 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Step Parents / May 2005I really need your input/advice
Hello all, As a brief summary, I got married to a father of 3 (now boy-13, girl-11, boy-10), almost 5 years ago. For 3 years the kids lived with us until we wanted to move 2000 miles away when the Mom chose to keep the kids with her. We flew the kids to us for the summer, who needless to say were so behaving bad, I had wrote about this previously, the 2 oldest kids mentionned "child abuse" on different occasions for the minor things they were asked to do by me, I ignored it and didn't put much weight onto it. I had complained to my husband after they left, that this new behavior is scary and the Mom's manipulation is so obvious. We decided to try their visit for Christmas to see if things changed. They came for Christmas, they were ok for couple of days before they got their presents, then back to the same odd behavior. Anyways, back at their Mom, the oldest son started not wanting to talk to Dad and started not wanting to come visit for the summer... A month ago, the Mom tells my husband in front of her oldest son that her son was molested by a previous female nanny that my husband had hired as a live-in to take care of the kids. The boy was 6-7 at the time. More, the Mom says she knew this molestation took place since a year ago but didn't want to tell us about it, that her son told her that one year ago. The boy retold his story to daddy with some disgusting details, helped by the Mom, adding to it the boy complaining to my husband again how dare he married me even though he told him not to... I hesitated before writing this, I am at the end of my rope. I do know from my experience with the Mother of my SKs that she stops at nothing to ruin our lives, that she used to get the kids to lie to us on many occasions, needless to restate that, and that now the kid is not just learning to lie, but learning to fabricate lies with his Mom to get us always worrying and keep us busy with issues even if they are fake. I know that there is no sane mother on earth that will just shut up hearing her son was molested. I do believe that all these accusations are just lies and mere fabrications, I told my husband they must be watching too much Jackson's trial. I believe this issue they came up with to cover up for the failing notes the boy is getting at school, and I do believe that is just to create a bigger issue that the dad won't have the chance to question the lack of homeworks... The boy lived with us for over 3 years and he was NORMAL in all aspects. I took care of those kids, I used to bathe them, dress them up... everything. The kids, all 3 of them were A and B+ students as long as they were with us and now the oldest son is failing and the girl is barely above average. What scares the hell out of me now is the idea of this Mom and SKid fabricating stuff, add to it the issue of "why did you marry her I told you not to" after 5 years of marriage sounds not right to me, the "child abuse" thing they tried to come up with during their summer visit... Despite that, the Mom accused my husband before we got married of abusing her while they were divorcing, and he got put in jail for one night for that until she withdrew her accusation. I believe nothing will protect me from this Mom and the kids she is raising. I believe I have the right not to have them visit under the same roof with me ever again. As much as I feel sorry for my husband that he has to see his kids outside our house, as much as I know that I can't take this kind of behavior or live with the fear of being accused with such disgusting allegations. In my mind, I will go as far as it goes to not have them in my house again and will never see them alone ever. I was reading things how easy it is to accuse someone of such abuse, it is scary. I haven't told my husband that yet, I honestly do not want to hurt his feelings, but this is something that I cannot take nor can he protect me from his kids or their mother. One more thing, my husband had a very slow work for over a year now, and despite that, he kept paying the CS as is even though we are withdrawing from credit cards at times. Now we have the house on the market and we can't have the kids come to visit us for the summer anyways. He wants me to tell the Mom who doesn't know yet of the financial situation that the kids will be staying with her for the summer, he said what if she doesn't want to keep them with her for the summer. Anyone got into any similar situation or has any advice I'd appreciate it. Marie Marie Gosh, I really feel for you here, I know where you are coming from. It's almost as if you're damed if you do and damned if you don't! I also have a SD who has refused any contact now for nearly a year. The obvious thought was that it must be me even though her father and I had been together for a few years at that stage. It has broken my husband's heart that she refuses to have contact with him but he refuses to push her, instead choosing to ignore the behaviour that seems to be learnt from the BM. You have no influence on what these children are being shown or taught by the other parent, and I guess we are learning to cope every day that even though this is not the way you intended for these children to be brought up, that you still have a life of your own to live and a marriage worth more than the constant anger and frustration you both must feel. We have had to learn to 'let it go'. Not out of not caring but for our sanity's sake and the sake of our relationship. We still love our children, that never changes, more recently I have begun a journal writing down all of the things we don't get a chance to tell our kids. Maybe just maybe one day they will read it and make up there own minds, in the mean time, it is a good way to release the anger and hurt... Thinking of you Teresa > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Anyone got into any similar situation or has any advice I'd appreciate it. > Marie > both must feel. We have had to learn to 'let it go'. Not out of not caring > but for our sanity's sake and the sake of our relationship. We still love [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thinking of you Thank you Teresa. The journal idea is great on the long run. Marie > Thank you Teresa. The journal idea is great on the long run. Depends on whether your goal is to make sure the kids hear about every single detail about the conflict between their parents or whether the journal is just another way to keep in touch with them. Jess > > Thank you Teresa. The journal idea is great on the long run. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jess Good point Jess! With hope and heart, Kathleen > Depends on whether your goal is to make sure the kids hear about every > single detail about the conflict between their parents or whether the > journal is just another way to keep in touch with them. Why would anyone hurt kids' feeling by telling them details about their parents' conflicts. >> Depends on whether your goal is to make sure the kids hear about every >> single detail about the conflict between their parents or whether the >> journal is just another way to keep in touch with them. > > Why would anyone hurt kids' feeling by telling them details about their > parents' conflicts. What, are you new? > What, are you new? I don't think I'm that new. But still something like this puzzles me, even though we are dealing with a mother who sees it is ok to manipulate her own kids to get to their father. But still, this is sick. My husband and I dealt with so difficult situations initiated by the biomom to the kids, but never ever did we let the kids know what an (...) their mom is. Marie >> What, are you new? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > their mom is. > Marie Sorry, old joke. (-: I'm puzzled too sometimes, and I've been at this for what seems like forever. Since my SS was 2, my husband has gotten _nothing_ without having to take BM to court. That baffles the hell out of me, since pigs would crap gold twinkies out their butts before I would _ever_ take that attitude, but she trots out her arguments each and every damn time. So go figure. You know, I read one of the stepparent books once, there was a quote that's haunted me ever since. It was a pre-teen boy saying "Mom says my dad's a worthless piece of crap. I guess she's right. I'm just like my dad." Damn, but that brought home to me the connections kids make that we don't always think about. I don't care what BM does, and how pissed we get at her, she's his mother and he really needs to believe that she's a wholesome, decent, good, caring person. rebecca > Sorry, old joke. (-: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > attitude, but she trots out her arguments each and every damn time. So go > figure. hmmmm... :) English is my third language, so take it easy on me :) I need to stay with you Rebecca for a week or two and learn all those "old jokes". > You know, I read one of the stepparent books once, there was a quote > that's haunted me ever since. It was a pre-teen boy saying "Mom says my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > rebecca We learned to most of the times "ignore" her actions and keep it to the minimum needed arguments/discussions. Still, we