ideas about what *might* be
causing this, but no answers.
Melissa
>permit the tearful phone call to the other parent each and every night
>(sometimes several of them), for example.
>
>
You know SO was about ready to put a stop to these calls when SS visited us,
but SS did it himself. He refuses to talk to his mother when he's with us, and
he told her this when he was five. The calls used to tear him apart with her
calling all the time and not letting him off of the phone until he cried. SO
was in between a rock and a hard place because not allowing BM to talk to SS
opened the door for her to do the same to his.
ms_cal
"M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:9FhB7.14635$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply yet.........tomorrow I move back to my
apartment for the next 7 days and I'll have more time to respond, but before
too much more speculation goes out, I need to clarify: Mrs. Second is
forbidden by our divorce agreement to step foot on my property, EVER- just
as I am forbidden to step foot on hers. Even though the house is still
co-owned by me and the ex, she has no financial interests in it at all, and
she never will. If something happens to the ex before we sell, his will
must state that I receive his interests, and vise versa. (It was important
enough to me that I never end up having half the equity shared by her that I
bargained other stuff away during mediation. BIG stuff ($)....but peace of
mind was worth it. He felt he won, and I will never have to worry about her
forcing me to sell.... it was worth the money I gave up..)
And they do not live close enough to this house to continue 50/50 custody in
the traditional way. She won't move so that he could be closer to his
children, as she is involved in town politics. Our kids are heavily
involved in an activity that is not available at other schools at the level
they are at, in the school they currently go to. Also our son only has 2
1/2 more years. Birdnesting is about the only 'win-win' solution we could
come up with. He originally just wanted the two of us to continue living
together for 6 years while dating her. I nixed that one rather quick.
Anyway, it's 12:20am, and the alarm goes off at 6----and I've still not
packed up my stuff for the move:-( The ex has been on vacation for 12
days----I got the kids for some extra time and I just hate the thought of
leaving them again *sigh*
Cal~
>
>
>
>
>
Geri and sometimes Brian
>forbidden by our divorce agreement to step foot on my property, EVER- just
>as I am forbidden to step foot on hers.
Are you referring to the house you live in now or the house that the kids live
it? I am confused about which house you are selling/living in, etc.
I can tell you that I would either 1) not marry a man who was going off without
me every other week to stay with the kids from the first marriage or 2) put a
stop to it.
So, just out of curiousity, if this is what your ex has to do to be with the
kids, what big item stuff did you bargain away for it?
ms_cal
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20011024003656...@mb-mp.aol.com...
> >I need to clarify: Mrs. Second is
> >forbidden by our divorce agreement to step foot on my property, EVER-
just
> >as I am forbidden to step foot on hers.
>
> Are you referring to the house you live in now or the house that the kids
live
> it? I am confused about which house you are selling/living in, etc.
The former marital home. (my other place is an apartment complex- I have no
control over whether she goes there, but she would not be permitted to enter
the actual apartment- HTH)
>
> I can tell you that I would either 1) not marry a man who was going off
without
> me every other week to stay with the kids from the first marriage or 2)
put a
> stop to it.
Well, when he moved in with her last Sept., he claims he told her if it ever
came to a point where he had to choose between her or his children, until
they were out of HS, his children would win. He told his children they were
his #1 priority.
I do know she is nearly 50 and CF, and he said in the beginning, she was not
keen on being SM in anyway. Which is why her behaviour IRT my kids has been
odd. The only thing I can think to say: to know them is to love them <g>
which is why she is acting like she has been.
>
> So, just out of curiousity, if this is what your ex has to do to be with
the
> kids, what big item stuff did you bargain away for it?
Geri, you make it sound as if I blackmailed him or something? I think you
misunderstood. I didn't bargain with him over the kids and his time with
him, I bargained with him that IF something should happen to him, he would
will his financial interest in the former marital home to me, and that she
would not receive anything IRT said home. And vise versa. I had to give up
claim to a lot of cold hard cash. Lots of it. Probably stupid, but when
you are recovering from a hysterectomy AND being left by a man you still
love, you do really STUPID things. I should've just let things be in that
respect. If something happened to him, I should've said fine. She could
either buy me out, or we sell. But that could still have posed some
problems.
FTR- this was ALL his idea right from the start. The divorce, mediation,
Plan A for custody-live together for 6 years, Plan B; Birdnesting, etc.
NONE of this was my idea. I wanted to make our marriage work. But since it
wasn't going to happen, I had to decide: what was in my children's best
interest. Go along with BN or my having full custody? (And before anyone
jumps on that one, HIS idea again. I would have full custody, and he would
come to visit when he had time.) No way was I going to see my kids lose out
on their father, just wasn't going to happen. And hopefully the g/f does
not interfere in his relationship with them, either.
In the beginning we swapped every 3 1/2 days. Now we do every 7 days. I
plan my wardrobe for 7 days, and bring that, plus my laptop, my external
hardrive, my textbooks (I'm going to school), my CD's, my shoes, my
laundry - (bedding, towels etc) and any coats I may need are stored in the
trunk of my car, along with winter boots/gloves, blood pressure cuff (so I
always have it with me).
Geri and sometimes Brian
I realized after I wrote it that it sounded a little like that, but that wasn't
what I meant. I was just curious about the particulars. Your situations is
really interesting to me. I would be shot before I would do it myself, but it
is interesting.
M is for Malapert
> tomorrow I move back to my
> apartment for the next 7 days and I'll have more time to respond, but
before
> too much more speculation goes out, I need to clarify: Mrs. Second is
> forbidden by our divorce agreement to step foot on my property, EVER- just
> as I am forbidden to step foot on hers.
That's interesting. Now, although my sympathies are with you in this, and I
madly admire the way you have worked out the birdnesting and so forth, in my
opinion this might be going too far. I don't see any reason why you would
ever need to go on her property, except in some emergency involving the
kids, but she is going to be part of your husband's family. If it were me,
I think I'd let her come and stay with dad if she felt like it. Seems to me
that would benefit them and the kids. After all, as someone else said, it's
really in their interests that this marriage work. From the way you wrote
above, it looks like it's an emotional issue for you? Is the family home
sort of the last bastion, the line you *could* draw against the interloper?
> Even though the house is still
> co-owned by me and the ex, she has no financial interests in it at all,
and
> she never will. If something happens to the ex before we sell, his will
> must state that I receive his interests, and vise versa.
Didn't you own the house as joint tenants? That's standard practice in
California, but apparently not elsewhere. (Note to self...)
jane
>without
>me every other week to stay with the kids from the first marriage or 2) put a
>stop to it.
I think I'd kind of like it.
jane
rebecca
"M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:Z5oB7.14921$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
>
> Yes and no. In general, according to the research, kids fare worse when
> they have lots of contact with both parents if those parents are in
> conflict. In the situations I know of personally, the parents are not in
> conflict, yet the kids aren't happy with the custody situation. Again,
> perhaps that's because they are small and would really rather be in just
one
> house most of the time. Or the parents can't handle it. I'm not sure I'd
> permit the tearful phone call to the other parent each and every night
> (sometimes several of them), for example.
I'd offer a couple of thoughts. Very small children miss whichever parent
they're not with. Doesn't matter if they see the parent 1x month or 50/50.
When SS was very small, he "missed" everything. His mom, I'm pretty sure,
would be horrified to know that he once dropped a pebble he'd been holding,
and said in exactly the same tone he used to say "I miss my mom" said "I
miss my pebble." It's about consistency and transition a lot more than it's
about the parents involved.
Now, depending upon the child, allowing a lot of contact back and forth can
be helpful - i.e., kid doesn't have to completely "switch gears" from parent
to parent - or it can be bad - i.e., kid never settles in one place, and
always longs for the other.
Totally depends on the kid.
rebecca
M is for Malapert
"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011024111043...@mb-cc.aol.com...
My mother said the main reason her marriage lasted almost 50 years was
because my dad was in the Navy. He was gone again before she had time to
get tired of him.
Sarai
with. What if ms cal was your BM, 100% SD's mom, responsible, good standing
friendly relationship with Brian, great mom to SD, all the things you say
you want your BM to be...would you still be so rigid and demanding?
Heather M
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20011024074129...@mb-mf.aol.com...
M is for Malapert
>
> "M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:C7kB7.14897$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
>
> > Am I some kind of masochist or something? I think that divorce is a
> > terrible blow to children and a huge disruption of their lives, while
also
> > being something that may be necessary to save the sanity and well-being
of
> > the parents. I simply can't see coming into a pre-existing arrangement
> > between two divorced parents that works for them, and disrupting it by
> > angling to have *my* needs met. I could have picked another man who was
> > free to cater to my needs; having picked someone who wasn't, I'd feel
> extra
> > obligated not to add that burden to all the others.
> Okay, no one argues that divorce doesn't suck for kids. No one argues
that
> they shouldn't be protected as much as possible. But multiple marital
> failures of a parent doesn't do much good for kids; it is in the
children's
> best interest for the parents to be able to maintain a stable, happy
> emotional (love) relationship. Sometimes keeping a kid's long term best
> interest at heart means prioritizing your marital relationship and what it
> needs. Because the end of 2nd, 3rd whatever marriage isn't going to help
> your kids at all.
Very true, and I suppose that in some sense parents who get divorces while
their children are young have already shown that they have (as a group, on
average) a lower tolerance for dissatisfaction than those who stay
together - are more present-oriented, as folks say when they want to condemn
other people and sound highminded and objective about it.
My problem, on the other hand, is that I'm willing to hang around and wait
to get my needs met probably way too long. So in my current situation it's
totally easy for me to postpone gratification for the short time that might
be involved.
M is for Malapert
> Well, when he moved in with her last Sept., he claims he told her if it
ever
> came to a point where he had to choose between her or his children, until
> they were out of HS, his children would win. He told his children they
were
> his #1 priority.
This helps me put my finger on something in my situation. I know that if it
came to that point, DH would choose me. I am his #1 priority. And he's
mine. Our relationship is, for both of us.
So I feel that it's somewhat my obligation not to let things get to that
point. And because I know I'm that important to him, it's not hard to do.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>would be horrified to know that he once dropped a pebble he'd been holding,
>and said in exactly the same tone he used to say "I miss my mom" said "I
>miss my pebble."
SD still does this. It is kind of funny, actually.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>friendly relationship with Brian, great mom to SD, all the things you say
>you want your BM to be...would you still be so rigid and demanding?
I think that if we had a BM that we could actually trust with SD's well-being,
we would let her have majority custody, just for the fact that we believe SD
would be better off in one home. As it stands, we believe she would be better
off in our home, however, as one poster (I think it was Rebecca) stated, unless
a BM shoots up heroin in front of the judge, she is not going to lose custody.
So we make do with what we have.
Geri and sometimes Brian
I don't think I would like it at all. But then Brian and I are still glad to
see each other after work each day, so I think it would completely suck to not
see him for a whole week.
Wendy
M is for Malapert <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Very true, and I suppose that in some sense parents who get divorces while
>their children are young have already shown that they have (as a group, on
>average) a lower tolerance for dissatisfaction than those who stay
>together - are more present-oriented, as folks say when they want to condemn
>other people and sound highminded and objective about it.
