pregnant 17 year old
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Chris - 04 Oct 2005 17:54 GMT My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her continue to live in our home even though I informed both of them the first time around that I refused to allow a second family to live here. Mother claims that she will not be able to make it financially if she moves out. The father claims that he will help out and that they will live together. He was dead against the first pregnancy, but now agrees to help with this one. (change of heart?)
Although she carries a part time job, her daughter is basically lazy and has no concern for personal/financial responsibility. The reason why I will not allow a second family to live here is because my marriage (first family) is already hanging on a thread. Another family will only add to our troubles, not to mention that we cannot afford to support another family.
Any suggestions?
V. - 04 Oct 2005 18:26 GMT > My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not > come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Any suggestions? There are independent living programs for teenagers, and even more for teenage mothers. You can access these either through religious groups or through private agencies. She will also qualify for WIC and other welfare type programs (and will get more if she lives apart from you). In my state it's called TANF (temporary aid to needy families), but your state may differ. Google terms like "teen mother program", "independent living program", "homeless youth outreach" (they'd be able to let you know what options are available in your area). Check out your state's website for programs for teen moms. She can access these kinds of programs whether she is planning to parent or considering adoption (although it sounds like she wants to parent). There are communtiy supports available for teen couples who are parenting and live on their own. I've worked with teen parents before, and IMHO they stand a better chance of being good parents and forming a family of their own if they do live on their own with supports. Often teen parents/couples that live with family end up not learning how to do the parenting themselves or how to be their own family. Actually, a good place to access a resource list would be your local WIC office. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/ Also, many maternity units at hospitals have social workers especially for teen moms, low-income moms, etc. HTH, Amy
Chris - 07 Oct 2005 14:26 GMT > > My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not > > come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > or through private agencies. She will also qualify for WIC and other > welfare type programs (and will get more if she lives apart from you). Doesn't make sense to me, but at least it's to our advantage.
> In my state it's called TANF (temporary aid to needy families), but > your state may differ. My wife informs me that she is already getting some kind of medical welfare assistance and just now told me that she has a WIC appointment today. However, she also informs me that the waiting list for Section 8 (HUD) is over THREE years! What good is that for someone who needs it now? Seems to me that housing assistance is the highest priority since it generally costs more than the other necessities. I know absolutely nothing about welfare, except that I have to pay an awful lot to support such programs. Now you know why I can not afford to support her daughter and baby.
> Google terms like "teen mother program", "independent living program", > "homeless youth outreach" (they'd be able to let you know what options > are available in your area). Check out your state's website for > programs for teen moms. Will definitely check these out!
> She can access these kinds of programs whether she is planning to > parent or considering adoption (although it sounds like she wants to > parent). Her mother says that she is unable to care for herself. Based on that, I concluded that since she is unable to care for herself, then she is unable to care for her baby, thus adoption is the answer. But her child says "no way"! Am I wrong?
> There are communtiy supports available for teen couples who > are parenting and live on their own. I've worked with teen parents [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > learning how to do the parenting themselves or how to be their own > family. I agree!
> Actually, a good place to access a resource list would be your > local WIC office. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/ I briefly looked over the site and noticed the "poor diet" requirement. I can certainly give testimony to that. Not a big fan of government handouts, but at least these benefits appear to be actual food products as opposed to cash which is often used to purchase narcotics, alcohol, and lottery tickets. A step in the right direction. I will review the site in more detail.
> Also, many maternity > units at hospitals have social workers especially for teen moms, > low-income moms, etc. > HTH, > Amy Thank you Amy. I will pass all this information on to my wife and stepdaughter. Just curious, the father was a legal adult at the time of BOTH conceptions. Are there statutory rape laws or is that just my imagination?
V. - 09 Oct 2005 21:25 GMT >> > Just curious, the father was a legal adult at the time of BOTH >> > conceptions. > Are there statutory rape laws or is that just my imagination? Just your imagination. :) Seriously, age of consent in most states is 16y.o., and even those with an 18y.o. age of consent won't prosecute for minors over 16 unless there is a significant age difference between the parties (usually defined as more than 5 years) or some form of coercion/abuse of power is used (sex in return for grades, etc). Here's a list of ages of consent by state: http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html
You're right that if your wife feels your step-daughter can't care for herself that she should not be responsible for an infant. Chances are if she is so impaired, some health professional is going to make a report to human services. If your wife's perception is more based in her feeling that her baby is too young to have a baby, but the daughter actually is capable, human services won't do much of anything. If they agree that she is not able to care for an infant alone, they will probably start out with conditions like she participate in a teen mother's program and live with family or a family member be appointed guardian of the child so the teenager can't just take off with the infant. That might be a surprise to your wife. Even though her daughter is legally a minor, in issues concerning her own child she is considered an emancipated adult and can make any decision she chooses, including moving in the boyfriend, leaving the house after a fight with your wife and not letting your wife see the baby, etc, etc.
Good luck, Amy
Chris - 10 Oct 2005 00:52 GMT > >> > Just curious, the father was a legal adult at the time of BOTH > >> > conceptions. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Good luck, > Amy Thank you for the site. I have heard it before that a minor (13, 14, etc.) mom can legally make medical decisions for her baby, but cannot make medical decisions for herself. Makes sense to me! The saving grace in my situation is that she will be a legal adult prior to birth. In my opinion, the daughter is MORE than capable of caring for herself and baby. Her greatest obstacle is laziness!
Tori M - 24 Oct 2005 22:33 GMT I dont know about the state you live in but I know in NH 16 is the age of concent.. does not matter how old either party is as long as they are 16+
Tori
> > > My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did > not [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > Just curious, the father was a legal adult at the time of BOTH conceptions. > Are there statutory rape laws or is that just my imagination? oregonchick - 04 Oct 2005 19:42 GMT > My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not > come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Any suggestions? Your first priority is to yourself and your own family.
Chris - 07 Oct 2005 14:23 GMT > > My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not > > come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Your first priority is to yourself and your own family. That's what I thought when I said "in good times and in bad times, till death....". Thank you!
alath - 05 Oct 2005 16:41 GMT You're not going to be able to convince a mother to withdraw support from her daughter when her daughter is in need.
Your stepdaughter was being irresponsible by getting pregnant with no ability to support herself and her baby. Your wife is being a mother, by stepping in to help her daughter when she has done something irresponsible.
Sometimes mothers need to kick in with "tough love," to set boundaries and conditions, but that doesn't usually translate into kicking one's pregnant daughter out on the street.
If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her "marriage hanging by a thread" husband, her daughter will win, and rightly so.
If you are serious about saving your marriage, you will need to get some kind of professional counseling help and you will have to recognize that you may have to give in on some things, have to accept things you don't like, and have to give up the habit of making unilateral pronouncements on family decisions (like, "I informed both of them the first time around that I refused to allow a second family to live here"). You also need to recognize that when you marry a woman who has kids, her kids become part of your family.
If you are not serious about saving your marriage, go ahead and end it now. The longer you keep "hanging by a thread" without a strong committment to your marriage and your family, the more you are just another problem for these people.
Chris - 07 Oct 2005 13:24 GMT For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will respond, with all due respect, to your post below.
> You're not going to be able to convince a mother to withdraw support > from her daughter when her daughter is in need. Seems to me that such "support" will do more harm than good in the long run.
> Your stepdaughter was being irresponsible by getting pregnant with no > ability to support herself and her baby. And it is I who most likely will pay the penalty for such irresponsibility..... not her.
> Your wife is being a mother, > by stepping in to help her daughter when she has done something > irresponsible. Isn't that the role of the (baby's) father?
> Sometimes mothers need to kick in with "tough love," to set boundaries > and conditions, but that doesn't usually translate into kicking one's > pregnant daughter out on the street. A long time ago, I made the offer of allowing (ONLY) her daughter to live here after she becomes an adult ONLY if she respects both me and the home (more specifically the rules of the house). Does this sound unreasonable to you?
> If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her "marriage > hanging by a thread" husband, her daughter will win, and rightly so. To understand you correctly, are you saying that a woman's commitment to her daughter ought to trump her commitment to her husband?
> If you are serious about saving your marriage, you will need to get > some kind of professional counseling help and you will have to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of them the first > time around that I refused to allow a second family to live here"). So does my wife make the "unilateral pronouncements" on family decisions, or am I living in a democracy where the votes of my wife and her child outnumber mine?
> You > also need to recognize that when you marry a woman who has kids, her > kids become part of your family. Even though her kid informed me (again today) in no uncertain terms that she will have NOTHING to do with me?
> If you are not serious about saving your marriage, go ahead and end it > now. Not interested.
> The longer you keep "hanging by a thread" without a strong > committment to your marriage and your family, the more you are just > another problem for these people. My committment to my marriage is probably stronger than your committment to a marriage is or would be based upon your above statement "....and rightly so.". Additionally, it is not I who has shaved down the fabric of our marriage. But I must agree with you that I probably am "just another problem for these people".
Nikki - 07 Oct 2005 15:28 GMT > For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will > respond, with all due respect, to your post below.
>> If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her "marriage >> hanging by a thread" husband, her daughter will win, and rightly so. > > To understand you correctly, are you saying that a woman's commitment > to her daughter ought to trump her commitment to her husband? Can't speak for Alath but I would pick my children over my husband, who is their actual bio father. I'm not saying her decision to support her daughter by giving her a place to live is right or wrong but that many parents would pick their children over anyone else. I suspect my husband would pick the kids over me if an issue arose where he felt he had to pick. I hope he would.
> So does my wife make the "unilateral pronouncements" on family > decisions, or am I living in a democracy where the votes of my wife > and her child outnumber mine? It seems that you are the one wanting to make the unilateral pronouncement. The person you are not considering is the baby. Your wife is most likely not only thinking of her daughter but what might be best for her grandchild. Perhaps you need to focus on ways of supporting this young girl for the first year in your home. She can finish highschool, find a job or arrange secondary education, be old enough to sign a lease. Everyone should know upfront that this is a temporary arrangement and that she'll move at some predetermined time. Then you and your wife may be able to agree on reasonable ways of supporting her outside her home when she has half a chance of being successful. Being underage, under educated, under employed, single, and having a newborn is not a great set up for being terrible successful. Unless you want to run the risk of having her on your doorstep with a 3yo in an ever bigger mess then she is in now I would help her get started on the right foot.
I wouldn't worry about statutory rape charges against the father but I'd sure as heck make legal proceedings to get child support from him part of the deal.
 Signature Nikki Hunter 4/99 Luke 4/01 EDD 4/06
Chris - 07 Oct 2005 18:34 GMT > > For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will > > respond, with all due respect, to your post below. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > would pick the kids over me if an issue arose where he felt he had to pick. > I hope he would. Not me. My comittment is to my wife FIRST and foremost!
> > So does my wife make the "unilateral pronouncements" on family > > decisions, or am I living in a democracy where the votes of my wife > > and her child outnumber mine? > > It seems that you are the one wanting to make the unilateral pronouncement. > The person you are not considering is the baby. That's correct. Depending on which court you choose, legally no baby exists; and she will be a legal adult before such baby exists.
> Your wife is most likely > not only thinking of her daughter but what might be best for her grandchild. Perhaps in her opinion; one that I do not share.
> Perhaps you need to focus on ways of supporting this young girl for the > first year in your home. She can finish highschool, find a job or arrange > secondary education, be old enough to sign a lease. Already graduated and will be a legal adult in less than a month.
> Everyone should know > upfront that this is a temporary arrangement and that she'll move at some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with a 3yo in an ever bigger mess then she is in now I would help her get > started on the right foot. That's all well and good, but I am unwilling (and ever closer to being unable) to borrow money to support her and her family. And that IS a unilateral pronouncement. If she can make an adult choice, then she can be held accountable for the adult responsibilities/consequences that ride with such choice. Am I wrong?
> I wouldn't worry about statutory rape charges against the father Uhuh. This man molested her child and now ALL THREE of us are faced with a major upset in our life, not to mention my marriage is further in peril related specifically to this situation!
> but I'd > sure as heck make legal proceedings to get child support from him part of > the deal. My guess is that's her option, and as a young adult she will be SOLELY responsible to make the decision.
[ note: you were probably unaware of her soon to be legal status change, thus some of your statements.]
Ericka Kammerer - 07 Oct 2005 19:24 GMT >>>>If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her "marriage >>>>hanging by a thread" husband, her daughter will win, and rightly so. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Not me. My comittment is to my wife FIRST and foremost! Your wife is an adult and can take care of herself, and your marriage is an agreement the two of you entered into independently and with informed consent. A child doesn't ask to be born and requires the love, attention, and support of parents. Parents *owe* that to their children. A spouse who doesn't get that is a poor parent and worse spouse for forcing his or her spouse to renege on an absolute commitment that is owed to the child, even when the going gets rough. One can argue whether the appropriate way to help the child is by bringing the child and her baby (and boyfriend?) into the home or whether it's more appropriate to help in some other way. It is *NOT* negotiable that the parent must do right by the child, whether it's convenient or not and whether the current spouse is willing to be inconvenienced or not. People who love and support one another do not force each other into reneging on their responsibilities because it's inconvenient. There is a higher moral obligation to one's child, who is dependent and didn't ask to be brought into the world, than there is to one's spouse.
> That's all well and good, but I am unwilling (and ever closer to being > unable) to borrow money to support her and her family. And that IS a > unilateral pronouncement. If she can make an adult choice, then she can be > held accountable for the adult responsibilities/consequences that ride with > such choice. Am I wrong? You are not wrong to recognize your financial limitations or other objective limits. You are wrong when you seem to think that the only way to handle this situation is to tell the daughter to get out and don't let the door hit her in the butt on the way out. You are also wrong if you think that laying down an ultimatum for your wife is going to strengthen your marriage. You need to negotiate your way through this, and the starting point needs to be thinking about what is best for the daughter (and unborn child). That may or may not be supporting them entirely in your home, but that's what the discussion should be about, not your ultimatums that your wife better ditch the girl or you'll throw a hissy fit.
>>I wouldn't worry about statutory rape charges against the father > > Uhuh. This man molested her child and now ALL THREE of us are faced with a > major upset in our life, not to mention my marriage is further in peril > related specifically to this situation! So you think having the father in jail is going to improve the odds that your step-daughter will be successful in becoming a self-sufficient adult and parent? Seems to me it would have exactly the opposite effect.
>>but I'd >>sure as heck make legal proceedings to get child support from him part of >>the deal. > > My guess is that's her option, and as a young adult she will be SOLELY > responsible to make the decision. Well, yes, she'll probably need to agree to get that in place, but she'll probably have to do that anyway to get support from the government. It would certainly be a reasonable topic of discussion to insist that the father be held accountable in order for you and your wife to also help out. You can negotiate through these things. I'm sure it's *easier* for you to just wash your hands of the whole affair and tell your wife to lump it, but that's not likely to be the *right* solution, in the short run *or* the long run, and certainly if you want to strengthen your marriage.
Best wishes, Ericka
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 08 Oct 2005 02:41 GMT > Your wife is an adult and can take care of herself, > and your marriage is an agreement the two of you entered into [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > one's child, who is dependent and didn't ask to be > brought into the world, than there is to one's spouse. Normally I would agree to this, but at this point, his step-daughter is of legal age. Furthermore, this daughter has conducted herself in a manner that he disapproves of. I'm sure if she wasn't pregnant and was focused on getting an education, he would have no problems helping her in any way.
> You are not wrong to recognize your financial limitations > or other objective limits. You are wrong when you seem to think [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the discussion should be about, not your ultimatums that > your wife better ditch the girl or you'll throw a hissy fit. I disagree with your point of view. Again, she is of legal age and obviously of an unresponsible mentality. The best thing he can do is to kick her into the street for her to fend for herself. She might despise him at first, but it will be to her benefit.
> Well, yes, she'll probably need to agree to get > that in place, but she'll probably have to do that anyway > to get support from the government. It would certainly > be a reasonable topic of discussion to insist that the > father be held accountable in order for you and your wife > to also help out. You can negotiate through these things. But why negotiate. Did she negotiate with them before getting pregnant or having sex? The worst thing you can do for someone is to encourage a welfare state of mentality.
> I'm sure it's *easier* for you to just wash your hands of > the whole affair and tell your wife to lump it, but that's > not likely to be the *right* solution, in the short run > *or* the long run, and certainly if you want to strengthen > your marriage. I don't think it's easy for him to this, or he wouldn't be asking for people's opinions.
> Ericka Regards...
Chris - 08 Oct 2005 05:47 GMT > >>>>If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her "marriage > >>>>hanging by a thread" husband, her daughter will win, and rightly so. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to be born and requires the love, attention, and support of > parents. Parents *owe* that to their children. What did the child do to earn it?
> A spouse > who doesn't get that is a poor parent and worse spouse for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > one's child, who is dependent and didn't ask to be > brought into the world, than there is to one's spouse. What is your source for such morality? You seem to have lost sight of the fact that I am referring to the "woman" (according to law) that her daughter will soon be, not a dependent child.
> > That's all well and good, but I am unwilling (and ever closer to being > > unable) to borrow money to support her and her family. And that IS a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > daughter to get out and don't let the door hit her in the butt > on the way out. From the getgo, I never said she had to leave when she became an adult. I simply refuse to live with another family in my home. She is making the SOLE choice to impose her family upon mine.
> You are also wrong if you think that laying > down an ultimatum for your wife is going to strengthen your > marriage. You need to negotiate your way through this, and > the starting point needs to be thinking about what is best > for the daughter (and unborn child). No it doesn't. The starting AND ending point needs to be what is best for MY family (me and my wife).
> That may or may not > be supporting them entirely in your home, but that's what > the discussion should be about, not your ultimatums that > your wife better ditch the girl or you'll throw a hissy fit. Never said she should ditch the girl. (see above)
> >>I wouldn't worry about statutory rape charges against the father > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in becoming a self-sufficient adult and parent? Seems to > me it would have exactly the opposite effect. Possibly, but that does not negate the effect of having a molester on the prowl. Most likely, the odds would be reduced from slim to none. No great loss.
> >>but I'd > >>sure as heck make legal proceedings to get child support from him part of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > *or* the long run, and certainly if you want to strengthen > your marriage. Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage.
> Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 08 Oct 2005 15:01 GMT > Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. Agreed. You are engaging in spousal blackmail.
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 09 Oct 2005 05:59 GMT > > Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. > > Agreed. You are engaging in spousal blackmail. How so?
> Best wishes, > Ericka agsf_57@yahoo.com - 09 Oct 2005 19:27 GMT > > > Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. > > > > Agreed. You are engaging in spousal blackmail. > > How so? Why ask? As you can tell, she is incapable of holding a conversation.
Regards...
Ericka Kammerer - 09 Oct 2005 19:58 GMT >>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. >> >>Agreed. You are engaging in spousal blackmail. > > How so? You're telling your spouse it's your way or the highway. If she doesn't give in to your demands, you will not support her. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 09 Oct 2005 22:45 GMT > >>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you will not support her. Seems pretty clear cut to > me. Clear cut fantasy. Contrarily, it is my spouse that's telling me it's her way or the highway. Blackmail is an unjustified ultimatum, and that is EXACTLY what my wife is doing when she tells me that I must allow her to do something harmful to our family or she will leave. Regarding such "demand", I have laid down rules that will protect our family. What I will not support is her refusal to abide by the rules. Why? Because it HARMS our family........ that's why!
> Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 10 Oct 2005 00:52 GMT >>>>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is her refusal to abide by the rules. Why? Because it HARMS our > family........ that's why! Pot, meet kettle.
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 10 Oct 2005 01:04 GMT > >>>>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Pot, meet kettle. Care to demonstrate your analogy?
> Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 10 Oct 2005 01:45 GMT >>>>>>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Care to demonstrate your analogy? You believe that the only valid response to this situation is to assert *your* definition of family and *your* priorities and *your* beliefs and lay down the law as to how things must be in the family. Your wife has her own definition of what is family, what is morally and ethically right, and what will be best for your daughter. Neither of you are budging, and you do not accept any resolution other than her complete capitulation to your definitions and rules. Doesn't get any more clear than that, to me. Mature, reasonable folk work their way through these sorts of situations with love and an attitude of trying to understand their partner's perspective and meet their partner's needs as best they can. You don't appear interested in any of that. You've decided what the outcome must be, and your wife is just getting in your way. It's not particular surprising that under those circumstances, she's not all that pleased with the relationship and your "leadership" in the family.
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 10 Oct 2005 20:44 GMT > >>>>>>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > all that pleased with the relationship and your > "leadership" in the family. Based on the above, what's clear is that our (you and me) communication is NOT clear. I have already done what your "mature folks" do. Additionally, mature folks also do what they believe is instrumental in protecting their family.
> Best wishes, > Ericka Mum of Two - 11 Oct 2005 01:26 GMT > Based on the above, what's clear is that our (you and me) communication is > NOT clear. I have already done what your "mature folks" do. Additionally, > mature folks also do what they believe is instrumental in protecting their > family. Well, you've got it all figured out then. Why do you need our advice?
 Signature Amy Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02, & Ana born screaming 30/06/04 http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/ http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/ My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/
Nan - 11 Oct 2005 03:57 GMT >> Based on the above, what's clear is that our (you and me) communication is >> NOT clear. I have already done what your "mature folks" do. Additionally, >> mature folks also do what they believe is instrumental in protecting their >> family. > >Well, you've got it all figured out then. Why do you need our advice? He never wanted advice. He wanted everyone to agree with the decision he'd already made. He's just here to argue, now.
-- October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Chris - 11 Oct 2005 21:55 GMT > > Based on the above, what's clear is that our (you and me) communication is > > NOT clear. I have already done what your "mature folks" do. Additionally, > > mature folks also do what they believe is instrumental in protecting their > > family. > > Well, you've got it all figured out then. Why do you need our advice? I only need your advice if it is proper advice and don't already have it. Been often said that a good counselor is one who helps the counselee solve their problems rather than solving it FOR them. In other words, I have no interest in blindly following what is recommended to me.
My apologies to you if my dissection of your advice offends you. It often is the case that following advice merely because it is advice is what gets people into trouble. My stepdaughter has been getting and blindly following advice from the father of her child for quite some time.
Banty - 13 Oct 2005 18:41 GMT >> >>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >is her refusal to abide by the rules. Why? Because it HARMS our >family........ that's why! And you are the only one who has a say in what is good or harmful for your family??
Banty
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 20:40 GMT > >> >>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > And you are the only one who has a say in what is good or harmful for your > family?? Perhaps you tell ME what is harmful to my marriage and why.
> Banty Banty - 13 Oct 2005 21:06 GMT >> >> >>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Perhaps you tell ME what is harmful to my marriage and why. Me? You're quite confused.
You and your wife decide together.
************* Together ***************
Banty
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 03:00 GMT > >> >> >>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Me? You're quite confused. Uhuh. Since your question (presumably rhetorical) inferred that I am not the only one who knows, I thought that perhaps YOU might know.
> You and your wife decide together. There is nothing to "decide", I am already informed.
> ************* Together *************** > > Banty Banty - 14 Oct 2005 03:55 GMT >> >> >> >>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Uhuh. Since your question (presumably rhetorical) inferred that I am not the >only one who knows, I thought that perhaps YOU might know. That other person would be - - your wife.
>> You and your wife decide together. > >There is nothing to "decide", I am already informed. You're informed? Of what exactly and how?
Banty
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 04:16 GMT > >> >> >> >>>Yielding to spousal blackmail does not strengthen a marriage. > >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > That other person would be - - your wife. And you know this how?
> >> You and your wife decide together. > > > >There is nothing to "decide", I am already informed. > > You're informed? Of what exactly and how? Of what is harmful to my marriage. I am informed by watching the damage take place.
> Banty rangitotogirl - 14 Oct 2005 09:53 GMT > Uhuh. Since your question (presumably rhetorical) inferred that I am not > the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There is nothing to "decide", I am already informed. Actually not quite. Your wife has decided, you have decided, but it appears you haven't decided together. From what I can see your decisions are quite independent of each other. Can't you work out something that is going to work for both of you, rather than one win and the other lose!!
Mum of Two - 09 Oct 2005 00:42 GMT > What is your source for such morality? You seem to have lost sight of the > fact that I am referring to the "woman" (according to law) that her > daughter > will soon be, not a dependent child.
> Possibly, but that does not negate the effect of having a molester on the > prowl. Most likely, the odds would be reduced from slim to none. No great > loss. Ok, back up a minute here. Your step-daughter consented to sex with this man, right? (FWIW, the legal age of consent is 16 here in NZ, so where I live it would not be considered statutory rape). Legalities aside for a moment, in your mind, is your step-daughter a child or a woman? If she's a child and the victim of a 'molester on the prowl', she deserves and needs the full support and protection of your wife and yourself. If she's a woman, then she's capable of making her own decisions and you can hardly consider making statutory rape claims against the father.
In my opinion, she's neither, regardless of what the law says. She's a teenager, capable of making her own life changing decisions, but ill-equipped to forsee the long term consequences of those choices. If your wife does not give her any kind of support now, she risks losing her daughter forever. Your wife is handling a crisis situation the only way she knows how right now. I'm sure the thought of losing her daughter is a much scarier prospect than the thought of losing a husband who is not helping the immediate situation (no offence intended).
If you want to save your marriage, I suspect you're going to have to start biting your tongue a little more. Your step-daughter is young and naive, your wife is panicking for the well-being of her daughter and grandchild, the baby's father is not up to the task, and your family is relying on you to show some maturity and accept what has happened, even if you don't like the short term changes it might involve. Saying that it isn't fair, isn't your responsibility, etc etc may be true to an extent, but with a marriage hanging by a thread, statements based on selfish thinking such as that are not going to benefit your situation!
You knew your wife had a daughter when you married her, presumably, and in marrying your wife you accepted her daughter as your own. She doesn't like you? Get over it. Plenty of teenagers 'don't like' their parents, and it's down to the parents to show more maturity and ride it out. I don't think you're thinking of the long-term outcome any more than your step-daughter is, to be honest. What is the worst that can happen, by standing by your step-daughter and helping her to get ahead, albeit reluctantly? Possibly 5-6 years of hardship and a disorganised family environment, which with the right support your step-daughter will emerge from with greater maturity and sense of personal responsibility. The child will be in school, she can get training, get a job, and the spin-off from that is a happy wife, a secure marriage, and someone who will look after you in the same way when you're old. Chances are, this girl could be picking out your rest home in 30-40 years, so you might want to make the effort. I speak from some experience here, because I remember being 17, and I had a mother who stood by me even though she didn't like the situation.
 Signature Amy Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02, & Ana born screaming 30/06/04 http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/ http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/ My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/
Chris - 09 Oct 2005 07:55 GMT > > What is your source for such morality? You seem to have lost sight of the > > fact that I am referring to the "woman" (according to law) that her [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > man, right? (FWIW, the legal age of consent is 16 here in NZ, so where I > live it would not be considered statutory rape). It is 18 here.
> Legalities aside for a moment, in your mind, is your step-daughter a child > or a woman? If she's a child and the victim of a 'molester on the prowl', > she deserves and needs the full support and protection of your wife and > yourself. If she's a woman, then she's capable of making her own decisions > and you can hardly consider making statutory rape claims against the father. I am using the term "molester" in the legal sense, thus I cannot put legality aside and still talk about molestation.
> In my opinion, she's neither, regardless of what the law says. She's a > teenager, capable of making her own life changing decisions, but > ill-equipped to forsee the long term consequences of those choices. Indeed, however I am unwilling to be burdened by the consequences of her actions. I am already burdened with enough consequences of my OWN actions and those of my wife!
> If your > wife does not give her any kind of support now, she risks losing her > daughter forever. She lost her long ago.
> Your wife is handling a crisis situation the only way she > knows how right now. No she isn't.
> I'm sure the thought of losing her daughter is a much > scarier prospect than the thought of losing a husband who is not helping the > immediate situation (no offence intended). > > If you want to save your marriage, I suspect you're going to have to start > biting your tongue a little more. Precisely what is it that I am saying that must not be said, and how will not saying it save my marriage?
> Your step-daughter is young and naive, > your wife is panicking for the well-being of her daughter and grandchild, > the baby's father is not up to the task, and your family is relying on you > to show some maturity and accept what has happened, even if you don't like > the short term changes it might involve. I HAVE accepted it.
> Saying that it isn't fair, isn't > your responsibility, etc etc may be true to an extent, but with a marriage [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is, to be honest. What is the worst that can happen, by standing by your > step-daughter and helping her to get ahead, albeit reluctantly? She defies my ANY effort (what little my wife allows) to help her get ahead.
> Possibly 5-6 > years of hardship and a disorganised family environment, which with the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > marriage, and someone who will look after you in the same way when you're > old. If you are referring to financial support, please review my original post.
> Chances are, this girl could be picking out your rest home in 30-40 > years, so you might want to make the effort. Uhuh. All the more reason to not assist her in continuing to be irresponsible, lazy, disrespectful.........
> I speak from some experience here, because I remember being 17, and I had a > mother who stood by me even though she didn't like the situation. As did I; and I am ever so grateful that my mother did NOT interfere with the natural consequences of my choices which resulted in my learning the concept of accountability.
Mum of Two - 09 Oct 2005 09:40 GMT >> In my opinion, she's neither, regardless of what the law says. She's a >> teenager, capable of making her own life changing decisions, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > actions. I am already burdened with enough consequences of my OWN actions > and those of my wife! She's inevitably going to be burdened by her actions regardless of what you do, and she'll find that out once the baby is born. You have it in your power to make that burden bearable, but a learning experience for her, but it sounds as though you're giving ultimatums.
>> If your >> wife does not give her any kind of support now, she risks losing her >> daughter forever. > > She lost her long ago. See, it's that kind of attitude which is holding you back. I don't believe it is possible to pronounce a 17 year old a lost cause. She may be lazy, irresponsible and disrespectful now, but I don't think you can predict the rest of her life based on that. She's going through adolescence _and_ pregnancy - I wouldn't expect normal behaviour from her right now. I'm not surprised that there is no love lost between the two of you, it sounds as though you have given up on her entirely.
>> Your wife is handling a crisis situation the only way she >> knows how right now. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Precisely what is it that I am saying that must not be said, and how will > not saying it save my marriage? You're giving ultimatums, you're giving your opinion on how you think her wife should raise her child, yet you don't want to accept responsibility for her daughter's welfare. Either she's your daughter, by marriage if not blood, and you should be treating her as such - or she's not your responsibility at all, and you should stay out of it entirely.
>> Saying that it isn't fair, isn't >> your responsibility, etc etc may be true to an extent, but with a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > She defies my ANY effort (what little my wife allows) to help her get > ahead. You've given up on her, so again, I'm not surprised.
>> Possibly 5-6 >> years of hardship and a disorganised family environment, which with the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Uhuh. All the more reason to not assist her in continuing to be > irresponsible, lazy, disrespectful......... Some things just need time, to allow people to mature, to diffuse the situation. I'd be interested to know exactly what you're doing/saying to try to help, because I have an idea in my head...
>> I speak from some experience here, because I remember being 17, and I had > a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the natural consequences of my choices which resulted in my learning the > concept of accountability. Yet you don't sound accountable. You can choose your friends, but not your relatives - but in this case, you did choose your relatives. I'll say again, your step-daughter was part of your wife's life when you married her. Don't make your wife choose, because you will lose every time. You asked for suggestions here, and I think you received some good advice. You came into this group, I believe, looking for people to tell you that you are right. Instead of getting antsy with the regular posters here, perhaps re-read your OP. You could have better phrased it, that you were looking for support for the decision that you had already made. I can't stand it when people ask for 'advice' or 'suggestions' when they really are just looking for moral support. Either is fine - but be honest about what you hope to achieve by asking your question.
 Signature Amy Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02, & Ana born screaming 30/06/04 http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/ http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/ My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/
alath - 09 Oct 2005 16:49 GMT > As did I; and I am ever so grateful that my mother did NOT interfere with > the natural consequences of my choices which resulted in my learning the > concept of accountability You're not showing any accountability at all. You married a woman with a teenage daughter, which means accepting certain responsibilities. Now you are acting all suprised that a teenager is behaving immaturely, and you're shirking the responsibilities you took on. Some "accountability."
This entire discussion is pointless. You have already decided to respond to a crisis in your family with nothing put self-centered petulance. You came to this board asking for people to support your bad attitude and bad behavior. Unfortunately for you, there are a number of people on this board who have had some success and and attained some maturity as spouses and parents, and we can all see that you're not responding to this situation appropriately as an adult, as a spouse, or as a (step)father.
There's no need for our advice. You've already decided that you're not going to grow up and you're not going to accept your responsibilities and you're not going to step up and be a man here. That's fine, it's your life, and your family will be better off without you. Just don't ask us to pat you on the back and tell you what a great guy you are, and how terribly you've been misused, and how your wife should abandon her daughter in favor of you.
In her shoes, I'd certainly side with the daugher. She's a teenager, and there's a good chance she'll grow up some day. You're demonstrating no such potential.
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 09 Oct 2005 20:42 GMT > > As did I; and I am ever so grateful that my mother did NOT interfere with > > the natural consequences of my choices which resulted in my learning the > > concept of accountability > > You're not showing any accountability at all. You married a woman with > a teenage daughter, which means accepting certain responsibilities. Responsibilities to the wife and any underage children. Also, don't forget, the wife has responsibilities to the husband as well. It's not a one way street here.
> Now > you are acting all suprised that a teenager is behaving immaturely, and > you're shirking the responsibilities you took on. Some > "accountability." The pregnant woman is 18 and has chosen a life that the parents disapprove of. Chris is no longer accountable of the decisions that his adult children make.
> This entire discussion is pointless. You have already decided to > respond to a crisis in your family with nothing put self-centered [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > responding to this situation appropriately as an adult, as a spouse, or > as a (step)father. Of course, this is your opinion. I agree with Chris on this.
> There's no need for our advice. You've already decided that you're not > going to grow up and you're not going to accept your responsibilities > and you're not going to step up and be a man here. Chris, please note that being a man (according to this person) is to be a walking wallet with no say in the matters of the home.
> That's fine, it's > your life, and your family will be better off without you. Just don't > ask us to pat you on the back and tell you what a great guy you are, > and how terribly you've been misused, and how your wife should abandon > her daughter in favor of you. Actually, let me pat you on the back.
> In her shoes, I'd certainly side with the daugher. She's a teenager, > and there's a good chance she'll grow up some day. You're demonstrating > no such potential. The irony of that statement speaks wonders for the logic of this individual.
Regards...
Chris - 10 Oct 2005 00:31 GMT > > As did I; and I am ever so grateful that my mother did NOT interfere with > > the natural consequences of my choices which resulted in my learning the > > concept of accountability > > You're not showing any accountability at all. You married a woman with > a teenage daughter, which means accepting certain responsibilities. Supporting her and her baby aint' one of them.
> Now > you are acting all suprised that a teenager is behaving immaturely, and > you're shirking the responsibilities you took on. Knowing how this child was raised before I came along, I am not surprised at all. Is there perhaps something that I said which lead you to believe that I am surprised?
> Some > "accountability." Last I checked, I am accountable for ALL my actions.
> This entire discussion is pointless. You have already decided to > respond to a crisis in your family with nothing put self-centered > petulance. How is protecting my own family self-centered petulance?
> You came to this board asking for people to support your bad > attitude and bad behavior. No Ididn't.
> Unfortunately for you, there are a number of > people on this board who have had some success and and attained some > maturity as spouses and parents, and we can all see that you're not > responding to this situation appropriately as an adult, as a spouse, or > as a (step)father. "Appropriately" in your opinion. But I welcome such opinion.
> There's no need for our advice. You've already decided that you're not > going to grow up and you're not going to accept your responsibilities Such as?
> and you're not going to step up and be a man here. Just what action entails "step up and be a man"?
> That's fine, it's > your life, and your family will be better off without you. In other words, my wife should abandon me.
> Just don't > ask us to pat you on the back and tell you what a great guy you are, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In her shoes, I'd certainly side with the daugher. She's a teenager, > and there's a good chance she'll grow up some day. Amazing analysis based on only a few posts from me!
> You're demonstrating > no such potential. You are not giving up on me, are you?
Chris - 10 Oct 2005 00:24 GMT > >> In my opinion, she's neither, regardless of what the law says. She's a > >> teenager, capable of making her own life changing decisions, but [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > power to make that burden bearable, but a learning experience for her, but > it sounds as though you're giving ultimatums. I HAVE to give ultimatums. THAT is my responsibility. Without setting rules (ultimatums), she would literally have my home in shambles. Sorry if it might offend you, but I insist on protecting my home! That said, care to explain what power I have to make her burden bearable?
> >> If your > >> wife does not give her any kind of support now, she risks losing her [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > See, it's that kind of attitude which is holding you back. I don't believe > it is possible to pronounce a 17 year old a lost cause. Out of context. I was referring to her daughter basically separating herself from her mother. She cares about her mother only enough to get what she can out of her. In other words, her daughter left her long ago.
> She may be lazy, > irresponsible and disrespectful now, but I don't think you can predict the > rest of her life based on that. She's going through adolescence _and_ > pregnancy - My guess is that pregnancy signifies the completion of adolescence.
> I wouldn't expect normal behaviour from her right now. I'm not > surprised that there is no love lost between the two of you, it sounds as > though you have given up on her entirely. A defiant kid who constantly tells you to go pack sand (either in her words or her actions/attitude) wears on you. In case you are not aware, I have but a LIMITED amount of energy, and as such I must pick my battles carefully. The choice here is either her or my own family. Which do YOU recommend?
> >> Your wife is handling a crisis situation the only way she > >> knows how right now. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You're giving ultimatums, you're giving your opinion on how you think her > wife should raise her child, Her child is already raised.
> yet you don't want to accept responsibility for > her daughter's welfare. Can't afford to. Just curious: I have noticed that I haven't been hearing a whole lot about the REAL father's responsibility here. Is it of the general consensus in this group that fathers are not a factor?
> Either she's your daughter, by marriage if not > blood, and you should be treating her as such - or she's not your > responsibility at all, and you should stay out of it entirely. You seem to forget whose roof she is living under. She is NOT my responsibility, but for me to stay out of it would be foolish and jeopardize my family. I have an obligation to secure our home, and you can bet that is EXACTLY what I will do!
> >> Saying that it isn't fair, isn't > >> your responsibility, etc etc may be true to an extent, but with a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You've given up on her, so again, I'm not surprised. Nor should you be. Only a fool continues to toss pearls before swine. Ever hear that one?
> >> Possibly 5-6 > >> years of hardship and a disorganised family environment, which with the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > situation. I'd be interested to know exactly what you're doing/saying to try > to help, because I have an idea in my head... NOTHING. The only "help" that she needs is cold hard cash. Sorry, but my till is dry. (as for any other kind of help, see above)
> >> I speak from some experience here, because I remember being 17, and I had > > a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > your step-daughter was part of your wife's life when you married her. Don't > make your wife choose, because you will lose every time. I don't "make" my wife do anything. She is an adult (didn't think I needed to say that) who makes choices of her own free will.
> You asked for suggestions here, and I think you received some good advice. > You came into this group, I believe, looking for people to tell you that you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for moral support. Either is fine - but be honest about what you hope to > achieve by asking your question. I am hoping to achieve nothing more than a multitude of answers. That you can read minds is amazing to say the least! I re-read my OP and found every statement to be an accurate, clear, to the point fact. You disagree?
Nikki - 10 Oct 2005 16:21 GMT > No it doesn't. The starting AND ending point needs to be what is best > for MY family (me and my wife). You do need to negotiate. Your family may consist of you and your wife but your wife's family consists of you and her daughter. That will never ever change. Kids are for life even after they are 18. Again, I'm not saying living with you is the answer, perhaps there is a better all around solution but to rigidly adhere to the view that your family consists of only your wife is not going to get you anywhere because your wife's family is bigger and whether you like it or not your wife's family will soon consist of a grandchild. It is ridiculous to not accept that.
 Signature Nikki Hunter 4/99 Luke 4/01 EDD 4/06
Chris - 10 Oct 2005 20:49 GMT > > No it doesn't. The starting AND ending point needs to be what is best > > for MY family (me and my wife). > > You do need to negotiate. With who?
> Your family may consist of you and your wife but > your wife's family consists of you and her daughter. That will never ever [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and whether you like it or not your wife's family will soon consist of a > grandchild. It is ridiculous to not accept that. How far down the line do you go before you no longer consider a relative part of your family?
Nikki - 11 Oct 2005 16:10 GMT >>> No it doesn't. The starting AND ending point needs to be what is >>> best for MY family (me and my wife). >> >> You do need to negotiate. > > With who? Your wife.
> How far down the line do you go before you no longer consider a > relative part of your family? My relatives are always a part of my family. We believe strongly in the bonds of extended family and that is a family value/culture I have grown up with. I've seen it in action. I have 7 living aunts or uncles. I haven't seen some of them in years. I'm sure I could call any one of them up if I was having a crisis or emergency and get significant support/help from them. Of course I would also be there for them but their own family networks are much larger and so while I would offer support, it would not be at significant sacrifice. I count one cousin, one cousins child (is that a second cousin?) my brother (his wife and two kids), my BIL's (no kids), MIL, one of my aunts, my dad, all as people I would sacrifice considerably for in a time of serious need. I'm not particularly close to my dh's family but since I'm married to him I count the people he is close to as those I'd sacrifice for as well. In all of that one's children remain at the top of our list of things to protect. Of course maintaining a strong marriage is important to children so that is a priority. When push comes to shove though, we do what we believe is best for our kids.
I'm guessing you did not grow up with that same family value/culture. There is a canyon so big separating the two it is impossible to see across. I simply can't imagine not having it and it seems you can't wrap your head around my way of thinking either.
That doesn't mean that I'd do anything they asked. I'd have to use my judgment in what was right for them in the long haul but I would be willing to sacrifice (things like time, money, energy, space in my home, etc.) for them. I know my mother refused to help in the way that was requested more then once because she felt it was the wrong thing to do. She offered alternative help that she felt was more appropriate. That is OK. I'm not talking about being a door mat.
 Signature Nikki Hunter 4/99 Luke 4/01 EDD 4/06
Chris - 11 Oct 2005 23:31 GMT > >>> No it doesn't. The starting AND ending point needs to be what is > >>> best for MY family (me and my wife). [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > I'm guessing you did not grow up with that same family value/culture. Not exactly the same. I was raised with the teaching that immediate family is important, however the marriage covenant is king. Both my parents have been marriage counselors for years, and not only is their marriage intact, but so are the (only) marriages of ALL my several siblings as well as a multitude of their peers. I would wager that I follow the same basic paradigm that they do. Gee, you think there might be some spark of truth to my position?
> There > is a canyon so big separating the two it is impossible to see across. I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > alternative help that she felt was more appropriate. That is OK. I'm not > talking about being a door mat. At this point, the only help I have available to her is counsel. Something which she has no interest in. Oh, and I would be willing to offer my truck, labor, AND pay fuel costs to help her move. :)
Nan - 12 Oct 2005 02:38 GMT >Not exactly the same. I was raised with the teaching that immediate family >is important, however the marriage covenant is king. Both my parents have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >paradigm that they do. Gee, you think there might be some spark of truth to >my position? So, what's different about their supposedly *strong* marriages, and yours, which is "hanging by a thread" ??? I know you *think* it's because your wife doesn't place you above her child, but I'm going to hazard the guess that your parents respect each other in a way you do not respect your wife. How can you even say "the marriage covenant is king" when you don't respect your wife enough to allow her to handle her daughter's issues is beyond me.
-- October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 17:31 GMT > >Not exactly the same. I was raised with the teaching that immediate family > >is important, however the marriage covenant is king. Both my parents have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So, what's different about their supposedly *strong* marriages, and > yours, which is "hanging by a thread" ??? My wife.
> I know you *think* it's because your wife doesn't place you above her > child, but I'm going to hazard the guess that your parents respect > each other in a way you do not respect your wife. Well of course. Impossible for my wife to bear any responsibility for the condition of our marriage.
> How can you even say "the marriage covenant is king" when you don't > respect your wife enough to allow her to handle her daughter's issues > is beyond me. Her daughter, for the most part, is how she is PRECISELY because of my wife handling her, both before and after I entered the scene. It is not my wife that I don't respect; it is how she handles her daughter, which has lead to the current situation.
Good thing I wasn't around since day one. I could imagine all the folks automatically assuming me to be the number one cause of these troubles. Heck, I am already being blamed even though I have been around for only a small percentage of the time, and the latter time to boot.
> -- > October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... > Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women > clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/ Circe - 12 Oct 2005 18:00 GMT >> So, what's different about their supposedly *strong* marriages, and >> yours, which is "hanging by a thread" ??? > > My wife. Right. And you picked her. At least, I assume you did, unless you're going to tell us now that this is an arranged marriage into which you had no input.
>> I know you *think* it's because your wife doesn't place you above her >> child, but I'm going to hazard the guess that your parents respect >> each other in a way you do not respect your wife. > > Well of course. Impossible for my wife to bear any responsibility for the > condition of our marriage. Your wife *does* bear responsibility for the condition of your marriage, but you bear *equal* responsibility. YOU came into this marriage with some rather peculiar expectations, first and foremost the expectation that your wife would be ABLE (let alone willing) to place your interests before her child's interests in all situations. That's just not a REASONABLE thing to expect, even if you believe with all your heart and soul that it is the ideal.
Marriages with stepchildren have challenges that are not faced by those who marry unencumbered partners, and what you are experiencing now is a textbook example of that. It seems to me that you and your wife didn't realistically and adequately prepare for the realities of raising her daughter in your joint household. The fact that you KNEW just how troubled this child was at the time you married your wife is further evidence that you didn't face this issue honestly at the outset. And now you're suffering the consequences of that. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 23:58 GMT > >> So, what's different about their supposedly *strong* marriages, and > >> yours, which is "hanging by a thread" ??? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to tell us now that this is an arranged marriage into which you had no > input. No, I picked her and with her I will live.
> >> I know you *think* it's because your wife doesn't place you above her > >> child, but I'm going to hazard the guess that your parents respect [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Your wife *does* bear responsibility for the condition of your marriage, but > you bear *equal* responsibility. No, no, no. Equal responsibility to do what's proper does NOT translate into equal responsibility for problems created.
> YOU came into this marriage with some > rather peculiar expectations, first and foremost the expectation that your > wife would be ABLE (let alone willing) to place your interests before her > child's interests in all situations. That's just not a REASONABLE thing to > expect, even if you believe with all your heart and soul that it is the > ideal. Many parents place their spouse in first position. But to clarify something, I never claimed in "all" situations. There are times where someone needs urgent assistance which is more important than someone else's everyday needs. No problem, assist them. However, in day to day life a spouse has a reasonable expectation that they will be first. I can't imagine putting some other person ahead of my wife. Bad philosophy, huh?
> Marriages with stepchildren have challenges that are not faced by those who > marry unencumbered partners, and what you are experiencing now is a textbook [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > issue honestly at the outset. And now you're suffering the consequences of > that. Indeed, I was aware of the child's troubles. Oddly enough, even though I knew that she was promiscuous, I was NOT aware that getting pregnant was high priority for her (consider my statement about the condoms). And her pregnancy is the main crux of the problem. Also, I was NOT aware of how my wife would respond to me in marriage. Can't know that until you are married. Of course she told me all that she would be willing to do if we got married. I took her for her word. Guess I was duped again.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 13 Oct 2005 18:13 GMT > Also, I was NOT aware of how my > wife would respond to me in marriage. Can't know that until you are > married. <Shakes head in disbelief> I knew how my husband would respond to me when we got married because I knew how he responded to me BEFORE we go married. People don't CHANGE when they get married; they are just like they always have been, only more so. Controlling boyfriends become controlling husbands. Co-dependent girlfriends become co-dependent wives. And so on. You had MANY opportunities to foresee your current troubles if only you'd been willing to look HONESTLY at the woman you were going to marry (rather than, bizarrely, relying on looking ar her parents and/or siblings).
> Of course she told me all that she would be willing to do if we got > married. > I took her for her word. Guess I was duped again. If what she told you she would do when she was married to you was DIFFERENT than what she was doing when she wasn't married to you, it's possible that she fooled herself into believe she would be able to behave as you wanted because she loved you and very much wanted to marry you. People fool themselves all the time. Seems very likely that BOTH of you were engaged in a healthy amount of self-deception... -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 20:03 GMT > > Also, I was NOT aware of how my > > wife would respond to me in marriage. Can't know that until you are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > got married because I knew how he responded to me BEFORE we go married. > People don't CHANGE when they get married; I do, and I DID. She did too!
> they are just like they always > have been, only more so. Controlling boyfriends become controlling husbands. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > themselves all the time. Seems very likely that BOTH of you were engaged in > a healthy amount of self-deception... Thank you for the input. We are married now, and it is time to make it work!
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 13 Oct 2005 21:00 GMT >> > Also, I was NOT aware of how my >> > wife would respond to me in marriage. Can't know that until you are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I do, and I DID. She did too! Your personality, values, and outlook on life changed FUNDAMENTALLY when you got married? Really, I highly doubt it. While it's true that people make minor changes in their behavior to accommodate a spouse (for example, I try a lot harder now that I am married to put things back where they belong because it drives my husband nuts if I don't), it is the RARE person who changes in truly significant ways when he/she enters marriage. However, if both you and your wife changed fundamentally when you got married, however, maybe that's part of the problem (because maybe you changed in opposite directions)...
>> > Of course she told me all that she would be willing to do if we got >> > married. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Thank you for the input. We are married now, and it is time to make it > work! So make it work. You could start with making the following adjustments to your thought processes:
1. The house is not your (singular) house, but your (plural) house. 2. Her daughter IS part of your (plural) family.
I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than as equals. -- Be well, Barbara
Banty - 13 Oct 2005 21:26 GMT >I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to >stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than as >equals. It's worse than that. He thinks of his wife as chattel; his stepdaughter as intruder.
