 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Step Parents / November 2004Help - how to turn down baby-sitting offer
Quick summary of Our Story So Far: DH and BM separated in 2000. DH and I started dating in 2000, and married in 2002 (divorce was final in 2001). SS22 gets along great with his dad, and he and I have a tentative but friendly relationship. SD18 was much more open with her anger, and hasn't spent any regular time with her dad since late 2000. I've never met her, which is her choice - DH and I agree we're not going to push it. We added a complication to this mix on May 25, 2004 - our daugher Emily. Both SS and SD have met Emily, DH taking the baby to visit SD. Today, DH got an email from SD asking if she could pick up Emily from day care once a week so they could "spend some time together." Neither DH nor I are comfortable with this. I'm thinking of my baby in the company of some stranger who has every reason to resent the hell out of her, and I start conjuring up movie-of-the-week scenarios in my head. DH isn't quite as paranoid as I am; but he doesn't really know SD very well any more, and he honestly doesn't know what goes on in her head. He'd also prefer that he and SD rebuild their relationship before SD builds a relationship with Emily alone, although he's happy to have Emily be a part of rebuilding that relationship. So we're clear that we're going to decline her offer - which is undoubtedly very nice - but we're a little stuck how to say "no." I've told DH he can blame it all on me, but he won't do that. I don't want to discourage SD from having a relationship with her baby sister; but I don't want her as the baby's primary caregiver, either - even for a few hours. If I knew her and trusted her...but I guess the issue is I *don't* trust her, whether or not that's fair. We've got another two weeks before Emily goes to day care, so we've got a little time to hash all this out; but DH would really like to give SD an answer tonight. Any advice from folks a wee bit less emotionally involved would be greatly appreciated! TIA, Liz  Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 In a previous article, lizb@TheWorld.com (Elizabeth H Bonesteel) said: >We've got another two weeks before Emily goes to day care, so we've got a >little time to hash all this out; but DH would really like to give SD an >answer tonight. Any advice from folks a wee bit less emotionally involved >would be greatly appreciated! I like just what you said. Emily is very young, and DH would prefer to be part of the relationship building between SD and Emily. That no one, outside of a licensed and inspected day care, takes care of Emily except her parents. But that he'd be delighted to bring Emily to spend as much time with SD as she'd like, as often as she'd like, whereever she'd like, and the three of them would have a great time. (Tailor that to fit your circumstances.) If SD says "You don't trust me!" he can say "She's too young, in our estimation, to be spending time with anyone other than us, or the day care that we carefully selected. It's not you; it's everyone and anyone. But I'd genuinely *love* for the three of us to spend time together. Just say the word." It might not work, but that's your bottom line, right? Vicki SignaturePower may be justly compared to a great river; while kept within its bounds it is both beautiful and useful, but when it overflows its banks, it is then too impetuous to be stemmed; it bears down all before it, and brings destruction and desolation wherever it goes." -- Alexander Hamilton. [snip] >It might not work, but that's your bottom line, right? That sounds great, Vicki, and very sane. :-) Thanks. The one argument we could get back from SD on that one is that she used to work summers at a "licensed and inspected day care." Of course, she was an intern or something, so she herself didn't have certification; but she's got a LOT of experience caring for infants. I suspect, though, that no matter how we put it she'll understand what's really going on. Sigh. I wish there were a way to put it that wouldn't hurt her feelings...but maybe I have to let that one go. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 In a previous article, lizb@TheWorld.com (Elizabeth H Bonesteel) said: >In article <cedolh$jau$1@allhats.xcski.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >so she herself didn't have certification; but she's got a LOT of experience >caring for infants. But not the infrastructure. She won't have all the paraphernalia that a young baby needs. Where would she take her from day care? >I suspect, though, that no matter how we put it she'll understand what's >really going on. Sigh. I wish there were a way to put it that wouldn't >hurt her feelings...but maybe I have to let that one go. She chose to let anger get in the way of her relationship with her father. That was her choice. She's created a lot of the difficulty here, although she's young and her anger and pain were real and understandable. Still, she's the reason her dad is no longer involved with her life in a meaningful way. Think of this as rapproachment. Vicki SignaturePower may be justly compared to a great river; while kept within its bounds it is both beautiful and useful, but when it overflows its banks, it is then too impetuous to be stemmed; it bears down all before it, and brings destruction and desolation wherever it goes." -- Alexander Hamilton. >Neither DH nor I are >comfortable with this. I'm thinking of my baby in the company of some >stranger >who has every reason to resent the hell out of her, and I start conjuring up >movie-of-the-week scenarios in my head. Well, this is nuts, but we all do it. It's like a temporary insanity, seeing the serial killer in every stranger who comes near your baby. I'd just go with it. "Sorry, SD, but I'm insane in this area right now and it's not going to happen. Any other ideas on how you can spend time with the baby? Maybe dinner with your dad and me and the baby once a week? Or maybe I could snag that time to get a pedicure. What do you think?" jane >Well, this is nuts, but we all do it. It's like a temporary insanity, seeing >the serial killer in every stranger who comes near your baby. Y'know before I had my son, I used to have this insanity about my cat. Sparky was my firstborn. I imagined when I was at work that someone would do all kinds of cruel things to him. Danger was lurking around every corner. >I'd just go with it. "Sorry, SD, but I'm insane in this area right now and >it's not going to happen. Any other ideas on how you can spend time with the >baby? Maybe dinner with your dad and me and the baby once a week? Or maybe I >could snag that time to get a pedicure. What do you think?" I think it's a good idea to get to know the SD before just letting her pick up the baby. Dinner is good. The relationship has to go both ways. She probably shouldn't expect to have free reign with the baby if she's not willing to meet the mom and dad halfway. Deb R. >jane She probably shouldn't expect to have free reign with the baby > if she's not willing to meet the mom and dad halfway. You know, personally, I don't think she should expect to have any reign with the baby if she's not willing to meet the mom at all. How many parents here would honestly hand an *infant* over, unsupervised, to someone the infant's parent never met and who was unwilling to meet with the parent at all. If I had never met my 18 year old SD, (and hypothetically had an infant) I would be ok with her seeing my child only if she was willing to do family time with my husband and the infant. To the original poster: you said "If I knew her and trusted her...but I guess the issue is I *don't* trust her, whether or not that's fair." Screw fair. Frankly, it's your job not to trust her. Why? Because you're not supposed to trust anyone with your *infant* if you haven't already met them. I'm sure you didn't pick up the yellow pages to "Daycare", cover your eyes and just land your finger on a likely looking prospect. You got references. You met with the people who'll be looking after your child. You undoubtedly saw the environment that Emily will be in. You may even have an idea of the other kids she'll be in daycare with. That's normal. That's what you're *supposed* to be doing with a young child. Your reaction not to trust her in this situation is completely normal. (Now, imagining movie of the week scenarios is a different case -- you may want to examine why you're thinking that way.) But to not blindly give trust to someone, when it concerns the child it's your responsibility to look after? Don't feel bad about that. Don't worry about whether it's fair or not. Adrienne >But to not >blindly give trust to someone, when it concerns the child it's your >responsibility to look after? Don't feel bad about that. Don't worry >about whether it's fair or not. Thanks, Adrienne. I don't really feel bad about it; I was just hoping to find a way to tell SD that wouldn't make her feel bad. I'm beginning to realize that's probably impossible. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >I think it's a good idea to get to know the SD before just letting her >pick up the baby. Dinner is good. The relationship has to go both >ways. She probably shouldn't expect to have free reign with the baby >if she's not willing to meet the mom and dad halfway. That's pretty much DH's thinking. We don't even care if she's willing to meet *me* - he needs to feel like *his* relationship with SD is on more solid ground before he'll consider leaving her with the baby. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >We don't even care if she's willing >to meet *me* - he needs to feel like *his* relationship with SD is on >more solid ground before he'll consider leaving her with the baby. > >Liz This I don't get. jane >>We don't even care if she's willing >>to meet *me* - he needs to feel like *his* relationship with SD is on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >This I don't get. I tried to explain my understanding of it in my previous post. Fair or unfair, given my feelings I'm not going to try to talk him out of it. It would certainly piss off SD; but maybe it wouldn't be as hurtful to her as telling her I'm worried about her throwing tha baby out a window. Frankly, I still think blaming me is the safest way to go. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >>>We don't even care if she's willing >>>to meet *me* - he needs to feel like *his* relationship with SD is on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I tried to explain my understanding of it in my previous post. Yes, I got it. > Fair or >unfair, given my feelings I'm not going to try to talk him out of it. > >It would certainly piss off SD; but maybe it wouldn't be as hurtful to >her as telling her I'm worried about her throwing tha baby out a >window. Frankly, I still think blaming me is the safest way to go. So do I. jane >Liz >>Frankly, I still think blaming me is the safest way to go. > >So do I. Well, he didn't; but I think he handled it pretty well. He went the Vicki route of being straightforward and factual: he thanked her fir the offer, and said he thought they had some relationship-building to do first. Then he invited her over to spend some time with him and Emily - he's going to be home with the baby for a couple of days over the next few weeks, so there will be multiple opportunities. We'll see how she responds. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >>>Frankly, I still think blaming me is the safest way to go. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >weeks, so there will be multiple opportunities. We'll see how she >responds. Sounds to me like a very reasonable approach. Good luck. Kitten =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, feeds the hungry, comforts the sorrowful, shelters the destitute. And serves those who harm it. -- Menno Simons, 1539 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Courage, Real courage, is no quick fix. It doesn't come in a bottle or a pill, It comes from discipline. From taking everything life hands you and being your best either because of it or in spite of it. -- Ty Murray =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Well, this is nuts, but we all do it. It's like a temporary insanity, seeing >the serial killer in every stranger who comes near your baby. Yeah. Except with SD, add to the "stranger" part someone who has unresolved issues around both me and her father. She's still really, really angry about the divorce. If DH was telling me I was being paranoid, I'd probably find a way to deal. But he's also uncomfortable, and SD is his kid. >I'd just go with it. "Sorry, SD, but I'm insane in this area right now and >it's not going to happen. LOL! I offered this option to DH, but he won't lay it all on me. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >>Well, this is nuts, but we all do it. It's like a temporary insanity, >seeing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >unresolved issues around both me and her father. She's still really, >really angry about the divorce. Well, going from angry about the divorce to hurting your baby is nuts. >If DH was telling me I was being paranoid, I'd probably find a way to deal. >But he's also uncomfortable, and SD is his kid. Yes, well he's supposed to be nuts too. >>I'd just go with it. "Sorry, SD, but I'm insane in this area right now and >>it's not going to happen. > >LOL! I offered this option to DH, but he won't lay it all on me. Tailor it. My point is that you don't have to be rational about this. And you're not. Just admit it up front. It's fine. Because there's no way you're going to be able to justify this to your SD otherwise. There's no way you can get around thinking she's a monster. Let me think of a better way to say this. I know because I have had a baby that babies' parents might not want me to go near them. I would never walk up to a baby and touch it without consulting the parent. I stand a few feet away and coo at it. I wave and smile. If you told me that you weren't comfortable with me taking care of your baby it wouldn't cross my mind to be offended. I know I'd be fine, but you don't, and you have to know. You have to *know* - not calculate the probabilities. Your SD doesn't know this. If you tell her you're not entirely sure she wouldn't hurt your baby, she will be hurt and offended. She will not understand the context, because she has never a baby. jane >Liz >Your SD doesn't know this. If you tell her you're not entirely sure she >wouldn't hurt your baby, she will be hurt and offended. She will not >understand the context, because she has never a baby. Which is, I think, why DH wants to approach it from a different direction. I suspect if you asked him if he seriously believed his daughter would harm the baby, he'd say no - but there'd be a smidgen of doubt there, because he doesn't feel he knows her anymore. I don't want to speak for DH; I don't understand all the complexities in his relationship with SD. I do know that their interactions - which are largely email-only at this point, her choice - are either extremely superficial, or deteriorate rapidly into the same exchange: he wants to know what she needs from him to start rebuilding their relationship, and she says he needs to admit that leaving her and her mother was the wrong thing to do, and that neither of them were to blame. He's happy to reassure SD that she had nothing to do with it; but he won't lie to her and say he feels that leaving her mom was wrong. At this point SD generally drops off the face of the earth for weeks or months - generally until she needs money for something - and then we're back to the superficial again. This cycle has been going on for years. Regardless of whether his objections are based on trust or feeling like she's still trying to avoid the fact of my existence by spending time with Emily without me OR him, I can't say as I blame him. (But of course, I wouldn't, since I am admittedly nuts on this issue.) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > (But of course, I wouldn't, since I am admittedly nuts on this issue.) It's nowhere near nuts to say no to a stranger taking charge of your newborn. >It's nowhere near nuts to say no to a stranger taking charge of your >newborn. I was thinking about this. She's not a stranger to DH, of course - except she is, really. Which is an awful shame; but there you are. I wouldn't have a problem with someone DH knew and I didn't looking after Emily, if he was comfortable with their references, and/or had seen them in action with Em often enough to be comfortaable with their skills. But I'd want to at least meet them myself first; and if that wasn't possible, it better be due to scheduling conflicts and not because they wanted to keep on pretending I didn't exist. The whole situation is sad and unfair; but I'm not leaving SD alone with my child just to make her feel better. (I don't mean for that to sound defensive, BTW - it's just that I've just figured it out.) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >>It's nowhere near nuts to say no to a stranger taking charge of your >>newborn. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Liz I think you're blurring two issues, though. a. You have a right to protect your child. b. Your child has a right to know her sister. I don't see a real conflict between them right now, but at some point you may have to weigh and balance. You'd be scum to hold your daughter hostage to get your SD to accept you. Ditto with DH using one child to force the other to reconcile with him. I'm not saying you're doing that. I just think you're better off having it clear in your head. jane >I think you're blurring two issues, though. a. You have a right to protect >your child. b. Your child has a right to know her sister. > >jane Except that there are many ways for the sisters to get to know each other without giving the 18 yr old permission to pick up the infant from daycare, when the 18 yr old refuses to meet the mother of the infant and admittedly is hostile towards her. When my former SIL used to babysit for my son when he was an infant, she developed a hostility towards me for reasons I never understood. As soon as that became clear (*very* clear) I picked up my son and she no longer was permitted to watch him. I no longer trusted her intentions. When she made an effort a year later to reestablish a relationship with me, and recognized & apologized for her hostility, I once again allowed my son to have contact with her, although not without reservations. Deb R. >When she made an effort a year later to reestablish a relationship >with me, and recognized & apologized for her hostility, I once again >allowed my son to have contact with her, although not without >reservations. This is exactly where things start getting cloudy for me. When Emily is older and can start sharing her feelings and impressions of her sister, I can factor those into the equation. Right now all I have to go on is SD's behavior toward her dad, and I have to make Emily's decisions for her. I don't *think* I'm doing any of this to punish SD; but her hostility toward her dad definitely factors into my thinking. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >I don't see a real conflict between them right now, but at some point you may >have to weigh and balance. You'd be scum to hold your daughter hostage to get >your SD to accept you. Ditto with DH using one child to force the other to >reconcile with him. I'm not saying you're doing that. I just think you're >better off having it clear in your head. I agree. I actually feel pretty clear. I'd very much like my daughter to know SD. SD doesn't have to like or accept me for that to happen; neither does she need to have a hearts-and-flowers relationship with her dad. As long as she's willing to be courteous, she can see the baby in the company of her dad whenever she wants. However, I do think at least one of us has to know the child well enough to trust her as a caregiver before we consider leaving the baby with her alone. I guess I see that as different from interfering in SD's relationship with her sister. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > However, I do think at least >one of us has to know the child well enough to trust her as a caregiver >before we consider leaving the baby with her alone. I guess I see that as >different from interfering in SD's relationship with her sister. > >Liz I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, to have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing her opinion about you or your marriage. Sheila >I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, to >have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing her >opinion about you or your marriage. > >Sheila Oh good. This is a perfect example of the kind of situation where I (I, I, I) would start out thinking that I was acting out of concern and end up realizing that I was acting out of annoyance. It would burn my a.s that my SD was telling my kid that I broke up her parents' marriage and that their father abandoned her and her mother. I would tell myself that it was harmful to my child to hear these things. Upon reflection I don't really believe that it is all that harmful. It's part of her relationship with her sister even if it does impinge a little on my relationship with my kid. I wouldn't like it, I'd just figure I bought it. jane >It would burn my a.s that my SD was telling my kid that I broke up her parents' >marriage and that their father abandoned her and her mother. I would tell >myself that it was harmful to my child to hear these things. Upon reflection I >don't really believe that it is all that harmful. Actually, yes, it *can* be harmful to kids to hear things like that about their parents. The degree of harm would depend upon how the individual child deals with such things, but for some, something of that nature can be extremely harmful. Kitten =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, feeds the hungry, comforts the sorrowful, shelters the destitute. And serves those who harm it. -- Menno Simons, 1539 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Courage, Real courage, is no quick fix. It doesn't come in a bottle or a pill, It comes from discipline. From taking everything life hands you and being your best either because of it or in spite of it. -- Ty Murray =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >>It would burn my a.s that my SD was telling my kid that I broke up her parents' >>marriage and that their father abandoned her and her mother. I would tell [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >individual child deals with such things, but for some, something of >that nature can be extremely harmful. I suppose it depends on what's said; but surely many of the same concerns will crop up naturally? I'm already thinking of what to say when Emily asks me if her dad and I will get divorced like he and BM did. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >>I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, >to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I >don't really believe that it is all that harmful. I believe very differently. Yes, it would be annoying, but the major reason I'd have trouble with it is because of the impact it could have on my child. And, it wouldn't just be the SD. That would apply to any person who said things like that to my child. Sheila It's part of her >relationship with her sister even if it does impinge a little on my >relationship with my kid. I wouldn't like it, I'd just figure I bought it. > >jane > > >I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, to >have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing her >opinion about you or your marriage. While I agree with you, I don't think "reasonable" means it'll work that way - Emily's likely to sense some tension whether SD says anything specific or not. I've actually thought a lot about what to tell Emily about me and DH - questions will come up, whether or not they're provoked by comments by SD. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >>I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, >to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that way - Emily's likely to sense some tension whether SD says anything >specific or not. That may be, but I think there is a difference between tension (which may or may not be felt by the child.... many are oblivious!) and out and out negative things being said. For me, the first is manageable, the second is not. When my ex and I first got divorced, we were on the opposite coast from my family. Within a year, we moved within 7 hours drive. The very first time I went down, I laid down the ground rules: no bad-mouthing the ex, or they'd not be seeing me/us. And, this was *my* family. Sheila >I've actually thought a lot about what to tell Emily about me and DH - >questions will come up, whether or not they're provoked by comments >by SD. > >Liz >>While I agree with you, I don't think "reasonable" means it'll work >>that way - Emily's likely to sense some tension whether SD says anything [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >negative >things being said. For me, the first is manageable, the second is not. I don't see it so much as a manageability question as outside your purview. You bring children into the world already standing in a variety of relationships with different people. As a parent you can influence those relationships, but you cannot define or erase them. SD is Emily's sister. One of the perquisites of a sibling relationship is criticizing and finding fault with parents. Stepparenting skews the situation because the parents are not entirely shared, but virtually all of us who have siblings have ripped our parents to shreds with them at one time or another. In this situation with SD being so much older than Emily, I would worry more about them not having much of a relationship at all. It happens really easily and it leaves people feeling incomplete. I don't know how many kids Liz is planning to have, but you can't buy family. In the big picture, putting up with a little hostility is nothing compared to her child having a sister. jane >Sheila >>>While I agree with you, I don't think "reasonable" means it'll work >>>that way - Emily's likely to sense some tension whether SD says anything [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >>Sheila You and I would, apparently, have different goals in this scenerio, then. My goal would be to protect my child from that hostility when she was young. (When she gets to be an older teen, or an adult, different story.) I understand there is a risk of their being no relationship between them if I set down this groundrule, but it seems to me that if the SD is unwilling to abide by that rule, her presence in my child's life would be more harmful and disruptive, than positive. JMHO. Sheila Sheila >You and I would, apparently, have different goals in this scenerio, then. My >goal would be to protect my child from that hostility when she was young. >(When she gets to be an older teen, or an adult, different story.) I meant hostility towards DH and possibly towards Liz. I don't think I ever felt Lee had to be protected from my SKs hostility towards me. I can't imagine how I could have shielded her from it if I had wanted to, and it was such a good tool in helping her deal with her own hostility towards her own SM. >I understand there is a risk of their being no relationship between them if I >set down this groundrule, but it seems to me that if the SD is unwilling to >abide by that rule, her presence in my child's life would be more harmful and >disruptive, than positive. I presume that you see some underlying logic in that deduction. I can't rationally get from unwilling to abide by my rule to harmful. I don't see the connection there. And that's what I have to do when emotions are entangled in a decision. I have to question myself and make sure that all the steps from point A to point B are sound, not just what I want to believe. jane >JMHO. > >Sheila >>You and I would, apparently, have different goals in this scenerio, then. >My >>goal would be to protect my child from that hostility when she was young. >>(When she gets to be an older teen, or an adult, different story.) > >I meant hostility towards DH and possibly towards Liz. So do I. I don't think I ever >felt Lee had to be protected from my SKs hostility towards me. I can't >imagine >how I could have shielded her from it if I had wanted to, and it was such a >good tool in helping her deal with her own hostility towards her own SM. I don't think it is healthy for young kids to hear their parents "run down". I don't think it is healthy for them to hear it from the parents, or from others. Again, JMHO. >>I understand there is a risk of their being no relationship between them if >I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I presume that you see some underlying logic in that deduction. I can't >rationally get from unwilling to abide by my rule to harmful. Harmful in that she would continue to run down me or my marriage in front of my child/children. I believe that this is, a priori, a harmful act. I also think that if someone were to insist on being able to engage in such behavior, despite my wishes, that the relationship within the family would be toxic. I don't see >the >connection there. And that's what I have to do when emotions are entangled >in >a decision. I have to question myself and make sure that all the steps from >point A to point B are sound, not just what I want to believe. Because you don't agree with me (if I am reading this correctly) that running down parents in front of small children is harmful. I do. Different set of assumptions. Sheila >jane >> >>JMHO. >> >>Sheila >>>You and I would, apparently, have different goals in this scenerio, then. >>My [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >others. > Again, JMHO. I don't see why you're jumping from hostility to the parents being "run down." People in your child's life feel hostility towards her parents. Her parents feel hostility towards each other. Kids grow up hearing their brothers and sisters telling their parents they hate them and fighting in school yards with kids who rank their parents and watching their mothers yell at their aunts over the phone. It's just a part of life. >but it seems to me that if the SD is unwilling to >>>abide by that rule, her presence in my child's life would be more harmful [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >my >child/children. I believe that this is, a priori, a harmful act. It can be harmful to a child to have her relationship with a parent undermined. But how harmful does it have to be to justify undermining a relationship with her sibling? That's a harmful act too. It's a different situation dealing with people who are related to your kid but not to you. Liz doesn't know SD from a hole in the wall, but she's her baby's sister. You can't just tell her she can't see her own sister. I mean you can, but she'll resent you for it. And justifiably so. Screwing with a relationship with a sibling is right in there with screwing with a relationship with a parent. >I also think that if someone were to insist on being able to engage in such >behavior, despite my wishes, that the relationship within the family would be >toxic. I'm not getting your point. What relationship would be toxic? What do you mean by "the family"? I'm not asking this rhetorically. It's a complicated question. Liz's SD is part of her child's family and her DH's family, but she's not really a part of her family. It's a weird situation. On several occasions I have run into Lee's brothers and not recognized them. Are they part of my family? I'd do whatever I could for them, but because they're Lee's brothers not because of anything I feel for them personally. >I don't see >>the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >down parents in front of small children is harmful. I do. Different set of >assumptions. No, it's not that. I can see that some degree of parent bashing at certain ages could be harmful to the child. I just don't see how you get to "her presence in my child's life would be more harmful and disruptive, than positive." If you were saying that it could be inconvenient or require you to monitor and supervise the relationship more closely than you'd like, I could see that. But her presence in your child's life? That's quite a leap. jane >Sheila >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> >>>Sheila Jane wrote: >>> I don't see why you're jumping from hostility to the parents being "run down." >>> My original statement was: I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, to have some expectation that your stepdaughter would refrain from voicing her opinion about you or your marriage. That is what I meant by "voicing her opinion about you or your marriage" -- running Liz or her marriage down. >>>Kids grow up hearing their brothers and sisters telling their parents they hate them and fighting in school yards with kids who rank their parents and watching their mothers yell at their aunts over the phone. It's just a part of life>>> That's within the context (we would hope) of a loving family -- that's different. Also, as you know, it would not be okay for the kids who live with me to tell me they hated me, anyway. There would be the expectation of an apology, to me, and anyone who witnessed it. This type of situation would not lend itself to that kind of thing. Again, I know we disagree about that, but there it is. That is how it is in my household. >>>>It can be harmful to a child to have her relationship with a parent undermined. But how harmful does it have to be to justify undermining a relationship with her sibling? That's a harmful act too. >>> I think the relationship with the parent is paramount. It comes first, siblings second. >>>>It's a different situation dealing with people who are related to your kid but not to you. Liz doesn't know SD from a hole in the wall, but she's her baby's sister. You can't just tell her she can't see her own sister. I mean you can, but she'll resent you for it. And justifiably so. Screwing with a relationship with a sibling is right in there with screwing with a relationship with a parent. >>>> If she refused to agree not to run down me or my marriage in front of the child, then it is *her* choice, not mine. I wouldn't be stopping her from seeing her sister, she would be making that choice. >Because you don't agree with me (if I am reading this correctly) that running >down parents in front of small children is harmful. I do. Different set of >assumptions. >>>No, it's not that. I can see that some degree of parent bashing at certain ages could be harmful to the child. I just don't see how you get to "her presence in my child's life would be more harmful and disruptive, than positive." If you were saying that it could be inconvenient or require you to monitor and supervise the relationship more closely than you'd like, I could see that. But her presence in your child's life? That's quite a leap. >>> I'm not willing to tolerate any parent bashing when the kids are young. <shrug> Different cut off points, I guess. And, Liz, please know that, at this point, I, at least, am approaching this as a philosophical discussion. I don't know your SD, what you expect, and what the situation is. I certainly don't want to argue that this applies to you and your family at all. Sheila >>>>Kids grow up hearing their brothers and >sisters telling their parents they hate them and fighting in school yards [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That's within the context (we would hope) of a loving family -- that's >different. See, I'm assuming that it is within the context of a loving family. You're just not necessarily part of it. If the SD turned out to be actively hostile to her sister, that would be a different kettle of fish. IMVE that's not likely. What is likely is that she will love her sister and continue to feel hostile about her father leaving and marrying Liz. > But how harmful does it have to be to justify undermining a relationship >with >her sibling? That's a harmful act too. >>> > >I think the relationship with the parent is paramount. It comes first, >siblings second. Whatever the ranking, both are huge. Because she's the parent, it is Liz's job to do her best for her kid. That includes supporting the parent relationship and the sibling relationship. SD OTOH is a sibling, her job is the her own relationship with her sister. Although, to be fair, in this case since she is so much older, I would expect her to have some sense. >If she refused to agree not to run down me or my marriage in front of the >child, then it is *her* choice, not mine. I wouldn't be stopping her from >seeing her sister, she would be making that choice. Not seeing her sister is not an automatic consequence of criticizing your marriage. It's not like getting wet from going out in the rain. She'd be choosing to run down your marriage. You'd be choosing to stop her from seeing her sister. >>>>No, it's not that. I can see that some degree of parent bashing at certain >ages [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I'm not willing to tolerate any parent bashing when the kids are young. ><shrug> Different cut off points, I guess. I understand that you believe that criticism of a parent is the ultimate bad for the child. I haven't dropped this yet because I'm not seeing acknowledgement of the importance of sibling relationships and the harm that is done by interfering with them. This is one of those situations that I find you have to flip to see fully. How would you feel if your ex had another child and prevented your children from seeing her because they wouldn't swallow the party line about the end of your marriage? Or he told your son that he couldn't see his younger sister because he complained that their father never had time for him? Your son and his sister would have to work out *their* situation to have a satisfying relationship, and you and your DH and your ex and his new wife would all have some relation to that. It's not always comfortable and your kid faces complex issues and may come to you with hard questions. But it's all part of the territory of serial marriage and second families. jane >Sheila > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Message-ID: <20040802013011.05710.00002567@mb-m14.aol.com> > I understand that you believe that criticism of a parent is the ultimate bad > for the child. I haven't dropped this yet because I'm not seeing > acknowledgement of the importance of sibling relationships and the harm that is > done by interfering with them. First off, any relationship with Emily is going to primarily through her parents right now, with Emily as a common interest. > This is one of those situations that I find you have to flip to see fully. How > would you feel if your ex had another child and prevented your children from > seeing her because they wouldn't swallow the party line about the end of your > marriage? Or he told your son that he couldn't see his younger sister because > he complained that their father never had time for him? IMO, it's not about swallowing the party line, it's about putting the argument to the side. I'm not seeing any requirement that she completely change her view, I'm seeing a requirement that she not voice that view and remain courteous while she's with Emily, and that's not at all unreasonable. Jess >IMO, it's not about swallowing the party line, it's about putting the >argument to the side. I'm not seeing any requirement that she completely >change her view, I'm seeing a requirement that she not voice that view and >remain courteous while she's with Emily, and that's not at all unreasonable. That's exactly what I mean. If I thought just asking SD to keep her mouth shut would truly change her view, I'd have done it long ago! Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >>IMO, it's not about swallowing the party line, it's about putting the >>argument to the side. I'm not seeing any requirement that she completely [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Liz LOL! Then I guess it comes down to where you draw your own line regarding what you feel is harmful enough to the child to warrant setting limits on their relationship. I can see the entire range of options from "She can say what she wants, and I'll work it out later" to "She can only see the child in my presence, and she can never say anything even mildly derogatory about me, my DH, or our relationship." My own place of comfort is with the angry SD keeping quiet about the child's *mother* and the marriage in front of the child. Jane's is somewhere else. I can see all of them being valid opinions, given different goals and different assumptions about the situation. Sheila >Then I guess it comes down to where you draw your own line regarding what you >feel is harmful enough to the child to warrant setting limits on their >relationship. If she makes Emily cry, she's toast. Liz, overprotective mom Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >Although, to be fair, in this case since she is >so much older, I would expect her to have some sense. This is the part I can't count on. SD is a very young 18, and I think she will be for a while. Acting out is still her reflexive response. >This is one of those situations that I find you have to flip to see fully. How >would you feel if your ex had another child and prevented your children from >seeing her because they wouldn't swallow the party line about the end of your >marriage? Or he told your son that he couldn't see his younger sister because >he complained that their father never had time for him? Again, I get hung up on specifics. Complaining that Dad never has time for him might be OK. Complaining *to the new sibling* that Dad never has time for him because of the *existence* of the new sibling would be crossing the line, at least for me. (And I like to think if it were Emily doing that, I'd tell her to complain directly to her dad but to leave the new sibling out of it.) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > Again, I get hung up on specifics. Complaining that Dad never has time for > him might be OK. Complaining *to the new sibling* that Dad never has time > for him because of the *existence* of the new sibling would be crossing the > line, at least for me. (And I like to think if it were Emily doing that, I'd > tell her to complain directly to her dad but to leave the new sibling out of > it.) Okay, but sibling rivalry is part of being siblings too. I can see that the age difference is going to make a difference in the value of that for a period of time, but ultimately this is something they will both have to deal with. The most important part is for your DH to anticipate it as a potential problem, and try to spend time with both girls together and both separately too. When my ex and I were new parents, I'd never have contemplated having anyone else collect my children from day care. It's hard enough being separated from them during the day, let alone sharing the little time you have with them in the evening. Were I your DH, I'd simply create lots of opportunities for SD to join in with him and Emily in a variety of pursuit. Keep throwing out those invitations. Send her photos. Have lots of pictures of your SD too. Make up songs and tell stories so that Emily has a sense of who is part of her family, even if she doesn't see her sister regularly it will make a difference. My girls are enormously close to my family in Canada, yet they see them very rarely. Wendy >Okay, but sibling rivalry is part of being siblings too. I can see that the >age difference is going to make a difference in the value of that for a >period of time, but ultimately this is something they will both have to deal >with. The most important part is for your DH to anticipate it as a potential >problem, and try to spend time with both girls together and both separately >too. This is part of the problem. SD *won't* spend time with DH alone. The last time the two of them spent time together was last September, I think. He asks, and she either simply doesn't answer or flies off the handle, depending on what's going on in her life. Their relationship isn't anything close to stable. >Have lots of pictures of your SD too. No worries - she's all over the house. ;-) >Make >up songs and tell stories so that Emily has a sense of who is part of her >family, even if she doesn't see her sister regularly it will make a >difference. This is a good idea. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > This is part of the problem. SD *won't* spend time with DH alone. The last > time the two of them spent time together was last September, I think. He > asks, and she either simply doesn't answer or flies off the handle, depending > on what's going on in her life. Their relationship isn't anything close to > stable. Chances are that's a combination of factors, not least of which is age. My OD is 18 and she's working, or out with friends, or with her boyfriend, or over here, or at school during term time. My ex counts himself lucky if she comes to his for supper before work, or before heading off on her other activities. It isn't much better here, either. The fact that she's keen to spend time with Emily is a huge compliment. She's probably as smitten as you and your DH are. Besides that, I can understand how she could see her father's rejection of her mother and their marriage as a rejection of her and their family too. She'll be feeling protective of her mother, as well, and not wanting to betray her by consorting with the enemy. We see it often enough on this group where people want to blame the ex rather than their husband/wife/partner. The only way through that is for your DH to communicate to her from the heart. IME, men gemerally aren't good at sharing their feelings and thoughts on emotional issues. She wants him to admit he made a mistake, maybe he should admit that he made lots of them, though not necessarily the ones she's thinking of. If he were doing it again, would he try to talk to her about the problems before he made his decision, maybe before he even met you? If he were doing it again, might he not take the decision to end the marriage much earlier? I know that my sister's ex left her for someone else. I could forgive him for ending the marriage, but it was harder to forgive him for not seeing that before he found someone else. Maybe he had good reason for not talking to her about his unhappiness, the last thing you want is to put your problems on your children, or put them in a position of feeling they are taking sides. Has he ever written to her? Sometimes it's easier to communicate in writing. And lest anyone feel any of the above sounds judgemental, Barclay and his ex had talked about ending their marriage, but was still living in the same house with her when we got together. She phoned me and asked me to wait six months before I started seeing him so she could adjust to it all, and my response was that this was something she had to talk to Barclay about, it was nothing to do with me. I guess even though they talked about separation and had separated on previous occasions she still hoped it would resolve itself, even though she wasn't prepared to make the effort to fix things. They did not divorce over me, but she still wanted to cite me as cause in their divorce. Wendy > >Have lots of pictures of your SD too. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Liz >Besides that, I can understand how she could see her father's rejection of >her mother and their marriage as a rejection of her and their family too. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >husband/wife/partner. The only way through that is for your DH to >communicate to her from the heart. Wendy, this is lovely advice. And we've BTDT over and over for four years. >She wants him to >admit he made a mistake, maybe he should admit that he made lots of them, >though not necessarily the ones she's thinking of. BTDT on this one, too. The only admission she claims she wants to hear is that leaving was a mistake, and he's never going to say that. He's covered wishing he had handled it better, wishing there had been a way to do it without hurting her, the whole nine yards. That's not good enough. >If he were doing it >again, would he try to talk to her about the problems before he made his [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >his unhappiness, the last thing you want is to put your problems on your >children, or put them in a position of feeling they are taking sides. I'm sorry about your sister; but I think there is a world of difference between discussing potentially terminal marital problems with your spouse, and discussing them with your kids. The first is approprite; the second, IMHO, is not. DH left BM as soon as he realized he could not stay in the marriage anymore; to bring it up with his daughter when he still had hopes of saving the relationship would have been unfair, I think. >Has >he ever written to her? Sometimes it's easier to communicate in writing. Their relationship is almost exclusively in writing. She prefers not to speak to him unless absolutely necessary. FWIW, he expresses his feelings really well - and with far more patience and compassion than I think I could consistently manage under the same circumstances. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 "Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <lizb@TheWorld.com> wrote > > BTDT on this one, too. The only admission she claims she wants to hear is > that leaving was a mistake, and he's never going to say that. She wants to be acknowledged. Leaving BM wasn't a mistake, but SD feels that he left *her*, although maybe she doesn't have the words for that yet. She feels that she was abandoned, I mean I would too, I can't say that it wouldn't devastate me. You know, he got to leave, and her and her brother had to stick around the tension of their mother trying to deal. Maybe he should apologize explicitly for leaving *her*, with it being known that leaving BM was the right thing to do. I mean, basically, I see him saying "I wish I had handled things better" as pretty much meaning "I had to leave BM but I never meant to leave you, though I had to, and wish I had organized/dealt with it all better". That's all fine and dandy, but SD doesn't see it that way, she's still the 14 year old that was left. I mean it might make a world of difference if DH were to tell her that leaving her was a mistake, not leaving BM. Heather He's > covered wishing he had handled it better, wishing there had been a way to > do it without hurting her, the whole nine yards. That's not good enough. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Liz >She wants to be acknowledged. Leaving BM wasn't a mistake, but SD feels >that he left *her*, although maybe she doesn't have the words for that yet. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >should apologize explicitly for leaving *her*, with it being known that >leaving BM was the right thing to do. He has tried that. (And yes, of course she feels abandoned, The whole think has really sucked for her.) If I had to guess what the issue was based on what I've seen, I'd say SD slipped very quickly into the role of her mother's protector and defender. She doesn't allow DH to divide her and her mom when it comes to apologies and admissions of mistakes. This may change over time; but right now it's quite a sticking point. >I mean >it might make a world of difference if DH were to tell her that leaving her >was a mistake, not leaving BM. I guess I'm not sure how he could put that. Can you be more explicit? Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > >She wants to be acknowledged. Leaving BM wasn't a mistake, but SD feels > >that he left *her*, although maybe she doesn't have the words for that yet. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I guess I'm not sure how he could put that. Can you be more explicit? Hmm. "I left you and it was a mistake. I thought I was just leaving your mother, when actually I was leaving you too and I'm sorry. I guess something like that. I don't know Liz, I mean from her perspective, I would be pissed too. Dad leaves, family has to deal with all the crap while he starts new life. I'm not attacking your husband, I'm sure he's a good guy, but I can't blame her for being so angry and feeling abandoned because basically she *was* in a way abandoned. I just feel like it might give her some gratification (I mean maybe at least a little) to hear him say it was a mistake to leave her (SD and SS). In her eyes he left and started great new life with new wife and now new baby and they were left to clean up the mess. Ugh, I don't know what I'm trying to say exactly, I just know that I personally am able to work on relationships better after I feel I've been heard. I know he tells her he wishes he had handled it better but I don't think that's specific enough for her. "Well sorry honey, I wish I had handled it better" doesn't sound as good as "I left you, I'm sorry, please forgive me". Does that make any sense? Heather > Liz snip > Hmm. "I left you and it was a mistake. I thought I was just leaving your > mother, when actually I was leaving you too and I'm sorry. I guess something [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Heather Honey, if there had been any way for me to leave your mother without leaving you, I would have done it. It was our marriage that became the problem, not our family. I had to leave your Mom. I wasn't happy, and I wasn't making her happy. Our marriage, as sad as it is, had to end, for the good of us both. I regret all of the unhappiness that the breakup caused your mother, of course I do, but there was no other choice. Leaving you was the hardest thing I ever did. I'd hoped that we could have forged a new relationship straight away, one that wouldn't have left you feeling so abandoned, but I hadn't counted on just how hurt you were. I'm sorry for that. Now, I don't know how I could have left your mother without causing you that pain. I don't know if that's even possible. But if it were, I'd go back and do it that way, if I could. I stopped loving your Mom. But I never, ever, stopped loving you, not for a single second. I'm much happier in my relationship now, and obviously Emily is a joy to me. But having her everyday only reminds me of my pain at not having you fully in my life, and us making things up is hugely important to me. I can't go back, and I can't change things. But we can move through this together, if we both try. I want to. I think I need to, because I will always love you just as much as I always did. Nikki >Honey, if there had been any way for me to leave your mother without leaving >you, I would have done it. It was our marriage that became the problem, not [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Nikki Thanks, Nikki. This he can say, and he has, although not all at once. Heather, from your perspective, do you think this would cover it? Really eloquent. I'm going to save this one. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > In article <jvadnRubg8P6eI3cRVn-sw@eclipse.net.uk>, > Thanks, Nikki. This he can say, and he has, although not all at once. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Liz I think it was awesome Liz. I think she needs to feel like she's worth begging back, worth fighting for. Heather > I think it was awesome Liz. I think she needs to feel like she's worth > begging back, worth fighting for. But to a certain extent, she needs to recognize the effort and start making some herself. She shouldn't make him beg, crawl and plead indefinently-that's not a relationship. Jess > > I think it was awesome Liz. I think she needs to feel like she's worth > > begging back, worth fighting for. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jess Of course it isn't, I'm just suggesting he try something, as he is the one that wants to rebuild. I would grovel for my kid, and once I saw that didn't work then I would probably resign myself. Wouldn't we all walk to the ends of the earth for our children? Wow Nikki, that was incredible! I could not have said it better. Heather > snip > > Hmm. "I left you and it was a mistake. I thought I was just leaving your [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Nikki > I'm much happier in my relationship now, and obviously Emily is a joy to me. > But having her everyday only reminds me of my pain at not having you fully > in my life, and us making things up is hugely important to me. I can't go > back, and I can't change things. But we can move through this together, if > we both try. I want to. I think I need to, because I will always love you > just as much as I always did. Very well put, Nikki. Wendy > > I'm much happier in my relationship now, and obviously Emily is a joy to > me. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Wendy Thanks. I'm good at complaint letters too, just in case anyone needs to know!! lol n > Hmm. "I left you and it was a mistake. I thought I was just leaving your > mother, when actually I was leaving you too and I'm sorry. I guess something [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > handled it better" doesn't sound as good as "I left you, I'm sorry, please > forgive me". Does that make any sense? god, i need to not do this on three hours of sleep, but oh well.... why would he want to apologize for leaving her when he left the marriage, not her, and it sounds like he's the one that's made all the effort to maintain the relationship? it sounds like she's cut him off for leaving her mother/the marriage and is trying to use their relationship to force him to admit it's wrong-"you'll do what i want or i won't have a relationship with you until you do"... back after i feed the starving masses and get another nap... Jess >why would he want to apologize for leaving her when he left the marriage, >not her, and it sounds like he's the one that's made all the effort to >maintain the relationship? it sounds like she's cut him off for leaving her >mother/the marriage and is trying to use their relationship to force him to >admit it's wrong-"you'll do what i want or i won't have a relationship with >you until you do"... It sure looks this way from my perspective - but of course, she was just a kid when he left, and it was appropriate for him to be making all the effort. It's a question I've had for a while, actually - when is it appropriate for the kid to start taking some responsibility for the relationship? SD was 14 when he left; it wasn't appropriate for her then. When - if ever - is it appropriate for Dad to say "Okay, you have to meet me partway here"? Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > It's a question I've had for a while, actually - when is it appropriate for > the kid to start taking some responsibility for the relationship? SD was > 14 when he left; it wasn't appropriate for her then. When - if ever - is > it appropriate for Dad to say "Okay, you have to meet me partway here"? Well, when I went to college (18) my parents didn't chase after me all that much to call home/come home, etc. At that point it was really up to me how often I wanted to see them. I decided where I spent breaks and summers, etc. That was true for most of my friends as well. So it seems to me that 18 is for sure old enough for the kids to make more decisions about what kind of relationship they want. That being said, if the relationship was damaged pre-18, your husband might have to be more proactive than some parents. rebecca > > It's a question I've had for a while, actually - when is it appropriate > for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > rebecca Yea, but Rebecca, you left for college. SD's father left her *in her eyes* at the age of 14. It's only been 4 years, and she's still got that wound. I didn't even begin to deal with things that had happened in my past until I reached my early 20's, maybe not even until 24'ish. A part of you stays that young age that was so traumatized. It's a big deal to her, why shouldn't it be? In relationships, what may not be a big deal to you may be a big deal to someone else and you compromise. The father is the one wanting to rebuild and SD is being honest with him, and I can't fault her for that. Look, all kids are different, some can handle things better and more maturely than others. I'm not saying he should kiss her a.s royally and berate himself walking on hot coals for her, I'm just suggesting that maybe being a little more specific about the leaving thing, maybe a little groveling for his little girl might make a little difference. *I'd* grovel for my child, I wouldn't let him use me, but if I knew he'd been hurt I'd do everything I could to validate his feelings and tell him I was sorry. Oops, sorry Rebecca, I really wasn't directing that at you, just trying to get a handle on where I'm coming from. :-D Heather > *I'd* grovel >for my child, I wouldn't let him use me, but if I knew he'd been hurt I'd do >everything I could to validate his feelings and tell him I was sorry Maybe it is the word "grovel" I'm reacting to, but I wouldn't grovel for anyone, at least in this situation. The definition for "grovel" is 1 : to creep with the face to the ground : CRAWL 2 a : to lie or creep with the body prostrate in token of subservience or abasement b : to abase oneself 3 : to give oneself over to what is base or unworthy : I can't see myself making myself subservient, or abase myself in this situation. Liz, my SDs had a very hard time with their dad leaving too (they were 12 and 13 at the time). We *did* see them, and it was often very unpleasant. DH made it clear that he wanted a relationship with them, but he also set limits about what was expected of them in terms of respect to me, to him, and to my kids. There was a period, after they became adults, that there was very little contact, and when there was, it was always because they wanted something from him. Now at 20 and 21, they take more responsibility to get in touch with him. In the last year, they've recognized that he, nor I, are the monsters that they wanted to paint us as. They refer to me as their "stepmother" (as opposed to "my father's wife", which I was for so long) and to my children as "our stepsister" and "our stepbrother". YSD brought her new boyfriend over to meet us just last night. I know that some people feel that the parent should grovel and take total responsibility for rebuilding the relationship, and indeed, those situations can end up with the results they wanted. In our situation, the SDs wanted DH to **pay**, and that wasn't something that he was willing to let them do to him. I have to say that, on this ng, there were many who said we did this all wrong, but we are happy with where we are now, and we did it without going against our principles. Just an alternative POV to through out at you. Sheila Oh god, Sheila, I'm not (heaven forbid) suggesting that that the almighty parent bow down to the child, or bow down to anyone. And really, she's 18 so that point is moot anyway. Grovel is not the word I'm looking for, I don't really know the word I'm looking for exactly. I'm suggesting that he be a little more specific with her, acknowledge her feelings a little more, hell it's just another thing to try before he gives up. And no, I'm not "one of those people that thinks parents should bear the load of rebuilding the relationship" I never once said he should worship her on a golden throne. It was more like "here, try this, maybe it'll work you never know". Heather > > *I'd* grovel > >for my child, I wouldn't let him use me, but if I knew he'd been hurt I'd do [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Sheila >Oh god, Sheila, I'm not (heaven forbid) suggesting that that the almighty >parent bow down to the child, or bow down to anyone. And really, she's 18 so [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Heather Which is why I prefaced my remarks with the statement that I was responding the the word "grovel". Some people do believe that a parent should grovel, if they think that will help maintain the relationship; I'm not one of those people. I don't/didn't know if you were one of those people, or not, but I was responding to the word. Sheila > It's a question I've had for a while, actually - when is it appropriate for > the kid to start taking some responsibility for the relationship? SD was > 14 when he left; it wasn't appropriate for her then. When - if ever - is > it appropriate for Dad to say "Okay, you have to meet me partway here"? It's definently appropriate now, IMO. I agree with Rebecca-by the time a kid turns eighteen, they're old enough to start meeting the other parent halfway, but I'm not sure about any younger. Jess > > It's a question I've had for a while, actually - when is it appropriate > for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jess Ok, I'm not saying she shouldn't meet him halfway, but I think the girl is looking for some validation. She's being honest, and in relationships that's what you do. Just because she turns 18 doesn't automatically give her the maturity to understand everything that happened at age 14. If you want a relationship with someone, you don't tell them "you're 18 you need to get over it", you compromise. I'm just suggesting maybe he be a little specific on the leaving thing, and maybe it's useless but what does he have to lose? And it's his *daughter*, why wouldn't he try every angle he could? If it starts to appear that nothing will work then I would give up too, as I would take it that she just didn't want to have a relationship. Heather > Ok, I'm not saying she shouldn't meet him halfway, but I think the girl is > looking for some validation. She's being honest, and in relationships [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If it starts to appear that nothing will work then I would give up too, as I > would take it that she just didn't want to have a relationship. Give up trying, or give up hoping. I think Barclay will never give up the latter, though realistically he doesn't think he'll ever succeed. Wendy > It's definently appropriate now, IMO. I agree with Rebecca-by the time a kid > turns eighteen, they're old enough to start meeting the other parent > halfway, but I'm not sure about any younger. I don't know, it's not easy for a child to be an equal while they are being supported by a parent. Sure they are adults, but this is one of the reasons why I wanted independence at such a young age because I didn't think that my voice would be heard while I was in any way dependent upon mine. Wendy >I don't know, it's not easy for a child to be an equal while they are being >supported by a parent. Sure they are adults, but this is one of the reasons >why I wanted independence at such a young age because I didn't think that my >voice would be heard while I was in any way dependent upon mine. Also an excellent point. SD has some scholarships; but the bulk of her college is being paid for by BM and DH. Not a fun position to be in, especially if you really need to be pissed off at your parents. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > It's a question I've had for a while, actually - when is it appropriate for > the kid to start taking some responsibility for the relationship? SD was > 14 when he left; it wasn't appropriate for her then. When - if ever - is > it appropriate for Dad to say "Okay, you have to meet me partway here"? It's an interesting question. By the time they are 18, they are adults, so they do need to take some responsibility, but I'd probably argue that even at 13 or 14 I think they're old enough to understand the concept of investing time, energy, thought and consideration in a relationship and towards other people, so that's taking some responsibility too. OTOH, I also know my parents and I weren't equals until I was out on my own, supporting myself and probably even to some extent, for them at least, it had to do with my getting married and having a family of my own. I used to think that this was extremely judgemental, that in some way I had to have a husband to get adult status, but I think that it wasn't so much that as them knowing that I was making decisions and working towards my own family. Wendy >It's an interesting question. By the time they are 18, they are adults, so >they do need to take some responsibility, but I'd probably argue that even [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >husband to get adult status, but I think that it wasn't so much that as them >knowing that I was making decisions and working towards my own family. I was easily in my mid-twenties before I began seeing my relationship with my parents as something I actually should be working to nurture - before that I pretty much took them for granted. And I didn't have anything like the trauma of a divorce to interfere with my relationships with them. Okay, I'm beginning to think I REALLY need to cut SD some more slack! Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > >It's an interesting question. By the time they are 18, they are adults, so > >they do need to take some responsibility, but I'd probably argue that even [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Liz I think that it would be an awful lot to expect of SD to ask her to offer what we might consider a 'normal' or 'appropriate' amount of the instigation in her parental relationships. It's really something to save for *after* getting over the hump. Nikki > >It's an interesting question. By the time they are 18, they are adults, so > >they do need to take some responsibility, but I'd probably argue that even [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Liz See!!! That's what I was thinking but couldn't get my brain to find the words for it. Heather >It's a question I've had for a while, actually - when is it appropriate for >the kid to start taking some responsibility for the relationship? SD was >14 when he left; it wasn't appropriate for her then. When - if ever - is >it appropriate for Dad to say "Okay, you have to meet me partway here"? > >Liz Mid twenties? jane >>It's a question I've had for a while, actually - when is it appropriate for >>the kid to start taking some responsibility for the relationship? > >Mid twenties? Yeah, yeah, yeah, you've all convinced me! Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >Hmm. "I left you and it was a mistake. I thought I was just leaving your >mother, when actually I was leaving you too and I'm sorry. I know what you're saying; but I don't think the above is strictly true, and he's not going to lie to her. (He's a rotten liar anyway - one of the things I love about him! - and she'd know she was being placated.) >Dad leaves, family has to deal with all the crap while he starts new >life. Yeah, I know. It really does honestly suck for the kids. No question. >I'm not attacking your husband, I'm sure he's a good guy, but I can't >blame her for being so angry and feeling abandoned because basically she >*was* in a way abandoned. Of course she was. And she's one of those people who needs some grovelling before she'll forgive. (I'm one of those people, too; so I know where she's coming from.) I just don't know what else can be done. He can't take it back, and he wouldn't undo it even if he could. >Ugh, I don't know what I'm trying to say exactly, I just know that I >personally am able to work on relationships better after I feel I've been >heard. I know he tells her he wishes he had handled it better but I don't >think that's specific enough for her. "Well sorry honey, I wish I had >handled it better" doesn't sound as good as "I left you, I'm sorry, please >forgive me". Does that make any sense? It makes a lot of sense to me, Heather. I'm just not sure it's possible for him to say that. He'd have taken SD with him in a heartbeat if he thought she'd've come with him - and he probably should have offerred at the time. He brought it up later; but I don't think it had the same impact then. Do you think apologizing for not offerring at the time would help? I don't think she'd acknowledge the point after all this time; but it might be nice for her to hear anyway...? Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > >Hmm. "I left you and it was a mistake. I thought I was just leaving your > >mother, when actually I was leaving you too and I'm sorry. > > I know what you're saying; but I don't think the above is strictly true, > and he's not going to lie to her. (He's a rotten liar anyway - one of the > things I love about him! - and she'd know she was being placated.) Well the thing is, when you're 14 your family (as much as you wish they'd leave you alone at that age) is your world. So yea, I do think in her eyes he left her. You and I see that as not so, and if it were to happen to her now at 18 she probably wouldn't feel the same, but she's probably validating those feelings she felt 4 years ago. The difference in maturity between 14 and 18 is huge, and while I think she can handle most things as an adult, what happened to her at 14 hurt her and she's most likely going to stand by that, at least for the next few years until she matures more. Becoming 18 doesn't mean you get to go pick up your maturity ticket and automatically understand everything that's ever happened to you in your past. And really Liz, I could be totally wrong, I'm just suggesting that maybe it might work, I mean what has he got to lose? And also, about the adult thing, having an adult relationship means being honest about your feelings, and that's what she's doing. If he wants a relationship with her, he should try to validate those feelings, even if he doesn't agree with them. And I mean ALL of this *within reason* before anybody assumes I'm saying the guy should walk on hot coals for her. It's give and take, I'm just saying maybe he should give a little more, not give it all. Heather >If he wants a relationship with her, he should try to validate >those feelings, even if he doesn't agree with them. And I mean ALL of this >*within reason* before anybody assumes I'm saying the guy should walk on hot >coals for her. It's give and take, I'm just saying maybe he should give a >little more, not give it all. I feel a little weird on this thread, because I'm writing about things DH has done, not things I've done, and I can't truly speak for him. FWIW, from what I've seen (and I've seen letters from him and to him, and heard his side of many phone calls), he's done everything people here are suggesting - apologizing to her, telling her he wished it could have been different, acknowledging her pain and that she's under no obligation to fortive him, etc. - over and over and OVER again. And he's still doing it, even around this baby-sitting issue. From my perspective, she hasn't shifted a bit in four years - but you know? She doesn't have to. He's right; she doesn't EVER have to try to forgive him. It's really her choice. I actually find it encouraging that there's still a dialog going on here; I figure if she truly wanted him out of her life, she'd just stop responding in any meaningful way at all. I just don't know when it's appropriate to start expecting her to shift - I don't think it's a binary, that the day she turns 18 she's an adult and should start pulling half the relationship. But maybe 5 or 10 percent wouldn't be too much to hope for. (And you know? I suspect she feels she's pulling that much, and more, regardless of how it feels to him.) Maybe I shouldn't even think about this, and hope that someday she agrees that she WANTS to rebuild their relationship. That's probably a prerequisite for anything else. :-( Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >But maybe 5 or 10 percent wouldn't be too much to hope for. (And you know? >I suspect she feels she's pulling that much, and more, regardless of how it >feels to him.) Just asking to pick up the baby is at least 5 to 10 percent. jane >Liz >Just asking to pick up the baby is at least 5 to 10 percent. Good point. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >Well the thing is, when you're 14 your family (as much as you wish they'd >leave you alone at that age) is your world. So yea, I do think in her eyes >he left her. You and I see that as not so, Wait a second, we might have something here. He *did* leave her. This could make my eyes bleed if I were her. If he's saying stuff like, "I didn't leave you; I left your mother," I'd scream and hang up the phone too. He left her. He walked out that door and left her. When she was 14, when a girl needs her father most. Liz, this has nothing to do with your marriage or your love for your DH. He doesn't have to say that marrying you was wrong. He has to say that he was wrong to leave. He has to say that because she just about died of the pain of it. If that amount of pain doesn't make it wrong to him, how can she feel that he loves her? How can she trust anyone who hurt her that much again? Maybe, "Honey, if I had known that our divorce would end up hurting you so badly, I would have done things differently. I would have handled my marriage differently. I would have lived my whole life differently. But I didn't know, and I did what I did, and I'm sorry it hurt you." >and if it were to happen to her >now at 18 she probably wouldn't feel the same, but she's probably validating >those feelings she felt 4 years ago. The difference in maturity between 14 >and 18 is huge, and while I think she can handle most things as an adult, >what happened to her at 14 hurt her and she's most likely going to stand by >that, at least for the next few years until she matures more. But really, don't we all know people who aren't over this kind of stuff now? This is definitely therapy stuff. Where's Brenna? You just don't automatically see your parents as other people ever. If you don't get what you need from them growing up, you tend to see them through a filter of what you didn't get. jane >Heather Jane said: >This is definitely therapy stuff. Where's Brenna? You just don't >automatically see your parents as other people ever. If you don't get what >you >need from them growing up, you tend to see them through a filter of what you >didn't get. >> I'm right here. I've been staying out of this because I am way to close to and if I wait long enough, one of you guys always says what I was thinking anyway. My main problem with this is the "doesn't she have to meet him halfway" question. Ideally, yes, two adults should work on their relationship equally. But not only do you have the complete power imbalance here (he made all the initial choices, she just got left and had to deal with her pain and her mother's) but you have a person who's basic developmental process towards her father was stopped by her pain at the age of 14. Until the matter gets resolved in her head, you are not dealing with her chronological age, but the age of the child who's daddy left her holding the bag of having to deal with her mother (and siblings, if there were any) because it was too much for him to handle. (Obviously, this is not the way the situation was, but its probably how she perceives it). And like I said, I'm way to close to this to give good input. I had to stop my mom from committing suicide because of (what I perceived as) my dad's actions at just a few years younger than Liz's stepdaughter was, and do all the cooking and childcare because of my mom's depression, so I am still that 12 year old kid in regard to this issue. The big difference is Liz's husband seems like a good guy who is showing his love now, so I'm hopeful stepdaughter will be able to heal with him over time. brenna > Jane said: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > mother's) but you have a person who's basic developmental process towards her > father was stopped by her pain at the age of 14. This is exactly what I was getting at, but you said it much better Brenna. Until the matter gets > resolved in her head, you are not dealing with her chronological age, but the > age of the child who's daddy left her holding the bag of having to deal with > her mother (and siblings, if there were any) because it was too much for him to > handle. (Obviously, this is not the way the situation was, but its probably how > she perceives it). Yes and it's how she feels. You can't deny her that (generic you). Her feelings are legit, she's doing the right thing relationship-wise by stating them honestly and letting him know where she stands. To tell her it's not true would be invalidating her reality. Heather > so I am still that 12 year old kid in regard to this issue. See, this is what I love about you. jane >brenna I said: <so I am still that 12 year old kid in regard to this issue.> and Jane said: >See, this is what I love about you.> And your ability to make me realize and face this, without making me feel bad about it, is what I love about you. Brenna > I said: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Brenna Aw guys, I don't know if it's because I'm only half way down my coffee, but I wanna cry!! Nikki > Aw guys, I don't know if it's because I'm only half way down my coffee, but > I wanna cry!! Just don't do it in the coffee. ;) Jess >My main problem with this is the "doesn't she have to meet him halfway" >question. That's not what I asked - or not what I meant to ask. I wanted to know at what point one might reasonably expect some relationship-building effort from the other end. I didn't mean it as a loaded question, either; I genuinely wanted to know what people thought. I think the answer is that it depends on the kid. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 Liz said: >That's not what I asked - or not what I meant to ask. I wanted to know at what point one might reasonably expect some relationship-building >effort from the other end. I didn't mean it as a loaded question, >either; I genuinely wanted to know what people thought.> You're question is not at all loaded, and is completely reasonable. My reaction demonstrates my point, which was why I was reluctant to respond. I heard it in the loaded way I stated it. I have many faults, but reading comprehension isn't usually one of them. With this issue, I could probably turn any question into a 50 pound barbell. Hell, I got upset for a week because my dad didn't attend someone else's graduation. The problem is you step daughter's reactions are probably going to be just as loaded as mine, if not more, since I like to think I may have matured a bit in the past 25 years (which is probably untrue). And for future reference, never give your step daughter your credit card and let her take your daughter shopping. I took my step sister shopping for back to school when she was 16, and she came home with a gorgeous caramel suede skirt that cost about $250 bucks. (plus other normal stuff). And I really didn't think I was doing anything wrong! It was a totally unconscious retaliatory act, I can see now..but then I thought I was doing a good thing because she wanted it. I was about 25 at the time. I would never have jeopardized my step sister's safety in any way though, and was (and am) just as protective of her as I am my nieces. brenna I somehow typed: >You're question is not at all loaded,> Jesus, I'm so sorry. Your, Your, Your question, not You're. How could I do that? I actually make a big part of my living writing, and don't think I've ever made that error before. As this group so descriptively says, it makes my eyes bleed, and now having typed it, my fingers are bleeding all over my keyboard. See...and I thought I wasn't having an emotional reaction to this discussion. Brenna >I somehow typed: > >>You're question is not at all loaded,> > >Jesus, I'm so sorry. Your, Your, Your question, not You're. How could I do >that? I actually make a big part of my living writing, Hey Brenna, I didn't know that. What kind of writing? Anne Anne asked: >Hey Brenna, I didn't know that. What kind of writing?