Sorry, but even couched with terms like group and average I'm not sure I agree
with this. That some people split up because of a low tolerance for
dissatisfaction I can accept, but to suggest that this is something of a norm
for those who divorce with small children is something of a leap. Children
change the nature of relationships. Their arrival tends to help show small
cracks which weren't necessarily visible before. That others survive these
or don't have these issues is about the best you can logically conclude.
Personally, I think the pursuit of other relationships is quite normal for
young people, and most people still have children when they are relatively
young. If you compare groups of parents with young children who have
divorced and who have either remarried or not, I suspect that age of parent
would be a significant factor.
Wendy
Wendy
Pause for a moment though and think. Was that always the case?
Barclay is certainly of equal priority to my children. Before I got seriously
involved with him, however, I too would have said my children were my first
priority. He certainly accepted that that was the case when we got involved
and accepts now that they are as big a commitment for me as he is.
No doubt in time as my children get older and fly the nest than the balance
of priorities will change again.
For me, I wouldn't ever have gotten involved with someone who didn't meld well
with my children. Even once they fly the nest I hope that they'll be home
regularly and still part of our lives.
Wendy
Wendy
Geri and sometimes Brian <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote:
>>I think I'd kind of like it.
>
>I don't think I would like it at all. But then Brian and I are still glad to
>see each other after work each day, so I think it would completely suck to not
>see him for a whole week.
I hate it, but I also recognise that it has positive aspects. Barclay is only
here at weekends. During the week, we email and talk on the phone, and long
for each other. Weekends are intense. Sometimes I worry a little that we may
expect that degree of intensity to be sustained when he's here full time, I
think it will but only if we have separate interests and time apart doing other
things.
I know that his absence ensures that there is time for my girls without Barclay
which I think is important in a step situation. I suspect that when he's here
full time I'll have to make time for that rather than it being something that
just is.
Wendy
ms_cal
"Penny" <penny....@rohwedder.com> wrote in message
<snipped>>
> > For the custody situation, we currently bird-nest, where the kids stay
in
> > the former family home, and every week my ex and I move in and out. We
have
> > kids house, Mom's apt. and Dad's house, and we share 50/50 custody. He
says
> > that he plans on continuing this arrangement even after he's married,
due to
> > the kids school location vs. her house. He lives over an hour away when
he
> > does not have custody. Either of us can end the birdnesting at any
time, if
> > we wish.
>
> How does this birdnesting workout for you?
Its a pain, for sure, but better a pain for me than the kids, IMO.
>Are you ok with it? Since
> he left you, it seems you would have gotten the house anyway.
I would. But I would also be getting a $2000.00 a month mortgage, and I
haven't worked in 16 years. I couldn't afford it and it was extremely
important for my kids to stay in their school system. They are involved in
an activity that has become a source of joy and happiness for both of my
kids. The program at their school is considered by some as the best on the
east coast. I'm not sure if I'd go that far, but I do know they love it,
and now my son has aspirations of taking it further after HS. I can't
imagine having to move and having him lose out on this program that he loves
so very much.
As for my working, I finish my classes the week after thanksgiving, then
I'll be able to contribute financially as well. Things may be different,
but I think I will continue BN even then. It has worked for our children.
> >
> > I am having a hard time dealing with the future SM, as she has already
> > demonstrated her desire to entirely cut me off from my kids when they
are at
> > her house. To the point of not even letting me talk to them on the
phone--
> > I had posted about that earlier. I ended up buying them a cell phone,
as
> > the cricket phones suggested by you good folks aren't in my area as of
yet.
>
> > Kids are pretty smart. They're going to figure her out. She might think
she can move into your place in their hearts while they are visiting at her
house, but by taking the stand she did (not allowing them to talk to you)
she sealed her fate. Your kids will be loyal to you.
Between that episode, and then the following week, when the ex posted
'rules' on when it is and is not appropriate for me to call him, and it said
if they were to break their neck or back, I could call, but if they were to
break an arm or leg.... I was NOT to call, but to send him an email, and
he'll get it when he goes to work- they were furious with him. "Dad doesn't
want you to call if I break my leg? He doesn't really love me anymore, does
he?"..... They are both sealing their fate, AFAIAC.
I am very concerned that when the time comes for them to decide whether he
has a place in their life, in their hearts, that he will lose out, due to
the things he has done and said. And that makes me very, very sad for my
children.
<snipped>
> > And I sometimes still resent the fact that the woman who now will have
such
> > an influence on my daughter as SHE grows into a young woman is a woman
who
> > had an affair with my husband while both of them were married to others,
and
> > even lived with him, while WE were still married (for that matter, I'm
> > not entirely thrilled with the example their father set for them,
either)...
> > but I will continue to try to take the high road, for my children's
sake...
> > So hopefully you all can help me do that.
> >
> You started the influence, way back. Just keep being there for your
> daughter. She'll know who to look up to.
>
> Penny
Thanks Penny... I am trying to remember that this woman must have SOME good
qualities, cuz up until 'the bombshell', I always thought the ex was a
pretty good guy, one of the best Dad's I knew. So how truly horrible can
she be? Then their affair creeps into my brain, and I think well.....That's
how horrible she can be, (him too).
The hard thing is to be able to communicate with the kids that I don't
approve of what happened, without sounding like I am trying to get them to
dislike the woman. Since she is involved in their lives, it is best for
them to not only get along with her, but to actually like her. And it's a
tightrope to walk, isn't it? I'm not sure I've done a very good job with
that balancing act, but I keep trying. Best I can do.
Cal~
ms_cal
> So, I'm recommending you accept and respect SM's boundaries. It doesn't
matter
> if you think she *should* feel invaded when you call her house. She does,
end
> of story. Way to go with the cell phones.
>
> jane
I accept them, but I do not respect them, if you know what I mean. I think
she's a total loon, to even EXPECT me not to call my daughter after her
first competition ever. That they took first place was not even a factor, I
would've called her if they'd taken last. My daughter is very shy, and that
she was able to go out and perform in front of hundreds and hundreds of
people, and do it well... I was very, very proud of her, and I think as her
Mom, I had a right to let her know that.
Since I bought the cell phone, it is no longer an issue, (I hope!!) Both
the ex and the g/f has said they would not object to my calling the kids on
that. I still wouldn't call in the morning, or even the middle of the day.
I think the evening, when everything is winding down is probably best, so
not to interrupt their day or their plans is a good way to go. And I don't
feel the need to call every day, either. (which is WHY their reaction was
so over the top, IMO)
My daughter says she does not feel comfortable getting up out of bed in the
morning until they are up (she's an early worm----6 am even on weekends. So
she says she just lays there for two or more hours, until they do. I told
her if she wants to call and just chat while she's waiting, I'd love to talk
to her. Hopefully, the feeling that she's intruding will fade, and she'll
feel comfortable getting up and making herself pancakes and watching toons
like she does at her own house on a Saturday morning.
Cal~
M is for Malapert
> I am very concerned that when the time comes for them to decide whether he
> has a place in their life, in their hearts, that he will lose out, due to
> the things he has done and said. And that makes me very, very sad for my
> children.
Are you sure that behind all the concern, there isn't a hope that this is
exactly what will happen? I wouldn't be sad if my kids saw through a dad
who was genuinely not a very nice person, and minimized his place in their
lives and hearts. I'd be sorry that they had a dad like that, but not sorry
that they became aware of it. And he either is or isn't such a person, and
his actions will reveal what he is either way.
Somehow this "I hope the kids don't treat him like the asshole he is"
doesn't ring true to me.
> The hard thing is to be able to communicate with the kids that I don't
> approve of what happened, without sounding like I am trying to get them to
> dislike the woman. Since she is involved in their lives, it is best for
> them to not only get along with her, but to actually like her. And it's a
> tightrope to walk, isn't it? I'm not sure I've done a very good job with
> that balancing act, but I keep trying. Best I can do.
Do you need to communicate that you don't approve? I mean, didn't they
witness any part of your anguish and pain when he dumped you? Your efforts
to keep the marriage together? If they saw any of that, they got the
message that this was an awful, awful thing to do. I wouldn't go on telling
them so because it can't help but make it harder for them to like her.
ms_cal
"Melissa" <laa...@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message
news:20011022143244...@mb-fx.aol.com...
> >So, I'm recommending you accept and respect SM's boundaries. It doesn't
> >matter
> >if you think she *should* feel invaded when you call her house. She
does,
> >end
> >of story. Way to go with the cell phones.
> >
> >jane
>
by an
> SO and his kids.
Hi Melissa, what's an AM-----I'm having a hard time with all these new
acronyms. Most I've been able to figure out, but AM I have not, lol.
I agree. It must be extremely hard to live for 50 years without children
living in your house, and then all of a sudden, have two young teens, and
all the noise and mess they bring with them. One of the reasons the ex
wanted to birdnest is that she is what he called 'not mother material'.
Um....okay.
> I love my SO, I love his kids but I remember having alot of boundry
issues.
> Phone calls were a particular issue. Most of you know about my SS's BM's
old
> habit of call every 15 minutes or every hour on the hour. I remember
more
> than one time being on the phone seeing her number on call waiting,
picking up
> so that I could take a message and getting yelled at for not letting her
speak
> to SS. I rued the day I ever let SO give her the number.
I would too, if I were in your place. My total phone call statistics up to
that point were 3 in 18 months. Two were due to ill children. And once was
to talk to my kids--that time she was very nice----"sure, hold on... A &
M....telephone". The second time I called the kids (something like two
months later) she was upset that I used her 'resources' to access my
children.
And the difference here was I wasn't calling to talk to him or her, but the
kids. And she wouldn't even say if they were there or not, she just kept
asking if it was an emergency, as if I should only call them if it was. I
could see saying that if I was calling the ex, but not my children.
I wouldn't even put myself through what your SS's BM did, calling that
often. I got all sick to my stomach, and had to take several deep breathes
just to dial that number. I felt it was too important to my daughter to
avoid having to actually ask her to speak with my kids.
Cal~
>
> I'm not saying that the OP is in any way like BM. I'm simply saying that
I can
> understand where SM is coming from about the use of the phone in her home.
ms_cal
> <waves frantically> Hi, Mrs. Cal. I know you!
> --
>
> Tracey
Hi Tracey....never thought you'd see me here, did ya? lol. I hope none of
you mind me being here, as I'm not anywhere near being a step parent. (
:-( haven't even had a dang date yet...sad, very sad.....)
But I'm hoping I can learn what NOT to do...so I can help the kids with the
new mrs. Stooge. (lol)
Cal~
>
> Indigo: What sailors do when they see a bar
> ---Funky Winkerbean---
>
ms_cal
>> > For the custody situation, we currently bird-nest, where the kids stay
in
> > the former family home, and every week my ex and I move in and out.
>
> How does that work out for all of you? Kudos to you for trying it. The
two
> or three kids I know who live in joint custody and move from one parent's
> house to another are miserable about it. The ones who live mostly with
one
> parent and visit the other are happiest. I don't know any teenagers who
> would sit still for 50-50 shared custody with moving back and forth.
The kids are doing mostly pretty darn good. We've hit a few speed bumps,
but for the most part, it works. The kids were seeing a counselor, and my
daughter (13) still is. But they are both doing very well in school, and
for the most part are happy we've done the arrangement the way we have.
>
> > I am having a hard time dealing with the future SM, as she has already
> > demonstrated her desire to entirely cut me off from my kids when they
are
> at
> > her house. To the point of not even letting me talk to them on the
> phone--
> > I had posted about that earlier. I ended up buying them a cell phone,
as
> > the cricket phones suggested by you good folks aren't in my area as of
> yet.
>
> That was good advice. My DH carries a cell phone when he's at his ex's
> house, so that we can communicate without using her phone. That just
seems
> like courtesy to me.
Oh, that WAS the original arrangement, but he got to the point of refusing
to pick it up, if it was me. He just decided he didn't want to deal with me
at all, if he could help it. We got along better than most divorced couples
I know, for the most part. We even sat together at the kids concerts,
performances etc. That was, until he introduced the kids to his g/f. Then
everything changed. I believe, though I could be wrong, that she somehow
felt threatened by his amiable relationship we had managed to forge, and
that she is the driving force behind his recent actions.
But it does seem odd to me that we had managed to stay friendly all though
the divorce, mediation, etc...and once she met the kids, she started acting
territorial. It was only after the kids started spending time at her house,
that he started acting like he'd wish I vanished. Sometimes it scares me,
like he just wants to eliminate me from the kids life, and just have the
four of them as one big happy family. And I'm for the most part not a
paranoid person.
>
> > As of now they don't spend a great deal of time over at her house, but
> they
> > do spend many weekends over there and I am not to sure how long we can
> > realistically continue the birdnesting and am concerned about how we
> handle
> > all this.
>
> Is the problem with birdnesting mainly financial, or what?
Some of it is financial....as I am still in school, and not drawing a
paycheck, he is funding our entire 'lifestyle'. Now, granted he makes a lot
of money, but we are now 3 households living basically on the same income we
managed one on. (of course, one of those households has a second person
contributing, so it could be worse.) I am looking forward to the day when I
can tell him to keep his money, I have my own. (in nicer terms than that,
lol)
But some of it is due to how unhappy the kids are over at 'her' house. The
ex and his g/f have made no attempt to make it any type of home for them,
and they hate going there. It's over a hour away, and they know no one.
And then there is the feeling of not having privacy. I always get this
feeling that he's been in my room when I'm not there. I just can't shake
it. I don't keep anything of real importance there for the most part, but I
do at times feel invaded.
And some of it has to do with my coming back to the 'nest' and finding
something else missing... seems everytime he leaves the house, he takes one
more thing. This past time, he had gone through an entire cabinet in the L.
R. and took everything of mine out and left it on the floor. I can't for
the life of me understand why he would do that. He said he didn't want that
cabinent and all it held were some craft supplies, and the kids games, which
he did put back....so why go through it? We've been birdnesting for over a
year now, and without exception, he has left with something else. One day,
I came home and the liquor cabinet was empty except for a vodka bottle, and
he left only 6 bottles of wine in the wine rack.
One day, I came home and the painting in the foyer that we had there was
gone, and a framed poster was in it's place. But I can't get him to take
the damn metal fish sculptures that line the mantel for the life of me.
After christmas the kids asked me not to replace them, when I put the
decorations away, so I packed them up and left in his room, next time I came
back, there they were! Ick.
>
> > So anyway, my purpose here I guess is to gain insight on how to be the
> best
> > Mom I can be to two kids (15 y/o boy and 13 y/o girl) who will be having
a
> > SM.
>
> As a SM and a mom to my own child, I think the best thing you can do for
> your kids is to not make it hard for them to be with their dad.
Something I have tried to do right from the beginning. I've bit my tongue
so much these last few months, it's surprising it's still there!!
> It will
> probably require a lot of grace and sacrifice to do this, and it sucks
that
> you have to do it, but remember that things are always changing. It could
> be so different in a few years that you will be astonished. Try to react
as
> minimally as possible to everything as it flies by.
I've read some stories on ASD how some parents who had bitter divorces, and
custody battles now are very congenial with each other as time past. We
were congenial in the beginning, but it has gone downhill since. I hope we
managed to get back to the way we were in the beginning, it can only help
the kids.
>
> I can see where the future SM thinks that maybe her space should be
> offlimits to you because there is already a home that your ex and you
share
> with the kids. Maybe this will change if the birdnesting stops.
I guess I can understand that, with some exceptions. I think for the most
part, I have honored their desire to not hear from me.
<snipped>
> Personally, I have no objection to the "living together while married on
> paper to other people" part, as long as it was all out in the open. If
your
> husband could have made a wholehearted commitment to staying with you and
> trying to work things out, that would be one thing. If he couldn't do
that,
> I think it's better to end things cleanly. It's like having surgery -
messy
> and painful, but then the healing can begin.
I guess many people believe the same. I just think when there are kids
(teens especially, who are just now learning about their own sexuality),
that they should have waited until we had divorced. But that's just my
opinion, and obviously he disagreed. My kids have said little on the
subject, but then that's to be expected.
Like I said in another post, I find myself walking a tightrope, tryng to
balance my beliefs with their father's actions, and NOT interfering in his
relationship with them. It's very hard, but the last thing I want is to
make things worse for my children and their father's relationship. He is so
important to them, as he should be. (btw----most of what some might term as
judgmental comments are reserved for my posts in this group and asd---- I
keep most of my feelings over what he did to our family to myself,
otherwise)
Cal~
ms_cal
"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >
> Now that's not to say co-parenting is easy, nor that it doesn't have the
> potential for its own problems, but on the whole I feel it's in my
children's
> interests to have access to both us of us.
AMEN!! I feel so sad when a new person shows up at ASD
(alt.support.divorce), and talks about how they never get to see their kids,
etc. My children need as much access to their father as they do me, and I
would never try to get between that, as hard as it is sometimes.
Cal~
>
> Wendy
>
>
ms_cal
"Jennifer" <gaz...@theironpig.com> wrote in message
news:3BD503B6...@theironpig.com...
> Wendy wrote:
>
> > In article <X8%A7.13808$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> > M is for Malapert <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > >How does that work out for all of you? Kudos to you for trying it.
The two
> > >or three kids I know who live in joint custody and move from one
parent's
> > >house to another are miserable about it. The ones who live mostly with
one
> > >parent and visit the other are happiest. I don't know any teenagers
who
> > >would sit still for 50-50 shared custody with moving back and forth.
> >
both
> > well adjusted happy individuals, and largely wouldn't want it any other
way
> > now that it has been going for a while. All the research here in the UK
> > suggests that the happiest children are ones who have regular and
frequent
> > access to both parents.
>
> I was going to make the same point. DH and BM were never married, and
SD's gone
> back and forth for the past 15 years. We're on a 50/50 schedule (SD
alternates
> each week), and she finds it works well. SD's school is in our
neighborhood,.
> Her BM lives in a different county, but BM's home is only about 15 minutes
away.
> BM makes the effort to invite some of SD's school friends out every now
and then
> when SD's at BM's house for the week.
>
> BM, DH and I all coordinate SD's swimming and school activities, and SD
has never
> been hurting IRT social activities :-) It does take some work, but I know
if SD
> weren't satisfied she'd have something to say about it, lol. A *lot* of
SD's
> friends are in shared custody situations, and they seem as happy as any
other
> teenagers.
>
> Jennifer
The kids I see that are the most unhappy are the ones in a traditional
custody arrangement, where they only get to see one of their parents every
other weekend, (mostly Dad). My children have said many times they are
thankful that they still get to see dad. Of course, they always couch it
with 'no offense Mom' and then a hug :-) I tell them no offense taken, that
children need both parents if at all possible.
If the ex and his g/f would be willing to move closer to the kids, I think
we would probably ended the bird nesting by now. But they won't, so we will
continue as long as we can, financially and emotionally. I keep having to
tell myself.....see how HARD it is? do you want your kids to have to do
this??
Cal~
ms_cal
"Jennifer"
<snipped>
> As for why adults don't prefer to birdnest, it's just not generally
practical,
> though my hat is off to anyone who can accomplish it. We just have so
much more
> baggage, physical and emotional, while a child just has to move herself
(and not
> even clothes, if she has a 2nd wardrobe and room, as our SD has) from home
to
> home. If DH and I were to move every week, we'd have to move all our
personal
> and business financial records, computers, etc. :-)
>
> Jennifer
I guess if you are running a business out of your home, it would be
impossible to birdnest, but since we aren't :-) it is. As for what I move,
I think I posted it earlier, (but it is basically A LOT!!) but not
financial records. I keep anything that is personal in nature at my
apartment. I make sure all bills are paid and up to date, before I head off
to the house. Sometimes this means paying them early, but better that then
late. I keep all files at the apartment as well. I do bring my laptop, and
since I'm going to school, and my laptop hard drive is too small, I bring my
30 gig HD with me every where I go. A lot just gets stored in my trunk so I
have it where ever I am. Makes it convenient for quick trips to NH (from
MA) to visit family though, as I'm almost already packed:-)
Cal~
ms_cal
"Melissa" <laa...@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote in message
> >I'm not sure I'd
> >permit the tearful phone call to the other parent each and every night
> >(sometimes several of them), for example.
> >
> >
>
us,
> but SS did it himself. He refuses to talk to his mother when he's with
us, and
> he told her this when he was five. The calls used to tear him apart with
her
> calling all the time and not letting him off of the phone until he cried.
SO
> was in between a rock and a hard place because not allowing BM to talk to
SS
> opened the door for her to do the same to his.
Good for your SS. I think it's a shame when a parent causes such turmoil in
the kids lives. One of the reasons I avoid calling too often, though some
days just drag by, not hearing their voices. I also try to keep my calls to
them nice and light, and short!! Unless they have something to talk to me
about. And I NEVER let the kids talk to me about how their Dad did
something that just ticks them off. Once my daughter called to complain
about how dad wouldn't let her do something. That kind of call gets ended
quite quickly!!
Cal~
ms_cal
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >Geri, you make it sound as if I blackmailed him or something?
>
> I realized after I wrote it that it sounded a little like that, but that
wasn't
> what I meant. I was just curious about the particulars. Your situations
is
> really interesting to me. I would be shot before I would do it myself,
but it
> is interesting.
>
> Geri
>
Gotcha.... believe me....if someone would've told me this was what I'd be
doing, I would've thought they'd lost a few marbles. I just don't see how
we could make this work any other way, without the kids losing something
important to them. My son has 2 1/2 years and my daughter has 5 1/2 left in
school. I know I would sacrifice my life for them, so I feel I can
sacrifice what I am to do this. And overall, it does work for us. We've
had some problems, and we're still learning. Some day's I can truly say I
*hate* living like this, and some I am *so* grateful I can leave that house,
and have a few days of piece and quiet.
Cal~
ms_cal
"M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:meGB7.15487$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
>
> "ms_cal" <ms_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wYrB7.6726$AQ6.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > Well, when he moved in with her last Sept., he claims he told her if it
> ever
> > came to a point where he had to choose between her or his children,
until
> > they were out of HS, his children would win. He told his children they
> were
> > his #1 priority.
>
> This helps me put my finger on something in my situation. I know that if
it
> came to that point, DH would choose me. I am his #1 priority. And he's
> mine. Our relationship is, for both of us.