Banty
Circe - 13 Oct 2005 21:47 GMT >>I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to >>stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as > intruder. Agreed. It's the fact that he thinks that now his stepdaughter is pregnant, she has become the de facto responsibility of the baby's father and is now part of her boyfriend's family rather than his that makes me say he thinks she's chattel.
All of this "one flesh" and "covenant" stuff is giving me the willies, to be honest. It's so...so...medeival. -- Be well, Barbara
Banty - 13 Oct 2005 22:13 GMT >>>I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to >>>stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >part of her boyfriend's family rather than his that makes me say he thinks >she's chattel. That's right. Someone *else's* chattel. But, women are chattel.
>All of this "one flesh" and "covenant" stuff is giving me the willies, to be >honest. It's so...so...medeival. I think there are *positive* ways those can be interpreted. Although that certainly would not be "my flesh" and "my way".
Banty
Circe - 13 Oct 2005 22:36 GMT >>>>I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to >>>>stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That's right. Someone *else's* chattel. But, women are chattel. Yep.
>>All of this "one flesh" and "covenant" stuff is giving me the willies, to >>be >>honest. It's so...so...medeival. > > I think there are *positive* ways those can be interpreted. Oh, definitely. It's just that to me, they're codespeak for very traditional views of marriage and women's roles, particularly in light of other things the OP has written.
> Although that > certainly would not be "my flesh" and "my way". Right. -- Be well, Barbara
Nan - 13 Oct 2005 22:26 GMT >>>I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to >>>stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than as [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >All of this "one flesh" and "covenant" stuff is giving me the willies, to be >honest. It's so...so...medeival. Yep, I agree. It appears his wife isn't molding to his ideal and that is what the problem is. Good for her, I say!
Nan -- October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 10:23 GMT > >>>I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to > >>>stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than as [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yep, I agree. It appears his wife isn't molding to his ideal and that > is what the problem is. Good for her, I say! That's right. Continue harming your daughter, yourself, and your marriage. "You GO girl!"
> Nan > -- > October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... > Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women > clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/ Banty - 14 Oct 2005 13:08 GMT >> >>>I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability >to [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >That's right. Continue harming your daughter, yourself, and your marriage. >"You GO girl!" What exactly do you mean by "harming your marriage"?? I think if you look at it honestly, to you it's really only about your desire for a comfortable life, with one person's focus on you, and right now.
It surely isn't about addressing the needs and desires of both members of the marriage. All you'd give your wife is that you'd "comfort (your) crying wife". Whooopie.
Banty
Chris - 15 Oct 2005 19:18 GMT > >> >>>I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability > >to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > honestly, to you it's really only about your desire for a comfortable life, with > one person's focus on you, and right now. So long as you believe that, then you will not understand the harm. Beliefs affect one's ability to understand.
> It surely isn't about addressing the needs and desires of both members of the > marriage. All you'd give your wife is that you'd "comfort (your) crying wife". Untrue.
> Whooopie. > > Banty Nan - 14 Oct 2005 19:56 GMT >> >>>I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability >to [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >That's right. Continue harming your daughter, yourself, and your marriage. >"You GO girl!" No. More like "Don't bend to your controlling husband's demands".
Nan
Chris - 15 Oct 2005 20:04 GMT > >> >>>I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability > >to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > No. More like "Don't bend to your controlling husband's demands". Contrarily, the control, or attempt thereof, by my wife over me is the issue at hand. This being secondary to her daughter's attempt to manipulate (control) HER. Wonder where she learned her skills.
> Nan agsf_57@yahoo.com - 15 Oct 2005 02:31 GMT > That's right. Continue harming your daughter, yourself, and your marriage. > "You GO girl!" You forgot to include Society.
Regards...
Chris - 15 Oct 2005 19:19 GMT > > That's right. Continue harming your daughter, yourself, and your marriage. > > "You GO girl!" > > You forgot to include Society. Being that family is the FOUNDATION of society, can't argue with you there.
> Regards... Chris - 14 Oct 2005 05:54 GMT > >> > Also, I was NOT aware of how my > >> > wife would respond to me in marriage. Can't know that until you are [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > 1. The house is not your (singular) house, but your (plural) house. > 2. Her daughter IS part of your (plural) family. #1 - true #2 - false
> I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to > stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than as > equals. Guess again. Her daughter is NOT my equal. I suppose you believe that my (our) home is a democracy?
> -- > Be well, Barbara agsf_57@yahoo.com - 15 Oct 2005 05:31 GMT > > 1. The house is not your (singular) house, but your (plural) house. > > 2. Her daughter IS part of your (plural) family. > > #1 - true > #2 - false Chris, I have to agree with them on number 2. You (for some odd reason) married a woman who had underage children. By commiting yourself to this marriage, you have accepted responsibility of raising her children as your own. You are to clothe, feed and help raise her child to be a moral functioning human being to the best of your ability until she becomes a legal adult. Any actions she does as a legal adult, is now her responsibility.
> > I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to > > stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than as > > equals. > > Guess again. Her daughter is NOT my equal. I can't believe you and I are the only ones who believe this.
> I suppose you believe that my > (our) home is a democracy? I don't think so, because that would imply that even you have a say in this matter. ;) Regards...
Circe - 15 Oct 2005 17:11 GMT >> > I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability >> > to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I can't believe you and I are the only ones who believe this. "Equal" is a word with many meanings. Chris' stepdaughter IS, however, a human being, and as such, she is his "equal". Unless, of course, you disagree with the fundamental proposition that all human beings are created equal and endowed with certain rights as a result.
My children are not my "equals" in the sense that they are minors and I am responsible for their well-being. They are, however, equal to me in their status as human beings. One day, they will be adults and then they will be my equals in every sense. It's only a matter of time.
Chris seems to want it both ways. He doesn't think of his stepdaughter as his "equal", but in the same breath, he thinks she is an adult who should be responsible for herself and her actions. Something does not compute. -- Be well, Barbara
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 15 Oct 2005 19:17 GMT > >> > I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability > >> > to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Be well, Barbara Barbara, he means that his daughter is not his equal in his relationship with his wife. In other words, he did not marry his step daughter nor did his wife marry her daughter.
Hope that helps.
Regards...
Circe - 16 Oct 2005 16:08 GMT >> >> > I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your >> >> > ability [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > relationship with his wife. In other words, he did not marry his step > daughter nor did his wife marry her daughter. That may be what he means, but it is non-responsive to my statement (the point of which was that he is not treating his wife and stepdaughter as equal human beings). Moreover, the issue isn't whether he married his wife's daughter, but whether his WIFE has a relationship with her daughter that is equally deep and binding as her relationship with him. She does. He just doesn't want to admit it. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 16 Oct 2005 03:39 GMT > >> > I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability > >> > to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Equal" is a word with many meanings. Chris' stepdaughter IS, however, a > human being, and as such, she is his "equal". Can you say "C O N T E X T"?
> Unless, of course, you > disagree with the fundamental proposition that all human beings are created [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > his "equal", but in the same breath, he thinks she is an adult who should be > responsible for herself and her actions. Something does not compute. Conclusion: The captain and the third class petty officer are equal.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 16 Oct 2005 16:04 GMT >> >> > I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your >> >> > ability [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Can you say "C O N T E X T"? You were responding to *my* post. You don't get to choose the context. In the context of my response, I clearly meant "equal human being" (as in opposed to chattel). -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 16 Oct 2005 22:27 GMT > >> >> > I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your > >> >> > ability [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the context of my response, I clearly meant "equal human being" (as in > opposed to chattel). The common understanding of your statement is that one human being is superior to the other human being (such as a slave), not that one isn't a human being.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 17 Oct 2005 17:33 GMT >> >> >> > I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your >> >> >> > ability to stop thinking of both your wife and her [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > superior to the other human being (such as a slave), not that one isn't a > human being. We could have a very long discussion of whether or not people have, historically, considered women and/or people of different races whom they have enslaved as "human beings" or not. It's really all over the map.
Notwithstanding, it appears you did understand perfectly well what I meant when I said it would help if you would treat your wife and her daughter as "equals". You KNEW that I meant you were not a superior/better human being. You then went on to say that your stepdaughter is, in fact, NOT your equal. There is only one interpretation of your comment, therefore, and that is that you consider her to be an inferior/lesser human being than yourself. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 18 Oct 2005 18:51 GMT > >> >> >> > I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your > >> >> >> > ability to stop thinking of both your wife and her [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > There is only one interpretation of your comment, therefore, and that is > that you consider her to be an inferior/lesser human being than yourself. It is apparent that you are trapped inside the box. For starters, please don't tell me what I "knew". Secondly, I applied the most common understanding to your statement. Thirdly, you stated that because she is a human being, she is my equal. This infers that NO human being can be chattel (such as a slave), which is untrue. "Chattel" and "human being" are not exclusive terms. Finally, you failed to recognize the TRUTH of my statement that she holds an "inferior/lesser" position when it comes to how things are going to be in my home. Thus she IS NOT my equal.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 18 Oct 2005 19:15 GMT >> >> >> >> > I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your >> >> >> >> > ability to stop thinking of both your wife and her [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > (such as a slave), which is untrue. "Chattel" and "human being" are not > exclusive terms. <Snort> By that argument, no human being has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because it's POSSIBLE for an immoral person through an illegal (or even legal) act to deprive a person of those rights. In which case, there is no such thing as the widely recognized concept of "civil rights".
> Finally, you failed to recognize the TRUTH of my statement > that she holds an "inferior/lesser" position when it comes to how things > are > going to be in my home. Thus she IS NOT my equal. You know, I think it is entirely reasonable to believe you have more say than someone else on what goes on in your house. For example, you certainly have more say than *I* do, and rightly so. That fact does not, however, make me "not your equal" in any essential way. And the fact that your stepdaughter does not have an equal say in how your household operates does not make her "not your equal" in any essential way, either. Therefore, you should still treat her with respect, courtesy, and fairness, because she is an EQUAL HUMAN BEING, not a slave/chattel/inferior human being. And yes, you should treat her with respect, courtesy, and fairness, even if she fails to return the favor.
The same holds true for your wife. Your needs/wants are not superior to your wife's, either. Yet you seem to think that if your wife doesn't agree with you on some issue (her daughter is just an example of something the two of you currently can't agree on), she must cede to your authority (because, apparently, you "wear the pants in the family" <snort>) to indicate that your relationship with her takes priority over her relationship with anyone else (including herself!). That is not treating your wife with the respect, courtesy, and fairness that is due an equal human being (and one who presumably has just as much say as you do in what happens in "your" house since it is "her" house, too!). -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 16 Oct 2005 03:47 GMT > > > 1. The house is not your (singular) house, but your (plural) house. > > > 2. Her daughter IS part of your (plural) family. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > becomes a legal adult. Any actions she does as a legal adult, is now > her responsibility. ALL responsibilities are coupled with rights. What might they be in this case?
> > > I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to > > > stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than as [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Regards... agsf_57@yahoo.com - 16 Oct 2005 04:53 GMT > > > > 1. The house is not your (singular) house, but your (plural) house. > > > > 2. Her daughter IS part of your (plural) family. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ALL responsibilities are coupled with rights. What might they be in this > case? I personally don't feel that law dictates moral obligation. However, I am sure you and your wife are legally responsible for her actions when she was a child. For example, if she threw eggs at your neighbor's car, wouldn't both you and your wife been liable for damages to that car?
Regards...
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 10:28 GMT > >> > Also, I was NOT aware of how my > >> > wife would respond to me in marriage. Can't know that until you are [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > 1. The house is not your (singular) house, but your (plural) house. > 2. Her daughter IS part of your (plural) family. #1 - true #2 - false
> I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to > stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than as > equals. Her daughter is NOT my equal! Where did I claim my wife as chattel?
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 14 Oct 2005 16:32 GMT >> >> > Of course she told me all that she would be willing to do if we got >> >> > married. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > #1 - true It doesn't sound like you really believe that. You keep talking about how having HER daughter in "my house" (not "our house") is causing disruption. It certainly doesn't SOUND to me like you think it's as much your wife's house as it is yours.
> #2 - false If you and your wife are indeed "one flesh" by definition, how can *her* child fail to be part of your family? Really, it's entirely inconsistent to claim that you and your wife are in any sense united if you don't consider her family members to be, by definition, YOUR family members. It's hypocritical, actually.
In any event, your inability to ACT as if #1 is true and your steadfast refusal to accept that #2 is true will almost certainly be the nails in the coffin of your marriage.
>> I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to >> stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than >> as >> equals. > > Her daughter is NOT my equal! Mmmmmhmmmmm. THAT statement speaks volumes about why you and your wife can't come to an agreement in the current situation.
> Where did I claim my wife as chattel? I see you don't deny that you think her daughter is chattel.
But it's the fact that you seem to think a woman belongs ONLY to the family of either her husband or the man who fathers her child (failing being a husband first) that tells me you think of women as chattel. And since your wife is a woman... -- Be well, Barbara
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 15 Oct 2005 05:56 GMT > > Her daughter is NOT my equal! > > Mmmmmhmmmmm. THAT statement speaks volumes about why you and your wife can't > come to an agreement in the current situation. I don't think he ever denied that.
> > Where did I claim my wife as chattel? > > > I see you don't deny that you think her daughter is chattel. Keep moving those goal posts.
> But it's the fact that you seem to think a woman belongs ONLY to the family > of either her husband or the man who fathers her child (failing being a > husband first) that tells me you think of women as chattel. And since your > wife is a woman... So was your grandmother a cow?
> Be well, Barbara Regards...
Chris - 15 Oct 2005 18:59 GMT > >> >> > Of course she told me all that she would be willing to do if we got > >> >> > married. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > her family members to be, by definition, YOUR family members. It's > hypocritical, actually. What is so difficult about her daughter leaving her parents (mother) and yoking with her "husband'?
> In any event, your inability to ACT as if #1 is true and your steadfast > refusal to accept that #2 is true will almost certainly be the nails in the > coffin of your marriage. The fact that it is our home no less makes it MINE. And guess what, it aint' gonna be me using the hammer.
> >> I think any solution to your marital problems rests upon your ability to > >> stop thinking of both your wife and her daughter as chattel rather than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Mmmmmhmmmmm. THAT statement speaks volumes about why you and your wife can't > come to an agreement in the current situation. Care to elaborate?
> > Where did I claim my wife as chattel? > > > I see you don't deny that you think her daughter is chattel. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> But it's the fact that you seem to think a woman belongs ONLY to the family > of either her husband or the man who fathers her child (failing being a > husband first) that tells me you think of women as chattel. And since your > wife is a woman... Did I use the word "belongs"?
> -- > Be well, Barbara Jamie Clark - 13 Oct 2005 00:41 GMT >> >Not exactly the same. I was raised with the teaching that immediate > family [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > My wife. That's right. Your wife, not her daughter.
>> I know you *think* it's because your wife doesn't place you above her >> child, but I'm going to hazard the guess that your parents respect >> each other in a way you do not respect your wife. > > Well of course. Impossible for my wife to bear any responsibility for the > condition of our marriage. You and your wife both bear responsibility. Mostly I'd say for making the wrong choice to get married.
>> How can you even say "the marriage covenant is king" when you don't >> respect your wife enough to allow her to handle her daughter's issues [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > daughter, > which has lead to the current situation. "He wasn't a bad guy, he just did bad things." Sorry, your issues with your wife and how she handles her daughter are one in the same.
> Good thing I wasn't around since day one. I could imagine all the folks > automatically assuming me to be the number one cause of these troubles. > Heck, I am already being blamed even though I have been around for only a > small percentage of the time, and the latter time to boot. Actually, I say it's too bad you aren't the original father. Perhaps you would have had more options and control, and the outcome might have been a whole lot better.
Step parenting is really tough, and most marriages with blended families don't work out. When they do, it's with HARD work all around. But it takes both sides, and you and your wife are not on the same page, at all. Her first concern is her daughter in crises, and your first concern is your marriage in crises. Neither is right or wrong, it just is.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 05:34 GMT > >> >Not exactly the same. I was raised with the teaching that immediate > > family [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > You and your wife both bear responsibility. Mostly I'd say for making the > wrong choice to get married. Right or wrong, we are married and I aim to see it get fixed!
> >> How can you even say "the marriage covenant is king" when you don't > >> respect your wife enough to allow her to handle her daughter's issues [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "He wasn't a bad guy, he just did bad things." Sorry, your issues with your > wife and how she handles her daughter are one in the same. I respect my wife because she is my wife. Guess that is one of the fringe benefits of being married to me. :) Despising one's behavior is not the same as despising them.
> > Good thing I wasn't around since day one. I could imagine all the folks > > automatically assuming me to be the number one cause of these troubles. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > first concern is her daughter in crises, and your first concern is your > marriage in crises. Neither is right or wrong, it just is. She is wrong. Her covenant is NOT with her daughter, it is with ME!
Circe - 13 Oct 2005 16:39 GMT >> Step parenting is really tough, and most marriages with blended families >> don't work out. When they do, it's with HARD work all around. But it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > She is wrong. Her covenant is NOT with her daughter, it is with ME! You don't believe that bringing a child into the world is a de facto covenant on the part of the parent to support, care for, and rasie that child? The CHILD may not have a covenantal relationship with the parent, but from a legal point of view, you can bet your sweet hiney that the parents have a covenantal relationship with their minor children! (And don't pull the "she's going to be 18 next month" card, please. Your stepdaughter was a minor when you married her mother and, as such, your wife had--and continues to have for at least another month--a LEGAL responsibility to support, care for, protect, and raise her child. Deal with it.) -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 20:10 GMT > >> Step parenting is really tough, and most marriages with blended families > >> don't work out. When they do, it's with HARD work all around. But it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > covenant on the part of the parent to support, care for, and rasie that > child? No, I don't. The child made no commitment.
> The CHILD may not have a covenantal relationship with the parent, but > from a legal point of view, you can bet your sweet hiney that the parents > have a covenantal relationship with their minor children! Covenants, by definition, require the agreement by BOTH parties.
> (And don't pull > the "she's going to be 18 next month" card, please. Your stepdaughter was a > minor when you married her mother and, as such, your wife had--and continues > to have for at least another month--a LEGAL responsibility to support, care > for, protect, and raise her child. Deal with it.) Ya know what? I think I can last the month.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Ericka Kammerer - 13 Oct 2005 20:55 GMT > Ya know what? I think I can last the month. But can your marriage survive the damage caused by yet another month of this sort of attitude on this part, especially if it means missing out on some opportunities that may disappear later.
Best wishes, Ericka
Circe - 13 Oct 2005 21:24 GMT >> > She is wrong. Her covenant is NOT with her daughter, it is with ME! >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, I don't. The child made no commitment. From Wikipedia:
"Covenant, in its most general sense, is a word for a solemn contract or similar undertaking."
A parent enters into a very solemn contract to support and raise any child to which he/she gives life. Whether the child makes any commitment is irrelevant. The law agrees with me. Try to find any legal resource that states parents have NO legal obligations to their minor children. You won't.
>> The CHILD may not have a covenantal relationship with the parent, but >> from a legal point of view, you can bet your sweet hiney that the parents >> have a covenantal relationship with their minor children! > > Covenants, by definition, require the agreement by BOTH parties. You can split semantic hairs all you like. The fact of the matter remains that your wife's choice to make a covenant with YOU did not in any way abrogate or override the promise she made and the legal responsibilities she accepted when she gave birth to her daughter and chose not to cede her parental rights to adoptive parents. (Your stepdaughter's biological father has the same obligations, of course, but apparently he's like you: he doesn't think he should have to follow through on them. Maybe your wife managed to marry the same guy twice?)
>> (And don't pull >> the "she's going to be 18 next month" card, please. Your stepdaughter was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ya know what? I think I can last the month. And if your stepdaughter decides not to move out a month from now and your wife doesn't agree with you that she must get out, then what? You are beyond delusional if you believe that your wife will blithely agree to tossing her daughter out on her ear just because she's reached the age of 18. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 05:53 GMT > >> > She is wrong. Her covenant is NOT with her daughter, it is with ME! > >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to which he/she gives life. Whether the child makes any commitment is > irrelevant. That all depends on what the word "contract" means to you.
> The law agrees with me. Try to find any legal resource that > states parents have NO legal obligations to their minor children. You won't. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > You can split semantic hairs all you like. Call it what you like, but it is still the definition. Don't words have meaning to you?
> The fact of the matter remains > that your wife's choice to make a covenant with YOU did not in any way > abrogate or override the promise she made What promise?
> and the legal responsibilities she > accepted when she gave birth to her daughter and chose not to cede her > parental rights to adoptive parents. (Your stepdaughter's biological father > has the same obligations, of course, but apparently he's like you: he > doesn't think he should have to follow through on them. Maybe your wife > managed to marry the same guy twice?) Last I checked, her daughter had different DNA than me. Guess I'm not the same guy.
> >> (And don't pull > >> the "she's going to be 18 next month" card, please. Your stepdaughter was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And if your stepdaughter decides not to move out a month from now and your > wife doesn't agree with you that she must get out, then what? Hypothetical.
> You are beyond > delusional if you believe that your wife will blithely agree to tossing her > daughter out on her ear just because she's reached the age of 18. > -- > Be well, Barbara Jamie Clark - 14 Oct 2005 07:29 GMT >> >> > She is wrong. Her covenant is NOT with her daughter, it is with ME! >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Hypothetical. This is a possible scenario. And pretty likely, if you ask me. You'd be smart to think ahead and have an idea of what the next steps would be, if this should occur.
This is a perfect example of the reason why you don't have a good marriage and didn't pick a good partner. Before reasonable and intelligent people decide to marry, they sit and have long conversations about hypotheticals. Apparently you aren't willing to think ahead and have conversations about anything that isn't currently actually happening. It's kind of hard to plan ahead if you aren't willing to talk and think about alternate plans.
>> You are beyond >> delusional if you believe that your wife will blithely agree to tossing > her >> daughter out on her ear just because she's reached the age of 18. >> -- >> Be well, Barbara
 Signature Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Circe - 14 Oct 2005 16:57 GMT >> >> > She is wrong. Her covenant is NOT with her daughter, it is with ME! >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > That all depends on what the word "contract" means to you. The other party in the "contract" in this case isn't the CHILD; it's the state. By birthing the child and not ceding his/her parental rights to another party through adoption has made a de facto agreement with the state (not the child) to support and raise that child. The fact that the CHILD isn't the other party in the agreement doesn't make it any less a contractual agreement. (Contracts don't have to be written on paper and signed, either. Just in case you were going to make that argument.)
>> The law agrees with me. Try to find any legal resource that >> states parents have NO legal obligations to their minor children. You >> won't. Did you find any legal resources that stated parents did not have legal obligations to their minor children? Didn't think so...
>> >> The CHILD may not have a covenantal relationship with the parent, but >> >> from a legal point of view, you can bet your sweet hiney that the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Call it what you like, but it is still the definition. Don't words have > meaning to you? Yep. The covenant is between the parent and the state with regard to the minor child. That makes the relationship between parent and child a "covenantal" one.
>> The fact of the matter remains >> that your wife's choice to make a covenant with YOU did not in any way >> abrogate or override the promise she made > > What promise? The promise she made to support and raise her minor child. Who is STILL a minor child. And to whom she has blood and emotional ties that won't suddenly terminate on the day her minor child becomes an adult in the eyes of the law.
>> and the legal responsibilities she >> accepted when she gave birth to her daughter and chose not to cede her [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Last I checked, her daughter had different DNA than me. Guess I'm not the > same guy. Are you really obtuse, or just being argumentative? I MEANT that I think both you and her ex-husband are apparently guys who don't think much of parental obligations to children. I MEANT that it seems to me that your wife chose two different men who apparently share a similar character flaw.
>> >> (And don't pull >> >> the "she's going to be 18 next month" card, please. Your stepdaughter [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hypothetical. It's more likely that not, my friend. I don't get the impression from anything you've written that your wife wants her daughter to move out. And nothing you've written about the daughter convinces me that her stated desire to get out is any more than hot air.
Be prepared, I always say. You haven't been prepared from day one. You might start working on preparation now. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 15 Oct 2005 19:27 GMT > >> >> > She is wrong. Her covenant is NOT with her daughter, it is with ME! > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Did you find any legal resources that stated parents did not have legal > obligations to their minor children? Didn't think so... I found no law stating that you do not have to give me your house. What's your point?
> >> >> The CHILD may not have a covenantal relationship with the parent, but > >> >> from a legal point of view, you can bet your sweet hiney that the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > minor child. That makes the relationship between parent and child a > "covenantal" one. Doesn't work that way. A covenant is between the two parties in agreement, period. Also, I don't read minds.
> >> The fact of the matter remains > >> that your wife's choice to make a covenant with YOU did not in any way [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > The promise she made to support and raise her minor child. Then you misunderstand the concept of "marriage".
> Who is STILL a > minor child. And to whom she has blood and emotional ties that won't [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > parental obligations to children. I MEANT that it seems to me that your wife > chose two different men who apparently share a similar character flaw. I knew exactly what you meant. You were grouping the father and me together. Problem with that is we are two different individuals in two totally different positions. Or does that not matter to you?
> >> >> (And don't pull > >> >> the "she's going to be 18 next month" card, please. Your stepdaughter [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Be prepared, I always say. You haven't been prepared from day one. You might > start working on preparation now. Thank you for your advice. As best I can put it, my wife's position changes like the direction of a rudderless ship. She has claimed both that she wants her daughter to stay and that she wants to PERSONALLY toss her out the door. So go figure. And like I have stated before, her daughter has already left for days at a time. Additionally, she has been requesting more hours on her work schedule and been saving her pennies for the big move-out day. Based on that, it's more than hot air; you agree?
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 16 Oct 2005 16:19 GMT >> >> >> > She is wrong. Her covenant is NOT with her daughter, it is with > ME! [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > I found no law stating that you do not have to give me your house. Now you're just being silly.
And, in point of fact, there are several perfectly good laws that state just this. Start with the Constitution's prohibition upon depriving another person of his life, property, or liberty without due process of law. Go from there. Of course, if you can get a judge to state that I must give you my house after due process of law, then I'd have to give it to you.
> What's your point? My point is that a parent has binding legal responsibilities to her child, and if she fails to fulfill them, she can wind up paying a fine or even going to jail. Just because the child didn't stand before a justice of the peace and make some promise in return doesn't make the responsibilities of the parent any less real or binding.
>> >> The fact of the matter remains >> >> that your wife's choice to make a covenant with YOU did not in any way [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Then you misunderstand the concept of "marriage". You're saying that having married YOU, your wife was no longer responsible to raise her minor child. I think it's YOU who misunderstands the concept of "marriage", not me.
>> >> and the legal responsibilities she >> >> accepted when she gave birth to her daughter and chose not to cede her [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Problem with that is we are two different individuals in two totally > different positions. Or does that not matter to you? I see, you're just being argumentative. But then, that's been pretty clear all along... -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 16 Oct 2005 21:36 GMT > >> >> >> > She is wrong. Her covenant is NOT with her daughter, it is with > > ME! [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Now you're just being silly. Of course; counterexamples are always silly.
> And, in point of fact, there are several perfectly good laws that state just > this. Start with the Constitution's prohibition upon depriving another > person of his life, property, or liberty without due process of law. Go from > there. Of course, if you can get a judge to state that I must give you my > house after due process of law, then I'd have to give it to you. Still no law.
> > What's your point? > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You're saying that having married YOU, your wife was no longer responsible > to raise her minor child. No I'm not.
> I think it's YOU who misunderstands the concept of > "marriage", not me. You're right. My wife is actually married to her daughter.
> >> >> and the legal responsibilities she > >> >> accepted when she gave birth to her daughter and chose not to cede her [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I see, you're just being argumentative. But then, that's been pretty clear > all along... Nice red herring.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 17 Oct 2005 03:50 GMT >> And, in point of fact, there are several perfectly good laws that state >> just this. Start with the Constitution's prohibition upon depriving [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Still no law. Ah, Chris has spoken and it's official: all of those highly educated folks who call themselves LAWyers and practice CONSTITUTIONAL LAW have been mistaken for 200+ years, and have not been practicing LAW at all, but something else entirely.
>> > Then you misunderstand the concept of "marriage". >> > >> You're saying that having married YOU, your wife was no longer >> responsible to raise her minor child. > > No I'm not. Let's review, shall we?
I said that your wife's promise to you when she married you in no way changed her legal or moral obligations to her child(ren). You said that meant I misunderstood the concept of marriage. What, precisely, did you mean by that statement if NOT that her marriage to you somehow modified or nullified her prior obligations? Because frankly, I have no idea...
>> I think it's YOU who misunderstands the concept of >> "marriage", not me. > > You're right. My wife is actually married to her daughter. I never said that. I said your wife has legal and moral obligations to her daughter regardless of whether they are "married" or not. It is possible to have legal and moral obligations to people you are not married to. Moreover, under the law, some of those obligations to people one is not married to supercede conflicting obligations to a spouse. (For example, one cannot toss one's 10yo out on the street because one's spouse thinks that's a good idea.)
>> I see, you're just being argumentative. But then, that's been pretty >> clear all along... > > Nice red herring. To the contrary, I can't fathom what you're doing here if it ISN'T to be argumentative. You haven't, as far as I can tell, done anything BUT argue. Which sort of explains why you can't seem to reach any agreement with your wife. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 18 Oct 2005 17:29 GMT > >> And, in point of fact, there are several perfectly good laws that state > >> just this. Start with the Constitution's prohibition upon depriving [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > mistaken for 200+ years, and have not been practicing LAW at all, but > something else entirely. The absence of a law indicating a negative does NOT make a positive. There is no law stating that you have no legal obligation to walk your dog.
> >> > Then you misunderstand the concept of "marriage". > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > by that statement if NOT that her marriage to you somehow modified or > nullified her prior obligations? Because frankly, I have no idea... I understood the word "override" to mean take priority. In other words, that which is being overridden takes second position; not simply wiped out.
> >> I think it's YOU who misunderstands the concept of > >> "marriage", not me. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > To the contrary, I can't fathom what you're doing here if it ISN'T to be > argumentative. You haven't, as far as I can tell, done anything BUT argue. Translation: shut up and do as I say.
> Which sort of explains why you can't seem to reach any agreement with your > wife. > -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 18 Oct 2005 17:51 GMT >> >> And, in point of fact, there are several perfectly good laws that >> >> state [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The absence of a law indicating a negative does NOT make a positive. But a law DOES exist that states I don't have to give you my house without due process of law. It's in no less a document that the Constitution. So there is no "absence of a law" in the case of your counter-example.
However, I take you point. I probably stated my initial point incorrectly. What I meant was that you should find me a state in the US that does NOT place legal obligations on parents towards their minor children. I don't think you can.
> There > is no law stating that you have no legal obligation to walk your dog. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that > which is being overridden takes second position; not simply wiped out. So, you *are* saying her parental obligations were "modified", n'est pas? And anyway, there's no difference between "taking priority" and "nullifying" if you think the obligations of marriage always (let alone ever) "override" the obligations of parenthood. If a spouse's wishes/desires/needs ALWAYS take priority over a child's, then you are saying that a spouse's obligations towards his or her child(ren) are binding only to the extent that the other spouse ALLOWS them to be. That's patently absurd. If that were true, parents could throw their 5yo's out on the street without fear of prosecution on the grounds that their spouses said they should!
>> >> I see, you're just being argumentative. But then, that's been pretty >> >> clear all along... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Translation: shut up and do as I say. Isn't that what you've been saying to your wife? "I don't want your daughter to live here unless she obeys MY rules. I don't care what you want, so shut up and do as I say."
But really, this thread has been feeling like a Monty Python sketch for some time now. ("I came here for an argument." "No, you didn't." "Yes, I did.") It's really well past redundant at this point. -- Be well, Barbara
Banty - 13 Oct 2005 18:52 GMT >> >> >Not exactly the same. I was raised with the teaching that immediate >> > family [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >benefits of being married to me. :) >Despising one's behavior is not the same as despising them. But you do not respect your wife's decision to help her daughter.
What does respect MEAN to you? Opening car doors, that's it?
Banty
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 20:14 GMT > >> >> >Not exactly the same. I was raised with the teaching that immediate > >> > family [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > But you do not respect your wife's decision to help her daughter. Nor should I, depending on what kind of "help" it is. But I still respect my wife.
> What does respect MEAN to you? Opening car doors, that's it? No. Generally speaking, holding them in a high regard and treating them as such. What does it mean to you?
> Banty Banty - 13 Oct 2005 20:53 GMT >> >I respect my wife because she is my wife. Guess that is one of the fringe >> >benefits of being married to me. :) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >No. Generally speaking, holding them in a high regard and treating them as >such. What does it mean to you? Treating in high regard how?
I would think it means coming to a common resolution regarding something very important to your wife - helping her daughter. Instead, you want to issue an ultimatum and make decisions unilaterally. That is being extremely disrespectful.
And this isn't about what color the living room couch will be. This one is a relationship-breaker. And no, you can't scuttle out of it by claimimg the other could have saved the relationship by totaly capitulating to what your desire is.
Banty
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 05:59 GMT > >> >I respect my wife because she is my wife. Guess that is one of the fringe > >> >benefits of being married to me. :) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I would think it means coming to a common resolution regarding something very > important to your wife - helping her daughter. Depends on what such "help" entails.
> Instead, you want to issue an > ultimatum and make decisions unilaterally. That is being extremely > disrespectful. Not if they are the correct decisions.
> And this isn't about what color the living room couch will be. This one is a > relationship-breaker. And no, you can't scuttle out of it by claimimg the other > could have saved the relationship by totaly capitulating to what your desire is. "Could have" is hypothetical.
> Banty Nikki - 12 Oct 2005 15:25 GMT > Not exactly the same. I was raised with the teaching that immediate > family is important, however the marriage covenant is king. Both my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that I follow the same basic paradigm that they do. Gee, you think > there might be some spark of truth to my position? I don't know. I imagine it depends on who you marry! That position wouldn't last 6 months if you were married to me. I'd assume that your siblings and parents found partners with similar positions. Did you?
If you are so certain your wife is the only person to deal with stop worrying about the daughter. Leave her out of it. Just focus on your wife and negotiate with her to find some common ground on how to make *her* feel happy, complete, supported, and like an honorable mother.
> At this point, the only help I have available to her is counsel. > Something which she has no interest in. Oh, and I would be willing to > offer my truck, labor, AND pay fuel costs to help her move. :) Sounds like a start. Some things to think about are..What help does your wife want to offer? Is there no room for negotiation between the two of you? If you forget about the daughter and just try to make your wife happy what would you need to do? What kind of support does your *wife* need at this time? That might mean some sacrifice or negotiation on your part but you'll come out with a strong marriage. If you approach it in that manner, rather then how you've come across so far, your wife may be more willing to negotiate on her demands as well. It seems that your 'marriage covenant as king' approach and the 'this child is not mine, and I'm done with her now that she's 18 and pregnant' attitude has put you and your wife on opposite teams rather then on the same one. No marriage, regardless of approach, is going to survive being on opposite teams.
 Signature Nikki Hunter 4/99 Luke 4/01 EDD 4/06
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 20:50 GMT > > Not exactly the same. I was raised with the teaching that immediate > > family is important, however the marriage covenant is king. Both my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > last 6 months if you were married to me. I'd assume that your siblings and > parents found partners with similar positions. Did you? Time will tell.
> If you are so certain your wife is the only person to deal with stop > worrying about the daughter. Leave her out of it. Just focus on your wife > and negotiate with her to find some common ground on how to make *her* feel > happy, complete, supported, and like an honorable mother. It's not about her feeling good. It's about both of us doing the proper thing in our marriage. I never claimed that my wife is the "only" person to deal with. She is, however, the only one with which I have a marriage covenant.
> > At this point, the only help I have available to her is counsel. > > Something which she has no interest in. Oh, and I would be willing to > > offer my truck, labor, AND pay fuel costs to help her move. :) > > Sounds like a start. Some things to think about are..What help does your > wife want to offer? Actually, she has hauled her kid around town getting her into all sorts of welfare programs. My wife is far from a lost cause, but it remains to be seen if her actions follow her words. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, the mere presence of her daughter is quite destructive to the sanctity of our home. All because of her daughter's choice of behavior!
> Is there no room for negotiation between the two of > you? If you forget about the daughter and just try to make your wife happy [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > teams rather then on the same one. No marriage, regardless of approach, is > going to survive being on opposite teams. I agree, but guess who changed teams.
jenrose@jenrose.com - 12 Oct 2005 21:48 GMT Family/relatives are pretty much interchangable for me. I did not marry my mother-in-law, but when she needed help, because I love my husband, I stepped up to the plate. To the tune of driving her to all her appointments, running her errands and visiting with her four days a week. My husband did not marry my daughter, his stepdaughter, but he supports her, nevertheless, and is shocked that *I* would consider charging her rent when she is of age if I deem it appropriate or necessary. (I lived with my parents as a young single mother and paid rent and contributed to the food budget--otherwise I would not have felt like an adult and would have found it intolerable to live there.)
Honestly, if my daughter got pregnant as a teen and decided to keep the baby and my husband reacted the way you are reacting, I'd show him the curb even though I love him very, very much. "Protecting your family" is meaningless if you and your wife are not working together as a team, and crying, "But she isn't working with me" doesn't cut it.
Your wife has been a parent longer than you have. Her daughter has a prior claim. 17 year olds are often little s**theads who don't know which end is up.... I certainly was, and so was my sister. But we improved with age. You don't get to stop parenting just because some legal limit is reached--my younger daughter has a genetic condition which *might* mean that she is not able to be independant until she's older than 18--I'm not going to show her the door because the law says she's legally an adult.
Money: You probably won't need to put a whole lot of money toward the baby if you are in the US. She needs a place to live and she needs people around her who are not causing more chaos in her life than she herself is generating. Set limits...of course! But that baby IS your family, or should be. If my husband ever tried to say that my grandbaby was not HIS family.... <shakes head> Let's just say I'm glad that I married a man who will step up to the plate and considers my family his family. He considers my mother and father to be his family. He considers my sister and her husband to be his family. And he *especially* considers my daughter to be his family. So personally, if he started making pronouncements about how he wasn't going to allow "another family" to live under his roof.... I'd suggest he find another roof. Fortunately, I know my husband and he's less likely to set limits about such things than I am. We talked about the what-ifs of such a situation before we were married, actually.
Should you let your stepdaughter run roughshod over the family and dump the baby on you without concern for your convenience or needs? NO! Should you show her the curb? Probably not. Setting limits in cooperation with your wife: okay. Deciding that you don't have to cooperate with your wife and get to decide all the limits? Not okay.
Here's how it looked when I lived with my parents after having my daughter at age 21:
I was on welfare, food stamps and medical. Welfare was more generous back then, and didn't tell me to go get a job until my baby was about 18 months old. Welfare will tell your stepdaughter to get a job when her baby is about 3 months old, I believe. During the time I lived with my parents, I had income from child support and welfare combined of about $450 per month, plus food stamps. I bought my own food and food for my daughter with that. I paid about $200 per month to my parents (far below market rent for 1 room in a house) and they tucked $50 per month aside in a savings account out of that money. When I moved out, they gave me that money to help pay my first and last in my own apartment.
Childcare was neither assumed nor automatic. They often helped if I asked, changing a diaper here, playing with the baby so I could get a shower there, and if I had a specific training-related thing to do, I could ask them but did often have to find other arrangements for childcare. Mom was paid by the state to babysit when she was doing a large amount of babysitting so I could get training or a job--she was NOT free and not 'on demand'. She did not want me to "take her for granted" and that was fine by me. I did often have other childcare providers. When my daughter got older and easier, they volunteered to have her spend the night to give me a break on a regular basis, not for pay.
As a result, I was not a "child" living in their home, but another adult. They were very clear about it being their house and their rules, and I respected that. I contributed to the family, did chores, helped with meals, etc. As a result, I was able to live with them until my section 8 came up and I was able to get a place of my own. I was there for about 22 months, having moved in when my daughter was 10 months old.
As for the father... you can spout all you want about "father's responsibility" but it won't make him take it. Yeah, he should pay child support, and maybe he will. He should probably be willing to support your stepdaughter and his child, but just because he "should" doesnt' mean he "will" and if you want to talk about other people making decisions that affect your family, he's the one to get pissed at as much as anyone, IMO. He should have an active part in the child's life and maybe he will or maybe he won't. But that baby NEEDS a good male role model.
Living with my parents and maintaining close relationships with them through the rocky first years of my daughter's life gave my daughter stability she otherwise would not have had. She *knows* my father loves her. She *knows* that her father's fecklessness is not her fault. She *knows* that no matter what, her family, ALL her family, including my husband, is on her side.
There's a whole lot of research and talk about children of single parents and children in blended families...and there's a lot of evidence that having a strong male role model in childhood and the teen years can be a huge factor in how well kids weather the stresses of being in blended/broken families. Dads *are* important.
For my daughter, when I got pregnant young, my dad was that person for her. As she enters her teen years, my dad *and* her stepdad are that for her.
You have an opportunity here, to make a difference in a child's life. If you "stand on" your dubious principles and "insist" that you are not "family" to that child... you will lose a valuable opportunity.
See, babies are special. They're a gift. Grandbabies, especially so. Even stepgrandbabies. You just have to open your heart to it. Will it be an inconvenience? Oh, definitely. Will there be difficulty? Of course. Will it create chaos? Yup. But your stepdaughter is going to have a baby. And babies, honestly, are better than puppies and kittens and christmas all put together. GRANDbabies are better than regular babies, too, because with grandbabies, you get to love them, spoil them, play with them, and give them *back* to their parents when they're done, even if their parents are immature 18 year olds who haven't figured out which end is up or why waiting for the good things in life makes the good things better.
If you open your heart to the baby, you will probably save your marriage. It will not cause you financial ruin--babies do not have to be expensive, and most of the expense should be managed through WIC, food stamps and medical assistance. Your step daughter will be able to get a lot of things at garage sales, as gifts, donations, etc. Instead of telling her to hit the street, you should be encouraging her to breastfeed (cheaper) and cloth diaper (also cheaper). Instead of telling her she can't live with you, you should be talking about ways of making sure that she takes the privilege seriously and treats your home with respect.
This is your wife's grandchild. It could also be yours. My mom always says if she'd known how much fun grandchildren could be, she'd have had them first. Lucky you, that's almost what you get to do.
As to the original question of "how far down the line do you go".... It all depends on the situation.
Yes, there ARE situations when you should show a young single parent the curb. If she's doing drugs. Being dangerous to the house or to you guys. Blatant and aggressive disruptive behavior (NOT "getting pregnant" but "playing loud music at 3 am and throwing parties") after clear boundaries are set.
If I had treated my parents with open hostility and anger *after* they opened their home to me and my infant, I would have been stupid *and* deserved a boot to the rear. But if they'd called me a slut and told me to get out, they would have deserved every bit of my anger. As it was, they welcomed me home with open arms, and as a result we have a fantastic adult relationship now, 12 years later. And my daughter has a wonderful relationship with them that most grandparents don't get.
Jenrose
Nan - 07 Oct 2005 20:07 GMT >> > For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will >> > respond, with all due respect, to your post below. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Not me. My comittment is to my wife FIRST and foremost! Wow. I can't imagine choosing an adult that can take care of themselves, over a tiny, helpless baby.
>> > So does my wife make the "unilateral pronouncements" on family >> > decisions, or am I living in a democracy where the votes of my wife [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >That's correct. Depending on which court you choose, legally no baby exists; >and she will be a legal adult before such baby exists. Court?! Good grief, this isn't about legality. A baby *does* exist, and will be joining your family whether you like it or not. For you to be so mired in "legality" is just unbelievable.
>> Your wife is most likely >> not only thinking of her daughter but what might be best for her >grandchild. > >Perhaps in her opinion; one that I do not share. So you say it would be better for her daughter to be homeless with a baby?
>> Perhaps you need to focus on ways of supporting this young girl for the >> first year in your home. She can finish highschool, find a job or arrange >> secondary education, be old enough to sign a lease. > >Already graduated and will be a legal adult in less than a month. Oh, there's that "legality" thing again. You really need to let go of that. We don't have children so that we can boot them out the door at the magic age of 18. Did you marry your wife thinking you'd be rid of the daughter when she reached 18?
>> Everyone should know >> upfront that this is a temporary arrangement and that she'll move at some [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >held accountable for the adult responsibilities/consequences that ride with >such choice. Am I wrong? I can appreciate the unable aspect of not borrowing money. I wouldn't be able to do that either. But good grief, emotional support can go a long way.
>> I wouldn't worry about statutory rape charges against the father > >Uhuh. This man molested her child and now ALL THREE of us are faced with a >major upset in our life, not to mention my marriage is further in peril >related specifically to this situation! Yeah well, if you were my husband and had this attitude, our marriage would be in peril, too.
>> but I'd >> sure as heck make legal proceedings to get child support from him part of >> the deal. > >My guess is that's her option, and as a young adult she will be SOLELY >responsible to make the decision. Argh! Here again, emotional support is necessary. Wow, you're some piece of work.
Nan
Chris - 08 Oct 2005 05:34 GMT > >> > For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will > >> > respond, with all due respect, to your post below. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Wow. I can't imagine choosing an adult that can take care of > themselves, over a tiny, helpless baby. You must be posting from Zimbabwe. Afterall, there is an abundance of "tiny, helpless" babies there for you to be taking care of.
> >> > So does my wife make the "unilateral pronouncements" on family > >> > decisions, or am I living in a democracy where the votes of my wife [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Court?! Good grief, this isn't about legality. A baby *does* exist, > and will be joining your family whether you like it or not. My family consists of me and my wife. Her daughter has now left the family to yoke with another man. The only connection that I have with her is the fact that she is residing in my home off of my dime.
> For you > to be so mired in "legality" is just unbelievable. When push comes to shove, it is "legality" that will prevail.
> >> Your wife is most likely > >> not only thinking of her daughter but what might be best for her [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So you say it would be better for her daughter to be homeless with a > baby? Sorry, too many women's shelters or other escapes for ANY woman to be homeless. Not to mention, I have never seen a single homeless woman in my neck of the woods; and it's a big city. Whether or not her daughter chooses to be homeless with a baby has what to do with me?
> >> Perhaps you need to focus on ways of supporting this young girl for the > >> first year in your home. She can finish highschool, find a job or arrange [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh, there's that "legality" thing again. You really need to let go of > that. It wasn't me who initiated the "legality" thing into this discussion. But let me guess, you believe that legality has no effect in this situation?
> We don't have children so that we can boot them out the door at > the magic age of 18. Did you marry your wife thinking you'd be rid of > the daughter when she reached 18? YES. That's what my wife told me that she and her daughter desired BEFORE we got married. In fact, her daughter expressed her wishes years ago and has already left for days at a time.
> >> Everyone should know > >> upfront that this is a temporary arrangement and that she'll move at some [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > be able to do that either. But good grief, emotional support can go a > long way. Perhaps, but there is no emotional connection between her child and me. Just yesterday, she again told me to take a hike.
> >> I wouldn't worry about statutory rape charges against the father > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yeah well, if you were my husband and had this attitude, our marriage > would be in peril, too. I see. So you too have no problem with some man molesting your child and getting her knocked up not once but TWICE!
> >> but I'd > >> sure as heck make legal proceedings to get child support from him part of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Argh! Here again, emotional support is necessary. Maybe so, but not my obligation.
> Wow, you're some piece of work. Thank you.
> Nan Nan - 08 Oct 2005 19:24 GMT >You must be posting from Zimbabwe. Afterall, there is an abundance of "tiny, >helpless" babies there for you to be taking care of. This is a strawman. The discussion was about spouse and child.
>My family consists of me and my wife. Her daughter has now left the family >to yoke with another man. The only connection that I have with her is the >fact that she is residing in my home off of my dime. Uhm, she's "legally" your stepdaughter. It's a sad statement about you that you have no connection with her.
>When push comes to shove, it is "legality" that will prevail. Mores the pity for your wife.
>Sorry, too many women's shelters or other escapes for ANY woman to be >homeless. Not to mention, I have never seen a single homeless woman in my >neck of the woods; and it's a big city. Whether or not her daughter chooses >to be homeless with a baby has what to do with me? A shelter is not a home.
>It wasn't me who initiated the "legality" thing into this discussion. But >let me guess, you believe that legality has no effect in this situation? No, I'm quite sure you'll go to great lengths to make sure it has an effect. Whether your marriage survives that is anyone's guess.
>> We don't have children so that we can boot them out the door at >> the magic age of 18. Did you marry your wife thinking you'd be rid of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >got married. In fact, her daughter expressed her wishes years ago and has >already left for days at a time. Uhm, people, situations, things change. I am with my dh, thinking he's always going to be able to work and support us. I'm not foolish enough to think that may change tomorrow.
>> I can appreciate the unable aspect of not borrowing money. I wouldn't >> be able to do that either. But good grief, emotional support can go a >> long way. > >Perhaps, but there is no emotional connection between her child and me. Just >yesterday, she again told me to take a hike. The emotional connection should be there through your wife. She is your wife's child, and you are disrespecting that relationship.
>I see. So you too have no problem with some man molesting your child and >getting her knocked up not once but TWICE! No, our marriage would be in peril because of your attitude against my daughter receiving my help. She would come BEFORE you.
>> Argh! Here again, emotional support is necessary. > >Maybe so, but not my obligation. To your wife.
>> Wow, you're some piece of work. > >Thank you. It wasn't a compliment.
Nan
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 08 Oct 2005 20:57 GMT > No, our marriage would be in peril because of your attitude against my > daughter receiving my help. She would come BEFORE you. I feel sorry for your husband. He married the wrong woman.
> >> Wow, you're some piece of work. > > > >Thank you. > > It wasn't a compliment. You are as naive as you are stupid.
> Nan Regards...
Nan - 08 Oct 2005 23:03 GMT >> No, our marriage would be in peril because of your attitude against my >> daughter receiving my help. She would come BEFORE you. > >I feel sorry for your husband. He married the wrong woman. This same sentiment applies to your wife, sweetie.
Nan
Sue - 09 Oct 2005 15:48 GMT <agsf_57@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> I feel sorry for your husband. He married the wrong woman. I think you are wrong about that agsf. Most women who are mothers will fight to their death for their kids. Ask your wife who she would choose, you may be surprised at her answer.
 Signature Sue (mom to three girls)
Nan - 09 Oct 2005 17:34 GMT ><agsf_57@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> I feel sorry for your husband. He married the wrong woman. > >I think you are wrong about that agsf. Most women who are mothers will fight >to their death for their kids. Ask your wife who she would choose, you may >be surprised at her answer. Exactly. When I was a single mom, my ds was the Most Important Person in my life. One or two guys I dated wanted me to choose between them and him. Guess who lost each time.
Nan
jenrose@jenrose.com - 12 Oct 2005 22:01 GMT I didn't date for years because of my daughter. The man I married was a family friend for two years before we started dating and he knew from the get go how important my little girl was to me. The idea that she would no longer be "his family" when she turned 18... it's crazy to both of us.
Jenrose
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 09 Oct 2005 20:56 GMT > <agsf_57@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > I feel sorry for your husband. He married the wrong woman. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Sue (mom to three girls) Well, hopefully men will not marry such women.
As for me, I know my wife will put me before our son because we discussed this prior to getting married and having kids. Her mother did the same and so did her grandmother. And of course, I put my wife above my son as well. All religions teach this, it's not a new concept.
Regards...
Chris - 09 Oct 2005 22:42 GMT > >You must be posting from Zimbabwe. Afterall, there is an abundance of "tiny, > >helpless" babies there for you to be taking care of. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Uhm, she's "legally" your stepdaughter. And?
> It's a sad statement about > you that you have no connection with her. Why is it a sad statement about me that she refuses to have anything to do with me?
> >When push comes to shove, it is "legality" that will prevail. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > A shelter is not a home. HOME: a house, apartment, or other shelter that is the usual residence of a person, family, or household. (Webster's College Dictionary).
> >It wasn't me who initiated the "legality" thing into this discussion. But > >let me guess, you believe that legality has no effect in this situation? > > No, I'm quite sure you'll go to great lengths to make sure it has an > effect. I don't create law.
> Whether your marriage survives that is anyone's guess. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > he's always going to be able to work and support us. I'm not foolish > enough to think that may change tomorrow. Even though people, situations, things change?
> >> I can appreciate the unable aspect of not borrowing money. I wouldn't > >> be able to do that either. But good grief, emotional support can go a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The emotional connection should be there through your wife. She is > your wife's child, and you are disrespecting that relationship. How so?
> >I see. So you too have no problem with some man molesting your child and > >getting her knocked up not once but TWICE! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It wasn't a compliment. I know, it was an opinion. And for that I thank you.
> Nan agsf_57@yahoo.com - 08 Oct 2005 02:07 GMT > > > For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will > > > respond, with all due respect, to your post below. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Not me. My comittment is to my wife FIRST and foremost! As it should be. And her commitment to you should be above the children. The order that should follow is:
1. God or some moral belief. For example, if your spouse told you to kill another human, you should not do so.
2. Your spouse. You put the needs of your spouse before the needs of your children. Your children will grow and start their own lives, but in the end, it's just the two of you.
3. Your children. Your children's birthdays and/or sporting events or any other needs surpass those of family and friends.
4. Family and Friends.
> > > So does my wife make the "unilateral pronouncements" on family > > > decisions, or am I living in a democracy where the votes of my wife [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's correct. Depending on which court you choose, legally no baby exists; > and she will be a legal adult before such baby exists. Also, his step-daughter is not taking the baby into consideration. Why should he and his wife be burdened by the lack of responsibility of his step-child?
> > Your wife is most likely > > not only thinking of her daughter but what might be best for her > grandchild. > > Perhaps in her opinion; one that I do not share. And I agree.
> > Perhaps you need to focus on ways of supporting this young girl for the > > first year in your home. She can finish highschool, find a job or arrange > > secondary education, be old enough to sign a lease. > > Already graduated and will be a legal adult in less than a month. For her 18th birthday, give her some money (no more than a 100 dollars) and kick her out and wish her luck. It'll be the best thing a parent could do for a child.
> > Everyone should know > > upfront that this is a temporary arrangement and that she'll move at some [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > held accountable for the adult responsibilities/consequences that ride with > such choice. Am I wrong? No, you are correct. Besides, I almost guarantee that she will be pregnant again if she doesn't feel the consequences of her actions. What bugs me is that this is the second time she is pregnant. Didn't anyone sit down with her and slap some sense into her the first time?
> > I wouldn't worry about statutory rape charges against the father > > Uhuh. This man molested her child and now ALL THREE of us are faced with a > major upset in our life, not to mention my marriage is further in peril > related specifically to this situation! I agree, and if she was younger I would encourage you to pursue legal action. However, some states have a legal consent age at 16 and even if he does qualify to be thrown in jail or be financially penalized, it does nothing to help the situation. She was close to 18 when this happened and I would just let it go.
> > but I'd > > sure as heck make legal proceedings to get child support from him part of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > [ note: you were probably unaware of her soon to be legal status change, > thus some of your statements.] You're absolutely correct. If she decides not to live with him, she can sue for child support. Another reason to kick her out so he and her will live together and embrace the responsibility of their actions together. You're on the right path, and even if it cost you your marriage, you should continue. No man should put up with the sh.t you face. Regards...
agent99 - 08 Oct 2005 02:32 GMT > > > > For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will > > > > respond, with all due respect, to your post below. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > As it should be. That depends.
Ideally, the parents of the child put everyone in the family's wellbeing at a premium, and recognise that for parents to care well for kids, they themselves must be well taken care of.
And her commitment to you should be above the
> children. The order that should follow is: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > your children. Your children will grow and start their own lives, but > in the end, it's just the two of you. So, lemme get this straight: if you're short on food, the spouse gets food, but the kids don't? What if there's a fire, or a capsized boat, and only one person can be saved? Kid or parent? I hope my spouse chooses kid - I certainly would. And if you think this argument is spurious, consider that most families in the world do have to consider the food issue, and most parents throughout history have gone without in order that their children might have the best chance at survival.
You're the one with the psych 101 understanding of natural selection, agsf, surely you recognise that adult animals strive to ensure the survival of their young, so that they too might procreate?
Oh, and the scenario where it's just the two of you, and your children have fled the nest and have their own lives? That's the middle, not the end. In the end, most likely one of you has outlived the other, and has medical and physical needs which your children are more likely to take care of than the state is, so you'd better be sure you fostered a good relationship with them and helped them to be successful as best you could when you had the chance, because they are going to either be caring for you, or choosing the facility that does it in their stead.
> 3. Your children. Your children's birthdays and/or sporting events or > any other needs surpass those of family and friends. Ohhhh. Birthday parties and sporting events are the "needs" of which we speak. I see.
Not, you know, the reproductive autonomy of a sexually mature young woman who lives with her mother and stepfather, and the wellbeing of her unborn child. My mistake.
> 4. Family and Friends. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > should he and his wife be burdened by the lack of responsibility of his > step-child? For someone who believes in a moral code, you got no notion of compassion, have you?
It's like you're channelling Dr. Laura.
99
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 08 Oct 2005 03:44 GMT > > > Not me. My comittment is to my wife FIRST and foremost! > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wellbeing at a premium, and recognise that for parents to care well for > kids, they themselves must be well taken care of. I agree with the above.
> > And her commitment to you should be above the > > children. The order that should follow is: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and only one person can be saved? Kid or parent? I hope my spouse > chooses kid - I certainly would. It all depends on the age of the children and the parents. You will have to question the ability of the parents on producing any further children and/or the ability for the entire family to survive with the loss of the spouse.
> Oh, and the scenario where it's just the two of you, and your children > have fled the nest and have their own lives? That's the middle, not the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could when you had the chance, because they are going to either be > caring for you, or choosing the facility that does it in their stead. Hopefully you raised children of high moral value and have taken the necessary steps during your life to compensate for this.
> > 3. Your children. Your children's birthdays and/or sporting events or > > any other needs surpass those of family and friends. > > Ohhhh. Birthday parties and sporting events are the "needs" of which we > speak. I see. Those were just simplified examples...
> Not, you know, the reproductive autonomy of a sexually mature young > woman who lives with her mother and stepfather, and the wellbeing of > her unborn child. My mistake. She is no longer a child. She is an adult of legal age and has made life decisions that she needs to take responsibility for.
> > 4. Family and Friends. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > For someone who believes in a moral code, you got no notion of > compassion, have you? Apparently, you have no idea on what compassion means. Compassion is empowering people to make correct decisions in their lives and holding them responsible for these decisions without depending on other people for support. You talk like a liberal who rather raise taxes for welfare programs instead of forcing these people to educate and find jobs and become independant. You rather see them dependant on the system and continue their way of life than to stand on their own two feet. You are the one that lacks compassion.
> It's like you're channelling Dr. Laura. I was never a fan of hers. Did she die?
> 99 Cool name by the way, it was one of my favorite shows.
Regards...
agent99 - 08 Oct 2005 20:38 GMT > > > > Not me. My comittment is to my wife FIRST and foremost! > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > children and/or the ability for the entire family to survive with the > loss of the spouse. Absolutely.
> > Oh, and the scenario where it's just the two of you, and your children > > have fled the nest and have their own lives? That's the middle, not the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hopefully you raised children of high moral value and have taken the > necessary steps during your life to compensate for this. Right. In my opinion, this means considering the family as a whole, not placing the needs of parents or children above the needs of the whole family - basically, not contributing to spoiling or selfishness on either side. In the case of this guy, I question his commitment to his wife, because he comments that the marriage is hanging by a thread, and because his commitment obviously doesn't extend to his stepdaughter, her daughter. That said, though, it sounds as though the girl doesn't respect him very much, and I think somewhere he says that she claimed she wanted nothing to do with him. Obviously, "I don't like you and want nothing to do with you, but oh, can I still live in your house and have my mom take care of my and my baby," is a terrible attitude. But then, I think "I'll marry you and be your spouse and honour and respect you, but not consider your children my children, or their children my grandchildren," a bad attitude, too.
> > > 3. Your children. Your children's birthdays and/or sporting events or > > > any other needs surpass those of family and friends. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > She is no longer a child. She is an adult of legal age and has made > life decisions that she needs to take responsibility for. That's what I just said. "Sexually mature young woman", "reproductive autonomy", these are terms implying that the girl is not a child.
> > > 4. Family and Friends. > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > continue their way of life than to stand on their own two feet. You are > the one that lacks compassion. Well, being burdened by the poor choices our family members make is part of family. Empowering people and holding them responsible is a great idea, and absolutely necessary. My own parents made it clear that after the age of 18, we would have to pay rent to live with them, unless we were furthering our education. Often, however, shoving people off the end of the dock and expecting them to learn to swim just results in them drowning, if you take my meaning. Your assumptions about me wanting people to be dependent on "the system" are misguided. I assure you I am a very compassionate person, but I'm not a bleeding heart and I don't take in strays.
This guy obviously has some pretty big issues at home, and I don't know what he and his wife can do to solve those issues. In my culture, however, my parents and my children are part of the same (extended) family. They are not a second family. My grandmother lives with my parents, and she is not considered a member of a second family who lives under their roof. In his frustration, which is clearly justified, I worry that Chris is trying to say that his wife's daughter isn't really a part of his family. I would not want to be married to a man who considered me his family, but not my children. Again, that's an issue that he and his wife need to work out.
> > It's like you're channelling Dr. Laura. > > I was never a fan of hers. Did she die? You're not a fan of hers? By some of your posts, I'd have pegged you for her acolyte. She may not have died, but I don't think a warm heart beats inside her chest.
> > 99 > > Cool name by the way, it was one of my favorite shows. Hey, thanks, mine too.
99
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 08 Oct 2005 22:30 GMT > > > Oh, and the scenario where it's just the two of you, and your children > > > have fled the nest and have their own lives? That's the middle, not the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > family - basically, not contributing to spoiling or selfishness on > either side. I have to somewhat disagree with you. Although the family as a whole should be taken into consideration, the order that I listed should be followed.
> In the case of this guy, I question his commitment to his > wife, because he comments that the marriage is hanging by a thread, and > because his commitment obviously doesn't extend to his stepdaughter, > her daughter. I'm sure he supported her when she was younger.
> ... But > then, I think "I'll marry you and be your spouse and honour and respect > you, but not consider your children my children, or their children my > grandchildren," a bad attitude, too. It all depends on the situation. In this situation I have to side with Chris.
> This guy obviously has some pretty big issues at home, and I don't know > what he and his wife can do to solve those issues. In my culture, > however, my parents and my children are part of the same (extended) > family. They are not a second family. My grandmother lives with my > parents, and she is not considered a member of a second family who > lives under their roof. I also suspect that in your culture, young women don't sleep around and get pregnant either. It's easy to confuse westernized points of views with your own, but you will have to acknowledge the differences and understand that these differences is what makes your culture thrive while the westerners decline.
> In his frustration, which is clearly justified, > I worry that Chris is trying to say that his wife's daughter isn't > really a part of his family. I would not want to be married to a man > who considered me his family, but not my children. Again, that's an > issue that he and his wife need to work out. I'm sure he supported her and accepted her when she was a child. However, at this point, she is an adult who shares different moral views than his. He should not be expected to take on the responsibility and burden that she has created.
> You're not a fan of hers? By some of your posts, I'd have pegged you > for her acolyte. I've been called a lot of insulting things online, but this remark tops all of them. ;)
> 99 Regards...
agent99 - 09 Oct 2005 06:33 GMT > > Right. In my opinion, this means considering the family as a whole, not > > placing the needs of parents or children above the needs of the whole [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > should be taken into consideration, the order that I listed should be > followed. Okay - I guess I just feel that except in highly unusual cases, what's best for the family as a whole is generally not at odds with what's best for individuals within the family. I think it would be a rare situation where I had to do something to benefit my husband that was to the detriment of my children's wellbeing. Often when dh gets home from work, if I don't have dinner ready, he takes the kids to the playground for an hour or so. I get a break from the kids, so it benefits me, and he and the kids get some fresh air and some fun time together, so it benefits them, and dinner gets made, which benefits everyone. And, on days that have been really rough for us all, he might take the kids out to pick up takeout while I have a glass of wine and a hot bath ;)
> > In the case of this guy, I question his commitment to his > > wife, because he comments that the marriage is hanging by a thread, and > > because his commitment obviously doesn't extend to his stepdaughter, > > her daughter. > > I'm sure he supported her when she was younger. Hope so!
> > ... But > > then, I think "I'll marry you and be your spouse and honour and respect [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > understand that these differences is what makes your culture thrive > while the westerners decline. Ah, but my culture is western. And lots of young women do "sleep around" (or at least have sex in their teens) and get pregnant, including my aunt. Her parents helped her get on her feet - gently, but without turning her into a charity case - and she and her son did very well.
> > In his frustration, which is clearly justified, > > I worry that Chris is trying to say that his wife's daughter isn't [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I've been called a lot of insulting things online, but this remark tops > all of them. ;) I have to admit I'm relieved to hear you say that.
99
> > 99 > > Regards... Ericka Kammerer - 09 Oct 2005 20:14 GMT > Okay - I guess I just feel that except in highly unusual cases, what's > best for the family as a whole is generally not at odds with what's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > days that have been really rough for us all, he might take the kids out > to pick up takeout while I have a glass of wine and a hot bath ;) Ahh, but you're approaching this from a family-centered perspective. When you approach it from a *self* centered perspective, it looks quite different. What if your husband came home from a long day at work, was pissed off that you didn't have dinner on the table, and decided that what was best *for him* was to grab a nice little siesta while you kept the kids out of his hair and got dinner on the table? And even from a family-centered perspective, it is often the case that what is best for the family is, at least in the short run, difficult for some individuals in the family. When there is a family crisis, the hard work involved in getting through it often falls heavily on those who were not so complicit in creating the crisis. It often requires significant stress and effort to get through--much more so than giving up on folks and booting them out of the family. Those who love their family members may feel a great deal of stress resulting from shutting out a family member, but Chris has made it clear that he is not emotionally connected to his step-daughter, so for him, it's no skin off his nose if she's booted out and fails in her life. Of course, one might think he'd feel some concern for the pain this would cause his wife, but obviously her pain pales in comparison with *his* pain in having to step up to the plate and deal with this situation in some way other than just booting the girl out.
>>I'm sure he supported her when she was younger. > > Hope so! Seems highly unlikely to me, based on his comment:
Chris:
> Perhaps, but there is no emotional connection between her child and me. Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 09 Oct 2005 23:05 GMT > > Okay - I guess I just feel that except in highly unusual cases, what's > > best for the family as a whole is generally not at odds with what's [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > plate and deal with this situation in some way other than > just booting the girl out. Excuse me, but is it not the FATHER'S responsibility to step up to the plate and take care of both his pregnant woman and child to be? Is it not the pregnant woman's responsibility to do the same? What do I have to do with that situation? Bear in mind that any "booting out" will be the choice of my stepdaughter, not me. Additionally, I am VERY concerned for the pain it might cause my wife. That's why I attempt to comfort her by reminding her that this is her daughter's SOLE decision as an independent adult. This may or may not help, but nonetheless I am concerned about her pain!
Pain ought NOT be the yardstick by which we measure whether or not to take an action. Taking one's child to the doctor for a shot comes to mind.
> >>I'm sure he supported her when she was younger. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Chris: > > Perhaps, but there is no emotional connection between her child and me. No emotional connection because SHE refuses it. One cannot support those who resist. If the other poster is referring to financial support, I am STILL doing that. Of course acceptance there is no problem for her.
> Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 10 Oct 2005 00:41 GMT > Excuse me, but is it not the FATHER'S responsibility to step up to the plate > and take care of both his pregnant woman and child to be? Of course it is. But that doesn't have a thing to do with *your* responsibilities. Your job is a lot easier if he does his job, but if he doesn't do his job, that doesn't mean you get to wash your hands of it and say, "not my problem."
> Is it not the > pregnant woman's responsibility to do the same? Of course it is her responsibility to step up to the plate and become a mother, if she chooses to parent. But she is obviously a teen who doesn't have a great track record of making responsible choices. Obviously, she continues to be in need of guidance. As far as I can tell, it looks like the parenting that's gone on to date hasn't been all that successful, so guess y'all have some remedial work to do. C'est la vie. No one likes that when it happens, but sometimes you get the short end of the stick.
> What do I have to do with that situation? You are her father. You are the baby's grandfather. You have a responsibility to do your absolute, level best to raise a competent, civilized, productive citizen. You came into the game late, so that makes things more challenging. Looks like the situation you CHOSE to walk into wasn't the best to begin with. Oh, well. You're still a father, and you have a daughter who is in crisis and needs love and support and guidance. Your job is to figure out what *works* and do it. That's not likely to be easy, but in my opinion, that is what is owed from a parent to a child--even a child who has passed that magic age of 18. The job of parenting this child is obviously not complete.
> Bear in mind that any "booting out" will be the choice of my > stepdaughter, not me. I'd believe that if I saw any evidence whatsoever that you *really* tried to step up to the plate and parent this child and provide the loving guidance she needs. But I don't see any evidence of that. You already admit you have no emotional connection to her. It's kinda hard to provide that loving guidance without that. Kids need loving the most when they're being the most unlovable. As far as I can tell, you've issued a lot of ultimatums and, surprise, surprise, she's rebelled. Whoop-de-do. She's obviously been through a lot in her life and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that she hasn't had the parenting she's needed over the years. And in you waltz and start issuing ultimatums. Is it any wonder a girl whose already troubled is going to go from bad to worse in that sort of situation? I think not. What have *YOU* done in the several years that you've been a parent to this troubled girl to deserve her respect and love? What have you done to show her how she *should* be treated by a kind and loving man? What kind of effort have you made to actually *help* her, rather than just laying down rules and regs and giving your victim story about how she's never liked or respected you? Why on early *would* she be thrilled to have a man come into her life whose view is that it's perfectly proper for him to insert himself between her and her mother? Clearly this girl has had serious issues in the past while she was significantly further from being an adult. You're all gung ho to bring in the troops to get her out of your hair and "fix" her. What resources did you bring to bear to resolve her and your family issues *before* you got to this point, besides just laying down the law about what she had to do to be allowed to have your roof over her head? You don't have to answer all those questions; you don't have to defend yourself point by point. I'm just laying the questions out there. I'm getting a strong whiff of "I didn't sign on to be a parent; I didn't screw up this kid; now that I'm here her mom owes me her first loyalty and she can exist on sufferance if she toes the line." I think that's a recipe for failure in just about any step-parenting situation you'd care to point to, leading to just the sort of situation you're in as a family.
> Additionally, I am VERY concerned for the pain it > might cause my wife. That's why I attempt to comfort her by reminding her > that this is her daughter's SOLE decision as an independent adult. This may > or may not help, but nonetheless I am concerned about her pain! You're making much of this "independent adult" thing. This girl is so obviously not a mature, independent, responsible adult it isn't even funny. She's not even capable of making these decisions rationally. You're just making excuses because you don't want to deal with this. I can understand that. It's likely to be a long, hard slog. It's just the *right* long, hard, slog. Mind you, I've never said that you had to open your doors and let her trample through your lives without any constraints. This is about your *attitude* towards all of this. As long as your attitude is "*I* take first place with mom, and daughter can either toe the line or get the hell out of my house" this whole thing isn't going anywhere good. Did it ever occur to you that this girl may be so desperately unhappy with what should be her loving home that she'd do *anything*, including conceive *two* babies with a man before she's ready, in the hopes that maybe he would step up to the plate and be a responsible and loving man in her life and take her away from all this? That just maybe the situation in YOUR family has helped to CREATE this situation? If you aren't part of the solution... It may be that the best solution is for her to live outside your home. I'm certainly all for doing what you can to insist that she assume the responsibilities that should be hers. The goal should definitely be to help her *become* that responsible, independent mother who can do right by her child. I think it's likely that some professional help is warranted for all concerned. If you can find a great program for her outside your home, more power to you. Betcha your wife would be thrilled if it were the case that your daughter could go to some program that would teach her the skills she needs to be a responsible mother and citizen while safeguarding her from slipping into deeper and deeper trouble (and her child with her). It's the "sink or swim" approach that probably sits poorly with her--as it should, because the odds are heavy on "sink" and *I* certainly couldn't sleep at night with that scenario. Did it occur to you that perhaps your wife feels terrible that she is likely complicit in creating the family environment that has helped make her daughter as she is and maybe she *can't* just blithely write her daughter's troubles off as having nothing to do with her and thus not any of her responsibility? Maybe your wife needs to find a way to help fix what she (and likely you) helped break? I'm not making your daughter completely innocent in all this, but your daughter is a CHILD. Where were the adults in her life years ago? Sometimes parents can do all the right things and children still end up in trouble, but more often than not, there's more than enough blame and responsibility to go around.
> Pain ought NOT be the yardstick by which we measure whether or not to take > an action. Taking one's child to the doctor for a shot comes to mind. And it works both ways. Your emotional and financial pain isn't an adequate argument for failing to help parent this child who is obviously in desperate need of it. If the right answer for your daughter is the "sink or swim" method, by all means, go there. Betcha that's not the best thing for her, nor for your wife. Betcha someone who really wants to do the right thing can find a solution that actually increases the odds of your daughter becoming successful in her life (in your home or out of it).
> No emotional connection because SHE refuses it. Did you think it would be easy to connect with her under the circumstances? How long did you really try before you gave her up as a lost cause? It doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine that someone whose loudly proclaiming how his claim to his wife supercedes his daughter's claim just *might* be resented by said daughter.
Your daughter is probably a far cry from where she needs to be in terms of responsibility and respect and capability and independence and maturity and all those things. I'm sure she's not a treat to parent. I'm sorry you (or anyone else) has to struggle through that sort of thing. But I do think your attitude is likely behind some of the problems, and I think you have the ability to be part of the solution if you choose to do so, and I think you can find a better solution for your daughter and your wife than "sink or swim."
Best wishes, Ericka
Mum of Two - 10 Oct 2005 01:19 GMT >> Excuse me, but is it not the FATHER'S responsibility to step up to the >> plate [quoted text clipped - 174 lines] > solution for your daughter and your wife than "sink > or swim." Hear, hear. What I would have liked to have said, had I the energy to continue this pointless debate.
 Signature Amy Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02, & Ana born screaming 30/06/04 http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/ http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/ My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/
Nan - 10 Oct 2005 04:06 GMT *EXCELLENT* post, Ericka! I have no doubt "Chris" won't get anything out of it, but you said everything I've been wanting to.
Nan
>> Excuse me, but is it not the FATHER'S responsibility to step up to the plate >> and take care of both his pregnant woman and child to be? [quoted text clipped - 174 lines] >Best wishes, >Ericka alath - 10 Oct 2005 04:25 GMT Let's see if we can find a correlation here:
Nan, Ericka, Alath: parents, spouses, healthy marriage & family relationships
Chris: obviously not a parent, marriage "hanging by a thread"
agsf: aspires to Chris' status
Whose advice on marriage and family relationships has the most credibility here?
I don't know why we've wasted so much time talking to/about this guy. Any kind of grown-up talk goes right over their heads. Chris isn't interested in being a better person, a better parent, or a better spouse: he's only interested in justifying himself.
I've had enough.
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 10 Oct 2005 05:23 GMT > Let's see if we can find a correlation here: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > agsf: aspires to Chris' status Actually, I am a parent, spouse, have healthy marriage (of 4 years) & family relationships. I am also financially secure at a young age. All this with no one's help and on my own since I was 18.
> Whose advice on marriage and family relationships has the most > credibility here? I believe everyone has a right to say and defend their point of view. What you see are two schools of thought approaching the same issue. However, I have a theory that there is a hypocritical bias against Chris because he is a man. Try reversing the situation and see if the results would be the same.
> I don't know why we've wasted so much time talking to/about this guy. > Any kind of grown-up talk goes right over their heads. Chris isn't > interested in being a better person, a better parent, or a better > spouse: he's only interested in justifying himself. Ohhh, please don't tell me that you are a fine example of a grown-up. Your passive aggressive techniques are used by 3 year old girls in day care.
> I've had enough. Yes, because you can't justify yourself.
Regards...
alath - 10 Oct 2005 06:37 GMT > Actually, I am a parent, spouse, have healthy marriage (of 4 years) & > family relationships. Sorry, I should have specified. I was talking about REAL marriages and children. Marriages between Dungeons and Dragons characters, or those consummated on porn web sites, don't count.
Jamie Clark - 10 Oct 2005 07:21 GMT Oh Alath, you're on fire tonight! You are cracking me up!
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
>> Actually, I am a parent, spouse, have healthy marriage (of 4 years) & >> family relationships. > > Sorry, I should have specified. I was talking about REAL marriages and > children. Marriages between Dungeons and Dragons characters, or those > consummated on porn web sites, don't count. Mum of Two - 10 Oct 2005 11:19 GMT >> Actually, I am a parent, spouse, have healthy marriage (of 4 years) & >> family relationships. > > Sorry, I should have specified. I was talking about REAL marriages and > children. Marriages between Dungeons and Dragons characters, or those > consummated on porn web sites, don't count. Bwahahaha! I get the feeling I'd like you in real life too. A friend of mine has a quote "Tact is for those not witty enough for sarcasm". Not sure where she got it, but I like it.
 Signature Amy Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02, & Ana born screaming 30/06/04 http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/ http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/ My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 10 Oct 2005 21:01 GMT > > Actually, I am a parent, spouse, have healthy marriage (of 4 years) & > > family relationships. > > Sorry, I should have specified. I was talking about REAL marriages and > children. Marriages between Dungeons and Dragons characters, or those > consummated on porn web sites, don't count. "Any kind of grown-up talk goes right over their heads."
Indeed. But what can you expect from a "guy" who prances around the hospital as a midWIFE.
Regards...
Circe - 11 Oct 2005 22:48 GMT > > > Actually, I am a parent, spouse, have healthy marriage (of 4 years) & > > > family relationships. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Indeed. But what can you expect from a "guy" who prances around the > hospital as a midWIFE. FTR, midwife means "with woman". Seems like something any reasonable, red-blooded hetersexual male would be pleased to be called... -- Be well, Barbara
Mogget - 13 Oct 2005 21:39 GMT Piggybacking...
>> Indeed. But what can you expect from a "guy" who prances around the >> hospital as a midWIFE. > >FTR, midwife means "with woman". Seems like something any reasonable, >red-blooded hetersexual male would be pleased to be called... Can anyone explain to me why a male midwife is any more surprising than a male obstetrician or a male gynaecologist?
Anyone at all?
 Signature Mogget
Circe - 13 Oct 2005 21:41 GMT > Piggybacking... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Anyone at all? I think it's just the word, honestly. People think because it's got "wife" in it, it must apply only to a woman, just as the words "fishwife" and "housewife" are used only to apply to women. -- Be well, Barbara
Mogget - 13 Oct 2005 22:09 GMT >> Can anyone explain to me why a male midwife is any more surprising than a >> male obstetrician or a male gynaecologist? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >in it, it must apply only to a woman, just as the words "fishwife" and >"housewife" are used only to apply to women. Eminently reasonable.
I wonder if it might also be that midwives are more concerned with supporting the woman through the basically natural process, while OB/GYNs just have to control and manage every aspect? That's your stereotypical gender thing; some men (just as some women) are dead good at the supporting/caring/nurturing thing, but FSR it meets with surprise/derision.
Can you guess what kind of mood I'm in today?
I'm going to bed, before I find another fight to pick.
 Signature Mogget
0-bitch in 4.0 seconds
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 15 Oct 2005 23:09 GMT > I wonder if it might also be that midwives are more concerned with > supporting the woman through the basically natural process, while > OB/GYNs just have to control and manage every aspect? That's your > stereotypical gender thing; some men (just as some women) are dead good > at the supporting/caring/nurturing thing, but FSR it meets with > surprise/derision. You are correct. It's the same stigma attached to male nurses. Actually, being a male midwife is worse than being a male nurse.
> Can you guess what kind of mood I'm in today? Informative?
> I'm going to bed, before I find another fight to pick. We were fighting?
> Mogget Regards...
Circe - 16 Oct 2005 00:29 GMT > Actually, being a male midwife is worse than being a male nurse. By that logic, I suppose being an obstetrician is worse than being, say, a proctologist. Of course, no one could ever accuse you of being particularly logical much of the time... -- Be well, Barbara
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 16 Oct 2005 00:52 GMT > > Actually, being a male midwife is worse than being a male nurse. > > > By that logic, I suppose being an obstetrician is worse than being, say, a > proctologist. > Of course, no one could ever accuse you of being particularly > logical much of the time... One cannot judge what one cannot gauge dear.
> Be well, Barbara Regards...
alath - 16 Oct 2005 01:40 GMT > Indeed. But what can you expect from a "guy" who prances around the > hospital as a midWIFE.
> You are correct. It's the same stigma attached to male nurses. > Actually, being a male midwife is worse than being a male nurse. Well, after long consideration of the deeply thoughtful and meaningful statements of the brilliant agsf, I have decided to give up my career.
Despite 10 years of professional success, delivering nearly 1,200 babies, the sheer wonder of being able to attend one of the most amazing events in human life on a daily basis, despite having my research published in medical journals and being invited to speak at medical conferences, despite my faculty appointment to a medical school and teaching future doctors how to deliver babies, despite a career that is enormously rewarding on a personal and professional level, despite making a very comfortable living doing this very rewarding work, despite genuinely looking forward to going to work every day, despite the high esteem of my midwife and physician colleagues, and despite having consistently high patient satisfaction ratings from my patients, I have decided to change jobs.
Yes, I've decided to change jobs because the brilliantly incisive agsf has so badly hurt my feelings and shattered my fragile manhood that I just can't face being called by a feminine-sounding name any more. For some reason, this troubled me not at all for ten years, but now that agsf has opened my eyes, I just can't continue in this work.
Therefore, in emulation of agsf, I have left the profession of midwifery forever. In order to boost my masculinity up to levels where the testosterone-dripping "man among men" agsf will stop making fun of me, I'm going to go in for intensive manhood restoration in a program of nonstop beer drinking, football watching, and farting.
Thanks agsf. You've turned my life around.
Ericka Kammerer - 16 Oct 2005 01:51 GMT > Thanks agsf. You've turned my life around. <snort> ;-)
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 10 Oct 2005 21:31 GMT > Let's see if we can find a correlation here: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > interested in being a better person, a better parent, or a better > spouse: he's only interested in justifying himself. If what I am doing is just, of course I am going to justify it. I'm not going to denounce it. That's your job.
> I've had enough. agsf_57@yahoo.com - 10 Oct 2005 04:57 GMT Basically this (even the snipped parts) translates to that you should be an open wallet for your wife and step-child. Oh, by the way, it might even be your fault that she got pregnant in the first place so it's your obligation to correct this.
By the way Chris, this woman's "logic" also applies to child molestors, drug users/dealers, murders, single moms/dads, illegal aliens and anyone else who she feels should not be held accountable for their own actions because of some social economic factor. So we should raise taxes (punish everyone, especially those with big wallets) and care for these poor people because if we dwell deep enough, we are all to blame.
Regards...
<SNIP>
> Your daughter is probably a far cry from where > she needs to be in terms of responsibility and respect [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Best wishes, > Ericka Chris - 10 Oct 2005 21:29 GMT > Basically this (even the snipped parts) translates to that you should > be an open wallet for your wife and step-child. Oh, by the way, it > might even be your fault that she got pregnant in the first place so > it's your obligation to correct this. My wife, during one of her emotional fury episodes, actually did blame the pregnancy on me. (I think a DNA test will prove otherwise- kidding of course) However, she later retracted her claim saying it was a foolish thing to say in the first place.
> By the way Chris, this woman's "logic" also applies to child molestors, > drug users/dealers, murders, single moms/dads, illegal aliens and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Best wishes, > > Ericka Chris - 10 Oct 2005 20:14 GMT > > Excuse me, but is it not the FATHER'S responsibility to step up to the plate > > and take care of both his pregnant woman and child to be? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if he does his job, but if he doesn't do his job, that doesn't > mean you get to wash your hands of it and say, "not my problem." Clue me in on what MY job is here.
> > Is it not the > > pregnant woman's responsibility to do the same? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the parenting that's gone on to date hasn't been all that > successful, so guess y'all have some remedial work to do. The parenting that's gone on long before I even knew this child existed hasn't been all that successful. But I guess I am not only responsible for the lack of responsibility of her "husband" (father of baby), but now I am responsible for the lack of responsibility of her father as well. Might as well toss mother's irresponsibility on the pile too.
> C'est la vie. No one likes that when it happens, but > sometimes you get the short end of the stick. Well the short end of the stick can be given right back to all the other folks where it rightfully belongs.
> > What do I have to do with that situation? > > You are her father. No I'm not.
> You are the baby's grandfather. No I'm not.
> You have a responsibility to do your absolute, level best > to raise a competent, civilized, productive citizen. The citizen is already raised. It is now HER turn to raise a citizen.
> You > came into the game late, so that makes things more challenging. > Looks like the situation you CHOSE to walk into wasn't the > best to begin with. The situation I chose to walk into was not THIS situation.
> Oh, well. You're still a father, I am still NOT a father.
> and > you have a daughter who is in crisis and needs love and > support and guidance. Your job is to figure out what *works* > and do it. I don't do things because they "work", I do things because they are what I am supposed to do.
> That's not likely to be easy, but in my opinion, > that is what is owed from a parent to a child--even a child > who has passed that magic age of 18. The job of parenting > this child is obviously not complete. In my mind it is. Once she chooses to become a mother, she is no longer in the position of being "parented". She IS the parent. At that point, the biological parent is only in the position of counsel and ONLY if the (adult) child agrees.
> > Bear in mind that any "booting out" will be the choice of my > > stepdaughter, not me. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this child and provide the loving guidance she needs. But > I don't see any evidence of that. What is so difficult to understand about "follow the rules or find the door, your choice"? Whether or not I have tried to provide guidance is irrelevant to the fact that SHE is the one making the "boot out" choice. But in case you are wondering, yes, I have tried many times to provide (loving) guidance.
> You already admit you have > no emotional connection to her. It's kinda hard to provide > that loving guidance without that. "Loving" is a subjective term, but I have provided plenty of guidance. The horse just won't drink.
> Kids need loving the most > when they're being the most unlovable. As far as I can tell, > you've issued a lot of ultimatums and, surprise, surprise, > she's rebelled. Ya got the cart before the horse.
> Whoop-de-do. She's obviously been through a > lot in her life and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that she > hasn't had the parenting she's needed over the years. And I would not take you up on your bet!
> And > in you waltz and start issuing ultimatums. Is it any wonder > a girl whose already troubled is going to go from bad to > worse in that sort of situation? No wonder at all. Her mother never said "no" to her. I was actually in this girl's life for a long time before she actually lived in my home. So, the rules (or ultimatums as you like to put it) did not start right away. Furthermore, the rules from the beginning were far fewer than when I was being raised. I am blessed to have had and followed more rules. Even though she has been consistently defiant, there have never been many rules as there were/are plenty of battles over the existing rules.
> I think not. > What have *YOU* done in the several years that > you've been a parent to this troubled girl to deserve > her respect and love? Provided her a home for starters. (see the partial list below) Frankly, it ain't love I'm looking for; I just demand respect not only for me but for my wife and our home. Tall order, huh?
> What have you done to show her > how she *should* be treated by a kind and loving man? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it's perfectly proper for him to insert himself between > her and her mother? Contrarily, my position is that I will never get between the two. Nor have I ever. I'm surprised that you haven't picked up on that by now.
> Clearly this girl has had serious > issues in the past while she was significantly further > from being an adult. You're all gung ho to bring in > the troops to get her out of your hair and "fix" her. No I'm not. I am all gung ho to protect my family!
> What resources did you bring to bear to resolve her and > your family issues *before* you got to this point, > besides just laying down the law about what she had > to do to be allowed to have your roof over her head? Offered pro-counselling, private school, move to a significantly nicer home/better neighborhood, church, friends, social events, family events, movies, games, vacations, travel, shopping, picnics, personal counselling, financial advice, job offers, domestic training, driver ed., material gifts, music, pets, taxi service, health care,........................... Virtually ALL rejected. Don't know if this answers your question.
> You don't have to answer all those questions; > you don't have to defend yourself point by point. Sorry, already did. Next time be nice and tell me this at the beginning.
:)
> I'm > just laying the questions out there. I'm getting a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > situation you'd care to point to, leading to just > the sort of situation you're in as a family. For the most part you are correct. But don't forget that the loyalty between me and my wife is a TWO-way street. I might add that her child was promiscuous LONG before I was in the picture, so you can definitely count the pregnancy out.
> > Additionally, I am VERY concerned for the pain it > > might cause my wife. That's why I attempt to comfort her by reminding her [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > responsible adult it isn't even funny. She's not even > capable of making these decisions rationally. Reluctantly said, the apple does not fall far from the tree. Perhaps you might understand why I have NO resources to assist her with her issues.
> You're > just making excuses because you don't want to deal with > this. "Making excuses" implies shirking responsibility. I bear no responsibility in this.
> I can understand that. It's likely to be a long, > hard slog. It's just the *right* long, hard, slog. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > get the hell out of my house" this whole thing isn't > going anywhere good. Perhaps, but that is not the case here. First place with mom is correct, but the other issue is "respect the home or leave"....... simple.
> Did it ever occur to you that this > girl may be so desperately unhappy with what should be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and be a responsible and loving man in her life and > take her away from all this? BINGO! I know for a fact that is what she thinks; not only from various sources but directly from her.
> That just maybe the > situation in YOUR family has helped to CREATE this > situation? If you aren't part of the solution... I'm not part of the solution for the starving kids in China.... Catch the flaw?
> It may be that the best solution is for her > to live outside your home. I'm certainly all for > doing what you can to insist that she assume the > responsibilities that should be hers. Not me. My priority is the protection of my family. It is not my place to "insist" that she be responsible. If she chooses to NOT be responsible, then she will be subject to the consequences. Once I inform her that she is irresponsible and explain how to be responsible, I have done my job. The ball is then in HER court.
> The goal > should definitely be to help her *become* that > responsible, independent mother who can do right > by her child. I think it's likely that some professional > help is warranted for all concerned. Wife and I have been to plenty of professional help. The daughter is the one who resists such help.
> If you can find > a great program for her outside your home, more power [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from slipping into deeper and deeper trouble (and > her child with her). She already has a "program" right in my own home. She simply refuses to follow it!
> It's the "sink or swim" approach > that probably sits poorly with her--as it should, because [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > off as having nothing to do with her and thus not > any of her responsibility? Absolutely. My wife has expressed that to me numerous times. But making the wrong choice today does not correct mistakes of the past.
> Maybe your wife needs > to find a way to help fix what she (and likely you) > helped break? That child was broken LONG before I came into the picture.
> I'm not making your daughter completely > innocent in all this, but your daughter is a CHILD. > Where were the adults in her life years ago? During her early years, the child literally roamed the streets. Mom was out to sea and dad was running around with other women.
> Sometimes > parents can do all the right things and children still [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pain isn't an adequate argument for failing to help parent > this child who is obviously in desperate need of it. This "child" is in desperate need of discipline. Emotional pain I will deal with, but it is the assault on my family that is unacceptable!
> If > the right answer for your daughter is the "sink or swim" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that actually increases the odds of your daughter becoming > successful in her life (in your home or out of it). No doubt, and now that she has chosen to live like an adult, she can seek out that someone just as an adult would.
> > No emotional connection because SHE refuses it. > > Did you think it would be easy to connect with > her under the circumstances? How long did you really > try before you gave her up as a lost cause? Didn't think connection would be easy, but also didn't think that it would be virtually impossible. I have been dealing with her for years. Long enough to know that her absolute flatline of improvement tells me that her own consequences are most likely going to be her teacher.
> It doesn't > take much of a stretch to imagine that someone whose > loudly proclaiming how his claim to his wife supercedes > his daughter's claim just *might* be resented by > said daughter. Then I guess SHE has a problem. Proclaiming truth is nothing to be ashamed of. I have no problem teaching a child that when they get married their spouse comes first.
> Your daughter is probably a far cry from where > she needs to be in terms of responsibility and respect [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that sort of thing. But I do think your attitude is > likely behind some of the problems, Not THIS problem.
> and I think you > have the ability to be part of the solution if you > choose to do so, and I think you can find a better > solution for your daughter and your wife than "sink > or swim." As they say, if ya aint' got the solution, then ya can't complain about the problem.
> Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 10 Oct 2005 23:10 GMT >>>Excuse me, but is it not the FATHER'S responsibility to step up to the >>> plate [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Clue me in on what MY job is here. To parent your daughter. To support your wife. To find a way for people (besides just yourself) to come out of this mess whole.
>>>Is it not the >>>pregnant woman's responsibility to do the same? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > responsible for the lack of responsibility of her father as well. Might as > well toss mother's irresponsibility on the pile too. You can't change what others have done or not done. You can only decide what *you* are going to do about it. Passing the buck isn't likely to be helpful.
>>C'est la vie. No one likes that when it happens, but >>sometimes you get the short end of the stick. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No I'm not. Yes, you are. You married her mother. What the hell kind of marriage do you have where that doesn't count for anything?!
>>You have a responsibility to do your absolute, level best >>to raise a competent, civilized, productive citizen. > > The citizen is already raised. It is now HER turn to raise a citizen. No, the citizen isn't. Clearly, that has yet to work out.
>>You >>came into the game late, so that makes things more challenging. >>Looks like the situation you CHOSE to walk into wasn't the >>best to begin with. > > The situation I chose to walk into was not THIS situation. You married her mother. This is the situation you got with that. You can bitch about it all you like, but if you didn't want to accept the responsibilities that come with parenting, you shouldn't have married a woman with a child.
>>and >>you have a daughter who is in crisis and needs love and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't do things because they "work", I do things because they are what I > am supposed to do. Yeah, yeah, you've already demonstrated that you're only interested in doing what *YOU* feel like doing, based on *YOUR* interpretation of the situation and everyone else with their opinions can lump it (including your wife). There's no helping those who are determined to be selfish. Those who are mature, however, are committed to getting the job done until it's done right.
>>That's not likely to be easy, but in my opinion, >>that is what is owed from a parent to a child--even a child [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In my mind it is. Once she chooses to become a mother, she is no longer in > the position of being "parented". She IS the parent. Why? You just don't feel like being involved anymore, so you draw an arbitrary line in the sand. Getting pregnant changes nothing about her maturity or her need for parenting (unfortunately).
> At that point, the biological parent is only in the position of counsel and > ONLY if the (adult) child agrees. By some legal definitions, but doing the bare minimum that is legal is hardly something worthy of applause.
>>>Bear in mind that any "booting out" will be the choice of my >>>stepdaughter, not me. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you are wondering, yes, I have tried many times to provide (loving) > guidance. How? The only things you've ever mentioned are telling her to lump it or leave it and proclaiming that she'd darned well better take a back seat to you in her mother's estimation. I don't really see how either of those things is compatible with "loving guidance," so you'll have to pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical.
>>You already admit you have >>no emotional connection to her. It's kinda hard to provide >>that loving guidance without that. > > "Loving" is a subjective term, but I have provided plenty of guidance. The > horse just won't drink. Why not? What have you done, besides reiterating your rules more loudly, to work things through? What professional help have you brought in? Striding down the mountain with your rules engraved in stone isn't what works for most people in terms of working through these situations.
>>Whoop-de-do. She's obviously been through a >>lot in her life and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that she >>hasn't had the parenting she's needed over the years. > > And I would not take you up on your bet! So....you not only married a woman with a child, you married a woman with a troubled child and you still think that you have no responsibility to work through this situation?
>>And >>in you waltz and start issuing ultimatums. Is it any wonder [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > she has been consistently defiant, there have never been many rules as there > were/are plenty of battles over the existing rules. But what don't you get about the fact that when you start with a child who has serious problems, just "laying down the law" won't fix the problem? It takes more than that, and perhaps more than you or your wife can provide without professional assistance! Sure, most normal kids thrive with structure and rules and such. That doesn't mean a kid who's grown up without those can just be shoehorned into that mold after years of going astray.
>>I think not. >>What have *YOU* done in the several years that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Frankly, it ain't love I'm looking for; I just demand respect not only for > me but for my wife and our home. Tall order, huh? From a girl with a troubled background who isn't getting the help she needs, yes, it's a very tall order.
>>What have you done to show her >>how she *should* be treated by a kind and loving man? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Contrarily, my position is that I will never get between the two. Nor have I > ever. I'm surprised that you haven't picked up on that by now. Sure, I get that you have washed your hands of her. However, you are *CLEARLY* between her and her mother because you believe that her mother owes her first (and, apparently, only) loyalty to you, even to the extent of making choices she believes to be detrimental to her daughter.
>>Clearly this girl has had serious >>issues in the past while she was significantly further >>from being an adult. You're all gung ho to bring in >>the troops to get her out of your hair and "fix" her. > > No I'm not. I am all gung ho to protect my family! She *IS* your family! If you didn't intend for her to be, you had no business whatsoever marrying her mother.
>>What resources did you bring to bear to resolve her and >>your family issues *before* you got to this point, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > music, pets, taxi service, health care,........................... Virtually > ALL rejected. Don't know if this answers your question. So, while she was yet a minor and you and your wife had the ability to make some of these decisions for her, why were you both taking no for an answer?
>>I'm >>just laying the questions out there. I'm getting a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > promiscuous LONG before I was in the picture, so you can definitely count > the pregnancy out. You may have walked into a screwed up situation, but when you decided to marry her mother, she became part of your family and it became your responsibility to help provide what this child needs to become the adult she needs to be. If you weren't up to the task, you shouldn't have married her. You should have moved on to easier pastures and left your then-girlfriend to find someone who was up to it.
>>You're making much of this "independent adult" >>thing. This girl is so obviously not a mature, independent, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Reluctantly said, the apple does not fall far from the tree. Perhaps you > might understand why I have NO resources to assist her with her issues. Of course. That's not all that surprising either. There's *some* reason things got to where they are. But you married that mess too. That's where that "for better or for worse" thing comes in. Sure, I can understand and have a lot of sympathy for being stressed out over having both a wife and a daughter in jeopardy. That would stress anyone out. It just doesn't get you off the hook for doing something productive about it. When the weak fall, it remains to the strong to fix the problem. But, you have to do it *successfully*. You've tried your way and it hasn't worked. Time to find another strategy.
>>You're >>just making excuses because you don't want to deal with >>this. > > "Making excuses" implies shirking responsibility. I bear no responsibility > in this. Only because you refuse to accept it.
>>I can understand that. It's likely to be a long, >>hard slog. It's just the *right* long, hard, slog. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Perhaps, but that is not the case here. First place with mom is correct, but > the other issue is "respect the home or leave"....... simple. But when you have a child who is so far in trouble that she's incapable of doing that, YOU have to be the grown-up and stop having unreasonable expectations. If she were a drug addict, you wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of fixing the problem by saying "get clean or get out." If she were capable of doing that, she probably already would have. She'd need *real* help to get clean and it would be your responsibility to get it (one way or another--if you can't pay for it, find some other way to get the help). Her problem likely isn't any easier for her to fix on her own, so why do you imagine that threatening her to fix herself or get out has any chance of working?
>>Did it ever occur to you that this >>girl may be so desperately unhappy with what should be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > BINGO! I know for a fact that is what she thinks; not only from various > sources but directly from her. So, where were her parents to provide that role for her so that she didn't have to seek it elsewhere?
>>That just maybe the >>situation in YOUR family has helped to CREATE this >>situation? If you aren't part of the solution... > > I'm not part of the solution for the starving kids in China.... > Catch the flaw? Nope. Just because you want to claim you have no responsibility for her doesn't make it wash with me. You married her mother. That makes you responsible. That whole "now you are one" thing means that your wife's responsibilities are now yours as well, including the responsibilities of parenting.
>>It may be that the best solution is for her >>to live outside your home. I'm certainly all for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > irresponsible and explain how to be responsible, I have done my job. The > ball is then in HER court. You just keep repeating that to yourself. In my world, wishing doesn't make it so, but maybe you've got a better imagination than I do.
>>The goal >>should definitely be to help her *become* that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wife and I have been to plenty of professional help. The daughter is the one > who resists such help. A) Of course she resists. Usually there are ways to overcome that. B) How effective has your counseling been if it hasn't given you some effective tools to deal with this situation?
>>If you can find >>a great program for her outside your home, more power [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > She already has a "program" right in my own home. She simply refuses to > follow it! Since when are you a trained professional in this sort of thing? It seems to me that you are ill-equipped to do this well. Certainly if one evaluates based on results, you have failed to provide adequate help.
>>It's the "sink or swim" approach >>that probably sits poorly with her--as it should, because [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Absolutely. My wife has expressed that to me numerous times. But making the > wrong choice today does not correct mistakes of the past. So, find a choice that *does* start making a difference--for your daughter and your wife!
>>Maybe your wife needs >>to find a way to help fix what she (and likely you) >>helped break? > > That child was broken LONG before I came into the picture. So?
>>I'm not making your daughter completely >>innocent in all this, but your daughter is a CHILD. >>Where were the adults in her life years ago? > > During her early years, the child literally roamed the streets. Mom was out > to sea and dad was running around with other women. So, when is she going to get some adults who are willing to step up to the plate and do right by her? Doesn't she deserve some?
>>If >>the right answer for your daughter is the "sink or swim" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No doubt, and now that she has chosen to live like an adult, she can seek > out that someone just as an adult would. Again, if you can live with yourself (and your wife can live with you) making that decision, well, enjoy your life while your daughter likely spirals out of control and takes her child down with her. For me, that wouldn't sit well. *I* certainly wouldn't feel like I'd done my duty.
>>>No emotional connection because SHE refuses it. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to know that her absolute flatline of improvement tells me that her own > consequences are most likely going to be her teacher. Sure, that'll be part of it. But when might it occur to you that a lack of improvement just *might* be a result of you and your wife having a poor strategy for dealing with her?! You want her to learn from consequences, but as you see the consequences of your actions, your response is to pass the buck? Hmm... sounds familiar somehow...
>>It doesn't >>take much of a stretch to imagine that someone whose [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of. I have no problem teaching a child that when they get married their > spouse comes first. There goes that buck again...
> As they say, if ya aint' got the solution, then ya can't complain about the > problem. I can't give you the solution because I don't know nearly enough about your daughter's situation. What is abundantly clear to me is that *you* have not found the solution, and it is YOUR (that would be the plural "your," meaning your and your wife's) responsibility to have found something effective, whatever that took. I would say, rather, that if you ain't got the solution, you'd darned well better find someone better prepared than you to help you find one. That's what's going to *solve* the problem, rather than just electing to be blind to it.
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 11 Oct 2005 21:54 GMT > >>>Excuse me, but is it not the FATHER'S responsibility to step up to the > >>> plate [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > To find a way for people (besides just yourself) to come > out of this mess whole. My guess is the completion of your above statement is more like "support your wife in whatever she desires". Also, I HAVE parented my STEPdaughter to the maximum allowed by her, her mother, and the law. The very few parenting tools previously afforded to me have now been removed. The guns of the law are just a wee bit bigger than mine.
(note: stepdaughter just now got out of bed to take her daily shower. It is 12:15 in the afternoon. just another example of her basic laziness)
> >>>Is it not the > >>>pregnant woman's responsibility to do the same? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You can only decide what *you* are going to do about it. > Passing the buck isn't likely to be helpful. I know. That's why the buck ought to be returned back to them where it rightfully belongs!
> >>C'est la vie. No one likes that when it happens, but > >>sometimes you get the short end of the stick. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > hell kind of marriage do you have where that doesn't count > for anything?! I have a STEPdaughter. There is a difference.
> >>You have a responsibility to do your absolute, level best > >>to raise a competent, civilized, productive citizen. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, the citizen isn't. Clearly, that has yet to > work out. In my mind, when one achieves adulthood, they have already been raised. Regardless of how excellent or lousy the job. Where do you draw the line?
> >>You > >>came into the game late, so that makes things more challenging. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > come with parenting, you shouldn't have married a woman > with a child. Her daughter already has a father, and THAT is where the responsibility rests. My responsibility to a stepchild goes no further than my responsibility to anyone else under my roof; to see to their general welfare and to treat them humanely while they are welcome in my home.
> >>and > >>you have a daughter who is in crisis and needs love and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are mature, however, are committed to getting the job done > until it's done right. How is attempting to protect one's family selfish?
> >>That's not likely to be easy, but in my opinion, > >>that is what is owed from a parent to a child--even a child [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > changes nothing about her maturity or her need for parenting > (unfortunately). I just have this STRANGE idea that when two people become one flesh and start a new family that they have left their parents. Can't quite pinpoint where I got that from.
> > At that point, the biological parent is only in the position of counsel and > > ONLY if the (adult) child agrees. > > By some legal definitions, I didn't know that law had anything to do with it.
> but doing the bare > minimum that is legal is hardly something worthy of > applause. Nobody's looking for a brownie button here. Just trying to do what's proper.
> >>>Bear in mind that any "booting out" will be the choice of my > >>>stepdaughter, not me. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > those things is compatible with "loving guidance," so > you'll have to pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical. I mentioned a rather lengthy yet partial list in another thread. Maybe you did not read it. Anyway, I have sat down with her on occasion and advised her on various issues also explaining WHY she should heed my advice. Just curious, is it your position that my home is or ought to be a democracy?
> >>You already admit you have > >>no emotional connection to her. It's kinda hard to provide [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > your rules more loudly, to work things through? What > professional help have you brought in? We (wife and I) have offered both licensed secular and spiritual counselors and the answer was "no dice".
> Striding down > the mountain with your rules engraved in stone isn't > what works for most people in terms of working through > these situations. Well, sometimes stone rules are all that's left after everything else is rejected. Bear in mind that this is not the first difficulty. History has proven her rebellious response.
> >>Whoop-de-do. She's obviously been through a > >>lot in her life and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that she [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > think that you have no responsibility to work through > this situation? I do and I am. My posting in this group for example.
> >>And > >>in you waltz and start issuing ultimatums. Is it any wonder [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you start with a child who has serious problems, just > "laying down the law" won't fix the problem? It will fix MY problem. We seem to have gotten off track from the original issue of protecting my family. We can talk about fixing HER problems, but that is not the same as my immediate family problems. I guess you might say that I am in a dilemma of sorts. Either I accept a guaranteed undetermined amount of damage to my marriage with a moderate chance that it will not survive, or I prevent all pending damage to it with a much greater chance that it will fail. Not a very good choice, huh.
> It takes > more than that, and perhaps more than you or your wife [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can just be shoehorned into that mold after years of > going astray. That's correct. Now that she is an adult, who makes adult choices, she ought to be held accountable for her choices regardless of any "shoehorn". Let's not forget that the door is always open and she is free to say "adaaaaayos".
> >>I think not. > >>What have *YOU* done in the several years that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > From a girl with a troubled background who isn't > getting the help she needs, yes, it's a very tall order. Not so good for her then. But the sanctity of my marriage trumps her issues. Call me "mean" if you like, but I am a firm believer that sticking to priorities is all that counts. And in this situation my marriage comes first. That is why I posted here in the first place; not to find a solution for my stepdaughter, rather for my marriage.
I am beginning to wonder if I am in the wrong group. Perhaps a group with the word "marriage" might be more in line. In my anxiety, I seeked a group that seemed most appropriate to the issue. But it is starting to look as if this is a "pro-child" or "children come first" group.
> >>What have you done to show her > >>how she *should* be treated by a kind and loving man? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Sure, I get that you have washed your hands of her. Correction: I have washed my hands of her detrimental behavior. Odds are that she will be in my life for some time to come. I am aware of that.
> However, you are *CLEARLY* between her and her mother > because you believe that her mother owes her first > (and, apparently, only) loyalty to you, even to the > extent of making choices she believes to be detrimental > to her daughter. "Get between" in my mind means interfering or preventing a relationship. That I am NOT doing. They are free to continue their relationship however they like. I just don't welcome my wife to bring harm to ours. (Please don't confuse a non-smoker's right to breathe clean air with interfering in a smoker's right to smoke.)
> >>Clearly this girl has had serious > >>issues in the past while she was significantly further [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > She *IS* your family! No she is NOT. She is the family of her "husband" and baby. Or have they vanished?
> If you didn't intend > for her to be, you had no business whatsoever marrying > her mother. Untrue. I had every right to establish a covenant with my wife. Last I checked, I never said "till death do us part" to her daughter. Even my wife agrees that a stepfather is not a "father" unless the child claims him as such. Now I suppose that I am also responsible for her daughter's claim too?
> >>What resources did you bring to bear to resolve her and > >>your family issues *before* you got to this point, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > had the ability to make some of these decisions for her, > why were you both taking no for an answer? Can't speak for the mother. But for me, the few times that I rejected the "no" I was faced with a major battle from mother. After a few of those violent episodes I chose to just leave it alone. Additionally, I have absolutely NO legal right to challenge her daughter's "no". Even went so far as to have a law enforcement officer sit right in our living room and tell us that we must accept her "no".
Actually, let me take a shot at the mother's reason. In one word........... blackmail. She fears losing her daughter and the daughter knows it!
> >>I'm > >>just laying the questions out there. I'm getting a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You may have walked into a screwed up situation, "MAY" have? :)
> but > when you decided to marry her mother, she became part of your > family and it became your responsibility to help provide > what this child needs to become the adult she needs to be. > If you weren't up to the task, you shouldn't have married > her. I WAS up to the task and provided what I thought best. No doubt I made mistakes, but in no way does that justify an assault on my marriage.
> You should have moved on to easier pastures and left > your then-girlfriend to find someone who was up to it. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > *successfully*. You've tried your way and it hasn't worked. > Time to find another strategy. I am open to any strategy when it comes to my marriage, but my way is not finished yet.
> >>You're > >>just making excuses because you don't want to deal with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Only because you refuse to accept it. I had a limited responsibility while she was a child under my roof. Now that she is an independent adult, I have NO responsibility; either for her or her situation!
> >>I can understand that. It's likely to be a long, > >>hard slog. It's just the *right* long, hard, slog. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But when you have a child who is so far in trouble > that she's incapable of doing that, I'm sure that help can be arranged.
> YOU have to be the > grown-up and stop having unreasonable expectations. If [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > her to fix on her own, so why do you imagine that threatening > her to fix herself or get out has any chance of working? Forgive me for the following dumb question: When it comes to responsibility for her, where is she, where is her "husband", where is her mother, and where is her father? However did the spotlight turn on me?
> >>Did it ever occur to you that this > >>girl may be so desperately unhappy with what should be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > role for her so that she didn't have to seek it > elsewhere? Her father sees her maybe once a year and her mother treats her like a peer or an equal.
> >>That just maybe the > >>situation in YOUR family has helped to CREATE this [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that your wife's responsibilities are now yours as > well, including the responsibilities of parenting. Even so, her daughter was troubled long before I came around and now she is an adult. During that time, it was illegal for me to be a parent in the sense of what a parent ought to be. If you are going to cry "ridiculous", please ask me for examples first.
> >>It may be that the best solution is for her > >>to live outside your home. I'm certainly all for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > In my world, wishing doesn't make it so, but maybe > you've got a better imagination than I do. Fill me in.
> >>The goal > >>should definitely be to help her *become* that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > been if it hasn't given you some effective tools to deal > with this situation? The counseling was primarily marriage counseling. Any effective tools for the daughter situation were secondary.
> >>If you can find > >>a great program for her outside your home, more power [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Since when are you a trained professional in this > sort of thing? Well, if it takes a trained professional, then let her take her seek one out. She's a big girl now.
> It seems to me that you are ill-equipped > to do this well. Certainly if one evaluates based on > results, you have failed to provide adequate help. All these posts telling me that it is MY responsibility to help the daughter and now suddenly I am incapable of doing so? What's the deal?
> >>It's the "sink or swim" approach > >>that probably sits poorly with her--as it should, because [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > So? So I didn't help break her.
> >>I'm not making your daughter completely > >>innocent in all this, but your daughter is a CHILD. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are willing to step up to the plate and do right by > her? Doesn't she deserve some? Whether or not she deserves some I cannot say. But she has at least one right now.
> >>If > >>the right answer for your daughter is the "sink or swim" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > For me, that wouldn't sit well. *I* certainly > wouldn't feel like I'd done my duty. I can live with myself just fine as I have fulfilled my obligations. If her adult daughter and she choose to spiral out of control, then that is their choice. Remember, just like me, they too are capable of making their own life choices. Ever notice how no one ever tells me that someone else is responsible for my choice? I might stand corrected, but it seems that Iam responsible for not only my own choices but also for the choices of others.
> >>>No emotional connection because SHE refuses it. > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a result of you and your wife having a poor strategy for > dealing with her?! Perhaps it is, but now that she is a big girl it is time for her to be responsible for her OWN actions, regardless of what we did or did not do for her. New Orleans comes to mind: all the citizens who are sitting back saying "it's the government's fault", all the while doing absolutely NOTHING to improve their own situation. There comes a point in time where regardless of what anyone else does to you, you have to take responsibility for what you do (or do not do) to improve/change your situation. In other words, even if someone else is at fault for creating a problem in your life, you become liable for allowing it to persist. Even government laws recognize this fact.
> You want her to learn from > consequences, but as you see the consequences of your > actions, your response is to pass the buck? Excuse me? What buck might you be talking about?
> Hmm... > sounds familiar somehow... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > help you find one. That's what's going to *solve* the > problem, rather than just electing to be blind to it. Again, the only solution which I am seeking is the solution to my own family problem; more specifically my wife and me. As far as her daughter is concerned, I am not against her getting her own problems resolved. In fact I strongly desire for her to find her answers. I just aint' gonna put her problems above the problems in my own marriage. Perhaps a hard concept to grasp, but the relationship between my wife and me trumps ALL other relationships!
> Best wishes, > Ericka Circe - 11 Oct 2005 22:06 GMT > (note: stepdaughter just now got out of bed to take her daily shower. It > is > 12:15 in the afternoon. just another example of her basic laziness) Clearly, you are unfamiliar with the fact that:
1. Teens (even non-pregnant ones) tend to require between 11 and 12 hours of sleep per night to function well. The degree of neurological changes that occur in adolescense is similar to the degree of those that occur in infancy, and therefore, sleep requirement go up significantly in the teen years.
2. Most teens have what is called a "delayed sleep cycle". This means that, even when they are tired, they have difficulty falling asleep until very late at night (it is not uncommon for an exhausted teenager to lie awake in bed until well past midnight before finally being able to fall asleep). Interestingly, as people get older (into their 50s and 60s), an opposite "advanced sleep cycle" develops, which explains why your grandparents probably used to fall asleep in front of the TV at 8pm and then wake up at 4 in the morning unable to sleep any more. It's the same basic problem in reverse.
IOW, the fact that your stepdaughter slept until 12:15 does NOT, by itself, provide any indication that she is basically lazy; to the contrary, it is quite normal behavior for teens, even the most industrious of them. And it would be not at all odd for a pregnant woman of ANY age to require extra sleep.
None of this is to opine that your stepdaughter isn't lazy. She may well be. It's just that this particular piece of information isn't evidence of laziness. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 03:42 GMT > > (note: stepdaughter just now got out of bed to take her daily shower. It > > is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1. Teens (even non-pregnant ones) tend to require between 11 and 12 hours of > sleep per night to function well. Not this teen. She requires about 20 hours of sleep. At least that's how long she stays in bed. Not to be wise, but STILL she does not function well as evident by her choices.
> The degree of neurological changes that > occur in adolescense is similar to the degree of those that occur in > infancy, and therefore, sleep requirement go up significantly in the teen > years. We are not talking about adolescense.
> 2. Most teens have what is called a "delayed sleep cycle". This means that, > even when they are tired, they have difficulty falling asleep until very [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > provide any indication that she is basically lazy; to the contrary, it is > quite normal behavior for teens, even the most industrious of them. Not any teen that I have ever known; and I have known quite a few. Maybe the ones I know are abnormal? Or perhaps they are all beating the odds.
> And it > would be not at all odd for a pregnant woman of ANY age to require extra > sleep. She's been doing this for years.
> None of this is to opine that your stepdaughter isn't lazy. She may well be. > It's just that this particular piece of information isn't evidence of > laziness. Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say that laying in bed all night and throughout most of the day certainly raises the suspicion of laziness.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Thank you, same to you.
Circe - 12 Oct 2005 03:53 GMT >> None of this is to opine that your stepdaughter isn't lazy. She may well >> be. It's just that this particular piece of information isn't evidence of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the > suspicion of laziness. Actually, to me, it raises the suspicion of depression. And, given her parents' divorce, her father's apparent disinterest in her, and her mother's choice to marry a man who treats her as a barely-tolerated houseguest, I wouldn't be surprised at all to discover that she IS depressed. She has reason to be. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 05:23 GMT > >> None of this is to opine that your stepdaughter isn't lazy. She may well > >> be. It's just that this particular piece of information isn't evidence of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > wouldn't be surprised at all to discover that she IS depressed. She has > reason to be. OK, you win. She most likely IS depressed. I know the feeling, and can only hope that her condition improves. However, she is going to have to come to terms with the fact that her self-interests which cause problems in my marriage will be rejected by me every time!
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 12 Oct 2005 16:40 GMT >> > Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say that >> > laying in bed all night and throughout most of the day certainly raises [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > only > hope that her condition improves. Hoping that depression will improve on its own under conditions like these is a little like a diabetic hoping that his pancreas will start producing insulin on its own. Your daughter needs to be evaluated by a competent psychiatric practitioner who can assess her condition and suggest treatment options. If she had diabetes instead of depression, would you simply hope that her condition would improve?
> However, she is going to have to come to > terms with the fact that her self-interests which cause problems in my > marriage will be rejected by me every time! You can reject them all you want. As long as your wife does not reject them, it doesn't matter what you want.
Your wife needs help to become a stronger, more effective parent. Your stepdaughter needs help to become a more whole, healthy person. And you need help to find ways to do that that don't require rejecting or alienating one or both of them.
I think Jamie's on target. Do you love your wife AND her daughter enough to stay the course and do what's right for both of them (and in the process, save your marriage), or is it just too much work? No one could blame you if you decided the latter, but you have to understand that your wife and her daughter are a PACKAGE deal--you can't have an emotionally healthy, stable relationship with your wife until she and her daughter have an emotionally healthy, stable relationship. The one really depends upon the other. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 17:58 GMT > >> > Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say that > >> > laying in bed all night and throughout most of the day certainly raises [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > options. If she had diabetes instead of depression, would you simply hope > that her condition would improve? YES. She is a big girl now and as such responsible to seek out her own help. Legally, I am forced out of the picture.
> > However, she is going to have to come to > > terms with the fact that her self-interests which cause problems in my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > help to find ways to do that that don't require rejecting or alienating one > or both of them. My responsibility is to my wife... period!
> I think Jamie's on target. Do you love your wife AND her daughter enough to > stay the course and do what's right for both of them (and in the process, > save your marriage), or is it just too much work? No one could blame you if > you decided the latter, but you have to understand that your wife and her > daughter are a PACKAGE deal-- WERE a package deal. Her daughter is now her own independent adult. Time for her to be responsible for her OWN actions, no?
> you can't have an emotionally healthy, stable > relationship with your wife until she and her daughter have an emotionally > healthy, stable relationship. The one really depends upon the other. If that were true, then I would not have both great AND lousy relationships, which I do. One relationship does not hinge on the other.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Nan - 12 Oct 2005 18:31 GMT >> >> > Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say >that [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >YES. She is a big girl now and as such responsible to seek out her own help. >Legally, I am forced out of the picture. Bull. She may not even recognize that she's depressed. Would you turn your back on your mother if she was an alcoholic, unable to seek help for herself?
Nan
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 19:17 GMT > >> >> > Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say > >that [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > turn your back on your mother if she was an alcoholic, unable to seek > help for herself? YES, after she resisted my offer to help. Tossing pearls before swine is not my more favored activity.
> Nan Circe - 12 Oct 2005 18:37 GMT >> > OK, you win. She most likely IS depressed. I know the feeling, and can >> > only hope that her condition improves. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > help. > Legally, I am forced out of the picture. Really? When did she turn 18?
Anyway, depressed people rarely recognize that they ARE depressed and rarely seek help on their own. I understand that it is not easy to get someone to accept treatment she doesn't want. You might not be able to do it. But that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to try.
>> > However, she is going to have to come to >> > terms with the fact that her self-interests which cause problems in my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > My responsibility is to my wife... period! And your wife has a responsibility to her daughter that precedes her relationship with you. Your responsbility requires supporting your wife in all things, including raising her child.
>> I think Jamie's on target. Do you love your wife AND her daughter enough >> to stay the course and do what's right for both of them (and in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > WERE a package deal. Her daughter is now her own independent adult. Even if your stepdaughter had been an ADULT when you married her mother, they'd have been a package deal. You really don't GET it in some fundamental sense. A parent's child is that parent's child for LIFE. Your wife won't stop being her child's mother on the day her child turns 18, any more than your mother stopped being your mother the day you turned 18.
> Time for her to be responsible for her OWN actions, no? I agree that adults should be responsible for their own actions. But that doesn't mean their parents stop being their parents. Or that the parent of a completely self-sufficient adult (to say nothing of an adolescent near-adult who is clearly not self-supporting) can be expected to always put the interests of spouse over the interest of that adult child. There might well be times when a parent of an adult child needs to take that child's side over the objection of a spouse.
>> you can't have an emotionally healthy, stable >> relationship with your wife until she and her daughter have an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > relationships, > which I do. Interesting. I cannot think of any "lousy" relationships in my life. My relationships have varying degrees of intimacy, to be sure, and perhaps it would be weird to characterize all of them as "great", but certainly none of them are "lousy".
If you are willing to do a bit of painful self-examination, you might ask yourself whether your lousy relationships and the difficulties you are having in your relationship with your wife might be due to something about how you deal with other people. It seems to me that you are quite good at seeing the dust specks in other people's eyes while being entirely unable to see the log in your own.
>One relationship does not hinge on the other. In this case, though, your wife's inability to effectively parent her child is an indication of her inability to be in an effective relationship, period. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 00:02 GMT > >> > OK, you win. She most likely IS depressed. I know the feeling, and can > >> > only hope that her condition improves. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > Really? When did she turn 18? I have more legal rights over my neighbor's dog than I do her. A stepchild need not be 18 for the stepparent to not have a legal say over them. Regardless, next month she WILL be 18. Bear in mind, she was not adopted by me.
> Anyway, depressed people rarely recognize that they ARE depressed and rarely > seek help on their own. I understand that it is not easy to get someone to > accept treatment she doesn't want. You might not be able to do it. But that > doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to try. As I have said before, I HAVE tried. Problem is, my marriage sits on thin ice and I have but limited resources. Looks like she is just gonna have to take the back seat.
> >> > However, she is going to have to come to > >> > terms with the fact that her self-interests which cause problems in my [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And your wife has a responsibility to her daughter that precedes her > relationship with you. WRONG!
> Your responsbility requires supporting your wife in > all things, including raising her child. I support her in raising her child. I'm sure that you would support me giving your thirsty child something to drink...... but NOT if it's an alcoholic beverage.
> >> I think Jamie's on target. Do you love your wife AND her daughter enough > >> to stay the course and do what's right for both of them (and in the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > stop being her child's mother on the day her child turns 18, any more than > your mother stopped being your mother the day you turned 18. That's correct, but I would NEVER tolerate my mother creating problems in my home. If she did, then I would show her the door too. I left my parents to yoke with my wife. Do you get THAT in a fundamental sense?
> > Time for her to be responsible for her OWN actions, no? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be times when a parent of an adult child needs to take that child's side > over the objection of a spouse. Bleeding in the street asking for assistance comes to mind.
> >> you can't have an emotionally healthy, stable > >> relationship with your wife until she and her daughter have an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > would be weird to characterize all of them as "great", but certainly none of > them are "lousy". Good for you.
> If you are willing to do a bit of painful self-examination, you might ask > yourself whether your lousy relationships and the difficulties you are > having in your relationship with your wife might be due to something about > how you deal with other people. It seems to me that you are quite good at > seeing the dust specks in other people's eyes while being entirely unable to > see the log in your own. Good advice for sure. One reason why I am here.
> >One relationship does not hinge on the other. > > In this case, though, your wife's inability to effectively parent her child > is an indication of her inability to be in an effective relationship, > period. Most likely, but you know what? She IS in a relationship as am I, and we both have an obligation to work on it.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Jamie Clark - 13 Oct 2005 07:08 GMT >> >> > OK, you win. She most likely IS depressed. I know the feeling, and > can [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > WRONG! You may not like it, but it's a fact.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 20:15 GMT > >> >> > OK, you win. She most likely IS depressed. I know the feeling, and > > can [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > You may not like it, but it's a fact. A rose...........
Jamie Clark - 13 Oct 2005 00:12 GMT >> >> > Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say > that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > help. > Legally, I am forced out of the picture. Again, it's obvious that you don't have children. Parenting does not stop at 18. As long as she is alive, her mother is going to be her mother, and that means that her mother is going to do whatever she can to help her daughter when she needs it. Even if that help is dysfunctional and unhealthy. And as long as you get in the way of that, you are going to be the enemy. Your only hope is to try to help the mother have a better more healthy relationship with her daughter, or wash your hands of both of them. They are a package deal.
>> > However, she is going to have to come to >> > terms with the fact that her self-interests which cause problems in my [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > My responsibility is to my wife... period! And your wife's responsibility it to her daughter, AND to you. You can wish it be different all you want, but it won't be.
>> I think Jamie's on target. Do you love your wife AND her daughter enough > to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > for > her to be responsible for her OWN actions, no? Nope, still are a package deal. Unless your wife develops a backbone and decides that she needs to cut her daughter off, for her own good, then you are out of luck. If you force your wife to do something that she doesn't think it right, or in the best interest of her daughter (even if it is), she will not do it, or she will do it but resent you for it. Either way, you lose.
You've talked about protecting your marriage -- you don't need to protect it from the daughter, you need to protect it from your wife, and really, you can't do that.
>> you can't have an emotionally healthy, stable >> relationship with your wife until she and her daughter have an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > relationships, > which I do. One relationship does not hinge on the other. Unfortunately, they absolutely do hinge on each other.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 19:19 GMT > >> >> > Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say > > that [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > healthy relationship with her daughter, or wash your hands of both of them. > They are a package deal. No they are not! The "package" consists of my wife and me. Her daughter was hundreds of miles away when we made our legal commitment to each other. She has absolutely NOTHING to do with our marriage covenant. The responsibility for the care of her and her baby rests with her and her "husband". For me or my wife to take his place, that would make us guilty of helping him to be irresponsible. No thanks.
> >> > However, she is going to have to come to > >> > terms with the fact that her self-interests which cause problems in my [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And your wife's responsibility it to her daughter, AND to you. You can wish > it be different all you want, but it won't be. Her responsibility to her daughter ended when she chose to break away and start her OWN family. You can wish it to be different all you want, but it won't. My wife's responsibility to her daughter has been handed over to her daughter's "husband". Time for the father to step up to the plate and care for his family. If merely choosing to be irresponsible automatically transfers one's responsibilities to another, then rules and laws are unnecessary.
> >> I think Jamie's on target. Do you love your wife AND her daughter enough > > to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Nope, still are a package deal. Sorry, the "package deal" has been transferred to the new man. I suppose you are of the thought than when her grandaughter gets pregnant that my wife will also be responsible for not only her own daughter and grandchild, but also for the great grandchild that follows?
> Unless your wife develops a backbone and > decides that she needs to cut her daughter off, for her own good, then you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from the daughter, you need to protect it from your wife, and really, you > can't do that. Ultimately, my wife is the final arbiter of the success/failure of our marriage. However, her daughter can be an influential cause. My wife is an emotional pushover and her daughter KNOWS it. Exploiting that is tantamount to her attacking my marriage.
> >> you can't have an emotionally healthy, stable > >> relationship with your wife until she and her daughter have an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Unfortunately, they absolutely do hinge on each other. Then my claim that I have both good and bad relationships MUST be false.
Nan - 13 Oct 2005 21:13 GMT >No they are not! The "package" consists of my wife and me. Her daughter was >hundreds of miles away when we made our legal commitment to each other. She >has absolutely NOTHING to do with our marriage covenant. Yes they are a package deal. You knew of her daughter's existence before you married, yes?
When my dh and I got together, I was a single mom, living alone. My son had moved to his father's 3 years earlier. Although my son was not living under my roof at the time, he was a minor, and still my responsibility legally as well as morally. For my dh to think he was free and clear of a STEPson would have been very foolish thinking. Circumstances change, and the players involved need to adapt to the new situations. In our case my ds had an issue with his stepmom and had to move out when he was 18. Legally, I had no obligation to help him, but there was no way in hell I was going to see him tossed on his butt in the street. He came to live with us and just moved out a month ago. He's 21. My dh wouldn't have entertained the thought of telling me I should not help my son. If he had, he would be on his way OUT the door.
>The responsibility >for the care of her and her baby rests with her and her "husband". For me or >my wife to take his place, that would make us guilty of helping him to be >irresponsible. No thanks. So, the guy is an irresponsible a.s. Fine. That makes the daughter's need for help even greater. He's obviously not going to step up to the plate without a fight.
Nan
-- October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 10:39 GMT > >No they are not! The "package" consists of my wife and me. Her daughter was > >hundreds of miles away when we made our legal commitment to each other. She > >has absolutely NOTHING to do with our marriage covenant. > > Yes they are a package deal. You knew of her daughter's existence > before you married, yes? Indeed. But that does not change the fact that NO covenant exists with her. I married a woman with a child just like she married a man with a brother.
> When my dh and I got together, I was a single mom, living alone. My > son had moved to his father's 3 years earlier. Although my son was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My dh wouldn't have entertained the thought of telling me I should not > help my son. If he had, he would be on his way OUT the door. Well...... we see who wears the pants in YOUR home!
> >The responsibility > >for the care of her and her baby rests with her and her "husband". For me or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > need for help even greater. He's obviously not going to step up to > the plate without a fight. Yup, so now it's time for his woman to give him that fight. Unless, of course, her child is not worth fighting for.
> Nan > > -- > October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... > Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women > clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/ Nan - 14 Oct 2005 20:03 GMT >> >No they are not! The "package" consists of my wife and me. Her daughter >was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Indeed. But that does not change the fact that NO covenant exists with her. >I married a woman with a child just like she married a man with a brother. Your wife has no legal or moral obligation to a brother. She does have a legal, moral and emotional obligation to a child.
>> When my dh and I got together, I was a single mom, living alone. My >> son had moved to his father's 3 years earlier. Although my son was [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Well...... we see who wears the pants in YOUR home! We are both equals. If he had a child in trouble, the above scenario would have been reversed.
>> >The responsibility >> >for the care of her and her baby rests with her and her "husband". For me [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Yup, so now it's time for his woman to give him that fight. Unless, of >course, her child is not worth fighting for. No matter how much you'd like to, you cannot force him to take responsibility.
Nan
Banty - 14 Oct 2005 20:16 GMT >>> >No they are not! The "package" consists of my wife and me. Her daughter >>was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Your wife has no legal or moral obligation to a brother. She does >have a legal, moral and emotional obligation to a child. Quite telling that he cannot tell the difference.
>>> When my dh and I got together, I was a single mom, living alone. My >>> son had moved to his father's 3 years earlier. Although my son was [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >No matter how much you'd like to, you cannot force him to take >responsibility. Well, actually she can, and should, pursue the father of the baby for child support.
(although I do note Chris said "his woman" >snork<)
Banty
Nan - 14 Oct 2005 21:42 GMT >>>> >No they are not! The "package" consists of my wife and me. Her daughter >>>was [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Quite telling that he cannot tell the difference. He simply has his ideas carved in stone and refuses to entertain the idea that other ways exist.
>>No matter how much you'd like to, you cannot force him to take >>responsibility. > >Well, actually she can, and should, pursue the father of the baby for child >support. True. I was thinking more along the lines of being supportive in non-monetary ways. But Chris has trouble imagining those ways exist as evidenced by his constant complaining about costs.
>(although I do note Chris said "his woman" >snork<) Yep.
Nan
Chris - 15 Oct 2005 18:40 GMT > >>>> >No they are not! The "package" consists of my wife and me. Her daughter > >>>was [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > He simply has his ideas carved in stone and refuses to entertain the > idea that other ways exist. I am well aware of the other ways. Problem is I am unwilling to do what is not proper. Contrarily, it is my wife who refuses such entertainment.
> >>No matter how much you'd like to, you cannot force him to take > >>responsibility. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > True. I was thinking more along the lines of being supportive in > non-monetary ways. I'm sure you were.
> But Chris has trouble imagining those ways exist > as evidenced by his constant complaining about costs. What is evident is that you are unwilling to give credence to the fact that her daughter is interested ONLY in financial support from me. This bears out by the fact that she tells me to go pack sand, but STILL takes my support!
> >(although I do note Chris said "his woman" >snork<) > > Yep. "His woman" just like he is her man. They're a family.
> Nan Chris - 15 Oct 2005 18:36 GMT > >> >No they are not! The "package" consists of my wife and me. Her daughter > >was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Your wife has no legal or moral obligation to a brother. She does > have a legal, moral and emotional obligation to a child. But I don't.
> >> When my dh and I got together, I was a single mom, living alone. My > >> son had moved to his father's 3 years earlier. Although my son was [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > We are both equals. If he had a child in trouble, the above scenario > would have been reversed. So your claim is that either one of you could boot the other out the door (under these circumstances) and they would comply?
> >> >The responsibility > >> >for the care of her and her baby rests with her and her "husband". For me [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No matter how much you'd like to, you cannot force him to take > responsibility. I know, but at least he aint' walking away without a fight. And who knows, maybe he will "compromise". Her daughter can't know that without trying, no?
> Nan agsf_57@yahoo.com - 15 Oct 2005 23:25 GMT > "Nan" <nobodys@home.com> wrote in message > > >> My dh wouldn't have entertained the thought of telling me I should not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So your claim is that either one of you could boot the other out the door > (under these circumstances) and they would comply? Let's look at the poster who is trying to give you advice. She (Nan) has already failed at one marriage because I bet her priorities were not correct. To top it off, she did not have custody of her child in this bias court system of ours. So what do you expect from this woman?
Regards...
Nan - 17 Oct 2005 00:17 GMT >Let's look at the poster who is trying to give you advice. She (Nan) >has already failed at one marriage because I bet her priorities were >not correct. To top it off, she did not have custody of her child in >this bias court system of ours. So what do you expect from this woman? You really do make yourself look stupid when you assume. Joint custody and physical custody from age 2 until age 13. A teenage boy can benefit greatly by living with his dad, so we switched physical custody.
Nan
Jamie Clark - 17 Oct 2005 00:36 GMT Nan, Nan, Nan. Don't bother arguing with Agsf. Waste of time, space and breath. Killfile him. The world is a much better place!
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
>>Let's look at the poster who is trying to give you advice. She (Nan) >>has already failed at one marriage because I bet her priorities were [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nan Jamie Clark - 13 Oct 2005 23:00 GMT >> >> >> > Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say >> > that [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > my wife to take his place, that would make us guilty of helping him to be > irresponsible. No thanks. Say it 500 more times, and it still won't be true. Marry a woman with children, and you get a package deal, even if her kids are fully grown and in their 40's, or in their teens and living with their father. You are not responsible to care for the daughter and her baby, but you are responsible to your wife, and what she feels is best for her daughter. If she is that far off, if she is that dysfunctional and unhealthy in her dealings with her daughter, then you're sh.t out of luck, because she is going to do what she thinks is right, and if you stand in her way, I'm betting that she'll chose her daughter over you.
>> >> > However, she is going to have to come to >> >> > terms with the fact that her self-interests which cause problems in [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > transfers one's responsibilities to another, then rules and laws are > unnecessary. I really don't give a hoot about it, so am not wishing it one way or another. You are the one who refuses to see things from your wifes persepctive. The question is this -- does your wife feel that her responsibility to her daughter is done or not? If she doesn't feel that it's done, then it's not. You can wish it done all you like, but it doesn't change your wife.
>> >> I think Jamie's on target. Do you love your wife AND her daughter > enough [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > will also be responsible for not only her own daughter and grandchild, but > also for the great grandchild that follows? Nope. If the grandaughter is a minor when she gets pregnant, she will be the responsibility of her parents -- whether that is her mother and father, or mother and step-father. If the grandaughter is a normal healthy functioning adult, then that baby will be the responsibility of her mother and father.
 Signature Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 06:34 GMT > >> >> >> > Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say > >> > that [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Say it 500 more times, and it still won't be true. You're right. It's a package deal just like my buddies are part of the package deal that my wife married.
> Marry a woman with > children, and you get a package deal, even if her kids are fully grown and > in their 40's, or in their teens and living with their father. You are not > responsible to care for the daughter and her baby, but you are responsible > to your wife, and what she feels is best for her daughter. Not if what she "feels" is harmful.
> If she is that > far off, if she is that dysfunctional and unhealthy in her dealings with her > daughter, then you're sh.t out of luck, because she is going to do what she > thinks is right, and if you stand in her way, I'm betting that she'll chose > her daughter over you. Perhaps she will. Too bad her daughter doesn't hold her in the same regard.
> >> >> > However, she is going to have to come to > >> >> > terms with the fact that her self-interests which cause problems in [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > another. You are the one who refuses to see things from your wifes > persepctive. That's because her perspective is skewed.
> The question is this -- does your wife feel that her > responsibility to her daughter is done or not? If she doesn't feel that [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Nope. If the grandaughter is a minor when she gets pregnant, she will be > the responsibility of her parents Legally. And who is responsible for the baby?
> -- whether that is her mother and father, > or mother and step-father. Which is it?
> If the grandaughter is a normal healthy > functioning adult, then that baby will be the responsibility of her mother > and father. Speaking about "package deals", rights and responsibilities are a package deal. In other words, all responsibilities are coupled with rights. So tell me, what right comes along with the responsibility that I supposedly have to her daughter?
Jamie Clark - 14 Oct 2005 07:47 GMT >> Say it 500 more times, and it still won't be true. > > You're right. It's a package deal just like my buddies are part of the > package deal that my wife married. Now you're just being absurd. Your buddies are no where near the same category as a man or woman's children.
>> Marry a woman with >> children, and you get a package deal, even if her kids are fully grown [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not if what she "feels" is harmful. If you honestly believe that to be the case, then you've got a problem with your marriage...oh yeah, you know that, that's why your here.
>> If she is that >> far off, if she is that dysfunctional and unhealthy in her dealings with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Perhaps she will. Too bad her daughter doesn't hold her in the same > regard. Yep, it is too bad. But that's the situation that you chose to marry. The teen years are tough, tougher still for step-parents that have no children of their own or parenting history. You just got to ride it out and do the best that you can.
>> >> >> > However, she is going to have to come to >> >> >> > terms with the fact that her self-interests which cause problems [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > That's because her perspective is skewed. It really doesn't matter if her perspective is skewed or not. It's her perspective. And honestly, if you can't get that your perspective is rather skewed as well, not having kids, not having any idea what that bond is like, right or wrong, then again, you're a huge part of the problem. First you have to see it from your wifes perspective, then, and only then, can you work WITH your wife to help her deal with her daughter in a better more healthy way.
>> The question is this -- does your wife feel that her >> responsibility to her daughter is done or not? If she doesn't feel that [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Legally. And who is responsible for the baby? The mom is responsible for her baby -- regardless of the age of the mom or the child...get it? Your 40 something wife is still responsible for her 17 year old pregnant minor daughter. Even when the daughter is herself 40, the mother is still going to be her mother and want to help her out if she can.
>> -- whether that is her mother and father, >> or mother and step-father. > > Which is it? Hopefully all of them, if the original mother and father are divorced. If they are still together, great.
>> If the grandaughter is a normal healthy >> functioning adult, then that baby will be the responsibility of her [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to > her daughter? I don't have an answer for you here. Sorry. But that doesn't refute anything above that I, or anyone else on this thread has said.
Frankly, I'm just about done here. You are either being obtuse or obstreperous, and either way, I've just lost interest. I think we are all beating a dead horse here -- you are not willing to see any point of view but your own. Good luck with everything.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 10:52 GMT > >> Say it 500 more times, and it still won't be true. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now you're just being absurd. Your buddies are no where near the same > category as a man or woman's children. In whose opinion?
> >> Marry a woman with > >> children, and you get a package deal, even if her kids are fully grown [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > of their own or parenting history. You just got to ride it out and do the > best that you can. You're not calling me the "helpless victim" here, are you?
> >> >> >> > However, she is going to have to come to > >> >> >> > terms with the fact that her self-interests which cause problems [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > work WITH your wife to help her deal with her daughter in a better more > healthy way. I see. She just doesn't have to see it from my perspective.
> >> The question is this -- does your wife feel that her > >> responsibility to her daughter is done or not? If she doesn't feel that [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > The mom is responsible for her baby -- regardless of the age of the mom or > the child...get it? No actually. How can her daughter be responsible for her baby when she can't even be responsible for HERSELF?
> Your 40 something wife is still responsible for her 17 > year old pregnant minor daughter. Even when the daughter is herself 40, the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hopefully all of them, if the original mother and father are divorced. Let's see. Both parents remarried equates to FOUR different people responsible for this kid? Come on! Let's just hire a team.
> If > they are still together, great. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I don't have an answer for you here. Of course not. You simply want me to be responsible for something that someone ELSE will benefit from. To follow your logic, you ought to be responsible to make my house payments and pay the insurance too while I get to enjoy the right to live in it.
> Sorry. But that doesn't refute > anything above that I, or anyone else on this thread has said. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > beating a dead horse here -- you are not willing to see any point of view > but your own. Good luck with everything. Nan - 14 Oct 2005 20:06 GMT >Frankly, I'm just about done here. You are either being obtuse or >obstreperous, and either way, I've just lost interest. I think we are all >beating a dead horse here -- you are not willing to see any point of view >but your own. Good luck with everything. Yep. He doesn't want to find answers. He wants to argue.
Nan
Chris - 15 Oct 2005 20:00 GMT > >Frankly, I'm just about done here. You are either being obtuse or > >obstreperous, and either way, I've just lost interest. I think we are all > >beating a dead horse here -- you are not willing to see any point of view > >but your own. Good luck with everything. > > Yep. He doesn't want to find answers. He wants to argue. Argument is a means to solutions (answers). And it takes TWO to argue.
> Nan Cuddlefish - 13 Oct 2005 02:59 GMT >>Hoping that depression will improve on its own under conditions like these >>is a little like a diabetic hoping that his pancreas will start producing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > YES. She is a big girl now and as such responsible to seek out her own help. > Legally, I am forced out of the picture. I guess your moral responsibility doesn't matter? If she broke her leg, say, legally you wouldn't need to help her there either. What would you do?
I have been following this conversation, and I agree it is a complex situation. I strongly believe you reap what you sow. I know you must be frustrated with this girl, but I believe she didn't just wake up one day and decided to be difficult. I believe that what she is today has been shaped by everything that has happened before.
Remember, if you keep doing what you have always done - you'll keep getting what you have always gotten. If kicking your [step]daughter out is what you believe will lead to a positive and healthy outcome, by all means do it! I suspect however, it will not lead to anyone's life getting better in the long term, but instead cause much short term harm that might not be repairable. Kicking her out is simply a continuation of the type of contempt she has been receiving by many of those people in her life to this date.
Jacqueline
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 19:18 GMT > >>Hoping that depression will improve on its own under conditions like these > >>is a little like a diabetic hoping that his pancreas will start producing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I guess your moral responsibility doesn't matter? Then you'd guess wrong.
> If she broke her leg, > say, legally you wouldn't need to help her there either. What would you do? Hypothetical.
> I have been following this conversation, and I agree it is a complex > situation. I strongly believe you reap what you sow. I know you must be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the type of contempt she has been receiving by many of those people > in her life to this date. Any "kicking out" will be her SOLE choice. And she made such choice when she decided to start her own family AFTER she was informed of the rules.
> Jacqueline Sue - 13 Oct 2005 14:26 GMT "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message
> YES. She is a big girl now and as such responsible to seek out her own help. > Legally, I am forced out of the picture. Okay, here is where I am going to interject. People who are depressed sometimes do not even have the energy or will to get out of bed. They don't really realize that they need to be responsible to get treatment. Others are in denial that there is something wrong. But, no you are not legally out of the picture. If she is a danger to herself or others you have the right to have her commited. It doesn't seem to me that you have a good understanding what depression is all about. If you would like to hear about what it is like to live and be surrounded by depressed people, email me. I will fill you in.
>>My responsibility is to my wife... period! Not entirely. You married your wife, which she had a child. It's a package deal and you don't seem to realize that and all you can keep saying is that she is an adult and it's out of your hands. Let me give you an example. My 10-year-old is about to start her period. Does that mean at 10 yrs old, she is a woman and I should just let her go because she is woman now?? No, she is still a little girl, whose body is ahead of her brain. Just because a child reaches 18, does not mean that you get to stop being a parent. 18 yr olds need the love and support of their parents more than anything. They need guidance. I realize that will be hard because the girl has not gotten any guidance at all. But, wouldn't it be nice if you could be the rock in her life. One doesn't have to be the bio dad to be a strong male influence in a girls life.
>WERE a package deal. Her daughter is now her own independent adult. >Time for her to be responsible for her OWN actions, no?
I would say that yes, the girl needs to be responsible. However, she needs to know that she is loved and supported in her life or she is never going to learn to be responsible. I realize that the girl has had problems from the get go and you have very little say in what goes on now. But, and this is a big but, you have to support your wife and her feelings and that is where you are going wrong.
>If that were true, then I would not have both great AND lousy relationships, >which I do. One relationship does not hinge on the other. It does and I am sorry that you don't realize it. Mothers are hard-wired to cling to their children and they will fight to their death for their kids.
Just to let you know. I think the girl needs a quick lesson in life. I don't think that you need to just give her what she wants willy nilly. I won't repeat all the good things you could do with your step-daughter because really you have written her off, now you need to decide if your wife is worth it enough to stick by her through this. The mother is not going to give up on her daughter and that's that. My friend's 16-year-old son got a girl pregnant and while my friend was devesated at the news, she sucked it up and supported her son throughout all of it. My friend is now helping to raise the child, as the mother gave up her rights. The child lives with my friend and her son. He is getting his education and she is helping with what she can. And the son is definitely a good dad and doing his share. This scenerio is what many parents will do and if this was your own child, you might not be fighting helping her so much. My friend didn't want to disown her son, she wanted him in her life so she is doing what she can to help him out. -- Sue (mom to three girls)
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 21:20 GMT > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > > YES. She is a big girl now and as such responsible to seek out her own [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > like to live and be surrounded by depressed people, email me. I will fill > you in. No thank you. Remember, I am the STEPfather, and as such I do not have any legal rights regarding her. Not to mention the fact that when she DOES become of age (we are basically there), my lack of legal rights will most certainly be set in stone.
> >>My responsibility is to my wife... period! > > Not entirely. You married your wife, which she had a child. It's a package > deal and you don't seem to realize that and all you can keep saying is that > she is an adult and it's out of your hands. Even as she is a child, my responsibility is limited to her general welfare while under my roof. The fatherly responsibility rests with her FATHER. Not a very difficult concept to grasp. That he chooses to not be responsible makes him no less so. Let's not forget all the other "fathers" here. I am a HUSBAND first and foremost. That is why I got married, to be a husband; NOT a father. The shifting of responsibility must come through voluntary action, and I don't recall volunteering to take on anyone else's responsibility.
> Let me give you an example. My > 10-year-old is about to start her period. Does that mean at 10 yrs old, she > is a woman and I should just let her go because she is woman now?? Biologically speaking, YES, she is a woman.
> No, she > is still a little girl, whose body is ahead of her brain. Let me guess, "a little girl trapped in a woman's body".
> Just because a > child reaches 18, does not mean that you get to stop being a parent. 18 yr > olds need the love and support of their parents more than anything. They > need guidance. I realize that will be hard because the girl has not gotten > any guidance at all. But, wouldn't it be nice if you could be the rock in > her life. Yes, but both her efforts and the efforts of her mother have prevented that from happening. And the law backs them up!
> One doesn't have to be the bio dad to be a strong male influence > in a girls life. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to know that she is loved and supported in her life or she is never going to > learn to be responsible. No problem there, but carrying her load will NOT achieve that goal.
> I realize that the girl has had problems from the > get go and you have very little say in what goes on now. But, and this is a > big but, you have to support your wife and her feelings and that is where > you are going wrong. No I don't have to support her feelings. What I must support is her doing what is proper. Feelings, which we have no control over, come and go; but our life choices remain. Don't misconstrue this as meaning that I will not attempt to comfort my crying wife, because I will.
> >If that were true, then I would not have both great AND lousy > relationships, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Just to let you know. I think the girl needs a quick lesson in life. Yeah, it's called the front door.
> I don't > think that you need to just give her what she wants willy nilly. I won't > repeat all the good things you could do with your step-daughter because > really you have written her off, now you need to decide if your wife is > worth it enough to stick by her through this. She absolutely is.
> The mother is not going to > give up on her daughter and that's that. My friend's 16-year-old son got a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > scenerio is what many parents will do and if this was your own child, you > might not be fighting helping her so much. Yeah, and she might have a (much)better attitude as well.
> My friend didn't want to disown > her son, she wanted him in her life so she is doing what she can to help him > out. > -- > Sue (mom to three girls) Jamie Clark - 13 Oct 2005 23:04 GMT > Even as she is a child, my responsibility is limited to her general > welfare [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > action, > and I don't recall volunteering to take on anyone else's responsibility. If you didn't want to be a stepfather, you should not have married a woman with kids. It's as simple as that. Just because you don't want to be a stepfather, doesn't mean that you are not. You volunteered to take on the responsibilities of this family, the good, the bad, and the ugly, when you married the mother.
>> Let me give you an example. My >> 10-year-old is about to start her period. Does that mean at 10 yrs old, > she >> is a woman and I should just let her go because she is woman now?? > > Biologically speaking, YES, she is a woman. No, biologically speaking she is a child who menstruates. She is not a woman. She is a little girl.
>> No, she >> is still a little girl, whose body is ahead of her brain. > > Let me guess, "a little girl trapped in a woman's body". No, a little girl in a little girl's body. There is nothing womanly about a 10 year old, even one who menstruates.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 06:46 GMT > > Even as she is a child, my responsibility is limited to her general > > welfare [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > with kids. It's as simple as that. Just because you don't want to be a > stepfather, doesn't mean that you are not. I have no problem being a stepfather.
> You volunteered to take on the > responsibilities of this family, the good, the bad, and the ugly, when you > married the mother. That's correct, and my family is me and my wife. Her daughter's family is herself, her baby, and the baby's father. Too difficult to grasp?
> >> Let me give you an example. My > >> 10-year-old is about to start her period. Does that mean at 10 yrs old, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, biologically speaking she is a child who menstruates. Now that one takes the cake!
> She is not a > woman. She is a little girl. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, a little girl in a little girl's body. There is nothing womanly about a > 10 year old, even one who menstruates. Inseminate her, then 9 months later tell me that again.
Jamie Clark - 14 Oct 2005 07:38 GMT >> > Even as she is a child, my responsibility is limited to her general >> > welfare [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > That's correct, and my family is me and my wife. Her daughter's family is > herself, her baby, and the baby's father. Too difficult to grasp? Yes, for you it obviously is. The daughter, as a currently unwed minor, is absolutely still part of her mother's family. That you refuse to admit that is sad.
>> >> Let me give you an example. My >> >> 10-year-old is about to start her period. Does that mean at 10 yrs [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Inseminate her, then 9 months later tell me that again. Now you are just being disgusting. But, for the sake of argument, if she got pregnant, she would be a pregnant child. She would be a child mother, but she would not be a woman. Just as a boy does not become a man by creating sperm, or getting a girl pregnant, nor does a child become a woman just by menstruating.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 15 Oct 2005 17:45 GMT > >> > Even as she is a child, my responsibility is limited to her general > >> > welfare [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > absolutely still part of her mother's family. That you refuse to admit that > is sad. I am "part" of my mother's family too, But I know who MY family is."Unwed", "minor"; legal terms. Clear to me what your foundation is.
> >> >> Let me give you an example. My > >> >> 10-year-old is about to start her period. Does that mean at 10 yrs [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > creating sperm, or getting a girl pregnant, nor does a child become a woman > just by menstruating. Then your definition is strictly legal. (see above)
Nan - 12 Oct 2005 04:01 GMT >Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say that >laying in bed all night and throughout most of the day certainly raises the >suspicion of laziness. Or depression. -- October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 17:48 GMT > >Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say that > >laying in bed all night and throughout most of the day certainly raises the > >suspicion of laziness. > > Or depression. OK, fine. Let's ALL not do anything and simply blame it on depression. Do you even believe that laziness exists? If so, then what are the symptoms?
> -- > October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... > Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women > clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/ Nan - 12 Oct 2005 18:34 GMT >> >Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say that >> >laying in bed all night and throughout most of the day certainly raises [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >OK, fine. Let's ALL not do anything and simply blame it on depression. Do >you even believe that laziness exists? If so, then what are the symptoms? Sure it exists. I'm lazy at times. But not chronically. You say she's "always" been like this. Well, from what you've typed, she's had a pretty hard life. Her father has nothing to do with her. She's sought affection from a man that is inappropriate. She's gotten pregnant. Given her history, I suspect depression before I'd suspect laziness.
-- October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 23:15 GMT > >> >Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say that > >> >laying in bed all night and throughout most of the day certainly raises [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > pregnant. > Given her history, I suspect depression before I'd suspect laziness. Let's compromise. Laziness stemming from depression. :)
> -- > October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... > Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women > clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/ Nan - 12 Oct 2005 23:58 GMT >> >> >Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say that >> >> >laying in bed all night and throughout most of the day certainly [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Let's compromise. Laziness stemming from depression. :) Ooooookay. Your parents are therapists, you say??? Ask them about depression. You don't have the first idea what clinical depression entails.
Nan
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 19:00 GMT > >> >> >Even so, it is only part of a much bigger picture. But I must say that > >> >> >laying in bed all night and throughout most of the day certainly [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > depression. > You don't have the first idea what clinical depression entails. Perhaps not, but I know laziness when I see it. I have been depressed many times, but I still got out of bed and did my chores throughout the day.
> Nan Circe - 13 Oct 2005 19:19 GMT > > Ooooookay. Your parents are therapists, you say??? Ask them about > > depression. You don't have the first idea what clinical depression [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have been depressed many times, but I still got out of bed and did my > chores throughout the day. Then you were almost certainly NOT clinically depressed. Clinical depression isn't something that happens to most people "many times" in their lives, first of all. And it's not something most people get over without treatment. If you have been depressed many times, were able to do your normal activities despite it, and got over it without treatment, the chances that you were clinically depressed are slim and none. -- Be well, Barbara --> who has never been clinically depressed, but who knows that it isn't just being bummed out about stuff.
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 20:45 GMT > > > Ooooookay. Your parents are therapists, you say??? Ask them about > > > depression. You don't have the first idea what clinical depression [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > treatment, the chances that you were clinically depressed are slim and > none. I see. The level of depression has not reached the "clinical" stage until the depressed person becomes lazy.
> -- > Be well, Barbara --> who has never been clinically depressed, but who > knows that it isn't just being bummed out about stuff. Circe - 13 Oct 2005 21:10 GMT >> > > Ooooookay. Your parents are therapists, you say??? Ask them about >> > > depression. You don't have the first idea what clinical depression [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I see. The level of depression has not reached the "clinical" stage until > the depressed person becomes lazy. What you call "laziness" is a common symptom of severe, clinical depression. Is it the ONLY symptom? Of course not. Can it be clinical depression if "laziness" is NOT present? Absolutely. But severe clinical depression is RARELY a common but minor event that resolves without treatment. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 06:55 GMT > >> > > Ooooookay. Your parents are therapists, you say??? Ask them about > >> > > depression. You don't have the first idea what clinical depression [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > What you call "laziness" is a common symptom of severe, clinical depression. As I stated earlier: "laziness stemming from depression".
> Is it the ONLY symptom? Of course not. Can it be clinical depression if > "laziness" is NOT present? Absolutely. But severe clinical depression is > RARELY a common but minor event that resolves without treatment. > -- > Be well, Barbara Nan - 13 Oct 2005 21:15 GMT >Perhaps not, but I know laziness when I see it. >I have been depressed many times, but I still got out of bed and did my >chores throughout the day. Then you've not suffered chronic depression. There are many levels of depression. Just because yours was a functional depression does not mean everyone is as capable.
I challenge you to ask your parents about clinical depression. You need to be educated.
Nan -- October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 06:57 GMT > >Perhaps not, but I know laziness when I see it. > >I have been depressed many times, but I still got out of bed and did my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > depression. Just because yours was a functional depression does not > mean everyone is as capable. Ok, then chronic depression causes laziness.
> I challenge you to ask your parents about clinical depression. You > need to be educated. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women > clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/ Nan - 14 Oct 2005 20:09 GMT >> >Perhaps not, but I know laziness when I see it. >> >I have been depressed many times, but I still got out of bed and did my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Ok, then chronic depression causes laziness. No. A person who is lazy can pull themselves up and take care of themselves. A person who is depressed often cannot. Did you ask your parents yet?
Nan
Sidheag McCormack - 11 Oct 2005 22:10 GMT > I just have this STRANGE idea that when two people become one flesh and > start a new family that they have left their parents. Can't quite > pinpoint where I got that from. You're right, it's a very strange idea. Maybe you should try to pinpoint where you got it from, since your assumption that the only kind of family that matters is mother, father and biological, ?unattached, ?virginal, ?under-18 [not quite sure which of these you do believe] child seems to be the root of your problem.
Sidheag DS Colin Oct 27 2003
Nan - 11 Oct 2005 22:15 GMT >I am beginning to wonder if I am in the wrong group. Perhaps a group with >the word "marriage" might be more in line. In my anxiety, I seeked a group >that seemed most appropriate to the issue. But it is starting to look as if >this is a "pro-child" or "children come first" group. misc.kids.pregnancy is a group that supports and discusses pregnancy. You might be better served at alt.support.marriage. I have no idea if you'll get the backing you're looking for there, either.
Nan
Chris - 11 Oct 2005 23:40 GMT > >I am beginning to wonder if I am in the wrong group. Perhaps a group with > >the word "marriage" might be more in line. In my anxiety, I seeked a group [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You might be better served at alt.support.marriage. I have no idea if > you'll get the backing you're looking for there, either. Where do you suppose I might get backing in support of marriage?
> Nan Circe - 12 Oct 2005 01:46 GMT >> misc.kids.pregnancy is a group that supports and discusses pregnancy. >> You might be better served at alt.support.marriage. I have no idea if >> you'll get the backing you're looking for there, either. > > Where do you suppose I might get backing in support of marriage? If you hope to get people to agree that throwing your wife's daughter out of the house without her consent will save your marriage, I suspect you are doomed to fail anywhere that people of common sense and intelligence post.
However, I suppose if you want to find people who dislike children and might therefore approve of your distaste for your stepdaughter, you could try alt.support.childfree. Of course, it's too late for you to be childfree (because by marrying a person with a child, you are NOT childfree no matter how fervently you might wish you were).
The problem you're having here in garnering support for your plan to throw your wayward stepdaughter out on her proverbial ear in order to save your marriage isn't that this group is "pro-child". The problem is that as long as your wife doesn't want to do that, and it is HER daughter, your proposal will NOT save your marriage, but in fact will almost certainly doom it to failure.
So, you have to ask yourself, do you REALLY put your relationship with your wife before everything else? If you do, then her wishes on the subject of what happens to HER daughter must matter to you as much, and probably more, than your wishes. If they do not, then your claims to care most about your relationship with your wife are mere lip service.
None of this is to say that your wife is necessarily doing what is best for her daughter or that she has done a particularly stellar job of raising that child. It IS to say that you cannot expect YOUR wishes on the subject of HER daughter to trump her OWN wishes; she has to want what you want or what you propose has an extremely slim chance of improving a marriage which is already "hanging by a thread". -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 05:48 GMT > >> misc.kids.pregnancy is a group that supports and discusses pregnancy. > >> You might be better served at alt.support.marriage. I have no idea if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the house without her consent will save your marriage, I suspect you are > doomed to fail anywhere that people of common sense and intelligence post. It will neither save nor destroy my marriage. Also, it is not I who would be throwing anybody out of the house, rather it would be the sole choice of her daughter.
> However, I suppose if you want to find people who dislike children and might > therefore approve of your distaste for your stepdaughter, Not my stepdaughter that I have a distaste for; it is her choice of behavior. Did you not pay attention when I proclaimed that she either follow the rules or leave? If I wanted her out (distaste for her), then she would have had no option.
> you could try > alt.support.childfree. Of course, it's too late for you to be childfree [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will NOT save your marriage, but in fact will almost certainly doom it to > failure. Then such failure will come by way of my wife........ not me. Let me add that I have no plan to toss her out. I have, however, informed her that she will either follow the rules of the home (more specifically respect the home and the other people in it) or leave. There is no third option.
> So, you have to ask yourself, do you REALLY put your relationship with your > wife before everything else? If you do, then her wishes on the subject of > what happens to HER daughter must matter to you as much, and probably more, > than your wishes. Oh they matter. That's what brought me here. Only problem is, her wishes are detrimental to her daughter, to herself, and to our marriage. The day her wishes matter more than mine is the day that I throw in the towel, stop thinking, get a lobotomy, and let her fully contol my every action.
> If they do not, then your claims to care most about your > relationship with your wife are mere lip service. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > propose has an extremely slim chance of improving a marriage which is > already "hanging by a thread". My goal is to protect my marriage from all threats both foreign and domestic. However, it is my desire that such protection not be compromised by blackmail.
> -- > Be well, Barbara PattyMomVA - 12 Oct 2005 16:22 GMT >>I am beginning to wonder if I am in the wrong group. Perhaps a group with >>the word "marriage" might be more in line. In my anxiety, I seeked a group [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You might be better served at alt.support.marriage. I have no idea if > you'll get the backing you're looking for there, either. Or maybe alt.support.step-parents
The step-parents there understand what it's like to be in that position.
-Patty, mom of 1+2
alath - 15 Oct 2005 15:36 GMT >it is starting to look as if >this is a "pro-child" or "children come first" group. Whereas, in the rest of society, most people put their children much further down on their list of priorities. Yes, I'd say this is a very unusual group in that regard: we all put our children first on our list of priorities.
That's it, Chris: the whole darn marching band is out of step except you.
>I am beginning to wonder if I am in the wrong group. There's a notion. Why don't you try "anti-child.com" or "misc.whining.self-centered." I'm sure you'd find much more agreement with your priorities and attitudes there.
misc.kids.pregnancy is a forum where grown ups who are serious about taking on parental responsibilities get together to share information and problem solving. It's really not your cup of tea, obviously.
Banty - 15 Oct 2005 18:59 GMT >>it is starting to look as if >>this is a "pro-child" or "children come first" group. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >taking on parental responsibilities get together to share information >and problem solving. It's really not your cup of tea, obviously. Actually, (and seriously), he should check into alt.support.step-parents.
It's a really good group with a lot of people who can give a realistic assessment and advice on this.
Banty
alath - 16 Oct 2005 17:53 GMT >Actually, (and seriously), he should check into alt.support.step-parents.
>It's a really good group with a lot of people who can give a realistic >assessment and advice on this. Banty, that might be a good suggestion for others, but you obviously don't know our man Chris here.
A group like alt.support.step-parents would be where someone would go if they didn't know what to do, if they weren't sure what was going on, and if they were looking for the knowledge and experience of others to help guide their actions.
Chris, on the other hand, already knows everything about his situation and all his actions have been perfect. He doesn't need an internet group to help him, he needs an internet group to hear him expound on how perfect and knowledgeable he has been in every way, and how screwed up everyone else is compared to him.
Banty - 16 Oct 2005 19:23 GMT >>Actually, (and seriously), he should check into alt.support.step-parents. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >and if they were looking for the knowledge and experience of others to >help guide their actions. Oh, people go there playing "ain't it awful" all the time and get tough love in return.
>Chris, on the other hand, already knows everything about his situation >and all his actions have been perfect. He doesn't need an internet >group to help him, he needs an internet group to hear him expound on >how perfect and knowledgeable he has been in every way, and how screwed >up everyone else is compared to him. That's not so unusual. Haven't you noticed. Until (and unless) folks get a realistic grip on their situation, it's all about the terrible ex, the awful steps, the hideous inlaws. Folks going in hope that they'll be validated and patted on their backs, be told just how to juicily tell off the ex, what heretofore unknown legal twist can let them jettison all responsibilities except what they want to cozy up in their new love nest with. And get instead, some real-talking about how to deal with the situations they've bought into and created.
Chris's desire to boot out the step kid(s) and nestle up with just he and the new wife isn't unique, unfortunately.
Banty
Chris - 16 Oct 2005 21:50 GMT > >>Actually, (and seriously), he should check into alt.support.step-parents. > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Chris's desire to boot out the step kid(s) NOT my desire.
> and nestle up with just he and the > new wife isn't unique, unfortunately. Just curious: how effective can an advisor be when they aren't even willing to pay attention to what's said?
> Banty Chris - 16 Oct 2005 21:56 GMT > >Actually, (and seriously), he should check into alt.support.step-parents. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Chris, on the other hand, already knows everything about his situation I certainly know a whole lot more about my situation than YOU do!
> and all his actions have been perfect. He doesn't need an internet > group to help him, he needs an internet group to hear him expound on > how perfect and knowledgeable he has been in every way, and how screwed > up everyone else is compared to him. alath - 16 Oct 2005 22:37 GMT >I certainly know a whole lot more about my situation than YOU do! Of course! You already know more about everything than anyone else does. You're a freaking genius. Everything you do is perfect. That's why you have been so dazzlingly successful as a husband and step-parent. I'm sure that "marriage hanging by a thread" and "on thin ice" stuff is all due to other people's faults, because, by definition, you have done everything right.
Obviously, your reason for posting here in the first place was to enlighten us all with your brilliant approach to family relationships. All the other 20 or 30 people who have posted here challenging your positions are obviously idiots who can't possibly manage their marriages or relationships with kids and/or stepchildren. That's why our families are all so messed up, and yours is so ideal. Gosh, Chris, please tell us more so we can all aspire to be like you.
Banty - 16 Oct 2005 23:48 GMT >>I certainly know a whole lot more about my situation than YOU do! > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >our families are all so messed up, and yours is so ideal. Gosh, Chris, >please tell us more so we can all aspire to be like you. I think he honestly thinks he is telling us. He's telling us his *general conclusions*, like "marriage is being harmed", that he's "protecting his family", without so much as a nit to hold them up. Like his wife, we're expected to take all his ex-cathedra pronouncements at face value, and pony up. He may not know actually *how* to communicate.
He said once he does 11% (I think it was) of the communication in his marriage. I believe it.
Banty
Chris - 18 Oct 2005 00:12 GMT > >>I certainly know a whole lot more about my situation than YOU do! > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > family", without so much as a nit to hold them up. Like his wife, we're > expected to take all his ex-cathedra pronouncements at face value, and pony up. I don't "expect" you to do anything.
> He may not know actually *how* to communicate. > > He said once he does 11% (I think it was) of the communication in his marriage. > I believe it. I said I hold 5% of the "conversation". Is this the only means of communication? Another poster claimed that I am doing plenty of communicating. I suppose this mere 11% is plenty, unless their understanding is that such 11% is included in a much higher amount just as a four-legged table still has three legs.
> Banty Chris - 17 Oct 2005 18:14 GMT > >I certainly know a whole lot more about my situation than YOU do! > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Obviously, your reason for posting here in the first place was to > enlighten us all with your brilliant approach to family relationships. From which University did you get your mind reading degree?
> All the other 20 or 30 people who have posted here challenging your > positions are obviously idiots who can't possibly manage their > marriages or relationships with kids and/or stepchildren. That's why > our families are all so messed up, and yours is so ideal. Gosh, Chris, > please tell us more so we can all aspire to be like you. Like I said, it aint' me crying the big "D" word on a regular basis (in fact I have never used it). But I suppose divorce UNmesses up a family.
Circe - 17 Oct 2005 18:29 GMT >> All the other 20 or 30 people who have posted here challenging your >> positions are obviously idiots who can't possibly manage their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fact > I have never used it). But I suppose divorce UNmesses up a family. Frankly, Chris, sometimes divorce is the best option for families. Is it the best option for you and your wife? None of us can tell you that. All we can tell you is that if your wife is talking about divorce on a regular basis, it's hardly likely that it's because your relationship with your wife is ideal. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 20 Oct 2005 06:10 GMT > >> All the other 20 or 30 people who have posted here challenging your > >> positions are obviously idiots who can't possibly manage their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > Frankly, Chris, sometimes divorce is the best option for families. Irresponsible remarks such as the one above is reason enough to discount ANY marital advice from you.
> Is it the > best option for you and your wife? None of us can tell you that. All we can > tell you is that if your wife is talking about divorce on a regular basis, > it's hardly likely that it's because your relationship with your wife is > ideal. What a novel concept.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Banty - 17 Oct 2005 20:46 GMT >> >I certainly know a whole lot more about my situation than YOU do! >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >From which University did you get your mind reading degree? Isn't there a biblical quote that goes something like "by their deed thy shall know them".
It's clear because of how your respond.
>> All the other 20 or 30 people who have posted here challenging your >> positions are obviously idiots who can't possibly manage their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Like I said, it aint' me crying the big "D" word on a regular basis (in fact >I have never used it). But I suppose divorce UNmesses up a family. Yeah it's never your fault..
Banty
Chris - 16 Oct 2005 05:04 GMT > >it is starting to look as if > >this is a "pro-child" or "children come first" group. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's it, Chris: the whole darn marching band is out of step except > you. THIS pro-marriage marching band is. Or am I in the wrong band?
> >I am beginning to wonder if I am in the wrong group. > > There's a notion. Why don't you try "anti-child.com" or > "misc.whining.self-centered." I'm sure you'd find much more agreement > with your priorities and attitudes there. Don't be too sure.
> misc.kids.pregnancy is a forum where grown ups who are serious about > taking on parental responsibilities get together to share information > and problem solving. Great! Then they ought to be serious about my wife's daughter taking on HER parental responsibilies.
> It's really not your cup of tea, obviously. Circe - 11 Oct 2005 22:32 GMT > Again, the only solution which I am seeking is the solution to my own > family [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > grasp, but the relationship between my wife and me trumps ALL other > relationships! With all due respect, your wife had a relationship with HER daughter well before she had a relationship with YOU. Given that your wife's relationship with and responsibility to her own flesh and blood existed before you even came into the picture, perhaps you had better re-examine your presumption that your relationship with your wife should trump all others. Although I haven't read the entire thread, I suspect a big part of the "family problem" you're trying to resolve is that your wife views her obligations rather differently than you do. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 03:43 GMT > > Again, the only solution which I am seeking is the solution to my own > > family [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > With all due respect, your wife had a relationship with HER daughter well > before she had a relationship with YOU. And I had a relationship with my mother long before I had a relationship with my wife.
> Given that your wife's relationship > with and responsibility to her own flesh and blood existed before you even > came into the picture, perhaps you had better re-examine your presumption > that your relationship with your wife should trump all others. I might be mistaken, but it is my understanding that the yoke between my wife and me causes us to become one flesh.
> Although I > haven't read the entire thread, I suspect a big part of the "family problem" > you're trying to resolve is that your wife views her obligations rather > differently than you do. Indeed! You married?
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 12 Oct 2005 04:33 GMT >> > Again, the only solution which I am seeking is the solution to my own >> > family [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And I had a relationship with my mother long before I had a relationship > with my wife. I see your point. However, in some cultures, you WOULD be expected to put your relationship with your mother before that with your wife for this very reason (and also the fact that a mother cannot be replaced, while a wife can!).
Notwithstanding, your wife has had an intimate relationship with her daughter for the past 17 years. They have lived together and shared their lives for all that time. Ultimately, that will change, but it is not going to change overnight. And until that relationship evolves into a less intimate parent-adult child relationship, her relationship with her daughter will remain, at a minimum, equal to her relationship with you. In other words, while her daughter doesn't necessarily come first, you don't come first, either--you both come first. But when your interests are at odds with her daughters--well, a mother's instinct is almost always to side with her child. Sorry, it's just good, old-fashioned biology at work here.
>> Given that your wife's relationship >> with and responsibility to her own flesh and blood existed before you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I might be mistaken, but it is my understanding that the yoke between my > wife and me causes us to become one flesh. Perhaps you are taking a metaphor a bit too far? Unless her bladder is relieved when you go to the toilet and her third quenched when you drink a glass of water, your marriage has made you "one flesh" in any but a symbolic way.
And if you WERE, in fact, one flesh, then you would not be disagreeing about what to do in this situation--your desires would be identical and there would be no conflict. Since your feelings are not the same and you are in conflict, it's pretty clear that you aren't "one flesh", but two flesh who will have to come to some mutually satisfactory agreement if you are to remain one flesh in the symbolic sense.
>> Although I >> haven't read the entire thread, I suspect a big part of the "family >> problem" you're trying to resolve is that your wife views her obligations >> rather differently than you do. > > Indeed! You married? Yes. Quite happily for 18 years this coming December.
What does that have to do with what I said above? -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 19:08 GMT > >> > Again, the only solution which I am seeking is the solution to my own > >> > family [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > reason (and also the fact that a mother cannot be replaced, while a wife > can!). LOVE the logic! Children can be replaced too.
> Notwithstanding, your wife has had an intimate relationship with her > daughter for the past 17 years. They have lived together and shared their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > her daughters--well, a mother's instinct is almost always to side with her > child. Sorry, it's just good, old-fashioned biology at work here. In my case it's a sick co-dependent relationship. However, the spark in all this is the fact that her daughter keeps telling her to get lost. The day will come when she is gone, but guess who will still be here. Think my wife might get a clue then? Perhaps I should remind my wife that her daughter has no covenantal commitment to her, thus she is free to leave. But guess who DOES have such commitment.
> >> Given that your wife's relationship > >> with and responsibility to her own flesh and blood existed before you [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > what to do in this situation--your desires would be identical and there > would be no conflict. Guess you never heard of cancer or body organs wreaking havoc with the rest of the system.
> Since your feelings are not the same and you are in > conflict, it's pretty clear that you aren't "one flesh", but two flesh who > will have to come to some mutually satisfactory agreement if you are to > remain one flesh in the symbolic sense. One flesh by definition, not by action.
> >> Although I > >> haven't read the entire thread, I suspect a big part of the "family [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Yes. Quite happily for 18 years this coming December. (I share an Anniversary in December as well)
> What does that have to do with what I said above? Just wanted to know if your husband takes second place to other blood relatives as you preached.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Nan - 12 Oct 2005 19:40 GMT >LOVE the logic! Children can be replaced too. How?
>In my case it's a sick co-dependent relationship. However, the spark in all >this is the fact that her daughter keeps telling her to get lost. The day >will come when she is gone, but guess who will still be here. Think my wife >might get a clue then? Perhaps I should remind my wife that her daughter has >no covenantal commitment to her, thus she is free to leave. But guess who >DOES have such commitment. The divorce rate in the US is testament to the fact that the marriage-bond may not be as strong as the familial bond. Yes, her daughter IS free to leave, as are you if you so choose. The difference is that her daughter will always have a tie to her mother and you may not.
Nan -- October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 23:21 GMT > >LOVE the logic! Children can be replaced too. > > How? Her daughter's creating another one.
> >In my case it's a sick co-dependent relationship. However, the spark in all > >this is the fact that her daughter keeps telling her to get lost. The day [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The divorce rate in the US is testament to the fact that the > marriage-bond may not be as strong as the familial bond. That makes no sense. Marriage IS a family.
> Yes, her > daughter IS free to leave, as are you if you so choose. No I'm not, I'm married.
> The > difference is that her daughter will always have a tie to her mother > and you may not. She broke that tie when she left her to be with her "husband".
> Nan > -- > October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month... > Please help fund Mammograms for underprivileged women > clicking here (no cost to you):http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/ Nan - 12 Oct 2005 23:57 GMT >> >LOVE the logic! Children can be replaced too. >> >> How? > >Her daughter's creating another one. This child does not replace a previous one.
>> >In my case it's a sick co-dependent relationship. However, the spark in >all [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >That makes no sense. Marriage IS a family. PART OF a family, yes.
>> Yes, her >> daughter IS free to leave, as are you if you so choose. > >No I'm not, I'm married. Sure you can. It's called DIVORCE.
>> The >> difference is that her daughter will always have a tie to her mother >> and you may not. > >She broke that tie when she left her to be with her "husband". Nope. A child's tie to parents and parents tie to child is never broken.
Nan
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 19:08 GMT > >> >LOVE the logic! Children can be replaced too. > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This child does not replace a previous one. Nor does a spouse replace a previous one.
> >> >In my case it's a sick co-dependent relationship. However, the spark in > >all [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > PART OF a family, yes. Each spouse is part of the family, yes; the family of husband and wife.
> >> Yes, her > >> daughter IS free to leave, as are you if you so choose. > > > >No I'm not, I'm married. > > Sure you can. It's called DIVORCE. Apparently, we have different definitions of the word "free".
> >> The > >> difference is that her daughter will always have a tie to her mother [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nope. A child's tie to parents and parents tie to child is never > broken. Guess we differ on the meaning of the word "tie" as well.
> Nan Nan - 13 Oct 2005 21:18 GMT >> >> >LOVE the logic! Children can be replaced too. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Nor does a spouse replace a previous one. Sure does. My current dh replaced my previous.
>> >> >In my case it's a sick co-dependent relationship. However, the spark >in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Each spouse is part of the family, yes; the family of husband and wife. And any children from that union, or previous unions.
>> >> Yes, her >> >> daughter IS free to leave, as are you if you so choose. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Apparently, we have different definitions of the word "free". I wasn't talking about $$$ cost. In the context of your sentence, "free to leave", you have the same option.
>> >> The >> >> difference is that her daughter will always have a tie to her mother [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >> Nan Chris - 14 Oct 2005 07:07 GMT > >> >> >LOVE the logic! Children can be replaced too. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sure does. My current dh replaced my previous. And my friend's child replaced their previous.
> >> >> >In my case it's a sick co-dependent relationship. However, the spark > >in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > And any children from that union, or previous unions. Sorry, her daughter is NOT my family. Just curious: what does the concept of "family" mean to you in terms of benefits and responsibilities to the exclusion of all others?
> >> >> Yes, her > >> >> daughter IS free to leave, as are you if you so choose. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I wasn't talking about $$$ cost. I figured that much.
> In the context of your sentence, > "free to leave", you have the same option. Again, it appears that we have differing definitions.
> >> >> The > >> >> difference is that her daughter will always have a tie to her mother [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > >> Nan Michelle J. Haines - 13 Oct 2005 00:00 GMT >>LOVE the logic! Children can be replaced too. > > How? To be fair, your point about spouses being replaceable is just as sensible as children being replaceable. Neither is true.
Michelle Flutist
Nan - 13 Oct 2005 00:39 GMT >>>LOVE the logic! Children can be replaced too. >> >> How? > >To be fair, your point about spouses being replaceable is just as >sensible as children being replaceable. Neither is true. Well, then I guess I have a weird idea that my EX-husband was replaced by my current one. I have no blood ties to my ex-husband. I do have blood ties to my children.
Nan
Michelle J. Haines - 13 Oct 2005 00:54 GMT > Well, then I guess I have a weird idea that my EX-husband was replaced > by my current one. I have no blood ties to my ex-husband. I do have > blood ties to my children. Really? Replaced? Your current husband is an exact replica of your ex-husband?
People aren't replaceable.
Michelle Flutist
Circe - 13 Oct 2005 02:03 GMT >> Well, then I guess I have a weird idea that my EX-husband was replaced >> by my current one. I have no blood ties to my ex-husband. I do have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > People aren't replaceable. And in the cultures that place parents first because they cannot be replaced, children would also come after the parents, again precisely because they are deemed to be "replaceable". Put another way, you will only ever have one mother and one father, but you could theoretically have many children and many spouses.
I'm not agreeing with that logic. I'm just saying that some cultures do value relationships differently than we do. -- Be well, Barbara
Nan - 13 Oct 2005 02:31 GMT >> Well, then I guess I have a weird idea that my EX-husband was replaced >> by my current one. I have no blood ties to my ex-husband. I do have >> blood ties to my children. > >Really? Replaced? Your current husband is an exact replica of your >ex-husband? No, my current husband is a new, improved model.
>People aren't replaceable. Spouses are replaceable. Children are not.
Nan
Michelle J. Haines - 13 Oct 2005 02:45 GMT >>People aren't replaceable. > > Spouses are replaceable. Children are not. I would never suggest to my current husband that he was anything as demeaning as a "replacement" for anyone (including my ex-husband), nor that anyone could "replace" him, any more than anyone will "replace" our son. The notion is patently ridiculous.
Michelle Flutist
Nan - 13 Oct 2005 03:37 GMT >>>People aren't replaceable. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that anyone could "replace" him, any more than anyone will "replace" our >son. The notion is patently ridiculous. Then we'll agree to disagree. I don't see it as demeaning at all. Obviously, YMMV.
Nan
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 04:29 GMT > >> Well, then I guess I have a weird idea that my EX-husband was replaced > >> by my current one. I have no blood ties to my ex-husband. I do have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Spouses are replaceable. Children are not. My guess is that my stepdaughter could also be replaced by a new and improved model; one of your children for example.
> Nan Mum of Two - 13 Oct 2005 03:19 GMT >> Well, then I guess I have a weird idea that my EX-husband was replaced >> by my current one. I have no blood ties to my ex-husband. I do have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > People aren't replaceable. I get Nan's point. Her husband is not an exact replica of her ex-husband, but the relationship she had with her ex has been replaced with the one she has with her current husband - and presumably replaced with a better one. It has something to do with the value we place on relationships and how much we care for a particular person. Most people love their children unconditionally, and no matter what that child has done nor how angry the parent is with that child, they won't stop loving that child. Heck, you see murder-accused in court with their parents sobbing right there with them. The same does not always hold true for spouses.
I think that's Chris' problem. He isn't a parent, in his eyes at least, and he has no idea what that relationship is like. Because of that, he expects his wife to choose him and their marriage over her daughter, and that isn't going to happen. Her daughter could have killed someone with her bare hands, and she would probably still be supporting her in some way. As it is, being lazy, irresponsible and getting pregnant just isn't that great a crime in a mother's eyes.
 Signature Amy Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02, & Ana born screaming 30/06/04 http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/ http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/ My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/
Nan - 13 Oct 2005 03:40 GMT >>> Well, then I guess I have a weird idea that my EX-husband was replaced >>> by my current one. I have no blood ties to my ex-husband. I do have [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >murder-accused in court with their parents sobbing right there with them. >The same does not always hold true for spouses. Thank you for getting my point. I may not have been clear enough for everyone to understand.
>I think that's Chris' problem. He isn't a parent, in his eyes at least, and >he has no idea what that relationship is like. Because of that, he expects [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >lazy, irresponsible and getting pregnant just isn't that great a crime in a >mother's eyes. I think you're right. I don't think Chris can even come close to understanding the parent-child bond.
Nan
Sue - 13 Oct 2005 14:35 GMT "Nan" <nobodys@home.com> wrote in message
> I think you're right. I don't think Chris can even come close to > understanding the parent-child bond. No, he doesn't. If you don't have kids yourself, you cannot imagine what that emotion and what that bond is like.
 Signature Sue (mom to three girls)
Circe - 13 Oct 2005 01:57 GMT >> I see your point. However, in some cultures, you WOULD be expected to put >> your relationship with your mother before that with your wife for this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > LOVE the logic! Children can be replaced too. Indeed. In cultures that place primacy on the parent-child relationship, an adult male child is duty bound to put his parents before either his spouse or his children. (I believe an adult female child's allegiance is expected to be to the parents of her husband.) I'm not saying that's good or bad; it just is.
>> But when your interests are at odds with >> her daughters--well, a mother's instinct is almost always to side with >> her >> child. Sorry, it's just good, old-fashioned biology at work here. > > In my case it's a sick co-dependent relationship. It certainly sounds that way. But that won't make the biology go away.
> However, the spark in all > this is the fact that her daughter keeps telling her to get lost. The day [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > no covenantal commitment to her, thus she is free to leave. But guess who > DOES have such commitment. Well, I suppose if you really believe that the problems in your marriage will magically disappear on the day your stepdaugther leaves, you could just hang tight and do nothing. Apparently, you think your stepdaughter can't wait to get out and wants nothing more than to do as you wish. If that's true, this is a short-lived problem and I can't really understand why you've got your undies in such a bunch.
Of course, the problem with your relationship with your wife isn't your stepdaughter at all. And when your stepdaughter goes away, those problems will still exist. Unless and until you and your wife address them head-on and together.
>> > I might be mistaken, but it is my understanding that the yoke between >> > my [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > rest > of the system. Given that the only way to cure the body of cancer is to kill the cancer, you might want to reconsider your use of that metaphor.
>> Since your feelings are not the same and you are in >> conflict, it's pretty clear that you aren't "one flesh", but two flesh [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > One flesh by definition, not by action. If you are not one flesh by action, then the definition doesn't fit. (Hears shades of Johnny Cochrane: "If the glove doesn't fit...")
>> >> Although I >> >> haven't read the entire thread, I suspect a big part of the "family [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > (I share an Anniversary in December as well) And I confess, my math was wrong. It's 17 years in December, not 18. We've been together for 18 in December, though. I always get the two numbers confused!
>> What does that have to do with what I said above? > > Just wanted to know if your husband takes second place to other blood > relatives as you preached. I didn't preach that. I said that in SOME cultures, there is an expectation that parents come before spouses. That doesn't mean I belong to one of those cultures, just that I know they exist and understand their beliefs.
That said, my husband and our children (who are all still quite minor minors) come first equally. It is nearly impossible for me to imagine a situation in which my husband and I would not agree on a truly significant parenting matter (though we disagree on the detail at times and often have to compromise on them). But IF I felt that my husband's plan represented a threat to the well-being of the children and we were unable to come up with a suitable compromise, then I *would* put our children first. I would expect him to do the same. -- Be well, Barbara
Michelle J. Haines - 13 Oct 2005 02:51 GMT > Indeed. In cultures that place primacy on the parent-child relationship, an > adult male child is duty bound to put his parents before either his spouse > or his children. (I believe an adult female child's allegiance is expected > to be to the parents of her husband.) I'm not saying that's good or bad; it > just is. *snip*
> I didn't preach that. I said that in SOME cultures, there is an expectation > that parents come before spouses. That doesn't mean I belong to one of those > cultures, just that I know they exist and understand their beliefs. The problem with playing the cultural moral relativism card in this case, Ericka, is that cultures exist in which the spousal relationship is considered to be more important that the parent-child relationship, too. At least to the point that you must maintain that relationship first, as the foundation of the family relationship. If you can understand one, you can understand the other.
Michelle Flutist
Ericka Kammerer - 13 Oct 2005 03:00 GMT >> Indeed. In cultures that place primacy on the parent-child >> relationship, an adult male child is duty bound to put his parents [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The problem with playing the cultural moral relativism card in this > case, Ericka, Actually, you were speaking to Barbara ;-)
Best wishes, Ericka
Michelle J. Haines - 13 Oct 2005 04:14 GMT > Actually, you were speaking to Barbara ;-) Sorry, I don't usually mess that up. :)
Michelle Flutist
Circe - 13 Oct 2005 16:19 GMT >> Indeed. In cultures that place primacy on the parent-child relationship, >> an adult male child is duty bound to put his parents before either his [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The problem with playing the cultural moral relativism card in this case, > Ericka, As we've already established, that's Barbara!
> is that cultures exist in which the spousal relationship is considered to > be more important that the parent-child relationship, too. At least to > the point that you must maintain that relationship first, as the > foundation of the family relationship. If you can understand one, you can > understand the other. The only reason I brought up the point was that the OP seems to be operating from the premise that it is more normal or natural to place the spousal relationship first. I don't agree that it IS more normal or natural, however. And while I think placing a parent before either a child or a spouse seems odd, some cultures *do* have that as the priority, which shows that there isn't some internal compass in all humans pointing to the spousal relationship as the "most important" to maintain.
But when the OP talks about the spousal relationship coming first, he's using language that's "codespeak" for traditional patriarchal views of marriage, in which the wife is subservient to and protected by the husband (the husband is the head of the wife the way Jesus is the head of the Chuch and all that stuff). When he says he and his wife should be "one flesh", he doesn't REALLY mean that he and his wife are equals; he means that his wife should defer to his judgment. She isn't willing or able to do that, however, and that's what's leading to the trouble in their marriage, NOT her daughter (who is merely a symptom of the larger "disease"). -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 21:14 GMT > >> Indeed. In cultures that place primacy on the parent-child relationship, > >> an adult male child is duty bound to put his parents before either his [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > doesn't REALLY mean that he and his wife are equals; he means that his wife > should defer to his judgment. Correction: I am meaning that our relationship is priority, exclusive to all others.
> She isn't willing or able to do that, however, > and that's what's leading to the trouble in their marriage, NOT her daughter > (who is merely a symptom of the larger "disease"). Not directly, but her behavior in the home is creating a disruption which has an influential effect on my wife that encourages her to bail.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Nan - 13 Oct 2005 21:34 GMT >> >> Indeed. In cultures that place primacy on the parent-child >relationship, [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >Not directly, but her behavior in the home is creating a disruption which >has an influential effect on my wife that encourages her to bail. You know, I'm going to toss out an idea for you. Perhaps if you were more understanding and supportive of her desire to help her daughter she'd be more willing to be open to your wants and needs. Chances are she knows you don't like her daughter, and when her daughter "misbehaves" it stresses her even more because she knows how deeply you already disapprove.
Nan
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 07:16 GMT > >> >> Indeed. In cultures that place primacy on the parent-child > >relationship, [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > "misbehaves" it stresses her even more because she knows how deeply > you already disapprove. Thank you for your input.
> Nan Circe - 13 Oct 2005 21:36 GMT >> But when the OP talks about the spousal relationship coming first, he's >> using language that's "codespeak" for traditional patriarchal views of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > all > others. I don't need that correction, thanks. I know what you mean. It still all boils down to her doing what YOU think is best for your relationship (in this case, kicking out her pregnant daughter with the possibe result of severing her bonds with her only child and future grandchild). The fact that this solution to the problem is unacceptable to her doesn't seem to have deterred you from continuing to push it, rather than looking for alternatives (of which MANY have been offered you by posters here).
>> She isn't willing or able to do that, however, >> and that's what's leading to the trouble in their marriage, NOT her >> daughter (who is merely a symptom of the larger "disease"). > > Not directly, but her behavior in the home is creating a disruption which > has an influential effect on my wife that encourages her to bail. So you believe. But remember, your wife raised this disruptive child who is influencing your wife in ways you think are negative. Perhaps this is more of a two-way street than you'd like to think... -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 08:38 GMT > >> But when the OP talks about the spousal relationship coming first, he's > >> using language that's "codespeak" for traditional patriarchal views of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > this case, kicking out her pregnant daughter with the possibe result of > severing her bonds with her only child and future grandchild). Not my claim and not her only child.
> The fact that > this solution to the problem is unacceptable to her doesn't seem to have > deterred you from continuing to push it, rather than looking for > alternatives (of which MANY have been offered you by posters here). The only alternative to not allowing her daughter to disrupt our home is to allow her to disrupt our home. You are correct, I am uninterested in the alternative.
> >> She isn't willing or able to do that, however, > >> and that's what's leading to the trouble in their marriage, NOT her [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > influencing your wife in ways you think are negative. Perhaps this is more > of a two-way street than you'd like to think... Never claimed that my wife bore no responsibility.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 14 Oct 2005 17:08 GMT >> >> But when the OP talks about the spousal relationship coming first, >> >> he's [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Not my claim and not her only child. Ah, the plot thickens. How's the OTHER child who is not a member of your family turning out?
>> The fact that >> this solution to the problem is unacceptable to her doesn't seem to have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > allow her to disrupt our home. You are correct, I am uninterested in the > alternative. There ARE alternatives. You just keep putting your fingers in your ears and singing loudly to yourself whenever anyone suggests something that isn't EXACTLY what you want.
>> >> She isn't willing or able to do that, however, >> >> and that's what's leading to the trouble in their marriage, NOT her [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Never claimed that my wife bore no responsibility. The fact that you think your wife's behavior will change if her daughter moves out is evidence that you think it's mostly (if not entirely) the daughter's fault. You're so focussed on the trees, you can't see the forest... -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 15 Oct 2005 05:58 GMT > >> >> But when the OP talks about the spousal relationship coming first, > >> >> he's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Ah, the plot thickens. How's the OTHER child who is not a member of your > family turning out? Turned out just fine; what little I know about her.
> >> The fact that > >> this solution to the problem is unacceptable to her doesn't seem to have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > singing loudly to yourself whenever anyone suggests something that isn't > EXACTLY what you want. Call the third option to the above alternatives.
> >> >> She isn't willing or able to do that, however, > >> >> and that's what's leading to the trouble in their marriage, NOT her [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > daughter's fault. You're so focussed on the trees, you can't see the > forest... Your claim is inaccurate. I do not talk about "fault". I will, however speak about cause and effect. I have never proclaimed that my wife's behavior will change if her daughter leaves.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Circe - 15 Oct 2005 17:25 GMT >> >> I don't need that correction, thanks. I know what you mean. It still >> >> all boils down to her doing what YOU think is best for your [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Turned out just fine; what little I know about her. Seems like I know more about my grown nieces and nephews by marriage than you know about the daughter of the woman you married. That's so shocking, I'm speechless.
>> >> The fact that >> >> this solution to the problem is unacceptable to her doesn't seem to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Call the third option to the above alternatives. Well, you could start by trying not to demonize your stepdaughter and have an open, honest discussion with her and your wife (and perhaps the baby's father) to determine what the best, next step is. You say she wants to move out. Fine. Help her do that in a constructive way.
Unfortunately, your animus towards your stepdaughter and your inability to see her as an "equal" will probably prevent you from taking this step. Moreover, she knows you don't like her and the feeling is probably mutual. She has no desire to do anything YOU suggest because you've made yourself the enemy. Good job.
Still, there are residential options for unwed mothers, and if you can get your wife to consider alternatives to her living at home indefinitely that don't include simply tossing her out on her ear, you might have a chance. You DO have options. You just don't want to explore them. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 16 Oct 2005 05:21 GMT > >> >> I don't need that correction, thanks. I know what you mean. It still > >> >> all boils down to her doing what YOU think is best for your [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > father) to determine what the best, next step is. You say she wants to move > out. Fine. Help her do that in a constructive way. I got the truck all ready. And I will even spring for the gas (yup, even with these high prices!).
> Unfortunately, your animus towards your stepdaughter and your inability to > see her as an "equal" will probably prevent you from taking this step. I am unable to see that which does not exist.
> Moreover, she knows you don't like her and the feeling is probably mutual. > She has no desire to do anything YOU suggest because you've made yourself > the enemy. Good job. In case you were not aware, I was enemy #1 the day she laid eyes on me! Care to wager a guess?
> Still, there are residential options for unwed mothers, and if you can get > your wife to consider alternatives to her living at home indefinitely that > don't include simply tossing her out on her ear, you might have a chance. > You DO have options. You just don't want to explore them. My wife has begun to check out various programs. Bear in mind, NOBODY is tossing anyone out. Let me make it clear: here are the rules, and there's the door.... your choice.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Jamie Clark - 11 Oct 2005 23:01 GMT <Snip>
>> But what don't you get about the fact that when >> you start with a child who has serious problems, just [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > survive, or I prevent all pending damage to it with a much greater chance > that it will fail. Not a very good choice, huh. Not all problems can be fixed. You chose to marry a weak woman who didn't do a good job of parenting her child. Your wife isn't going to change. She is who she is. Maybe you specifically picked her because she is weak, and you wanted to control her. And maybe she specifically chose you because you are strong, and she was hoping you could fix her dysfunctional life. Regardless, you knew the situation when you asked her to marry you. If you wanted an easy road, you chose the wrong path. You can't chose a woman with baggage and then complain when you get tired of shouldering it.
You've never said how long you've been in this marriage, but to blindly assume that the step-daughter would be out of the house and your life when she turned 18 was silly, even if your wife agreed. I'm guessing you don't have any kids. Parents are parents for the life of their child -- it doesn't end when they turn 18, even if they are great kids, model children, straight A students, etc. You chose to marry a women with a child, and that means you have to deal with the consequences of that for as long as you are married to her mother.
As I said, you may be stuck between a rock and a hard place. You have very little control over this mess.
>> It takes >> more than that, and perhaps more than you or your wife [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > solution > for my stepdaughter, rather for my marriage. Well, the sanctity of marriage may trump the daughters issue FOR YOU, but I'm guessing that your wife's priority list is slightly different than yours. Your wife has been married to you for a few years, but she's had her daughter for 17, and I'm betting that she places her relationship with her daughter as a higher priority than her relationship with her current or newest husband. You may or may not always be her husband, but her daughter will always be her daughter. This would be a different story if you were the original husband and father of the daughter, but you aren't. You are a johnny-come-lately, and you can't expect to have the same status in her life as her daughter.
I don't know all the details, and can't get a clear picture from this thread. Have you looked into Tough Love? Of course, if your wife isn't on board, it won't matter or help, but it's a thought. If you and your wife cannot agree on what to do about her daughter, then you are going to have problems in your marriage.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 03:44 GMT I read your entire post and see a lot of truth in it. Thank you. Now I will respond below.
> <Snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > assume that the step-daughter would be out of the house and your life when > she turned 18 was silly, even if your wife agreed. Guess I was duped.
> I'm guessing you don't > have any kids. Parents are parents for the life of their child -- it > doesn't end when they turn 18, even if they are great kids, model children, > straight A students, etc. You chose to marry a women with a child, and that > means you have to deal with the consequences of that for as long as you are > married to her mother. Indeed I am.
> As I said, you may be stuck between a rock and a hard place. You have very > little control over this mess. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > johnny-come-lately, and you can't expect to have the same status in her life > as her daughter. To understand you correctly, my wife's daughter is number one in her life while I take second place, even though my wife is number ONE in my life?
> I don't know all the details, and can't get a clear picture from this > thread. Have you looked into Tough Love? Of course, if your wife isn't on
> board, it won't matter or help, but it's a thought. She's not. Heard of it and recommended it to my wife, but she simply drags her feet. I am of the opinion that my solution is tantamount to tough love. Mother is not interested in anything that might make her daughter uncomfortable. She is afraid of losing her daughter. What the heck do you call it then when her daughter decides to be independent (in benefits only) and start her own family? (for the record: Her daughter has made it clear that she can not wait to get out of here)
> If you and your wife > cannot agree on what to do about her daughter, then you are going to have > problems in your marriage. Let's not lose sight of the fact that much has changed recently. Her daughter is no longer her dependent child (as of early next month). As one poster said, it looks as if my wife is going to have to choose who she is married to.
Ericka Kammerer - 12 Oct 2005 04:18 GMT >>I don't know all the details, and can't get a clear picture from this >>thread. Have you looked into Tough Love? Of course, if your wife isn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > She's not. Heard of it and recommended it to my wife, but she simply drags > her feet. I am of the opinion that my solution is tantamount to tough love. No, it's not. Every Tough Love program I'm aware of involves: careful identification of problems (including screening for psychiatric and other medical issues), a highly structured and supportive environment (including serious emphasis on skills training), work on the *entire* family (not just the person "in trouble"), and other areas that I don't see any evidence that you have proposed. Residential programs of various sorts are often a centerpiece of a Tough Love approach. TL is *NOT* just a "my way or the highway" approach.
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 19:57 GMT > >>I don't know all the details, and can't get a clear picture from this > >>thread. Have you looked into Tough Love? Of course, if your wife isn't [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > centerpiece of a Tough Love approach. TL is *NOT* > just a "my way or the highway" approach. Then perhaps I have a skewed perspective on it. I have seen a fair amount of documentary on the subject, and all of it hinged on not being blackmailed by the child. If that aint' "my way or the highway", it certainly is a close relative of it. Once again, she is no longer a dependent little girl, rather she is an INDEPENDENT WOMAN.
> Best wishes, > Ericka Jamie Clark - 12 Oct 2005 06:56 GMT >I read your entire post and see a lot of truth in it. Thank you. Now I will > respond below. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Guess I was duped. Naive, perhaps. It was an unrealistic promise made by your wife, perhaps at your request, I don't know. If it was your stipulation before you married, it was an unrealistic one, that your wife may have felt pressured to agree to. Either which way, not a very stable and good foundation for a strong and healthy marriage.
>> I'm guessing you don't >> have any kids. Parents are parents for the life of their child -- it [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > To understand you correctly, my wife's daughter is number one in her life > while I take second place, even though my wife is number ONE in my life? Yes. With time, that may change. But right now, it is what it is.
>> I don't know all the details, and can't get a clear picture from this >> thread. Have you looked into Tough Love? Of course, if your wife isn't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and start her own family? (for the record: Her daughter has made it clear > that she can not wait to get out of here) The daughter sounds a like a typical teenager to me, in many ways. Dying to get out, and yet afriad of the consequences and responsiblities. "I want to be a functioning adult and make all my own decisions without negative consequences, but could you still pay my rent and buy my food?" Heck, I was there 20 something years ago. Growing up and becoming an adult is a process that does not happen over night.
As I said before, you are in a tough position because in the end, it is your wife's daughter, and regardless of what you think is best or right, your wife is going to do what she wants to do in this situation, which may likely be the easy road that she has travelled before, which is part of how you got here. You have no control or power. You can talk to your wife until you are blue in the face, but if she doesn't want to do it your way, regardless of whether or not your way is the right way, then she won't. It's hard to break a lifetime of bad parenting habits. I would not be surprised if your wife is ultimately weak and choses the easy route in this situation, which in the short run makes her daughter happy, but in the long run does her no service. I don't know that your wife has a spine, and I don't know if she can grow one in the next few months. Maybe, miracles do happen.
What, exactly, does your wife propose? How does she think this situation should be handled?
>> If you and your wife >> cannot agree on what to do about her daughter, then you are going to have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > poster said, it looks as if my wife is going to have to choose who she is > married to. 18 or not, she's still emotionally dependant and tied to her mother. That isn't going to change from Tuesday to Wednesday.
And you are going to have to make some decisions too. Everything has consequences. That's life. Do you love this flawed dysfunctional woman and her daughter enough to weather out this storm, or not? It's up to you.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 19:40 GMT > >I read your entire post and see a lot of truth in it. Thank you. Now I will > > respond below. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > to. Either which way, not a very stable and good foundation for a strong > and healthy marriage. Not my request or stipulation, and she is the one who initiated it in a positive tone.
> >> I'm guessing you don't > >> have any kids. Parents are parents for the life of their child -- it [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Yes. With time, that may change. But right now, it is what it is. That being the case, she either does not understand the concept of marriage or she is choosing to not fulfill her marital obligation.
> >> I don't know all the details, and can't get a clear picture from this > >> thread. Have you looked into Tough Love? Of course, if your wife isn't [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > What, exactly, does your wife propose? How does she think this situation > should be handled? To her credit she IS doing all the government things (welfare) and claims that she is trying her best to get her daughter financially independent. However, although she informs me that daughter will be out shortly, she also covers herself by saying "and if she is not ready at that time, then we will deal with it then". Talk about revise and extend. That's something I would expect from a politician..... NOT my wife.
> >> If you and your wife > >> cannot agree on what to do about her daughter, then you are going to have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 18 or not, she's still emotionally dependant and tied to her mother. That > isn't going to change from Tuesday to Wednesday. I don't object to her emotional dependency. What I object to is her daughter causing disruption in my home! Once again, just this morning, I was verbally assaulted by my wife related to a problem created SOLELY by her daughter.
> And you are going to have to make some decisions too. Everything has > consequences. That's life. Do you love this flawed dysfunctional woman and > her daughter enough to weather out this storm, or not? It's up to you. I love my wife enough to weather it out. The fact that I have never used the "D" word ought to give me at least SOME credibility.
Jamie Clark - 13 Oct 2005 03:54 GMT >> >I read your entire post and see a lot of truth in it. Thank you. Now I > will [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > Not my request or stipulation, and she is the one who initiated it in a > positive tone. Well then perhaps your marriage was based on fraud, and you could have it annuled.
>> >> I'm guessing you don't >> >> have any kids. Parents are parents for the life of their child -- it [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > marriage > or she is choosing to not fulfill her marital obligation. Or she has assessed both issues -- the rocky marriage to a functioning adult, and the crisis that her minor unprepared daughter is in, and deemed that the daughters situation is a higher priority and she has bigger moral obligation to deal with it. Clearly, her daughter is still in need of parenting, and as the sole parent to this child, she is going to continue to try to help her as best she can.
>> >> I don't know all the details, and can't get a clear picture from this >> >> thread. Have you looked into Tough Love? Of course, if your wife [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > deal with it then". Talk about revise and extend. That's something I would > expect from a politician..... NOT my wife. Your wife is being pretty reasonable and flexible. She has a plan to eventually get the girl out, just not on the morning of her 18th birthday. You do not sound flexible. I think your expectations are unrealistic, which is causing strife in your marriage.
>> >> If you and your wife >> >> cannot agree on what to do about her daughter, then you are going to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > verbally > assaulted by my wife related to a problem created SOLELY by her daughter. Then again, your problems are with your wife. That you cannot calmly communicate with each other is not a good sign for your marriage. That she is verbally abusing you is not a good sign for your marriage. Her daughter didn't hold a gun to her head and make her yell at you. She did that of her own free will.
>> And you are going to have to make some decisions too. Everything has >> consequences. That's life. Do you love this flawed dysfunctional woman [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the > "D" word ought to give me at least SOME credibility. Only time will tell. I agree with another poster, in that you might need to assist your wife in getting her daughter ready to leave your home on some reasonable terms. Your wife will appreciate your emotional support and it will strengthen your marriage. If you really are in this marriage for the long haul, what is 6 months in the scheme of things. Not much.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 18:51 GMT > >> >I read your entire post and see a lot of truth in it. Thank you. Now I > > will [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > Well then perhaps your marriage was based on fraud, and you could have it > annuled. Been too long, legally. Thank you for the advice, but in spite of the troubles I am a firm believer in the covenant.
> >> >> I'm guessing you don't > >> >> have any kids. Parents are parents for the life of their child -- it [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > that the daughters situation is a higher priority and she has bigger moral > obligation to deal with it. Not exclusive to my above dilemma.
> Clearly, her daughter is still in need of > parenting, and as the sole parent to this child, she is going to continue to > try to help her as best she can. Clearly, such "parenting" will only further her demise. What she needs is to feel the sting of her own life choices, and so long as mother is there to soften the blows, she aint' NEVER gonna learn!
> >> >> I don't know all the details, and can't get a clear picture from this > >> >> thread. Have you looked into Tough Love? Of course, if your wife [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > You do not sound flexible. I think your expectations are unrealistic, which > is causing strife in your marriage. Let me put it this way. Even with my inflexible attitude, things will be far from the way I desire. How much more so if I was flexible!
> >> >> If you and your wife > >> >> cannot agree on what to do about her daughter, then you are going to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Then again, your problems are with your wife. Bingo.
> That you cannot calmly > communicate with each other is not a good sign for your marriage. That she > is verbally abusing you is not a good sign for your marriage. Her daughter > didn't hold a gun to her head and make her yell at you. She did that of her > own free will. That is correct. However, if her daughter did not bring such chaos into the home, her mother would not have yelled at me regarding that issue. In other words, daughter's problems are influencing her mother.
> >> And you are going to have to make some decisions too. Everything has > >> consequences. That's life. Do you love this flawed dysfunctional woman [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > will strengthen your marriage. If you really are in this marriage for the > long haul, what is 6 months in the scheme of things. Not much. Six months of disruption to our home and family which may motivate my wife to end our marriage. Not to mention, freeloaders are not welcome in my home; especially disruptive rule breaking freeloaders.
Nikki - 12 Oct 2005 15:41 GMT > She's not. Heard of it and recommended it to my wife, but she simply > drags her feet. I am of the opinion that my solution is tantamount to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > record: Her daughter has made it clear that she can not wait to get > out of here) This is a problem. Is your wife open to counseling? Not marriage counseling but for herself. She needs to be strong right now for herself, her marriage, and her daughter.
 Signature Nikki Hunter 4/99 Luke 4/01 EDD 4/06
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 19:28 GMT > > She's not. Heard of it and recommended it to my wife, but she simply > > drags her feet. I am of the opinion that my solution is tantamount to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > counseling but for herself. She needs to be strong right now for herself, > her marriage, and her daughter. Yes she is open to counseling. In fact she has requested it, but marriage counseling is what she asked for. She has had single counseling before, so she most likely will be open to it again. Problem with counseling though is that it is worthless if you don't put it into practice. Something not foreign around here.
Ericka Kammerer - 11 Oct 2005 23:45 GMT >>To parent your daughter. To support your wife. >>To find a way for people (besides just yourself) to come >>out of this mess whole. > > My guess is the completion of your above statement is more like "support > your wife in whatever she desires". No, but I do believe that you should have some respect for your wife's relationship with her daughter.
> Also, I HAVE parented my STEPdaughter to > the maximum allowed by her, her mother, and the law. The very few parenting > tools previously afforded to me have now been removed. The guns of the law > are just a wee bit bigger than mine. I don't buy it. As far as I can tell, the only thing you've done besides tell her what to do and how to do it is offer her counseling and take "no" for an answer. I don't buy that that's all you and your wife could have done in the past several years.
> I have a STEPdaughter. There is a difference. Not in terms of what you owe her, there isn't. The only difference is that it is challenging to walk into a situation that was messed up before you got there, but once you elect to marry the mother, she's your daughter in every reasonable sense of the word, in my book.
> In my mind, when one achieves adulthood, they have already been raised. > Regardless of how excellent or lousy the job. Where do you draw the line? Not at barely 18, that's for sure. There comes a time when you can't realistically do any more, but given how little you've accomplished and the fact that she's not even yet into her legal majority, I think you've got a long way to go before you've earned the right to wash your hands of her.
> Her daughter already has a father, and THAT is where the responsibility > rests. My responsibility to a stepchild goes no further than my > responsibility to anyone else under my roof; to see to their general welfare > and to treat them humanely while they are welcome in my home. I think you're dead wrong, and that this attitude is *precisely* the problem and that it is contributing to your daughter's problems and your lack of ability (and willingness) to find effective solutions.
> How is attempting to protect one's family selfish? It's selfish when you define "family" in a way that excludes your daughter.
> I mentioned a rather lengthy yet partial list in another thread. Maybe you > did not read it. Anyway, I have sat down with her on occasion and advised > her on various issues also explaining WHY she should heed my advice. Just > curious, is it your position that my home is or ought to be a democracy? No, my position is that you have a responsibility to be an effective father and that you have completely abrogated that responsibility and don't even feel ashamed to have done so.
> We (wife and I) have offered both licensed secular and spiritual counselors > and the answer was "no dice". And you took "no" for an answer years ago when she was still well under the age of majority...why?
> It will fix MY problem. There we go with the selfishness again.
> We seem to have gotten off track from the original > issue of protecting my family. She *is* your family by any reasonable definition.
> We can talk about fixing HER problems, but > that is not the same as my immediate family problems. I guess you might say > that I am in a dilemma of sorts. Either I accept a guaranteed undetermined > amount of damage to my marriage with a moderate chance that it will not > survive, or I prevent all pending damage to it with a much greater chance > that it will fail. Not a very good choice, huh. It's a false dilemma. The only thing that prevents you from finding the middle road is your stubborn refusal to see this girl as part of your family, or, if you heart can't stretch that far, to see her as part of your *wife's* family and therefore recognize your responsibility to help your wife discharge *her* responsibilities. No one has said you have to allow her to trample willy nilly through your life. She obviously needed some boundaries a long, long time ago. Even parents of toddlers get that just telling kids what to do isn't enough. You have to be prepared to enforce boundaries in a way that fosters the child's growth, responsibility, and maturity. You and your wife didn't choose to do that previously and it landed you (and a child who deserved better of you both) in this situation, and you refuse to acknowledge your responsibility to do so now. This girl needs *real* help, not just your laying down the law.
> That's correct. Now that she is an adult, who makes adult choices, she ought > to be held accountable for her choices regardless of any "shoehorn". Let's > not forget that the door is always open and she is free to say "adaaaaayos". No, she's not making adult choices. The decisions of the adults who should have had her welfare in mind (note: those would include you and your wife) have helped her get to a point where she is clearly not capable of making mature, responsible, adult decisions.
>>From a girl with a troubled background who isn't >>getting the help she needs, yes, it's a very tall order. > > Not so good for her then. But the sanctity of my marriage trumps her issues. And here we get to the heart of the issue, and it's a load of BS. Doing right by this child will *strengthen* your marriage, not weaken it. So really, it just boils down to your being tired of dealing with it and looking to her 18th birthday as a good excuse to stop trying.
> Call me "mean" if you like, Actually, I'd go for immature and irresponsible. Hmmm...wonder where your daughter got some of her attitude...
> but I am a firm believer that sticking to > priorities is all that counts. And in this situation my marriage comes > first. That is why I posted here in the first place; not to find a solution > for my stepdaughter, rather for my marriage. And people have told you loud and clear that the solution for your marriage is to be a man and a leader and find the help this child needs.
> I am beginning to wonder if I am in the wrong group. Perhaps a group with > the word "marriage" might be more in line. In my anxiety, I seeked a group > that seemed most appropriate to the issue. But it is starting to look as if > this is a "pro-child" or "children come first" group. I think that most of the folks here have a very healthy emphasis on taking care of their marriages as well as their children. Some of us have been at it significantly longer than you have (and with more success, apparently).
> Untrue. I had every right to establish a covenant with my wife. Last I > checked, I never said "till death do us part" to her daughter. Even my wife > agrees that a stepfather is not a "father" unless the child claims him as > such. Now I suppose that I am also responsible for her daughter's claim too? Your wife is just as wrong as you are, and her abandonment of *her* responsibility to protect and provide for her daughter is also clearly a part of this problem.
>>So, while she was yet a minor and you and your wife >>had the ability to make some of these decisions for her, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Actually, let me take a shot at the mother's reason. In one word........... > blackmail. She fears losing her daughter and the daughter knows it! So, were you offering her the same counseling you and your wife are getting? Because clearly it isn't working for the two of you if you're both still incapable of effecting some positive changes in this situation and your wife is still subject to childish blackmail. And while there are some limits to what you can do, I do not believe for a minute that you exhausted every opportunity. I'll bet you could have even found cause for inpatient help, if need be. If nothing else, the first pregnancy should have provided a foundation for getting some more substantial help.
>>but >>when you decided to marry her mother, she became part of your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I WAS up to the task and provided what I thought best. Which clearly wasn't an effective approach.
> No doubt I made > mistakes, but in no way does that justify an assault on my marriage. It's only an assault on your marriage if you choose to make it one. Working together with your wife to find some effective help for this girl should not have any sort of negative impact on your marriage. I assume you would both like her to be in a better situation. Now, you may have a problem with your relationship with your wife (hint: that would be a problem in *your family* even by your definitions) if the two of you can't agree on how to help this girl. Obviously, that's been a problem for many years (and what a crying shame it is that your daughter has suffered because the two of you can't get it together). Here's a clue: obviously, *neither* you *nor* your wife has a good bead on how to help this situation effectively. So, what expertise have you sought out to help you and your wife figure out a way to help your daughter? Or did you figure that once your daughter refused counselling, you'd given it your best shot?
> Forgive me for the following dumb question: When it comes to responsibility > for her, where is she, where is her "husband", where is her mother, and > where is her father? However did the spotlight turn on me? Because you're here asking the question. If everyone else gives up on her, all that means is that the need for *someone* in her life to step up to the plate is that much more urgent. Sometimes it takes a hero.
>>>>Did it ever occur to you that this >>>>girl may be so desperately unhappy with what should be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Her father sees her maybe once a year and her mother treats her like a peer > or an equal. And you? What's your excuse?
>>Nope. Just because you want to claim you >>have no responsibility for her doesn't make it wash [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Even so, her daughter was troubled long before I came around So? You elected to marry the mother, and in doing so, you assumed those same responsibilities.
> and now she is > an adult. During that time, it was illegal for me to be a parent in the > sense of what a parent ought to be. If you are going to cry "ridiculous", > please ask me for examples first. Okay, do pony up those examples.
> The counseling was primarily marriage counseling. Any effective tools for > the daughter situation were secondary. Of course. The daughter is secondary according to your wife. The daughter is secondary according to her father. The daughter is secondary according to you. See a pattern here? Betcha she's secondary to the father of her baby as well. Color me surprised. Everyone has bailed on this girl, and no one seems interested in doing anything, except maybe your wife, who clearly doesn't seem to have the skills to do a decent job of it (nor do you, before you get too puffed up over that).
>>It seems to me that you are ill-equipped >>to do this well. Certainly if one evaluates based on >>results, you have failed to provide adequate help. > > All these posts telling me that it is MY responsibility to help the daughter > and now suddenly I am incapable of doing so? What's the deal? It is your responsibility to have gotten the job done, whether it was within your capabilities as an individual or whether you had to get additional help to make it happen. I'm pretty sure that when it came to putting a roof over your family's head, you didn't let the fact that you're probably not in construction stop you from finding a way to get that roof. If helping this girl exceeded your individual capabilities, then get help.
>>>>Maybe your wife needs >>>>to find a way to help fix what she (and likely you) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So I didn't help break her. So? You know, mature adults don't run around pointing fingers and screeching "I didn't do it!" like a little kid. Mature adults get the job done.
>>So, when is she going to get some adults who >>are willing to step up to the plate and do right by >>her? Doesn't she deserve some? > > Whether or not she deserves some I cannot say. But she has at least one > right now. Oh, please. The odds of that are slim and none. You'd have to have your head stuck in the sand to believe that.
> I can live with myself just fine as I have fulfilled my obligations. If her > adult daughter and she choose to spiral out of control, then that is their > choice. Remember, just like me, they too are capable of making their own > life choices. Ever notice how no one ever tells me that someone else is > responsible for my choice? I might stand corrected, but it seems that Iam > responsible for not only my own choices but also for the choices of others. You still don't get it. You're just being petty. No one is talking about others' responsibilities because the others aren't here and because it's irrelevant anyway. You are responsible for doing what *YOU* can do, no more and no less. Life ain't fair. Being a parent often means you have to fix messes you didn't create. Actually, being a decent human being means you have to do that sometimes. But you know what? In this case you *DID* help create the problem (and you sure didn't help fix it effectively). So even by your "you break it, you own it" standards, you have a responsibility here.
>>Sure, that'll be part of it. But when might it >>occur to you that a lack of improvement just *might* be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > responsible for her OWN actions, regardless of what we did or did not do for > her. Ah, there's the ultimate cop-out. You can just screw around until the magic age of 18 and then you get a "get of of jail free" card? I don't think so.
>>You want her to learn from >>consequences, but as you see the consequences of your >>actions, your response is to pass the buck? > > Excuse me? What buck might you be talking about? The buck where you had some responsibility to effectively parent this child over the years.
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 17:27 GMT > >>To parent your daughter. To support your wife. > >>To find a way for people (besides just yourself) to come [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, but I do believe that you should have some respect > for your wife's relationship with her daughter. I DO! That's why I don't interfere. But I must say that I resent her daughter's lack of respect for her mother.
> > Also, I HAVE parented my STEPdaughter to > > the maximum allowed by her, her mother, and the law. The very few parenting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that that's all you and your wife could have done in the past > several years. My wife does not have nearly as many constraints as I do. Thus she could have done far MORE than she actually did, and far more than I. I am not willing to lay out my life history with her daughter. I did what I could, and that you don't buy it makes it no less true.
> > I have a STEPdaughter. There is a difference. > > Not in terms of what you owe her, there isn't. I owe her NOTHING. In fact, in a very recent discussion with her regarding the current situation, I asked the question; and guess what her answer was.
> The only difference is that it is challenging to walk > into a situation that was messed up before you got there, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not at barely 18, that's for sure. Then WHEN, for sure?
> There comes a > time when you can't realistically do any more, but given > how little you've accomplished and the fact that she's > not even yet into her legal majority, I think you've got > a long way to go before you've earned the right to wash > your hands of her. Non sequitur.
> > Her daughter already has a father, and THAT is where the responsibility > > rests. My responsibility to a stepchild goes no further than my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > your daughter's problems and your lack of ability (and > willingness) to find effective solutions. Uhuh, guess my attitude got her knocked up. With all due respect, are you for real?
> > How is attempting to protect one's family selfish? > > It's selfish when you define "family" in a > way that excludes your daughter. She excluded herself. Tell you what, let me heap my troubles onto the father of her child and see how quickly he tells me to go pack sand; and rightfully so.
> > I mentioned a rather lengthy yet partial list in another thread. Maybe you > > did not read it. Anyway, I have sat down with her on occasion and advised [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that responsibility and don't even feel ashamed to have done > so. By what evidence do you incorporate such conclusion?
> > We (wife and I) have offered both licensed secular and spiritual counselors > > and the answer was "no dice". > > And you took "no" for an answer years ago when she > was still well under the age of majority...why? Actually, not that long ago. To answer your question, why not? We BOTH learned that it is considered "child abuse" to drag a child into the car or to use physical force to make them do anything. Fortunately, we learned the easy way.
> > It will fix MY problem. > > There we go with the selfishness again. I'm sorry. "MY" as in my marriage (meaning wife and I).
> > We seem to have gotten off track from the original > > issue of protecting my family. > > She *is* your family by any reasonable definition. Not by this definition. To protect my family is to protect my marriage. Even going by YOUR definition, guess what, my marriage comes FIRST.
> > We can talk about fixing HER problems, but > > that is not the same as my immediate family problems. I guess you might say [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you from finding the middle road is your stubborn refusal > to see this girl as part of your family, Sorry, but she doesn't see me as part of HER family. According to my wife, a child must recognize a man as their father BEFORE he can be identified as such. Go argue with her!
> or, if you heart > can't stretch that far, to see her as part of your *wife's* > family and therefore recognize your responsibility to help > your wife discharge *her* responsibilities. About the only thing that needs to be "discharged" at this point is her daughter from our home.
> No one has said you have to allow her to trample > willy nilly through your life. She obviously needed some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in this situation, and you refuse to acknowledge your > responsibility to do so now. That last statement is riddled with false claims. Boundaries? It was her mother that fought me all the way over boundaries. You should know enough about me to realize that "boundaries" is my second name. I think that is one thing that most of the other readers would agree with me on. The child deserved NOTHING from me. I had no debt to her child when I entered the marriage, and I have no debt to her now. I TOTALLY acknowledge my responsibility to set the boundaries that you speak of. I tried but my efforts were thwarted every time. You cannot imagine how many times the "D" word (divorce) was brought up by my wife (such threat, by the way, condemned by our counselors) when I suggested any kind of boundary. Not to mention, most boundaries are illegal to enforce!
> This girl needs *real* help, not just your > laying down the law. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, she's not making adult choices. "I choose to have a baby". "I choose to drink alcoholic beverages". "I choose to stay out all night and answer to no one". "I choose my own diet". "I choose my own entertainment". "I choose my own time schedule". "I choose my own healthcare". "I choose to not go to school". "I choose who I will socialize with"
You're right, she's making children's choices.
> The decisions > of the adults who should have had her welfare in mind (note: > those would include you and your wife) have helped her get > to a point where she is clearly not capable of making mature, > responsible, adult decisions. Precisely how did I help her get there?
> >>From a girl with a troubled background who isn't > >>getting the help she needs, yes, it's a very tall order. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to your being tired of dealing with it and looking to her > 18th birthday as a good excuse to stop trying. No, it boils down to me not being party to her escaping personal responsibility for her own actions. Her 18th birthday ought to be a wakeup call that she can no longer stake claim to my home against my wishes. In other words, disruption of the home will no longer be tolerated. And THAT is doing right by the "child".
> > Call me "mean" if you like, > > Actually, I'd go for immature and irresponsible. > Hmmm...wonder where your daughter got some of her attitude... Not even close. First, she is not my daughter. Secondly, she was this way LONG before she even knew that I existed. And finally, immaturity and irresponsibility are the trademarks af any child. Three strikes, but nice try.
> > but I am a firm believer that sticking to > > priorities is all that counts. And in this situation my marriage comes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for your marriage is to be a man and a leader and find the > help this child needs. Can't. I am too overwhelmed with my marriage problems to afford any more efforts to her child. Even if I DID continue to offer her child help, she most likely will continue to resist it. Ever get worn out?
> > I am beginning to wonder if I am in the wrong group. Perhaps a group with > > the word "marriage" might be more in line. In my anxiety, I seeked a group [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > abandonment of *her* responsibility to protect and provide > for her daughter is also clearly a part of this problem. More like it IS the problem. As I have repeatedly stated, her child was troubled LONG before I came around.
> >>So, while she was yet a minor and you and your wife > >>had the ability to make some of these decisions for her, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > effecting some positive changes in this situation and your > wife is still subject to childish blackmail. Bear in mind that we went to "marriage" counseling. Even so, we still got sound advice on how to deal with life issues in general. The counsel was proper; it's just a matter of putting it into practice, and I am still striving to stay focused on MY duties in this.
> And > while there are some limits to what you can do, I do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the first pregnancy should have provided a foundation > for getting some more substantial help. Will you be more specific?
> >>but > >>when you decided to marry her mother, she became part of your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Which clearly wasn't an effective approach. Maybe so.
> > No doubt I made > > mistakes, but in no way does that justify an assault on my marriage. > > It's only an assault on your marriage if you choose > to make it one. I am making reference to her daughter continuing to disrupt our home.
> Working together with your wife to find > some effective help for this girl should not have any [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > did you figure that once your daughter refused counselling, > you'd given it your best shot? I figured that after a multitude of times, through the years, of her refusing any help I offer that I am simply wasting valuable time.
> > Forgive me for the following dumb question: When it comes to responsibility > > for her, where is she, where is her "husband", where is her mother, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > plate is that much more urgent. Sometimes it takes > a hero. Thank you for the encouragement. Care to step up to the plate yourself?
> >>>>Did it ever occur to you that this > >>>>girl may be so desperately unhappy with what should be [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > And you? What's your excuse? For trying to help her change her lifestyle by counsel as well as a multitude of other efforts? Guess I have no excuse.
> >>Nope. Just because you want to claim you > >>have no responsibility for her doesn't make it wash [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So? You elected to marry the mother, and in > doing so, you assumed those same responsibilities. I was not even allowed to be "responsible" because the mother did not allow it. Again, I did NOT marry her daughter; I married her. Any such assumed responsibility is to my marriage.
> > and now she is > > an adult. During that time, it was illegal for me to be a parent in the > > sense of what a parent ought to be. If you are going to cry "ridiculous", > > please ask me for examples first. > > Okay, do pony up those examples. Illegal for me to physically prevent her from bringing outsiders into my home. Illegal for me to physically ground her. Illegal for me to discuss anything related to her promiscuity (sexual harassment/molestation). Illegal for me to be entitled to her medical records. Illegal for me to prevent/force her medical care. Illegal for me to force her to a spiritual institution. Illegal for me to force her into pro-counseling. Illegal for me to drag her home when she is inviolation of curfew law. As a matter of fact, it is because she violated curfew law that her mother is now in court. For the record: I offered to accompany her in court this morning for either testimony, emotional support, or any other kind of assistance, and my offer was declined. Pretty ridiculous my claim that it is illegal for me to do what a parent ought to do, huh.
> > The counseling was primarily marriage counseling. Any effective tools for > > the daughter situation were secondary. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > her father. The daughter is secondary according to you. > See a pattern here? I was making reference to the tools provided by the counselors.
> Betcha she's secondary to the > father of her baby as well. Color me surprised. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > decent job of it (nor do you, before you get too > puffed up over that). I haven't bailed on her; she bailed on me! What I HAVE bailed on though is her disruptive behavior; bailed in the sense that I reject it.
> >>It seems to me that you are ill-equipped > >>to do this well. Certainly if one evaluates based on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > individual or whether you had to get additional help > to make it happen. Rough translation: open your wallet.
> I'm pretty sure that when it came > to putting a roof over your family's head, you didn't > let the fact that you're probably not in construction > stop you from finding a way to get that roof. If > helping this girl exceeded your individual capabilities, > then get help. Once again, somehow this discussion has been hijacked to getting help for my wife's daughter. I did not come here for advice on making her daughter's life rosy; I came here to get suggestions on protecting my marriage. As I have said previously, if this is the wrong group, then maybe I need to seek another group.
> >>>>Maybe your wife needs > >>>>to find a way to help fix what she (and likely you) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pointing fingers and screeching "I didn't do it!" like > a little kid. Mature adults get the job done. Explain how a mature adult gets the job of making a horse drink water done.
> >>So, when is she going to get some adults who > >>are willing to step up to the plate and do right by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You'd have to have your head stuck in the sand to > believe that. The fact that Iam refusing to assist her in escaping the consequences of her sole choices is exactly stepping up to the plate and doing right by her. Perhaps you believe that ANY amount of pain not relieved by someone else is a derelect of duty; I don't.
> > I can live with myself just fine as I have fulfilled my obligations. If her > > adult daughter and she choose to spiral out of control, then that is their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You still don't get it. I guess I don't.
> You're just being petty. > No one is talking about others' responsibilities because [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > help create the problem (and you sure didn't help > fix it effectively). The fact that you proclaim that I helped her daughter roam the streets and get knocked up not once but TWICE takes the cake! For years I was DEAD AGAINST such behavior and let BOTH of them know it by no uncertain terms. The first time she got pregnant was when the molester climbed through her bedroom window in MY home! The window is now permanantly sealed shut. Your proclamation takes brass indeed.
> So even by your "you break it, > you own it" standards, you have a responsibility here. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > screw around until the magic age of 18 and then you get > a "get of of jail free" card? I don't think so. That's right. Stepdad is FOREVER responsible for the actions of his wife's adult daughter. Makes perfect sense to me.
> >>You want her to learn from > >>consequences, but as you see the consequences of your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The buck where you had some responsibility > to effectively parent this child over the years. Never had a responsibility. I had a very limited opportunity and took advantage every chance I got.
> Best wishes, > Ericka Circe - 12 Oct 2005 18:17 GMT > More like it IS the problem. As I have repeatedly stated, her child was > troubled LONG before I came around. And thus the burning question: Why did you think it was a good idea to marry a woman whose parenting skills were clearly lacking, whose child was seriously troubled before you came into the picture, and who was unwilling to allow you to have any meaningful input into raising that child? What did you extrapolate about your wife's character and values from looking at her relationship with her daughter that convinced you she would make a good life partner for YOU, given YOUR character and values?
I'm sorry to feel the need to say it, but I really think you made a poor choice in a marriage partner. Based on everything you have written thus far, you and your wife do not appear to be "a match". Your problems with your wife have almost nothing to do with your stepdaughter and nearly everything to do with the fact that the two of you do not share many core values and beliefs. You had the opportunity to SEE that before you married this woman, because the way she handled her daughter was a huge clue to the way she'd handle everything in life. Unfortunately, you apparently looked through the rose-colored glasses of love and ignored the warning signs.
None of this is to make either you or your wife the bad guy. You both apparently misjudged one another. I'm sorry. You have some difficult decisions to make. It's just that virtually none of those decisions have anything to do with your stepdaughter. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 04:22 GMT > > More like it IS the problem. As I have repeatedly stated, her child was > > troubled LONG before I came around. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > seriously troubled before you came into the picture, and who was unwilling > to allow you to have any meaningful input into raising that child? What did
> you extrapolate about your wife's character and values from looking at her > relationship with her daughter that convinced you she would make a good life > partner for YOU, given YOUR character and values? We recently attended her parents' 50th Anniversary. Need I say more?
> I'm sorry to feel the need to say it, but I really think you made a poor > choice in a marriage partner. Based on everything you have written thus far, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > handle everything in life. Unfortunately, you apparently looked through the > rose-colored glasses of love and ignored the warning signs. I probably did. But she is not without her virtues!
> None of this is to make either you or your wife the bad guy. You both > apparently misjudged one another. I'm sorry. You have some difficult > decisions to make. It's just that virtually none of those decisions have > anything to do with your stepdaughter. It seems the light is beginning to shine. As I have been saying all along, the issues concerning her daughter are secondary to our marriage issues. Get the marriage in line, then dealing with any children ought to be a piece of cake (relatively speaking). However, she holds the key, and her resentment of me posting here does not help. I may have my flaws, but marriage goes BOTH ways, and she has to make an effort as well.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Ericka Kammerer - 13 Oct 2005 14:13 GMT >>you extrapolate about your wife's character and values from looking at her >>relationship with her daughter that convinced you she would make a good >> life >>partner for YOU, given YOUR character and values? > > We recently attended her parents' 50th Anniversary. Need I say more? Apparently, you do, seeing as it's not working all that well! What makes you think that long-married parents guarantee that all their children will be successful in marriage? Lots of children of intact marriages go through divorce, particularly if they don't choose well. Your wife's relationship abilities are likely predicted *much* more by her previously failed marriage and her failed parenting relationship with her daughter than by her parents' marriage.
>>Unfortunately, you apparently looked through >> the >>rose-colored glasses of love and ignored the warning signs. > > I probably did. But she is not without her virtues! I'm sure she isn't (and neither is her daughter, likely).
>>None of this is to make either you or your wife the bad guy. You both >>apparently misjudged one another. I'm sorry. You have some difficult >>decisions to make. It's just that virtually none of those decisions have >>anything to do with your stepdaughter. > > It seems the light is beginning to shine. But not for you, yet ;-)
> As I have been saying all along, > the issues concerning her daughter are secondary to our marriage issues. No, they're part and parcel of your marriage issues. The same things that are causing your marriage issues are also creating problems with your daughter. You can't fix one without the other. They are inextricably bound up together. Your attempt to artificially separate them is also a significant part of the problem.
> Get > the marriage in line, then dealing with any children ought to be a piece of > cake (relatively speaking). Don't kid yourself. Without you and your wife being able to work together, you don't have a prayer of dealing with kids, but even if you do, it wouldn't be easy in your situation.
> However, she holds the key, and her resentment > of me posting here does not help. Do you not see that it could be construed as rather disrespectful to have aired these issues in a public forum without her consent? Moreover, you certainly haven't said the most complimentary things about her here (true or not) *and* the attitudes you've revealed here are not likely to be endearing to her either.
> I may have my flaws, but marriage goes > BOTH ways, and she has to make an effort as well. Sure, you can't single-handedly save a marriage when the other person is hell bent on destrying it. On the other hand, you can't crow about all you've done to save it when you remain actively complicit in creating issues (or refusing to deal with them).
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 23:20 GMT > >>you extrapolate about your wife's character and values from looking at her > >>relationship with her daughter that convinced you she would make a good [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > guarantee that all their children will be successful in > marriage? Not a guarantee, but the apple falls close to the tree.
> Lots of children of intact marriages go through > divorce, particularly if they don't choose well. Your > wife's relationship abilities are likely predicted *much* > more by her previously failed marriage and her failed > parenting relationship with her daughter than by her > parents' marriage. Her previous marriage was failed by HIM. And guess what, her parents "failed" in their parenting of my wife.
> >>Unfortunately, you apparently looked through > >> the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm sure she isn't (and neither is her daughter, > likely). Her daughter has some good qualities (in my mind) indeed. But that is irrelevant to the issue.
> >>None of this is to make either you or your wife the bad guy. You both > >>apparently misjudged one another. I'm sorry. You have some difficult [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But not for you, yet ;-) Have hope. :)
> > As I have been saying all along, > > the issues concerning her daughter are secondary to our marriage issues. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > together. Your attempt to artificially separate them is > also a significant part of the problem. Not an artificial separation; they ARE separate. Bear in mind that her daughter's problems existed long before our marriage did. What I meant, though, was that the importance of her daughter's issues come second.
> > Get > > the marriage in line, then dealing with any children ought to be a piece of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to work together, you don't have a prayer of dealing with kids, > but even if you do, it wouldn't be easy in your situation. Marriage does not get in line without the couple working together. Additionally, when the two adults are in synch over the child, their mutual efforts reduce the burden significantly. Would you rather go to war with an army of ten or an army of a THOUSAND?
> > However, she holds the key, and her resentment > > of me posting here does not help. > > Do you not see that it could be construed as rather > disrespectful to have aired these issues in a public forum > without her consent? No, because she is not identified.
> Moreover, you certainly haven't said > the most complimentary things about her here That's because the complimentary things are not a problem. She cooked me a nice meal the other day, but how is such information pertinent to the discussion?
> (true or not) > *and* the attitudes you've revealed here are not likely to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Best wishes, > Ericka Jamie Clark - 14 Oct 2005 00:06 GMT >> >>you extrapolate about your wife's character and values from looking at > her [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Not a guarantee, but the apple falls close to the tree. Close, but no cigar. The daughter is proof of that.
>> Lots of children of intact marriages go through >> divorce, particularly if they don't choose well. Your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Her previous marriage was failed by HIM. And guess what, her parents > "failed" in their parenting of my wife. Yes, and your wife has no responsibility for any of it...hah.
>> >>Unfortunately, you apparently looked through >> >> the [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > daughter's problems existed long before our marriage did. What I meant, > though, was that the importance of her daughter's issues come second. Nope, they aren't separete. I'll grant you that the daughters issues existed long before your marriage did, but you chose to willingly come into the situation of marrying a woman with a daughter with issues. And again, the daughters issues may be second on your list, but they likley aren't for your wife. Until you can GET that, you have no chance of making this work.
 Signature Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 08:27 GMT > >> >>you extrapolate about your wife's character and values from looking at > > her [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Close, but no cigar. The daughter is proof of that. There are a lot more similarities than you might know.
> >> Lots of children of intact marriages go through > >> divorce, particularly if they don't choose well. Your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yes, and your wife has no responsibility for any of it...hah. By her own statements, she created MANY problems in these relationships. However, my above claims still stand.
> >> >>Unfortunately, you apparently looked through > >> >> the [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > existed long before your marriage did, but you chose to willingly come into > the situation of marrying a woman with a daughter with issues. Irrelevant. Her issues ARE separate from ours. The proof of that is the fact that she could disappear taking all her problems with her and we will still have our issues. The only relation between our issues and hers is the fact that she creates problems that wear on us making us weaker to deal with our marriage issues. Not to mention that her negative influence on my wife also places our marriage in peril. This is one of the consequences of a co-dependent relationship. Seems my wife depends on her daughter even MORE than the reverse!
> And again, > the daughters issues may be second on your list, but they likley aren't for > your wife. Until you can GET that, you have no chance of making this work. Correction: until my wife gets that her actions are jeopardizing our marriage, SHE has no chance of making it work.
Sue - 13 Oct 2005 14:45 GMT "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message
> We recently attended her parents' 50th Anniversary. Need I say more? Yes, please do because what does her parents being married for 50 years have to do with the character of your wife and why you chose her? Please explain.
>However, she holds the key, and her resentment of me posting here does not >help. I may have my flaws, but marriage goes BOTH ways, and she has to >make an effort as well. Yes she does. I will give you that. However, if your wife sees that you are going to hinder her relationship with her daughter and she has a lot of resentment towards you, you don't stand a chance. Sorry. Perhaps you can go ahead and make an appointment for a marriage counselor so the both of you can get on the road to recovery.
 Signature Sue (mom to three girls)
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 07:20 GMT > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > > We recently attended her parents' 50th Anniversary. Need I say more? > > Yes, please do because what does her parents being married for 50 years have > to do with the character of your wife and why you chose her? Please explain. As I said to another poster, the apple indeed falls CLOSE to the tree.
> >However, she holds the key, and her resentment of me posting here does not > >help. I may have my flaws, but marriage goes BOTH ways, and she has to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ahead and make an appointment for a marriage counselor so the both of you > can get on the road to recovery. Thank you for the suggestion. I have no interest in hindering their relationship. I simply disapprove of my wife engaging in any activity harmful to our marriage.
Circe - 13 Oct 2005 17:31 GMT >> > More like it IS the problem. As I have repeatedly stated, her child was >> > troubled LONG before I came around. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > We recently attended her parents' 50th Anniversary. Need I say more? Fascinating. You thought your wife's PARENTS' relationship would tell you more about her than HER relationships? For someone who is supposedly the child of two marriage counsellors, I find that mind-bogglingly naive.
FTR, my husband's parents divorced when he was 7 years old. If I had used YOUR standard for picking a spouse (basing my understanding of how he'd behave in marriage based on how his parents did), I wouldn't now be married to my husband, a man who is incredibly loving and committed to both me and my children (I regularly get asked by friends if there are any more like him at home <g>). But instead of trying to figure out how he'd act based on how OTHER people in his life acted, I chose to look at HIS actions. And I picked pretty well as a result.
>> I'm sorry to feel the need to say it, but I really think you made a poor >> choice in a marriage partner. Based on everything you have written thus [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I probably did. But she is not without her virtues! Oh, I am sure she has MANY virtues and I am sure that you love her. But love just isn't enough to make a couple a match. Shared values and core beliefs ALONG WITH love do. The thing is, the intensity of love waxes and wanes throughout the course of a life-long relationship. If it's the ONLY thing you have to work with, chances are that it's just not going to be enough to sustain the marriage. (And really, if your marriage counsellor parents neglected to share this piece of information with you, they didn't do you a very good turn in life.)
>> None of this is to make either you or your wife the bad guy. You both >> apparently misjudged one another. I'm sorry. You have some difficult [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of > cake (relatively speaking). As Ericka said, the problems with her daughter are part and parcel of the problems in your marriage. Your stepdaughter isn't RESPONSIBLE for the problems in your marriage, but the way your wife deals with her daughter (and by extension you and all the other people in her life) is. Unless and until you BOTH deal with the problems her daughter is having in a healthy and bipartisan (sorry, listening to political news reports this morning and can't think of a better word) way, the daughter could disappear tomorrow but the problems would just manifest in another way.
> However, she holds the key, and her resentment > of me posting here does not help. I'm not surprised she is resentful. Most people dislike the idea that their dirty laundry is being aired to strangers.
> I may have my flaws, but marriage goes > BOTH ways, and she has to make an effort as well. Absolutely. But your idea of "effort" seems to be that she should do what YOU think is best, regardless of whether she thinks it's best or not. That's not to say that what you think is best ISN'T best. It might be. But until you work *together* (not you leading and her following, which is what you appear to want, but you mutually agreeing on a course of action and implementing it), you're going nowhere fast. YOU need to make the effort to bend a little and meet her halfway. Hell, you might even have to go 3/4's of the way. If you continue to blithely insist that what SHE wants is irrelevant because of x, y, or z (doesn't matter what the reasons are), the problems in your marriage are only going to increase. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 07:43 GMT > >> > More like it IS the problem. As I have repeatedly stated, her child was > >> > troubled LONG before I came around. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Fascinating. You thought your wife's PARENTS' relationship would tell you > more about her than HER relationships? No.
> For someone who is supposedly the > child of two marriage counsellors, I find that mind-bogglingly naive. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > OTHER people in his life acted, I chose to look at HIS actions. And I picked > pretty well as a result. Congratulations.
> >> I'm sorry to feel the need to say it, but I really think you made a poor > >> choice in a marriage partner. Based on everything you have written thus [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > you have to work with, chances are that it's just not going to be enough to > sustain the marriage. I know. Belief in "until death...." is. Something that we BOTH proclaimed (not just at the ceremony, but many times well prior to it).
> (And really, if your marriage counsellor parents > neglected to share this piece of information with you, they didn't do you a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > can't think of a better word) way, the daughter could disappear tomorrow but > the problems would just manifest in another way. Not the problems that her daughter is creating, because they would be gone.
> > However, she holds the key, and her resentment > > of me posting here does not help. > > I'm not surprised she is resentful. Most people dislike the idea that their > dirty laundry is being aired to strangers. She remains anonymous.
> > I may have my flaws, but marriage goes > > BOTH ways, and she has to make an effort as well. > > > Absolutely. But your idea of "effort" seems to be that she should do what > YOU think is best, regardless of whether she thinks it's best or not. No. My idea of "effort" is that she should carefully examine my position and THEN tell me why it is improper.
> That's > not to say that what you think is best ISN'T best. It might be. But until [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > irrelevant because of x, y, or z (doesn't matter what the reasons are), the > problems in your marriage are only going to increase. Then so be it, because I am unwilling to compromise for anything harmful to our marriage!
> -- > Be well, Barbara Ericka Kammerer - 14 Oct 2005 13:10 GMT > "Circe" <guavaln@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>Unless and >>until you BOTH deal with the problems her daughter is having in a healthy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not the problems that her daughter is creating, because they would be gone. If you believe that, you are seriously delusional. Your daughter could walk out the door tomorrow and never return or contact either of you, and the repercussions of her issues and your (plural) response to situations involving her will continue, if not escalate. In fact, you'd better hope she doesn't do that before you reach some sort of meeting of the minds with your wife, or you may lose the opportunity to do so forever.
Best wishes, Ericka
Banty - 14 Oct 2005 13:25 GMT >> "Circe" <guavaln@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >some sort of meeting of the minds with your wife, or >you may lose the opportunity to do so forever. Right.
Chris - do you honestly beleive that you could kick your step-daughter out the day she turns 18, and all you'll need to do is to "console (your) crying wife" for a while, then all will be hunky-dory after that?
Banty
Chris - 16 Oct 2005 03:51 GMT > >> "Circe" <guavaln@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > day she turns 18, and all you'll need to do is to "console (your) crying wife" > for a while, then all will be hunky-dory after that? You were responding to someone else's post. Anyway, the answer to your question is no.
> Banty Banty - 16 Oct 2005 19:31 GMT >> >> "Circe" <guavaln@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >You were responding to someone else's post. Anyway, the answer to your >question is no. Then what *is* your plan, including how you and your wife come to terms with what happens?
Banty
Chris - 16 Oct 2005 21:44 GMT > >> >> "Circe" <guavaln@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Then what *is* your plan, including how you and your wife come to terms with > what happens? My plan is to protect my marriage and home. It is irrelevant WHO is levying the assault. As for the stepdaughter, her living in this home is conditional just as it is conditional for me. My wife will decide whether or not she will fight me on this.
> Banty Chris - 15 Oct 2005 05:41 GMT > > "Circe" <guavaln@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > her issues and your (plural) response to situations > involving her will continue, if not escalate. Apples and oranges. I was speaking strictly of her current problems, and the fact remains that they indeed WOULD be gone.
> In fact, > you'd better hope she doesn't do that before you reach [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 12 Oct 2005 18:26 GMT <snip the usual excusifying>
>>Okay, do pony up those examples. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Pretty ridiculous my claim that it is illegal for me to do what a parent > ought to do, huh. BS. I know for a fact that there are residential treatment centers that will accept children even if the children aren't interested in being there. Depending on the laws in your state, they may not be right in your neighborhood, but you certainly *could* have gotten her into a program even if she didn't feel like going. And before you whine about the cost, have you actually talked to any of these programs and worked with their counselors to see if there was any way to make it affordable to you? C'mon, explain how you've made an effort.
>>It is your responsibility to have gotten the job >>done, whether it was within your capabilities as an >>individual or whether you had to get additional help >>to make it happen. > > Rough translation: open your wallet. Again, whine about the money *after* you have explored the options available to you. Can you guarantee me that there aren't any programs that could have helped her (not to mention could have gotten her out of your home, since that's what you wish) that might even have been funded by the state or other programs? It often takes a lot of hard work to plow through the options and figure out what you can make work, but that hardly seems an unreasonable expectation.
>>So? You know, mature adults don't run around >>pointing fingers and screeching "I didn't do it!" like >>a little kid. Mature adults get the job done. > > Explain how a mature adult gets the job of making a horse drink water done. If I do an Internet search looking for ways to help troubled teens, I get thousands upon thousands of hits. You've obviously had just about every box checked that would generally make a person eligible for *some* kind of assistance: abandonment, abuse, pregnancy, substance abuse, trouble with the law, financial limitations, and probably more. That portfolio ought to land you access to some kind of appropriate program. It's not a guarantee, of course. The mental health system in this country is not without its problems. But if anyone could get help, it's likely you could get help for your daughter, and perhaps even help at limited or no cost to you. You are not the first or the only person with this problem. Thousands and thousands of people have been in your shoes. What have you done to find out what they've done that worked? What have you done to find out what services are available to you? Can you say with a clean conscience that you have turned over every stone to find ways to diagnose and treat her problems? Because I see very little evidence of that.
> Perhaps you believe that ANY amount of pain not relieved by someone else is > a derelect of duty; I don't. Of course I don't believe that, nor would anyone who could read believe that that's what I said. I'm asking why you didn't get help for a child who had obvious problems of the most serious sort when odds are that help was available had you only made a serious effort to find some.
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 00:22 GMT > <snip the usual excusifying> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > to see if there was any way to make it affordable to you? > C'mon, explain how you've made an effort. For starters, please don't talk about my budget (something which you know nothing about). Secondly, you seem to have forgotten that I am merely a STEPparent which right off the bat signifies that I have no legal rights in this matter. Finally, even if I was the biological father, I still would not have such rights especially if mother joined forces with daughter. So, perhaps you might be willing to retract your claim of "BS".
> >>It is your responsibility to have gotten the job > >>done, whether it was within your capabilities as an [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > can make work, but that hardly seems an unreasonable > expectation. Again, stay out of my budget please. Time is money.
> >>So? You know, mature adults don't run around > >>pointing fingers and screeching "I didn't do it!" like [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > have been in your shoes. What have you done to > find out what they've done that worked? Nothing, because I don't know any of these folks.
> What have > you done to find out what services are available to > you? Can you say with a clean conscience that you > have turned over every stone to find ways to diagnose > and treat her problems? Because I see very little > evidence of that. My conscience is clean. The issue at hand is NOT whether or not such programs are available, rather whether or not she would agree to participate. And the answer has been a consistent "no".
> > Perhaps you believe that ANY amount of pain not relieved by someone else is > > a derelect of duty; I don't. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the most serious sort when odds are that help was > available had you only made a serious effort to find some. #1 - Mother. #2 - Daughter #3 - Never been in this situation (didn't know my limits) #4 - Ultimately not my responsibility
(note: #1 alone is sufficient)
> Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 13 Oct 2005 02:20 GMT >>>Pretty ridiculous my claim that it is illegal for me to do what a parent >>>ought to do, huh. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > For starters, please don't talk about my budget (something which you know > nothing about). Actually, you said you could not afford (financially) to support "another family" and you have also complained about the cost of helping your daughter, so I was merely working off what you have said. If money is no impediment, I find even less excuse.
> Secondly, you seem to have forgotten that I am merely a > STEPparent which right off the bat signifies that I have no legal rights in > this matter. Finally, even if I was the biological father, I still would not > have such rights especially if mother joined forces with daughter. So, > perhaps you might be willing to retract your claim of "BS". Yet again you make it clear that much of the problem here stems from your inability to communicate with and achieve some kind of agreement with your wife. Since you're all fired up over your need to work on your marriage, I find it somewhat odd that even when you identify the trouble as residing within your family as you define it, you still take no ownership and simply brush everything off as someone else's fault which you have utterly no control over and utterly no ability to work with. Man, I'd hate to be living a life where I was so powerless and such a victim every day. You're a victim of your wife's choices. You're a victim of your daughter's choices. You're a victim of your daughter's boyfriend's choices. You're a victim of the voter's choices. You're a victim of the justice system. Does it not ever occur to you that just maybe you're not the victim you claim all the time to be?
>>If I do an Internet search looking for ways to >>help troubled teens, I get thousands upon thousands [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Nothing, because I don't know any of these folks. While I see you have some comprehension problems, you weren't coming across as illiterate to me. You have some problem with reading up on these things?
> My conscience is clean. The issue at hand is NOT whether or not such > programs are available, rather whether or not she would agree to > participate. And the answer has been a consistent "no". And I said that there are programs where her consent is not required, particularly when she's a minor.
>>Of course I don't believe that, nor would anyone >>who could read believe that that's what I said. I'm asking [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > (note: #1 alone is sufficient) And yet, #1 is that wife you're supposedly "one flesh" with, whom you vowed to be with through better and worse. You've got no obligation to find the time and energy to work through this with her? Clearly, this dynamic is utterly destructive to her as well as to your daughter. You feel no obligation, even if you are willing to let the daughter hang in the breeze, to find a way to help your wife become whole and healthy so that your marriage can thrive? And do you really think that watching your daughter self destruct is going to heal your wife? If you do, you are so hopelessly naive that I hardly know where to begin to disillusion you.
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 07:52 GMT > >>>Pretty ridiculous my claim that it is illegal for me to do what a parent > >>>ought to do, huh. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > off what you have said. If money is no impediment, I find > even less excuse. See above where you talk about making it affordable to me. This is a money issue, and telling someone that they cannot afford something says nothing more than they cannot afford it. As a rule you DO know nothing about my budget based on your above claim. Not interested in semantics.
> > Secondly, you seem to have forgotten that I am merely a > > STEPparent which right off the bat signifies that I have no legal rights in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > here stems from your inability to communicate with and achieve > some kind of agreement with your wife. Don't believe that I claimed I can't communicate with my wife.
> Since you're all fired > up over your need to work on your marriage, I find it somewhat [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you that just maybe you're not the victim you claim all the > time to be? Not once did I ever use the word "victim" or claim anything close to it.
> >>If I do an Internet search looking for ways to > >>help troubled teens, I get thousands upon thousands [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > problems, you weren't coming across as illiterate > to me. The responsibility to communicate rests with the sender.
> You have some problem with reading up on > these things? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And I said that there are programs where her > consent is not required, particularly when she's a minor. I would be arrested on the spot if I tried to take her to any such program against her will!
> >>Of course I don't believe that, nor would anyone > >>who could read believe that that's what I said. I'm asking [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "one flesh" with, whom you vowed to be with through > better and worse. Exactly.
> You've got no obligation to find > the time and energy to work through this with her? Your question is unclear to me.
> Clearly, this dynamic is utterly destructive to her > as well as to your daughter. You feel no obligation, > even if you are willing to let the daughter hang in > the breeze, to find a way to help your wife become > whole and healthy so that your marriage can thrive? I help my wife and work on my marriage DAILY!
> And do you really think that watching your daughter > self destruct is going to heal your wife? Wherever do you come up with a question like that?
> If you do, > you are so hopelessly naive that I hardly know where > to begin to disillusion you. > > Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 13 Oct 2005 14:30 GMT >>Yet again you make it clear that much of the problem >>here stems from your inability to communicate with and achieve >>some kind of agreement with your wife. > > Don't believe that I claimed I can't communicate with my wife. Are you kidding me? I think it's abundantly clear that while you may talk to your wife, you aren't anywhere near achieving a meeting of the minds in this area. If you're communicating, it sure isn't effectively. Moreover, you appear not to be interested in communicating effectively. What you appear to be interested in is telling your wife what to do and how to do it and having her comply. Which is somewhat understandable given that she's clearly making some unfortunate choices, but I've yet to see anyone who started making good choices just because they were ordered to.
>> Since you're all fired >>up over your need to work on your marriage, I find it somewhat [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Not once did I ever use the word "victim" or claim anything close to it. Oh, puhleeze! Nearly every statement you make has "victim" written all over it! Nothing is your fault. Your hands are tied. There's nothing you can do. Apparently, in your home, when the going gets tough, the tough wring their hands and complain about how the whole world is conspiring againt them.
>>And I said that there are programs where her >>consent is not required, particularly when she's a minor. > > I would be arrested on the spot if I tried to take her to any such program > against her will! Like I said, thousands of parents are dealing with this issue *right now*. How many of these places have you called to ask how this issue can be overcome? I'll bet that there aren't parents in jail for every kid in one of these programs. *Someone* has figured out a way. Why aren't you interested in what they know that you don't? Maybe when you hear the answer, you'll decide it's not appropriate for your family, but why haven't you even asked the question?
>>Clearly, this dynamic is utterly destructive to her >>as well as to your daughter. You feel no obligation, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I help my wife and work on my marriage DAILY But only on *your* terms in the ways that *you* consider acceptable. And, you have arbitrarily excluded from your consideration what is likely at the core of many of your marital difficulties, such that you've pretty much doomed your efforts to failure before you've even begun. Does that sound like effective decision making to you?
>>And do you really think that watching your daughter >>self destruct is going to heal your wife? > > Wherever do you come up with a question like that? How could I not?! It's as clear as day to me that her relationship with her daughter is a major area of her life that is screwed up and affecting everything else, including the marriage. The actions you propose for dealing with your daughter is likely to make that situation worse for your wife, and the fallout is likely to destroy your marriage. But, because it doesn't fit your definition of how the world and your marriage *ought* to be, you're not even interested in dealing with it. So, the likely result will be the destruction of your marriage (and perhaps your daughter and grandchild as well), regardless of whether there's an actual divorce decree to make it official. The fact that you cannot see or acknowledge those linkages is a weakness in your marriage that *you* ought to be taking some responsibility for.
Bes wishes, Ericka
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 09:57 GMT > >>Yet again you make it clear that much of the problem > >>here stems from your inability to communicate with and achieve [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > anywhere near achieving a meeting of the minds in this > area. Perhaps, but I never claimed so.
> If you're communicating, it sure isn't effectively. > Moreover, you appear not to be interested in communicating [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yet to see anyone who started making good choices just > because they were ordered to. I want nothing MORE than for my wife to understand my position. IF she did, and valued her daughter as well as our marriage, the battle would be over.
> >> Since you're all fired > >>up over your need to work on your marriage, I find it somewhat [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > their hands and complain about how the whole world is > conspiring againt them. Whatever are you talking about? There is PLENTY I can do; I am just unwilling to suffer the consequences.
> >>And I said that there are programs where her > >>consent is not required, particularly when she's a minor. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you'll decide it's not appropriate for your family, > but why haven't you even asked the question? Because I did not know they even existed.
> >>Clearly, this dynamic is utterly destructive to her > >>as well as to your daughter. You feel no obligation, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that you've pretty much doomed your efforts to failure > before you've even begun. Such as?
> Does that sound like > effective decision making to you? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > daughter is likely to make that situation worse > for your wife, Not in my mind. (STEPdaughter... there is a difference)
> and the fallout is likely to destroy > your marriage. But, because it doesn't fit your > definition of how the world and your marriage > *ought* to be, you're not even interested in > dealing with it. Are you interested in doing what you know ought not be?
> So, the likely result will > be the destruction of your marriage (and perhaps [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bes wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 14 Oct 2005 13:24 GMT >>>>Yet again you make it clear that much of the problem >>>>here stems from your inability to communicate with and achieve [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Perhaps, but I never claimed so. So, which are you claiming? That you can communicate with your wife or that you can't? Because it seems quite clear to me that your communication with your wife is seriously flawed. You can argue semantics all you want, but there is no effective communication going on there when it comes to this issue (and probably others as well).
>>If you're communicating, it sure isn't effectively. >>Moreover, you appear not to be interested in communicating [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I want nothing MORE than for my wife to understand my position. IF she did, > and valued her daughter as well as our marriage, the battle would be over. Actually, I doubt that. It looks to me like you'd *much* rather be right than to reach an understanding.
>>>Not once did I ever use the word "victim" or claim anything close to it. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Whatever are you talking about? There is PLENTY I can do; I am just > unwilling to suffer the consequences. There you go again. "Oh, poor me! I can't do anything, because the only useful things I could do would piss off my wife or land me in jail!" Spare me the vitcim story. I don't buy it.
>>Like I said, thousands of parents are dealing >>with this issue *right now*. How many of these places [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Because I did not know they even existed. Okay, you do now. Why is it that you aren't contacting any today? (And since it took me less than 2 minutes to google up several of them, forgive me if I'm unimpressed with all the "effort" you put into this in years prior.)
>>>I help my wife and work on my marriage DAILY >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Such as? You refuse to acknowledge the proper role your daughter plays in your wife's life. As long as you're hard line on that, you're extremely unlikely to make any improvement in the quality of that relationship or in the quality of the decision making your wife does about issues involving your daughter. You've already set up a fundamental conflict in your marriage with your refusal to cope with this in a mature way, and you're hell bent on not only reinforcing it, but also on making it worse! You're not going to get anywhere with that attitude, even if your daughter leaves.
>>How could I not?! It's as clear as day to >>me that her relationship with her daughter is a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not in my mind. (STEPdaughter... there is a difference) Not in my mind ;-) And frankly, have we not already established that what you're doing isn't working? All you're doing is digging yourself a deeper hole.
>>and the fallout is likely to destroy >>your marriage. But, because it doesn't fit your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are you interested in doing what you know ought not be? In my life, I'm interested in getting the job done effectively, and I don't put my own pride and selfishness above the wellbeing of others. I also don't let my desire to be right blind me to effective solutions that just might not fit my personal preferences. The net result of your choices is that you're likely to end up with a failed marriage. You might end up with one anyway, but you're chances are much worse with your current approach. But if you'd rather cloak yourself in righteousness, go right ahead.
>>So, the likely result will >>be the destruction of your marriage (and perhaps [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>your marriage that *you* ought to be taking >>some responsibility for. Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 15 Oct 2005 06:33 GMT > >>>>Yet again you make it clear that much of the problem > >>>>here stems from your inability to communicate with and achieve [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So, which are you claiming? That you can > communicate with your wife or that you can't? Neither.
> Because > it seems quite clear to me that your communication with > your wife is seriously flawed. You can argue semantics > all you want, but there is no effective communication > going on there when it comes to this issue (and probably > others as well). I have a marriage that consists of me holding 5% of the conversation...... at best.
> >>If you're communicating, it sure isn't effectively. > >>Moreover, you appear not to be interested in communicating [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Actually, I doubt that. It looks to me like you'd > *much* rather be right than to reach an understanding. I DO understand her; she just doesn't understand me. Nor is she willing to.
> >>>Not once did I ever use the word "victim" or claim anything close to it. > >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Okay, you do now. Why is it that you aren't > contacting any today? Because doing so would waste valuable time otherwise alloted to the handling of my responsibilities, AND I would be spinning my wheels.
> (And since it took me less > than 2 minutes to google up several of them, forgive [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > or in the quality of the decision making your wife > does about issues involving your daughter. Guess you're right, I am hardline about her daughter treating my wife with respect and obedience. I really need to lighten up and approve of her daughter using her like a dirty rag!
> You've > already set up a fundamental conflict in your marriage > with your refusal to cope with this in a mature way, > and you're hell bent on not only reinforcing it, but > also on making it worse! What's immature about standing firm on protecting one's family?
> You're not going to get > anywhere with that attitude, even if your daughter [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > working? All you're doing is digging yourself a > deeper hole. As I have said previously, it's not a matter of what "works". You seem to have the mentality that the end justifies the means. But that's ok; I have no problem falling into the pit of justice.
> >>and the fallout is likely to destroy > >>your marriage. But, because it doesn't fit your [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The net result of your choices is that you're likely > to end up with a failed marriage. My choices regarding a wife.
> You might end up > with one anyway, but you're chances are much worse > with your current approach. But if you'd rather > cloak yourself in righteousness, go right ahead. Beats cloaking myself in wickedness.
> >>So, the likely result will > >>be the destruction of your marriage (and perhaps [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 15 Oct 2005 15:47 GMT >>Because >>it seems quite clear to me that your communication with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have a marriage that consists of me holding 5% of the conversation...... > at best. But you're doing plenty of communicating. You don't necessarily have to talk for your wife to get the message.
>>>>Like I said, thousands of parents are dealing >>>>with this issue *right now*. How many of these places [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Because doing so would waste valuable time otherwise alloted to the handling > of my responsibilities, AND I would be spinning my wheels. Ah, yes, the classic story of the ineffective person: "Well, it wouldn't have worked if I'd done it anyway."
>>You refuse to acknowledge the proper role your >>daughter plays in your wife's life. As long as you're [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > respect and obedience. I really need to lighten up and approve of her > daughter using her like a dirty rag! That's obviously not what I said. You seem to think your only choices are accepting the current situation or enforcing the solution you've chosen. Well, it's quite obvious to me that *NEITHER* are acceptable. However, since you are unwilling to accept any answer except that your approach is 100 percent correct, you're stuck in a situation where you're doomed to failure. Your choice to seek another path or commit yourself to the failed path you've already chosen.
> As I have said previously, it's not a matter of what "works". You seem to > have the mentality that the end justifies the means. But that's ok; I have > no problem falling into the pit of justice. I never said that the end justifies the means. I only said that if your chosen solution isn't working, it isn't working and you'd better find something more effective.
>>>Are you interested in doing what you know ought not be? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > My choices regarding a wife. Well, if you choose to see it that way, so be it. But even in that case, if you give anything more than lip service to your much ballyhooed "covenant,' you'd be on the hook to work together with your wife to find an effective solution to your problems. (In addition, if the marriage convenant meant anything to you, you would see your wife's obligations to her daughter as your own, and you would take them as seriously and as lovingly as she should.)
>>You might end up >>with one anyway, but you're chances are much worse >>with your current approach. But if you'd rather >>cloak yourself in righteousness, go right ahead. > > Beats cloaking myself in wickedness. False dichotomy, and you know it.
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 16 Oct 2005 04:04 GMT > >>Because > >>it seems quite clear to me that your communication with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You don't necessarily have to talk for your wife > to get the message. But yet my communication with her is "seriously flawed".
> >>>>Like I said, thousands of parents are dealing > >>>>with this issue *right now*. How many of these places [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > person: "Well, it wouldn't have worked if I'd done > it anyway." I see, reputations have no meaning. Would it be more accurate for me to say that it would "probably"......?
> >>You refuse to acknowledge the proper role your > >>daughter plays in your wife's life. As long as you're [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > think your only choices are accepting the current > situation or enforcing the solution you've chosen. You got another solution to stop her ill treatment of my wife?
> Well, it's quite obvious to me that *NEITHER* are > acceptable. However, since you are unwilling to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it isn't working and you'd better find something more > effective. The story aint' over. Even so, what's more important than doing what works is doing what's proper.
> >>>Are you interested in doing what you know ought not be? > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > own, and you would take them as seriously and > as lovingly as she should.) I have no obligations to her let alone the same as my wife's.
> >>You might end up > >>with one anyway, but you're chances are much worse [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > False dichotomy, and you know it. Your above statement indicates to me that you believe morality hinges on one's perspective based on the moment.
> Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 16 Oct 2005 22:04 GMT >>But you're doing plenty of communicating. >>You don't necessarily have to talk for your wife >>to get the message. > > But yet my communication with her is "seriously flawed". Yes, because communication is more than issuing orders and whining when they're not followed.
>>>>Okay, you do now. Why is it that you aren't >>>>contacting any today? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I see, reputations have no meaning. Would it be more accurate for me to say > that it would "probably"......? You can put in any qualifiers you like. You and your wife haven't done your job until you have turned over every stone and followed every lead that holds out some promise. You've ignored realistic options for years and years and continue to do so. *MOST* teens in your daughter's situation aren't going to trot off obediently to some kind of program that will help them. That doesn't stop other parents from getting effective help (without landing in jail). So, all your whining about how your daughter says she isn't interested and it's not legal for you do do anything about it falls pretty flat with me.
> The story aint' over. Even so, what's more important than doing what works > is doing what's proper. Care to tell me what would have been improper about getting your daughter into a residential program designed to deal with her issues BEFORE there was a baby to deal with? It was important then. It's even more appointment now, and you keep on frittering time away. Eventually, you will have frittered all your time away and you really won't have much left in the way of options that actually give your daughter a fighting chance. But apparently that doesn't bother you.
>>Well, if you choose to see it that way, so >>be it. But even in that case, if you give anything [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I have no obligations to her let alone the same as my wife's. So much for that "one flesh" argument then, eh?
>>>>You might end up >>>>with one anyway, but you're chances are much worse [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Your above statement indicates to me that you believe morality hinges on > one's perspective based on the moment. No, but yours indicates a serious reading comprehension issue, which might explain your inability to have searched out effective solutions in the past...
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 17 Oct 2005 19:21 GMT > >>But you're doing plenty of communicating. > >>You don't necessarily have to talk for your wife [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes, How can I be "doing plenty of communicating" yet such communication is "seriously flawed"?
> because communication is more than > issuing orders and whining when they're not followed. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > that will help them. That doesn't stop other parents > from getting effective help (without landing in jail). So, in your mind, every teen who continues such behavior had parents who did not turn over every stone.
> So, all your whining about how your daughter says she > isn't interested and it's not legal for you do do [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > fighting chance. But apparently that doesn't bother > you. Have you forgotten that her mother is the one who calls the shots (regarding her daughter), or were you never aware of that?
> >>Well, if you choose to see it that way, so > >>be it. But even in that case, if you give anything [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So much for that "one flesh" argument then, > eh? Non sequitur.
> >>>>You might end up > >>>>with one anyway, but you're chances are much worse [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No, but yours indicates a serious reading > comprehension issue, The burden of communication rests with the sender.
> which might explain your inability > to have searched out effective solutions in the past... > > Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 17 Oct 2005 20:51 GMT >>>>But you're doing plenty of communicating. >>>>You don't necessarily have to talk for your wife [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>because communication is more than >>issuing orders and whining when they're not followed. Oh, puhleeze. You can't *really* be that dense, can you? You don't get the idea of ineffective communication?
>>You can put in any qualifiers you like. You >>and your wife haven't done your job until you have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So, in your mind, every teen who continues such behavior had parents who did > not turn over every stone. There we go with that reading comprehension thing again. I did not say that. What I said was that *YOU* don't get to complain that it's all your daughter's fault until and unless *YOU* have done *YOUR* part. Since you haven't you'll never know whether you could have been part of the solution rather than part of the problem, will you?
>>Care to tell me what would have been improper >>about getting your daughter into a residential program [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Have you forgotten that her mother is the one who calls the shots (regarding > her daughter), or were you never aware of that? Oh, I'm sorry, I must have misheard that part about you two being "one flesh" and all that jazz. So, even though you two clearly aren't, have you ever researched and presented your wife with a viable option along these lines? No? Well, then, how do you know that she would have refused it?
>>>>Well, if you choose to see it that way, so >>>>be it. But even in that case, if you give anything [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Non sequitur. No, it's precisely on point, which is why you don't want to go there.
>>>>>>You might end up >>>>>>with one anyway, but you're chances are much worse [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The burden of communication rests with the sender. Nope, my friend, it's a two way street, as any basic linguistics text will explain. You're still ducking the point, as entertaining as all this back and forth is. The *point* is that you are so fixated on your "right" solutions that you refuse to entertain any other solutions. You are blinded by your biases and preconceived notions (not to mention your selfishness and self-righteousness) that you refuse to consider alternative actions which are entirely consistent with "doing what's right" and "doing what's legal" and "preserving your marriage." You just aren't interested if it isn't on your terms. You've already decided what you're willing to do and what you're not willing to do, and you aren't interested in compromise or understanding anyone else's position (including your wife's) or in inconveniencing yourself for the betterment of others (including your wife or your marriage) unless it conforms to your rigid notions of what you will or will not do. I don't have any patience for that sort of selfishness or rigidity. If you came here with a sob story about how your daughter was in such a difficult position, and you'd tried everything. You'd checked out assorted programs and tried the ones that looked reasonable, but couldn't afford them/were wait listed/your daughter ran away from them/she went and it was unsuccessful/etc., I'd have a lot of sympathy for you. As it is, I don't have any for your whining. You earn the right to whine by doing the work, and you've chosen to pass the buck instead. Since I actually *do* take the bonds of marriage seriously, I find it extremely offensive that you don't see your wife's responsibilities as your own. If my husband has responsibilities in his life, then it is my responsibility to enable him to meet his responsibilities in any way that I can, not to tell him I don't give a rip and he'd better choose between meeting his responsibilities and making me happy. My marriage isn't going to be successful unless I *HELP* him meet his responsibilities (and yours isn't either). And virtually no one accepts help from others when they're feeling attacked and disrespected (witness your behavior in this thread-- you're certainly on the defensive, and you don't have any interest in taking any of the advice offered here--betcha your wife feels the same way about the ultimatums you're throwing her).
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 18 Oct 2005 20:07 GMT > >>>>But you're doing plenty of communicating. > >>>>You don't necessarily have to talk for your wife [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Oh, puhleeze. You can't *really* be that dense, > can you? You don't get the idea of ineffective communication? Ok, so I'm dense. "Seriously flawed" communication amounts to NO communication. In other words, if one communicates something to another, but it is not what they intend to communicate, then they failed to communicate their message; thus no communication. My cell phone breaks up and instead of you hearing "I will NOT make our appointment today" you hear "I will make our appointment today" because the word "not" was dropped. Perhaps you may say that I communicated (flawed). I say my message was not communicated, thus I did NOT communicate. Not communicating my message (seriously flawed) and not communicating, in this context, are one and the same. Ever hear someone say "we're not communicating" after a lengthy discussion? That's because their "communication" is flawed......... NO communication.
> >>You can put in any qualifiers you like. You > >>and your wife haven't done your job until you have [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > have been part of the solution rather than part of > the problem, will you? You didn't say that. You said "Ah, yes, the classic story of the ineffective person: 'Well, it wouldn't have worked if I'd done it anyway.'". If you think that I am going to continue tossing pearls before swine, your wrong. My understanding of your position is that I should place my wife's daughter as priority and dedicate my life to solving her shenanigans, regardles of the cost to me, our marriage, and our home.
> >>Care to tell me what would have been improper > >>about getting your daughter into a residential program [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Oh, I'm sorry, I must have misheard that part > about you two being "one flesh" and all that jazz. Whatever does THAT have to do with her choice of behavior?
> So, even though you two clearly aren't, If we are not one flesh, then she is not my wife.
> have you > ever researched and presented your wife with a viable [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > No, it's precisely on point, which is why you > don't want to go there. I WANT to go there, please! So enlighten me.
> >>>>>>You might end up > >>>>>>with one anyway, but you're chances are much worse [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Nope, my friend, it's a two way street, as any > basic linguistics text will explain. Sorry, unlike MANY others (here) I do not read minds. In order to to send your message, you have to speak in the language of the recipient.
> You're still ducking > the point, as entertaining as all this back and forth [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are entirely consistent with "doing what's right" and > "doing what's legal" and "preserving your marriage." So, to understand you correctly, preserving the marriage consists of my wife calling the shots?
> You just aren't interested if it isn't on your terms. > You've already decided what you're willing to do and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > your marriage) unless it conforms to your rigid notions > of what you will or will not do. Sounds like my wife.
> I don't have any > patience for that sort of selfishness or rigidity. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I find it extremely offensive that you don't see > your wife's responsibilities as your own. If I am responsible for her responsibilities, then that makes her incompetent.
> If my > husband has responsibilities in his life, then it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unless I *HELP* him meet his responsibilities (and > yours isn't either). Tell that to my wife who isn't helping me meet my responsibilities of protecting our marriage and home.
> And virtually no one accepts > help from others when they're feeling attacked and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > here--betcha your wife feels the same way about > the ultimatums you're throwing her). What you DON'T know about my wife is that it's often the case that when her daughter misbehaves, she somehow blames it on me and then threatens divorce! Even when the molester climbed through the bedroom window in MY home, and impregnated her daughter (which is in TOTAL violation of house rules agreed by my wife), STILL I got the blame. Go figure.
> Best wishes, > Ericka Ericka Kammerer - 18 Oct 2005 21:06 GMT >>>>>>But you're doing plenty of communicating. >>>>>>You don't necessarily have to talk for your wife [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > someone say "we're not communicating" after a lengthy discussion? That's > because their "communication" is flawed......... NO communication. It's a two way street. Clearly, not only are others (including your wife) not experiencing a conversion to your way of thinking as a result of your utterances, but you are not choosing to "hear" what others have to say to you, or give it any significant consideration. It may well be that your wife understands what you're saying quite clearly and simply doesn't agree. Part of communication in a relationship involves *listening* and *negotiating*, not just declaiming.
>>There we go with that reading comprehension thing >>again. I did not say that. What I said was that *YOU* [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > daughter as priority and dedicate my life to solving her shenanigans, > regardles of the cost to me, our marriage, and our home. I said no such thing. I said that you haven't stepped up to the plate and even done the *mininimal* amount of work that I think is appropriate to effectively address this situation. Not only that, but it's incredibly disingenuous to say that it's all about *either* helping your daughter *or* saving your marriage, when your ineffectiveness and lack of effort is likely *both* hurting your daughter *and* harming your marriage. I think you should have placed your marriage and wife first *by* finding effective help for your daughter.
>>>>Care to tell me what would have been improper >>>>about getting your daughter into a residential program [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Whatever does THAT have to do with her choice of behavior? It has to do with *YOUR* choice of behavior. It's very simple in my book. Your wife, at the very least, has moral, legal, and ethical responsibilities to her daughter (not to mention those pesky obligations that come from familial love and duty). If you are "one flesh" with her, then you assume those obligations right along with her. But you don't choose to do that. You choose to be "one flesh" with your wife, except for those pesky bits that are inconvenient to you.
>>So, even though you two clearly aren't, > > If we are not one flesh, then she is not my wife. Well, you're surely not treating her as your wife ought to be treated as far as I'm concerned.
>>have you >>ever researched and presented your wife with a viable >>option along these lines? No? Well, then, how do >>you know that she would have refused it? And, of course, you elect not to answer the most pertinent question...
>>>The burden of communication rests with the sender. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sorry, unlike MANY others (here) I do not read minds. In order to to send > your message, you have to speak in the language of the recipient. And the recipient has to be trying to understand and work with the sender. Without that, effective communication is not possible. You are all for sending, but not so interested in receiving.
>>You're still ducking >>the point, as entertaining as all this back and forth [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So, to understand you correctly, preserving the marriage consists of my wife > calling the shots? No, it consists of you and your wife working together to negotiate your way to effective solutions. I haven't heard your wife's side to have any idea of what she's willing (or not) to do, but it's quite clear to me that *you* have no interest in doing anything outside of a very narrow range of things you've arbitrarily and unilaterally defined as "proper." That's not leadership, nor is it conducive to an effective marriage partnership. In fact, it's quite destructive in a marriage.
>>You just aren't interested if it isn't on your terms. >>You've already decided what you're willing to do and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sounds like my wife. Guess you're a match made in heaven, eh?
>>I don't have any >>patience for that sort of selfishness or rigidity. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If I am responsible for her responsibilities, then that makes her > incompetent. She's a minor, fer cryin' out loud (and has been for years of this sort of trouble). And after years of being failed by those who should have taught her how to be a responsible and effective person, she's not going to suddenly turn responsible overnight when she turns 18.
>>If my >>husband has responsibilities in his life, then it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Tell that to my wife who isn't helping me meet my responsibilities of > protecting our marriage and home. Pot, meet kettle. You can whine about her behavior all you like, but it seems to me that you're every bit as rigid an ineffective, so I don't see how you've got the moral high ground here.
>>And virtually no one accepts >>help from others when they're feeling attacked and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > impregnated her daughter (which is in TOTAL violation of house rules agreed > by my wife), STILL I got the blame. Go figure. Why would this be inconsistent with what I said above? It doesn't surprise me in the least that your wife would be upset at your rigidity and autocracy and wouldn't be thrilled with continuing to live that way and would question whether doing so was consistent with her responsibilities to her daughter.
Best wishes, Ericka
Jamie Clark - 13 Oct 2005 00:32 GMT <snip>
> Not by this definition. To protect my family is to protect my marriage. > Even > going by YOUR definition, guess what, my marriage comes FIRST. <Snip>
> Sorry, but she doesn't see me as part of HER family. According to my wife, > a > child must recognize a man as their father BEFORE he can be identified as > such. Go argue with her! <Snip>
> That last statement is riddled with false claims. Boundaries? It was her > mother that fought me all the way over boundaries. You should know enough [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > by our counselors) when I suggested any kind of boundary. Not to mention, > most boundaries are illegal to enforce! <snip>
> Not even close. First, she is not my daughter. Secondly, she was this way > LONG before she even knew that I existed. And finally, immaturity and > irresponsibility are the trademarks af any child. Three strikes, but nice > try. <snip>
>> And people have told you loud and clear that the solution >> for your marriage is to be a man and a leader and find the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > efforts to her child. Even if I DID continue to offer her child help, she > most likely will continue to resist it. Ever get worn out? <Snip>
>> Your wife is just as wrong as you are, and her >> abandonment of *her* responsibility to protect and provide [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > word........... >> > blackmail. She fears losing her daughter and the daughter knows it! <snip>
>> So? You elected to marry the mother, and in >> doing so, you assumed those same responsibilities. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it. Again, I did NOT marry her daughter; I married her. Any such assumed > responsibility is to my marriage. <snip>
> Illegal for me to physically prevent her from bringing outsiders into my > home. Illegal for me to physically ground her. Illegal for me to discuss [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Pretty ridiculous my claim that it is illegal for me to do what a parent > ought to do, huh. <snip>
> Once again, somehow this discussion has been hijacked to getting help for > my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > seek > another group. I said it in another post, but I'll say it again here. Your wife is part of the problem in your marriage, not the daughter. It is because your wife is dysfunctional and weak that you are having problems. You cannot wish her healthy. As long as her daughter is alive, you are going to have to deal with the issues of your wife. There is no way around it. You either have to help your wife be a better stronger person, with a better way to deal with her daughter, or you are going to have to sit back and watch this train wreck occur.
Perhaps marriage counseling is a good idea.
But as long as the daughter is in trouble, and your wife doesn't have a spine, your marriage will be in trouble.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 05:04 GMT > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > I said it in another post, but I'll say it again here. Your wife is part of > the problem in your marriage, not the daughter. Her daughter is the catalyst.
> It is because your wife is > dysfunctional and weak that you are having problems. You cannot wish her [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Perhaps marriage counseling is a good idea. Been there many times and with different counselors from different types of organizations. We have the tools; it is simply a matter of putting them to use.
> But as long as the daughter is in trouble, and your wife doesn't have a > spine, your marriage will be in trouble. I know.
Sue - 13 Oct 2005 14:41 GMT "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message
> I owe her NOTHING. In fact, in a very recent discussion with her regarding > the current situation, I asked the question; and guess what her answer was. The child has been let down by many people. No wonder she has an attitude.
 Signature Sue (mom to three girls)
Michelle - 11 Oct 2005 23:47 GMT > To parent your daughter. To support your wife. > To find a way for people (besides just yourself) to come > out of this mess whole. Hm. I'm going to swim against the tide here. Up front, my opinions are somewhat skewed by what we went through for many years with my sister. Also, I fostered her son for two years in my own house because she was incapable of caring for him herself for various reasons. AT NO POINT, however, was it an option that my sister live with us.
Whether or not this girl is his blood child or his stepchild, I think the best thing to do to "parent" this girl is to have her mother take her to the proper agencies, start filling out paperwork, find her own place to live, etc. The girl has, like it or not, taken on an adult's responsibilities, so now she needs to get it together and act like an adult.
That means, get on Medicaid, get on WIC, get a job, get her own apartment, find out what government resources are there to help her with day care and such when the baby is born, and preferably, haul her little patookie to some parenting classes. Chris and his wife simply treating her like she's a teenager and this new baby is their child (by them being the grandchild's "parents") is only going to complicate matters further in the long run.
Would I give her a grace period if she were my daughter? Well, sure I would. I'd probably even let her stay in our house for longer than planned IF she were making progress and/or in some sort of community college or training program on her way to a realistic job. (Nursing school, for example.) I'd even be available for baby-sitting, although not simply the dumping ground for the baby.
IMO, in no way should the grandparents become the pseudo-parents of the baby until and unless it becomes necessary for the child to be removed from his/her mother. IMO, it just clouds the issue of who is or isn't really "the parent", and the mother of the baby, if she's actually doing well with being a parent, doesn't need her decisions second-guessed or undermined, either. And if they parent the baby the first two or three years anyway, then this girl is going to have -no- -idea- how to be a parent when she -does- get on her feet.
So, I guess I'm less rigid that asfg or Chris here are being, but this is not, IMO, a situation of "Well, you still need to be parenting your minor daughter." She's an adult (or close), she made her adult decisions, and now she needs to accept her adult consequences and solve her problems like an adult.
My two cents. *plink*plink*
Michelle Flutist
Ericka Kammerer - 12 Oct 2005 00:08 GMT > So, I guess I'm less rigid that asfg or Chris here are being, but this > is not, IMO, a situation of "Well, you still need to be parenting your > minor daughter." She's an adult (or close), she made her adult > decisions, and now she needs to accept her adult consequences and solve > her problems like an adult. I don't think that she necessarily needs to be kept in the home. In fact, since the home is clearly dysfunctional, I doubt it is the best place for her. That said, a sink or swim approach is likely to fail miserably as well. I do believe that a child who has been failed so badly by those who were entrusted with her care is owed something more than a washing of the hands as soon as she attains her legal majority. Personally, my gut says that she likely needs (and needed years ago, when she was very much a minor) some kind of highly structured residential program. I can't imagine why there wasn't an effort then to make that happen, and I can't imagine why there wouldn't be an attempt now (though the options are likely much more limited now). I think when you screw something up, you have a moral obligation to try to fix it. There are limits to what you can do, and when you've exhausted your options, then you've done what you can do. I just don't buy that they've exhausted their options. It seems to me that they did relatively little, compared with what was likely necessary. There comes a time when you have to go for "sink or swim," but I think you have to earn your way to that point and I don't think these people have. That doesn't mean they do penance by allowing this girl to take advantage of them for some number of years. It just means that they get off their butts and find something that will work. And maybe the best they can do *is* to get her to TANF and WIC and whatnot and show her the door, but there are also more comprehensive solutions out there they should at the very least be looking for. Maybe they won't be able to make those work, but it's not exactly a high standard to expect them to make the effort.
Best wishes, Ericka
Michelle J. Haines - 12 Oct 2005 00:32 GMT > > I don't think that she necessarily needs to be kept > in the home. In fact, since the home is clearly dysfunctional, > I doubt it is the best place for her. That said, a sink or > swim approach is likely to fail miserably as well. Yes, but getting her involved in the programs that are specifically designed to help girls in her situation (or similar) is -not- sink or swim, IMO. "I'll drive you to your food stamp appointment and help you with all your legal documentation. I'll help you look for low-cost housing. Do you want to get a job right now, or would you prefer to look into training programs or the local community college first? Good, now get out the phone and the phone book and start dialing, let's get the ball rolling."
That's not pitching her in the deep, but it still sends a very clear message that "Here's your life, kiddo, now get on it."
> majority. Personally, my gut says that she likely needs > (and needed years ago, when she was very much a minor) > some kind of highly structured residential program. I can't > imagine why there wasn't an effort then to make that happen, > and I can't imagine why there wouldn't be an attempt now > (though the options are likely much more limited now). They might even -have- a residential program in their state, in which case I'd say the mother and daughter should work together to contact agencies to find that out.
> I think when you screw something up, you have a > moral obligation to try to fix it. I think you're making some extremely sweeping assumptions about what they did or didn't do with this girl based on extremely thin information. Some close friends of mine...their father is/was deeply religious, they've said they could approach him with nearly everything, that he was a steady moral guide, and they still have a fabulous relationship with him. (Their relationship with their mother is something else again.) Nonetheless, -three- out of the four daughters got pregnant young and out of wedlock. Parenting is often -a- reason why things go wrong with children, but it's hardly the only thing, or the only contributing factor.
Michelle Flutist
Ericka Kammerer - 12 Oct 2005 03:16 GMT >> >> I don't think that she necessarily needs to be kept [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > designed to help girls in her situation (or similar) is -not- sink or > swim, IMO. I agree with you, to an extent.
> "I'll drive you to your food stamp appointment and help you > with all your legal documentation. I'll help you look for low-cost > housing. Do you want to get a job right now, or would you prefer to > look into training programs or the local community college first? Good, > now get out the phone and the phone book and start dialing, let's get > the ball rolling." It appears that Chris has done at least some of that, with little success. My question is *why* has this failed? It may have failed because she's just flat out lazy and doesn't care, which *is* a possibility and obviously the explanation Chris believes. There is another possibility, however. This kid could be so messed up (wouldn't be surprising given what's been described of her history) that she just flat out doesn't have the skills to do the right thing. And *that's* where I think additional help is needed, and where I think compassionate, responsible people would attempt to get help for *that* aspect of the problem.
>> majority. Personally, my gut says that she likely needs >> (and needed years ago, when she was very much a minor) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > case I'd say the mother and daughter should work together to contact > agencies to find that out. Absolutely. I think that would be great. I have never suggested that the only way to handle this problem is to keep the girl in the house. I suspect that will be detrimental, under the circumstances. And it's possible that they could search and search and come up dry. But no one will know until they do the search.
>> I think when you screw something up, you have a >> moral obligation to try to fix it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > why things go wrong with children, but it's hardly the only thing, or > the only contributing factor. It doesn't have to be the *only* factor responsible for her situation. I'm sure the daughter is as complicit as anyone. But it seems clear to me that this girl has not received what she needs. Her mother wasn't there much in the early years and apparently has provided little in the way of boundaries. Apparently biological father is basically absent, and has been for years. Chris recognizes no responsibility for or obligation to this girl. Seems likely that the boyfriend isn't a paragon of mature decision making either. So, just how is a girl going to grow up strong and healthy when NONE of the three adults who should have stepped up to the plate? I also don't think that a parent has to be solely responsible for problems in order to have some responsibility to deal with the issue. I'm not asking Chris just to do whatever his daughter tells him, nor am I asking him to set himself up as a victim. I am simply suggesting that this girl needs *effective* help, probably more than he can provide in his home with his wife, and that they do not appear to me to have exhausted the list of obvious things that ought to be checked out. I can't even imagine why there wasn't a search for a residential program when she turned up pregnant the first time, after already going through (presumably) years of flagrant out of control behavior that they hadn't had any success at improving.
Best wishes, Ericka
Michelle J. Haines - 12 Oct 2005 04:17 GMT > It appears that Chris has done at least some of that, > with little success. My question is *why* has this failed? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > responsible people would attempt to get help for *that* aspect > of the problem. Another possibility is she darned well knows that if she stone-walls long enough, her mother will give in and she won't have to be bothered with t his pesky responsibility stuff.
I'm being very up-front here, my opinions are -very- influenced by my personal experiences with a similar situation.
My mother did pretty much what you're expecting Chris and his wife to do. "Oh, she's not old enough to understand the consequences of her actions, so I have to make it easier for her so she knows I'm still there for her." My sister was in and out of the adolescent programs, in a difficult teen group home/therapy place for a while, and the juvenile judge got so sick of seeing her that he finally got fed up and sent her to jail for a few weeks. Every time, my mother kept intervening to make it easier. When she was in jail, she told her to call collect whenever she needed something. So she did, like 15 times a day. I was so fed up and frustrated I asked my mother why she kept accepting the calls. She came at me with about a bazillion excuses -- she forgot her hairbrush, she was the only teenage girl there and therefore had no one to talk to so she was lonely, she needed to feel loved, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps I was a mean and heartless 17 year old, but even then my general opinion was, "Yeah, and? The judge told her if she got caught again, she was caught again, she'd be in jail. Let her deal with how it feels and maybe she won't do it again."
This crap went on for -years-. When my nephew came to live with us, and his mother was in jail yet again, he had -no- idea. In fact, my mother and I got into a pretty pissy fight over the fact that my husband and I told him his mother was in jail and why (general outlines). My mother's opinion was that my nephew loved his mother, and therefore should never be told what her life was like. We had already seen pretty abnormal, irresponsible, and "I'm only in trouble if I get caught" behave out of him (and not just like a normal 7-9 year old, it was -extreme-), so we had many a conversation with him about the real-world consequences of his actions and his mother's. And, actually, his father's actions, who was also in prison for beating the crap out of someone. This one came up a lot, because of his inclination to try to beat up his cousins.
My sister did finally get her life straightened out, a couple of years ago. It's difficult to know exactly why, but I do know it didn't happen until my mother was fed up, my father was fed up, both their spouses were fed up, my brother and I were long since fed up, and her boyfriend was fed up. Everyone told her, "We've had enough, whatever's going on now, it's on you. Good luck." No one else was going to bail her out of jail, call anyone else for her, and the rest. That's when taking responsibility for herself, and without my mother as a safety net, finally stuck. I do think that at least part of it was her finally, -finally- knowing that my mother wasn't going to come swooping in and safe her this time, she had to do it herself or die in this mess. She was 27. And this was after probably a good 15 years of drug use and abuse.
Which is my very long-winded way of saying, now, when the girl's 18, they can help her to start making good decisions, to start to decide where her life is going to go (work, school, etc) and they can make some reasonable compromises, but the time for taking responsibility for her "growing up" has passed. It's not like her parents -chose- this crash course, she chose it herself...perhaps through her juvenile irresponsibility, but the baby isn't going to give a damn. If she truly isn't capable of stepping up to the plate, then adoption probably is the way to go.
Hopefully, the family will work something out.
Michelle Flutist
Ericka Kammerer - 12 Oct 2005 04:45 GMT >> It appears that Chris has done at least some of that, >> with little success. My question is *why* has this failed? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > long enough, her mother will give in and she won't have to be bothered > with t his pesky responsibility stuff. Sure (although I would equate that with "lazy" personally). She desperately needs boundaries and expectations.
> I'm being very up-front here, my opinions are -very- influenced by my > personal experiences with a similar situation. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > actions, so I have to make it easier for her so she knows I'm still > there for her." NO, that's not what I'm saying *at all*. I'm saying that the odds of her becoming the sort of responsible adult she *NEEDS* to become are improved dramatically by her getting the right kind of help. After years of inadequate parenting, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that she isn't capable of doing what she needs to do.
> My sister was in and out of the adolescent programs, in > a difficult teen group home/therapy place for a while, and the juvenile > judge got so sick of seeing her that he finally got fed up and sent her > to jail for a few weeks. Every time, my mother kept intervening to make > it easier. I would agree that this is absolutely deadly, and I absolutely do not recommend that her parents have as their goal to make this easier. My recommendation is that they make it *possible* by realizing that she probably doesn't have the skills to be successful and that therefore, what she needs is to get help. You describe a situation where your sister was in and out of programs. I have yet to see any evidence that this girl has been in *any* program.
> Which is my very long-winded way of saying, now, when the girl's 18, > they can help her to start making good decisions, to start to decide [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > isn't capable of stepping up to the plate, then adoption probably is the > way to go. My perspective is that situations like this always have at least three areas you have to address: physical or mental health issues, lack of skills, and boundaries/expectations/etc. You have to do all of them to be successful. If the person has the skills to do right and you insist that they do right, but they have debilitating and untreated physical or mental illness, they're not likely to succeed. If they have the skills and reasonable physical and mental health, but they're always getting bailed out, they're not likely to succeed. If they've got their physical and mental health under control and the expectations are high, but they don't have the life skills, they're *still* going to fail. So, to have made a credible attempt (which I think parents ought to do), there has to be an effort on all three fronts. I don't see that here. All I see Chris talking about is raising expectations (which, of course, is largely worthless since his wife isn't playing along). I don't see where the effort is in the other areas. So, I have to ask why anyone would expect that there *would* be success in this case? I completely understand your perspective, and I completely agree that boundaries and expectations are important. I just think they're inadequate on their own *and* that they have to be consistently implemented if they're going to be successful.
Best wishes, Ericka
Jamie Clark - 12 Oct 2005 06:58 GMT >> It appears that Chris has done at least some of that, >> with little success. My question is *why* has this failed? [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > baby isn't going to give a damn. If she truly isn't capable of stepping > up to the plate, then adoption probably is the way to go. I completely agree with you that adoption would be in this child's best interests. Completely.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 20:00 GMT > >> It appears that Chris has done at least some of that, > >> with little success. My question is *why* has this failed? [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > I completely agree with you that adoption would be in this child's best > interests. Completely. Just this morning, my wife stated the same. Granted it was proclaimed in desperation, but nonetheless proclaimed. I am of the same opinion. If her daughter can NOT take care of herself, then she can NOT take care of a baby. Am I wrong?
Jamie Clark - 13 Oct 2005 06:59 GMT >> >> It appears that Chris has done at least some of that, >> >> with little success. My question is *why* has this failed? [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > baby. > Am I wrong? I would think not. If your wife really thinks this would be best, then perhaps a home for pregnant teens would be a good solution, along with a lot of counseling for the daughter to help her be sure of what she wants to do with regards to this child. Maybe you and your wife are on the same page, or at least the same chapter, after all.
Of course, if the daughter does not want to make an adoption plan for her child, there isn't much you can do.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 09:58 GMT > >> >> It appears that Chris has done at least some of that, > >> >> with little success. My question is *why* has this failed? [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > Of course, if the daughter does not want to make an adoption plan for her > child, there isn't much you can do. I can really appreciate all the input from this group. Problem is, virtually every solution will be rejected by my wife's daughter. She simply has tunnel vision and aint' NOBODY gonna get in her way!
Sue - 13 Oct 2005 14:55 GMT "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message
>If her daughter can NOT take care of herself, then she can NOT take care of >a baby. Am I wrong? Not always. Sometimes when babies are born to very young/teenaged parents, they almost grow up the minute the child is born. I've known a couple of girls that couldn't take care of themselves, but rose to the challenge once the baby was born. Then there are women who use drugs and have a horrible life and once they find out they are pregnant, they get treatment and try to do right by the child. Now, this doesn't happen all the time, but one definitely hears stories about this kind of thing.
 Signature Sue (mom to three girls)
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 09:06 GMT > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > >If her daughter can NOT take care of herself, then she can NOT take care of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > do right by the child. Now, this doesn't happen all the time, but one > definitely hears stories about this kind of thing. Perhaps this will be one of those "sometimes" cases. We shall wait and see.
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 06:20 GMT > >> I don't think that she necessarily needs to be kept > >> in the home. In fact, since the home is clearly dysfunctional, [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > Best wishes, > Ericka For starters, let's get the record straight. This "girl" is no longer a girl. She is a WOMAN. Becoming pregnant and gaining all the legal rights of an adult is a pretty strong indication of such.
Most of what you and the previous poster stated are fairly accurate assessments of the situation. You both seem to be tuning in to the circumstances. And yes, mother IS doing most of what you have recommended by way of government aid.
Let me add some more information that might clarify the picture even more. A few years back, when I was not living with her mother, I received a desperate phone call from her. When I got to her home (basically next door), there her daughter was stretched out on the floor half dressed and unconscious. I quickly summoned a nearby friend, the three of us rushed her to the car, and off we went to the hospital. Turns out her BAC was something like .38 if I remember correctly. STILL surprised that she made it! Her girlfriend was in her room at the time this took place; needless to say in a panic. When we later returned home, we both searched her bedroom. Along with the empty bottle (vodka I believe & her friend brought it over), we found packs of condoms, but worse... love letters. What made these letters particularly disturbing was the fact that they were sent from a prison inmate! Apparently, the same guy (not the father of her child) who had been climbing through her bedroom window at night and molesting her. [good grief this makes me sick to bring up again] In my 202/20 hindsight, my belief that she was being very helpful to her mom by always volunteering to get the mail turned out to be in error. You should also know that a law officer sat right in my living room and said that if she chooses to allow some man to crawl through her window at night (which actually occurred in MY house by the father of her baby), that he is considered a guest, and his presence in my home is perfectly legal! So there you go, dirtbag laws created by dirtbag people. Any challenges?
Tomorrow morning, she and my wife will be in court. Why? Because a couple months back, her daughter was in violation of curfew laws. She got cited only because she lied to the police (told them she was 18). I was in court today, but for something I think you might agree was constructive; to get a deadbeat tenant out of my property! So there you have it, the beat goes on..........
Ericka Kammerer - 12 Oct 2005 13:48 GMT > For starters, let's get the record straight. This "girl" is no longer a > girl. She is a WOMAN. Becoming pregnant and gaining all the legal rights of > an adult is a pretty strong indication of such. She's a girl by her behavior, and that's what counts in my book.
> Let me add some more information that might clarify the picture even more. A > few years back, when I was not living with her mother, I received a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > climbing through her bedroom window at night and molesting her. [good grief > this makes me sick to bring up again] Dear God, you offer these examples as justifications for your behavior, and all they say to me is that this girl needed SERIOUS intervention a LONG time ago and didn't get it.
> In my 202/20 hindsight, my belief that she was being very helpful to her mom > by always volunteering to get the mail turned out to be in error. You should [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > considered a guest, and his presence in my home is perfectly legal! So there > you go, dirtbag laws created by dirtbag people. Any challenges? I don't get your point. Are you claiming that just because you can't charge the guy with trespassing, your hands are tied and there's nothing you could have done about the situation? That's a pretty poor victim story in my book.
I simply don't get how you can have every sign of a girl in terrible trouble for *YEARS* and think that having done nothing more than tell her "you'd better follow the rules" without any significant follow through or other help is an adequate response to the situation. I'm just absolutely flabbergasted. Mind you, I'm not saying that it's been easy over the years. I'm just suggesting that whatever you thought while going through it, I just can't believe you're defending your behavior now as having been adequate.
Best wishes, Ericka
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 20:30 GMT > > For starters, let's get the record straight. This "girl" is no longer a > > girl. She is a WOMAN. Becoming pregnant and gaining all the legal rights of > > an adult is a pretty strong indication of such. > > She's a girl by her behavior, Getting pregnant?
> and that's what counts > in my book. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > for your behavior, and all they say to me is that this girl > needed SERIOUS intervention a LONG time ago and didn't get it. Got it. So history has no bearing on the morality of my actions?
> > In my 202/20 hindsight, my belief that she was being very helpful to her mom > > by always volunteering to get the mail turned out to be in error. You should [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the situation? That's a pretty poor victim story in my > book. I suppose I could have taken an illegal approach that would gurantee he never does it again. You recommend that?
> I simply don't get how you can have every sign > of a girl in terrible trouble for *YEARS* and think that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it, I just can't believe you're defending your behavior > now as having been adequate. It IS adequate. Your above statements are far from accurate. "Respect the home or leave" is MORE than an adequate response now because she is an independent woman staying here for convenience. It has not always been the response. Actually, her mother refused to grant me permission to enforce many rules. Does that also flabbergast you?
> Best wishes, > Ericka Circe - 12 Oct 2005 16:23 GMT > For starters, let's get the record straight. This "girl" is no longer a > girl. She is a WOMAN. Becoming pregnant and gaining all the legal rights > of > an adult is a pretty strong indication of such. Good Lord, man! Would you say that if she were 15 and pregnant? 13 and pregnant? 12 and pregnant?
Being pregnant doesn't make a girl a woman any more than having sired a child makes a boy a man. There is a HECK of a lot more to being an adult than being capable of reproduction.
> Let me add some more information that might clarify the picture even more. > A [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > grief > this makes me sick to bring up again] It makes me sick to read it. But what makes me the sickest is the fact that you seem to think this illustrates why you are justified in considering her a lost cause. This child--your wife's flesh and blood--was being ABUSED (just because SHE thought it was something else doesn't mean it was anything less than abuse) and you apparently did little or nothing to help her (other than taking her to the hospital for medical treatment). The time to intervene in a meaningful way in this child's life was YEARS ago, and you and your wife seem to have missed the boat.
I feel very, very sorry for your stepdaughter. She was abandoned years by the people who should have been protecting and defending her. That's not exclusively your fault, of course. It might not even be your fault at all. But it now IS your problem and you can't just wash your hands of it by proclaiming she's an adult and should take care of herself. It's just more evidence that you KNEW what you were getting into when you married her mother, and it's hardly fair for you to cry foul at this point in the game.
Your stepdaughter needs help in many forms. Help your wife see that and help her daughter get the help she needs. Neither of them is psychologically healthy enough to see what needs to be done. You might be, although quite frankly, your lack of action to this point doesn't bode well. -- Be well, Barbara
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 20:32 GMT > > For starters, let's get the record straight. This "girl" is no longer a > > girl. She is a WOMAN. Becoming pregnant and gaining all the legal rights [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Good Lord, man! Would you say that if she were 15 and pregnant? 13 and > pregnant? 12 and pregnant? Does a 12 year old have all the legal rights of an adult?
> Being pregnant doesn't make a girl a woman any more than having sired a > child makes a boy a man. There is a HECK of a lot more to being an adult > than being capable of reproduction. What's your definition?
> > Let me add some more information that might clarify the picture even more. > > A [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > you seem to think this illustrates why you are justified in considering her > a lost cause. NEVER said that. What I said is that I will not allow her to disrupt my home. If she is unwilling to comply, there's the door. HER call.
> This child--your wife's flesh and blood--was being ABUSED > (just because SHE thought it was something else doesn't mean it was anything > less than abuse) and you apparently did little or nothing to help her (other > than taking her to the hospital for medical treatment). The time to > intervene in a meaningful way in this child's life was YEARS ago, and you > and your wife seem to have missed the boat. Remember, I haven't been around all that long. I DID try to intervene. Thanks to mom my efforts were thwarted in almost every issue..
> I feel very, very sorry for your stepdaughter. She was abandoned years by > the people who should have been protecting and defending her. I'm with you.
> That's not > exclusively your fault, of course. It might not even be your fault at all. > But it now IS your problem and you can't just wash your hands of it by > proclaiming she's an adult and should take care of herself. Yes I can. My allegiance rests with my wife, not her daughter.
> It's just more > evidence that you KNEW what you were getting into when you married her > mother, and it's hardly fair for you to cry foul at this point in the game. The only thing that's foul is her daughter's behavior.
> Your stepdaughter needs help in many forms. So does my marriage need help. Guess which comes FIRST.
> Help your wife see that and help > her daughter get the help she needs. Neither of them is psychologically > healthy enough to see what needs to be done. You might be, although quite > frankly, your lack of action to this point doesn't bode well. It is apparent that you know very little about me.
> -- > Be well, Barbara Banty - 13 Oct 2005 20:25 GMT >> > For starters, let's get the record straight. This "girl" is no longer a >> > girl. She is a WOMAN. Becoming pregnant and gaining all the legal rights [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >NEVER said that. What I said is that I will not allow her to disrupt my >home. If she is unwilling to comply, there's the door. HER call. *"My"* home...
Banty
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 09:08 GMT > >> > For starters, let's get the record straight. This "girl" is no longer a > >> > girl. She is a WOMAN. Becoming pregnant and gaining all the legal rights [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > *"My"* home... Certainly aint' HER home!
> Banty agsf_57@yahoo.com - 10 Oct 2005 00:33 GMT > Okay - I guess I just feel that except in highly unusual cases, what's > best for the family as a whole is generally not at odds with what's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > days that have been really rough for us all, he might take the kids out > to pick up takeout while I have a glass of wine and a hot bath ;) What you describe does not refute my stance. What your husband did in both situations was to put your needs above those of the children. If he was to put the needs of the children before yours, he would have taken the kids out to eat instead of the playground.
> > > This guy obviously has some pretty big issues at home, and I don't know > > > what he and his wife can do to solve those issues. In my culture, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > without turning her into a charity case - and she and her son did very > well. Maybe you and I share different view points of western culture. My view point of Western culture is that children respect their friends rather than their parents. The children participate in sex, drugs and for the most part, are non-religious. The parents put their own needs before that of the family. Also, the parents put their own parents in retirement homes.
> > I've been called a lot of insulting things online, but this remark tops > > all of them. ;) > > I have to admit I'm relieved to hear you say that. That you're the most insulting person I ever ran across online? ;)
> 99 Regards...
Chris - 10 Oct 2005 20:50 GMT > > Okay - I guess I just feel that except in highly unusual cases, what's > > best for the family as a whole is generally not at odds with what's [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > that of the family. Also, the parents put their own parents in > retirement homes. Hits the nail on the head.
> > > I've been called a lot of insulting things online, but this remark tops > > > all of them. ;) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Regards... agent99 - 12 Oct 2005 22:02 GMT > > Okay - I guess I just feel that except in highly unusual cases, what's > > best for the family as a whole is generally not at odds with what's [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > he was to put the needs of the children before yours, he would have > taken the kids out to eat instead of the playground. You're wrong - if he were putting only my needs first, he might suggest we hire a babysitter and go out to eat. My older child has an afternoon snack, and the baby nurses on demand. Neither of them is very hungry when my dh gets home from work. If he were putting my needs first *to the exclusion of what benefits everyone*, he would hardly be leaving me to cook dinner. We are both putting the family first.
However, I have young children, not teenagers, and I have a very functional family. I am evidently in no place to give Chris advice, although I agree with some of the advice he has dismissed, and I think he has a lousy attitude.
> > > > This guy obviously has some pretty big issues at home, and I don't know > > > > what he and his wife can do to solve those issues. In my culture, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that of the family. Also, the parents put their own parents in > retirement homes. I don't disagree that these things happen, but I also don't think it's nearly as widespread or as severe as the American media would have us believe. So, you bracketed "the parents put their own needs before that of the family" with "the children participate in sex, drugs, and for the most part are non-religious [sic]," and "also, the parents put their own parents in retirement homes." Are you passing any moral judgement on these things, or just pointing them out? From my own perspective, parents who put their own needs before those of the family are more likely to put their parents in retirement homes (note: some seniors do choose retirement homes!!), and are also more likely to have rebellious, disrepectful, drug-using, sexually active kids. After all, if you've been told all your life that you're not as important a person as your parents are, you may feel a need to rebel against and hurt those parents. Then again, if you're told all your life that your parents are doormats, that's not good either.
I do think a lot of this boils down to how your own upbringing and family culture have molded you, as Chris points out when he talks about his parents and siblings' marriages. My own parents put family first, and they both have successful careers, as well as self-sufficient children who love them and maintain strong ties with them. My dh and I take our parenting cues directly from our parents, because we feel strongly that they did an excellent job of raising a family that valued and supported ALL of its members.
But that's easy for me to say - I'm not in Chris's shoes.
> > > I've been called a lot of insulting things online, but this remark tops > > > all of them. ;) > > > > I have to admit I'm relieved to hear you say that. > > That you're the most insulting person I ever ran across online? ;) Well, that's not what you said. ;)
I'm relieved that you don't like being lumped in with Dr. Laura. It makes you slightly more palatable.
Or should I have simply said, "hey, from you that's a compliment?" ;)
99
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 16 Oct 2005 00:46 GMT > > > Okay - I guess I just feel that except in highly unusual cases, what's > > > best for the family as a whole is generally not at odds with what's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the exclusion of what benefits everyone*, he would hardly be leaving me > to cook dinner. We are both putting the family first. I never used the word "only". Parents should take the children into consideration in what they do, but not at the priority over one spouse.
> However, I have young children, not teenagers, and I have a very > functional family. I am evidently in no place to give Chris advice, > although I agree with some of the advice he has dismissed, and I think > he has a lousy attitude. I think he has the correct attitude. If his step-daughter had the conviction, focus, strength and structure from her own parents, chances are she would not be in this predicament.
What you see is a hurt child and a mom who feels guility for the weakness of her actions. Chris is the only level headed person in this whole mess.
> I don't disagree that these things happen, but I also don't think it's > nearly as widespread or as severe as the American media would have us > believe. Well, facts speak for themselves. The US has a 50 percent divorce rate with more people living together out of wedlock than before. This produces a lot of single parents who end up placing their children in day care.
Show me proof that the majority of American families consist of married spouses where children are in the care of either a parent or close family member and that these family members live with their children in their home. One only has to look at countries like India, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, etc and compare their culture with American culture when it comes to strong family values.
> So, you bracketed "the parents put their own needs before that > of the family" with "the children participate in sex, drugs, and for > the most part are non-religious [sic]," and "also, the parents put > their own parents in retirement homes." Are you passing any moral > judgement on these things, or just pointing them out? I'm pointing them out to counter your comment that extended family members live in the same household as their children and that parents focus on the well being of their children first as being traits of a western culture. I no longer see these traits in Western culture. Our generation (I'm 30 yrs old by the way) was raised to feel that women were oppressed by traditional family values. This idealogy attacked the core of family and religious values. What you see now is the aftermath.
>From my own > perspective, parents who put their own needs before those of the family [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > those parents. Then again, if you're told all your life that your > parents are doormats, that's not good either. And that's what I see as being the social norm of modern American culture.
> I do think a lot of this boils down to how your own upbringing and > family culture have molded you, as Chris points out when he talks about > his parents and siblings' marriages. My own parents put family first, > and they both have successful careers, as well as self-sufficient > children who love them and maintain strong ties with them. Just to comment: Rarely when both parents have successful careers, did they put their family and children first.
> My dh and I > take our parenting cues directly from our parents, because we feel > strongly that they did an excellent job of raising a family that valued > and supported ALL of its members. > > But that's easy for me to say - I'm not in Chris's shoes. Well, you and Chris have two different meanings for the word "support".
> I'm relieved that you don't like being lumped in with Dr. Laura. It > makes you slightly more palatable. Dr. Laura is too liberal for my taste. Plus, I think she has a hatred for all that is male.
> Or should I have simply said, "hey, from you that's a compliment?" ;) Exactly. ;)
> 99 Regards...
Chris - 09 Oct 2005 22:11 GMT > > > > > Not me. My comittment is to my wife FIRST and foremost! > > > > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > because his commitment obviously doesn't extend to his stepdaughter, > her daughter. It's hanging by a thread because of my wife. Marriage does NOT hinge on one's commitment to a stepchild; it hinges on their commitment to their SPOUSE.
> That said, though, it sounds as though the girl doesn't > respect him very much, and I think somewhere he says that she claimed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you, but not consider your children my children, or their children my > grandchildren," a bad attitude, too. In your opinion. The child already has a father! I vowed to NEVER interfere between my stepdaughter and her father; and have kept my pledge. In fact, I have tried to encourage their relationship and offered to be instrumental in having it come about. That she has virtually nothing to do with her father is in no way caused by me.
> > > > 3. Your children. Your children's birthdays and/or sporting events or > > > > any other needs surpass those of family and friends. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > I worry that Chris is trying to say that his wife's daughter isn't > really a part of his family. She's not because she CHOOSES so. Bear in mind that I may very well be considered a third wheel here. But like it or not, my wife has a covenantal relationship to me as do I to her.
> I would not want to be married to a man > who considered me his family, but not my children. Again, that's an [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 99 Chris - 08 Oct 2005 06:10 GMT > > > > > For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will > > > > > respond, with all due respect, to your post below. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > wellbeing at a premium, and recognise that for parents to care well for > kids, they themselves must be well taken care of. That's why my wife comes first.
> And her commitment to you should be above the > > children. The order that should follow is: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > food, but the kids don't? What if there's a fire, or a capsized boat, > and only one person can be saved? Kid or parent? SPOUSE. Last I checked, my marriage covenant was with my wife......... not her child.
> I hope my spouse > chooses kid - I certainly would. And if you think this argument is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > agsf, surely you recognise that adult animals strive to ensure the > survival of their young, so that they too might procreate? What do animals have to do with this discussion?
> Oh, and the scenario where it's just the two of you, and your children > have fled the nest and have their own lives? That's the middle, not the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > woman who lives with her mother and stepfather, and the wellbeing of > her unborn child. My mistake. Since when does a grandmother have any commitment to the wellbeing of her unborn grandchild?
> > 4. Family and Friends. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > For someone who believes in a moral code, you got no notion of > compassion, have you? "Compassion" and "morality" are not codependent terms.
> It's like you're channelling Dr. Laura. > > 99 agent99 - 08 Oct 2005 20:59 GMT > > > > > > For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will > > > > > > respond, with all due respect, to your post below. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > That's why my wife comes first. Fair enough.
> > And her commitment to you should be above the > > > children. The order that should follow is: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > SPOUSE. Last I checked, my marriage covenant was with my wife......... not > her child. Well, I hope she's okay with that. If it was me, I wouldn't be, but then if I were in a position where I might marry someone who was not the biological father of my children, I would not do it if he wasn't wholly committed to being their de facto father. I wouldn't want to be married to a man who felt that his commitment only extended to me, and who didn't consider my children his family. But that's my personal feeling only, and if you and your wife have a different arrangement, that's your business.
> > I hope my spouse > > chooses kid - I certainly would. And if you think this argument is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What do animals have to do with this discussion? I'm merely remarking on agsf's frequent references to human sexual preferences from a "survival of the species" perspective. The same sort of argument would support the notion that parents generally put their offspring's wellbeing above their own.
> > Oh, and the scenario where it's just the two of you, and your children > > have fled the nest and have their own lives? That's the middle, not the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Since when does a grandmother have any commitment to the wellbeing of her > unborn grandchild? Wow. I can't believe you asked that. Ummm, since always? Regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy, most women concern themselves when their daughters get pregnant. Otherwise, words like "grandmother" and "grandchild" wouldn't exist. Grandmothers are often present at the births of grandchildren, and all over the world are traditionally the ones who help nurse their daughters and daughters-in-law, and grandchildren, through the later stages of pregnancy and the newborn phase. In some Asian cultures, the unborn child's grandmother will move in with the parents to assist both before and after the baby is born.
That's some pretty serious commitment to the "wellbeing of her unborn grandchild," and it's almost universal.
I understand your disapproval of your stepdaughter's choices - she has been very irresponsible. What I don't get is your apparent belief that your wife shouldn't feel any need, borne of love, to care for her child and grandchild.
> > > Also, his step-daughter is not taking the baby into consideration. Why > > > should he and his wife be burdened by the lack of responsibility of his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "Compassion" and "morality" are not codependent terms. Indeed they are not. Cruel acts are frequently committed under the guise of morality.
99
Cuddlefish - 09 Oct 2005 00:12 GMT >>Since when does a grandmother have any commitment to the wellbeing of her >>unborn grandchild? Well it has been hypothesised that female menopause in humans evolved so as to 'free up' older women to assist younger women with childrearing since they were no longer fertile themselves. Apparently no other species experiences female menopause.
Jacqueline
agent99 - 09 Oct 2005 06:19 GMT > >>Since when does a grandmother have any commitment to the wellbeing of her > >>unborn grandchild? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jacqueline Hmmm . . . frequent night wakings with newborn, frequent night wakings due to hot flashes . . . when my mother came to stay after my first was born, she did remark that she might as well be up with him, since she wasn't getting any sleep anyway! Interesting hypothesis!
99
Chris - 09 Oct 2005 07:49 GMT > > > > > > > For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will > > > > > > > respond, with all due respect, to your post below. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > feeling only, and if you and your wife have a different arrangement, > that's your business. We do; it's called a covenantal marriage. Her child has started a brand new family.
> > > I hope my spouse > > > chooses kid - I certainly would. And if you think this argument is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of argument would support the notion that parents generally put their > offspring's wellbeing above their own. I am not privy to such reference. But even so, I am unsure how you conclude that one implies the other.
> > > Oh, and the scenario where it's just the two of you, and your children > > > have fled the nest and have their own lives? That's the middle, not the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > That's some pretty serious commitment to the "wellbeing of her unborn > grandchild," and it's almost universal. It is apparent that my use of the word "commitment" is different than your use of the word. I am using it in the sense of having a choiceless duty/obligation as opposed to your use regarding the action.
> I understand your disapproval of your stepdaughter's choices - she has > been very irresponsible. What I don't get is your apparent belief that > your wife shouldn't feel any need, borne of love, to care for her child > and grandchild. I made no mention about my wife feeling any such need.
> > > > Also, his step-daughter is not taking the baby into consideration. Why > > > > should he and his wife be burdened by the lack of responsibility of his [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Indeed they are not. Cruel acts are frequently committed under the > guise of morality. "Cruel" is a matter of opinion, and "guise of morality" may indeed be moral.
> 99 agent99 - 11 Oct 2005 20:42 GMT <snip>
> > > SPOUSE. Last I checked, my marriage covenant was with my wife......... > not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > We do; it's called a covenantal marriage. Her child has started a brand new > family. Interesting. Clearly you believe in nuclear families, rather than extended ones that are part of a greater web of relatives and friends - something we call a community. My marriage is the union of myself and my husband. The covenant of our marriage, however, is between ourselves, God, the state which legally recognises us as a married unit, and our community - our extended family and our friends who bore witness to our union and who pledged to support us. Had I married a man who had children already, I would have taken those children on as if they were my own, when I married him.
I'm not trying to say that your stepdaughter should be allowed to walk all over you and your wife - agsf is correct that coddling often does nobody any favors. But everything you've said is divisive - "my family" vs. "her family," "my rules" or "out you go," and so on. Your comment to Ericka that you are not interested in doing what works, but what you're "supposed to do" (supposed by whom?) indicates to me that you would rather adhere to your chosen morality than do things that will actually benefit your wife, her daughter, and her grandchild.
What is your goal? Is it to preserve and improve your marriage, which probably means acknowledging and working with your wife's desire to care for her daughter, or is it to get that ungrateful hussy out of your house? If it's the former, a good marriage therapist might be in order for you and your wife, so that you can work on your communication and come to a concensus about what to do with the problem of your stepdaughter. If it's the latter, goodbye and good luck.
<snip>
> > > > Not, you know, the reproductive autonomy of a sexually mature young > > > > woman who lives with her mother and stepfather, and the wellbeing of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > use of the word. I am using it in the sense of having a choiceless > duty/obligation as opposed to your use regarding the action. Then say "duty" or "obligation," both entirely acceptable words. A commitment is something one makes.
99
Chris - 11 Oct 2005 22:29 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > who had children already, I would have taken those children on as if > they were my own, when I married him. Your choice, but NOT part of the marriage covenant. My marriage is a triangle, and her daughter is NOT the third point. Clearly, you believe in village families.
> I'm not trying to say that your stepdaughter should be allowed to walk > all over you and your wife - agsf is correct that coddling often does > nobody any favors. But everything you've said is divisive - "my family" > vs. "her family," > "my rules" or "out you go," and so on. Are you suggesting that my home is or should be a democracy?
> Your comment to Ericka that you > are not interested in doing what works, but what you're "supposed to > do" (supposed by whom?) indicates to me that you would rather adhere to > your chosen morality than do things that will actually benefit your > wife, her daughter, and her grandchild. False dilemma. The two choices are NOT mutually exclusive.
> What is your goal? Is it to preserve and improve your marriage, which > probably means acknowledging and working with your wife's desire to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and come to a concensus about what to do with the problem of your > stepdaughter. If it's the latter, goodbye and good luck. Well, guess I am not going anywhere because it is the former. Not to say that the "ungrateful hussy" is going to be allowed to compromise my marriage, because if she does, then she WILL be out! Read my OP.
> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 99 Jamie Clark - 11 Oct 2005 23:06 GMT >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > triangle, and her daughter is NOT the third point. Clearly, you believe in > village families. So how old was the daughter when you married her mom?
If she had been and infant, or a toddler, would you still believe that it wasn't your duty to take that child on as your own and be a father to her? Or are you a more primitive type of creature, like the animals who kill off the offspring of their mates previous mate, so that there will be no other before them?
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 03:51 GMT > >> <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > So how old was the daughter when you married her mom? Legally married for only a short time. However, her daughter was 12 when I entered into the picture.
> If she had been and infant, or a toddler, would you still believe that it > wasn't your duty to take that child on as your own and be a father to her? > Or are you a more primitive type of creature, like the animals who kill off > the offspring of their mates previous mate, so that there will be no other > before them? Nice false dilemma.
Jamie Clark - 12 Oct 2005 06:56 GMT >> >> <snip> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Legally married for only a short time. However, her daughter was 12 when I > entered into the picture. So you've been dating this woman since her daughter was 12, but only married to her since the daughter was, what, 15, 16? That's plenty long enough to get a really clear idea of the mother daughter dynamic, and to know whether or not you wanted to have that in your life. To say that "she promised the kid would be out when she was 18" is a cop out.
Perhaps your marriage is hanging on by a thread because it wasn't very stable to begin with. Perhaps you both made a bad choice, and this was not a match.
As a person with step-parents, I find it very sad that you have known this girl since she was 12, and yet continue to refer to her as "HER daughter" and feel no responsibility at all for her. Very sad.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 12 Oct 2005 19:25 GMT > >> >> <snip> > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > or not you wanted to have that in your life. To say that "she promised the > kid would be out when she was 18" is a cop out. Considering that BOTH her half-sisters, my wife, her sisters, and my mother in law were all out before they were 18, guess I was foolish to buy into it, huh.
> Perhaps your marriage is hanging on by a thread because it wasn't very > stable to begin with. Perhaps you both made a bad choice, and this was not > a match. Perhaps, but marriage does NOT hinge on the past; it hinges on the present.
> As a person with step-parents, I find it very sad that you have known this > girl since she was 12, and yet continue to refer to her as "HER daughter" > and feel no responsibility at all for her. Very sad. I feel no responsibility for her actions; there is a difference. Bear in mind now that she has left the family to start a new family, the responsibility for her rests with her and her "husband". Who is responsible for HER family?
Jamie Clark - 13 Oct 2005 03:48 GMT >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > it, > huh. Yep. Clearly and obviously, as the current situation is proving.
>> Perhaps your marriage is hanging on by a thread because it wasn't very >> stable to begin with. Perhaps you both made a bad choice, and this was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Perhaps, but marriage does NOT hinge on the past; it hinges on the > present. Yes, but some things cannot be repaired or fixed, especially if they were never right to begin with. Love is not enough. Shared morals, beleifs and values are.
>> As a person with step-parents, I find it very sad that you have known >> this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > responsible > for HER family? He isn't a husband, whether you put the word in quotes or not. He's a boyfriend who knocked her up. He may be a shack up honey, but he ain't no husband. Now, if they decided to get married, then I can agree more with your stance that she has left her mother to start her own family. Just getting knocked up and going to live with her boyfriend is not comparable to getting married and starting a family.
 Signature Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
Chris - 13 Oct 2005 05:21 GMT > >> >> >> <snip> > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > Yep. Clearly and obviously, as the current situation is proving. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. "See, I told you not to hold that pair of sevens". Present your evidence, history, or pattern that refutes mine.
> >> Perhaps your marriage is hanging on by a thread because it wasn't very > >> stable to begin with. Perhaps you both made a bad choice, and this was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > never right to begin with. Love is not enough. Shared morals, beleifs and > values are. And no rule sets any one of these in stone.
> >> As a person with step-parents, I find it very sad that you have known > >> this [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > getting knocked up and going to live with her boyfriend is not comparable to > getting married and starting a family. They have been together for a few years. But that aside, their choice to start a family qualifies him to be a "husband" in my book. By the way, his "wife" also considers him to be her husband.
Nikki - 10 Oct 2005 16:17 GMT > "Nikki" <kavanagh@iw.net> wrote in message
>> Your wife is most likely >> not only thinking of her daughter but what might be best for her >> grandchild. > > Perhaps in her opinion; one that I do not share. You don't have to share it but to totally deny it makes no sense. You have an obligation to try and understand your wife.
> That's all well and good, but I am unwilling (and ever closer to being > unable) to borrow money to support her and her family. There are other forms of support besides money.
> My guess is that's her option, and as a young adult she will be SOLELY > responsible to make the decision. Yes but I would make any help/support from my end contingent on her pursuing child support and any other type of support she can from the father as well as pursuing any other type of help she is eligible for.
> [ note: you were probably unaware of her soon to be legal status > change, thus some of your statements.] I was unaware of that. It doesn't really change what I would do though. Actually I can't even recommend what would be the right course of support for this particular girl. A lot depends on the girl, the mother, what you are able to do etc. Perhaps getting a job, living with you, paying rent would be best. Perhaps getting her own apartment and a job with your wife providing free daycare would be best. Perhaps getting what ever financial aid is available and going to college while living with you is best. She could pay her cost in food etc. so the financial burdon to you would not be so great. Perhaps she needs other types of support. I'm not suggesting that living with you is the end all be all solution. I can think of lots of supportive scenarious where she isn't living with you. You seem to be totally unwilling to participate in any type of support at all and I suspect that is going to be a marriage killer.
 Signature Nikki Hunter 4/99 Luke 4/01 EDD 4/06
Chris - 10 Oct 2005 21:22 GMT > > "Nikki" <kavanagh@iw.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You don't have to share it but to totally deny it makes no sense. You have > an obligation to try and understand your wife. I do, but I do not agree with her as to what might be best for her grandchild.
> > That's all well and good, but I am unwilling (and ever closer to being > > unable) to borrow money to support her and her family. > > There are other forms of support besides money. She rejects all other forms of support.
> > My guess is that's her option, and as a young adult she will be SOLELY > > responsible to make the decision. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > totally unwilling to participate in any type of support at all and I suspect > that is going to be a marriage killer. I am pretty much there. Only a fool continues to toss pearls before swine. This is not an overnight issue; I have been offering support for years.
Banty - 13 Oct 2005 18:38 GMT >A long time ago, I made the offer of allowing (ONLY) her daughter to live >here after she becomes an adult ONLY if she respects both me and the home >(more specifically the rules of the house). Does this sound unreasonable to >you? Good grief yes.
You would have not had your wife care for and house her *minor* daughter except under certain conditions??
That puts your impending attempt to refuse to allow your wife to care for her *barely of age* and needy daughter in a rather harsh light.
This is a train wreck if I ever saw one...
Banty
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 10:09 GMT > >A long time ago, I made the offer of allowing (ONLY) her daughter to live > >here after she becomes an adult ONLY if she respects both me and the home > >(more specifically the rules of the house). Does this sound unreasonable to > >you? > > Good grief yes. Why do you believe it's reasonable for her adult daughter to have the right to live in my home, bring in another person to live here, and disrespect both me and my home against my wishes?
> You would have not had your wife care for and house her *minor* daughter except > under certain conditions?? Huh?
> That puts your impending attempt to refuse to allow your wife to care for her > *barely of age* and needy daughter in a rather harsh light. > > This is a train wreck if I ever saw one... Created by her daughter.
> Banty Banty - 14 Oct 2005 13:21 GMT >> >A long time ago, I made the offer of allowing (ONLY) her daughter to live >> >here after she becomes an adult ONLY if she respects both me and the home [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >to live in my home, bring in another person to live here, and disrespect >both me and my home against my wishes? It's your wife's home, too.
And you're disrespecting her and her wishes.
>> You would have not had your wife care for and house her *minor* daughter >except >> under certain conditions?? > >Huh? You were willing to have your *minor* stepdaughter in your home (you and your wife's home, which means, her mother's home) unless she met certain conditions. Apparently, had those conditions not been met, you were willing to have a *minor* stepdaughter out in the street.
Which means this thing about her turning 18 is just a legal convenience for you. You always would only provide shelter under certain conditions. On the other hand, your wife's love for her as her daughter has always been unconditional. You have refused to see your wife's side on this all along.
>> That puts your impending attempt to refuse to allow your wife to care for >her [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Created by her daughter. Oh yeah it's always the other person's fault..
Banty
Chris - 15 Oct 2005 19:58 GMT > >> >A long time ago, I made the offer of allowing (ONLY) her daughter to live > >> >here after she becomes an adult ONLY if she respects both me and the home [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And you're disrespecting her and her wishes. How am I disrespecting my wife?
> >> You would have not had your wife care for and house her *minor* daughter > >except [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Apparently, had those conditions not been met, you were willing to have a > *minor* stepdaughter out in the street. No I wasn't.
> Which means this thing about her turning 18 is just a legal convenience for you. > You always would only provide shelter under certain conditions. On the other > hand, your wife's love for her as her daughter has always been unconditional. > You have refused to see your wife's side on this all along. Quite the contrary, it is my wife who refuses to see my side.
> >> That puts your impending attempt to refuse to allow your wife to care for > >her [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh yeah it's always the other person's fault.. Translation: "It is always YOUR fault".
> Banty Tori M - 24 Oct 2005 22:42 GMT > > If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her "marriage > > hanging by a thread" husband, her daughter will win, and rightly so. > > To understand you correctly, are you saying that a woman's commitment to her > daughter ought to trump her commitment to her husband? In a secound marage.. yes.
Tori
Chris - 26 Oct 2005 01:12 GMT > > > If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her "marriage > > > hanging by a thread" husband, her daughter will win, and rightly so. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In a secound marage.. yes. Then we know who she's REALLY married to.
> Tori Tori M - 26 Oct 2005 01:30 GMT > > > > If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her "marriage > > > > hanging by a thread" husband, her daughter will win, and rightly so. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Then we know who she's REALLY married to. She had the children first and she chose to bring you into their life.. they had little to no say.. My mom has always made it clear to me and my brother that if it was between me and any man we would win. My step dad was told that before he moved in. And no it isnt Marrage it is parental responcebility
Tori
Jamie Clark - 26 Oct 2005 06:53 GMT Tori, Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way too long, and nothing you say will change his mind.
 Signature
Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password
>> > > > If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her > "marriage [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Tori Tori M - 26 Oct 2005 07:36 GMT Sorry :) you know how it is when you have been gone ;) I even errased the orriginal post already!
Tori
> Tori, > Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way too [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > > Tori Chris - 26 Oct 2005 18:33 GMT > Tori, > Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way too > long, and nothing you say will change his mind. And vice versa.
> >> > > > If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her > > "marriage [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > Tori Banty - 26 Oct 2005 18:47 GMT >> Tori, >> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way too >> long, and nothing you say will change his mind. > >And vice versa. I notice that your foray into the step parents group didn't amount to much, Chris.
Are you at all serious about getting any insights about your situation here on USENET? Anywhere?
Banty
Nan - 26 Oct 2005 19:21 GMT >>> Tori, >>> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way too [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Are you at all serious about getting any insights about your situation here on >USENET? Anywhere? I'm guessing not. He's only interested in arguing with everyone that doesn't see things his way. Little surprise his marriage is "hanging by a thread".
Nan
Chris - 27 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT > >>> Tori, > >>> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way too [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > doesn't see things his way. Little surprise his marriage is "hanging > by a thread". Translation: Don't argue with your wife. Shut up and just agree with her.
> Nan Nan - 27 Oct 2005 04:10 GMT >> >>> Tori, >> >>> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Translation: Don't argue with your wife. Shut up and just agree with her. I think you're deliberately being obtuse. Nobody has said you should shut up and agree with your wife. If you believe anyone has, you haven't read the thread very thoroughly.
Nan
Chris - 27 Oct 2005 05:13 GMT > >> >>> Tori, > >> >>> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > shut up and agree with your wife. If you believe anyone has, you > haven't read the thread very thoroughly. Either I argue (disagree) with her or I agree (thus nothing more need be said). Your above statement infers that my marriage is in peril because I argue with my wife. Is this incorrect?
> Nan Nan - 27 Oct 2005 15:38 GMT >> >> >>> Tori, >> >> >>> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Your above statement infers that my marriage is in peril because I argue >with my wife. Is this incorrect? No, your marriage is in peril because you have your set-in-stone ideas and expect your wife to capitulate. Everyone has suggested trying to meet somewhere in the middle, but you see that as losing. You're a lost cause, Chris. I'm not even going to try to communicate with you anymore.
Nan
Chris - 28 Oct 2005 04:50 GMT > >> >> >>> Tori, > >> >> >>> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > No, your marriage is in peril because you have your set-in-stone ideas > and expect your wife to capitulate. I don't "expect" my wife to do anything. I only hope that she will continue to be a wife. If I don't disagree (argue) with her, then I agree with her. Agreeing (not arguing) constitutes shutting up (not arguing) and doing what she says (agreeing with her). Whatever could I (or would I need) say if I am in agreement? Either way, I agree or I do NOT agree. There is no third option.
> Everyone has suggested trying to > meet somewhere in the middle, but you see that as losing. Perhaps "everyone" here is suggesting I do whatever it takes to "save the marriage". Only problem is, there is something that actually takes precendence over saving one's marriage.
> You're a lost cause, Chris. Thank you for your opinon.
> I'm not even going to try to communicate > with you anymore. > > Nan Banty - 27 Oct 2005 14:13 GMT >>> I'm guessing not. He's only interested in arguing with everyone that >>> doesn't see things his way. Little surprise his marriage is "hanging [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Nan I think he equates not totally getting his way, with total capitulation. No room in that thinking for compromise or working anything out between two people.
Banty
Nan - 27 Oct 2005 15:38 GMT >>>> I'm guessing not. He's only interested in arguing with everyone that >>>> doesn't see things his way. Little surprise his marriage is "hanging [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I think he equates not totally getting his way, with total capitulation. No >room in that thinking for compromise or working anything out between two people. Exactly. His thinking is of those 2 extremes and it's not working. Big Surprise.
Nan
Chris - 27 Oct 2005 04:01 GMT > >> Tori, > >> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way too [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Are you at all serious about getting any insights about your situation here on > USENET? Anywhere? Yes. I am just unwilling to blindly accept whatever advice comes my way. Do you?
> Banty Banty - 27 Oct 2005 14:09 GMT >> >> Tori, >> >> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way too [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Yes. I am just unwilling to blindly accept whatever advice comes my way. Do >you? That's not what's being proposed.
You didn't even present your story there, even though someone noted your angry tone and asked you to.
Instead, you argued with people's wording and made your cryptic statements about people being married to kids and even pets.
You're not about communication at all. Just channelling agression and seeking validation. This way of operating is worthless to you and everyone around you.
Banty
Chris - 28 Oct 2005 04:52 GMT > >> >> Tori, > >> >> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way too [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You didn't even present your story there, even though someone noted your angry > tone and asked you to. I thought that my "story" was clearly stated in my OP. Am I wrong?
> Instead, you argued with people's wording and made your cryptic statements about > people being married to kids and even pets. Part of the concept of marriage is the position of one's spouse. When somone/something else takes first place in that person's life, their spouse has been replaced.
> You're not about communication at all. Just channelling agression and seeking > validation. This way of operating is worthless to you and everyone around you. Your opinion based on assumptions is noted.
> Banty Banty - 28 Oct 2005 16:21 GMT >> >> >> Tori, >> >> >> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >I thought that my "story" was clearly stated in my OP. Am I wrong? Alt.support.step-parents won't see your original post in misc.kids.pregnancy. You need to put in a new post there.
Banty
Chris - 28 Oct 2005 17:58 GMT > >> >> >> Tori, > >> >> >> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Alt.support.step-parents won't see your original post in misc.kids.pregnancy. > You need to put in a new post there. For some reason, I forgot that I am not in the group where I placed my OP. Sorry. To compound things, my news server had problems last week and I lost most of the earlier messages; including the OP.
> Banty Chris - 28 Oct 2005 18:23 GMT > >> >> >> Tori, > >> >> >> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Alt.support.step-parents won't see your original post in misc.kids.pregnancy. > You need to put in a new post there. We are not communicating our messages. Somehow this conversation got detoured into talking about some other news group. I am making reference to my OP in this thread and this news group where the conversation has remained.
> Banty Banty - 29 Oct 2005 16:53 GMT >> >> >> >> Tori, >> >> >> >> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >my OP in this thread and this news group where the conversation has >remained. Read back. I was clearly referring to your recent posts in alt.support-step-parents (the step parenting group).
Chris, you really do have some communication problems.
Banty
Chris - 29 Oct 2005 20:38 GMT > >> >> >> >> Tori, > >> >> >> >> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Chris, you really do have some communication problems. Whyever are we discussing Alt.support.step-parents? My post was here and ONLY here. You might as well mention Support.finances too. Perhaps I do have communication problems; but at least I know how to stay on topic.
> Banty Nan - 26 Oct 2005 19:22 GMT >> Tori, >> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way too >> long, and nothing you say will change his mind. > >And vice versa. Erm, YOU posted about your problem here, Chris. Nobody sought you out. For you to think you need to change OUR minds is pretty unrealistic.
Nan
Chris - 27 Oct 2005 04:04 GMT > >> Tori, > >> Don't get into it with this thread...it's been going on way way way too [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Erm, YOU posted about your problem here, Chris. Nobody sought you > out. In other words, a simple "ok, I will do what you say" will suffice.
> For you to think you need to change OUR minds is pretty > unrealistic. However do you come up with THAT idea?
> Nan agsf_57@yahoo.com - 08 Oct 2005 01:41 GMT > My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not > come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her > continue to live in our home even though I informed both of them the first > time around that I refused to allow a second family to live here. Mother > claims that she will not be able to make it financially if she moves out. She should have thought about that before getting pregnant. If she's old enough to make adult decisions, then she will need to live with the consequences of those decisions. Trust me, it will make her grow up faster if you kick her out and let her stand on her own two feet.
> The father claims that he will help out and that they will live together. He > was dead against the first pregnancy, but now agrees to help with this one. > (change of heart?) He is an idiot. Kick her out next month when she turns 18.
> Although she carries a part time job, her daughter is basically lazy and has > no concern for personal/financial responsibility. The reason why I will not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Any suggestions? Drop some balls and tell your wife that she needs to decide who she wants to be married to.
Good luck.
Regards...
Chris - 09 Oct 2005 20:39 GMT > > My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not > > come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Regards... Thank you for the input. I don't see how anybody can disagree that one who is old enough to make a decision is old enough to live with the consequences of such decision. Especially when they are made aware of the consequences BEFORE the decision is made. Seems to me (as you mentioned) that allowing one to escape the consequences is tantamount to leaving the training wheels on the bicycle. Also, my wife did not like me bringing up the "marriage" decision. Short of her abandoning both of us, there is no way out; she MUST make her choice.
I laid down a few simple rules that her daughter must follow in order to reside under my roof. Her voluntary choice to disrespect my home equates to her voluntary choice to leave. Am I wrong? If I allow her to stay and violate the rules, then I am allowing her to call the shots in my home!
My wife, to her credit, just recently started to help her get on the public doles and she made a couple suggestions. One is for her to leave 3 months after baby is born (end of March) and the other is for her to leave at end of year (when baby is born). My wife claims this is so she can more easily help daughter with newborn and daughter gets back to work so that she IS able to support herself (but guess who supports her in the meantime). End of year is (reluctantly) acceptable so long as she follows house rules (which I doubt), but after that she would be in violation. My concern is that if I give her a finger she will try for the hand, and if I give her the hand she will push for the arm...........
I am not too thrilled about bending the rules since it will probably send the message that rules are worthless. But on the other hand, it may be what it takes to lay this thing to bed and afford the best protection (considering circumstances) for my family. In other words, no matter which way it goes I will end up with either a harmed family or no family. Unless, of course, my wife decides to be what a wife ought to be.
By the way, if I am doling out the welfare to provide her room & board, am I out of line by demanding information regarding her entire financial situation; income, bank account, personal assets, etc.?
Nan - 09 Oct 2005 21:20 GMT Unless,
>of course, my wife decides to be what a wife ought to be. *laughs*
No wonder asgf likes you. He's not well thought of in this group, btw. Birds of a feather and all that....
Nan
Anonymama - 09 Oct 2005 22:26 GMT > Unless, > >of course, my wife decides to be what a wife ought to be. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No wonder asgf likes you. He's not well thought of in this group, > btw. Birds of a feather and all that.... "Chris" seems to be a poster to talk.abortion, alt.politics.*, alt.child-support, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh... We should be thankful this conversation has remained as civil as it has so far.
 Signature accompanied by TK, number two, due in April of 2006
Nan - 09 Oct 2005 23:01 GMT >> Unless, >> >of course, my wife decides to be what a wife ought to be. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >alt.child-support, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh... We should be thankful this >conversation has remained as civil as it has so far. Somehow, I'm not surprised he frequents those groups. He's not worth trying to talk to, any longer.
He and the other idiot can prattle at each other and prop up each other's ideas <G>
Nan
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 10 Oct 2005 02:00 GMT > "Chris" seems to be a poster to talk.abortion, alt.politics.*, > alt.child-support, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh... We should be thankful this > conversation has remained as civil as it has so far. > -- > accompanied by TK, number two, due in April of 2006 Let's see...abortion, politics, child-support and conservatism. Why would people who participate in such forums be considered uncivilized?
Regards...
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 10 Oct 2005 01:45 GMT > Unless, > >of course, my wife decides to be what a wife ought to be. > > *laughs* I can only imagine how this thread would go if this topic was about Chris wanting to bring his parapeligic mother to come live with them and his wife was on here posting something along the lines of "We cannot afford to pay for her medication and home health care. Also his mother disrespects me and questions everything I do."
I'm sure comments like "Your husband ought to be a husband and respect your wishes" would be abundant.
> No wonder asgf likes you. He's not well thought of in this group, > btw. Your passive agressive response does nothing to counter my point of view.
> Birds of a feather and all that.... You old hen. ;)
> Nan Regards...
agsf_57@yahoo.com - 10 Oct 2005 01:33 GMT > Thank you for the input. No problem.
> I don't see how anybody can disagree that one who > is old enough to make a decision is old enough to live with the consequences > of such decision. Especially when they are made aware of the consequences > BEFORE the decision is made. I believe it is because we live in a world where people have been feed the notion that if something bad happens to you, it's other people's fault and you should be expected to be relieved of the responsibility of your own actions, and in some cases, rewarded for this negative behavior. For example, if you trip and fall on a sidewalk, it's not because you weren't watching where you were going, it's because the city did not fix the sidewalk, Nike made a defective shoe and your parent's divorce had psychological consequences which made you a clumsy adult.
> Seems to me (as you mentioned) that allowing > one to escape the consequences is tantamount to leaving the training wheels > on the bicycle. It is. Ask yourself, what is stopping her from becoming pregnant again?
> Also, my wife did not like me bringing up the "marriage" > decision. Short of her abandoning both of us, there is no way out; she MUST > make her choice. I agree.
> I laid down a few simple rules that her daughter must follow in order to > reside under my roof. Her voluntary choice to disrespect my home equates to > her voluntary choice to leave. Am I wrong? No, you're absolutely correct.
> If I allow her to stay and > violate the rules, then I am allowing her to call the shots in my home! More than that, you're not being a responsible parent in my eyes. You are encouraging her negative behavior.
> My wife, to her credit, just recently started to help her get on the public > doles and she made a couple suggestions. One is for her to leave 3 months > after baby is born (end of March) and the other is for her to leave at end > of year (when baby is born). My wife claims this is so she can more easily > help daughter with newborn and daughter gets back to work so that she IS > able to support herself (but guess who supports her in the meantime). I have to disagree with both suggestions. Apparently her and her boyfriend made a decision that they are ready to have a child. They both should deal with that decision. Your best bet is to let them do that on their own at their place of residence.
> End of > year is (reluctantly) acceptable so long as she follows house rules (which I > doubt), but after that she would be in violation. My concern is that if I > give her a finger she will try for the hand, and if I give her the hand she > will push for the arm........... She won't. I honestly think she still has issues over her parent's seperation. The longer you let this drag out, the more hurt and chaos you will allow in your home.
> I am not too thrilled about bending the rules since it will probably send > the message that rules are worthless. But on the other hand, it may be what > it takes to lay this thing to bed and afford the best protection > (considering circumstances) for my family. In other words, no matter which > way it goes I will end up with either a harmed family or no family. Unless, > of course, my wife decides to be what a wife ought to be. I rather choose "no family" because the way I see it, if you do not have a proper wife, then your focus in life is misguided and the two of you are just room mates.
> By the way, if I am doling out the welfare to provide her room & board, am I > out of line by demanding information regarding her entire financial > situation; income, bank account, personal assets, etc.? In my opinion, yes you are out of line. She is an adult and it's important for you to treat her as such if you ever hope to have a chance in hell for her to start acting like one.
Regards...
KC - 08 Oct 2005 18:50 GMT My children are all under 6 right now, and I hope they do not become pg as teens, but I do know I would help them if they did because I would want my grandchildren to get a better start than would be possible if I kicked them out.
If I had a man who didn't see eye to eye with me on this issue, it could be a deal breaker.
My suggestion to you and your wife is to get time away from your kids to talk. I am not a huge believer in counselling. I prefer to just discuss things with my dh. We get along well, but if you guys cannot talk without fighting, then maybe a counsellor could help. You do need to resolve this very important issue.
KC
> My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not > come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Any suggestions? Chris - 09 Oct 2005 05:52 GMT > My children are all under 6 right now, and I hope they do not become pg > as teens, but I do know I would help them if they did because I would [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > KC We are working on it. Thanks for the input!
> > My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not > > come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > Any suggestions? Banty - 13 Oct 2005 18:29 GMT >My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not >come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Any suggestions? Um - that *is* your other family. Your wife's desire to help out is real. That *is* her daughter. To force her to not help *will* have consequences.
Life Rule of Life #1 - people are not required to act in your interests --> your wife is not required to not help her daughter because it doens't behoove you
Banty
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 10:15 GMT > >My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not > >come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Um - that *is* your other family. No it's not. I have NO relation to that other family.
> Your wife's desire to help out is real. That > *is* her daughter. To force her to not help *will* have consequences. Not forcing my wife to do anything.
> Life Rule of Life #1 - people are not required to act in your interests Nor am I required to act in theirs.
> --> your wife is not required to not help her daughter because it doens't > behoove you She can help all she wants; I'm just not willing to take an assault on my home.
> Banty
|
|
|