>> Usually boring, dry legal writing. About half my time is spent writing briefs, declarations (which is the fun, dramatic part), settlement conference statements, letters, etc. About a third of my time is spent in court, and the remainder is divided between talking on the phone and in person with clients and opposing counsel. What I left out, and what I unfortunately leave out of my day as well, is the administrative stuff like billing and accounting. I'm a great lawyer, but an awful business person. I wish I could write fiction professionally. I write short stories for fun, and have always dreamed of running off to the mountains and just writing fiction for a living, e mailing it into my editor, and never having to write another footnote or citation again. Are you a writer? I'd love to hear about it if you are, so I could get a contact high. Brenna >I wish I could write fiction professionally. I write short stories for fun, >and have always dreamed of running off to the mountains and just writing >fiction for a living, e mailing it into my editor, and never having to write >another footnote or citation again. Are you a writer? I'd love to hear about >it if you are, so I could get a contact high. Well, I'm a technical writer by trade, I just finished a 350-page manual for a product that takes SS7 telephony traffic and puts it over IP. Those legal briefs starting to seem more exciting? I'm in the process of organizing a writing group here in Princeton, because I have an idea for a novel that I want to shop to an agent by the end of September and they require 3 chapters with the query if you're not published yet. Did you see the latest issue of Writers' Digest? They had 24 agents who will read your stuff if you're not published. If it's not still on newsstands out there email me and I'll fax the list to you. Anne I want the list, too. Could you scan it and email it? Heather > >I wish I could write fiction professionally. I write short stories for fun, > >and have always dreamed of running off to the mountains and just writing [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Anne Anne said: >Did you see the latest issue of Writers' Digest? They had 24 agents who will read your stuff if you're not published. If it's not still on newsstands out there email me and I'll fax the list to you.> Thanks for the tip. I'll check tomorrow, and if its not still available I will take you up on your offer. I also need to check around here for a writing group, I think that would really help too. Do you find that your technical writing negatively effects your more creative endeavors? I'm terrified I'll end up writing something like "Cal's ex husband's new wife, (hereafter referred to as "Melonhead or MH")" in one of my short stories. If I ever let something like that slip in my posts, smack me, ok? Brenna > I'm terrified I'll end up writing something like > "Cal's ex husband's new wife, (hereafter referred to as "Melonhead or > MH")" in one of my short stories. ROFL.. okay.. now tell me.. what's wrong with that?? :-P Cal~ >Do you find that your technical writing negatively effects your more creative >endeavors? I'm terrified I'll end up writing something like "Cal's ex >husband's new wife, (hereafter referred to as "Melonhead or MH")" in one of >my short stories. If I ever let something like that slip in my posts, smack >me, ok? Oh please. I worked on a job once where I had a writing vocabulary of about 500 words. That'll kill any creative impulses you may have! Of course, when we were writing haiku here in ASSP, I remember writing something like, "Interface numbers, choose whichever one you want, all are functional" so there you have that. The engineers wouldn't go for a manual written entirely in haiku, go figure. Did you find the list of agents? What project are you working on? I'm trying to start a writing group here in Princeton and all my fliers were taken but nobody's called. If that doesn't work out maybe I'll start one online, with a chat meet-up once a month, where we email each other our stuff for critique. I did ask that people commit to one chapter, scene, poem, whatever each month, maybe people are scared of that. But I don't want to be in a writing group where nobody's doing anything, you know? Anne Anne wrote: >Did you find the list of agents? What project are you working on? I'm trying to start a writing group here in Princeton and all my fliers were taken but nobody's called. If that doesn't work out maybe I'll start one online, with a chat meet-up once a month, where we email each other our stuff for critique. I did ask that people commit to one chapter, scene, poem, whatever each month, maybe people are scared of that. But I don't want to be in a writing group where nobody's doing >anything, you know? As always seems to happens with my fun writing, work was crazy the day after you posted that and I forgot all about it until you just mentioned it now. Which is why I think your requesting a commitment to a chapter or something is completely reasonable, because otherwise you'd have people just discussing the most recent episode of "Survivor" or something. I think your idea of an online writing group is great, and I'd love to participate. I'll bet others here might as well. There's certainly enough material here in the group. My current project is actually not fiction. I'm working on a book called "The Marriage Contract" which is a "Marriage for Dummies" kind of thing that discusses what you are actually doing legally when you get married in a lighthearted way. I'm tired of seeing people do things like refinance a home they had before marriage and change title to joint from separate to qualify for a mortgage, without realizing that they are giving their spouse half of their premarital home. I'm also working on a handout about premarital agreements to give out at bridal fairs: yes, I'm beginning to market my prenuptial agreements at bridal fairs. Now if I can just get enough valuim to be able to tolerate dealing with wedding planners... brenna > I have many faults, but reading comprehension isn't usually one of them. >With this issue, I could probably turn any question into a 50 pound barbell. >Hell, I got upset for a week because my dad didn't attend someone else's >graduation. The problem is you step daughter's reactions are probably going to >be just as loaded as mine, if not more, since I like to think I may have >matured a bit in the past 25 years (which is probably untrue). And I totally understand this. I hold grudges for years. I've lost friends over issues some people think of as trivial. I really do get that she's hurt and pissed off and gets upset at things that might look silly to other people but aren't at all silly to her. I get frustrated, and I wish for a quick fix, and I forget. I'm glad people here remind me. >And for future reference, never give your step daughter your credit card and >let her take your daughter shopping. LOL! I'll remember that! :-) SD is actually an expert sale shopper...but that doesn't mean the $$$ spent are less. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > Maybe, "Honey, if I had known that our divorce would end up hurting you so > badly, I would have done things differently. I would have handled my marriage > differently. I would have lived my whole life differently. But I didn't know, > and I did what I did, and I'm sorry it hurt you." Might have, maybe. Would have may not be true. >Maybe, "Honey, if I had known that our divorce would end up hurting you so >badly, I would have done things differently. I would have handled my marriage >differently. I would have lived my whole life differently. But I didn't know, >and I did what I did, and I'm sorry it hurt you." "I would have done things differently" is weasel-words, though. How "differently"? Not left at all? Taken her with him? Stayed in the house but slept in his own room? Of course he'd have handled it differently if he could have thought of a way not to hurt her. To suggest he wouldn't have left if he'd known how hurt she'd be seems like loading an awful lot of responsibility on her head. In her shoes, if I heard that I'd be kicking myself for not letting him know how important he was, and for being the one responsible for his leaving. (I would say more but I'm way outside my comfort zone wrt the amount of personal detail I'm going into here. I'm not trying to be evasive; just trying to respect DH's and SD's privacy. The non-specific meta- discussion is much easier!) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > Wendy, this is lovely advice. And we've BTDT over and over for four > years. Time heals a lot of things, if my experience is anything to go by. My OD took many years to come around to accepting that the end of her father and my relationship was for the best, but some of that has come with maturity. Hopefully if your DH perseveres, she'll adjust to it all in time. > BTDT on this one, too. The only admission she claims she wants to hear is > that leaving was a mistake, and he's never going to say that. Of course, he's not. He's > covered wishing he had handled it better, wishing there had been a way to > do it without hurting her, the whole nine yards. That's not good enough. She still wants to believe that it was as she believed it to be. People give up their belief in fairy tales very reluctantly. > I'm sorry about your sister; but I think there is a world of difference > between discussing potentially terminal marital problems with your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > when he still had hopes of saving the relationship would have been > unfair, I think. That was my point, I guess I didn't articulate it very well, but now that the relationship is over I think that he can talk to her about it. That doesn't have to be bad mouthing her mother. It can be about looking at the positives and negatives, about looking at the situation from both sides. He does need to help her find some sort of understanding. > Their relationship is almost exclusively in writing. She prefers not > to speak to him unless absolutely necessary. FWIW, he expresses his > feelings really well - and with far more patience and compassion than I > think I could consistently manage under the same circumstances. I'm sorry it's proving so difficult. I'll be thinking of you all. Wendy PS Sorry I missed the announcement of Emily's birth. Congratulations. Like Anne R, I'd love to see photos. >Time heals a lot of things, if my experience is anything to go by. My OD >took many years to come around to accepting that the end of her father and >my relationship was for the best, but some of that has come with maturity. >Hopefully if your DH perseveres, she'll adjust to it all in time. I hope you're right. >She still wants to believe that it was as she believed it to be. People >give up their belief in fairy tales very reluctantly. I know. :-( >That was my point, I guess I didn't articulate it very well, but now that >the relationship is over I think that he can talk to her about it. That >doesn't have to be bad mouthing her mother. It can be about looking at the >positives and negatives, about looking at the situation from both sides. He >does need to help her find some sort of understanding. I'm not sure it's that simple. The issues DH had with BM are very much the same issues SD had with BM. It's not like conflicts were hidden in the home - they were just accepted. But while DH could stop being BM's husband, SD can't stop being her daughter - nor would she want to. I've heard that some kids view divorce as a validation of what they've observed. I think SD is wondering why what was working for so many years suddenly became unbearable to her father. Knowing that it was steadily wearing away at him feels like it invalidates a lot of her childhood memories. >I'm sorry it's proving so difficult. I'll be thinking of you all. Thanks, Wendy. I know I'm coming across as one of those people who just bitches, and then comes up with a zillion reasons why none of the suggestions will work. I don't mean to. I truly appreciate all of your experiences and suggestions - I just get so frustrated. Liz >PS Sorry I missed the announcement of Emily's birth. Congratulations. >Like Anne R, I'd love to see photos. Thanks. :-) I am truly blessed. Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > I'm not sure it's that simple. The issues DH had with BM are very much > the same issues SD had with BM. It's not like conflicts were hidden in > the home - they were just accepted. But while DH could stop being BM's > husband, SD can't stop being her daughter - nor would she want to. No, but she can grow up and move away. The bond of love between a parent and a child doesn't change in the same way as the bond of love between two spouses can if things aren't right. > I've heard that some kids view divorce as a validation of what they've > observed. I think SD is wondering why what was working for so many > years suddenly became unbearable to her father. Knowing that it was > steadily wearing away at him feels like it invalidates a lot of her > childhood memories. Of course it does. Imagine your DH was unhappy now but didn't tell you and your understanding of the world was built on the perception that everything was as it seemed. Some people say there are some things you cannot, as a parent, talk to your children about, and I do believe in caution about passing on your interpretation of things to your children, but I don't think you can have a relationship with anyone without openness and honesty. How can you trust someone without that, whatever the relationship? Rebuilding trust can take a long time. > Thanks, Wendy. I know I'm coming across as one of those people who > just bitches, and then comes up with a zillion reasons why none of > the suggestions will work. I don't mean to. I truly appreciate all > of your experiences and suggestions - I just get so frustrated. It must be very frustrating, because all you can do is observe and support your DH from the sidelines. Wendy > >PS Sorry I missed the announcement of Emily's birth. Congratulations. > >Like Anne R, I'd love to see photos. > > Thanks. :-) I am truly blessed. >No, but she can grow up and move away. The bond of love between a parent >and a child doesn't change in the same way as the bond of love between two >spouses can if things aren't right. From your keyboard to God's ears, Wendy. BM is one of those parents who would just LOVE it if the kids moved back in with her after college. Fortunately, I think SD has too much sense for that! >Some people say there are some things you cannot, as a parent, talk to your >children about, and I do believe in caution about passing on your >interpretation of things to your children, but I don't think you can have a >relationship with anyone without openness and honesty. Yeah, but...a parent/child relationship, to use Sheila's terminology, isn't a peer relationship. Being open and honest doesn't mean you have to share everything; and I think some things aren't appropriate to share. When I was a teenager, my mother (who's still married to my dad, btw) would often use me as a sounding board for her frustrations about my father's behavior. On the one hand, it was nice for me: it reinforced some of my own observations about their relationship, and it made me feel close to my mom. On the other hand, it made it very difficult for me to spend time with both of my parents together without taking sides. In retrospect, it wasn't fair of her to do that (at least not to the degree that she did) - and she agrees with me. Her complaints were petty compared to the sort of things DH would have had to be sharing with SD to be completely open and honest with her. Some things just aren't appropriate for children to hear about their parents - for the very reason you mentioned: their relationship with each parent has a different set of rules than the relationship between spouses. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > Yeah, but...a parent/child relationship, to use Sheila's terminology, isn't > a peer relationship. Being open and honest doesn't mean you have to share > everything; and I think some things aren't appropriate to share. If sex is what you're talking about, then I wouldn't expect explicit detail, but then again in my world sex is a natural expression of love and its absence an indicator that feelings have changed. I might talk about the change of feelings with a child rather than the absence of sex, but it's the change in feelings which is the real issue. The sex would be just a symptom. Sometimes though I think we should talk about sex more and other things. You know I wish my mother had talked to me about the menopause when she was going through it. I'd have understood so much more and would have been so much more compassionate with her. As I said though, I'd avoid talking about the ex, particularly my interpretation of him, or at least if I were talking about one of his less endearing characteristics, I'd always try to balance that with an emphasis on his more endearing ones at the same time. > When I was a teenager, my mother (who's still married to my dad, btw) would > often use me as a sounding board for her frustrations about my father's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of her to do that (at least not to the degree that she did) - and she agrees > with me. Yes, I've been caught in the cross fire before now too, but despite it or perhaps because they both did it to some extent I was able to see aspects of what they both were saying. > Her complaints were petty compared to the sort of things DH would have had > to be sharing with SD to be completely open and honest with her. Some things > just aren't appropriate for children to hear about their parents - for the > very reason you mentioned: their relationship with each parent has a different > set of rules than the relationship between spouses. But we learn an enormous amount from observing our parents relationship(s) and sometimes help in seeing it in context doesn't go amiss. Wendy PS Emily is gorgeous. of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and > spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they > can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >If sex is what you're talking about, then I wouldn't expect explicit detail, >but then again in my world sex is a natural expression of love and its >absence an indicator that feelings have changed. I might talk about the >change of feelings with a child rather than the absence of sex, but it's the >change in feelings which is the real issue. The sex would be just a >symptom. While I admire and agree with your attitude about sex, and hope to cultivate healthy attitudes in my daughter, not all families are like that. To be suddenly open when it was never discussed before won't generally get a good reception. Besides that, I think I disagree with your basic premise. I believe SD knows perfectly well why her dad left; it just doesn't matter to her. And I don't really blame her. If my parents had divorced - and there were times I wondered why they didn't - the "why" wouldn't have mattered to me either. She doesn't want explanations; she wants restitution. Who can blame her? >PS Emily is gorgeous. Thanks. ;-) Looks aren't everything, of course; but a mom never gets tired of hearing her baby is cute! Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >And, Liz, please know that, at this point, I, at least, am approaching this as >a philosophical discussion. I don't know your SD, what you expect, and what >the situation is. I certainly don't want to argue that this applies to you and >your family at all. Sheila, please don't worry about me! One of the things I love about this group is how specific questions become larger philosophical discussions. All the questions coming out of this are worth thinking about. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >It can be harmful to a child to have her relationship with a parent undermined. > But how harmful does it have to be to justify undermining a relationship with >her sibling? That's a harmful act too. I think you have to weigh carefully the goal of the hostility. In the case I mentioned earlier (my former SIL who was my son's daycare provider when he was an infant) the goal of her irrational hostility was to use my son to try to destroy me. She tried to file unfounded reports with CPS about what I was packing for his lunch, believe it or not. She also tried to plant the same type of doubts about my parenting (and my marriage) to my (then) husband and in-laws. It was irrational and frightening. I didn't see it coming--I thought we were friends. So, if I *knew* someone was openly hostile towards me, and wanted to be able to pick up my infant from daycare without having met me or dealt with those feelings of hostility, I wouldn't trust her motives, or the direction that the hostility could take. Deb R. >jane >>It can be harmful to a child to have her relationship with a parent >undermined. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >dealt with those feelings of hostility, I wouldn't trust her motives, >or the direction that the hostility could take. Deb, you just can't draw conclusions from that relationship to what you would do with a sibling. DSS is extreme. That placing doubts about your parenting and your marriage with your husband and inlaws part - that's standard. I can almost guarantee that if you had a child with your SO now, your son would have a million complaints about his parenting of his brother. And if your SO decided that that meant he couldn't see his brother, the top of your head would blow off. jane >Deb R. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Path: >lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsreader.com!news reader.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.sta nford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!bigboote.WPI.EDU!not-for-mail >From: driel@wpi.edu (Deborah M Riel) >Newsgroups: alt.support.step-parents [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) >Originator: driel@wpi.edu (Deborah M Riel) >>So, if I *knew* someone was openly hostile towards me, and wanted to >>be able to pick up my infant from daycare without having met me or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >>Deb R. But I just can't get around the part where Liz said that her SD was hostile and *refused to meet her*. I just wouldn't let someone who was known to be hostile towards me *and* refused to meet me pick up my infant from daycare. I'd want to meet anyone who was going to pick up my infant from daycare. Y'know how when your kids are small you want to meet their friends, and the parents of their friends? Isn't that a normal parental thing to want to do? This SD is 18. If Liz has never met her, how does she know whether or not she's a good, responsible driver, a responsible caregiver, etc., etc. Just because she's a sibling doesn't mean she's *necessarily* any of those things. And to top if off, if she's openly hostile towards Liz, I really don't blame her for requiring more before agreeing to allowing the SD to just pick the baby up. It just seems like common sense to me. No one has suggested that the siblings shouldn't be allowed to have a relationship--I haven't seen that at all in Liz's post. Just that the not meeting Liz part, and the hostility part can be addressed before just allowing the SD to do whatever she wants unsupervised with Liz's baby--her sibling, yes, but still Liz's baby. The meeting part would be the *least* I'd require. See, if my ex and his wife happened to have a baby, and my son flat out refused to meet my ex's wife, I'd fully expect her to have reservations about allowing my son to just pick up her new baby from daycare, all the while refusing to ever come face to face with her. I'd think he was crazy to expect her to allow it. Deb R. >But I just can't get around the part where Liz said that her SD was >hostile and *refused to meet her*. In all fairness, I don't know how hostile SD is toward me (the hostility is generally aimed at her father). I really believe her refusal to meet me is an extension of her mother's tendancy to behave as if DH simply isn't there when they run into each other. (When they saw each other at SD's graduation, DH said hi to her. She ignored him - wouldn't look at him at all. This in front of both of their kids and DH's parents, with whom she still has a relationship.) This pretending-something-doesn't-exist seems to be the default defensive mechanism. >This SD is 18. If Liz has never >met her, how does she know whether or not she's a good, responsible [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >her for requiring more before agreeing to allowing the SD to just pick >the baby up. You know, I just wrote out that if DH were closer to her and trusted her, that I'd leave the baby with her without reservation. But in thinking about it, I realized that's a total lie. If DH came to me and insisted my concerns were groundless, and that SD would be a wonderful and safe caretaker for our daughter, I think I'd demand to meet her. I wouldn't expect best-buddy status, by any stretch of the imagination - but if she doesn't have the self-control to at least shake my hand and nod hello, I don't want her watching my kid. Jane, I think this would be one of those emotional responses you were talking about. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > You know, I just wrote out that if DH were closer to her and trusted her, > that I'd leave the baby with her without reservation. But in thinking [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Jane, I think this would be one of those emotional responses you were talking > about. Hey, Liz? No one watches my kid that I haven't met. And I absolutely DEFY anyone to tell me that's nuts. I don't care who it is, or how they are related, I don't leave my child in the care of someone I haven't clapped eyes on and had at least a conversation about child care with. rebecca >Hey, Liz? No one watches my kid that I haven't met. And I absolutely DEFY >anyone to tell me that's nuts. I don't care who it is, or how they are >related, I don't leave my child in the care of someone I haven't clapped >eyes on and had at least a conversation about child care with. Thanks, Rebecca. I'm feeling a little less insane after talking with you folks. ;-) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > >But I just can't get around the part where Liz said that her SD was > >hostile and *refused to meet her*. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > doesn't have the self-control to at least shake my hand and nod hello, I > don't want her watching my kid. If it were me, I wouldn't agree to having her anywhere *near* my child, if she refused to even meet with me and deal with the fact of my existence. As many here may remember, when SS was a baby, his mother insisted that the only way DH would be allowed to see him at all wouyld be if he came and did visitation with her, her child from another relationship, and the baby, as if they were a family together, and would totally exclude both me and our child from any time with SS. he refused, and until we could afford an attorney to fight her for visitation, we were not allowe4d to see the child. it was a paternity case so the law was on her side. > Jane, I think this would be one of those emotional responses you were talking > about. Yes, but not just emotional. it's logical, too. Lori >You know, I just wrote out that if DH were closer to her and trusted her, >that I'd leave the baby with her without reservation. But in thinking [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Liz Yes. I know that because you said, "if she doesn't have the self-control to...." That's pretext. You're telling yourself that if she can't shake your hand she doesn't have self-control and she could hurt your baby. But that's not what's really going on. You don't want to leave your baby with someone who hates you. And for the record, Liz, at the age Em is, I don't think you should expect yourself to. But you should be thinking of how SD can spend time with her sister with a responsible person who is not you or DH. jane >And for the record, Liz, at the age Em is, I don't think you should expect >yourself to. But you should be thinking of how SD can spend time with her >sister with a responsible person who is not you or DH. Early on, I think it'll have to be one of us; but it does occur to me that the day care we've chosen allows visits at any time. If SD would be willing to hang out with the baby there, I could probably shoehorn that into my comfort zone. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >But I just can't get around the part where Liz said that her SD was >hostile and *refused to meet her*. I just wouldn't let someone who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >met her, how does she know whether or not she's a good, responsible >driver, a responsible caregiver, etc., etc. Well, she had day care experience. If it makes Liz and DH feel better she can take a parenting class. They can force a meeting if they like. >Just because she's a >sibling doesn't mean she's *necessarily* any of those things. And to >top if off, if she's openly hostile towards Liz, I really don't blame >her for requiring more before agreeing to allowing the SD to just pick >the baby up. Oh, I'm not saying she's wrong not to let SD pick the baby up right now. I'm saying that SD's hostility towards Liz shouldn't interfere with her relationship with her sister. There's no indication that SD feels hostile towards Em. She feels hostile towards her father and her SM. >It just seems like common sense to me. No one has suggested that the >siblings shouldn't be allowed to have a relationship--I haven't seen [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >daycare, all the while refusing to ever come face to face with her. >I'd think he was crazy to expect her to allow it. I think that's a red herring. Your son and probably Liz's SD might meet the SM in question and walk away hating her guts a little bit more. They'd pay that price to see their sibling if they wanted it enough, but they'd resent it, and it wouldn't improve the situation overall. So, to recap, I can see not letting a sibling pick up your kid from daycare unless your mate is totally confident in her ability. But the situation changes daily, and you've really got to sort out what you feel about your kid having a sibling who hates your guts. jane >Deb R. >I think you have to weigh carefully the goal of the hostility. This is a hard one for us. At this point, I'm not sure the hostility has a goal; I think she's still injured, and still feels the need to bleed over it. Her stated goal is to get her father to say he made a horrible mistake, and he shouldn't have divorced her mother. Since I doubt hearing that would really make her feel better, I don't think she knows what her goal is either. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >No, it's not that. I can see that some degree of parent bashing at certain ages >could be harmful to the child. I just don't see how you get to "her presence >in my child's life would be more harmful and disruptive, than positive." If >you were saying that it could be inconvenient or require you to monitor and >supervise the relationship more closely than you'd like, I could see that. But >her presence in your child's life? That's quite a leap. In my specific situation, I don't think monitoring and supervising the relationship would be an option. I think if it got to that point SD would choose not to see Emily at all rather than be supervised when they were together (assuming she was, at that point, behaving the same way she does now). In that case, it'd be SD removing herself from Emily's life. Sure, it'd be sad; but it'd be her choice. So maybe we're back to using the baby as a bargaining chip! Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > In my specific situation, I don't think monitoring and supervising the > relationship would be an option. I think if it got to that point SD [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So maybe we're back to using the baby as a bargaining chip! Not if it's her choice what she does. That's the key difference. Jess >>No, it's not that. I can see that some degree of parent bashing at certain >ages [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Liz No, but see, this is that thing people do. You have to isolate the goal, here "a rewarding relationship with her sister." Then think about what you would do if that were your only goal. Then chip out the other stuff that gets in the way of it. That makes no sense. You have to make the commitment to make it work. Like a marriage. It means you have to swallow things you don't want to. If SD wants to spend time with her sister, you're very lucky. You can't expect her to do it in a way that fits all your goals. You can't ride two horses at the same time. You can't switch back and forth between your relationship with SD and Em's. You (and, I'm sorry to say, DH) have to decide now which one you're going with. You're right, DH's situation is the more confusing. Those are both major life relationships. It's a tough call. But he had the early years with SD, when most of the progress in their relationship was going to be made. I think it's reasonable for him to set that aside for these critical years with Em. jane >No, but see, this is that thing people do. You have to isolate the goal, here >"a rewarding relationship with her sister." Then think about what you would do >if that were your only goal. Then chip out the other stuff that gets in the >way of it. I think I understand what you're trying to say here, and I don't think I can do it, I can't evaluate SD's relationship with her sister as if SD were just some random person I've never met. >That makes no sense. You have to make the commitment to make it work. Like a >marriage. It means you have to swallow things you don't want to. If SD wants >to spend time with her sister, you're very lucky. You can't expect her to do >it in a way that fits all your goals. I'm fully prepared to swallow some things I don't want to. But not everything. I'm really pleased that SD wants a relationship with Emily - it could have so easily gone the other way - but that doesn't mean she gets to set all the parameters. It means we figure out what parameters we can both live with, which will certainly mean we'll both wander out of our comfort zones. And I think those parameters should be flexible, constantly re-evaluated, and changed as relationships change (for example, as Emily gets older). I'll bend over backwards to make sure SD gets to spend time with and cultivate a relationship with Emily. That doesn't mean she gets to call all the shots. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >I'll bend over backwards to make sure SD gets to spend time with and >cultivate a relationship with Emily. That doesn't mean she gets to >call all the shots. > >Liz Right. But when you use terms like "call all the shots," I see a power struggle. There doesn't have to be a power struggle here. And situations like this can easily disintegrate into that. More often it is with the ex, but there is a lot of the same dynamic with SD. If it runs through your head that SD doesn't deserve to have a good relationship with your kid and at the same time think and say that you are the Supreme Ultimate Homewrecking Bitch, that's understandable. But does it actually indicate that she'd hurt your baby if she had a chance? No. Would her being rude to you and DH even rise to Em's level of consciousness at this age? No. I'm just saying, you and DH have to be honest with yourself and each other on this. If you're using pretext as a basis for decisions about the girls, it won't just come between you and your daughter, it will come between you and your mate. At some point you'll say you don't want EM to go because it's too cold, and he'll say it was colder yesterday when you took her to see *your* family, and you'll be fighting to the death over which day was colder and who hates whose family more. That's just an example, but you know what I mean. Keep it real. jane >I don't think it is healthy for young kids to hear their parents "run down". I >don't think it is healthy for them to hear it from the parents, or from others. > Again, JMHO. I think it depends. I don't think it's optimal, certainly. And from another parent I think it's much worse because the parents are on equal "footing" with the child. But ths case, where it's a stepkid running down a bioparent, there's such an inequality there in the level of trust and dependence that the child has on the two people I don't think it's nearly the same. Anne >I presume that you see some underlying logic in that deduction. I can't >rationally get from unwilling to abide by my rule to harmful. I don't see the >connection there. I guess I see it as a contiuum. Hostility does not necessarily equal harm; but after a point it does. I don't think the decision to enforce or not enforce a no-bitching rule can be made absolutely at any point. I think the rule can be made, and the situation can be evaluated over time to make sure it's still working comfortably for the people involved. As an example, I see a big difference between "Oh, my dad is NEVER going to let you borrow the car! Let me tell you what happened when *I* asked him..." and "Watch out, because any day now he's going to turn around and disappear on you." I also see a big difference between "Geez, your mom really needs to wear more make-up" and "You know, your mother totally destroyed my life, and she doesn't care." >And that's what I have to do when emotions are entangled in >a decision. I have to question myself and make sure that all the steps from >point A to point B are sound, not just what I want to believe. I think I tend to fly more on intuition than that. I do often question my motives (often thanks to issues I read on this newsgroup!); but I believe I'm pretty clear when it comes to SD. I'm much fuzzier on her relationship with her father, actually. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >>I presume that you see some underlying logic in that deduction. I can't >>rationally get from unwilling to abide by my rule to harmful. I don't see [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >and "Watch out, because any day now he's going to turn around and disappear >on you." Well, yeah. I guess I need to be more specific. I'm not talking about things about you DH's parenting. This is common ground for them. But, **you** aren't SD's parent, and never will be. You are your daughter's parent. You are also, in the SD's mind, the interloper. Therefore, I think criticism of you should be off-limits, again, at least while your daughter is younger. >I also see a big difference between "Geez, your mom really needs >to wear more make-up" and "You know, your mother totally destroyed my life, >and she doesn't care." Well, I would wonder why she would need to say the first too. My guess would be to stir up discontent, and no, I wouldn't be okay with that, although I probably wouldn't draw the line in the sand over that one comment. As far as the second goes, if she needs to say that, she should say it to you. Not to your daughter. And, also IMO, if she had your daughter's best interests at heart, and not acting out her own anger, she wouldn't say it to start off with. Sheila >Well, yeah. I guess I need to be more specific. I'm not talking about things >about you DH's parenting. This is common ground for them. But, **you** aren't >SD's parent, and never will be. You are your daughter's parent. You are also, >in the SD's mind, the interloper. Therefore, I think criticism of you should >be off-limits, again, at least while your daughter is younger. I think I'd be fine setting this rule. I also think it'd be naive of me to believe it would always be obeyed, and I wouldn't want to put Emily in a position of having to lie in order to keep seeing her sister. I think if the rule was followed 95% of the time and Emily was undisturbed by any transgressions, I'd be inclined to let it go (depending on the severity of the comments, of course). >>I also see a big difference between "Geez, your mom really needs >>to wear more make-up" and "You know, your mother totally destroyed my life, >>and she doesn't care." > >Well, I would wonder why she would need to say the first too. I chose that one because a) it's something SD might actually say - even if she were my own kid; and b) it's something I'd easily laugh off if Emily repeated it to me. If SD is just exploding to take a shot at me, I'd just as soon it was over my appearance! >My guess would >be to stir up discontent, and no, I wouldn't be okay with that, although I >probably wouldn't draw the line in the sand over that one comment. I would certainly try to be alert for attempts to stir up discontent. If a comment about my appearance was off-the-cuff, fine. If it was the beginning of a trend, I'd deal with it when the trend became apparent, or when Emily became palpably uncomfortable. I'll cheerfully facilitate the sibling relationship, but not once my daughter starts becoming uncomfortable with it. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 Sheila>>Well, yeah. I guess I need to be more specific. I'm not talking about >things >>about you DH's parenting. This is common ground for them. But, **you** [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >transgressions, I'd be inclined to let it go (depending on the severity of >the comments, of course). That sounds about right to me. >>>I also see a big difference between "Geez, your mom really needs >>>to wear more make-up" and "You know, your mother totally destroyed my life, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >repeated it to me. If SD is just exploding to take a shot at me, I'd just >as soon it was over my appearance! LOL! >>My guess would >>be to stir up discontent, and no, I wouldn't be okay with that, although I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I'll cheerfully facilitate the sibling relationship, but not once my daughter >starts becoming uncomfortable with it. Right. I just don't think that a five-year-old needs to hear her adult sister say, "You know, my life was pretty near perfect, but then Dad abandoned us, and married your mother, and screwed up my whole life." I don't think a five-year-old needs to be burdened with that. And, if I felt that this was a real possibility, I would be pro-active in addressing it. Sheila Piggybacking: >Right. I just don't think that a five-year-old needs to hear her adult >sister [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Sheila One thing that has definitely influenced my thinking on this, but that I haven't said directly is this: SD and Emily may be siblings, but they are not *peers*, and will not be peers for some time to come. What I am saying here is that, if I were in this situation, I'd want to feel that SD acknowledges this, and acknowledges that Emily is a child, who should not be dragged into conflicts between adults (which SD is). When they are both adults, or Emily is close to it, then they can be peers. But, in the meantime, I'd want to feel that SD respects Emily's position as a *child* in this situation, and treat her accordingly. Sheila >One thing that has definitely influenced my thinking on this, but that I >haven't said directly is this: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Sheila I know this is bad nettiquette, but I didn't want to snip anything. I agree with you 100%. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > Piggybacking: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Sheila Ahh.. should've waited one more post before replying. This is what gets me about this whole thing. SD *is* already an adult, whether she's a young 18 y/o or not. There shouldn't be any bad-mouthing of the child's parent by *any* adult to that child. Regardless of their relationship, IMO. Cal~ >This is what gets >me about this whole thing. SD *is* already an adult, whether she's a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Cal~ Yep. That's pretty much how I feel too. Sheila >SD and Emily may be siblings, but they are not *peers*, and will not be peers >for some time to come. Yes and no. They are not chronological peers or emotional peers. They are not peers in maturity. However, they are peers in that they are daughters of Liz's DH. It's not just that it's a big thing to have in common: No one *but* SD can share that with Em. No one else can understand. jane >Sheila > Yes and no. They are not chronological peers or emotional peers. They are not > peers in maturity. However, they are peers in that they are daughters of Liz's > DH. It's not just that it's a big thing to have in common: No one *but* SD can > share that with Em. No one else can understand. No one else can understand what? Being the daughter of the same man? Frankly, at 18 years apart, it's probable that Liz's husband is different enough from who he was that functionally he's *not* the same man. I have an 18 year old SD and a 6 year old SS. My husband was a vastly different person at the time of both births. Different outlook on life, different habits, different socio-economic class, different relationship with the mother(s), hell, even different politics. So where's the understanding? People change. Liz's SD has experience with DH that is not going to be *remotely* relevant to Emily, and vice versa. Adrienne >Frankly, at 18 years apart, it's probable that Liz's husband is >different enough from who he was that functionally he's *not* the same man. I think one of the things that made it so hard for my SD to be here was seeing my DH be a totally different father to my kids than he ever was to her. Anne >> Yes and no. They are not chronological peers or emotional peers. They are >not [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Adrienne That's a good point. Even where the family structure is different, there is often a great difference between kids born in different "eras", and when you take into account the fact that these are different marriages too, there is even a greater likelihood. My DH and I recently spent time with his older brother and sister. There is a 12 year difference between him and his brother, with his sister one year younger than his brother. My SIL pointed out how very different family life was during the two periods, and how it really impacts each sibling's memories of the family. Sheila >> Yes and no. They are not chronological peers or emotional peers. They are >not [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >understanding? People change. Liz's SD has experience with DH that is >not going to be *remotely* relevant to Emily, and vice versa. I would think this made sense if my experience weren't so much to the contrary. We do change. However, we carry who we were with us, and the man he is today is the father of both of them. Only SD and SS have been loved by DH the way a man loves his children. Only they will lose a father when he dies. What doesn't change is immense. jane >Adrienne >>SD and Emily may be siblings, but they are not *peers*, and will not be >peers [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >>Sheila Maybe, maybe not. I'm not real big on genetic ties, myself. If I were Emily, the fact that I there was a person out there that shared half my genes would be irrevelant (and I can say that with confidence, having a half-sister and half-brother). But, I don't see what that has to do with the point of my post, which is that, as a parent, I would need to have some sense that SD understands that this child is not her **peer** right now, despite being her sister. I would want to know that she wasn't going to use Emily as a sounding board, and that part of her agenda wasn't "getting her on my side" by bad-mouthing me and my husband. I'd want to feel reassured that she had the ability to understand that Emily is a child, and should be kept out of this conflict as much as possible -- a conflict that is between the adults --- until she is older. I'd want to know that SD places a priority on this too. Sheila > Maybe, maybe not. I'm not real big on genetic ties, myself. If I were Emily, > the fact that I there was a person out there that shared half my genes would be > irrevelant (and I can say that with confidence, having a half-sister and > half-brother). Of course, the bond I have with my siblings isn't just because we have common genes, it's about the common experiences. Half siblings don't always have as much time together as siblings with two parents in common, but they will have a bond. > But, I don't see what that has to do with the point of my post, which is that, > as a parent, I would need to have some sense that SD understands that this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > conflict that is between the adults --- until she is older. I'd want to know > that SD places a priority on this too. I can't think of anything more likely to create walls and obstruct reconciliation with DH and the development of a relationship with Emily, then assuming that SD has some hidden agenda without any evidence to support this. That Liz and her DH aren't comfortable about having SD, or perhaps anyone, collect Emily from daycare is perfectly reasonable, but that's hugely different in my book to talking about terms which imply that you believe she may be wanting to bad mouth and involve an infant in conflict. If Liz's DH can determine her motivation without setting terms which imply that he's assumed the worst, fine, but I know that if someone makes assumptions about my intentions without any justification, that would stop me trying to work with them at all. Wendy Me: >> Maybe, maybe not. I'm not real big on genetic ties, myself. If I were >Emily, >> the fact that I there was a person out there that shared half my genes >would be >> irrevelant (and I can say that with confidence, having a half-sister and >> half-brother). Wendy: >Of course, the bond I have with my siblings isn't just because we have >common genes, it's about the common experiences. Half siblings don't always >have as much time together as siblings with two parents in common, but they >will have a bond. Again, maybe, maybe not. I'm not saying it isn't a good thing to try to make the opportunity for a relationship happen, I'm just saying that, in my opinion and experience, it isn't necessarily the case that the relationship between siblings of whatever genetic make-up is going to be particularly important to the respective siblings. All things being equal, sure, facillitate a relationship and see how it develops. But, I don't think that such a relationship should be facillitated *at all possible cost*, which is close to what I'm hearing Jane say. Me: >> But, I don't see what that has to do with the point of my post, which is >that, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >know >> that SD places a priority on this too. >I can't think of anything more likely to create walls and obstruct >reconciliation with DH and the development of a relationship with Emily, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Wendy Obviously, you've not had to deal with my SDs when they were younger! YSD once got "buddy-buddy" with DS, so that she could have access to his stuff, so she could write bad things about me in his journal, and have it blamed on him! Yes, having an "agenda" is an extreme example (and I don't think it would be a conscious thing... more likely an afterthought). But, I can easily imagine an immature, angry young woman (who won't even meet the woman her dad married, after four years) not thinking about the impact of her words on a small child. I can see her saying, to herself, and to her dad, "She's my sister! I get to talk to her about anything I want!" Personally, I would want to feel confident that wouldn't happen. I don't know how that confidence would occur, but I'd have to feel it before I let my child spend time with her. Sheila > Again, maybe, maybe not. I'm not saying it isn't a good thing to try to make > the opportunity for a relationship happen, I'm just saying that, in my opinion > and experience, it isn't necessarily the case that the relationship between > siblings of whatever genetic make-up is going to be particularly important to > the respective siblings. Certainly some people aren't close to their siblings, Barclay isn't particularly. However, I'd guess that there's a greater probability of them being close if you facilitate the relationship, then if you don't. > All things being equal, sure, facillitate a relationship and see how it > develops. But, I don't think that such a relationship should be facillitated > *at all possible cost*, which is close to what I'm hearing Jane say. I've not heard Jane say that, just that she feels that sibling relationships are very important and a big effort should be made to facilitate them. > Obviously, you've not had to deal with my SDs when they were younger! YSD once > got "buddy-buddy" with DS, so that she could have access to his stuff, so she > could write bad things about me in his journal, and have it blamed on him! I see a difference between your SD's and Liz's. Yours have done something which justifies your concern. You've every right to be suspicious of your SD's motivations based upon previous behaviour. To read a hidden agenda into Liz'a SD's motivations seems like a very negative action to me. > Yes, having an "agenda" is an extreme example (and I don't think it would be a > conscious thing... more likely an afterthought). But, I can easily imagine an > immature, angry young woman (who won't even meet the woman her dad married, > after four years) not thinking about the impact of her words on a small child. > I can see her saying, to herself, and to her dad, "She's my sister! I get to > talk to her about anything I want!" While I'd assume the probability is that by the time Emily is old enough to actually hold conversations with SD, she'll probably be off at University or College and too busy with her own life to hurt a little one in the process of trying to hurt her father or SM. Wendy >All things being equal, sure, facillitate a relationship and see how it >develops. But, I don't think that such a relationship should be facillitated >*at all possible cost*, which is close to what I'm hearing Jane say. What does that mean, "close to" what you're hearing me say? I didn't hear me say anything along those lines. I'm saying it is very important, something Liz should make a priority. For the record, I *am* saying that you shouldn't let your pride or your defensiveness or a desire to reparent the kid BM screwed up get the way of your kid knowing her sister. >Obviously, you've not had to deal with my SDs when they were younger! YSD >once >got "buddy-buddy" with DS, so that she could have access to his stuff, so she >could write bad things about me in his journal, and have it blamed on him! I don't see the big deal. You must have been able to tell their writing apart. It seems a fairly harmless way of expressing anger. Burying his pet turtle alive, now that would have to be addressed. jane >Sheila >>All things being equal, sure, facillitate a relationship and see how it >>develops. But, I don't think that such a relationship should be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Liz >should make a priority. I suppose it was the use of the term "tragedy", the self-recriminations, etc. >For the record, I *am* saying that you shouldn't let your pride or your >defensiveness or a desire to reparent the kid BM screwed up get the way of >your >kid knowing her sister. I never said any differently. I'm saying that that the possibility of damage to my child **is** a legitimate reason to prevent contact, at least IMO. >>Obviously, you've not had to deal with my SDs when they were younger! YSD >>once [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >apart. > It seems a fairly harmless way of expressing anger. Actually, it was printing, and pictures, so no, I couldn't. In any case, no that isn't an acceptable way of expressing anger, IMO. Sheila >But, I don't see what that has to do with the point of my post, which is >that, >as a parent, I would need to have some sense that SD understands that this >child is not her **peer** right now, She's not her peer chronologically. She's not her peer in maturity. She's her peer in relation to DH. Right now. And always. jane >Sheila >I'd want to feel reassured that she had the ability to understand that Emily is >a child, and should be kept out of this conflict as much as possible -- a >conflict that is between the adults --- until she is older. I'd want to know >that SD places a priority on this too. Again, I agree with you. I don't need to keep Emily away from SD; but I'd want visits to be supervised by someone until I was comfortable SD could really stick to that. And maybe she could now. I've just got no way of knowing. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >Again, I agree with you. I don't need to keep Emily away from SD; but >I'd want visits to be supervised by someone until I was comfortable [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Liz Maybe I'm ridiculously optimistic, but I think that as long as you're being reasonable, there's a good chance that she will be too. And you haven't been unreasonable. jane >>I'd want to feel reassured that she had the ability to understand that Emily >is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Liz So, I guess the idea then would be to do your best, and your DH to do his best, to foment a relationship. (Which I'm sure you are doing already.... I'm just speaking philosophically.) Best of luck on it. As I said, time and maturity does help. My SDs have done quite the turnaround in the last... I dunno, year, I guess. YSD even is talking about buying DD a birthday present in September. As I mentioned before, we did have limits about behavior (basic politeness) and these caused quite a rift for some time, but we always made it clear that, as soon as those expectations could be met, the door would be open to them. Now, at 20 and 21, they are starting to walk through it. Maybe, with time, your SD will cross the threshold too. Sheila >Best of luck on it. As I said, time and maturity does help. My SDs have done >quite the turnaround in the last... I dunno, year, I guess. YSD even is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >they are starting to walk through it. Maybe, with time, your SD will cross the >threshold too. I'm glad to hear this, Sheila - it's heartening. Thanks. :-) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >Right. I just don't think that a five-year-old needs to hear her adult sister >say, "You know, my life was pretty near perfect, but then Dad abandoned us, and >married your mother, and screwed up my whole life." I don't think a >five-year-old needs to be burdened with that. And, if I felt that this was a >real possibility, I would be pro-active in addressing it. Likewise. Of course, I'd also be taking the chance that SD might say such a thing anyway, and I'd be stuck dealing with the fallout. I'm hoping she'll care enough for her little sister to keep her mouth shut on that point. I'm hoping by the time Emily is 5, I'll know SD well enough to have some idea how likely she'd be to say such a thing. Heck, I'm just hoping I've met her by then. ;-/ Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 <snip> > Right. I just don't think that a five-year-old needs to hear her > adult sister say, "You know, my life was pretty near perfect, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sheila As I've been reading this thread, I keep saying to myself.. but how much older is the SD? 17 years older? It will be at least a few years before Emily is able to understand much of that kind of talk if the sister should decide to go that route, but by then she will fully be an adult. I don't think I would have a difficult time cutting off an _adult_ that would pull anything near to what anyone has been saying so far in this thread. We're not talking about a kid that is just a year or two or ever five years older. We're talking about someone that will be 23 years old when Emily is five (unless I have something out of whack here age-wise)... In the scenario that is being discussed, IMO the onus is on the SD, as the adult sibling to ensure a decent relationship with the younger sister by not bad-mouthing the SM. I would have serious problems with an adult of any sort bad-mouthing a child's parent to that child *regardless* of the relationship of the adult to the child. Cal~ >>Well, yeah. I guess I need to be more specific. I'm not talking about things >>about you DH's parenting. This is common ground for them. But, **you** aren't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >transgressions, I'd be inclined to let it go (depending on the severity of >the comments, of course). You know something though? Unless she's really a monster, she probably doesn't have the object of hurting her sister either physically or emotionally. And I know that with my SD, talking to her about how things she says will affect the kids (i.e., "When you said you'd probably never be allowed to come here again, you were just getting a jibe in at me and Dad, but Brooke took you seriously and cried for two hours") makes her much more careful. She's not a person who's big on seeing how her actions affect other people, but she genuinely cares about her siblings and I bet your SD does too. Saying, "Look, we have our problems. But they're not problems that it's fair to put on a little kid. Let's make some separate time for us to have a father-daughter lunch and talk some of our stuff out, so your relationship with your sister doesn't suffer over it," would probably be the way to go. Anne >You know something though? Unless she's really a monster, she probably >doesn't have the object of hurting her sister either physically or >emotionally. Yeah, I know. That's where Psycho Protective Mom comes in. I don't think she'd hurt her on purpose; but as a reflexive jab at her dad? I don't know. >And I know that with my SD, talking to her about how >things she says will affect the kids (i.e., "When you said you'd >probably never be allowed to come here again, you were just getting a >jibe in at me and Dad, but Brooke took you seriously and cried for two >hours") makes her much more careful. I think this will work, once we get to the point where SD is willing to have a conversation about it. >Saying, "Look, we have >our problems. But they're not problems that it's fair to put on a >little kid. Let's make some separate time for us to have a >father-daughter lunch and talk some of our stuff out, so your >relationship with your sister doesn't suffer over it," would probably >be the way to go. I'd love it if they got to this point! Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 Well maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but if you're scared she'll say certain things to her (when E is older) about leaving, etc. then maybe they don't really need to have a relationship right now, because in SD's world (at the moment) he did leave her, and that is very real to her. I don't know where I'm going with this or what I'm trying to say, but something's bugging me and I have no idea what it is. :-/ I feel like, in a relationship, a *real* relationship that is not false, you don't have to hide your feelings. Maybe you shouldn't talk about them all the time, but when you are relating to someone they know how you feel. Of course I agree with not allowing SD to babysit, I would be the same way. But I feel that it's detrimental to their relationship to dictate SD's expression of her views and feelings. Now, I would have a problem with SD manipulating E or saying mean things intentionally to her just to hurt her Dad or you, just to be hateful, but as far as SD making her feelings known when it comes to her relationship with her sister I feel is her right. If your and your DH's relationship with your daughter shows differently than what SD says she feels, then your daughter will see that. If she asks if daddy will leave her and why her sister said that, then you tell her in the best age appropriate terms you can. I just *hate* the idea of hiding things. I believe you should keep things age appropriate, but I feel that when you start to actively hide things, even if it *seems* like the right thing to do, it's like a red flag or something. I don't know if this is making sense. I just don't think there is a "plan" you can have for this, you have to just go with it, do what you think is best, as things arise and time passes on. Where is Anne R.? I think she kinda has a similar situation where she has to keep her SD from saying things to her kids. I don't know Liz, it's a tough situation. I agree with you mostly, but I'm bothered by Sheila's attitude of "you don't tell your sister you don't like me or you can't see her". As much as you want to (trust me I constantly struggle with this) keep your kid in a bubble you can't. Maybe things will be easier when E gets to an age where she can understand things and isn't a helpless little baby, which she is right now and will be for a couple of years, and you (of course) want to guard that with your life, which I totally agree with. I just think that as she gets older, if SD still feels the way she feels, you might have to just accept it somewhat and make sure your daughter and you have the type of relationship where she'll see by your actions that what SD says/feels isn't necessarily true. It's life. I myself had to realize that I can't keep DS from things like this, I have to guide him through them. Anyway, this is really long and I know doesn't make much sense, but there it is. Heather > >I presume that you see some underlying logic in that deduction. I can't > >rationally get from unwilling to abide by my rule to harmful. I don't see the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Liz >I feel like, in a relationship, a *real* relationship that is not false, you >don't have to hide your feelings. Maybe you shouldn't talk about them all >the time, but when you are relating to someone they know how you feel. I do agree with you. I think Sheila hit it on the head, though: SD and Emily are not peers. Emily does not have the emotional capacity to deal with all of SD's feelings about the divorce, and she won't for many years. (Okay, she doesn't even understand what we're saying to her yet; but you know what I mean. ;-)) When Emily is old enough, if she's comfortable being SD's confidant, I think that's fine. And I certainly wouldn't expect SD to pretend to be in a good mood when she wasn't, for example. I agree that having a real relationship means you don't hide your feelings. I also believe that having a real relationship means you sometimes pick and choose the timing of revealing your feelings. And sometimes you choose to keep things to yourself, especially if they'd damage the relationship. (Not sure I'd have thought that way before I got married!) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >>You and I would, apparently, have different goals in this scenerio, then. My >>goal would be to protect my child from that hostility when she was young. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >how I could have shielded her from it if I had wanted to, and it was such a >good tool in helping her deal with her own hostility towards her own SM. You know something though? I think I would deal with SD's hostility toward me and her Dad the same way that I dealt with BM's hostility toward me. I would say, "Well, everybody has their own perception of things. You have to look into *your* heart and see if you think that's true." You know what I mean? SD can say anything she wants about me, and I'm still The Mommy to my kids. I have nothing to be threatened about. Where I personally draw the line is at SD's relentless emotional manipulation of my kids, telling them that Dad will "throw them out too" and that she hopes she doesn't have to run away from her mother's because her mother will beat her. Lying on purpose to make them worry about her and to upset them. *That* I stomp on hard, I take SD to task for that right in front of them. >>I understand there is a risk of their being no relationship between them if I >>set down this groundrule, but it seems to me that if the SD is unwilling to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >a decision. I have to question myself and make sure that all the steps from >point A to point B are sound, not just what I want to believe. See, what I prefer to do is not to do that. Because my way I get to say SD can never come here because it'd be harmful to the kids and sleep secure in the knowledge that I'm a superior mother. Your way I have to let her back in the house (FOR VISITSVISITSVISITSVISITS) and suck it up. Anne >I don't know how many kids Liz is >planning to have This one would be it. >In the big picture, putting up >with a little hostility is nothing compared to her child having a sister. I agree, up to a point. I think it's a matter of degree. Liz (who has one brother and no sisters) Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >>>I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, >>to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >may not be felt by the child.... many are oblivious!) and out and out negative >things being said. For me, the first is manageable, the second is not. I've just finished reading through this thread, so I hope y'all will forgive me if I don't respond to everyone. I think I take a position somewhere between yours and Jane's. I do see Jane's point that a sibling relationship is important; but I think it has to be a *healthy* sibling relationship. When Emily is older, she gets to have input into whether or not it's healthy; right now, I get to decide. As far as hostile comments go - to me, it depends entirely on how Emily takes it. If it's general bitching about how the divorce sucked; well, that's the truth - it did suck. If she starts down a path that makes Emily question her own familial security - well, I think it depends on how old Emily is and how much she can comprehend. At some point in her life she'll understand that some people, when they're hurt, need to lash out at other people, and that sometimes the opinions they state have everything to do with their own history and nothing to do with fact. If Emily is consistently disturbed by SD's comments, then I have absolutely no problem laying down the law with SD: let me know when you can knock it off, and then you and your sister can hang out again. I have no problem asking SD not to bad-mouth her dad or me; but realistically I know she'll slip from time to time, even with the best of intentions. I guess my gague for when to intervene depends entirely on Emily's response to the situation. As to the importance of siblings - well, I think that largely depends on the sibling. I have a friend who found out when she was an adult that she had two sisters and a brother (from her late father's previous marriage) that she'd never known about. She was SO excited - she'd thought she was an only child. But after many years, she discovered that her sisters really weren't all that nice, and weren't terribly inclined to behave like adults. Her brother, on the other hand, was a sweetheart. I am really and truly hoping that Emily and SD get along well. I have this fantasy that SD will teach Emily about clothes and make-up and all the girly stuff that I've never been any good at (that she'll certainly want to at least experiment with at some point). I feel like SD is my family, even if I am not hers. She's most certainly Emily's family. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > I think I take a position somewhere between yours and Jane's. I do see Jane's > point that a sibling relationship is important; but I think it has to be a > *healthy* sibling relationship. When Emily is older, she gets to have input > into whether or not it's healthy; right now, I get to decide. Hey, Anne Robotti, where are you? Liz, talk to Anne about this, she deals with this stuff a lot with her SD and her kids. > If she starts down a path that makes Emily question her > own familial security - well, I think it depends on how old Emily is and how > much she can comprehend. Liz, you seem really worried about this. It's really common even for kids in intact families to worry that their parents are going to split. Emily will understand the reality of it earlier, maybe, since she'll know that her dad was married before. But it's not going to send her into therapy if her sister worries out loud that the two of you might split. rebecca >Hey, Anne Robotti, where are you? Liz, talk to Anne about this, she deals >with this stuff a lot with her SD and her kids. IIRC, Anne is dealing with her own little bundle of joy. Typing with one hand sucks - the only time I can really post is when somebody else is watching the baby. >> If she starts down a path that makes Emily question her >> own familial security - well, I think it depends on how old Emily is and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >dad was married before. But it's not going to send her into therapy if her >sister worries out loud that the two of you might split. Oh, DH and I already joke about the therapy fund. I've just been thinking about how to explain the whole situation, without lying or making excuses. I didn't wreck DH's marriage; but meeting me was the reason he left when he did. And we didn't have a physical relationship before he was separated; but we did discuss a future together. There is a lot there she might feel ethically ambivalent about; and I'm not sure how that'll play into what I hope is a secure and happy family life. Then again, if I can think it all through and tell her in a non-freaking-out fashion, maybe she'll just accept it all at face value. Yeah, I overthink stuff. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > IIRC, Anne is dealing with her own little bundle of joy. Typing with one > hand sucks - the only time I can really post is when somebody else is > watching the baby. The reason I'm so prolific today is because he has the diaper watch right now. :D Otherwise, I'd be sleeping or doing bottles right now. > I've just been thinking about how to explain the whole situation, without > lying or making excuses. IMO, you don't. But then again, I'm pretty hardcore about the relationship being between you and your DH and not open for discussion. >There is a > lot there she might feel ethically ambivalent about; and I'm not sure how > that'll play into what I hope is a secure and happy family life. Well, hate to say it, but ethics don't come in a comfortable black and white package. She'll figure her own out. :) > Then again, if I can think it all through and tell her in a non-freaking-out > fashion, maybe she'll just accept it all at face value. Hopefully. :) Jess >> I've just been thinking about how to explain the whole situation, without >> lying or making excuses. > >IMO, you don't. But then again, I'm pretty hardcore about the relationship >being between you and your DH and not open for discussion. Sure, but there are always the "How did you and Daddy meet?" questions that come up. There's enough cuteness and innocence in my relationship with DH that I could cover most of it; but there is no denying the timing doesn't look good. I'd rather tell her the truth (in age-appropriate chunks!) than leave her to draw her own conclusions. If she's anything like her mom, she'll have a tendancy to imagine the worst. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >> IIRC, Anne is dealing with her own little bundle of joy. Typing with one >> hand sucks - the only time I can really post is when somebody else is >> watching the baby. > >The reason I'm so prolific today is because he has the diaper watch right >now. :D Otherwise, I'd be sleeping or doing bottles right now. The reason I'm so prolific right now is because it's 5am and the baby went back to sleep but I can't. Anne >I'm so prolific right now is because it's 5am and the baby > went back to sleep but I can't. And of course, misery loves company, right? Coffee's on. :) Jess > I've just been thinking about how to explain the whole situation, without > lying or making excuses. I didn't wreck DH's marriage; but meeting me was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Then again, if I can think it all through and tell her in a non-freaking-out > fashion, maybe she'll just accept it all at face value. You know, the operative bit, for me, is you didn't wreck the marriage. Your husband and his ex are not divorced because of you. The kid isn't going to care about the rest of it. Maybe, in an extended conversation, you can say the ex's feelings got hurt because you and DH didn't handle everything as smoothly as you could have, but really, no child (step or bio) really needs to hear the blow-by-blow. I don't think your daughter's going to have much of an issue over this, even if SD makes it a big hoo-ha, your kid is more likely just to feel sorry for her and glad that daddy likes *her* mommy better than *SD's* mommy. rebecca >You know, the operative bit, for me, is you didn't wreck the marriage. Your >husband and his ex are not divorced because of you. The kid isn't going to >care about the rest of it. Maybe, in an extended conversation, you can say >the ex's feelings got hurt because you and DH didn't handle everything as >smoothly as you could have, but really, no child (step or bio) really needs >to hear the blow-by-blow. It is one of the sad facts of life that getting dumped sucks. Perhaps I won't need to get into any more detail than that! Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > It is one of the sad facts of life that getting dumped sucks. Perhaps I > won't need to get into any more detail than that! Dumping someone you once really cared about and still have some feelings and compassion for does too. She will realise it, once she's experienced a relationship or two of her own, if she's anything like my daughter, who loves her boyfriend but is trying to part on good terms because at 18 she's just not experienced enough of life to settle down. Wendy >Dumping someone you once really cared about and still have some feelings and >compassion for does too. She will realise it, once she's experienced a >relationship or two of her own, if she's anything like my daughter, who >loves her boyfriend but is trying to part on good terms because at 18 she's >just not experienced enough of life to settle down. I suspect you're right about this one. SD, along with everything else, is a pretty observant person. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > >Dumping someone you once really cared about and still have some feelings and > >compassion for does too. She will realise it, once she's experienced a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Liz I don't really know where to jump in with this, so I'm picking here. Not directly relevant, but my Mom used to tell me I should be grateful for the existence of prostitutes because it saved nice girls like me from getting raped. Bless her. She was just parrotting what my Grandmother had told her, and she's 88 now, so I can forgive her for having some outdated and downright stupid opinions. The point of sharing this story, which is relevant, is that it didn't even occur to me to start questioning this belief until I was 18 and older. I guess by about 20 I had realised it was ridiculous, rape is violence, not sex, and the existence of prostitutes doesn't help one way or another. It wasn't until about 25 that I became conscious of the process of growing up within my mother's opinion, the realisation that I could believe differently, moving to actually defining my own opinion (which is that I feel sorry for, and cannot support any person forced to trade their body as a commodity). Your SD is just turning adult. She too will go through this process, and her parents divorce will be one of those things that she's going to question over, and over, and over. I think, that in this separation from her mother, she will learn to distinguish between your DH having left her mother, and having left her, and be able to hold different feelings about each. Nikki >Your SD is just turning adult. She too will go through this process, and her >parents divorce will be one of those things that she's going to question >over, and over, and over. I think, that in this separation from her mother, >she will learn to distinguish between your DH having left her mother, and >having left her, and be able to hold different feelings about each. I hope you're right, Nikki. Sometimes, though, I'm afraid to hope - it seems easier to just assume that contact with her is going to be painful for everybody so I can prepare myself up front. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >Then again, if I can think it all through and tell her in a non-freaking-out >fashion, maybe she'll just accept it all at face value. What's more likely is, she'll never ask. Kids never ask the questions you've been getting ready for for years. Anne >> I think I take a position somewhere between yours and Jane's. I do see >Jane's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Hey, Anne Robotti, where are you? Liz, talk to Anne about this, she deals >with this stuff a lot with her SD and her kids. I got here late, but I'm all over it. Anne I just read this and honestly, Liz, I think you'll be fine, you seem completely realistic about the situation. What you write here is open-minded and probably the way I would go about it as well. And your kind to be understanding of SD's feelings of abandonment and hostility, I really think that's awesome of you to not take it personally (assuming you don't, it doesn't sound like you do). Heather > >>>I would also say that it would be reasonable, as your daughter gets older, > >>to [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Liz >I really >think that's awesome of you to not take it personally (assuming you don't, >it doesn't sound like you do). How can I take it personally? I've never met SD. Wait until I meet her - *then* I'll take it all personally. ;-) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 You're A-OK Liz. Remember that joke, who the f*ck is Liz again? I promise I'll never say that! Heather > >I really > >think that's awesome of you to not take it personally (assuming you don't, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Liz >You're A-OK Liz. :-) Thanks. >Remember that joke, who the f*ck is Liz again? I promise >I'll never say that! Of course you won't. That's Anne's job. ;-) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >However, I do think at least >one of us has to know the child well enough to trust her as a caregiver >before we consider leaving the baby with her alone. I guess I see that as >different from interfering in SD's relationship with her sister. > >Liz I don't think you ever have to choose SD as a caregiver for your child. I certainly don't think you should leave the baby alone with anyone you don't trust. I'm just spinning it out. My experience here and IRL is that it could be less than totally pleasant and convenient for you and DH for the two girls to have contact. When it's a huge hassle to facilitate your perfect baby's relationship with her sh.t sister, that bright line can get pretty dim. Do you see what I mean? How courteous is courteous? Is it okay to shoot daggers at her father while she coos and murmurs to the baby? If she doesn't want to come to your house, does DH schlepp everything to neutral ground? What if it's snowing? When does SD's mother get to meet her sister? You can resolve all this stuff just fine. I'm not trying to scare you. It's just that *for me* to do it, I have to untangle everything. I have to figure out what is my feeling of resentment and what is my genuine concern. You're probably much, much nicer and more clearheaded than I am, and you will never have to admit to yourself that you are playing the concern card when you really want to prove to the little bitch that she can't yank your chain and see your baby. I'm just throwing it out there because that's what I do. jane > When does SD's mother get to meet her sister? Ooh, this was a funky one for me. My first answer was over my dead body. Then it was really no big shakes, by the end of little league he was wandering past her at will. Now, if the question is - when does SS's brother get to play at SS's mother's house, your answer is just kill me now. rebecca > Now, if the question is - when does SS's brother get to play at SS's > mother's house, your answer is just kill me now. I might be joining you, then-one of SO's son's questions is when his sister can come spend the night. My snap answer to that one was "not a snowball's chance in hell." Jess > > Now, if the question is - when does SS's brother get to play at SS's > > mother's house, your answer is just kill me now. > > I might be joining you, then-one of SO's son's questions is when his sister > can come spend the night. My snap answer to that one was "not a snowball's > chance in hell." I'm with