I have to say, I feel sorry for his kids. I can't imagine how my children
would deal with it, if his g/f said it's either me or them, and he chose her
over his kids. I think it would be devastating. They are only going to be
kids for a short time, and then their off....
Cal~
Penny
Oh, that sounds great. I would like it in my current situation. But,
I don't know how I would feel if I was the SO, or future sm. I
probably wouldn't like the setup, unless I had my own children to
spend time with.
When I read through some of the other posts, I remember someone
mentioning phone calls from the children when they are visiting non
custodial parents. In my situation my daughter knows she can call me
whenever she wants, on my home phone or cell phone, and I feel that is
important, regardless of the age of the child. She's 13, and sometimes
she just wants a warm fuzzy feeling from her mom. She loves dad, and
seems to care for her sm, but, I'm mom. Now, my current husband, her
sd, thinks I should tell her to have her dad handle whatever feelings
she is having, or talk to her about whatever she is going through. And
somethings she does talk to him about, but, I will never tell her
"You're out there, let Dad or Donna handle it." But, on the other
hand, I also would never tell her "No, you can't call your dad, talk
to him when you're out there." I feel it is up to us, as the parents,
to act maturely and do whatever possible to make the child feel like
they have 24 hour parents, even in seperate households. But, Vanessa
knows if she needs to call to say goodnight, she (out of
respect)should call at a decent hour.
Sometimes parents forget the important people in divorce, the
children.
Just my opinion.
Penny
ms_cal
>
>
> > tomorrow I move back to my
> > apartment for the next 7 days and I'll have more time to respond, but
> before
> > too much more speculation goes out, I need to clarify: Mrs. Second is
> > forbidden by our divorce agreement to step foot on my property, EVER-
just
> > as I am forbidden to step foot on hers.
>
> That's interesting. Now, although my sympathies are with you in this, and
I
> madly admire the way you have worked out the birdnesting and so forth, in
my
> opinion this might be going too far. I don't see any reason why you would
> ever need to go on her property, except in some emergency involving the
> kids, but she is going to be part of your husband's family.
So? They have their own home..... if he wants to live with her 100% of the
time, then that's the end of the birdnesting. There is no way I will have
her in my home, period. And neither of us can force the other to continue
BNing. We each have the option of ending it at any time, without any
explaination needed.
> If it were me,
> I think I'd let her come and stay with dad if she felt like it. Seems to
me
> that would benefit them and the kids. After all, as someone else said,
it's
> really in their interests that this marriage work. From the way you wrote
> above, it looks like it's an emotional issue for you? Is the family home
> sort of the last bastion, the line you *could* draw against the
interloper?
Look at it however you'd like. She will never be welcome in my home,
period. Why should she be?
If the time ever came that he was not with her, and got involved with
someone else, (someone who didn't have an affair with him, while married to
me), I think I'd have less of a problem. But, at this point in time, I can
say I foresee her never being welcome in my home, which is what this house
is, until we end birdnesting and sell it, my HOME. Even when I'm not there.
>
> > Even though the house is still
> > co-owned by me and the ex, she has no financial interests in it at all,
> and
> > she never will. If something happens to the ex before we sell, his will
> > must state that I receive his interests, and vise versa.
>
> Didn't you own the house as joint tenants? That's standard practice in
> California, but apparently not elsewhere. (Note to self...)
If it isn't in the agreement, he could will his half of it whomever he damn
well pleased. He held that hostage IMO, so that I would give up claim to
some money he didn't want to part with. Stupidly, I agreed to let him keep
the money. I should've not given in, and just forced a sale of the house if
something should have happened to him. Live and learn.
Cal~
ms_cal
>
> "ms_cal" <ms_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wOWB7.3024$Xc.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > I am very concerned that when the time comes for them to decide whether
he
> > has a place in their life, in their hearts, that he will lose out, due
to
> > the things he has done and said. And that makes me very, very sad for
my
> > children.
>
> Are you sure that behind all the concern, there isn't a hope that this is
> exactly what will happen? I wouldn't be sad if my kids saw through a dad
> who was genuinely not a very nice person, and minimized his place in their
> lives and hearts. I'd be sorry that they had a dad like that, but not
sorry
> that they became aware of it. And he either is or isn't such a person,
and
> his actions will reveal what he is either way.
>
> Somehow this "I hope the kids don't treat him like the asshole he is"
> doesn't ring true to me.
It may not ring true, but it is in actuality the truth. What I'm hoping is
that we all get through the rough spots, and he becomes the dad he was....
which was a loving, and involved father. I really does make me sad that he
has jepordized his relationship with his kids with his actions. But I hope
that this will turn around.
>
> > The hard thing is to be able to communicate with the kids that I don't
> > approve of what happened, without sounding like I am trying to get them
to
> > dislike the woman. Since she is involved in their lives, it is best for
> > them to not only get along with her, but to actually like her. And it's
a
> > tightrope to walk, isn't it? I'm not sure I've done a very good job
with
> > that balancing act, but I keep trying. Best I can do.
>
> Do you need to communicate that you don't approve? I mean, didn't they
> witness any part of your anguish and pain when he dumped you? Your
efforts
> to keep the marriage together? If they saw any of that, they got the
> message that this was an awful, awful thing to do. I wouldn't go on
telling
> them so because it can't help but make it harder for them to like her.
We don't really talk about that stuff any more. Just those conversations
you tend to have with kids, and how you hope they grow up, those values you
try to pass on to them. When some of that stuff comes up, it is hard to
say, I believe this way or that way. The sex talks you have to have with
teens, and how you hope they will behave etc. Some of that gets mixed up
with their father and his actions. I do try to keep the subject on topic to
what is relative to them and their lives.
Their father having an affair is something they are both aware of, however,
and there has been questions, and comments such as well, Dad doesn't believe
in waiting until marriage. As for saying the affair was awful, no I haven't
really had to talk to them about that, as you are right, they witnessed the
awfulness first hand, of what an affair can do to a family, not just the
other spouse.
Cal~
Jennifer
Oh, sure, there's always that, lol :-) I have to admit that being married with
4 kids has made me quite the flexible mover and shaker, something I *never* was
before. I've learned how to get up and go with vey little notice, and I'm
actually starting to enjoy it. Just one more example of how children can change
your life!
Jennifer
Jennifer
<clap, clap, clap>
Merrie
ms_cal <ms_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gXWB7.3154$Xc.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Kathleen and Steve
just grabbed her the minute she was done playing and whisked her home, and
when she complained they told her she "didn't deserve to see anyone because
while the other kids were playing she was talking". My Mom had made the 2
hour trip down to see her to - someone Kayla's Dad would have never shunned
Funny it wasn't like that tonight for her fall concert (on 'our' week), they
talked to her all through the first performance while her band was waiting
in line to get on stage.
I sent her roses the next day (since I couldn't talk to her), first time for
that and it made it a special memory for both of us.
/me shrugs and rolls eyes
Kathleen
> You weren't able to go to your daughters first competition?
>
Jennifer
> If Cal's experience was anything like mine, she was there to see it, they
> just grabbed her the minute she was done playing and whisked her home, and
> when she complained they told her she "didn't deserve to see anyone because
> while the other kids were playing she was talking". My Mom had made the 2
> hour trip down to see her to - someone Kayla's Dad would have never shunned
> Funny it wasn't like that tonight for her fall concert (on 'our' week), they
> talked to her all through the first performance while her band was waiting
> in line to get on stage.
>
> I sent her roses the next day (since I couldn't talk to her), first time for
> that and it made it a special memory for both of us.
>
> /me shrugs and rolls eyes
> Kathleen
That's the petty stuff that really stings, when one parent does something
outright wrong and pissy just to score a point on some invisible scoreboard.
Jennifer
Anne Robotti
and left without ever talking to SD.
Anne
M is for Malapert
> Perhaps it depends on how it is done? My girls take things back and
forth.
> My ex has a key to my home to collect things, and the girls come back here
> after school where he collects them. I have a key to his as well.
> They don't live in one place at a time, more like they move back and forth
> freely. They like spending time with both parents and in both settings.
> They have rooms in each house, so they feel very much that they belong in
> both.
Your situation sounds great. Not hard on the girls at all - probably the
reverse, in fact.
M is for Malapert
> In article <meGB7.15487$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> M is for Malapert <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >This helps me put my finger on something in my situation. I know that if
it
> >came to that point, DH would choose me. I am his #1 priority. And he's
> >mine. Our relationship is, for both of us.
> >
> >So I feel that it's somewhat my obligation not to let things get to that
> >point. And because I know I'm that important to him, it's not hard to
do.
>
> Pause for a moment though and think. Was that always the case?
We have known each other for several years but only been a couple for two
(coming up). So in the sense that neither of us got this relationship going
until "the children" were older, I suppose the answer is no.
> No doubt in time as my children get older and fly the nest than the
balance
> of priorities will change again.
That's probably part of it, for us.
Fortunately, it doesn't have to come to the point of choosing.
Jennaii
>I don't know how I would feel if I was the SO, or future sm. I
>probably wouldn't like the setup, unless I had my own children to
>spend time with.
My DH spends one weekend a month visiting his daughter 200 miles away. I LOVE
it!!! I can go out with my friends, take long baths, jog in the park for as
long as I like, work late, run errands, tinker in the gardens, visit with the
neighbors... I LOVE the opportunity to do what *I* want without having to worry
about anyone else. I am never bored or lonely. It's all in your
*perspective*. (notice cleaning house is NOT anywhere in there?)
"This time: gonna do it RIGHT!" -- Bob Seger
Jennaii
Kathleen and Steve
> Jennaii
Which song is this, anyway? I know I should know, but everytime I see your
posts, I wonder.
hugs, Kathleen
Jennaii
Kathleen and Steve
I need to buy some Manaheim Steamroller (sp?) and some music by the Wynans
first... the list gets longer. :-)
hugs, Kathleen
Wendy
M is for Malapert <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Are you sure that behind all the concern, there isn't a hope that this is
>exactly what will happen? I wouldn't be sad if my kids saw through a dad
>who was genuinely not a very nice person, and minimized his place in their
>lives and hearts. I'd be sorry that they had a dad like that, but not sorry
>that they became aware of it. And he either is or isn't such a person, and
>his actions will reveal what he is either way.
>
>Somehow this "I hope the kids don't treat him like the asshole he is"
>doesn't ring true to me.
I don't know anyone who isn't occasionally an asshole. My ex has his moments
just like other people. My children are aware of his shortcomings, but see
them coupled with his other good qualities. It isn't any different than
me making allowances for my own father's quirks. We all make allowances for
the people we love.
I expect they see my shortcomings too - hell, I can see them myself, though
it isn't always easy to deal with them.
Wendy
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Wendy wrote:
>
> In article <W0XB7.16174$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> M is for Malapert <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >Are you sure that behind all the concern, there isn't a hope that this is
> >exactly what will happen? I wouldn't be sad if my kids saw through a dad
> >who was genuinely not a very nice person, and minimized his place in their
> >lives and hearts. I'd be sorry that they had a dad like that, but not sorry
> >that they became aware of it. And he either is or isn't such a person, and
> >his actions will reveal what he is either way.
> >
> >Somehow this "I hope the kids don't treat him like the asshole he is"
> >doesn't ring true to me.
>
Not every mom saying "I hope the kids don't treat him like the asshole
he is" is a false statement.
My mother tried to warn my father that he needed to make changes, that
he was "digging his own grave" with the way he acted as we were growing
up. Mom never talked badly about him to us. For the most part, we
pretty much had a house rule that Lil Sis and I didn't talk about what
went on at his house unless it was something that we really needed to
talk about.
He wasn't wise enough to listen to Mom's advice. He told us things
about Mom that Lil Sis and I knew were lies (that she'd done xyz at
times when we were with her, so we knew for a fact that things weren't
what he said, etc) and was physically abusive. Things got to a point
where I didn't want to go for our monthly visitations, but Mom had to
make me because the judge told her that if she didn't make me go, she
could wind up in jail. Because I was afraid she or Pawpaw would kill my
father (and wind up in jail) if they knew everything that went on at his
house, I didn't give her enough information to be able to tell the judge
*why* I didn't want to go to my father's.
My sister and I no longer have anything to do with our father. For over
two years now, I've lived within a couple hours drive from him, yet
noone in my family has informed him that I'm in the state. As far as
I'm concerned, it can stay that way. It's his own fault. Mom tried to
warn him.
--
Kitten
"I am no longer abuse@<nowdefunctportal>.com. It is no longer my job to
help clueless lUsers. I release them to their ignorance and the
consequences thereof. I *DON'T* need to hand-hold every person I ever
encounter who *chooses* to remain totally clueless. It is *NOT* my job
to mother them nor to help them learn how to communicate effectively
with other people."
M is for Malapert
>
> "M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:meGB7.15487$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
> >
> > "ms_cal" <ms_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:wYrB7.6726$AQ6.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > Well, when he moved in with her last Sept., he claims he told her if
it
> > ever
> > > came to a point where he had to choose between her or his children,
> until
> > > they were out of HS, his children would win. He told his children
they
> > were
> > > his #1 priority.
> >
> > This helps me put my finger on something in my situation. I know that
if
> it
> > came to that point, DH would choose me. I am his #1 priority. And he's
> > mine. Our relationship is, for both of us.
>
> I have to say, I feel sorry for his kids. I can't imagine how my children
> would deal with it, if his g/f said it's either me or them, and he chose
her
> over his kids. I think it would be devastating.
It could be devasting, if it got to that point. That's one reason why I
would do what I could to keep things from getting there.
That being said, however, I don't buy the current white, middle-class script
on childrearing. You know, the one that says your children are supposed to
be the most important figures in your life, at least while they are minors,
and that having had them you ought to make them your top priority. I don't
even like to see it peddled as a script for other people. It gives way too
much importance to children's feelings and needs. That's not good for
anyone.
M is for Malapert
>
> "M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:nbAB7.15436$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
> > If it were me,
> > I think I'd let her come and stay with dad if she felt like it. Seems
to
> me
> > that would benefit them and the kids. After all, as someone else said,
> it's
> > really in their interests that this marriage work. From the way you
wrote
> > above, it looks like it's an emotional issue for you? Is the family
home
> > sort of the last bastion, the line you *could* draw against the
> interloper?
>
> Look at it however you'd like. She will never be welcome in my home,
> period. Why should she be?
For one reason, so the kids could interact with her on *their* territory? I
know you mentioned that they don't feel comfortable in *her* place, which is
understandable. In *their* house, she'd be the one who was feeling
uncomfortable, no doubt. Not that any of this might get said, but I'd think
the kids would feel an edge under the circumstances. Which might be good,
as a way to balance out all the interactions in which they feel edged out.
I see your point too, though.
M is for Malapert
>
> "M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:W0XB7.16174$CN5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
> > Somehow this "I hope the kids don't treat him like the asshole he is"
> > doesn't ring true to me.
>
> It may not ring true, but it is in actuality the truth. What I'm hoping
is
> that we all get through the rough spots, and he becomes the dad he was....
> which was a loving, and involved father. I really does make me sad that
he
> has jepordized his relationship with his kids with his actions. But I
hope
> that this will turn around.
As Wendy pointed out, we're all assholes once in a while. No doubt your
kids will cut him a break, same as they do for you when necessary. A parent
actually has to go awfully far before he or she really jeopardizes the
children's love and desire to have some kind of relationship.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
<snipped>
>
> That being said, however, I don't buy the current white, middle-class script
> on childrearing. You know, the one that says your children are supposed to
> be the most important figures in your life, at least while they are minors,
> and that having had them you ought to make them your top priority.
That's a "white, middle-class script"? Funny. My grandparents never
were middle-class.
>I don't
> even like to see it peddled as a script for other people. It gives way too
> much importance to children's feelings and needs. That's not good for
> anyone.
How does putting your children's needs as a top priority place too much
importance on their feelings and needs? How is this not good for
anyone?
Keeping our children housed, clothed, and fed has priority over material
things that Chewy and I need/want. IMO, that's how it should be. He
and I take care each other's mental/emotional needs first, but a big
part of that is that if we don't take care of ourselves, we won't be
able to take care of our children.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
<snipped>
>
> on childrearing. You know, the one that says your children are supposed to
> be the most important figures in your life, at least while they are minors,
> and that having had them you ought to make them your top priority.
That's a "white, middle-class script"? Funny. My grandparents never
were middle-class.
>I don't
> even like to see it peddled as a script for other people. It gives way too
> much importance to children's feelings and needs. That's not good for
> anyone.
M is for Malapert
"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
news:3BDD7E49...@whitepine.com...
> M is for Malapert wrote:
> >
> <snipped>
> >
> > That being said, however, I don't buy the current white, middle-class
script
> > on childrearing. You know, the one that says your children are supposed
to
> > be the most important figures in your life, at least while they are
minors,
> > and that having had them you ought to make them your top priority.
>
> That's a "white, middle-class script"? Funny. My grandparents never
> were middle-class.
Unless your grandparents are awfully young, I doubt they subscribed to the
scenario either. It's recent - definitely since the 1950s, when I grew up.
> >I don't
> > even like to see it peddled as a script for other people. It gives way
too
> > much importance to children's feelings and needs. That's not good for
> > anyone.
>
> How does putting your children's needs as a top priority place too much
> importance on their feelings and needs? How is this not good for
> anyone?
Because the feelings and needs of adults should come first. Children must
learn to know their place.
Sound horrendous? That was the way it was for most of human history.
> Keeping our children housed, clothed, and fed has priority over material
> things that Chewy and I need/want.
My goodness, I wasn't talking about survival. Make that "needs" and
feelings then. Those things we really want, are sure we must have to
tolerate life (like a satisfying love relationship) but don't actually
require to stay alive. I say that the things adults want take priority.
Among which may well be wanting to please your children and make them happy,
for whatever reason, and thus being happy to postpone your own gratification
for their sake (but really for your own).
> IMO, that's how it should be. He
> and I take care each other's mental/emotional needs first, but a big
> part of that is that if we don't take care of ourselves, we won't be
> able to take care of our children.
There you go! Best for everyone all around.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> "Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
> news:3BDD7E49...@whitepine.com...
> > M is for Malapert wrote:
> > >
> > <snipped>
> > >
> > > That being said, however, I don't buy the current white, middle-class
> script
> > > on childrearing. You know, the one that says your children are supposed
> to
> > > be the most important figures in your life, at least while they are
> minors,
> > > and that having had them you ought to make them your top priority.
> >
> > That's a "white, middle-class script"? Funny. My grandparents never
> > were middle-class.
>
> Unless your grandparents are awfully young, I doubt they subscribed to the
> scenario either. It's recent - definitely since the 1950s, when I grew up.
>
Nope. Pawpaw would have been 92 this year, if he hadn't died in '98.
Mamma is 75. Not only did they make their family top priority, 2nd only
to God, but they did the same with their grandchildren, specifically me
and my siblings when Mom's 1st and 2nd marriages broke down. When Mom
was a single mother of two, Mamma and Pawpaw gave her 3 acres of the
farm to build a house on. When Mom was a single mother of four and
unable to make ends meet, Pawpaw went back to work in the log woods, to
help us out. Mamma was always there when we needed her, when Mom was
working or in school. Mom worked full-time while going to school
full-time so that she'd be better able to provide for us.
What this did was build a sense of *family*. When my little sister's
girls were visiting in Arkansas and were ready to leave but Lil Sis
couldn't make it there from AZ to get them, my husband and I went to get
them. They stayed here until Mom could meet us halfway, a day's drive
each for all of us. When Baby Sis needs help with her kids, one of whom
is autistic, Mom or Lil Sis are there to help. When I lived out there,
I watched both sisters' kids most weekends while they worked.
> > >I don't
> > > even like to see it peddled as a script for other people. It gives way
> too
> > > much importance to children's feelings and needs. That's not good for
> > > anyone.
> >
> > How does putting your children's needs as a top priority place too much
> > importance on their feelings and needs? How is this not good for
> > anyone?
>
> Because the feelings and needs of adults should come first. Children must
> learn to know their place.
>
Why do you feel that children should have a lower place than adults?
Why should our children learn to feel that they are inferior to others?
> Sound horrendous? That was the way it was for most of human history.
>
Slavery is the way it was for most of human history. It still occurs
today. Does that make it right?
> > Keeping our children housed, clothed, and fed has priority over material
> > things that Chewy and I need/want.
>
> My goodness, I wasn't talking about survival. Make that "needs" and
> feelings then. Those things we really want, are sure we must have to
> tolerate life (like a satisfying love relationship) but don't actually
> require to stay alive. I say that the things adults want take priority.
> Among which may well be wanting to please your children and make them happy,
> for whatever reason, and thus being happy to postpone your own gratification
> for their sake (but really for your own).
Why do you feel that children don't deserve happiness as much as adults
do?
>
> > IMO, that's how it should be. He
> > and I take care each other's mental/emotional needs first, but a big
> > part of that is that if we don't take care of ourselves, we won't be
> > able to take care of our children.
>
> There you go! Best for everyone all around.
No. What you're saying is totally different from what I'm saying.
Chewy and me taking care of each other so that we can take care of the
children does not equate with "Children must learn to know their place."
M is for Malapert
> M is for Malapert wrote:
> >
> > "Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
> Nope. Pawpaw would have been 92 this year, if he hadn't died in '98.
> Mamma is 75. Not only did they make their family top priority,
Not the same as making THE CHILDREN your first priority, is it?
(So I snipped the rest. Neat story, though.)
> > > How does putting your children's needs as a top priority place too
much
> > > importance on their feelings and needs? How is this not good for
> > > anyone?
> >
> > Because the feelings and needs of adults should come first. Children
must
> > learn to know their place.
> Why do you feel that children should have a lower place than adults?
Because they're children. As such, they are temporarily incapable of having
authority. Also, children are incapable of feeling as bad as adults do.
That's why divorce can be okay, for example.
> Why should our children learn to feel that they are inferior to others?
They don't. They know their turn will come.
What's the point of growing up if you have to take second place to your
children? I knew, growing up, that the day would come when *I* could decide
what to do instead of my parents deciding for me. I still enjoy that part
of being a grownup.
That's why I'm amazed anyone buys this crap. You sacrifice your happiness
for your children. Then they grow up and sacrifice *their* happiness for
*their* children. Who gets to benefit? Not "the children" - they won't
even remember a tenth of what we do for them.
Why doesn't anyone say "Wait a minute - the buck stops here. My mom and dad
sacrificed their happiness so I could be happy, so I'm going to repay them
by *being* happy. Otherwise, it would be disrespectful." Kind of the way
we can respect our grandparents who sacrificed in WWII by taking advantage
of the freedoms they fought for, if you see what I mean.
> > Sound horrendous? That was the way it was for most of human history.
> Slavery is the way it was for most of human history. It still occurs
> today. Does that make it right?
Please note that I don't necessarily agree with those statements. The point
is to show that today's hysterical concern for children's happiness, and
condemnation of anything that might interfere with it, is extremely recent
and situational. I personally raised my son more on the Dr. Spock than the
Cotton Mather model, but then again he was a quiet, reserved, well-behaved
and analytical person from the get-go. We've always been on the same
wavelength, so I never had any problems with him. Had I been cursed with a
noisy, extroverted, meddlesome child who acted before thinking, it would
have been different.
> > My goodness, I wasn't talking about survival. Make that "needs" and
> > feelings then. Those things we really want, are sure we must have to
> > tolerate life (like a satisfying love relationship) but don't actually
> > require to stay alive. I say that the things adults want take priority.
> > Among which may well be wanting to please your children and make them
happy,
> > for whatever reason, and thus being happy to postpone your own
gratification
> > for their sake (but really for your own).
> Why do you feel that children don't deserve happiness as much as adults
> do?
They don't deserve it at the expense of the adults' happiness, that's all.
Why should they? As I said, they lack the capacity to suffer as much as
adults do. The perception even of physical pain has a huge psychological
component and is mediated by past experience, learned behavior, personality,
expectations of future pain, and so forth. Much more so for emotional or
psychic suffering.
> > > IMO, that's how it should be. He
> > > and I take care each other's mental/emotional needs first, but a big
> > > part of that is that if we don't take care of ourselves, we won't be
> > > able to take care of our children.
> >
> > There you go! Best for everyone all around.
>
> No. What you're saying is totally different from what I'm saying.
> Chewy and me taking care of each other so that we can take care of the
> children does not equate with "Children must learn to know their place."
So you and Chewy wouldn't bother with each other if not for the children?
WhansaMi
moral development.
Essentially, Tannen found that traditional theories of moral development
centered around whose RIGHTS had precedence... and how that is determined. She
proposed a different model, wherein moral development was determined not by how
one decides which RIGHTS are more important, but by looking at how
RESPONSIBILITY figures into the equation. (BTW, Tannen says that women are
more likely to buy into this second model.... a suggestion belied by this convo
;-))
I bring this up because my perspective on this issue is closely tied to that
model. Basically, I believe that, as long as children are infants and
toddlers, individuals who cannot, for developmental reasons, understand the
concept of community, or the needs of others, it is right that the parents DO
make the child "the center of the universe"--that is their responsibility, and
the child is incapable of taking on that responsibility at any level. Once a
child is developmentally capable of understanding that others have needs, then
there should be a shift to balancing the needs of ALL the members of the
community (family).
Just my two cents.
Sheila
Jennifer
You put it into words very well.
I couldn't wait to grow up b/c I knew I'd get to be an *adult*, which was a big
deal then (since as a child I hadn't been allowed to do everything I wanted). I
hope my kids feel the same way.
You should hear my 15yo try to argue her way into what will be our adults-only
game room :-) I think it's important to have adults-only space in the home. I
always knew our family living room was off limits after a certain time, and I
respected it. It was influential to me to see how my parents prized and found
time just to be together, sans kids.
Jennifer
WhansaMi
>adults-only
>game room :-) I think it's important to have adults-only space in the home.
Hmmmmmm... Jennifer... wanna tell us what kind of "toys" will be in there???
;-)))
Sheila, who is considering changing this to a "oversharing" thread. hehehehe
Jennifer
> As I read Kitten's and Mal's convo, I am reminded of Deborah Tannen's work on
> moral development.
I really enjoy Tannen's books. I was introduced to her works in college and they
really affected me, esp. IRT male-female communication.
> I bring this up because my perspective on this issue is closely tied to that
> model. Basically, I believe that, as long as children are infants and
> toddlers, individuals who cannot, for developmental reasons, understand the
> concept of community, or the needs of others, it is right that the parents DO
> make the child "the center of the universe"--that is their responsibility, and
> the child is incapable of taking on that responsibility at any level. Once a
> child is developmentally capable of understanding that others have needs, then
> there should be a shift to balancing the needs of ALL the members of the
> community (family).
I don't ever put my children as center(s) of the universe, even when they're
young. I do understand their needs, and I tend to them, and I love the children
with all my heart :-) But I've always made it a priority to find time alone with
my DH, b/c I think we're each other's centers.
Jennifer
Jennifer
ROFL :-D Sheila, we're piggybacking on each other's posts, here! Now lift your
mind up...nothing too skanky here...no bondage toys or anything like that
(although I'll let you know for sure after our first party, lol).
We'll have a pool table, professional air hockey table, various arcade games, one
of those old-fashioned popcorn popper carts, a big-screen TV over the fireplace,
a wet bar, possibly a soda fountain :-) I'm so excited! Construction should be
completed by 12/1, and then we just have to move all the stuff in (and finish
ordering). Woo hoo!
Jennifer
M is for Malapert
"WhansaMi" <whan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011029172902...@mb-mb.aol.com...
> As I read Kitten's and Mal's convo, I am reminded of Deborah Tannen's work
on
> moral development.
>
> Essentially, Tannen found that traditional theories of moral development
> centered around whose RIGHTS had precedence... and how that is determined.
She
> proposed a different model, wherein moral development was determined not
by how
> one decides which RIGHTS are more important, but by looking at how
> RESPONSIBILITY figures into the equation. (BTW, Tannen says that women
are
> more likely to buy into this second model.... a suggestion belied by this
convo
> ;-))
Wasn't that Carol Gilligan? I thought Tannen was mostly interested in
language.
> I bring this up because my perspective on this issue is closely tied to
that
> model. Basically, I believe that, as long as children are infants and
> toddlers, individuals who cannot, for developmental reasons, understand
the
> concept of community, or the needs of others, it is right that the parents
DO
> make the child "the center of the universe"--that is their responsibility,
and
> the child is incapable of taking on that responsibility at any level.
But does this require following all the current white middle-class ideas on
how to carry that out, e.g. extended breastfeeding, exclusive caregiving,
"bonding", "attachment parenting" and so forth? Aren't there a myriad of
different ways to satisfactorily meet the child's needs?
For what it's worth, I personally agree with you to the point that I don't
even approve of adoption unless it's absolutely necessary for the child's
survival. I think babies are born bonded to their biological mothers and
suffer from losing them - not quite "primal wound" theory but close.
However, I also believe that's just my very own take on things, and that
other people can disagree and still be responsible parents, even if they let
others raise their children altogether.
> Once a
> child is developmentally capable of understanding that others have needs,
then
> there should be a shift to balancing the needs of ALL the members of the
> community (family).
Do you ever listen to "Dr. Laura"? As background for those who haven't,
until she switched to All War, All the Time political commentary a la Rush
(except she's further to the right than he is), her rationale was that once
you sire or conceive a baby, your personal life is over. From here on out,
your first thought has to be what's best for that child. For mom, no
working outside the home - I once heard her tell a young mother it would be
wrong to let her child's two grandmas care for that baby TWO DAYS A MONTH.
For dad, no job that requires being away from home overnight or even at
dinner time. No going to school at night to get a better job, no joining
the National Guard or Army Reserves if that means one weekend a month and
two weeks a year away from home. And no divorce for the sake of personal
happiness, of course. You can only divorce if you are abandoned or if your
spouse is adulterous, addicted, or physically abusive. And if that happens,
you can't date until your kids leave home. After all, if you are worried
about your love life you can't devote all your attention to them, which they
especially need if they are already missing one parent. You can't move away
either.
Does any of that resonate? I find myself rejecting every bit of it. In
fact, like Dan Savage, if I'm in doubt on any issue of right or wrong I just
try to think of what Laura would advise, then I do the opposite. :-)
Basically, everyone on this newsgroup has violated this advice in one way or
another. All of us are divorced and/or involved with divorced people,
meaning that we have put our own happiness ahead of the children's.
WhansaMi
I understand that perspective... and, indeed, I have to wonder if my ex-husband
and I had had more of that perspective, maybe our marriage wouldn't have fallen
apart. (And then I look at what a narcisistic, alcoholic ass he is and say...
"nah.. it wouldn't have!" ;-))
In fact, I am very happy to have the luxury to feeling "okay" about creating
that adult time/focus on "us with DH now.... but, I honestly don't think I
could say that if we had an infant here now that I would be able to still put
"us" first. It is one of the reasons we ultimately decided for Mike to get the
vasectomy--we really like the fact that we have time alone together, that we
are able to do adult things. I do believe that a strong marital unit should be
the center of the family holon... I believe it makes for the most stable and
healthy environment. However, I know I would have trouble reconciling that
feeling with the strong, strong, STRONG maternal drives I felt as a mother of
an infant (or, in DD's case, an "infant-like" child).
I guess it also depends on how it plays out. I don't have any problem, for
instance, telling the kids that Mike and I will be placing them at the
child-care center at the hotel when we go on vacation next year so that we will
have a night or two alone. On the other hand, I do have problems when Mike
wants to watch an R-rated movie 2 nights in a row, which means that the kids
are essentially banned from the middle floor of the house. My view is that,
while he is the adult, and has precedence, he also has the responsibility to be
considerate of the kids--because he is the adult! Does that make sense?
Sheila
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Kinda like Mom and my grandparents took on the responsibility until we
(the kids) were able to and now we (the kids) take on that
responsibility to help each other as needed. Building *family* and
*community*.
WhansaMi
>language.
>
I'll be damned... you are right!!! Sorry about that!!!
>> I bring this up because my perspective on this issue is closely tied to
>that
>> model. Basically, I believe that, as long as children are infants and
>> toddlers, individuals who cannot, for developmental reasons, understand
>the
>> concept of community, or the needs of others, it is right that the parents
>DO
>> make the child "the center of the universe"--that is their responsibility,
>and
>> the child is incapable of taking on that responsibility at any level.
>
>But does this require following all the current white middle-class ideas on
>how to carry that out, e.g. extended breastfeeding, exclusive caregiving,
>"bonding", "attachment parenting" and so forth? Aren't there a myriad of
>different ways to satisfactorily meet the child's needs?
>
Well... <<looking sheepish>> I AM one of those radical LLL, family-bed,
homeschooling, attachment parenting kind of people.... so, for me, I think it
is the optimal way, yes. (Caveat: kids now attend school and they haven't
slept with us--much-- since they were 6 ;-))
>For what it's worth, I personally agree with you to the point that I don't
>even approve of adoption unless it's absolutely necessary for the child's
>survival. I think babies are born bonded to their biological mothers and
>suffer from losing them - not quite "primal wound" theory but close.
