 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Divorce / June 2005How to deal with a 'convenience' father
While I am mostly a lurker in this group, I think I could really use some 'group wisdom' with my current co-parenting issue. Some background: DD is 2 1/2. Her father was very minimally involved with her for about the first 1 1/2 years of her life - meaning he spent 20 minutes with her every 2-3 weeks (sometimes more, sometimes less). Last summer (about a year ago) we began a 'schedule' of him having her on Mon and Wed evenings for approximately 3-4 hours at a time. Earlier this year she began acting out (crying for her Daddy), and I/we concluded that she needed more time with him and his family. After much tension and discussion (heated and not) we added alternating Fri evenings and Sat over-nights. The acting out has disappeared ... when the schedule is kept, that is. The current problem: He told me last night that he has a wedding to attend on Sat and that he'll pick her up Fri and keep her till mid-afternoon on Sat. Part of my issue with this is that this has become a pattern for him. He cancels his time with her because of her sibling's ball games (or other extra-ciricular activities), because he has a stag to go to, because he has whatever else to do ... always with less than a week's notice, and sometimes with less than a day's notice. I told him the last time that this occurred (about a month ago) that time cancelled due to non-emergent reasons (non work related, and nobody is bleeding or on the way to the ER) would not be allowed make-up time unless decent (IMO, a week) advance notice was provided. I intended to write-up some sort of agreement (right of first refusal, explicitly listing which holidays with which parent, etc.) but have, as of yet, not done so ... honestly I didn't think it would come up again so soon - my bad, I guess. I called him this morning and told him that he would need to find a sitter for Sat night (shouldn't be too big of a deal as they need a sitter for the older children, anyway). I also told him that parenting was sometimes not convenient and that I was not his sitter. He told me that he couldn't do that because "if anything happened to her while she was with a sitter, [he] would never forgive [himself]." Am I way off base here? Do I have to just allow this man to treat me as his own personal doormat?! Please, if I need a reality check send it on over ... I'm at a loss as to what to do. I can see both perspectives in that I don't want my DD left in an environment or with a caretaker that is not safe for her. But where do I draw the line? ... it's not good for her to see me allow her father to treat me with such disrespect (and yeah, I know that she's not putting that concept together at this early age, but I'd like to nip this in the bud *before* she sees it.) Paula > While I am mostly a lurker in this group, I think I could really use > some 'group wisdom' with my current co-parenting issue. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Paula Just to clarify: Am I correct in assuming that you and the baby's daddy were never married and the chld was conceived at a time when you 2 had no committment to a future together? Grace > Just to clarify: Am I correct in assuming that you and the baby's > daddy were never married and the chld was conceived at a time when you > 2 had no committment to a future together? Yes, you are correct in assuming that her father and I were never married. And, as far as the committment to a future together the only thing there is his long history of professing love for me and an overwhelming desire to be with me and our daughter in a single-minded effort to get into my pants ... one that it took me a couple of years to see through. Do these questions actually have bearing on your response regarding a father that seems to feel like he can be a father when he feels like it, and can also just disappear when he feels like it? Paula IMO, you are overreacting. You are justified in being sensitive about this issue, but you see the glass as half-empty while I see it as half-full. The part that holds water for me is that, at least gives you some notice and is involved, which is a damn sight better that not showing up and calling later to say, "Something came up," disappearing for months, or dumping her on your doorstep whenever he has somewhere to go. There's a saying that I think you might apply to your notice issue: "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." =Rog'= > While I am mostly a lurker in this group, I think I could really use > some 'group wisdom' with my current co-parenting issue. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Paula > IMO, you are overreacting. You are justified in being sensitive about > this issue, but you see the glass as half-empty while I see it as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There's a saying that I think you might apply to your notice issue: > "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." =Rog'= This is what I was thinking as well. I think she should stress that she would like more notice when changes occur ... but changes will occur. It should work both ways. She might need him to take the child during unscheduled times because something comes up for her as well. I think she should be thankful that he is as involved as he is. Toddly >>While I am mostly a lurker in this group, I think I could really use >>some 'group wisdom' with my current co-parenting issue. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> >>Paula > > IMO, you are overreacting. You are justified in being sensitive about > > this issue, but you see the glass as half-empty while I see it as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There's a saying that I think you might apply to your notice issue: > > "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." =Rog'= Tried that ... I've been very flexible with his 'scheduling needs' so much so that she sometimes doesn't get what she needs from him, and I'm left picking up the pieces. Honestly, I wonder if the emotional damage that could ensue from his nonchalance regarding his time with her would be any worse than him not being there at all ... > This is what I was thinking as well. > > I think she should stress that she would like more notice when changes > occur ... but changes will occur. It should work both ways. She might > need him to take the child during unscheduled times because something > comes up for her as well. But it doesn't work both ways. He cancels when he's sick, but if I'm sick he "just can't". An example, there was a bluegrass band playing a couple of Fridays ago that I really wanted to go see. I asked him if he could keep her overnight so that I could go out. He responded that he could, but that he would not keep her the following Sat if he did. I told him that we'd keep to the schedule then, and I'd try to find a sitter. I was not able to so I didn't get to go. IMHO, that's life as a parent. But this is a prime example that it doesn't work both ways ... that's the problem. > I think she should be thankful that he is as involved as he is. I am thankful that he's involved, but as stated above I wonder what his lack of prioritization with respect to her will mean in the long run ... yes, this is only one possibility, but it could mean some very low self-esteem if she sees/decides that there are so many things that are more important to her father than she is. Paula Paula said > But it doesn't work both ways. He cancels when he's sick, but if I'm > sick he "just can't". An example, there was a bluegrass band playing a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a parent. But this is a prime example that it doesn't work both ways > ... that's the problem. And that is the answer ... it is never going to work equally both ways. You are basically a single custodial parent with the overall responsibility for the child. It is great that the father is spending a fair amount of time with the daughter because it could be a lot worse. You are going to drive yourself batty wanting it to be fair and equal. I think you need to set your expectations lower so you won't be so frustrated. I do realize how you feel. I have had very, very few nights over the last 4 years when my son spent the night elsewhere. In the last year he reached driving age and spends a few nights here and there at a friend's house. All I'm really saying is that you need to accept the reality for what it is. Casey > I am thankful that he's involved, but as stated above I wonder what his > lack of prioritization with respect to her will mean in the long run > ... yes, this is only one possibility, but it could mean some very low > self-esteem if she sees/decides that there are so many things that are > more important to her father than she is. Then you deal with that if it comes to that, but you cannot force him to make her a higher priority. It sucks, but that's the way it is. She is stuck with him as her dad. She's never going to be able to change that. All you can do is damage control on your end, and as she gets older, teach her how to manage her relationship with a father who's not very involved and has other children that he spends more time with. He could change as she grows up, and get more involved with her when she's older. So don't close the door. But meanwhile, you can't change this. You can only accept it. jen >> I am thankful that he's involved, but as stated above I wonder what his >> lack of prioritization with respect to her will mean in the long run [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >she's older. So don't close the door. But meanwhile, you can't change >this. You can only accept it. I agree with all of this, jen. But are you saying that I shouldn't discuss my concerns with him and try to encourage him to do better? Because of my own FOO experience, I will have a difficult time not being concerned about the potential negative outcomes and expressing that when I see problem areas. Granted I still get frustrated and upset with him, to a much lesser degree than 6 months ago but, over time, I expect that will continue to improve. -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls > >> I am thankful that he's involved, but as stated above I wonder what his > >> lack of prioritization with respect to her will mean in the long run [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I agree with all of this, jen. But are you saying that I shouldn't > discuss my concerns with him and try to encourage him to do better? Do you really think that if you weren't there pushing , pushing, pushing, that this man would make any effort to see your daughter *at all*? > Because of my own FOO experience, I will have a difficult time not > being concerned about the potential negative outcomes and expressing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" > Deconstuction - Indigo Girls > > >> I am thankful that he's involved, but as stated above I wonder what his > > >> lack of prioritization with respect to her will mean in the long run [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Do you really think that if you weren't there pushing , pushing, pushing, > that this man would make any effort to see your daughter *at all*? Yes, I do believe that he would make an effort ... just not as great an effort as he makes when he knows that I will not hesitate to bring to his attention the potential harm that his lack of effort could have. Paula > While I am mostly a lurker in this group, I think I could really use > some 'group wisdom' with my current co-parenting issue. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Paula Hi, Paula. I'm coming out of lurkdom to add my opinion to this. :-) IMO, when it is his visitation time, it is his responsibility to take care of the child, or to make arrangements for someone to do so. This idea that you should be "grateful" that he is involved with her at all is, IMO, ridiculous, and moreover, suggests that the father is less important and disposable than the mother (something I think that most of the men here would contest). Moreover, you should be able to count on his commitment to do this -- you (as an individual) should not be held hostage to his whims. On this one, I'd stand my ground. Sheila > IMO, when it is his visitation time, it is his responsibility to take > care of the child, or to make arrangements for someone to do so. > This idea that you should be "grateful" that he is involved with her > at all is, IMO, ridiculous, and moreover, suggests that the father > is less important and disposable than the mother... you should be > able to count on his commitment to do this... In a perfect world, you would be right, but I've seen too many cases involving paternity (unmarried parents) in which the putative father has nothing to do with the kid at all. From personal experience with in own family, I can tell you that its easy to talk about responsibility, but the reality is that custodial parents carry the water and the non- custodial parents figure C/S covers their end. I count this woman lucky that this guy stuck around and is pitching in. =R= > > IMO, when it is his visitation time, it is his responsibility to take > > care of the child, or to make arrangements for someone to do so. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > custodial parents figure C/S covers their end. I count this woman > lucky that this guy stuck around and is pitching in. =R= Okay... I'm confused. I read posts on this board about how men should be considered equal parents and the outrage that occurs when it is assumed that they shouldn't have joint custody (btw, I agree). But, now I'm hearing that Paula (and, of course her daughter) are *lucky* that he's sticking around? What does this mean? That men get to choose whether or not to parent, at their discretion? To me, "rights" and "responsibilities" go hand in hand. Also, if you ask me, it is attitudes like that who set father's rights back far more than any individual woman can do. Sheila >>> IMO, when it is his visitation time, it is his responsibility to take >>> care of the child, or to make arrangements for someone to do so. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Sheila I'll set your confusion straight. Nobody HAS to be responsible anymore, as our exemplary legal system has filled the void, for all the dipshits out there! Next? > Okay... I'm confused. I read posts on this board about how men > should be considered equal parents and the outrage that occurs > when it is assumed that they shouldn't have joint custody (btw, I > agree). But, now I'm hearing that Paula (and, of course her daughter) > are *lucky* that he's sticking around? What does this mean? That > men get to choose whether or not to parent, at their discretion? Unfortunately, the legal answer to your question is yes, NCP do get to choose. Its not fair, its not right, but its the way it is. There is a lot of ingrained favoritism toward women in this area and both parents need to be involved. But regardless of the institutional bias, when one party has primary custody... he or she will be treated by the other as the default babysitter. That's human nature. =R= > > Okay... I'm confused. I read posts on this board about how men > > should be considered equal parents and the outrage that occurs [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > when one party has primary custody... he or she will be treated by > the other as the default babysitter. That's human nature. =R= I dunno, Rog. Not in my case. In our divorce, the judge made it clear that my ex was responsible for the kids at the times he was supposed to be having them. In fact, it was written in the decree that, if he had to be away, he was responsible for finding/paying for childcare. Sheila > > > Okay... I'm confused. I read posts on this board about how men > > > should be considered equal parents and the outrage that occurs [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Sheila In the interest of full-disclosure, I have only required my ex to find outside childcare a couple of time, in the 10 years we've been apart. Most of the time, if he couldn't take the kids, I just kept them with me. But, until recently, the only times he did this was when he had to work, and I could be more sympathetic to that (unless he pulled the "my job is more important than yours, so my time is more important than yours, so you have to work around me" thing... then I got my hackles up!). Lately, he's wanted to change things more for personal/social reasons, and yes, I put my foot down and told him that I should be entitled to make plans during my "childfree" times, that I planned my extracurricular activities around that schedule, and that he needed to plan his life around it as well. I think that Paula and the baby's father, given the circumstances, really, really, REALLY need to have it all spelled out for one another --- visitation, who makes what decisions and how, child support, all of it --- and Paula needs to make sure to follow the plan. I've known a bit of this history for a while, and this is one of those guys who will "salami" his way to what he wants --- slicing off a sliver here, and a sliver there, until there isn't much left. Sheila >In the interest of full-disclosure, I have only required my ex to find >outside childcare a couple of time, in the 10 years we've been apart. Most [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >visitation, who makes what decisions and how, child support, all of it --- >and Paula needs to make sure to follow the plan. Exactly where I think I'm headed ... I don't think it will work any other way. I have some serious doubts as to whether it will change anything. But I don't have any other ideas, and, at least that way, he would have a seriously difficult time of ever challenging me for custody. >I've known a bit of this >history for a while, and this is one of those guys who will "salami" his way >to what he wants --- slicing off a sliver here, and a sliver there, until >there isn't much left. Wow ... that's an *extremely* accurate assessment! -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls >Lately, he's wanted >to change things more for personal/social reasons, and yes, I put my foot >down and told him that I should be entitled to make plans during my >"childfree" times, that I planned my extracurricular activities around that >schedule, and that he needed to plan his life around it as well. I agree 100% that this is the way it *should* be... but if he doesn't do what he is supposed to do, are you going to let your kids bang around unsupervised, or are you going to take up the slack, even though it was his responsibility? Of course you are going to take care of your kids! It is sad but true that the irresponsible parent has the upper hand in imposing on the time of the more responsible parent (note that I;m not saying anything about the gender of either of them). BP I read all the posts... Hey Paula: A "Male" friend of mine said " There is the love you have for your parents, the love you have for your siblings, the love you have for a good woman,,,but your children - your children are to die for." And just to expand on that quote: www.fact.on.ca . I suppose,,,well I am a Non-Custodial Father of two smallish - Girl 8 and Boy 5 - Children. What I am getting at is that I would really walk over broken glass if it meant I could see my children. They are ecomically priviledged - I left a (all things relative ) ton of cash behind. My children live in likely one of the "best" neighbourhoods in the "west", for kids - I can likely back both those claims up, and will if you like. Including the walk on glass part. ANYTHING less and you don't qualify.(As a parent.) ------------------------------------------------ On the pratical side, keep the F**k out of court - don't even make an appointment with a lawyer. It is likely how you would parent Paula, it is distract/ coop/compromise/patience Love - . Take your Child(daughter) to the bluegrass festival - I would love to have that prospect, and while you are at the bluegrass festival with your child--- Have a Blast, Brian >> > > Okay... I'm confused. I read posts on this board about how men >> > > should be considered equal parents and the outrage that occurs [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Sheila > In our divorce, the judge made it clear that > my ex was responsible for the kids at the times he was supposed to be having > them. In fact, it was written in the decree that, if he had to be away, he > was responsible for finding/paying for childcare. In all my years of hanging out on ASD, yours is the only decree I've heard of that had it written in that the NCP was required to take the stipulated visitation or else find/pay for childcare. I'd guess it's a highly unusual clause, and unless that specific language were there, you'd have little luck in "enforcing" visitation on an uncooperative ex. It gives you that "contempt of court" stick that most of us (including Paula) don't have. If you don't have a big punisher stick, what can you do? Not much, unfortately, beyond the gentle art of persuasion. I do agree with your point that the OP should get things in writing, although she may not be successful in getting the sort of "must-do" parenting clause written in. However, the other thing I see is that if you look at the big picture, this guy (whatever his shortcomings may be) seems to be moving steadily in the direction of being more involved in the child's life. He went from a few minutes per week, to 6-8 hrs a week, to now more like 16 hrs wk average. And yet, instead of appreciation, he's getting more criticism. It'd be easy enough for him to decide it's not worth it if she's just gonna cop a 'tude about everything. And just why should she show appreciation for his fairly minimal commitment to spending time with the kid? Should that just be the sort of thing parents should do without much fanfare? Well, it's kind of like the fanfare you give a toddler when they make do-do on the potty. If you're trying to encourage a new behavior (especially one which you have little leeway to punish), it merits a little praise, even if it's something that eventually should be par for the course. > > In our divorce, the judge made it clear that > > my ex was responsible for the kids at the times he was supposed to be having [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It gives you that "contempt of court" stick that most of us (including > Paula) don't have. Ahhh.. but Paula, not having anything at all, currently, COULD have it. :-) Interestingly, I didn't ask for it, the ex put it in of his own accord. He drafted the divorce decree. I didn't have an attorney. As I've mentioned before, I just wanted out. Sheila >> > In our divorce, the judge made it clear that my ex was responsible >> > for the kids at the times he was supposed to be having them. In [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Sheila My divorce agreement also had this kind of wording as well. Whomever was parenting at that time was responsible for finding childcare.. with the caveat that the other parent had to be offered right of first refusal. I don't think I ever refused, he did for all by one time, but that one time was an outright emergency and he required that I pay him back his day off. Of course, I did so willingly, as it was extra time with my kids.  SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > >> > In our divorce, the judge made it clear that my ex was responsible > >> > for the kids at the times he was supposed to be having them. In [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > was an outright emergency and he required that I pay him back his day off. > Of course, I did so willingly, as it was extra time with my kids. Yeah... ours has the right of first refusal too. That's probably why he put it in there. Sheila > My divorce agreement also had this kind of wording as well. Sheesh...and ya think ya know a person! ...though I guess I could be forgiven for not knowing every detail of that divorce decree of War-and-Peace dimensions... "...if you don't tell me that this means war, if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend..." :-O >> My divorce agreement also had this kind of wording as well. > > Sheesh...and ya think ya know a person! > > ...though I guess I could be forgiven for not knowing every detail of > that divorce decree of War-and-Peace dimensions... hahaha.. you remembered that part, though! :-) (Though he no longer follows it at all.. but, as they say.. whatever.) > "...if you don't tell me that this means war, if you still try to defend > the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really > believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and > you are no longer my friend..." :-O hee.. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >> In our divorce, the judge made it clear that >> my ex was responsible for the kids at the times he was supposed to be having [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >criticism. It'd be easy enough for him to decide it's not worth it if >she's just gonna cop a 'tude about everything. This has occurred, IMO, because I've been discussing my concerns and practicing the initially-not-so-gentle art of persuasion. It gets his attention and lets him know that this is a serious issue to which he needs to pay *attention* rather than pay simple lip service. As stated in other posts, my level of emotional intensity has consistently diminished over the time period that this improvement has occurred. Why change what's working? BTW he called this morning and left a message that he would have a sitter for Sat night if I preferred Sat over Fri. I called him back, thanked him for his message, told him that Sat night was fine, and we talked very calmly about what my expectations are wrt the schedule (a week's notice on non-work/non-emergency cancellations and right of first refusal). >And just why should she show appreciation for his fairly minimal >commitment to spending time with the kid? Should that just be the sort [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >little leeway to punish), it merits a little praise, even if it's >something that eventually should be par for the course. Exactly! -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls >"Rog'" <rcblinnNoSpam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> > IMO, when it is his visitation time, it is his responsibility to take [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >me, it is attitudes like that who set father's rights back far more than any >individual woman can do. Sheila, read again what Rog wrote (I've left it in place above). He didn't say anything about gender, or that mothers are lucky when fathers stick around, or that men get to choose when to parent. He was talking about custodial and non-custodial parents - if you assume that the first term means mothers and the second term means fathers, you need to work on that. It is good for a child to have meaningful relationships with *both* parents. Unfortunately, as Rog pointed out, sometimes the parent with custody ends up being the responsible one (maybe why they were the one who got custody?), while a non-custodial parent drifts out of the child's life. Isn't it better to have a non-custodial parent who doesn't just drift away? Now, having said that, I don't think the OP should be so overwhelmed with her "luck" at having the non-custodial dad around that she lets herself be his doormat. I agree that when he is responsible for the child, he is also responsible for arranging a sitter when he decides he has something "better" to do. (And what kind of jerk decides to do some of the stuff the OP mentioned when he has scheduled time with his child, anyway?) However, bottom line is that the OP needs to make sure that her child is taken care of, so if the dad is irresponsible, mom needs to take the responsibility herself. No, it isn't an ideal situation, and I don't have a good answer for the OP. Maybe she can get dad to pay for the babysitter, at least? BP > >"Rog'" <rcblinnNoSpam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > >> > IMO, when it is his visitation time, it is his responsibility to take [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the first term means mothers and the second term means fathers, you > need to work on that. (1) Yes, he specifically mentioned situations with *fathers*: > >> In a perfect world, you would be right, but I've seen too many cases > >> involving paternity (unmarried parents) in which the putative father > >> has nothing to do with the kid at all. (2) That is precisely the circumstance here. I'm not "assuming" anything. The genders are out of my control. :-) > It is good for a child to have meaningful relationships with *both* > parents. Unfortunately, as Rog pointed out, sometimes the parent with > custody ends up being the responsible one (maybe why they were the one > who got custody?), while a non-custodial parent drifts out of the > child's life. Isn't it better to have a non-custodial parent who > doesn't just drift away? I'm not sure that a parent drifting in and out on a whim is good for a child either. I'm a strong believer that consistency is a good things for a child. > Now, having said that, I don't think the OP should be so overwhelmed > with her "luck" at having the non-custodial dad around that she lets [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that her child is taken care of, so if the dad is irresponsible, mom > needs to take the responsibility herself. We agree on that. :-) > No, it isn't an ideal situation, and I don't have a good answer for > the OP. Maybe she can get dad to pay for the babysitter, at least? > > BP As I have said, I think having something down in writing would be a good step in the right direction. Sheila > Okay... I'm confused. I read posts on this board about how men should be > considered equal parents and the outrage that occurs when it is assumed that > they shouldn't have joint custody (btw, I agree). But, now I'm hearing that > Paula (and, of course her daughter) are *lucky* that he's sticking around? > What does this mean? That men get to choose whether or not to parent, at > their discretion? No. I think what is being said is that some parents do not stick around, and that the reality is that while they should, Paula's reality is that the guy is and so she is lucky because some do not. > To me, "rights" and "responsibilities" go hand in hand. Also, if you ask > me, it is attitudes like that who set father's rights back far more than any > individual woman can do. I do think it is much more complicated than that, however. I just posted about 'visitation' as opposed to 'access' or 'parenting time,' a term that the poster probably used without much thought. But that term, to a person like me who struggles to maintain access with my three daughters, is a huge set-back and it is a very subconcious but negative term that people (again, like me) have to fight against. Just my two zlotys worth. Rambler >I do think it is much more complicated than that, however. I just >posted about 'visitation' as opposed to 'access' or 'parenting time,' a >term that the poster probably used without much thought. But that term, >to a person like me who struggles to maintain access with my three >daughters, is a huge set-back and it is a very subconcious but negative >term that people (again, like me) have to fight against. Forgive me if "the poster" does not equal OP ... but I *never* used the term 'visitation'. I dislike the term a lot because it minimizes what IMHO is very important *parenting* time! I totally agree with everything you've said here, Rambler. -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls WhansaMi said > "Rog'" <rcblinnNoSpam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What does this mean? That men get to choose whether or not to parent, at > their discretion? No, it just means that the custodial parent has to make sure the child is taken care of, regardless of whether the non-custodial parent fulfills their obligation or not. All Roger was trying to say (I think) is that relatively speaking, he is more involved than a lot of unmarried fathers are and that's a good thing. > To me, "rights" and "responsibilities" go hand in hand. Also, if you ask > me, it is attitudes like that who set father's rights back far more than any > individual woman can do. No one is excusing him from his responsiblities, but the reality of it is that it's hard for Paula to do much about it. Would you suggest that she put the daughter out on the street so she can go out and then and say it's his fault if anything happens? One of the parents has to take care of the child if the other one doesn't. This really isn't gender specific. Casey >WhansaMi said >> "Rog'" <rcblinnNoSpam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >is more involved than a lot of unmarried fathers are and that's a good >thing. Sorry, but I'll have to disagree ... it is unknown as to whether his involvment is a good thing or something that will ultimately hurt her worse than had he not had any relationship with her at all. Only she will be able to answer that question. -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls >>WhansaMi said >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > worse than had he not had any relationship with her at all. Only she > will be able to answer that question. True, but that is true with any and all unknowns. Fact seems to be that from the posts, this guy isn't doing anything wrong. Other fact is that children, *especially* daughters, who grow up without their father (and I don't mean a father figure, but their actual father) have a whole slew of hurdles to overcome in later life, including intimacy and communication. It seems strange that (if I am piecing this story together correctly) this guy is actually involved in his daughter's life, that the complaint is that he won't take the kid when the mother wants to go to a concert, and now all of a sudden the debate is veering off to the "is his involvement a good thing or not." Other piece of thought is that both parents are needed to make his involvement a good thing, whereas it takes only one parent to make his involvement bad, to the daughter. Rambler >>>All Roger was trying to say (I think) is that relatively speaking, he >>>is more involved than a lot of unmarried fathers are and that's a good [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I don't mean a father figure, but their actual father) have a whole slew >of hurdles to overcome in later life, including intimacy and communication. Believe me, I'm well acquainted with the hurdles faced by daughters with less than optimal fathers. >It seems strange that (if I am piecing this story together correctly) >this guy is actually involved in his daughter's life, that the complaint >is that he won't take the kid when the mother wants to go to a concert, >and now all of a sudden the debate is veering off to the "is his >involvement a good thing or not." I think you need to go back and re-read. The complaint is not that he won't "take the kid" when I want to go to a concert. That was merely an example of the fact that mutual give and take (as suggested by Casey, IIRC) regarding flexible scheduling isn't an option. The complaint is that he cancels time with her for, IMHO, less than honorable reasons (examples of which were provided in the original post) and with inadequate notice, and what she will decide that means with respect to his level of commitment to and feelings for her as his child. >Other piece of thought is that both parents are needed to make his >involvement a good thing, whereas it takes only one parent to make his >involvement bad, to the daughter. Are you saying it's my fault if he's callous and irresponsible with being dependable with respect to his child? -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls >>>Sorry, but I'll have to disagree ... it is unknown as to whether his >>>involvment is a good thing or something that will ultimately hurt her [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Believe me, I'm well acquainted with the hurdles faced by daughters > with less than optimal fathers. I have no interest in getting into a pissing match with you (and having now read the rest of your post it seems that you have formed your view and that is it, so discussion might very well be fruitless), but you know that is not what I said. Please don't twist my words. I said that father's are important in their daughter's lives otherwise they face hurdles, not that your kid's father is less than optimal. In fact, from what little I've read, and from experience, I would say that you are a step or two ahead of the curve in this department. >>It seems strange that (if I am piecing this story together correctly) >>this guy is actually involved in his daughter's life, that the complaint [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > with respect to his level of commitment to and feelings for her as his > child. But you are doing the same thing with your "I want to go to a concert." To me, from having skimmed through, those two things are the same. Just an outsider's view. Agian, not interested in getting into a pissing match, which is where I feel this one is heading. >>Other piece of thought is that both parents are needed to make his >>involvement a good thing, whereas it takes only one parent to make his >>involvement bad, to the daughter. > > Are you saying it's my fault if he's callous and irresponsible with > being dependable with respect to his child? No I am not, but thanks for asking. What I am saying is that you (and I did not know it was you when I wrote the previous post) said that only your daughter will be able to say if it was a good or bad thing for her father to be involved, but you, as one of her parents, can greatly influence that by your comments of "less than optimal fathers" and how "he's callous, irresponsible and undependable." You may not see it, but those comments come across to the child (well, at 2 1/2 I doubt they do right now, but you get the point) and they have an affect in shaping your child's perception. Let me give you an example, because a) my kids are older than yours and b) I am on the other side of the coin than you (I am the non-resident father of the kids). I recently went to see my kids. Kids arrrive for staying access with me. They bring a cell-phone. This is the same cell-phone that they brought the last time. Kids say: "Mom wants us to have this so we can call her if there is a problem." What Mom doesn't say is that she *only* gives this message to the kids when they come to stay with me. Not when they are with her boyfriend. Not when they are with her mother, nothing. The message is, subtly, that it's not safe to be with Dad. Second cellphone info. Last time I was out, I checked the cellphone memory. Everybody's number was in there. Mom's. Grandmother's. Boyfriends. But not Dad's. So I asked the kids if they wanted me to put my number in the phone, and they said yes. This time around, they said that they didn't know my number, and I told them that it was in the cellphone. "No it's not," they said. "Mom deleted it." What message does that put across? To me, it says, "I don't want you talking to your father. As humans, we have a wide variety of communication methods, both verbal and non-verbal. Even our verbal communication has non-verbal elements, such as choice of words, body position, etc. *All* of these impact our kids. *All of them*. That's what I was saying. > > Are you saying it's my fault if he's callous and irresponsible with > > being dependable with respect to his child? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > That's what I was saying. I agree with all of that. In fact, my husband had something very similar happen with his ex-wife. I understand very well how important it is for the custodial parent to not sabotage the relationship between the kids and the NCP (as a matter of fact, DH's ex went FAR beyond what you talk about above). I suppose I am not as sure as some of you are that there aren't steps that can be taken ensure more stability in this child's life. As I said before, I strongly feel that Paula should work through an agreement about all aspects of the child's care and well-being; without that, I can see major problems in the future. Sheila > I suppose I am not as sure as some of you are that there aren't steps that > can be taken ensure more stability in this child's life. As I said before, > I strongly feel that Paula should work through an agreement about all > aspects of the child's care and well-being; without that, I can see major > problems in the future. Even with an agreement, there can be major problems. I have one, which the judge keeps saying the ex should follow, but she's changed her mind. Not saying it is a gender thing ... agreements are worth the paper they are written on ... it is the people that agree that make the difference. Rambler > > I suppose I am not as sure as some of you are that there aren't steps that > > can be taken ensure more stability in this child's life. As I said before, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Rambler For some, it does make a difference. It can't hurt. Sheila >>>I suppose I am not as sure as some of you are that there aren't steps > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > For some, it does make a difference. It can't hurt. Missing my point. I agree that it should all be written down. I actually go overboard in suggesting that it should be very detailed. All I am saying is, if the person is interested in breaking in, a lock isn't going to keep them out. Locks are for honest people. Agreements are too. Rambler > >>>I suppose I am not as sure as some of you are that there aren't steps > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Rambler I agree. And, I addressed that in another post. If he doesn't want to be involved (meaning he is unwilling to make some agreement and abide by it) then it is better to know upfront and work with that. Sheila > I understand very well how important it is for the >custodial parent to not sabotage the relationship between the kids and the >NCP This is a point that's always bothered me, Parent A trying to put many controls on Parent B's time with the kids. Sometimes it ends up driving Parent B out of the kids' lives, becuz they get so sick of dealing with Parent A's control. Then Parent A whines that Parent B won't be more involved in the kids' lives. Parent A should be helping to *facilitate* Parent B's involvement, not looking for ways to brand Parent B as neglectful, which ultimately hurts the kids even more when they feel it's *their* fault that Parent B doesn't (from their perspective) "care about them". Not referring to the OP, but observations about this that i've made here and elsewhere. Just yesterday my dad was discussing a neighbor who seems to do this, takes the kids away from the other parent, criticizes other parent's ability to parent, and then complains of the other parent's non-involvement. >>I understand very well how important it is for the >>custodial parent to not sabotage the relationship between the kids and the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A's control. Then Parent A whines that Parent B won't be more involved in the > kids' lives. Wait ... do you know my ex?!? <g> > Parent A should be helping to *facilitate* Parent B's > involvement, > not looking for ways to brand Parent B as neglectful, which ultimately hurts > the kids even more when they feel it's *their* fault that Parent B doesn't > (from their perspective) "care about them". Wow! ... You *do* know my ex! (latest comment: "No bitterness. Just revelation.") > Not referring to the OP, but observations about this that i've made here and > elsewhere. Just yesterday my dad was discussing a neighbor who seems to do > this, takes the kids away from the other parent, criticizes other parent's > ability to parent, and then complains of the other parent's non-involvement. Your *entire family* knows my ex?!?! Wow ... small world. Rambler >> This is a point that's always bothered me, Parent A trying to put many >> controls on Parent B's time with the kids. Sometimes it ends up driving [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Wait ... do you know my ex?!? <g> Lordy, i hope not!! :-) > No I am not, but thanks for asking. What I am saying is that you (and I > did not know it was you when I wrote the previous post) said that only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > right now, but you get the point) and they have an affect in shaping > your child's perception. I totally agree. Very wise words, and Paula, it wouldn't hurt to mull them over. You needn't say anything - kids are smart. They eventually make their own conclusions. I didn't have to say or even think anything about my DD's father. Today, at 10 and 12, I occasionally hear them voice things that IMO are very astute and true, less-than-flattering observations about him. They see his flaws, without any help from me. How do I handle it? I respond by saying, "Well, that may be true, sure. But, don't we all have our flaws?" The kids will think that over, sigh, and then say, "Yeah, we all have our flaws, even dad. And I still love him even if he can be totally insufferable at times." Because kids are going to love their parents, no matter how callous, irresponsible and undependable. Our best strategy is to recognize that, and let them know that it is still okay to love them anyway. jen > How do I handle it? I respond by saying, "Well, that may be true, sure. > But, don't we all have our flaws?" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > irresponsible and undependable. Our best strategy is to recognize that, > and let them know that it is still okay to love them anyway. Moving in a somewhat different direction: do you find that your girls share some of his flaws? I always get a giggle every time DS10 finishes the semi-annual visit-with-dad, because he's so openly fed up with his dad's obsessive hygiene, and yet DS himself is every bit as bad in some ways! >> How do I handle it? I respond by saying, "Well, that may be true, sure. >> But, don't we all have our flaws?" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > visit-with-dad, because he's so openly fed up with his dad's obsessive > hygiene, and yet DS himself is every bit as bad in some ways! I have the opposite problem, mine comes home very,um, 'ripe'. PU Cheryl >> I always get a giggle every time DS10 finishes the semi-annual >> visit-with-dad, because he's so openly fed up with his dad's obsessive >> hygiene, and yet DS himself is every bit as bad in some ways! > >I have the opposite problem, mine comes home very,um, 'ripe'. PU I wonder if there's a right and wrong when it comes to that. I tend towards the "obsessive hygiene" side, even tho i'm aware it's actually more healthy to let some bacteria grow... :-) >>>I always get a giggle every time DS10 finishes the semi-annual >>>visit-with-dad, because he's so openly fed up with his dad's obsessive [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the "obsessive hygiene" side, even tho i'm aware it's actually more healthy to > let some bacteria grow... :-) My ex gets sick quite frequently, and my personal belief is that living such a sterile life has hampered the development of his immune system. There are studies that show kids who grow up around animals are less likely to develop asthma. The other funny thing is that he has some folk beliefs about food storage that are nothing short of curious. He grew up someplace where most people don't things like tupperware or plastic wrap to store food--they just sit it on a plate in the fridge and let the exposed surfaces dry out. He thinks this retards the growth of bacteria, and thinks storing food in sealed containers is unhealthy. He also believes that potatoes/potato products will become dangerous if you store them in the freezer. >> In article <d9cfmh$6l6$3@news.wss.yale.edu>, Cheryl > <hunny_pot@thousand.acre.woods> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >that potatoes/potato products will become dangerous if you store them in >the freezer. "Attack of the Killer Potatoes!" (or is that "potatos"?) >>> I always get a giggle every time DS10 finishes the semi-annual >>> visit-with-dad, because he's so openly fed up with his dad's obsessive [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the "obsessive hygiene" side, even tho i'm aware it's actually more healthy to > let some bacteria grow... :-) It's cheaper to reuse that same napkin or paper towel sometimes. Just use a clean part. Saves bucks! (for those in here who know what that really means, and the value of a dollar). > >>> I always get a giggle every time DS10 finishes the semi-annual > >>> visit-with-dad, because he's so openly fed up with his dad's obsessive [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a clean part. Saves bucks! (for those in here who know what that really > means, and the value of a dollar). I sometimes put wax-paper on a clean plate, and then the food on top of it.... I really hate washing dishes. >> >>> I always get a giggle every time DS10 finishes the semi-annual >> >>> visit-with-dad, because he's so openly fed up with his dad's obsessive [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I sometimes put wax-paper on a clean plate, and then the food on top of >it.... I really hate washing dishes. i re-use toilet paper. i use it, then rinse it out and hang it up over the shower-curtain bar and use it again when it dries. (not) ;-) >>>>>> I always get a giggle every time DS10 finishes the semi-annual >>>>>> visit-with-dad, because he's so openly fed up with his dad's obsessive >>>>>> hygiene, and yet DS himself is every bit as bad in some ways! >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > i use it, then rinse it out and hang it up over the shower-curtain bar and use > it again when it dries. I wouldn't do that, because it would be too wasteful of the water, which is a precious resource (not that anybody on this planet gives a sh.t about that anymore) >> In article <3hulbjFio1arU1@uni-berlin.de>, "kato" ><SpamBotsSuck@sympatico.ca> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >a precious resource (not that anybody on this planet gives a sh.t about that >anymore) you could recycle your urine. >>>>>>I always get a giggle every time DS10 finishes the semi-annual >>>>>>visit-with-dad, because he's so openly fed up with his dad's obsessive [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > i use it, then rinse it out and hang it up over the shower-curtain bar and use > it again when it dries. You use toilet paper? Rambler >> In article <3hulbjFio1arU1@uni-berlin.de>, "kato" <SpamBotsSuck@sympatico.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >You use toilet paper? only on sundays. > >>>Sorry, but I'll have to disagree ... it is unknown as to whether his > >>>involvment is a good thing or something that will ultimately hurt her [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > what little I've read, and from experience, I would say that you are a > step or two ahead of the curve in this department. And, neither did I say that my DD's father is less than optimal ... I was speaking of my own father and the effects of his lack of involvement on me (and he was even in the same household!) > >>It seems strange that (if I am piecing this story together correctly) > >>this guy is actually involved in his daughter's life, that the complaint [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > an outsider's view. Agian, not interested in getting into a pissing > match, which is where I feel this one is heading. I merely asked if he was interested in having the extra time with her. I was not upset or frustrated in any way that he did not accept. And, no, I don't agree that rejecting an offer for extra time is in the same ballpark as cancelling regularly scheduled time. In the last 8 weeks, he's cancelled 5 scheduled days with her ... at 3 days per week that's a 20% cancellation rate. Still think it's the same? > >>Other piece of thought is that both parents are needed to make his > >>involvement a good thing, whereas it takes only one parent to make his [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > right now, but you get the point) and they have an affect in shaping > your child's perception. I make no comments of the kind when she is *anywhere* near me. I cannot guarantee that my anxiety and anger don't bleed through a bit occasionally. As stated, I am doing the best I can to not allow my opinions and feelings influence her relationship with him. > Let me give you an example, because a) my kids are older than yours and > b) I am on the other side of the coin than you (I am the non-resident [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > does that put across? To me, it says, "I don't want you talking to your > father. Comparing apples to oranges. I feel for your situation but that doesn't mean that it can be appropriately compared to my own in any way. I've done everything that I can to *support* her relationship with him and his family. > As humans, we have a wide variety of communication methods, both verbal > and non-verbal. Even our verbal communication has non-verbal elements, > such as choice of words, body position, etc. *All* of these impact our > kids. *All of them*. > > That's what I was saying. Agreed. Paula I'll apologize in advance should this post show up twice. I posted it early this morning and it still hasn't shown up. So I'm posting again. > >>>Sorry, but I'll have to disagree ... it is unknown as to whether his > >>>involvment is a good thing or something that will ultimately hurt her [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > what little I've read, and from experience, I would say that you are a > step or two ahead of the curve in this department. And, neither did I say that my DD's father is less than optimal ... I was speaking of my own father and the effects of his lack of involvement on me (and he was even in the same household!) > >>It seems strange that (if I am piecing this story together correctly) > >>this guy is actually involved in his daughter's life, that the complaint [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > an outsider's view. Agian, not interested in getting into a pissing > match, which is where I feel this one is heading. I merely asked if he was interested in having the extra time with her. I was not upset or frustrated in any way that he did not accept. And, no, I don't agree that rejecting an offer for extra time is in the same ballpark as cancelling regularly scheduled time. In the last 8 weeks, he's cancelled 5 scheduled days with her ... at 3 days per week that's a 20% cancellation rate. Still think it's the same? > >>Other piece of thought is that both parents are needed to make his > >>involvement a good thing, whereas it takes only one parent to make his [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > right now, but you get the point) and they have an affect in shaping > your child's perception. I make no comments of the kind when she is *anywhere* near me. I cannot guarantee that my anxiety and anger don't bleed through a bit occasionally. As stated, I am doing the best I can to not allow my opinions and feelings influence her relationship with him. > Let me give you an example, because a) my kids are older than yours and > b) I am on the other side of the coin than you (I am the non-resident [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > does that put across? To me, it says, "I don't want you talking to your > father. Comparing apples to oranges. I feel for your situation but that doesn't mean that it can be appropriately compared to my own in any way. I've done everything that I can to *support and facilitate* her relationship with him and his family. > As humans, we have a wide variety of communication methods, both verbal > and non-verbal. Even our verbal communication has non-verbal elements, > such as choice of words, body position, etc. *All* of these impact our > kids. *All of them*. > > That's what I was saying. Agreed. Paula > Are you saying it's my fault if he's callous and irresponsible with > being dependable with respect to his child? You helped create this mess, you know. Paula said > I think you need to go back and re-read. The complaint is not that he > won't "take the kid" when I want to go to a concert. That was merely > an example of the fact that mutual give and take (as suggested by > Casey, IIRC) regarding flexible scheduling isn't an option. Actually, that wasn't me. The only point I've tried to make is that you just have to be realistic with yourself about what to expect from him. He is trying to be involved, but only in such a way that still leaves you with the primary responsibility. > The complaint is that he cancels time with her for, IMHO, less than > honorable reasons (examples of which were provided in the original > post) and with inadequate notice, and what she will decide that means > with respect to his level of commitment to and feelings for her as his > child. Regardless of how good your intentions are, she will form her own opinions and attitudes about him over the years. You really can't and shouldn't try to mold that - that is up to him and her. Casey >Paula said > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >him. He is trying to be involved, but only in such a way that still >leaves you with the primary responsibility. Sorry ... I realized that after I sent it. You're right that I have to be more realistic about my expectations. That is exactly what I've done that's reduced the emotionality with each conflict. >> The complaint is that he cancels time with her for, IMHO, less than >> honorable reasons (examples of which were provided in the original [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >opinions and attitudes about him over the years. You really can't and >shouldn't try to mold that - that is up to him and her. Agreed, and I don't try to mold her view of him. In fact, I make conscious efforts not to do that. -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls > , that the complaint > is that he won't take the kid when the mother wants to go to a concert, > and now all of a sudden the debate is veering off to the "is his > involvement a good thing or not." I thought the complaint was, he isn't picking his daughter up when scheduled or he is bringing her back before she is due back and just assuming that the OP is available, simply because he has 'other things' he'd rather do than parent the little girl and he is doing these things with a day or less notice. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >> WhansaMi said >>> "Rog'" <rcblinnNoSpam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> has nothing to do with the kid at all. From personal experience with >>>> in own family, I can tell you that its easy to talk about responsibility, >>>> but the reality is that custodial parents carry the water and the non- >>>> custodial parents figure C/S covers their end. I count this woman [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > involvment is a good thing or something that will ultimately hurt her > worse than had he not had any relationship with her at all. (You mean if he's a negligent and/or abusive parent here, I presume). > Only she will be able to answer that question. > Sorry, but I'll have to disagree ... it is unknown as to whether his > involvment is a good thing or something that will ultimately hurt her > worse than had he not had any relationship with her at all. Only she > will be able to answer that question. Personally, I think that nothing is worse than no relationship at all. Sure, at times a child may go through a stage where they are resentful that a bad parent has been put into their lives. But life is long, opinions change, maturity allows you to see the good with the bad. We *all* want to know where we came from. The worst is never getting a chance to know. jen >> Sorry, but I'll have to disagree ... it is unknown as to whether his >> involvment is a good thing or something that will ultimately hurt her [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >We *all* want to know where we came from. The worst is never getting a >chance to know. I don't know. It's one of those things that's so hard to say definitely, because if you have the one experience, you can't have the other. But on the whole, my relationship with my father has been so fraught with pain, and in particular, seeking again and again a sort of relationship that he's apparently incapable of giving me... (yes, you could argue that the real problem is that I keep looking for it...) Well, anyway, I wonder sometimes if it might have been better to have skipped the whole thing. It's hard to know. Nina _____________ "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me lay an invincible summer." -Albert Camus >>Personally, I think that nothing is worse than no relationship at all. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >It's hard to know. What she said :( -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls > > Sorry, but I'll have to disagree ... it is unknown as to whether his > > involvment is a good thing or something that will ultimately hurt her [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > jen I know that is the conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure it is true for all kids, or even most of the time. I think there are lessons that are learned when kids view themselves as only important when it is convienent, and those lessons are hard to unlearn. The effects may be different -- and perhaps more subtle --- but I think they are no less bad. Of course, I am not saying that Paula should, in any sense, limit the interaction with the dad. I am saying that I think it is reasonable to set some limits on how much *he* runs their household, and if he takes off because they are there, then that is on him, not her. Sheila > > Personally, I think that nothing is worse than no relationship at all. > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Sheila Piggy-backing because I had some additional thoughts: It has been my experience that parents who want to be involved with their children, do so. Those who don't want to will find some excuse not to. I don't think it is good for mom/daughter to be trying to do anything and everything to try to keep the father engaged --- (1) because it gives him way too much control over their day-to-day life (and their feelings) and (2) if he really isn't emotionally engaged, then it won't matter a whit anyway. I'm not saying "Don't be flexible". I'm *certainly* not saying "He's no good, drive him out". I *am* saying that I think that both mother and daughter will be better off if they set up some basic framework within to work (preferably, codified by the court) and then allow him to make his decisions regarding how to implement that. If he decides he can't be bothered, then it is better for both of them to know that upfront and learn to deal with it. Sheila >It has been my experience that parents who want to be involved with their >children, do so. Those who don't want to will find some excuse not to. I >don't think it is good for mom/daughter to be trying to do anything and >everything to try to keep the father engaged --- (1) because it gives him >way too much control over their day-to-day life (and their feelings) and (2) >if he really isn't emotionally engaged, then it won't matter a whit anyway. The hard thing... and I don't have any idea of whether this is going on here or not... is that some people simply have no idea what involvement means. My stbx has a now-adult daughter, and when we first got together, she was about 4 or 5. He saw her about once a month (I should add this in this case, her mother did everything she could to discourage contact, so the infrequency wasn't totally his fault), and that was about it, and that seemed fine with him. When we moved to another state, I did everything I could to push him to be in frequent contact with her, call her, etc. And he just wouldn't do it. I finally had to give up and accept that it was his problem and not mine, because it made me so incredibly anxious. And yet, he loved her very much, cared deeply about her... but comes from a family in which contact is not exactly seen as essential, to say the least. It's hard for me to totally excuse that, because it doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to figure out, and because my father is much the same. But sometimes people are emotionally engaged but have no appropriate understanding of how to express it. Nina _____________ "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me lay an invincible summer." -Albert Camus > Piggy-backing because I had some additional thoughts: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > bothered, then it is better for both of them to know that upfront and learn > to deal with it. Ah, phrased in that manner, I can't disagree! Just for point of reference, by the way, my own kids' dad has been irresponsible and unreliable all along. For about 2 years after the divorce, I pretty doggedly pursued child support, as he just as doggedly hopped from job to job, in part to stay one step ahead of the withholding orders. At the time, I felt I really had to pursue it, because we were *both* dirt poor. After a while, he just completely flaked out and left the country without leaving a forwarding address. And that was worse. He resurfaced about 18 months ago, and although it is difficultized by the distance (and his not driving, his not having any money, etc. etc.), he does take the kids for a couple of weeks each year. I can't get him to agree to a schedule far in advance, but it *is* better than nothing, even for the kids. They were so little when he flaked out, I don't think either of them expect much from him either. He's irresponsible, unreliable, and immature. And he's also 43 years old and has been a parent for 17 years now, so it's not like I'm going to have much luck changing any of that. I should have been able to discern that he was a flakey parent before I married him--as in Nina's case, the signs were all there with his school-holidays parenting of his oldest daughter! > I am saying that I think it is reasonable to set > some limits on how much *he* runs their household, and if he takes off > because they are there, then that is on him, not her. Yabbut...(are you about to have another one of those "why is everbody else on the other side of the fence moments?) I think this is one of those cases where it can haunt you for years thinking your rigid enforcement of "responsibilities" contributed to the 100% flake-out. It's nowhere near as easy as just stepping back and saying "that is on him." Also, while it is hard for kids to grow up thinking that a parent only spent time with them when it's "convenient," I can't imagine that growing up thinking that a parent only spent time with them because it was written into the divorce decree that they had to. > > I am saying that I think it is reasonable to set > > some limits on how much *he* runs their household, and if he takes off > > because they are there, then that is on him, not her. > > Yabbut...(are you about to have another one of those "why is everbody > else on the other side of the fence moments?) Yeah, well. I'm not as fragile as I was during that period. :-) I'm back to the "Way cool. I'm unique!" stage. :-)) > I think this is one of those cases where it can haunt you for years > thinking your rigid enforcement of "responsibilities" contributed to the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > growing up thinking that a parent only spent time with them because it > was written into the divorce decree that they had to. See, I'm not convinced this guy is the "totally irresponsible/flake-out" kind. I'm more inclined to think he is the "opportunitistic/gonna get what I can for me" kind. Basically, he's willing to push the envelope for whatever leeway he can get, because he's... well, he's him! For those situations, setting down some hard and fast rules helps. Sheila >>> I am saying that I think it is reasonable to set >>> some limits on how much *he* runs their household, and if he takes off [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > See, I'm not convinced this guy is the "totally irresponsible/flake-out" > kind. Well, looking outside your window, why would you assume he isn't, given today's world??? >> I think this is one of those cases where it can haunt you for years >> thinking your rigid enforcement of "responsibilities" contributed to the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >whatever leeway he can get, because he's... well, he's him! For those >situations, setting down some hard and fast rules helps. IMHO, again, spot-on, Shelia! -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls [snip] >See, I'm not convinced this guy is the "totally irresponsible/flake-out" >kind. I'm more inclined to think he is the "opportunitistic/gonna get what >I can for me" kind. Basically, he's willing to push the envelope for >whatever leeway he can get, because he's... well, he's him! For those >situations, setting down some hard and fast rules helps. Several of you appear to have a history (via ASM?) that I lack. That's the first caveat ;-)) The second is that I'm not much of a rules-based person. I do know -- intimately -- what it's like to be married to (and then divorced from) someone with a lot of problems. The kind that interfere with following the "rules" set out by any divorce decree. Take this for what it's worth -- the thing that finally helped me overcome my irritation and resentment with the way he approached things was to just...give way. Accept that this was who he is, and I had no power to change it. To expect nothing. Once I reached that place -- and the words I'm using are inadequate to express what it felt like to truly let go of any expectation, hope or belief -- things between us gradually improved. Since he couldn't disappoint me, he was free to surprise me. And I found that he occasionally did. Barb > One of the parents has to take care of the child if the other one > doesn't. This really isn't gender specific. And it's not divorce-specific either. It happens all the time in intact marriages, too. jen > Hi, Paula. I'm coming out of lurkdom to add my opinion to this. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > On this one, I'd stand my ground. I don't know how I can do that though. I mean, I can stand my ground wrt not allowing/scheduling make-up time when he cancels for a non-work, non-emergency reasons, but I can't make him pick her up ... neither can I dictate what time he's to bring her home. I just feel really helpless and unable to defend the boundary that I've defined. I've considered pushing the matter via a court-approved visitation schedule, but I don't know that that would help either. Any ideas on ways to 'stand my ground' would be greatly appreciated! Paula > > Hi, Paula. I'm coming out of lurkdom to add my opinion to this. :-) > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Paula Paula, what do you have, legally speaking? Is any of this -- visitation, child support, legal custody, decisions about education, medical, etc --- down in writing anywhere? Sheila Sheila >Paula, what do you have, legally speaking? Is any of this -- visitation, >child support, legal custody, decisions about education, medical, etc --- >down in writing anywhere? We filed paternity papers with the court last year, shortly after my original posting on asm. I have sole legal and physical custody with the matters of child support and visitation rights "reserved" for a later time. And before any of the 'evil wimmenz haters' appear, I offered him joint legal custody and told him that when she's older we could talk about joint physical custody if she wanted it ... he refused. -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls >>Paula, what do you have, legally speaking? Is any of this -- visitation, >>child support, legal custody, decisions about education, medical, etc --- [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > joint legal custody and told him that when she's older we could talk > about joint physical custody if she wanted it ... he refused. Truth is, some people just aren't parent material. You can't *make* somebody be a good parent. Your daughter just isn't going to have the close relationship with her father that you would like for her to have. No amount of taking him to court, or writing up legal documents, will change that. So what can you do? One thing to think about is how to make sure she does have good male role models in her life. Are you close to your parents? Does she have a good relationship with her grandfather/uncles/etc? I do understand some of what you are going through. My ex is not an involved parent, either. He sees the kids occasionally, but never on any occasion since our divorce have either kid spent the night under his roof (they are older, though, grown or nearly so). OTOH, he was very uninvolved when we were married, too. The kids have much the same relationship with him now that they did while he lived under the same roof - cordial but he just isn't part of their daily life. Eventually, I came to understand that this is all he has to offer them - it just isn't in him to do more. Sometimes, you just have to accept things and try to figure out some other way. > I don't know how I can do that though. I mean, I can stand my ground > wrt > not allowing/scheduling make-up time when he cancels for a non-work, > non-emergency reasons, but I can't make him pick her up ... neither can > I > dictate what time he's to bring her home. Can you arrange it that he doesn't pick her up and drop her off, but you do? Then you will have more control. Or, a third party if you don't want to be going over to his house. Is she in daycare at all? If so (or once she enters daycare or school) have the switch done there. Then if he doesn't show on time, the daycare will get on his case for you. jen >> I don't know how I can do that though. I mean, I can stand my ground >> wrt [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >have the switch done there. Then if he doesn't show on time, the >daycare will get on his case for you. He picks her up from daycare weekdays, picks her up from me on Sat, drops her off with me. I've never suggested dropping her off or picking her up at his house out of respect for his wife. There's not really a convenient third-party to utilize (although I did consider this one when ending the relationship). And I don't believe this warrants court supervision -- I'd like to keep the state out of my life, if at all possible. -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls > Hi, Paula. I'm coming out of lurkdom to add my opinion to this. :-) > > IMO, when it is his visitation time, it is his responsibility to take care Just my own pet peeve. Could we use the term "access" or "parenting time" as opposed to 'visitation.' Visitation makes it sound like prison, and is a stigma that, if removed, would go a long way to bettering the lives of our children. Rambler > Hi, Paula. I'm coming out of lurkdom to add my opinion to this. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > disposable than the mother (something I think that most of the men here > would contest). She had an affair with a married man, got pregnant, and chose to have his child. He is still married and has a family. Maybe grateful is the wrong word, but I do think under those specific circumstances, she shouldn't be all that surprise nor expect much more from a man who had already proven he was a liar, a cheat, and that his own selfish needs were more important than his wife, his kids from that marriage, and Paula and her DD. And by grateful, when I used that word, I didn't mean grateful that he is involved at all - I meant she should be grateful for having the time to spend with her DD. > Moreover, you should be able to count on his commitment to > do this -- you (as an individual) should not be held hostage to his whims. > > On this one, I'd stand my ground. Practical suggestion: next time this happens, I would try playing it like this: "I have a wedding to go to, can you take the baby for me on my Friday night?" "Oh, dear, I'm sorry, I have plans. How about you get a sitter?" <dramatic manipulative pause> "If anything happened to her with a sitter, I could never forgive myself!!" "Hmmm. Well, let me see. <rustling paper in the background>. Oh! Come to think of it, I have something this Thursday night that I had to turn down. I would be happy to trade that night with you for Friday night. Does that work for you?" Doesn't matter whether you had something Thursday or not - offer the trade right when he needs something from you. Thursday not good? Rustle paper more, pretending to check your social calendar. "Okay, then how about next Monday?" Persist until he begrudgingly trades. Hopefully, if you continue to do this every time he tries to weasle out of his responsibilities, this will train him that if he wants flexibility in the schedule, he will have to trade with you for it. jen > Practical suggestion: next time this happens, I would try playing it > like this: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > jen I'd support that, but without the lie. The lying part bothers me. Sheila >> Hi, Paula. I'm coming out of lurkdom to add my opinion to this. :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >were more important than his wife, his kids from that marriage, and >Paula and her DD. My expectations were set up by him. He is not the father that he presented himself to be ... and, no, that doesn't particular surprise me considering he's not much of what he, in the beginning, presented himself to be. >And by grateful, when I used that word, I didn't mean grateful that he >is involved at all - I meant she should be grateful for having the time >to spend with her DD. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, here. >> Moreover, you should be able to count on his commitment to >> do this -- you (as an individual) should not be held hostage to his whims. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >responsibilities, this will train him that if he wants flexibility in >the schedule, he will have to trade with you for it. As for this, I agree with Shelia ... without the lying it's a good plan. -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls > While I am mostly a lurker in this group, I think I could really use > some 'group wisdom' with my current co-parenting issue. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > this year she began acting out (crying for her Daddy), and I/we > concluded that she needed more time with him and his family. Okay, honestly? This hasn't been a whole lot of time with dad to develop a bond and an acting out/crying pattern. Unless, your DD is picking up on *your* anxiety that her dad is only going to be a convenience father. Be careful with that. > After > much tension and discussion (heated and not) we added alternating Fri > evenings and Sat over-nights. The acting out has disappeared ... when > the schedule is kept, that is. And when the schedule is not kept, do you get anxious? I'd ask myself whether your DD may be picking up on your anxiety. Even if she doesn't overhear the tense and heated discussions, and knows nothing about them, if you are tense and anxious, she may be picking up on your vibes. Right now, you are the most important person in her life. She is completely emotionally in tune with YOU, not him. It's like when a parent drops a child off at daycare, and the parent is anxious about it. The child picks up on the anxiety, and starts wailing. The parent gets more anxious. The child wails more... > The current problem: He told me last night that he has a wedding to > attend on Sat and that he'll pick her up Fri and keep her till [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > has a stag to go to, because he has whatever else to do ... always with > less than a week's notice, and sometimes with less than a day's notice. You can't control whether he develops a relationship with his DD or not. You can only leave the door wide open. He decides whether to walk in the door or not. If he doesn't, then you get to deal with the consequences (fun, fun!). And that includes ensuring your anxiety doesn't feed into your DD and make her anxious. Meanwhile, if he turns down an opportunity to be with his DD, your best response is to be completely grateful that you have extra time with your DD. If you need a break from constant single parenthood, by all means, get a regular sitter. > I told him the last time that this occurred (about a month ago) that > time cancelled due to non-emergent reasons (non work related, and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Am I way off base here? Do I have to just allow this man to treat me > as his own personal doormat?! It's not about being his personal doormat. Think about it as time with your DD, without having to split it with him. Incidentally, if this is a pattern, have you considered he's cheating on his wife again? With someone new? The man never learns, eh? I am betting you are happy to be rid of him! Count your blessings ... he may be your problem as a coparent, but *at least* he's not your problem as a cheating spouse! Look at the bright side, and give your DD a hug. jen >>While I am mostly a lurker in this group, I think I could really use >>some 'group wisdom' with my current co-parenting issue. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > picking up on *your* anxiety that her dad is only going to be a > convenience father. Be careful with that. And on top of that, if DD is currently 2 1/2, and earlier this year she was 2 when this happened, my daughters, all of them, at the age of two or there abouts, all cried for Daddy when Daddy went to work, and we were an intact family unit at that time. Rambler >> <...snip...> > >Okay, honestly? This hasn't been a whole lot of time with dad to >develop a bond and an acting out/crying pattern. Unless, your DD is >picking up on *your* anxiety that her dad is only going to be a >convenience father. Be careful with that. Hmm, can I agree and disagree at the same time :) I think there's a bit of both going on ... that is that she is fairly sensitive and that she's sensing my anxiety and frustration with it -- more so in the past than now as I've gotten better at handling it, but still. In retrospect, a possible factor in her bond with him was my typical reaction to his 'contact' with us when she was small. He was not physically present but there were many short-duration phone contacts per day. Remember that I was on bedrest, alone in my house for 12 weeks prior to her birth - starved for social contact doesn't really describe it. Those contacts throughout the day could brighten my spirit immensely. I'm sure she picked up on that ... now, every time the cell phone rings, she brightens and says "Daddy!" >> After >> much tension and discussion (heated and not) we added alternating Fri [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >vibes. Right now, you are the most important person in her life. She is >completely emotionally in tune with YOU, not him. Yeppers, I sure do. As stated above, I'm much better at controlling my reaction than I used to be, but it still gets me once in a while. It doesn't help much that he tends to save the stuff that he knows is going to irritate me for when he brings her back home. I think it's an attempt to control the situation ... he knows I won't react when she's right there. ><...snip...> >You can't control whether he develops a relationship with his DD or >not. You can only leave the door wide open. He decides whether to walk >in the door or not. If he doesn't, then you get to deal with the >consequences (fun, fun!). And that includes ensuring your anxiety >doesn't feed into your DD and make her anxious. Agreed >Meanwhile, if he turns down an opportunity to be with his DD, your best >response is to be completely grateful that you have extra time with >your DD. > >If you need a break from constant single parenthood, by all means, get >a regular sitter. I haven't found one yet and I can't really afford one very regularly anyway. I hate asking my Mom to watch her too often as it causes friction between her and her husband. Honestly, I need the time. I need it for household chores/maint and just for me as well. DD is a strong-willed/spirited child; she gets it quite honestly from her mother. There are times when we both, quite rightfully, need a break from each other. ><...snip...> >It's not about being his personal doormat. Think about it as time with >your DD, without having to split it with him. I do try to think about it that way ... but it feels like I have boot prints on my back. >Incidentally, if this is a pattern, have you considered he's cheating >on his wife again? With someone new? The man never learns, eh? I am >betting you are happy to be rid of him! Count your blessings ... he may >be your problem as a coparent, but *at least* he's not your problem as >a cheating spouse! Look at the bright side, and give your DD a hug. Man, I hope he's not that stupid. As for the rest ... Amen, sista' -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls Paula said > "shinypenny" said > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it quite honestly from her mother. There are times when we both, > quite rightfully, need a break from each other. Yes, you do need a break from time to time. I wish I had a great suggestion on how to find a reliable and affordable sitter. Casey > a break from time to time. I wish I had a great > suggestion on how to find a reliable and affordable sitter. Paula, Babysitting swaps with other parents! You watch their children for free, then in turn they watch your child for free. It's a great strategy because not only is it quite economical, but you would be developing an extended and much-needed social support group. You need all the help you can get. Children shouldn't be raised by only one adult. The more loving, involved adults (whether blood-related or not) the better! jen > >> <...snip...> > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > spirit immensely. I'm sure she picked up on that ... now, every time > the cell phone rings, she brightens and says "Daddy!" Sure, just as I've totally conditioned my children to brighten up when my girlfriend calls me, because my girlfriend is the one I rely on when I need a sitter. :-) Instead of whining when I want to go out without them, they eagerly look forward to time with her. She's a lot of fun and she adores them! But, she's not related to us, and she sees them only sporadically by her own free will and not because she has to on any regular schedule or obligation. When they do see her, it's always a treat. I feel like sliced meat when she comes over, because within minutes they'll be pushing me out the door so they can have her all to themselves! They don't get bent out of shape or feel cheated if they don't see her on a regular basis. They realize it is what it is - a treat and a special occasion - not something that is regular, ongoing, and expected. Perhaps that is the sort of attitude you might want to cultivate with your DD in regards to her father? If he then does show up regularly, all the better. If he doesn't, your DD will have been innoculated against feeling like she should be upset or getting it into her head that she's been gyped. Of course, her father is quite different than any old friend. Regardless of who he is, and how bad a father, she's going to grow up wanting to know him and craving a relationship with him. Since you can't force that (and neither can she, really), the best you can do is raise her to see the good in him. Over time, she WILL see the bad all on her own, without any anxiety of yours pointing the way to it. You can help her manage the conflicting views of her father and put them into perspective as she matures. I think that it is important, even with the worst parents, that children have *something* good they can point to about them. I'm not suggesting you encourage her to don rose-colored glasses, but I do believe we all want to think and believe that half our DNA came from someone who has some sort of redeeming qualities. Maybe she will grow up and arrive at the conclusion, "Well, okay, he was a lousy, convenience father, was never there for me, BUT, he's really smart and dedicated to his career, and I can see how I got my business brains from him." > Yeppers, I sure do. As stated above, I'm much better at controlling > my reaction than I used to be, but it still gets me once in a while. > It doesn't help much that he tends to save the stuff that he knows is > going to irritate me for when he brings her back home. I think it's > an attempt to control the situation ... he knows I won't react when > she's right there. Your situation reminds me of the situation of one of my oldest and dearest friends. No, her child wasn't the product of an affair with a married man. She had been in a long, on-and-off, dysfunctional relationship and she got pregnant. The pregnancy was a wake-up call for her, and made her realize just how dysfunctional the relationship really was. She had the child, but decided that she would not compound the difficulties by marrying the father and settling for a lifetime of misery in a marriage to someone who was irresponsible and unreliable. She has sole custody, and takes no c.s. from him. She has never expected much from him at all, knowing just how unreliable he is. She didn't expect him to ever grow up and face his responsibility as a father. If he did, he did - but she wasn't holding her breath or trying to force him into it. She kept and continues to keep the door wide open. The child is 8 years old now. His father comes and goes whenever he feels like it, and my girlfriend manages not to resent it, not to have anxiety over it, and to continue not to expect it. I wouldn't even say she's "grateful" when he does show. In fact, for years, she didn't leave the house when he showed up to visit. She'd simply go in another room and give them some privacy, but she didn't trust his parenting skills enough to leave the house. Her attitude was not one of paranoia and overcontrolling - rather, she objectively saw that this man was unreliable and irresponsible, accepted it, and acted accordingly in a no-nonsense fashion. She cultivated a "take the good with the bad" attitude. Today, she and the father enjoy a warm friendship, and he has moved into her neighborhood so he is close by. He sees the child quite frequently, dropping in and out like a friendly next-door neighbor. On occasion, he proposes to her again, she sweetly turns him down, and they laugh about it. I can't say the father has turned around 100% and changed, but in this environment of acceptance, he has definetly improved. Meanwhile, in the early days, my girlfriend cultivated a strong extended social support circle, and I encourage you to do the same thing!!! She has strong ties to her church, getting involved in all sorts of social activities around that group. And she has developed friendships with men who can also act as a male role model. (By choice, she has not dated anyone romantically since her child was born). She also coaches a softball league, which was her strategy to get to know other parents with children the same age. She is never lonely because she's surrounded herself with a lot of people who care about her and her son. She's successfully and quite admirably built a huge extended family for herself and her son. In her area, there are tons of parent support groups and opportunities for free babysitting exchanges with other parents. She takes advantage of these, swapping babysitting with other parents, since her relatives live far away and she can't rely on them. Perhaps this is an angle you can look into too? jen > Sure, just as I've totally conditioned my children to brighten up when > my girlfriend calls me, because my girlfriend is the one I rely on when [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Perhaps that is the sort of attitude you might want to cultivate with > your DD in regards to her father? That sounds like the sort of relationship my kids have with their dad, up to and including the pushing-out-the-door part! > While I am mostly a lurker in this group, I think I could really use > some 'group wisdom' with my current co-parenting issue. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Paula I have read most of the posters and agree with them when they suggest you fuss less. One thing you have to remember is who this guys is. He is not going to change. He may and probably will mature. Many guys spend little or no time with their offspring after a breakup. Also remember that people/spouses are innconsiderate and selflish whether they are married or not and whether they love their spouse or not. You have to look after your needs, of course, but more importantly you have to appreciate the good, the benefits you have and look at the bigger picture. It is very hard to do that the younger you are. That is why all of us think our parents are stupid and don't understand. It is because the parents see the bigger picture and know the long term losess and gains from experience and we only see the immediate losses and gains and feel cheated day after day because we haven't lived long enough to have experienced what they have. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.