you, sister. Except, like I said, my first reaction to 'when can my mom meet the baby?' was to sever my tongue with my teeth. And it was really nothing. I really didn't care. Providing we weren't in active litigation at the time, and we felt Sam were old enough to spend the night away from us at all, if the boys asked, and BM were cool with it, I'm guessing I'd say okay. Just guessing, mind you. Then I'd jump off the roof after they left, probably. rebecca > I'm with you, sister. Except, like I said, my first reaction to 'when can > my mom meet the baby?' was to sever my tongue with my teeth. And it was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > guessing I'd say okay. Just guessing, mind you. Then I'd jump off the roof > after they left, probably. My brain splattered when he got back from the first hearing and told me that she was hoping we "could all get together, and maybe her and I could go shopping while you're with your son." Spending time with her brother, I can manage. Spending the night at his ex's house or going out shopping with the woman that accused me of killing my husband? I'm sorry, but I'm not that good a person. I did send thank-you cards for the baby gift she sent, though. :D Jess > I'm sorry, but I'm not that >good a person. I did send thank-you cards for the baby gift she sent, >though. :D You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I have a quiet fit to DH about getting that sh.t out of the house and not letting her bring any more in. Anne > > I'm sorry, but I'm not that > >good a person. I did send thank-you cards for the baby gift she sent, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Anne Don't you remember the cowboy boots discussion? It was before I had Kiera. I might have been pregnant (where's Jane?). You let Brooke have some cowboy boots that belonged to SD and I couldn't believe how well adjusted it was of you to do that and swore I'd never let it happen. I'll admit to ignoring the stained teddy bears BM2 gave us when K was born, and I do resent the hell out of the half broken puzzles etc that arrive from time to time. But sometimes, K turns up with something nice that SD has given her, and of course, she loves it, so I suck it up. Nikki >I'll admit to ignoring the stained teddy bears BM2 gave us when K was born, >and I do resent the hell out of the half broken puzzles etc that arrive from >time to time. But sometimes, K turns up with something nice that SD has >given her, and of course, she loves it, so I suck it up. Well, that's it. She buys stuff at garage sales, it's filthy and gross, and often broken. I can't stand to see them putting juice in a cup I had to clean bugs out of. Anne > >I'll admit to ignoring the stained teddy bears BM2 gave us when K was born, > >and I do resent the hell out of the half broken puzzles etc that arrive from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Anne Oh ewww. N >Well, that's it. She buys stuff at garage sales, it's filthy and >gross, and often broken. I can't stand to see them putting juice in a >cup I had to clean bugs out of. > >Anne Well, as long as you cleaned them out... Besides, they're not so pure directly from the factory, either. BTW, did you hear on the news that maggots are now an FDA approved treatment for infected wounds that are treatment resistant? Thought you might want to know :-) Deb R. > BTW, did you hear on the news that maggots are now an FDA approved > treatment for infected wounds that are treatment resistant? > > Thought you might want to know :-) *squick* Thank you for that wonderful mental image. Jess > (where's Jane?) Jane is trying to figure out precisely where to jump in and say something. I push the sibling thing here because not fostering Lee's contact with her brothers more actively is beyond doubt and by far my single greatest mistake and regret as a parent. I wasn't hostile. There was no squick factor or uneasiness. I just didn't know. I was busy, and I left it up to my ex, and it fell through the cracks. I'm horrified now by how I screwed my kid, but there's nothing I can do about it. I apologize a lot. I dog people here. I encourage my ex to do what he can, but it's too late for him to do much of anything either. It's a tragedy. jane >I push the sibling thing here because not fostering Lee's contact with her >brothers more actively is beyond doubt and by far my single greatest mistake >and regret as a parent. FWIW, I appreciate the reminder that siblings are important. I like to think I do want to foster Emily's relationship with SD; but I don't mind someone pointing out that it's possible to be overcautious on this point (and it's possible for me to let less objective feelings about SD interfere with my good intentions). Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > > (where's Jane?) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it. I apologize a lot. I dog people here. I encourage my ex to do what he > can, but it's too late for him to do much of anything either. It's a tragedy. See, that's interesting. I assume you mean half-bros on dad's side, right? How, exactly, could you have done that? Why was it your job, I mean beyond not _preventing_ contact between them? rebecca Because you're doing it for your kid and not for the ex? Heather > > > (where's Jane?) > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > rebecca > Because you're doing it for your kid and not for the ex? > > Heather Well, maybe. I don't know. How exactly do you facilitate a relationship when you only have contact with one of the people? Talk it up, sure. Encourage phone calls/letters/emails? Okay. Can't spend holidays together probably, need the parent of both kids for that. Could switch your hols to allow him that, but still not in your control. Allow more visitation with the other parent, so the kids can be together? Okay. I guess I'm just thinking that in Jane's case, facilitating in any active sense wasn't really in her control to do, it depended on her daughter's father. rebecca >Well, maybe. I don't know. How exactly do you facilitate a relationship >when you only have contact with one of the people? Talk it up, sure. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >sense wasn't really in her control to do, it depended on her daughter's >father. But see what we're talking about with Liz? Her attitude informs everything. She can agree with DH not to let SD see their child unsupervised or she can establish contact between them as a family goal. If I had said "why don't you and Lee do something with the boys" every time I said "why don't you fix the sink" they'd know each other today. Picking up the baby at daycare doesn't work right now. Fine. But when do you think she might be able to? What else can you do now? Liz and DH's company is unpleasant to her; what other situation is available? Do you see what I mean? I don't think I'm being clear. The tug of war is over SD having to spend time with DH (or Liz) to see her sister. Is that really necessary? Why not drop that rope? We say we wouldn't leave our child with anyone we hadn't met, but daycare staff changes, people come and go at the babysitters'. Most of us at some point trust the judgment of the person we have left the child with. Could SD spend time with her sister at daycare? With another family member? jane >rebecca >Do you see what I mean? I don't think I'm being clear. The tug of war is over >SD having to spend time with DH (or Liz) to see her sister. Is that really >necessary? Right now, yes, it is. Nobody's asking her to be all sweet and lovey-dovey, just polite. I think you're being quite clear, btw. I just don't agree with you. In theory, cultivating SD's realtionship with Emily as if it existed in a vacuum is a great idea. Practically speaking, it's not going to work for us. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >>Do you see what I mean? I don't think I'm being clear. The tug of war is >over [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Right now, yes, it is. Nobody's asking her to be all sweet and lovey-dovey, >just polite. Just for the record, why is that? >I think you're being quite clear, btw. I just don't agree with you. In >theory, cultivating SD's realtionship with Emily as if it existed in a >vacuum is a great idea. Oh great. I'm doing worse than I thought. I'm not talking about focussing on one factor; I'm talking about trying your best to keep all the different factors straight in your head. > Practically speaking, it's not going to work for us. jane >Liz >>Right now, yes, it is. Nobody's asking her to be all sweet and lovey-dovey, >>just polite. >> >Just for the record, why is that? Partly because I wouldn't let anyone in my house who wasn't willing to be at least basically polite, and that includes *my* relatives. >Oh great. I'm doing worse than I thought. I'm not talking about focussing on >one factor; I'm talking about trying your best to keep all the different >factors straight in your head. Yeah, and I have to hate you now, Jane, because when we were out walking earlier I realized that part of my problem is that I don't want to share my daughter. Not with SD, not with anybody. My parents are coming over to baby-sit tomorrow, and I'm jealous as hell. So that's a big one I'm going to have to keep straight in my head. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >Yeah, and I have to hate you now, Jane, because when we were out walking >earlier I realized that part of my problem is that I don't want to share my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Liz Yabbut, see, that's fine. As long as you know, you're okay. jane > >>Right now, yes, it is. Nobody's asking her to be all sweet and lovey-dovey, > >>just polite. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Liz How old is she? We're still measuring in weeks, right? I wasn't ready, really ready, for a break until about a year. Nikki >How old is she? We're still measuring in weeks, right? She'll be 11 weeks this coming Tuesday. >I wasn't ready, really ready, for a break until about a year. I feel like she's attached to me with a Bungee cord. It's the weirdest thing, and not at all what I was expecting. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > >How old is she? We're still measuring in weeks, right? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Liz 11 weeks? Wow, that is still early! Well, I know our society really focuses on 'getting away from the baby' and all that stuff to 'have a break'. But my view is, do it when you're ready, and not before. There is no 'getting a break' when you feel like you just shouldn't be doing it, and you spend the entire time apart from baby totally miserable. It doesn't last forever. Nikki >There is no 'getting a >break' when you feel like you just shouldn't be doing it, and you spend the >entire time apart from baby totally miserable. I've done OK leaving her with my parents, or with DH. Well, mostly OK. I do occasionally get terrifying visions of my father tripping as he carries her up the stairs. (Hasn't happened yet, though.) Given my druthers, I'd stay with her all the time. Well, maybe spelled for a few hours every day by DH! Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > I've done OK leaving her with my parents, or with DH. Well, mostly OK. I > do occasionally get terrifying visions of my father tripping as he carries > her up the stairs. (Hasn't happened yet, though.) > > Given my druthers, I'd stay with her all the time. Well, maybe spelled > for a few hours every day by DH! I've left her with her father for a few hours, and then we left her with a neighbor across the street that we both trust; she did have an itinerary of the night and both cell phone numbers, tho'. :) Jess > I've done OK leaving her with my parents, or with DH. Well, mostly OK. I > do occasionally get terrifying visions of my father tripping as he carries > her up the stairs. (Hasn't happened yet, though.) > > Given my druthers, I'd stay with her all the time. Well, maybe spelled > for a few hours every day by DH! Liz, honey, she's only 11 weeks old? It's really early, still, you'll get to leaving her more often, don't fret about it. I'm so jealous your family lives nearby, I don't have any family near. )-: rebecca >Liz, honey, she's only 11 weeks old? It's really early, still, you'll get >to leaving her more often, don't fret about it. I'm so jealous your family >lives nearby, I don't have any family near. )-: I'm actually back at work already - for the last two weeks, DH and I have been taking vacation days, with my folks filling in on a few. She goes to day-care next week. :-( On the bright side, we're working with our company so we can work from home, which will mean she won't have to be in care so many hours. I'll even be able to take my lunch hour with her. I am SO lucky to have my family here. My parents have been a Godsend in all of this. Even if I disagree with some of their parenting philosophies! ;-) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >I feel like she's attached to me with a Bungee cord. It's the weirdest >thing, and not at all what I was expecting. > >Liz I remember that. It was like there was another, invisible umbilical cord that only I knew about. Other people all seemed to think that we were separated at birth, but we weren't, we were still connected. I think that goes on until she's about 23. The cord just keeps getting longer and longer. >I remember that. It was like there was another, invisible umbilical cord that >only I knew about. Other people all seemed to think that we were separated at >birth, but we weren't, we were still connected. That was the part I wasn't expecting. It wasn't even love like I was used to experiencing it, not at the beginning - it was more like life and death. Like some critical internal organ had decided to start wandering around outside my body. I've never held much stock in innate differences between men and women; but I don't think DH experiences his love for her this way. >I think that goes on until she's about 23. The cord just keeps getting longer >and longer. I'll ask my mom. I suspect she'll say 40. ;-) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 That's how I experienced it too. I always said it was like an extra limb of mine that was able to detach itself and I had to know where it was at all times. Heather > >I remember that. It was like there was another, invisible umbilical cord that > >only I knew about. Other people all seemed to think that we were separated at [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Liz > That's how I experienced it too. I always said it was like an extra limb of > mine that was able to detach itself and I had to know where it was at all > times. That works for me. :) Tho' this new limb is starting to smile, and she's figuring out that she can stick her tongue out at us. *giggle* Jess >Tho' this new limb is starting to smile, and she's figuring out that she can >stick her tongue out at us. *giggle* That's a fabulous phase, isn't it? When they start to interact with you? When I fetch Emily in the morning I get a HUGE smile - right before she starts crying for her breakfast. ;-) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > That's a fabulous phase, isn't it? When they start to interact with you? > When I fetch Emily in the morning I get a HUGE smile - right before she > starts crying for her breakfast. ;-) That's exactly it. I can sit there for a few minutes and play with her, and she's even getting enough distance vision to watch the hibiscus bush outside her window while we change diapers. :D Tho' I wish we'd get a thirty second warning before she goes from full sleep to "oh my god i'm being disemboweled" at four in the morning. :/ Jess >Tho' I wish we'd get a thirty second warning before she goes from full sleep >to "oh my god i'm being disemboweled" at four in the morning. :/ LOL! Evolution made that one pretty effective, didn't it? Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > LOL! Evolution made that one pretty effective, didn't it? *LOL* Sure did, and we're getting plenty of blackmail for when she gets older. ;) Jess > >>Right now, yes, it is. Nobody's asking her to be all sweet and lovey-dovey, > >>just polite. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Partly because I wouldn't let anyone in my house who wasn't willing to be > at least basically polite, and that includes *my* relatives. Really? What if the best she could do was mostly silent? Last weekend my dad & SM, me & SO were at my sister's. Her 13 YO is still having a rough time with my mom's death. Not doing well with my dad remarrying so quickly. She didn't speak to my SM unless it became clear she really had to. My SM did really well with it, until my dad and my sister's husband both kept pointing out it was happening. IMO the two of them took a situation that was working okay and made it uncomfortable for everyone. Acceptance takes time, no matter what age. rebecca >> >>Right now, yes, it is. Nobody's asking her to be all sweet and >lovey-dovey, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >rebecca Rebecca, I don't know about Liz, but for me, "mostly silent" is fine... it is not impolite. What I won't tolerate is rudeness. Sheila > Rebecca, I don't know about Liz, but for me, "mostly silent" is fine... it is > not impolite. What I won't tolerate is rudeness. Yeah, I don't know, I don't have the sense from Liz that her SD is impolite, then, just avoidant with her. Maybe I've got it all wrong. rebecca p.s. But I would _still_ not leave my kid with someone I haven't met, even if his dad had, and I think it's crazy to suggest anything otherwise. I'm almost sure I wouldn't let someone hang out with him at daycare that I hadn't met, either, but I may be overreacting on that one. >> Rebecca, I don't know about Liz, but for me, "mostly silent" is fine... it >is >> not impolite. What I won't tolerate is rudeness. > >Yeah, I don't know, I don't have the sense from Liz that her SD is impolite, >then, just avoidant with her. Maybe I've got it all wrong. I don't think she's had the opportunity to be polite or impolite -- she's not met her yet! ;-) I think Liz was talking for future's reference. >rebecca > >p.s. But I would _still_ not leave my kid with someone I haven't met, even >if his dad had, and I think it's crazy to suggest anything otherwise. I'm >almost sure I wouldn't let someone hang out with him at daycare that I >hadn't met, either, but I may be overreacting on that one. Well, you guys know how nuts I am on this account. My kids were never in daycare, and the ONLY person I left them with before they were five was DS's best friend's mother, who they saw two or three times a week. Sheila >I don't think she's had the opportunity to be polite or impolite -- she's not >met her yet! ;-) I think Liz was talking for future's reference. Yes. I do this contingency-planning thing. It can get destructive when I expend energy on extremely unlikely contingencies. >Well, you guys know how nuts I am on this account. My kids were never in >daycare, and the ONLY person I left them with before they were five was DS's >best friend's mother, who they saw two or three times a week. Oh, I envy you! I'm past the point where I hyperventilate when I'm away from Emily; but I still worry whenever she's with someone else. The first time my parents baby-sat we were only gone an hour, and I thought I'd completely go to pieces. I suppose it's not a bad thing that I'll never completely get used to her being with other people. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >Rebecca, I don't know about Liz, but for me, "mostly silent" is fine... it is >not impolite. What I won't tolerate is rudeness. Oh, yes. She can be silent. She can even be sullen, as long as she responds to basic questions. And honestly, I suspect when we finally meet she'll be more shy-quiet than sullen-quiet. It's one thing to rave at your father about his wife; it's another thing to rave in the face of a person you've just met. See? Some days I'm sane about the whole thing! Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 It's ok Liz, most of us mothers have been there, I felt that way *fiercely* when my son was a new baby. I might wear off a bit when she grows older, has her own views, and your relationship with her is solid as mommy to child instead of mommy to baby (who can't talk, really understand or comprehend, etc.). You're mommy, you'll always be mommy. I hated the way my mom would try to overrule me with my kid and take over, but when he was sick or something was wrong (as baby and now, too) he *always* wanted mommy. It's hard, but you realize if you love her, you'll want her to be able to forge relationships with others. Maybe some mom's get that easier, but I had to come to terms with it. The fact that this baby is his/her own person and while you may be the centery of their world now, there will come a time when you won't be. To cling to tightly to her will hurt her, my mom did that to me and it hurt me *immensely*. I won't go into that, and I'm sure you're not like that, I just wanted to tell you that I understand the feeling you're going through, especially being a new mom. Heather > >>Right now, yes, it is. Nobody's asking her to be all sweet and lovey-dovey, > >>just polite. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Liz >It's ok Liz, most of us mothers have been there, I felt that way *fiercely* >when my son was a new baby. I might wear off a bit when she grows older, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >you won't be. To cling to tightly to her will hurt her, my mom did that to >me and it hurt me *immensely*. I'm wary of that impulse. I was squashed as well, but by my dad, so I know it's counterproductive. It's just hard not to want to curl myself around her and hide her from the world. >I won't go into that, and I'm sure you're >not like that, I just wanted to tell you that I understand the feeling >you're going through, especially being a new mom. Thanks, Heather. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >> It's ok Liz, most of us mothers have been there, I felt that way >> *fiercely* when my son was a new baby. I might wear off a bit when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> kid and take over, but when he was sick or something was wrong (as >> baby and now, too) he *always* wanted mommy. My SD always wanted her daddy. Signature**Geri** "Remember, never take no cutoffs and hurry along as fast as you can." Virginia Reed, Donner Party >I'm wary of that impulse. I was squashed as well, but by my dad, so I >know it's counterproductive. It's just hard not to want to curl myself [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Liz Liz, (who is that, anyway?) How did this ever turn out? Is your SD seeing your daughter? And are pictures posted anywhere? Anne >Liz, (who is that, anyway?) Hi, Anne! Nice to "see" you. >How did this ever turn out? Is your SD seeing your daughter? SD is back at school and doesn't come home much on the weekends; but she's seen Em a handful of times now. In fact, she came for Thanksgiving. She was a little quiet, and kind of shy; but she smiled at me a few times and was completely polite. And Em just loves her. She's offerred to nanny for us next summer if she can't find a job in her field. I don't know how I feel about that...but it's not the automatic "no way in hell" it would've been before I'd met her. >And are >pictures posted anywhere? I'm in the middle of putting together some more recent shots. I'll post the URL when I'm done. Thanks for asking. :-) Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >See, that's interesting. I assume you mean half-bros on dad's side, right? >How, exactly, could you have done that? Why was it your job, I mean beyond >not _preventing_ contact between them? It was my job because Lee is my daughter. I could have done a million things differently if I had realized how important to her it was. I should have thought it through. jane >rebecca > >See, that's interesting. I assume you mean half-bros on dad's side, right? > >How, exactly, could you have done that? Why was it your job, I mean beyond [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > differently if I had realized how important to her it was. I should have > thought it through. so you're talking about before the divorce, rather than after, is that right? >> It was my job because Lee is my daughter. I could have done a million >things [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >so you're talking about before the divorce, rather than after, is that >right? No. Both. jane > >See, that's interesting. I assume you mean half-bros on dad's side, right? > >How, exactly, could you have done that? Why was it your job, I mean beyond [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > jane I was amazed today, when a new friend (also a stepmom), who admittedly doesn't know me that well, asked if there were any plans afoot for Ben and Kiera to still see one another after Roger and I divorce. Of course there are! Admittedly, it's mainly Roger's job to ensure this happens, and that Chloe and Kiera will see one another. But if he didn't do it, I would take over that responsibility. My situation is different, in that Kiera already has established relationships with her siblings and she, quite simply, adores them. I couldn't take that away from her, however apathetic I might feel about either one of my 'ex' stepkids. Nikki > Admittedly, it's mainly Roger's job to ensure this happens, and that Chloe > and Kiera will see one another. But if he didn't do it, I would take over > that responsibility. And you would do that, exactly how? This is where I'm confused about Jane's stuff. Ben lives with Roger, right? So do you call him every day so Kiera can speak to him? Invite him out for play dates? How does that not create animosity with Roger? "Hey, Nikki, they're _my_ kids, I'll do as I see fit. EOW is plenty for them to spend time together." I'm not saying the feeling (wanting your kid to know their half-sibs) is wrong, but I'm completely unclear on how in a divorce situation you can do that if you aren't the biological parent of both, without making potentially serious waves with the bioparent -- or enabling the bioparent to completely blow off what is, in fact, their responsibility to the kids. (how's that for a run-on sentence?) rebecca > > Admittedly, it's mainly Roger's job to ensure this happens, and that Chloe > > and Kiera will see one another. But if he didn't do it, I would take over [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > rebecca I'd say 'f.ck Roger' and go right to the source. Chloe lives with her Mom, who admittedly, might not want to deal with me, but would eventually. Sam and I already see each other outside of Ben and Roger (next Tues she, Dylan, Kiera and I are going out for the day) so we could see Ben when he's there. Plus, I'd slap Roger upside the head for being such a nonce and tell him if he didn't like it, tough sh.t. I know we're investigating 'all of the options', but with my particular ex, I can't see any of this being a problem. And if he EVER tells me they are 'his' kids when it includes Kiera, I shan't be responsible for my actions. Nikki > I'd say 'f.ck Roger' and go right to the source. Chloe lives with her Mom, > who admittedly, might not want to deal with me, but would eventually. Sam [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > problem. And if he EVER tells me they are 'his' kids when it includes Kiera, > I shan't be responsible for my actions. Hm. I'm really not trying to be argumentative, I just find this an interesting thing to wrestle with. It struck me yesterday that Sam _adores_ SS. Follows him around, laughs at anything he does, loves to play with him, etc. And as they were running around screaming, I got this sudden horrible feeling - someday SS is going to be mean to my baby, and I'm going to have to pull out my tongue with pliers to stop from laying into him about it. I mean, the relationship between them, I guess I started - by having Sam - but it's really not in my control. SS may turn into a perfect sh.t to Sam, or vice versa. They may be close, they may not see much of each other. BM and SO both have half-sibs they don't see. I worry about my son being basically an only child - and he is and he isn't. Maybe, if we get more time with SS, I'll feel like he's less of one. Maybe I won't. Maybe he won't care that he doesn't have a million brothers and sisters. Damn, I'm not explaining this well. I _think_ what I'm trying to say is I feel vulnerable about their relationship - because I put my son into it, and I can't completely trust that SS won't turn into his mother, I guess. I don't know, maybe parents of full sibs feel this way too. I'd ask my dad but it probably never crossed his mind. Any of that make sense? rebecca snip> Hm. I'm really not trying to be argumentative, I just find this an > interesting thing to wrestle with. It struck me yesterday that Sam _adores_ > SS. Follows him around, laughs at anything he does, loves to play with him, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > rebecca Totally. My SS has always had some bizarre and worrying personality traits, mainly the tantrums - which he's done in front of Kiera once and I wanted to kill him. SD's mother is a freak - totally boundaryless - and she raises her daughter to be the same. SS sometimes annoys me in how he treats Kiera, but when SD comes I spend most of my time thanking God for SS. She's a serious only child that has no concept of how to treat younger siblings or share with any age sibling. The dynamic when the three of them are together isn't fun. But she can be great when it's just her alone with Kiera, although the sharing isn't good. Ben and Kiera share so easily and readily, it can be kind of shocking to me. And maybe full sibs is the same, who knows, I can't imagine having that white hot fury against one of my own for upsetting another of my own, but I definitely have it with them. When they make her cry I want to kill them - but mostly I stay calm and regard it as my job to teach SD how to treat Kiera. How's she supposed to know? Her mother won't even let her play in the street with the other kids for crying out loud, let alone being used to dealing with younger kids. She snatches stuff from Kiera and that makes her cry. We don't snatch in this house. As far as Sam's acceptance of things - Kiera has always been remarkably well-adjusted about everything. This is for you too Liz. I thought it would be really hard, how I'd have to explain that Daddy was married before and got divorced, etc etc. She has accepted everything, without question, since day one. Why wouldn't she? It's never been any other way. Sometimes, SS's here, then he goes to his Mom's. Most of the time SD isn't here, but then she comes from her Mom's to stay with us. But both are 'brother and sister' - the understanding of them physically being half-sibs is a birds and the bees kind of chat, I think. FWIW I regard SS as a full sibling in many ways, whereas I don't with SD. He was here the day she was born (SD several weeks later). He's lived here, SD has visited once a month. But interestingly, Kiera seems to love them equally, and just accepts the different things/different amounts of time she gets from them. Obviously I'm letting go of the control even more now, Roger's going to be in charge. And that's scary, because we all know how he is about being in charge... SS will be fine, the times when he's not great with Kiera are so few and far between as to be negligible. I worry about SD more. But I trust my kid. I teach her everyday how to say 'you've hurt my feelings' and stand up for herself and explain what's upset her. And I love her and accept her as much as I can, because I think that puts something deep inside her that means she'll cope with all of this stuff. At least, that's the theory :-) Nikki > And maybe full sibs is the same, who knows, I can't imagine having that > white hot fury against one of my own for upsetting another of my own, but I > definitely have it with them. Oh, thank you for responding. I was having one of those moments where you say something, and everyone's dead silent, and you realize you've just revealed your innermost nuttiness. Like everyone going to themselves, "wow, Rebecca really is all f*ed up" The whole half-sibling thing really is just hitting home for me (at 18 mos), I'm not sure how I 'm doing with it all. rebecca "rebecca" <justrebecca5@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:66NQc.11137 > Oh, thank you for responding. I was having one of those moments where you > say something, and everyone's dead silent, and you realize you've just > revealed your innermost nuttiness. Like everyone going to themselves, "wow, > Rebecca really is all f*ed up" Don't know what you're talking about, Rebecca. ;-D~ > > Oh, thank you for responding. I was having one of those moments where you > > say something, and everyone's dead silent, and you realize you've just [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Don't know what you're talking about, Rebecca. ;-D~ LOL Jennifer. I saw that post, was going to respond, and my 'puter crashed that weekend. I have spent forever getting it back just the way I want it, but it's not. I am about to cut off the email but everyone is twisting my arm to keep it. If I get DSL I will let you know. Glad to hear things are going so well with SD! Keep sending pictures! With hope and heart, Kathleen > > And maybe full sibs is the same, who knows, I can't imagine having that > > white hot fury against one of my own for upsetting another of my own, but [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > rebecca Oh ROFL Rebecca. And you'll be fine. Nikki >> > And maybe full sibs is the same, who knows, I can't imagine having that >> > white hot fury against one of my own for upsetting another of my own, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >And you'll be fine. >Nikki Yeah you will. jane > The whole half-sibling thing really is just hitting home for me (at > 18 mos), I'm not sure how I 'm doing with it all. > > rebecca As someone with both full sibs and "half-sibs", I'd like to interject something here. I think as adults we are all fully aware of the connections our kids have with others. I can pretty much tell you at the ages of the kids you all are talking about that these kids aren't anywhere near as aware of the connections. They may be able to verbalize that someone is their "half-sister/brother", but I doubt very much they can really understand that fully. They are, quite simply, brothers and sisters. They may be brothers and sisters that have different parent connections and only live/visit sometimes, but all the same they are siblings; it's what they know, what they've lived. I think it is the adults in their lives that get hung up on the "half's" to the point where it then becomes an issue for the children. Personally, I have never called my younger sisters my half sisters, with the exception of discussions such as this. I never even think of them that way. just some thoughts. Cal~ > I think as adults we are all fully aware of the connections our kids > have with others. I can pretty much tell you at the ages of the kids [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the exception of discussions such as this. I never even think of them > that way. Oh, I never refer to them that way, and when SS does, I always ask him which half of the baby is his brother. I'm more referring to the fact that my son has a sib who isn't _my_ child. That's the part that sometimes weirds me out. My parents both had half-brothers. I had no idea they weren't full relatives until I was an adult. rebecca > They are, quite simply, brothers and sisters. They may be brothers and > sisters that have different parent connections and only live/visit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think it is the adults in their lives that get hung up on the "half's" > to the point where it then becomes an issue for the children. Absolutely. I got rid of the distinction in my own mind when my step-daughter told me that the family didn't make distinctions... that my SS is her brother. Now, I suspect from the context of that discussion that it was something that my husband came up with, but I've stuck to it completely. Of course, we'll see how things go when I have a kid of my own. A > You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I have a quiet fit to DH > about getting that sh.t out of the house and not letting her bring any > more in. $20 worth of (admittedly adorable) onesies from Carter's? It's not worth the energy to throw the fit, and sending the thank-you cards from both of us was the polite way to go. :) Now the shopping trip she wants to go on? That's a whole different story. ;) Jess > > > Now, if the question is - when does SS's brother get to play at SS's > > > mother's house, your answer is just kill me now. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > rebecca I think this one is one of those absolute *classic* stepmom things that we negatively fantasise about, until it actually happens, and we find we don't mind. While pregnant, or when Kiera was a baby I would have thrown myself under a car before letting her go to stay with her sister at BM2's house. BM1 I don't mind, we have a relationship anyway, her kid and my kid have a relationship (not SS, I mean her other child not related to my child) - it's different. But BM2 is a viable looney. Kiera sees her more than me, I've not been to a pick up or drop off for ages, and even then it was once and ages since before then too. Kiera often goes to get her sister (although she often wants to stay in the car because of the dog). Oh, she probably will never want to go because of the dog. I just realised. But, if Kiera did want to go, I think I'd be fine with it now. I can't see it happening for a long time, apart from the dog, Kiera's just not 'sleepover' age yet. She sleeps at my Mom's sometimes, but she's not done that with anyone else. But when she does, and if she wants to go to BM2's, I don't think I'd mind anymore. Hey it's a night off, isn't it?! Did I mention when xDH told BM2 about our split she said to him 'well, if you ever need to talk to someone, I'm here'. We both pissed ourselves over that little story. Nikki > I think this one is one of those absolute *classic* stepmom things that we > negatively fantasise about, until it actually happens, and we find we don't > mind. This time, I think I'd mind. The biggest hangup (and yes, it's all mine, so shut up jane) is that this is the woman that accused me of killing my husband maybe three weeks after he died. > Did I mention when xDH told BM2 about our split she said to him 'well, if > you ever need to talk to someone, I'm here'. We both pissed ourselves over > that little story. Jesus, is that one of those stock line things? Tim's ex used to do the "wanna be friends" thing that SO's ex is doing right now. All I can think of when they pull their stunts is "with friends like this...." Jess > > I think this one is one of those absolute *classic* stepmom things that we > > negatively fantasise about, until it actually happens, and we find we [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > shut up jane) is that this is the woman that accused me of killing my > husband maybe three weeks after he died. Yeah, and my BM is the one that accused us of "plotting" to get SS to the town my parents lived in so he could attend my mom's funeral. Two weeks after I'd given birth. Who then insisted he come home on time from the weekend, threw an absolute *fit* that SO said no, and then called him on his cell the entire weekend until he agreed to leave the service early so SS could 'get a good night's rest' for school the next day. Which she then kept him home from. Who then went to the special master to get 24 hours of our time cancelled to 'make up' for the time SO had inappropriately kept him from. And did I mention that we haven't seen SS in almost 2 weeks now because BM's _COUSIN_ died? As you can probably tell, sh.t yeah, I'll be holding a grudge over that one until hell freezes over. But you just can't let it rule your decisions. She's an inconsiderate a.s. Life goes on. Doesn't change that SS and son are brothers, and I want them to have a good, non-anxious relationship. Just a little noodle for you... rebecca > Yeah, and my BM is the one that accused us of "plotting" to get SS to the > town my parents lived in so he could attend my mom's funeral. Two weeks [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Just a little noodle for you... Spending time with her brother, I can manage. I might even get so far as to be semicomfortable with her spending the night over there. Me spending the night over there or going shopping with her? Not likely. :/ Jess >Jesus, is that one of those stock line things? Tim's ex used to do the >"wanna be friends" thing that SO's ex is doing right now. All I can think of >when they pull their stunts is "with friends like this...." > >Jess No, it's not. I can assure you that if my ex ever split with his wife, I'd say "I'm sorry to hear that." I would *not* want to talk with him about it. Deb R. > No, it's not. I can assure you that if my ex ever split with his > wife, I'd say "I'm sorry to hear that." I would *not* want to talk > with him about it. I know-it was one of those uber-sarcastic-needed-to-be-rethought comments. :) No offense intended. :) Jess >I'm with you, sister. Except, like I said, my first reaction to 'when can >my mom meet the baby?' was to sever my tongue with my teeth. And it was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >guessing I'd say okay. Just guessing, mind you. Then I'd jump off the roof >after they left, probably. I can't believe you said that. SD and BM want Brooke to sleep over their house, which will happen over my dead body. I can do "well adjusted" as well as the next person, but that's WAY beyond my limit. Anne > >I'm with you, sister. Except, like I said, my first reaction to 'when can > >my mom meet the baby?' was to sever my tongue with my teeth. And it was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Anne Well Anne, with what's been going on for you guys that's hardly surprising. And BM is totally hostile to you most of the time. Nikki > >I'm with you, sister. Except, like I said, my first reaction to 'when can > >my mom meet the baby?' was to sever my tongue with my teeth. And it was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > their house, which will happen over my dead body. I can do "well > adjusted" as well as the next person, but that's WAY beyond my limit. Well, it's a pretty safe guess that it will *never* happen, so I'm almost comfortable being gracious about how I wouldn't mind ;-p rebecca >I'm just spinning it out. My experience here and IRL is that it could be less >than totally pleasant and convenient for you and DH for the two girls to have >contact. When it's a huge hassle to facilitate your perfect baby's >relationship with her sh.t sister, that bright line can get pretty dim. FWIW, neither one of us thinks of SD as our baby's "sh.t sister." (Neither is our baby perfect, although she's close. ;-)) SD actually met Emily very early on - and yes, DH went out of his way to drive the baby to BM's house so SD could meet her on an evening she had free. I take your point, though - it's an emotionally cluttered situation, and SD *has* been the center of a fair amount of angst around here. Neither DH nor I want to use the baby as a bargaining chip; but on some level, I think it's unavoidable. For instance, if she's bitchy to her dad, she's not likely to get invited back any time soon. If, however, she's not comfortable with anything more than neutral pleasantries about the weather - well, that'd be OK. >When does SD's mother get to meet her sister? I would guess when she asks. I would also guess that'll never happen - when she and DH run into each other, she literally behaves as if he doesn't exist. >You can resolve all this stuff just fine. I'm not trying to scare you. It's >just that *for me* to do it, I have to untangle everything. I have to figure [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >want to prove to the little bitch that she can't yank your chain and see your >baby. I'm just throwing it out there because that's what I do. For which I thank you - you're one of the saner heads I was hoping would reply! Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >I'm just throwing it out there because that's what I do. > >For which I thank you - You're welcome and thanks for taking it in the spirit in which it was intended. jane >Liz > >I'm just throwing it out there because that's what I do. I think this would make a funny quote with your name attached Jane. Can I use it? Heather >I think this would make a funny quote with your name attached Jane. Can I >use it? > >Heather Sure. I said it on usenet. jane >You're welcome and thanks for taking it in the spirit in which it was intended. I've hung around long enough to be pretty familiar with people's posting styles! Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > I take your point, though - it's an emotionally cluttered situation, and > SD *has* been the center of a fair amount of angst around here. Neither [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > comfortable with anything more than neutral pleasantries about the > weather - well, that'd be OK. I'm going to jump in, mainly because we just got through handling this with my parents. The basic terms were that they had to play nice (no trashtalking), and in my father's case, he has to be sober, and we reserve the right to question that at any time. Ironically enough, it's been my father that's been the better behaved of the two of them. You're not using your baby as a "bargaining chip", you are laying down the boundaries for contact with her that would make the contact not be detrimental to her now, or in the future. With her being this young, she is going to pick up on some tension, and trying to calm a screaming baby down isn't exactly the most soothing thing in the world, and it only gets worse as she gets older. While some "dad is such an a.s" griping between siblings is normal, it is not normal or appropriate (to us, at least) for there to be constant slamming of either or both parents, and the relationship between the parents is most definently not a topic of conversation-that's not their business at any point in time. You're not out of line to tell your SD "sure, you can see her, but it has to be here where *either* of us can supervise and the first negative comment sees you out the door." She gets to make the choice of whether or not she brings her behavior into line, though I will tell you that enforcing that boundary isn't the easiest. Yes, Sheila's standard of whether or not her presence was more detrimental or more beneficial is a good one, and exactly the one we used for my parents. :) And no, you don't get to go out of your way to make life easier on her-your life is already difficult enough with a newborn. She comes to you. :) Jess >I'm going to jump in, mainly because we just got through handling this with >my parents. Okay, at the risk of being redundant, you can't equate grandparents with siblings in this area. >While some "dad is such an a.s" griping between siblings is normal, it is >not normal or appropriate (to us, at least) for there to be constant >slamming of either or both parents, and the relationship between the parents >is most definently not a topic of conversation-that's not their business at >any point in time. It is totally the business of the parents' offspring. It's not just that the parental relationships define the parameters of their lives; it's that examining, tearing apart, and discussing the parental relationships is their classroom for their own relationships. jane >Jess > Okay, at the risk of being redundant, you can't equate grandparents with > siblings in this area. *shrugs* I understand, but it's the closest parallel I have. > It is totally the business of the parents' offspring. It's not just that the > parental relationships define the parameters of their lives; it's that > examining, tearing apart, and discussing the parental relationships is their > classroom for their own relationships. If SO's son were to come up to sproglette and start talking about how much of a slut I am because his father left his mother for me, my immediate response would be to turn around to him and to tell him that whatever happened between his father and I was not his business and not open for discussion at any point in time, and it was the same with my parents. I don't care if they agree or not with the relationship, but it's not their place to discuss it. The relationship is between us, and it's up to us to manage without other people commenting on it. SO's comment is that if his son has a problem with the relationship, he needs to be addressing it with his father, not anyone else; the same thing for anyone else. As far as my mother is concerned, he's not going to allow someone to be rude to him/us. I routinely told my mother (and more recently, my father) that their relationship was not any of my business, that we didn't need to discuss it. Did I look at their relationship and decide for myself what I thought was wrong and make an effort to not repeat it? Absolutely. Do I discuss it? Not a chance-not my place. My nose does not belong in their bedroom. Jess >Yes, Sheila's standard of >whether or not her presence was more detrimental or more beneficial is a >good one, and exactly the one we used for my parents. :) That's where we're coming from at this point. Additionally, I'm not going to argue if SD still doesn't want to meet me, as long as she's willing to have her dad there when she sees the baby. And all of this is for now - over time, things might change for the better (I hope). It'd be damn nice, frankly, to be able to trust SD as a baby- sitter. >And no, you don't get to go out of your way to make life easier on her-your >life is already difficult enough with a newborn. She comes to you. :) Fortunately (sort of!), BM's house is about three miles from ours. As long as SD isn't working or out with friends, the travel time isn't significant. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 >I take your point, though - it's an emotionally cluttered situation, and >SD *has* been the center of a fair amount of angst around here. Neither [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >comfortable with anything more than neutral pleasantries about the >weather - well, that'd be OK. My SD and I discussed resuming visitation for the first time today. It was very difficult for me. Brooke is ready, now I'm the holdout. It's just been so damn *nice* not having to contend with SD! <sigh> But I told SD on the phone that it really upset me *and* all the kids when her and her father fight loudly, so if she's (or he's) not ready to resume visitation without doing that, then it's not time yet. She insisted that she doesn't even fight with her mother anymore so it wont' be a problem. Which was more lies, but let's not go there. Not trying to hijack your thread Liz, I'm just saying that I know how it is when these lines get all blurry. Anne Hanging on by a thread >For which I thank you - you're one of the saner heads I was hoping would >reply! Tell us more about hte baby, and where are the PICTURES!!!! Anne >Not trying to hijack your thread Liz, I'm just saying that I know how >it is when these lines get all blurry. I don't think you hijacked the thread. That maggot thing is much more of a hijack. ;-) I'm sorry about your SD. Her timing kind of sucks, doesn't it? >Tell us more about hte baby, and where are the PICTURES!!!! I tried to upload some pictures this morning, but I'm having server problems. Apart from being cute, and constantly starving, she's an amazingly good baby. She's smiling a lot, and starting to laugh, and is making frighteningly quick strides toward rolling over onto her side. DH and I are doomed. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 > Quick summary of Our Story So Far: DH and BM separated in 2000. DH and I > started dating in 2000, and married in 2002 (divorce was final in 2001). [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Liz I think you did the right thing. I only have had one babysitter for my son and he is 6, other than the schools or therapists. What about having her babysit at your home for an hour or so to start while you and hubby go out to a movie or something and go from there. Good Luck charlene > Quick summary of Our Story So Far: DH and BM separated in 2000. DH and I > started dating in 2000, and married in 2002 (divorce was final in 2001). [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Liz Liz, How did this turn out? I have a similiar but not the same situation. My 13 and 16 yold SD do have a relationship with us and our 2 yold son. They both took the red cross babysitting training course. I trust the 13 yold, she's taken care of him, changed him, fed him and put him to bed while I was here, plus plays, plays, plays with him. The 16 yold is not a baby person...takes toys from him thinking she's playing, when she's really teasing. I don't want her to babysit but when we talk about it (my husband and I), I think he wants the girls to take turns babysitting. I guess we won't be going out for awhile. Plus the 16 yold says she won't watch him while he's in diapers (so no problem really...hopefully she'll get a regular job soon.) I hope it never comes down to me putting my foot down and having to say no to him and the SD, cause I will. My child and I'm not going to worry like that. As far as your situation, I'd say to her that you'd love for her to become part of your family including you if she wants time with her sister. Your baby will already be in daycare...you'll miss him and won't want her away one night a week as a routine. After she gets to know you and her, then it might be nice for her to watch him occasionally (and will give you and your husband a break). I have requirment of my babysitters to come over with me around and get to know my son. Thanks, Tami >Liz, How did this turn out? Funny you should ask. SD spent last Tuesday afternoon at our house with Emily and DH. DH reports that she was perfectly cordial, but didn't seem terribly interested in the baby - didn't much want to play with her or interact with her, although she agreed to hold her while he made homemade ice cream. We're trying to come up with other opportunities for SD to come over while DH and Emily are home. Although she's agreed to meet me, there has been no further discussion of when or where this might occur. I'm wondering, actually, if pushing to spend time with Emily isn't maybe a way to try to get back into her father's life without actually saying she wants to. Either way, I figure it doesn't hurt for us to keep the door open. >I don't want her >to babysit but when we talk about it (my husband and I), I think he >wants the girls to take turns babysitting. Does the 16 year old *want* to babysit? If not, that might be a way to talk your DH out of it. DH wanted to be very clear with his kids that he wasn't going to assume they'd be available to watch the baby, because he didn't want them to feel like they were nothing but convenient utilities for him. >Plus the 16 yold says she won't watch him while he's >in diapers (so no problem really...hopefully she'll get a regular job >soon.) How much longer will this be? Does your SD16 *want* to baby sit? Is your DH trying for equal treatment when the girls perhaps don't want it? Have you discussed specific caretaking concerns with your DH? Do you think he might be more responsive if you were able to present him with facts along with your emotional response? >After she gets to >know you and her, then it might be nice for her to watch him >occasionally (and will give you and your husband a break). Her proposal, actually, was to pick Em up early from day care and spend a few hours with her in the afternoon *alone in our house.* Not sure I'm keen on having SD alone in my house, even after I've met her - in her shoes, I might find the opportunity for undetected snooping to be irresistible. But she's back at school in a week or so, so I think we're going to be left with encouraging visits on the weekends she's home. Liz Signaturelizb@world.std.com "No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.