Well, here I disagree. I think what is important is the attachment... not the
genetic make-up of the object of the attachment.
I used to listen to Dr. Laura often--it would keep me awake on the drive to and
from the ex's house with the kids. Sometimes I actually agreed with some of
what she said (although I rarely agreed with WHY she said it... small surprise,
since I am an agnostic!). Most of the time I would argue with the radio. :-)
>Basically, everyone on this newsgroup has violated this advice in one way or
>another. All of us are divorced and/or involved with divorced people,
>meaning that we have put our own happiness ahead of the children's.
>
Actually, in my case it was kinda both. A friend found me in bed one day... at
1:00 p.m. I'd been crying.... all day. It was the first time I had EVER
discussed my marital problems with literally anyone. Everyone thought we had
the "perfect" marriage. As we talked about my life... how I would walk on
eggshells as not to invoke his anger, or worse, his weeks of stony silence; how
I had, in many ways, been relegated to the role of being a servant, as he
controlled the money and I did all of the daily errands (including buying his
shoes) because his time was more "valuable" than mine; how my needs/desires
were never taken into account in any decision... and my friend asked me if I
wanted my daughter to grow up and think that THIS was a normal, good
marriage--or even my son. Because, if this is what they saw... they WILL
emulate it.
It was at that point I decided that the marriage must change, or I must leave.
I am reminded of how things are clearly different in the eyes of my children
when my daughter asks things like, "how come you and Mike always laugh so much
together"... or, as my son said to me shortly after Mike and I got together, "I
like him. He makes you happy, and you make me happy."
Sheila
ms_cal
<snipped>
Am I reading this right? You see no problem with a SO telling a parent to
choose a relationship with them, or a relationship with their [minor]
children, and you have no problem with that parent choosing the SO?
How horrible for the kids. For my children to have already lost so much of
their parents through this divorce, I can't imagine how much damage it would
cause them if their father just walked away from them. As it is, they've
struggled and continue to struggle with the choices he has already made.
M is for Malapert
> I do believe that a strong marital unit should be
> the center of the family holon... I believe it makes for the most stable
and
> healthy environment. However, I know I would have trouble reconciling
that
> feeling with the strong, strong, STRONG maternal drives I felt as a mother
of
> an infant (or, in DD's case, an "infant-like" child).
Yes, me too. When my son was a baby and toddler and we had that close,
intimate, physical relationship you do with small children, I was much more
in love with him than with my husband, and although of course that changed
as he got older I never got those feelings back for my husband. In fact I
often wonder how marriages ever do survive the birth of children and the
falling out of love with the adult partner.
> My view is that,
> while he is the adult, and has precedence, he also has the responsibility
to be
> considerate of the kids--because he is the adult! Does that make sense?
Perfect sense, to me anyway.
Jennifer
> I guess it also depends on how it plays out. I don't have any problem, for
> instance, telling the kids that Mike and I will be placing them at the
> child-care center at the hotel when we go on vacation next year so that we will
> have a night or two alone. On the other hand, I do have problems when Mike
> wants to watch an R-rated movie 2 nights in a row, which means that the kids
> are essentially banned from the middle floor of the house. My view is that,
> while he is the adult, and has precedence, he also has the responsibility to be
> considerate of the kids--because he is the adult! Does that make sense?
Well, can't you two watch the R-rated movie after the kids go to bed? Or if
they're too old to go to bed early, can't they reasonably be expected to go to
their rooms by a set time after which they can read/listen to music/do homework but
not visit you and Mike anymore? That's how it works here and in my home when I
grew up.
I'd be bothered if I couldn't count on watching an adult movie whenever I wanted
just b/c there are kids in the house (and by adult, Sheila, I mean R-rated, lol ;-)
).
For instance, SD 15 doesn't have a set bedtime on the weekends, and she likes to
stay up late. It doesn't bother us, b/c we're in our room enjoying our shows or
reading the paper, and after 9 or 10 p.m. we don't hear a peep from her.
Jennifer
WhansaMi
For me, that is okay for one night... I start getting testy when it is a couple
in a row. Mike and I initially agreed to non-consecutive nights (and, usually
he would find something else on some other nights anyway), but recently we
solved the whole problem by purchasing a second satelitte for our bedroom.
This way, either he can go upstairs and watch from our bed (if it is REALLY
violent/scary/sexual) or we can let the kids take popcorn up to our room and
watch the Disney Channel or Nick. I suppose my objection is, in part, because
my kids do not spend much time in their rooms during the day. If they have
their choice, they prefer to be out and about in the house. Having set up a
situation where they have something "fun" to do, I feel better about it.
Sheila
Anne Haas
>one
>of those old-fashioned popcorn popper carts, a big-screen TV over the
>fireplace,
>a wet bar, possibly a soda fountain :-) I'm so excited!
Wow, no wonder your daughter is trying to talk you into letting her in. Not
that I blame her or you. :-) Sounds like fun.
Uhhhhh, I think we need an ASSP gathering in DC sometime after 12/1. LOL
AnneH
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>often wonder how marriages ever do survive the birth of children and the
>falling out of love with the adult partner.
Is this a pretty common sentiment among women who bear children? I have never
heard this expressed before. No offense, but the way this is worded makes it
sound like since your husband did his job providing the stud service, he was no
longer needed.
Geri
"I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of
man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my
stand." - Susan B Anthony
Sian Reid
Malapert at mi...@sonic.net wrote on 01/10/29 17:56:
> Wasn't that Carol Gilligan? I thought Tannen was mostly interested in
> language.
The work I've seen by Tannen was on language, but I would put it past her to
be writing on the construction of social roles. Gilligan was primarily
interested in the development of moral reasoning, charging that studies by
Piaget and Kohlberg were inadequate because they studied only boys, and
developed a system for ranking 'levels' of moral development that did not
take into account the experiences and moral reasoning pattern of girls at
all. What she notes is that males tend to take a 'justice' perspective to
moral reasoning and females tend to take a 'caring' perspective to moral
reasoning. So males place a higher value on abstract concepts, while
females place a higher value on concrete relationships.
(can you tell I lectured on stage theories of cognitive development last
week?)
>
> But does this require following all the current white middle-class ideas on
> how to carry that out, e.g. extended breastfeeding, exclusive caregiving,
> "bonding", "attachment parenting" and so forth? Aren't there a myriad of
> different ways to satisfactorily meet the child's needs?
Yes, and I don't think that anyone here is arguing that there aren't. I
breastfed to age four and followed attachment parenting principles. (which
didn't mean that my kid wasn't in care half days from the age of 12 months
to four years, and full days after that!) I did this not so much out of
principle, but because of the baby I had. In retrospect, I realize I should
have co-slept more as well -- I would have gotten more sleep!
Really, it was sort of luck of the draw. I ended up, for whatever reason,
with a high touch, high needs baby who resisted eating. So I carried her
and sat on the couch with her and essentially gave up having any kind of a
life for three years. And it was hell and I was unhappy, but I knew it
wasn't going to be forever, and I was convinced that security was what she
needed to gain confidence to interact with the world on her own terms. And
by and large, I think my faith, my conviction, and my 'sacrifice' were
justified.
But I didn't do it out of 'principle'. I did it in response to the
particular baby with whom I was confronted. And so I think that some of the
people who say that 'this is the way I have done it' are not speaking so
much of 'shoulds' as about the reality of their own situations.
Sure, there are people who speak about 'shoulds', and personally, I think
Dr. Laura should be first up against the wall when the revolution comes, but
for most of us here, there is just a lot of context we leave out of the
shorthand.
Sian
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> >I never got those feelings back for my husband. In fact I
> >often wonder how marriages ever do survive the birth of children and the
> >falling out of love with the adult partner.
>
> Is this a pretty common sentiment among women who bear children? I have never
> heard this expressed before. No offense, but the way this is worded makes it
> sound like since your husband did his job providing the stud service, he was no
> longer needed.
>
Things change, feelings change. There's no way of going back to the
pre-baby feelings. A lot of couples become much, much closer than they
were before-baby. A lot of couples grow further apart. It's not much
different than with any other life-changing occurance. You can never go
back to who you were before.
jane
>never
>heard this expressed before.
You mean the falling in love with your baby? Or the falling out of love with
your mate?
jane
M is for Malapert
> > It could be devasting, if it got to that point. That's one reason why I
> > would do what I could to keep things from getting there.
> >
> > That being said, however, I don't buy the current white, middle-class
> script
> > on childrearing. You know, the one that says your children are supposed
> to
> > be the most important figures in your life, at least while they are
> minors,
> > and that having had them you ought to make them your top priority. I
> don't
> > even like to see it peddled as a script for other people. It gives way
> too
> > much importance to children's feelings and needs. That's not good for
> > anyone.
>
> Am I reading this right? You see no problem with a SO telling a parent to
> choose a relationship with them, or a relationship with their [minor]
> children, and you have no problem with that parent choosing the SO?
Oh, no. I do have a problem with that. What I'm saying is that it could be
so devastating, I believe parents (step and bio) need to avoid ever getting
to that point. Paradoxically, I think one way it can be avoided is not
putting the kids and their feelings'n'needs on too much of a pedestal. If
you don't regard The Children as sacred, then you are less likely to be
backed into that corner, IMO. Less likely to find yourself at such an
impasse that the only way out is "It's them or me."
You can head off anger and a huge blowup by venting problems as they occur,
often, right? Rather than letting them build up to a crisis. Well, it
seems to me that one can similarly head off "It's them or me" by making
ongoing choices that weigh the feelings and needs of one's children vs.
oneself vs. one's partner. If one goes on the assumption "children's needs
first, top priority" then one's partner and oneself are inevitably going to
be on the short end of the stick much of the time. I can see that getting
to the point of a huge blowup in my own situation if DH constantly put me
second to DSD. I would ultimately rebel, I am sure. At that point he would
choose me, I am equally sure.
It won't get to that point because DH is careful to weigh things (with the
balance slanted very much in my favor, it seems to me) and I recognize that
he's doing that. Also, I'm just not the ultimatum kind of person.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>your mate?
I mean falling out of love with your husband when the baby is born. (Sucks to
be him, right?)
I know that mothers can fall in love with their babies. How many have we heard
wax poetic about it? (And that I do believe you have to have your own to
understand, because I see a zillion babies every day and they are ... well,
babies.)
ms_cal
"M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote :
> "ms_cal" <ms_...@hotmail.com> wrote :
> > "M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > > It could be devasting, if it got to that point. That's one reason
why I
> > > would do what I could to keep things from getting there.
> > >
> > > That being said, however, I don't buy the current white, middle-class
> > script
> > > on childrearing. You know, the one that says your children are
supposed
> > to
> > > be the most important figures in your life, at least while they are
> > minors,
> > > and that having had them you ought to make them your top priority. I
> > don't
> > > even like to see it peddled as a script for other people. It gives
way
> > too
> > > much importance to children's feelings and needs. That's not good for
> > > anyone.
> >
> > Am I reading this right? You see no problem with a SO telling a parent
to
> > choose a relationship with them, or a relationship with their [minor]
> > children, and you have no problem with that parent choosing the SO?
>
> Oh, no. I do have a problem with that.
Okay good. I am glad we are in agreement with that. From what I've read so
far, I do like the way you think, and so I was very curious about this point
you were making.
>What I'm saying is that it could be
> so devastating, I believe parents (step and bio) need to avoid ever
getting
> to that point. Paradoxically, I think one way it can be avoided is not
> putting the kids and their feelings'n'needs on too much of a pedestal. If
> you don't regard The Children as sacred, then you are less likely to be
> backed into that corner, IMO. Less likely to find yourself at such an
> impasse that the only way out is "It's them or me."
Akay again, makes sense.
>
> You can head off anger and a huge blowup by venting problems as they
occur,
> often, right? Rather than letting them build up to a crisis. Well, it
> seems to me that one can similarly head off "It's them or me" by making
> ongoing choices that weigh the feelings and needs of one's children vs.
> oneself vs. one's partner. If one goes on the assumption "children's
needs
> first, top priority" then one's partner and oneself are inevitably going
to
> be on the short end of the stick much of the time. I can see that getting
> to the point of a huge blowup in my own situation if DH constantly put me
> second to DSD. I would ultimately rebel, I am sure. At that point he
would
> choose me, I am equally sure.
Makes sense as well.
> It won't get to that point because DH is careful to weigh things (with the
> balance slanted very much in my favor, it seems to me) and I recognize
that
> he's doing that. Also, I'm just not the ultimatum kind of person.
My ex seems to "weight" things slanted to his new g/f as well. And the kids
miss him because of it. He no longer shows up for their competitions, no
longer 'jams' with our son (they are both musicians, of sorts), he doesn't
play cards with them, etc... She is nearly 50 years old, and CF. I can
understand it being difficult to change, but at the same time, when you get
involved with a parent who has young teens, you should expect to do SOME
teen centered activities
I guess this has become more of a 'what I wish for my kids' type of thing.
I have never said anything to him, as I know it isn't my place. My 'wants'
for my kids only matter as far as I can provide for them. I do feel sad
that they've lost the Dad they had, as he was truly a wonderful Dad at one
time. Every time the kids ask him if he will be attending this or that,
and he says.....no maybe next time, I wonder if he'll ever regret it.
Cal~
>
>
>
>
M is for Malapert
> >Wasn't that Carol Gilligan? I thought Tannen was mostly interested in
> >language.
>
> I'll be damned... you are right!!! Sorry about that!!!
Whew...I thought maybe I was having a "senior moment." :-)
> >But does this require following all the current white middle-class ideas
on
> >how to carry that out, e.g. extended breastfeeding, exclusive caregiving,
> >"bonding", "attachment parenting" and so forth? Aren't there a myriad of
> >different ways to satisfactorily meet the child's needs?
>
> Well... <<looking sheepish>> I AM one of those radical LLL, family-bed,
> homeschooling, attachment parenting kind of people.... so, for me, I think
it
> is the optimal way, yes. (Caveat: kids now attend school and they
haven't
> slept with us--much-- since they were 6 ;-))
Don't look sheepish on my account! I agree with all that stuff. I wasn't
that "radical" with Andrew, because those things were *really* out there in
1979. I mean, feeding on demand was still a bit fringe-y. For instance, my
sister, who'd breastfed all her children in the 1960s, told me I should try
to wait three or four hours between feedings in order to let the milk build
up enough for Andrew to get a proper meal. (She's an M.D. herself - all
kinds of misinformation about breastfeeding endured even though she'd done
it herself.)
But if I were doing it again, I would definitely have slept with Andrew from
the get-go, rather than trying to put him into his own bed or, failing that,
holding him while he slept. When I look back at all the holding that went
on, I have to laugh. How ridiculous to go to all that effort rather than
sleep with your baby. I didn't think it was wrong or anything, I just
thought it wasn't workable for some bizarre reason. That neither of us
would get enough sleep, and that he'd be on the breast all night and starve
to death. I really believed that sort of thing!
In fact, I would have hewed very close to the attachment model, although I
probably wouldn't have homeschooled him. (I lack the patience, and he
needed contact with other kids, which I'm too lazy and he's too reserved to
initiate.)
It's terrific that it all works for you, though.
> >Basically, everyone on this newsgroup has violated this advice in one way
or
> >another. All of us are divorced and/or involved with divorced people,
> >meaning that we have put our own happiness ahead of the children's.
> Actually, in my case it was kinda both. A friend found me in bed one
day... at
> 1:00 p.m. I'd been crying.... all day. It was the first time I had EVER
> discussed my marital problems with literally anyone. Everyone thought we
had
> the "perfect" marriage. As we talked about my life... how I would walk on
> eggshells as not to invoke his anger, or worse, his weeks of stony
silence; how
> I had, in many ways, been relegated to the role of being a servant, as he
> controlled the money and I did all of the daily errands (including buying
his
> shoes) because his time was more "valuable" than mine; how my
needs/desires
> were never taken into account in any decision... and my friend asked me if
I
> wanted my daughter to grow up and think that THIS was a normal, good
> marriage--or even my son. Because, if this is what they saw... they WILL
> emulate it.
I pretty much agree with this. But Dr. Laura (and I use her as a vocal
exponent of that whole mindset) would say that you had no valid complaint.
Adults' feelings, wishes, hopes, and desires are of no importance; given
that hubby wasn't beating you or cheating on you or getting dangerously
drunk you should have pulled yourself together, counted your blessings,
discounted your feelings, and kept the marriage together. She'd say that
modeling commitment to the vows is the most important thing; hopefully your
kids would be able to make better decisions about who to make those vows
with and so be able to have better marriages.
Again, let me make it clear, I don't agree with that point of view. Still,
most of us do come out of a long tradition of marriages that stayed
together, yet people have made incremental changes, generation by
generation, in how they handle being married. My sister stayed in her
marriage for as long as she possibly could under much the same
circumstances, and her oldest child is a horrible husband just like his dad,
but her two daughters and younger son are not like that at all. The one
married daughter has a very egalitarian, happy marriage; the other daughter
is in a similar relationship. The youngest is himself a bit of a doormat in
his relationship with his girlfriend (whom he's living with and will
probably marry, if she's willing). In other words, he's modeling his mom,
not his dad! My sister would say that her sacrifice gave her kids the
security to be able to make better choices and expect better treatment from
their own partners. She does have three wonderful, considerate children who
will probably take much better care of her than my son will of selfish me.
:-)
> It was at that point I decided that the marriage must change, or I must
leave.
> I am reminded of how things are clearly different in the eyes of my
children
> when my daughter asks things like, "how come you and Mike always laugh so
much
> together"... or, as my son said to me shortly after Mike and I got
together, "I
> like him. He makes you happy, and you make me happy."
BINGO! Oh, this resonates with me. I've probably already said, here, that
Andrew once told me he had always worried the only reason his dad and I got
married was because of him. And that I'd reluctantly stayed married because
of him. It was important that I could honestly say I madly loved his dad
when we got together, and that I stayed because that's also what I genuinely
wanted to do. However, I'm *so* glad I've made it clear that finding a
satisfying relationship was important enough to me that I dated for four
years in my forties. He's only seen DH and me together on a limited basis,
but I regularly talk about how wonderful it is to be in love with the right
person. He's definitely impressed, because we're both skeptical, detached
observers who don't find it easy to let go of our cynical views. I get the
impression he thinks it's more of a possibility for him now. And I hope he
finds it the first time around. :-)
Plus, he's genuinely happy to see me happy, and it's also a huge weight off
his mind not to be the main object of my affection.
AND, I think that DH and I can benefit DSD by having a warm, close,
affectionate, mutually respectful and considerate relationship in contrast
with that of DH and DXW.
M is for Malapert
"Jennifer" <gaz...@theironpig.com> wrote in message
news:3BDDD9CC...@theironpig.com...
> Mal, I agree with you 100%. That's how I feel about raising children, too
:-)
> You put it into words very well.
Well, thanks - coming from you, someone I see as doing a great job meeting
the needs of your children plus having a great relationship with your
husband, I definitely appreciate the compliment.
> I couldn't wait to grow up b/c I knew I'd get to be an *adult*, which was
a big
> deal then (since as a child I hadn't been allowed to do everything I
wanted). I
> hope my kids feel the same way.
Yes! And one way to do that, seems to me, is letting the adults have perks
that kids long for.
> You should hear my 15yo try to argue her way into what will be our
adults-only
> game room :-) I think it's important to have adults-only space in the
home. I
> always knew our family living room was off limits after a certain time,
and I
> respected it. It was influential to me to see how my parents prized and
found
> time just to be together, sans kids.
I got that from my parents as well. And, as I keep repeating, that was back
in the 1950s and 60s.
M is for Malapert
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20011030084026...@mb-mf.aol.com...
> >I never got those feelings back for my husband. In fact I
> >often wonder how marriages ever do survive the birth of children and the
> >falling out of love with the adult partner.
>
> Is this a pretty common sentiment among women who bear children? I have
never
> heard this expressed before. No offense, but the way this is worded makes
it
> sound like since your husband did his job providing the stud service, he
was no
> longer needed.
I certainly didn't see it that way at the time. I wasn't even planning to
have children - I remember saying that I wanted to give my nieces an example
of how you could have a satisfying life without them. I also felt that
because I am, or was at the time, so close to my nieces and nephews (born
when I was in my teens), that my relationships with them could substitute
for having my own child(ren). And my DXH already had five. Between him and
his siblings and me and mine, we'd averaged two children each already.
On the other hand, he hadn't had a vasectomy because, he said, he wanted to
leave the door open to having another child with a woman he loved. And
although I really thought I was most likely infertile due to DES exposure, I
knew I couldn't be sure. We weren't conscientious about using effective
contraception. Clearly we were both interested in that open door. I even
articulated that one reason I fell in love with DXH was because he was such
a good dad. It wasn't that *I* wanted to have a baby with him, in my
reasoning, it was that I thought he would treat me the same way. But of
course, when I did get pregnant, it became a factor in deciding to have the
baby.
I was totally unprepared for the way I would fall in love with Andrew,
though. I didn't know that having a close physical relationship with him
would be so satisfying, I wouldn't need anyone else. I also was surprised
to find that I now regarded my husband as a father rather than a lover and
peer, much the way men are often said to do when their wives give birth
(Elvis Presley being a notorious example). Because he's 14 years older than
I am, this was especially easy to do. Andrew and I were on one side of
things, Bob on the other, almost from the start. I didn't want to have sex
with him, and that of course meant the relationship was probably doomed. I
eventually understood he wasn't the right person for me anyway.
I haven't heard the same thing from most of my friends, but reading between
the lines I think it's been similar for many of them. They tend to complain
about not wanting sex, or about their husbands not wanting sex, and about
the loss of romance and so forth, but they sure are/were madly in love with
their small children. I read somewhere (somewhere? marriagebuilders.com,
which I found on this very newsgroup) that you need to focus exclusively on
your spouse for a minimum of 14 or 15 hours a week in order to stay in love.
Mothers sure do give their children that much attention when they are small,
but it's hard to find two hours a day to focus on your husband during those
years. And if you're in love with someone else, why would you even want to?
Children can be so much easier to love than an adult anyway.
By the way, there is nothing you could say that would offend me, so you
don't need to bother typing "No offense". :-)