are never left alone. Marie > We learned to most of the times "ignore" her actions and keep it to the > minimum needed arguments/discussions. Still, we are never left alone. It happens. Not much you can do except consider the source and just leave it alone. Jess In a previous article, "Marie" <marie@noemail.com> said: >Why would anyone hurt kids' feeling by telling them details about their >parents' conflicts. Because some people live for the day that the other parent will be "shown for what she is." They long for the day that the kids will realize what's been going on all this time, who really loves them, and will ruthlessly cut the evil parent out of their lives while crying apologies and never-ending love towards the wronged parents. No, seriously, there are people who think this way, not just as a dream, but as an expectation that someday they'll be paid back for all the misery. They usually couch it as the kids "having a right to know" as if it's all for the kids' benefits. I can understand wishing for it, but making it happen is often a whole lot harder than they think, and what they often end up with is adult children who are estranged from both of their parents. Nevertheless, we've gotten a lot of new posters who come in here saying "When is the best time to spring all of this information on them?" They usually go away really annoyed when the answer is "Never." Vicki  SignatureOf all the stupid things I've done, this is certainly the most recent. - Chris Clarke >> Depends on whether your goal is to make sure the kids hear about every >> single detail about the conflict between their parents or whether the >> journal is just another way to keep in touch with them. > > Why would anyone hurt kids' feeling by telling them details about their > parents' conflicts. So they can blame the other parent for 'all the problems'? My ex took our two kids to his office and had a powerpoint presentation all set up, and he spent an hour 1/2 detailing all of the reasons for our divorce, and how it was all.my.fault. He went on to detail every problem he ever had with me over the course of our 20 year marriage. They were 14 and 12 or so at the time. If they think they can make themselves look good while making the other parent look bad, there are many parents who will take the opportunity to do so. In my ex's case, it totally backfired... the kids lost so much respect for him after that. They came home confused.. "Mom, doesn't dad know we're not stupid, and we saw how things were and how they are". One of the stupidest was when he showed them doctored paystubs claiming he was making 20.00 a week, after paying support. It was beyond lies. Meanwhile, he's taking them out to dinner at several hundred dollars a pop.. "Mom, how can dad say he's making only $20.00, but he spent $250.00 for dinner last week?".. "I dunno son, you'd need to ask him, I have nothing to do with his finances". Sometimes, you'll see some people slap the child across the face, hoping to hurt the other parents cheek. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com In a previous article, "-Calliope-" <calliope123remove@removegmail.com> said: >So they can blame the other parent for 'all the problems'? My ex took our >two kids to his office and had a powerpoint presentation all set up, and >he spent an hour 1/2 detailing all of the reasons for our divorce, and how >it was all.my.fault. I know it wasn't funny at the time, not for any of you, and probably never for the kids. But can you, now, with time and distance, look at that and just laugh at what a pathetic loser he revealed himself to be when he did that? Seriously, if you can separate the act from its effects on your kids (and I don't know if you can, or want to, do that), the idea of a **PowerPoint** presentation just makes we want to laugh and laugh in incredulous derision. You'll never have to tell the kids what a w.nker their father is. Your problem is to try to help them not to hate him completely when they're independent adults. Vicki SignatureOf all the stupid things I've done, this is certainly the most recent. - Chris Clarke > I know it wasn't funny at the time, not for any of you, and probably > never for the kids. But can you, now, with time and distance, look at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that), the idea of a **PowerPoint** presentation just makes we want to > laugh and laugh in incredulous derision. Actually, I confess to a couple of snickers myself. God, what an idiot. Sorry, Cal. rebecca > Actually, I confess to a couple of snickers myself. lol. I can only shake my head now, but at least it doesn't make my blood boil, like it used to. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > In a previous article, "-Calliope-" > <calliope123remove@removegmail.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that), the idea of a **PowerPoint** presentation just makes we want to > laugh and laugh in incredulous derision. What I think of it now, I simply shake my head. WT*F* was he thinking? What did he expect to accomplish with that? > You'll never have to tell the kids what a w.nker their father is. Sadly, too true. > Your problem is to try to help them not to hate him completely when > they're independent adults. I've tried to remind them that he does love him, and he has done what he considered best, at the time. Not sure what else to say. The kids don't like it when I say anything positive towards him, and I get a '*HOW* can you defend him?' type of questions. I don't really defend what he did, but I don't want them growing up with hate for him, either. It's difficult. And yeah.. he's a w.nker, alright, lol. That made me laugh! > Vicki SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > Sadly, too true. What he did is sick, and you shouldn't feel sad that you can't retaliate. It is a matter of values and principle, the kids will grow up to see for themselves, but still, your role will always be to not undermine their father's role in their life and not to hate him, certainly not defend him. Marie >> Sadly, too true. > > What he did is sick, and you shouldn't feel sad that you can't retaliate. > It is a matter of values and principle, the kids will grow up to see for > themselves, but still, your role will always be to not undermine their > father's role in their life and not to hate him, certainly not defend him. Hm. Certainly not defend his stupid, thoughtless actions. But I might disagree about defending *him*. No matter what my stepson's BM does, I try to find the pieces of her that I can defend. He's her kid, part of her, and no kid wants someone to throw up their hands and not be able to see *anything* good about their parent. I think there are very few parents that have absolutely *nothing* defensible about them. rebecca > Hm. Certainly not defend his stupid, thoughtless actions. But I might > disagree about defending *him*. No matter what my stepson's BM does, I > try to find the pieces of her that I can defend. He's her kid, part of > her, and no kid wants someone to throw up their hands and not be able to > see *anything* good about their parent. I think there are very few > parents that have absolutely *nothing* defensible about them. I agree. I don't have to defend the other person's wrong actions. I don't agree with defending what is wrong, stay quiet about it is better. Defending the other parent in other issues is another story. Of course, even the worst parent has something defendable. Marie >> Sadly, too true. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Marie I'm not sure where you got the idea I feel sad I can't 'retaliate'. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love my kids far too much for that. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > I'm not sure where you got the idea I feel sad I can't 'retaliate'. > Nothing could be further from the truth. I love my kids far too much for > that. Sorry Cal, you said in response to: > You'll never have to tell the kids what a w.nker their father is. "Sadly, too true." and I just misunderstood it, sorry again. Marie >> You'll never have to tell the kids what a w.nker their father is. > > "Sadly, too true." > > and I just misunderstood it, sorry again. okay.. gotcha.. what I meant was that it's sad they have a w.nker for a father to start with. He wasn't one when I married him, but well.. people change. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > Why would anyone hurt kids' feeling by telling them details about their > parents' conflicts. It's none of their business and doesn't do anything but make them feel they have to take sides, which is unfair. Jess > One more thing, my husband had a very slow work for over a year now, and > despite that, he kept paying the CS as is even though we are withdrawing > from credit cards at times. Now we have the house on the market and we > can't have the kids come to visit us for the summer anyways. What are the chances he could get the CS modified? >He wants me to tell the Mom who doesn't know yet of the financial situation >that the kids will be staying with her for the summer, he said what if she >doesn't want to keep them with her for the summer. Do *not* do this-this is *his* job. Jess > What are the chances he could get the CS modified? Thanks Jess, the thing is my husband does not want to change CS amount, btw, it was just an agreement between him and the mother, no court order. > Do *not* do this-this is *his* job. I agree with you on this, but again, knowing her and her lenghthy conversations... she will keep fighting him over the phone forever and try to find a way around it while if I talk to her, the conversation is limited and right to the point and she can't impose on me what she can on him. That is the only reason I am considering even talking to her, it is not my favorite thing to do. Marie In a previous article, "Marie" <marie@noemail.com> said: >> Do *not* do this-this is *his* job. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >is the only reason I am considering even talking to her, it is not my >favorite thing to do. I think it's time for you husband to grow a spine. If she starts fighting him, he can calmly say "I won't discuss this issue like this" and *hang up*. He has total control over whether or not she keeps him on the line. It's not your job to do these things. He shouldn't be asking you to if it makes you uncomfortable, even if it avoids unpleasantness. It avoids unpleasantness for *him* by offloading it to you. If he doesn't like the way conversations go with his ex, then he's got to figure out how to make them go differently. He doesn't have to keep repeating the same old script. But if you don't want to do this, all you should have to say is "no, sorry." Vicki SignatureOf all the stupid things I've done, this is certainly the most recent. - Chris Clarke > I think it's time for you husband to grow a spine. If she starts > fighting him, he can calmly say "I won't discuss this issue like this" > and *hang up*. He has total control over whether or not she keeps him > on the line. Thanks Vicki, I am sure he can do that, while I don't mind doing it knowing that it'll be shorter and sweeter... I was hoping for comments over the molestation subject and how to handle telling my husband that his kids are not welcome under the same roof with me in a way that doesn't hurt his feelings too. Should I just ignore saying it now since our current situation is imposing on us not to bring them over for the summer, or should I be straightforward and say it as blunt as it is once and for all... Marie In a previous article, "Marie" <marie@noemail.com> said: >I was hoping for comments over the molestation subject and how to handle >telling my husband that his kids are not welcome under the same roof with me >in a way that doesn't hurt his feelings too. Should I just ignore saying it >now since our current situation is imposing on us not to bring them over for >the summer, or should I be straightforward and say it as blunt as it is once >and for all... The problem is that I'm not nearly as convinced as you are that the molestation charge is false. I don't know why the boy/the biomom would accuse a nanny who is no longer on the scene if it were untrue. Plus, I don't see any connection at all between the molestation charge and the boy's annoyance that his dad married you in spite of his being told not to. (I would just laugh that one off, if I were you, and let your husband handle it. Tell him you don't want to hear about it, just handle it.) In any case, if there is the slightest chance that the child *was* molested, then he certainly should not be shut out of your home for that reason. He needs counseling, not rejection. And, if there's a chance that the molestation did occur (or a chance that the biomom believes that it did), the biomom's upset about it is certainly understandable. I guess if I were your husband I'd want to know what I wasn't informed immediately. Maybe you can help us understand more clearly why you believe that the boy/his mother are lying about it. What do they hope to gain? Oh, and again, just brush off the "I don't see why you married her after I told you not to." That's just childish nonsense. Vicki SignatureOf all the stupid things I've done, this is certainly the most recent. - Chris Clarke > In any case, if there is the slightest chance that the child *was* > molested, then he certainly should not be shut out of your home for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > understandable. I guess if I were your husband I'd want to know what > I wasn't informed immediately. > Maybe you can help us understand more clearly why you believe that the > boy/his mother are lying about it. What do they hope to gain? Vicki, I certainly am not rejecting the boy because he was or was not molested. The biomom/kid have a long history of "on the spot" lies. One can't just state all the details. I was the one who took care of those kids when their mom was having fun elsewhere, and I was the one who helped them with their life and study and took care of them when sick... I loved them and still do, but I'm rejecting this mentality and attitude. I am rejecting the idea of being always manipulated and played into the mom's hands. I'm rejecting the idea of me and my husband being always kept alert for any new "creative imagination" that might occur from them. I am rejecting the idea of having to deal with kids who are working as spies for their mom in my house, I am also rejecting even the thought of this boy coming to say one day that I molested him, and he made me fear that by him and his sister trying to throw at me the "child abuse" thing during their summer visit (before this molestation issue even surface)... I am rejecting having to deal with "strangers" in my house who are never being left alone to just express things the way they see but to express what pleases mommy... I am tired and don't care anymore to keep trying to make things work between me and them. I do care they keep a good relationship with their dad, and that should not necessarily take place under my eyes. > Oh, and again, just brush off the "I don't see why you married her > after I told you not to." That's just childish nonsense. I cannot care less about this childish comment, and I myself do believe it is childish and actually it became so transparent. The only reason I mentionned it is because if you can see with me, how come while the issue is the "molestation" of a child which should be "if true" the main issue at hand to discuss and see to it, why is the subject of the ex-husband marrying the stepmom is more important to discuss? Why while the biomom/biodad should be discussing how to deal with the molestation issue, they are discussing why he got married again... Why while the boy supposed to be in deep distress and should be going to counselling, why is he questionning his dad about the woman he married. Believe me, 5 years almost and I am still questionning myself if a woman like our biomom do actually exist. The boy is going to therapy now and that is important. Marie > their mom in my house, I am also rejecting even the thought of this boy > coming to say one day that I molested him, and he made me fear that by > him and his sister trying to throw at me the "child abuse" thing during > their summer visit (before this molestation issue even surface)... I am > rejecting Okay, well look. The fact is, they've made no such allegation. If you were posting here that the boy had accused you, I'd be the first to say you should refuse any private contact with the kid. But he hasn't, and you're overreacting to your fear. > having to deal with "strangers" in my house who are never being left alone > to just express things the way they see but to express what pleases > mommy... I am tired and don't care anymore to keep trying to make things > work between me and them. I do care they keep a good relationship with > their dad, and that should not necessarily take place under my eyes. I guess I'd be okay with your feelings if you weren't translating it into forbidding the children your home. There's no law that says you have to be responsible for the kids, or that you have to do anything in particular for them when they're with you. That's all up to what you and your husband feel comfortable with. There are plenty of people here who have refused to do anything for their stepchildren (without refusing them their home) for a variety of good reasons. Also, am I misunderstanding, or didn't you say the summer visit's off anyway? So what's your problem, why do you need to forbid your husband to bring children home who aren't coming anyway? I'm reading this, and I could be wrong, as you are really quite angry at your spouse and you're trying to make a point to _him_ about something, rather than trying to deal with the children's difficult behavior. > I cannot care less about this childish comment, and I myself do believe it > is childish and actually it became so transparent. The only reason I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > almost and I am still questionning myself if a woman like our biomom do > actually exist. Okay, look. I used to be amazed at the depths of misunderstand that my husband and his ex-wife could sink to. Now I just accept that for whatever reason, they find it impossible to accurately communicate with each other. What's right for this kid, irrespective of whether you believe the allegation or not, irrespective of whether you believe mom has reacted appropriately, is that the allegation be investigated. It isn't up to you to decide it's untrue, and that child's parents - both of them - have an obligation to investigate. rebecca > Okay, well look. The fact is, they've made no such allegation. If you > were posting here that the boy had accused you, I'd be the first to say > you should refuse any private contact with the kid. But he hasn't, and > you're overreacting to your fear. Well Rebecca, If such accusation took place, I won't be sitting here writing, you know that... It is scary what can happen to you overnight. > I guess I'd be okay with your feelings if you weren't translating it into > forbidding the children your home. There's no law that says you have to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > refused to do anything for their stepchildren (without refusing them their > home) for a variety of good reasons. Oh, maybe I missed to say something here, that we are planning on renting an apartement where there is no room for the kids anyways, nor can I imagine a one or 2 bedrooms apartment with 3 kids. > Also, am I misunderstanding, or didn't you say the summer visit's off > anyway? So what's your problem, why do you need to forbid your husband to > bring children home who aren't coming anyway? I'm reading this, and I > could be wrong, as you are really quite angry at your spouse and you're > trying to make a point to _him_ about something, rather than trying to > deal with the children's difficult behavior. I don't want to forbid him from bringing his kids, I don't want his kids to stay with me (that is if I have a house) He can rent a place and stay with them wherever he wishes. > to decide it's untrue, and that child's parents - both of them - have an > obligation to investigate. I stated what I believe regardless if I'm right or wrong. I am not even interfereing, I know that neither the mom nor the dad are investigating anything nor going after the nanny. Marie > I don't want to forbid him from bringing his kids, I don't want his kids > to stay with me (that is if I have a house) > He can rent a place and stay with them wherever he wishes. But don't you see, that's not a real solution? By giving your husband that as his choice, that's really not any choice at all? You guys are _moving in with your parents_, you're in debt and he's sending what you apparently think is too much to his kids. So the two of you maintaining separate residences all summer isn't really a choice. (Are your husband's parents alive? Could they host a summer?) I guess I'd take the summer, when you aren't going to have them anyway, to try to really get at the bottom of what you think you need, and work through with your husband how that need might get met. rebecca > Oh, maybe I missed to say something here, that we are planning on renting > an apartement where there is no room for the kids anyways, nor can I > imagine a one or 2 bedrooms apartment with 3 kids. > I don't want to forbid him from bringing his kids, I don't want his kids > to stay with me (that is if I have a house) > He can rent a place and stay with them wherever he wishes. Might I suggest that he has an obligation to furnish appropriate space for his children and that you can't screw around with that obligation? > I stated what I believe regardless if I'm right or wrong. I am not even > interfereing, I know that neither the mom nor the dad are investigating > anything nor going after the nanny. Then CTFO. They're not accusing you of being an abusive Attila the Hun, they're not rampantly destroying property or being violent from what you've described, so you really don't have much ground to insist that your husband not make space in your house for them. If you don't want to be around them for the summer, then go visit your family. Book a cruise. Go on a retreat. Take yourself out of the picture over the summer, and try to work out some compromise for Christmas. Look, to kids, "mom and dad" is a constant. It's as constant to us as gravity or the sun rising tomorrow. They're not pissed at *you* for being married to their father, they're pissed at you displacing what they view as their mother's place. That's something your husband really needs to be handling. It's not going to change just because it's been five years plus since the divorce-I've known adults whose parents remarried and they had a problem adjusting. Jess > Might I suggest that he has an obligation to furnish appropriate space for > his children and that you can't screw around with that obligation? Of course, you're right. > I was hoping for comments over the molestation subject and how to handle > telling my husband that his kids are not welcome under the same roof with > me in a way that doesn't hurt his feelings too. Should I just ignore > saying it now since our current situation is imposing on us not to bring > them over for the summer, or should I be straightforward and say it as > blunt as it is once and for all... Depends. Why do you not want them in your house with you? Jess > Depends. Why do you not want them in your house with you? I do not want to deal with them anymore or their mother. They are his kids let him deal with them. I don't want to find myself one day accused of child molestation or other fabrications with no means to defend myself. For me, enough is enough. I need to live my life too. Marie > I do not want to deal with them anymore or their mother. They are his kids > let him deal with them. I don't want to find myself one day accused of > child molestation or other fabrications with no means to defend myself. > For me, enough is enough. I need to live my life too. Well, as far as their mother goes, you shouldn't be dealing with her much anyways-that's his job, and you've already gotten a few suggestions on how to bow out of that. As far as dealing with them goes, have you talked to your husband about the behavior you don't like? Jess > As far as dealing with them goes, have you talked to your husband about > the behavior you don't like? I did after they left last summer, and I even suggested either he goes to visit them or rent a vacation house and spend summer with them, forget the Stepmom. He suggested to try their visit for Christmas as it was our turn with them this year, as I said earlier, for couple of days they were ok then same old. I am tired of keep on living on the tip of my toes. Marie > He suggested to try their visit for Christmas as it was our turn with them > this year, as I said earlier, for couple of days they were ok then same > old. I am tired of keep on living on the tip of my toes. What was his reaction? Jess >> He suggested to try their visit for Christmas as it was our turn with >> them this year, as I said earlier, for couple of days they were ok then >> same old. I am tired of keep on living on the tip of my toes. > > What was his reaction? Allow me to laugh. It is like asking 2 helping hands to stop helping :P He wasn't pleased at first, then he kind of understand my point, but this won't be easy on him to take care of 3 kids on his own for the summer without a loving wife cooking/cleaning/ (insert domestic tasks...). I'm just quitting the "nanny" job that i didn't apply for and it is my right. Marie > I think it's time for you husband to grow a spine. If she starts > fighting him, he can calmly say "I won't discuss this issue like this" > and *hang up*. He has total control over whether or not she keeps him > on the line. And this *really* does work, I can say from experience. I used to allow my ex to bully me over the phone, because well.. I thought we needed to get this stuff worked out. So, it just continued and finally I'd had enough and so, when conversations started to turn away from the topic in need of discussion to where nothing would get accomplished, I would give him once chance to get back on topic by saying "Do you want to discuss X,Y Z today or not?" and if it continues say something like "Well, this conversation is now over, let me know when you want to discuss X,Y,Z, but I'm hanging up now". And then make sure you do hang up. They get the message that you're seriously only going to discuss what needs to be worked out regarding the children, and any other issues they may have they can work out with their shrink, if need be. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > They get the message that you're seriously only going to discuss what > needs to be worked out regarding the children, and any other issues they > may have they can work out with their shrink, if need be. LOL, I like this shrink thing. Thanks Cal. Afterall the only thing to be relayed is that she will have for the first time a summer with her kids :) Marie In a previous article, "Marie" <marie@noemail.com> said: >Afterall the only thing to be relayed is that she will have for the first >time a summer with her kids :) He really ought to do that quickly. If it's the regular routine that you guys take the kids for the summer and if she has no idea that it's not going to happen this summer, she's got a right to be annoyed if it's suddenly sprung on her. What will you do if she's got, say, nonrefundable tickets for a trip? Vicki SignatureOf all the stupid things I've done, this is certainly the most recent. - Chris Clarke > He really ought to do that quickly. If it's the regular routine that > you guys take the kids for the summer and if she has no idea that it's > not going to happen this summer, she's got a right to be annoyed if > it's suddenly sprung on her. What will you do if she's got, say, > nonrefundable tickets for a trip? it is not even an option, we buy the tickets always. And I agree, she should've been informed of the financial issue long time ago and the CS should've been revised too. But I'm leaving it up to him to decide for that. Marie > it is not even an option, we buy the tickets always. And I agree, she > should've been informed of the financial issue long time ago and the CS > should've been revised too. But I'm leaving it up to him to decide for > that. > Marie No, what if she has a trip planned for herself and a warm beach in the Bahamas with a fruity rum drink and assorted cute waiters? And ya know, you're *selling your house*. You're going into credit card debt that you might or might not be able to get out of, and there are ramifications that affect *you*, too. For him to expect you to take those long term consequences willingly because he doesn't *want* to lower a monthly bill is at the very least inconsiderate and thoughtless. For you to just wait for him "to decide for that" is foolishness, considering the consequences you could be facing. Jess > No, what if she has a trip planned for herself and a warm beach in the > Bahamas with a fruity rum drink and assorted cute waiters? Then it is just her hard luck. We have no other choice for now, no kids/ no house/no job... and she is the mother, why doesn't she sacrifice her cutie Bahamas waiter :) and have a drink and spend summer with her kids. > And ya know, you're *selling your house*. You're going into credit card > debt that you might or might not be able to get out of, and there are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to just wait for him "to decide for that" is foolishness, considering the > consequences you could be facing. Jess, since we moved here, my husband insisted on having a huge house with 4bedrooms knowing that his kids are coming only for the summer and it's only me and him in the house. The expenses are flying out the window, he is paying a tremendous child support, flying the kids here for the summer and alternating Christmas. For a year now we were able to cover expenses with line of credit and equity bla bla and now credit cards, but one or 2 months down the line, the bank would take the house if it doesn't sell. I do not want to interfere with what he decides to pay his kids for private schooling and CS coz the kids are already failing in private school, can you imagine what it would be like if I insist on sending them to public school ? It'll be that they failed coz we sent them to public school and lowered CS, and it'll be coz I said so. NO, let him see that for himself. Marie > Then it is just her hard luck. We have no other choice for now, no kids/ > no house/no job... > and she is the mother, why doesn't she sacrifice her cutie Bahamas waiter > :) and have a drink and spend summer with her kids. No, it'll be ya'lls hard luck when she tells ya'll to deal, because her tickets are nonrefundable and she either *is* flying out or you guys owe her the cost of the ticket. > Jess, since we moved here, my husband insisted on having a huge house with > 4bedrooms knowing that his kids are coming only for the summer and it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with line of credit and equity bla bla and now credit cards, but one or 2 > months down the line, the bank would take the house if it doesn't sell. OMG. I hate to imagine the debt you guys are in now. And yes, it's the two of you that are in debt. You'd better pray that house sells, because if it forecloses, you are *screwed*. > I do not want to interfere with what he decides to pay his kids for > private schooling and CS coz the kids are already failing in private > school, can you imagine what it would be like if I insist on sending them > to public school ? It'll be that they failed coz we sent them to public > school and lowered CS, and it'll be coz I said so. NO, let him see that > for himself. Somebody needs to drag out the SBoR. You absolutely have the right to tell him he has the option of lowering child support voluntarily and that he needs to consider lowering child support rather than putting ya'll in so much debt that you end up declaring bankruptcy. You're not telling him to *not pay* child support, you're telling him to be responsible about his relationship/life with you. This affects *you* just as much as it does him. It's fine that ya'll are selling a house you patently can't afford, but he needs to lower child support. Look at it this way-if he were out of work and there were a court order, the courts would lower child support while he was out work. He needs to grow up. Jess > No, it'll be ya'lls hard luck when she tells ya'll to deal, because her > tickets are nonrefundable and she either *is* flying out or you guys owe > her the cost of the ticket. The way it goes Jess, is that she needs to see how is the arrangement with the kids coming here for the summer then plan her own. What is SBoR? > The way it goes Jess, is that she needs to see how is the arrangement with > the kids coming here for the summer then plan her own. Ok, but if ya'll have consistently taken the kids over the summer, then you can't exactly say "well, she has to wait on us." And ya know-turn it around. How would you feel if you were expected to wait for someone else to make their plans before you made yours, never mind that those plans got made/changed at the last minute? > What is SBoR? Stepparent's Bill of Rights. Jess > And ya know-turn it around. How would you feel if you were expected to > wait for someone else to make their plans before you made yours, never > mind that those plans got made/changed at the last minute? Jess, there is no problem there, all I meant is that before she does any arrangement, she sees what are ours, and vice versa, it is not like she is waiting for us to do what suits us then do hers, it wouldn't even be fair no would we accept that. But we are still in May, and the kids won't finish school until mid June, and won't be coming for the summer before July, so now is the time to book flights... There is no date set as when is it to fly the kids over. Beside, this is our second year with this arrangement, so nothing set in stone. >> What is SBoR? > > Stepparent's Bill of Rights. Thanks Marie > You absolutely have the right to tell > him he has the option of lowering child support voluntarily and that he > needs to consider lowering child support Could be he's been underpaying what the court would require, which might be why he doesn't want to open that can of worms, has that been addressed yet? SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > Could be he's been underpaying what the court would require, which might > be why he doesn't want to open that can of worms, has that been addressed > yet? Cal, there is an online CS calculator that gives you approx. amount of what it is supposed to be paid. We used that and even added to it. no way he is underpaying. At least I hope not, but I know a whole family living off the amount he pays for CS. Marie > and she is the mother, why doesn't she sacrifice her cutie Bahamas waiter > :) and have a drink and spend summer with her kids. um, because she and her ex have an agreement about their parenting time, and she has the right to assume that he'll keep up what he's agreed to? Look, I'm super sympathetic. I adore my stepson and being his stepmother is still really freaking hard. But you have some marital issues here that I'm hearing louder than the kid ones. You really need to iron some of this out with your husband. You posted earlier that you have the right to quit the 'nanny' job you didn't apply for. And that's true. But then you post that you're actually considering being the one to call up mom and tell her you guys won't take the kids for the summer. This.Is.Not.Your.Job. If you don't want to be the nanny, and you don't want to communicate with the ex wife, then you need to clearly and explicitly tell your husband that you feel you've gotten overinvolved, and assumed some things that are really his to do, and in the future, you're willing to do x, y and z. And then you need to let him f*ck up any and all tasks that you have handed back to him. Without interfering. On the money side, you need to protect yourself by involving yourself more in decisions about where the two of you live, and how money is spent. I'm of the opinion that you're screwed on the CS amount, but you have have IMO equal weight in deciding how the leftover money is spent. rebecca > um, because she and her ex have an agreement about their parenting time, > and she has the right to assume that he'll keep up what he's agreed to? You are absolutely right. I even would want to know of the financial situation ahead of time so if I can have different arrangements for my kids. But again, that is his decision not mine, and I expressed it to him already. > Look, I'm super sympathetic. I adore my stepson and being his stepmother > is still really freaking hard. But you have some marital issues here that > I'm hearing louder than the kid ones. You really need to iron some of > this out with your husband. maybe I'm too deep into it, what marital issues do you see. > You posted earlier that you have the right to quit the 'nanny' job you > didn't apply for. And that's true. But then you post that you're > actually considering being the one to call up mom and tell her you guys > won't take the kids for the summer. This.Is.Not.Your.Job. I had posted in another reply that I took the decision to let him do his job and that it is not mine. I was confused and was thinking of cutting the conversation short. > On the money side, you need to protect yourself by involving yourself more > in decisions about where the two of you live, and how money is spent. I'm > of the opinion that you're screwed on the CS amount, but you have have IMO > equal weight in deciding how the leftover money is spent. Trying, and hopefully the next step would be better planned. Marie > maybe I'm too deep into it, what marital issues do you see. 1. The two of you are not on the same page with financial issues, notably around the children. You're saying things are totally his decision, but many of those things (CS, private school, visitations) directly affect your life, and you have the right to participate in these discussions and jointly make the decisions you can. 2. He's asking you to communicate with his ex-wife on his behalf. (You neither married her, nor procreated with her, this is so out of line I can't even believe it. Well, okay, I can believe it, but that doesn't make it any less crappy.) 3. You're cooking, cleaning and ferrying his children around when they're with you, and you're at least semi-bitter about it. 4. You're stuffing down a lot of resentment about how his children behave towards you. They're _children_, which isn't an excuse for their behavior, but it is their _father's_ job to set and enforce expectations of how they behave, what they say and do in your home. From what you've posted, he's miserably f.cking failing at that. That's off the top of my head, Marie. rebecca > 1. The two of you are not on the same page with financial issues, notably > around the children. You're saying things are totally his decision, but > many of those things (CS, private school, visitations) directly affect > your life, and you have the right to participate in these discussions and > jointly make the decisions you can. It is not my business if they send the kids to Harvard. It is my business, when the money going to Harvard was supposed to pay our monthly bills. > 2. He's asking you to communicate with his ex-wife on his behalf. (You > neither married her, nor procreated with her, this is so out of line I > can't even believe it. Well, okay, I can believe it, but that doesn't > make it any less crappy.) Well, when he can get a free ride, why wouldn't he. but no more. > 3. You're cooking, cleaning and ferrying his children around when they're > with you, and you're at least semi-bitter about it. This is going to an end too. > 4. You're stuffing down a lot of resentment about how his children behave > towards you. They're _children_, which isn't an excuse for their behavior, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's off the top of my head, Marie. Thanks Rebecca > 1. The two of you are not on the same page with financial issues, notably > around the children. You're saying things are totally his decision, but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > can't even believe it. Well, okay, I can believe it, but that doesn't > make it any less crappy.) I just communicated to my husband that he needs to talk to his X not me, I got the look of how come I'm detaching and not helping. I said you need to do this not me, I don't see how can I tell the mother of your kids that my husband won't have the kids for this summer. The first thing he replies was what if she asks me what am I still doing here if I have no job. It meant nothing to him that this is none of her business. I don't know why after all these years he feels the obligation to fill her in on our matters and answer every question she has. As I suggested to him to mention to her that she *might* just might be looking at sending the kids to public school for next year and that she should start looking into it, he reiterated that this won't ever happen, not to his kids and no matter what he will keep paying the full CS. I'm in a kind of shock here. Someone tell me please, when you have financial issues, don't you start cutting your expenses, I don't necessarily mean the kids' money, at the contrary, I am a 100% with supporting your kids and more, but when you are in a so tight situation, you should consider options, or am I wrong here? We already cut down on every damn thing we had for over a year, we don't even afford going to the movies, this is unreal. I guess Rebecca you were right. Marie >> I'm in a kind of shock here. Someone tell me please, when you have >> financial [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > had for over a year, we don't even afford going to the movies, this is > unreal. Is there any special reason he doesn't want the kids going to a public school? Are they getting special services or special programs or are they in their last year? Jess > Is there any special reason he doesn't want the kids going to a public > school? Are they getting special services or special programs or are they > in their last year? > > Jess The public schools in CA are the worst as I was told. Besides, our kids always were made to believe of public schools as a "punishement". We just discussed the issue again, and he just doesn't want to ruin his relationship with the kids and I can understand that. (i.e., the kids feeling that they are being punished/abandonned/...) nor does he want the X to use this against him to further manipulate the kids against him. Marie > The public schools in CA are the worst as I was told. Besides, our kids > always were made to believe of public schools as a "punishement". We just > discussed the issue again, and he just doesn't want to ruin his > relationship with the kids and I can understand that. (i.e., the kids > feeling that they are being punished/abandonned/...) *snorts* Attending public school won't trash his relationship with his children, as long as it's presented/handled appopriately. > nor does he want the X to use this against him to further manipulate the > kids against him. Ok, here's something that's *really difficult* to learn to do. You have to learn to make decisions for your family without thinking about how/whether the ex is going to use it to manipulate the kids. Jess > and she is the mother, why doesn't she sacrifice her cutie Bahamas > waiter :) and have a drink and spend summer with her kids. Eh, that attitude really sucks. He's the father, too. Many fathers fight tooth and nail to have parenting time with their kids and he's just gonna walk away from his? SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >> and she is the mother, why doesn't she sacrifice her cutie Bahamas >> waiter :) and have a drink and spend summer with her kids. > > Eh, that attitude really sucks. He's the father, too. Many fathers fight > tooth and nail to have parenting time with their kids and he's just gonna > walk away from his? That was a funny reply from me, Cal. I already stated that it is not fair for the mother. but as the situation is now, the man is not working nor can he afford to bring his kids over and the house is on the market... this father stayed with his kids when the mom left them, and he took care of them full time for 5 years before we got married, then 3 years with me, she wasn't even caring having one week vacation with them. Until we moved here a year and a half ago, until she chose to keep them with her. I can't accuse him of not wanting to spend time with his kids. It is already hard on him the way it is. Marie > Thanks Jess, the thing is my husband does not want to change CS amount, > btw, it was just an agreement between him and the mother, no court order. Ok, let me get this straight-you two are going into credit card debt and *selling your house* because your husband doesn't want to lower a CS amount that's not even in a court order? Honey, hell would f.cking *freeze over* before I'd sell my house under that kind of circumstance. > I agree with you on this, but again, knowing her and her lenghthy > conversations... she will keep fighting him over the phone forever and try > to find a way around it while if I talk to her, the conversation is > limited and right to the point and she can't impose on me what she can on > him. That is the only reason I am considering even talking to her, it is > not my favorite thing to do. Tough. Not your kids, not your job. He's a big boy, he can do it himself. Jess > Ok, let me get this straight-you two are going into credit card debt and > *selling your house* because your husband doesn't want to lower a CS > amount that's not even in a court order? Honey, hell would f.cking *freeze > over* before I'd sell my house under that kind of circumstance. Well, as I said in another post, we have a way too big of a house for the 2 of us, I am sure all of you know what expenses mean, and work had been so slow. I didn't mind not affecting CS or private schooling during a school year, but I certainly am not comfortable with the kids and Mom living off our credit cards as if nothing going on, nor do I want to tell my husband to send his kids to public school also mentioned in another post. > Tough. Not your kids, not your job. He's a big boy, he can do it himself. Thanks, I decided that too, this is his job alone. Marie > nor do I want to tell my husband to send his kids to public school also > mentioned in another post. How he and his ex afford the private school is their business. Him blowing ya'lls budget and sending you two into debt by sending out more money than you can afford *is* your business. Jess > How he and his ex afford the private school is their business. Him blowing > ya'lls budget and sending you two into debt by sending out more money than > you can afford *is* your business. You are right, I can't believe how one gets entangled into his own problems that one can't even think realistically. Thanks, Marie > You are right, I can't believe how one gets entangled into his own > problems that one can't even think realistically. Happens to everyone, especially when it's their kids that are involved. *shrugs* Jess >> Thanks Jess, the thing is my husband does not want to change CS amount, >> btw, it was just an agreement between him and the mother, no court order. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > amount that's not even in a court order? Honey, hell would f.cking *freeze > over* before I'd sell my house under that kind of circumstance. Maybe it's a question of honour and principle for him, Jess? I know quite a few men who put their children's needs for private school and the like over their own needs. What's surprising is if those things weren't known when he and his new wife made commitments to each other. Wendy > What's surprising is if those things weren't known when he and his new > wife made commitments to each other. > > Wendy Oh, come on, Wendy, you're not surprised at all, really, are you? > Oh, come on, Wendy, you're not surprised at all, really, are you? Could you marry someone without knowing them that well? I couldn't, or at least wouldn't. I know people do, though I'm always surprised by it. Barclay must surely know that I feel a responsibility towards my children which can and has meant going without myself, not to the point of living on credit completely though, I'm very careful about money and debt. It could be guilt which makes him behave the way he does. It could be some sense of trying to do for his children what his parents did for him. There could be lots of reasons why he's prepared to risk debt, rather than require his children to change. I've a friend whose children are mixed race and for him private school is something he wants for them even to the point of living as a lodger in someone else's house for years, even though he's got a huge debt he's still paying off from when he and his ex were together. Sometimes we're drawn to the same qualities that irritate, e.g. 'he's such a generous thoughtful person, he cares so much and puts others before himself' could become in time 'why can't he put himself, and more importantly us, first for a change'. Remembering that can help you to stop feeling angry or frustrated. Wendy >> Oh, come on, Wendy, you're not surprised at all, really, are you? > > Could you marry someone without knowing them that well? I couldn't, or at > least wouldn't. I know people do, though I'm always surprised by it. You know, but people don't always go into divorce with a clear idea of what they will and won't do vis-a-vis money/time/attention for their ex/kids. I don't know the guy from adam, maybe it makes him feel less guilty for getting divorced from their mother. Maybe he promised his ex and wants to live up to that. Maybe he hates dealing with her so much that he'd take it up the a.s for years before saying a word. Could be a combination of all of those, or something else again. I worked through a _ton_ with my DH before we even moved in together. But we still come across stuff that one or the other of us decides we feel strongly about that surprises the other. All that being said, I think the vast vast vast majority of remarriages are done with little discussion and a lot of assuming. Money and the stepkids, two biggest reasons for re-divorce. rebecca Rebecca, we went into deep depts to keep our word and to not get the kids out of private school in the middle of the year, that I accept. But to keep going on deeper depts to keep sending the kids to private school regardless of how we live or where we live and with the BM not working and not feeling the heat and not contributing, that is what bothers me. Marie > Rebecca, we went into deep depts to keep our word and to not get the kids > out of private school in the middle of the year, that I accept. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > working and not feeling the heat and not contributing, that is what > bothers me. Well, I totally understand the whole BM not contributing thing, believe me. If you've never heard my rant on the subject, mine makes more off alimony and child support than I made off working 40+ hours a week. Chewing on that can make you mighty cranky. But. Your husband is allowing this. There are ways to try to get contribution out of the CP, in California (I think that's what you said) especially. Income can be imputed to a spouse that refuses to work. But it takes a request by the other spouse. So, not to be too circular, but we're right back at this is a marital problem. BM can behave however she likes, and however her ex-husband allows her to. If she and your husband agreed she should stay home during the marriage, she may feel the divorce didn't change her right to do that. I'm totally with you on the actual parents should be responsible for the kids, way before the stepparent should have to assume responsibility. But it only works that way if the actual parents - both of them - cooperate. rebecca > But. Your husband is allowing this. There are ways to try to get > contribution out of the CP, in California (I think that's what you said) > especially. Income can be imputed to a spouse that refuses to work. But > it takes a request by the other spouse. CA, right, but I didn't undertand the part about making the CP contribute? Not that it will ever get to force her to either contribute or lower the CS, but out of curiosity. > So, not to be too circular, but we're right back at this is a marital > problem. BM can behave however she likes, and however her ex-husband > allows her to. If she and your husband agreed she should stay home during > the marriage, she may feel the divorce didn't change her right to do that. There is no agreement of any kind on her staying home or not. Marie > CA, right, but I didn't undertand the part about making the CP contribute? > Not that it will ever get to force her to either contribute or lower the > CS, but out of curiosity. In CA (and in AZ, where I'm at), child support is calculated as a percentage of the parent's incomes. If a parent isn't working and doesn't have some sort of documented disability that would prevent him from working, the court assumes that the nonworking parent is capable of earning either what that parent earned at the last job worked or at the adult minimum wage, working full time. That's called imputing income-it's basically saying "you can earn at least this much, so this is what we'll use to calculate child support." In your case, if BM is a lawyer, she'd probably need a really good reason for why she's not working; either way, her not working is likely to seriously hurt the amount of child support she would be awarded. > There is no agreement of any kind on her staying home or not. An agreement could be something between the two of them or something documented in court order. Is there *anything* in court order? Jess > In CA (and in AZ, where I'm at), child support is calculated as a > percentage of the parent's incomes. If a parent isn't working and doesn't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > basically saying "you can earn at least this much, so this is what we'll > use to calculate child support." Nice to know, thanks. (if you don't mind me asking, how far from Phoenix are you, we might be moving there, we have job offers there. Glendale, AZ) > In your case, if BM is a lawyer, she'd probably need a really good reason > for why she's not working; either way, her not working is likely to > seriously hurt the amount of child support she would be awarded. Good point. > An agreement could be something between the two of them or something > documented in court order. Is there *anything* in court order? > > Jess No, nothing. Marie > Nice to know, thanks. (if you don't mind me asking, how far from Phoenix > are you, we might be moving there, we have job offers there. Glendale, AZ) I'm pretty close to Phoenix, but Glendale is a decent drive, depending on traffic. > No, nothing. Do you have a copy of his divorce decree? There's got to be *something* in there, even if it's a one liner that your DH and the BM will work things out themselves. Jess > > But. Your husband is allowing this. There are ways to try to get > > contribution out of the CP, in California (I think that's what you said) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not that it will ever get to force her to either contribute or lower the CS, > but out of curiosity. It wouldn't be her choice. The judge would calculate the child support based on the total picture -- what your husband makes, and what she *could* make (the imputed income). I went back to grad school for a couple of years after the divorce. I was working part-time and going to school full-time. The judge imputed a certain level of income onto me (well above what I was making) because it was, indeed, my choice to go back to school, rather than working full-time at a job I could get right then. It was expected, and it was fine by me. A parent just can't "opt" out of their financial contribution to their children. Sheila > I went back to grad school for a couple of years after the divorce. I was > working part-time and going to school full-time. The judge imputed a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sheila Thanks Sheila, so what you're telling me now makes our CS calculations all wrong, coz we based it on the BM income = 0. Marie > Thanks Sheila, so what you're telling me now makes our CS calculations all > wrong, coz we based it on the BM income = 0. Unless there's some disability that keeps her from working, that's correct. Jess >> Thanks Sheila, so what you're telling me now makes our CS calculations >> all wrong, coz we based it on the BM income = 0. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jess Mentally ill? LOL Marie >> Thanks Sheila, so what you're telling me now makes our CS calculations >> all wrong, coz we based it on the BM income = 0. > > Unless there's some disability that keeps her from working, that's > correct. Or unless Marie's husband agrees not to make it an issue... > > I went back to grad school for a couple of years after the divorce. I was > > working part-time and going to school full-time. The judge imputed a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Marie If you have calculated CS payments with her income as zero, then yes. Assuming she has nothing that is *preventing* her from working (other than an unwillingness to do so), she is responsible, in the eyes of the law, to be providing income for those kids. Sheila > If you have calculated CS payments with her income as zero, then yes. > Assuming she has nothing that is *preventing* her from working (other than > an unwillingness to do so), she is responsible, in the eyes of the law, to > be providing income for those kids. > > Sheila I did not know that. I thought by law they consider only whoever is making an income. I assume if this goes to court, (curiosity again) her income will be calculated for what she does not just the minimum wage, as of course it will be for my husband. Marie > > > But. Your husband is allowing this. There are ways to try to get > > > contribution out of the CP, in California (I think that's what you said) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Sheila In California, and in Arizona as well from what I can tell, visitation is another major factor in the calculation of support. In fact, in California it is such a major factor that if you have a "0" visitation percentage, the custodial parent's income works out to be effectively almost irrelevent in the support calculation. So the money saved on cost of flights and housing might be eaten up by a larger support order, even without considering the emotional effect on the kids of such a sudden change in their opportunity to spend time with their father. Am I correct in understanding that these kids have gone from living with their dad almost full time, to now not even being able to see him during the summer, in just a few years time? Maybe some of the behavioral problems you saw over the holidays could be related to this change, regardless of how it came about? brenna > In California, and in Arizona as well from what I can tell, visitation > is another major factor in the calculation of support. In fact, in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > such a sudden change in their opportunity to spend time with their > father. The way it worked out is that we arranged for so many visits to CA for the dad to spend time with the kids during the year at birthdays and holidays... it sums up to almost 20% not 0%. And 20% is way more than what they used to see their mom who lived 5 minutes away from them before they moved with her. > Am I correct in understanding that these kids have gone from living > with their dad almost full time, to now not even being able to see him [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > brenna Correct, and that is what THEY wanted, long story, but they were manipulated to throw daily tantrums and extreme resentment behavior so we let them go live with their mom before we even sold the house in CA. Second, nobody said the kids not seeing their father during the summer, we said, the kids not flying to the east, but that doesn't eliminate him going to CA to visit them during the summer. Their behavior is a mix of a lot of things, I know those kids are the most of all who got hurt. Marie > Rebecca, we went into deep depts to keep our word and to not get the kids > out of private school in the middle of the year, that I accept. Ok, if it's the middle of the school year, you might not have much of a choice until next year. > But to keep going on deeper depts to keep sending the kids to private > school regardless of how we live or where we live and with the BM not > working and not feeling the heat and not contributing, that is what > bothers me. What BM does, unfortunately, isn't something you can change. The only options you have right now are to either find some way of tolerating this as it stands now, or trying to get some sort of agreement from your husband to temporarily lower the child support to something that's affordable. You've already heard a few warnings that you might get to experience the pleasantries of a court visit behind it, but there it is... Jess > You know, but people don't always go into divorce with a clear idea of > what they will and won't do vis-a-vis money/time/attention for their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > we still come across stuff that one or the other of us decides we feel > strongly about that surprises the other. It would be boring if you didn't, but in principle don't you have a good idea about how he'd feel about most things? > All that being said, I think the vast vast vast majority of remarriages > are done with little discussion and a lot of assuming. Money and the > stepkids, two biggest reasons for re-divorce. No doubt you are right. Wendy > Maybe it's a question of honour and principle for him, Jess? I know quite > a few men who put their children's needs for private school and the like > over their own needs. Honor and principle is all well and good, but throwing him and his wife both into credit card debt and selling their house because he doesn't want to *temporarily* lower a child support amount that's voluntary to boot would send me beyond orbital (caveat: I agree with selling the four bedroom house-two bedrooms that are empty most of the year is foolishness). Education is a necessity, private school is not. Clothing is a necessity, $50 jeans are not. > What's surprising is if those things weren't known when he and his new > wife made commitments to each other. Really? I'm not. I was an absolute idiot the first time around and didn't even contemplate these issues. Jess > Honor and principle is all well and good, but throwing him and his wife > both into credit card debt and selling their house because he doesn't want [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > foolishness). Education is a necessity, private school is not. Clothing is > a necessity, $50 jeans are not. Okay, but Jess, realistically, reducing may not be an option for this guy. Once an NCP establishes an amount of CS, even if its over guideline, reducing it can be a bitch unless the other parent cooperates. Not saying Marie's husband should even ask, but we've all been here long enough to know that the BM's response may be "cold day in hell". So let's not make it sound like it's a simple, rational thing to do. And if dad's committed to paying private school, he may be screwed. Marie, are you guys paying it *all* or half? We pay half, and I promise you if we tried to push public school, BM would go nuts on a stick. rebecca > Okay, but Jess, realistically, reducing may not be an option for this guy. > Once an NCP establishes an amount of CS, even if its over guideline, > reducing it can be a bitch unless the other parent cooperates. Not saying > Marie's husband should even ask, but we've all been here long enough to > know that the BM's response may be "cold day in hell". Yabbut, didn't the OP say there wasn't even a court order? So if the BM tried to take him to court, she would have to establish the order first, and he could explain at that time that he was able to pay the amount when he had a job, which he doesn't have now. And with the efforts he's gone to to maintain the child support, I think he'd get some slack. Either way, by the court hearing, it could be a moot point. > So let's not make it sound like it's a simple, rational thing to do. And > if dad's committed to paying private school, he may be screwed. Which would require a court order that I seem to recall not existing.... >BM would go nuts on a stick. .... That's an interesting image. Jess > