 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Divorce / June 2005Using the kids
Despite almost everything else going relatively smoothly in our planned separation and divorce, I'm seeing where the 'dirty tricks' can come in when dealing with our teenage children. I was depressed and down on myself as a father, and several times my stbx preyed on those feelings and threatened to have the children taken away from me. My kids are all that really matters to me, and I can't put into words how much fear that inflicted in me. But, I am so grateful for the excellent advice of my lawyer, and then the blessed end of my depression which gave me my confidence back. I realize now her threats are a manipulation tactic but it hasn't stopped her. Instead of being overtly threatening she's more subtle in trying to manipulate the kids. Some examples would be that she has become 'super mom' in doing all of the kids errands, or 'fawning' over them when she has never demonstrated affection before she decided to divorce me. The biggie is that she will hint that our other house (where I have my business in the garage and potentially will move) is not as nice as hers (true) and since they are homebodies (very true)and love their rooms (true) they might like to stay with her full time, rather than half time with me. (Possible. More fear.) In addition, our oldest is hinting that she might move home 'for the summer'. I can envision her staying here long term since she could have her old room back and she also loves this house. She says she wants to stay here whether it's me or my wife here, she just wants the tension to go away. The kicker in all this is that my wife has even agreed, at least verbally, that I can stay here and she would move out. But I highly anticipate she's using reverse psychology and all hell will break loose if I try to stay here as her oldest threat was if I fought her on the house, she'd take away the kids. I'm tired of the mind games already. I am a very open person and I hate deception, and my kids know that. They aren't stupid, the youngest has said he sees the games, but I don't think they know how much they are already being played. If I'm honest, because my fear of losing them is not totally gone, I am starting to play the game too ('super dad') and I absolutely hate that I'm lowering myself to that level. Some of you know that I have allowed myself to be walked on for far too long, and I am tired of continually 'giving it up' to try and placate my stbx. My head tells me where my kids live does not determine their love for me, and yet I don't know why I should make it easy for my stbx; why not let her do the hard work of re-establishing a new home? They are all very mature children, so I consider them like adults. What I would like to do is call a family meeting and just sit down like adults and lay the cards on the table. If my wife is in agreement I would do this with her, and if not, I would do it without her. I want to be able to say, these are the things we *shouldn't* be doing to you children, but we are, including the stuff that I have done that's manipulative. I think it's fair to let them know that we both love them dearly, and are both scared and therefore are vying for their love, but it's hurting all of us. My theory is that, as adults, we can all handle the truth and none of us wants to stomach manipulation. I think my wife would be mad to have her weaponry exposed, but I would also take the risk that I lose favor but exposing the things I've started. But I would rather expose it, apologize for it and walk forward knowing the tactics are broken than keep playing this manipulative game - it's not good for anybody. Does the family meeting idea have merit? > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Does the family meeting idea have merit? I'm new here (and I intended to be a lurker, but am doing a piss-poor job at it!) so I know I don't have any currency with you. As such, I expect my perspective to be taken with a grain of salt. After I read your post, I started to respond, and deleted it. Then I went upstairs to work, but the post kept niggling at me. So, here I am. :-) There are several problems I see with your line of thinking here. First of all, you think your kids are mature, and they may well be, but they are still *kids*. IMO, it is imcumbant on the parents to avoid putting the kids in a position where they are having to take sides -- or even appear to take sides. Secondly, while your intention is to tell them "the truth", the problem is that you don't *have* THE Truth (with a capital T). You have your perception of it. So does your wife. I'm sure that she would "expose" things about you that you don't see as manipulation. See, even when we have all the objective data, it is always filtered through our own perception. Thirdly, the idea that you would do this even if your wife wouldn't participate smacks of manipulation to me. "See? Only *I* am really willing to be honest with you. I'm the better parent, because I'm willing to do this, and she isn't." Just my $.02 worth. Take it for what you will. Sheila >There are several problems I see with your line of thinking here. First of >all, you think your kids are mature, and they may well be, but they are >still *kids*. IMO, it is imcumbant on the parents to avoid putting the >kids in a position where they are having to take sides -- or even appear to >take sides. I agreed wholeheartedly with all of these points, but most especially this one. We tend to forget that mature children are still children, and that's not just an age thing. My parents divorced when I was, I don't know, thirty-something, and I *still* had a difficult time dealing with it, and I still resented feeling like I was being put in the middle, and a lot of other things. There is no ultimate truth about relationship issues, and we have a hard enough time seeing that when we're in a relationship, much less when we are children and, to some extent, on the outside. Nina > >There are several problems I see with your line of thinking here. First of > >all, you think your kids are mature, and they may well be, but they are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Nina Before EX moved out, my son asked who he could trust, I told him both of us, his parents. I think it is important that kids not pulling to either side to preserve their independent thinking, what benefits them is their own benefit. The way to put other at wrong side to make them right always backfire, frowned by general perceptions. Son lately is his mother spy in my house, she calls son in my house, he takes the phone to different room talk to her in low voice to report what I do and what I say in the middle of divorce mess, this will pass. I don't punish him since he is too young to understand. Kid is kid, should be clear of all garbages. Last year, he hinted the mother said something bad and asked what I would do to retaliate, I didn't even bother to inquire more, why put him in ugly situation when he is too young to understand. The adversaries between I and EX are between us. His job is to do well in school, have fun with friends, be acceptable by parents, teachers. It is that simple. I have seen few parents pulled their kids on their sides, demand absolute loyalty in return for love, food, in the name of family, etc at their own social acceptance expenses ... When they grow up, they inherit their parents perceptions and enemies, be their foot soldiers, pulled into their orbit, perceived by relatives or others as undesirable "birds of same feather" with multiple standards, after they got married, their parents might not approve them anymore since they defense with their spouses and no longer belong to "the inner circle." Any disagreement is a breach of royalty. Their own happiness are not their parents priority, their loyalties to them are. Only then they realize they are used and betrayed by the parents they trust. >>There are several problems I see with your line of thinking here. First of >>all, you think your kids are mature, and they may well be, but they are [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >relationship, much less when we are children and, to some extent, on >the outside. You were 30-plus years old, and still felt that your parents should have protected you from these issues and treated you as a child? Maybe it would have been easier if they had just stayed together "for the sake of the child" until you were, what, 40? 60? 80? At what point could they just get on with a difficult part of their lives without worrying about the effect on their 30 year old child? These kids are still living at home, they will have to make some decisions on where to live, maybe they should be consulted and have a right to an open discussion? BP >>>There are several problems I see with your line of thinking here. First of >>>all, you think your kids are mature, and they may well be, but they are [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >could they just get on with a difficult part of their lives without >worrying about the effect on their 30 year old child? You completely misunderstood what I said. I said that it was still difficult, not that they should have done something different. Actually, I think that it would have made a lot more sense if they'd split up when I was 8. My parents are people who should NEVER have stayed together for the sake of the children. My actual point was about understanding how difficult it is, even for mature children, when parent split up. >These kids are still living at home, they will have to make some >decisions on where to live, maybe they should be consulted and have a >right to an open discussion? Sure. But not in a "your mother is doing this, I am doing this, you have to choose between us" kind of way. Nina _____________ "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me lay an invincible summer." -Albert Camus > >>There are several problems I see with your line of thinking here. First of > >>all, you think your kids are mature, and they may well be, but they are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You were 30-plus years old, and still felt that your parents should > have protected you from these issues and treated you as a child? What I read is that she was in her 30's and found it difficult being put in the middle. I relate wholeheartedly to this comment. My parents divorced when I was 30 and my mother spent most of her time telling me what a bastard my father was. No matter how old you are, you don't want to hear your parents speaking ill of each other, hence, you should not be put in the middle. One oath that my former husband and I took was NOT to put our then 4.5 year old son in the middle. If there is such thing as a successful divorce; we had one. Today at age 27, from time to time, our son thanks me for never making him feel guilty, at fault, in the middle or that one of us didn't adore him. Maybe > it would have been easier if they had just stayed together "for the > sake of the child" until you were, what, 40? 60? 80? At what point > could they just get on with a difficult part of their lives without > worrying about the effect on their 30 year old child? You misinterpreted her post and probably because this is a very touchy issue for you. > These kids are still living at home, they will have to make some > decisions on where to live, maybe they should be consulted and have a > right to an open discussion? I believe that children, once they are teens, perhaps a bit younger, depending on their maturity level, have a right to state what they would like, where they'd like to live and what plans they'd like to make. This is not to say that it will all be followed, but they are humans and deserve to state their desires. It is also important to let them know that you and their mother ultimately make the final decisions until they are adults. That's what family meetings are for in intact families. In families that are divorcing, it is equally, if not more important to have these meetings...you can even have your wife there. If not, how about you all go to a mediator? I can also tell you that teens have their own perception of things no matter what you or your ex tell them. My daughter has often come to me to tell me something that my husband has said and it is often not the truth. > BP > One oath that my former husband and I took was NOT to put our then 4.5 > year old son in the middle. If there is such thing as a successful > divorce; we had one. Today at age 27, from time to time, our son > thanks me for never making him feel guilty, at fault, in the middle or > that one of us didn't adore him. Absolutely what I would hope to do with my kids too. We did have a bit of a family meeting but mostly it was just me trying to get my kids to share a little bit about how they were doing and trying to relieve the tension. It didn't work great at the moment, but my daughter and I later had a very mature discussion for about an hour of what we were hoping for the future and some of our frustrations. We steered totally clear of talking about my stbx behind her back. Good stuff. > I believe that children, once they are teens, perhaps a bit younger, > depending on their maturity level, have a right to state what they [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to tell me something that my husband has said and it is often not the > truth. Thanks for posting this. It is exactly the question I wanted to post tonight. My amazingly mature and insightful 16 year old child was mostly frustrated with one thing today: that she wasn't being allowed to voice a clear opinion about what kind of living arrangements we should make. I had understood from others that it was preferable to make our decision as parents and only then come to the kids to share our decisions and get some feedback. My daughter says she'd far rather be involved in the decision making along the way. I think she's mature enough that she could handle it, but I think the 14 year old may still be overwhelmed by the emotions and anxiety that could be involved. Is is fair to involve one and not the other? Is it ok to involve her during the whole decision making process or should the we only come to both of them after we're down to a decision and then get some feedback that may or may not change the decision. > Is it ok to involve her during the whole decision making process or > should the we only come to both of them after we're down to a decision > and then get some feedback that may or may not change the decision. My opinion is teenagers should be allowed to voice their opinions and then the parents should then take those opinions and use them to help make their decisions, though it does not mean that the teen has final say in how things are going to be.. just that their voice should be heard and if deemed appropriate for your family situation, then incorporate their wishes as best you can. But the parents have the final say.  SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > > One oath that my former husband and I took was NOT to put our then 4.5 > > year old son in the middle. If there is such thing as a successful [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > steered totally clear of talking about my stbx behind her back. Good > stuff. Good job. Down the road, she will thank you for not trashing her mom. > > I believe that children, once they are teens, perhaps a bit younger, > > depending on their maturity level, have a right to state what they [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > enough that she could handle it, but I think the 14 year old may still > be overwhelmed by the emotions and anxiety that could be involved. My sister is going through a divorce right now. She is seeing a therapist with her husband on how to tell the kids (which has gone on for far too long in my opinion) and has been counseled to make all decisions for them. It has really bothered me because I don't believe in exercising too much control over a situation in which the children have no control (divorce). I'm not saying that it's healthy to bow to all of their wishes...I'm merely suggesting (to my sister) to get INPUT from them. If they want to live in one house, rather than switch back and forth daily or weekly (boy/girl 13 year old twins and 15 year old boy), listen to them and make your decisions based on what will work and what is important to them. The therapist tells them that what their children will need is to know EXACTLY how the divorce will work, who goes where, when, how, etc. This advice has really bothered me and my sister and I have really been at odds since it all began (months ago and the children still don't know). I actually think they know on some level and that they're being sold short on how much they know. > Is is fair to involve one and not the other? No, it's not fair. Involving them does not mean that you're going to do exactly what they want. At the very least allow your children a voice. Sometimes that is all they need...to know that someone is listening. Also, being the parent (not their buddy, best friend, etc.) is the person who makes the final decisions. ALSO, flexibility is essential. If something isn't working such as a living arrangement (and don't confuse that with your daughter having a fight with Mom, calling you crying and begging you to come to her rescue), it is best to rethink the arrangement. Again, communication is key. If geographically, one house is superior because of the location of schoool, one of your jobs, etc., it's crucial to take everything into account. I can't emphasize the importance of communication...that is, healthy communication. Listening (active listening), using humor, role modeling healthy behaviors (not trashing mom) and setting clear boundaries (ie. I"m not going to listen to you trash mom, if she did something that has hurt you, I suggest that you call her or when she picks you up, we can all talk about it.) Get your kids into counseling so that they have a neutral person to talk to. Talk to a school counselor so that they know what is going on. Remember "it takes a village": well, it really does and the more helpful and supportive people that you have in your life, the better your children will thrive. > Is it ok to involve her during the whole decision making process or > should the we only come to both of them after we're down to a decision > and then get some feedback that may or may not change the decision. My sister's shrink says....you make all decisions. My thoughts are to share thoughts as a group, let the kids know that ultimately you are going to make the decision. And no decisions are set in stone. We will do what we think is best, given what we know and what you have shared. We are also aware that as time passes, we might adapt things so that you are all in positions of being the happiest and safest. Emphasis on safety is important, on being taken care of, loved and important is the best you can do. >My sister's shrink says....you make all decisions. My thoughts are to >share thoughts as a group, let the kids know that ultimately you are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Emphasis on safety is important, on being taken care of, loved and >important is the best you can do. I think that the logic of the "you make all the decisions" idea is that children, who are having their lives change significantly, need to feel safe rather than feeling like they have responsibility for some decision that they just don't know how to make. Most children have never had to make really big decisions... of course, this depends somewhat on the age of the child... and so I can see where you could argue that making all the decisions makes some sort of sense. But the flip side of that is feeling like you have no control of anything that's happening in your life, and certainly, that's not something that has EVER made me feel more secure and happy. Mostly, starting when I was a child, it made me feel powerless and angry. So I lean strongly to at least giving the children some opportunity to express what they're feeling, what they want, and to be heard. Sometimes that's the most important thing of all, to feel like you've been listened to, even if you don't get the outcome you most wanted. The other really horrible thing I've seen a few times is parents who let their children choose and then throw that choice back in their faces. Oh, you chose this, live with it. Sigh. Nina Rodney, I read both both your post and my response to my husband (who had two teenagers when he and his wife divorced). Here is his response: If you want to have a family meeting with the kids, you should only talk about what you are going to be doing, what your expectations of yourself and them are, and what *you* hope for the future. Any attempt to bring her behavior or motives into the conversation is going to put them in the middle. You can't be responsible for her actions, you can only be responsible for your own. This doesn't mean you have to outline what you've done that is manipulative, etc. in the past, because it serves no purpose. If you want to be honest, do so from this moment forward. Mike (via Sheila) >Rodney, I read both both your post and my response to my husband (who had >two teenagers when he and his wife divorced). Here is his response: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Mike (via Sheila) I agree with Mike, and from what Rodney has written here in the past that is exactly the approach I would expect him to take. BP >There are several problems I see with your line of thinking here. First of >all, you think your kids are mature, and they may well be, but they are >still *kids*. IMO, it is imcumbant on the parents to avoid putting the >kids in a position where they are having to take sides -- or even appear to >take sides. Rodney's kids are going to have to decide where they want to live. At their ages (youngest is 17, I think), a court is not going to decide for them, nor should their parents decide for them. The kids will have to decide. Do they do make those decisions following open discussion with both parents, or in the dark with the parents waging a secret war to influence the decisions? >Secondly, while your intention is to tell them "the truth", the problem is >that you don't *have* THE Truth (with a capital T). You have your >perception of it. So does your wife. I'm sure that she would "expose" >things about you that you don't see as manipulation. See, even when we have >all the objective data, it is always filtered through our own perception. <shrug> By this standard, no one ever has the Truth about anything - so it is a useless and meaningless standard. So Rodney tells the truth as he sees it, wife tells the truth as she sees it, maybe even the kids get to put a word in? >Thirdly, the idea that you would do this even if your wife wouldn't >participate smacks of manipulation to me. "See? Only *I* am really willing >to be honest with you. I'm the better parent, because I'm willing to do >this, and she isn't." No, if Rodney's wife wants to talk, she gets to talk. If she doesn't want to talk, the kids will interpret that as they choose. How does this make Rodney manipulative? Why should he hold back from doing what he thinks is right, just because his wife doesn't want to participate? That gives her all the power for manipulation, not him. BP > >There are several problems I see with your line of thinking here. First of > >all, you think your kids are mature, and they may well be, but they are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with both parents, or in the dark with the parents waging a secret war > to influence the decisions? It is interesting that you agreed with my husband, but not with me. It is especially interesting because my husband totally agreed with me. As he said when I read him your response to me, apparently you didn't understand what he said. IMO, the kids don't need a whole replay of "I did this and she did that." This puts them in the middle. Maybe you don't see that as a problem. I do. > >Secondly, while your intention is to tell them "the truth", the problem is > >that you don't *have* THE Truth (with a capital T). You have your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as he sees it, wife tells the truth as she sees it, maybe even the > kids get to put a word in? Yes, it is useless, especially in the case of divorce. How far back do you think we should go? All the problems in the marriage? Who did what when? No, again, the "truth" doesn't exist here, and, if the goal is to keep the kids out of the middle (as I believe it should be) then you don't involve them in trying to ferret out "the truth" about who is doing what, and who's fault is whose. > >Thirdly, the idea that you would do this even if your wife wouldn't > >participate smacks of manipulation to me. "See? Only *I* am really willing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > BP I explained that already. Sheila >It is interesting that you agreed with my husband, but not with me. It is >especially interesting because my husband totally agreed with me. As he >said when I read him your response to me, apparently you didn't understand >what he said. P'raps so, because I read what he said as completely different from what you said. On re-reading, they still lokk very different to me. >IMO, the kids don't need a whole replay of "I did this and she did that." >This puts them in the middle. Maybe you don't see that as a problem. I do. I would see that as a problem if that were what Rodney were planning to do. That isn't what I understood from his post. I think he intends to lay out the options that he and his wife are considering and have a discussion with the "kids" (ages 17-20 I believe). >Yes, it is useless, especially in the case of divorce. How far back do you >think we should go? All the problems in the marriage? Who did what when? >No, again, the "truth" doesn't exist here, and, if the goal is to keep the >kids out of the middle (as I believe it should be) then you don't involve >them in trying to ferret out "the truth" about who is doing what, and who's >fault is whose. Again, I don't think it is Rodney's intention to dig up all the dirt and air it out for the kids. That would be really disgusting. Talking with the kids about options and what is being considered now, and where the kids will live, that is what should happen. >> >Thirdly, the idea that you would do this even if your wife wouldn't >> >participate smacks of manipulation to me. "See? Only *I* am really [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I explained that already. I guess I missed that post. BP > >It is interesting that you agreed with my husband, but not with me. It is > >especially interesting because my husband totally agreed with me. As he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > P'raps so, because I read what he said as completely different from > what you said. On re-reading, they still lokk very different to me. No, we both agree. Talking to kids about what you feel and hope and will do with regard to them -- good. Talking to your kids about what you *percieve* your stbx is feeling, and hoping, and will do with regard to them -- bad. > >IMO, the kids don't need a whole replay of "I did this and she did that." > >This puts them in the middle. Maybe you don't see that as a problem. I do. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to lay out the options that he and his wife are considering and have a > discussion with the "kids" (ages 17-20 I believe). Well, that's what it sound like from here: >>>What I would like to do is call a family meeting and just sit down like adults and lay the cards on the table. If my wife is in agreement I would do this with her, and if not, I would do it without her. I want to be able to say, these are the things we *shouldn't* be doing to you children, but we are, including the stuff that I have done that's manipulative.>>> and >>> I think my wife would be mad to have her weaponry exposed, but I would also take the risk that I lose favor but exposing the things I've started. >>> > >Yes, it is useless, especially in the case of divorce. How far back do you > >think we should go? All the problems in the marriage? Who did what when? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with the kids about options and what is being considered now, and > where the kids will live, that is what should happen. Again, that seems to be exactly what he is considering doing. > >> >Thirdly, the idea that you would do this even if your wife wouldn't > >> >participate smacks of manipulation to me. "See? Only *I* am really [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > BP It is in my first post. It is manipulative to speak *for her* or to set up the situation for him to use her unwillingness to do this as an indication that she is less honest than him. Again, if he wants to talk about himself, fine and dandy. If he wants to talk about *her* and her motives, actions, etc... that is wrong, IMO. Sheila >>It is interesting that you agreed with my husband, but not with me. It is >>especially interesting because my husband totally agreed with me. As he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > P'raps so, because I read what he said as completely different from > what you said. On re-reading, they still lokk very different to me. That's interesting to me, because I read Sheila's and her husbands responses as being almost exactly the same. In what way do you think they differ? When I read it, I saw both of them objecting to the part where Rodney wants to sit the kids down and explain to them how they're being manipulated (frankly, I find that objectionable too). That sounds like agreement to me... >>IMO, the kids don't need a whole replay of "I did this and she did that." >>This puts them in the middle. Maybe you don't see that as a problem. I >>do. > > I would see that as a problem if that were what Rodney were planning > to do. That isn't what I understood from his post. Maybe that's the difference. That IS the way "I want to be able to say, these are the things we *shouldn't* be doing to you children" (direct quote from Rodney) came across to me. The impression I got is that both Sheila and her husband were reacting (in the same way) to this sentence. > I would see that as a problem if that were what Rodney were planning > to do. That isn't what I understood from his post. I think he intends > to lay out the options that he and his wife are considering and have a > discussion with the "kids" (ages 17-20 I believe). Rodney's "family meeting" is not, at least according to his first post, primarily concerned with living arrangements, but rather: "to say, these are the things we *shouldn't* be doing to you children, but we are, including the stuff that I have done that's manipulative. . . . I think my wife would be mad to have her weaponry exposed, but I would also take the risk that I lose favor but exposing the things I've started. But I would rather expose it, apologize for it and walk forward knowing the tactics are broken than keep playing this manipulative game - it's not good for anybody." > Again, I don't think it is Rodney's intention to dig up all the dirt > and air it out for the kids. That would be really disgusting. Talking > with the kids about options and what is being considered now, and > where the kids will live, that is what should happen. Read what Rodney wrote above. No, he's not talking about dragging out all the dirt from the marriage, but he is talking about sitting down the kids (most likely by himself, as I can't see his wife agreeing to this "family meeting") and saying "your mom and I have both been manipulating you, and I, for one, am sorry about it." >>>>Thirdly, the idea that you would do this even if your wife wouldn't >>>>participate smacks of manipulation to me. "See? Only *I* am really [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>>he thinks is right, just because his wife doesn't want to participate? >>>That gives her all the power for manipulation, not him. >> I would see that as a problem if that were what Rodney were planning >> to do. That isn't what I understood from his post. I think he intends [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > meeting") and saying "your mom and I have both been manipulating you, and > I, for one, am sorry about it." Which is a means of manipulation all in itself. Joy said > "DrLith" <drlith@spamnotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Which is a means of manipulation all in itself. Exactly. If he thinks he's doing things that are manipulative in any way, he can just stop doing those things. If he thinks his wife is been being manipulative, there's nothing he can say to her that will change her behavior. Also, talking to the kids on that topic about their mom is a no no. Casey >But, I am so grateful for the excellent advice of my lawyer, and then >the blessed end of my depression which gave me my confidence back. > >I realize now her threats are a manipulation tactic but it hasn't >stopped her. Instead of being overtly threatening she's more subtle in >trying to manipulate the kids. Then get the custody arrangements and the house agreements in writing and be done w. it, this pre-final signing bullshit is going to eat away at you. Family meeting? You might get the "kids" together and ask them where they want to live with the possibility of either one of you getting the main house. Tell them it'll be half and half (maybe), and to think about it. Beyond that, they've already made up their minds about what's going on and can probably see through the crap. Any other discussions are too much. Rodney M. said > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Does the family meeting idea have merit? It has merit ... for making things worse. Your kids just want two normal parents. Discussing your view of manipulation tactics won't help or solve anything - if you think "exposing" it will change your wife's behavior, there's still some prime swampland down here in Florida that I know about and can get you a real good deal on. I think you are looking for the big nuclear strike option that solves all the problems (guys like to do that) - the problem is there is not one. If you want to sit down with your kids, that is great. Talk with them about school, their friends, activities you plan to do with them, or even the weather. Discuss your stbx as little as possible and only in neutral terms. Sitting down for a big psychology session is not what they need. The kids have to realize things for themselves and will in time. Sitting down for a psych session with them AND your stbx is probably about the best way to have a big fight that your kids do not need to be a part of. Just my thoughts. Casey > Rodney M. said >> X-No-Archive: Yes [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > or even the weather. Discuss your stbx as little as possible and only > in neutral terms. For some reason the OP question reminded me of Cal's ex. > For some reason the OP question reminded me of Cal's ex. At least he didn't propose to do this with a powerpoint presentation and an outline of all the horrible things his stbx is doing/has done, like my ex did! lol.. Rodney, let me tell you.. this totally backfired on my ex when he decided to have his big 'meeting' with the kids to tell them how horrible I was. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com <snip> >They are all very mature children, so I consider them like adults. What >I would like to do is call a family meeting and just sit down like [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Does the family meeting idea have merit? Youngest is 17, right? If so, I'd say yes, have an open discussion of what is going on. If mine were that old, I'd do it. BP Your ex seems to be a typical American woman. They are predators. So is the divorce court. Prepare yourself for bankruptcy and for her to turn the children against you. Promise yourself you will NEVER marry an American woman. ---------------------------------------------------------- >X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > >Does the family meeting idea have merit? > Promise yourself you will NEVER marry an American woman. The only promise I will make is to Plonk this and any other gender-bashing loon. =R= rcblinnNoSpam@bellsouth.net says... >The only promise I will make is to Plonk this and any other >gender-bashing loon. =R= I never would have realized that it replied if you hadn't quoted it. 8-) > rcblinnNoSpam@bellsouth.net says... > >> The only promise I will make is to Plonk this and any other >> gender-bashing loon. =R= > > I never would have realized that it replied if you hadn't quoted it. 8-) Tell Rog to sue the bastard. Come on now, let's get with the times. surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says... >> I never would have realized that it replied if you hadn't quoted it. 8-) >Tell Rog to sue the bastard. Come on now, let's get with the times. The real irony is that I can't sue Rog for quoting it! I suppose I could, but I think my lawyer would cost me more than his. 8-) > surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The real irony is that I can't sue Rog for quoting it! I suppose I could, but > I think my lawyer would cost me more than his. 8-) Being the "caring" person that I am, I'll gladly "help" you! How does $500 an hour for "caring services" sound to ya? (hey, I've got my own "needs", bubba!; that cabin in Aspen wasn't just handed to me, ya know! and somebody's gotta pay for it!) Don't know if this is proper newsgroup etiquette but I'll reply to my own post: Thanks for all your insights. Again it amazes me how much I can learn from the collective wisdom of so many people who have 'been there, done that' and not even know any of you personally. Y'know y'all are making some lawyer/therapist/counselor out there poorer by the minute <self-satisfied group laugh> :) We have, in fact, had a couple of good individual discussions with the kids and things are going very well. Thanks again. > X-No-Archive: Yes > > Don't know if this is proper newsgroup etiquette but I'll reply to my > own post: Etiquette schmettiquette, who cares. As long as you're not a bigot, a jerk, Tom Cruise (religious preacher thinking that your way is the only way), write what you want and respond to who you want. > Thanks for all your insights. Again it amazes me how much I can learn > from the collective wisdom of so many people who have 'been there, done > that' and not even know any of you personally. > > Y'know y'all are making some lawyer/therapist/counselor out there > poorer by the minute <self-satisfied group laugh> :) Pssssst. I have a secret. Some of us are lawyers/therapists/counselors :-) > We have, in fact, had a couple of good individual discussions with the > kids and things are going very well. Thanks again. Good. Keep those doors of communication open. Secrets suck and cause problems. Giving kids a voice is a good thing, no matter how old they are. You want them to have as much confidence (and that includes that what they think and say matters) as possible before you say good bye to them that first day of college. A divorce that is respectful will have far less of a negative impact on them than you think. You and your wife talking about each other to them, disrespecting their right to not be a part of that stuff will automatically set them up for having to choose a parent. That is something no child should ever have to do, no matter what age they are. > > Y'know y'all are making some lawyer/therapist/counselor out there > > poorer by the minute <self-satisfied group laugh> :) > > Pssssst. I have a secret. Some of us are > lawyers/therapists/counselors :-) Psssst. And you're assuming I'm not? ok. Good assumption ;-) > > > Y'know y'all are making some lawyer/therapist/counselor out there > > > poorer by the minute <self-satisfied group laugh> :) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Psssst. And you're assuming I'm not? Actually, I didn't give it a thought :-) > ok. Good assumption ;-) We're all on alearning curve. Until we die. Maybe even after that. > > > Pssssst. I have a secret. Some of us are > > > lawyers/therapists/counselors :-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > We're all on alearning curve. Until we die. Maybe even after that. Yeah. I'm just praying there is no final exam :) |
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.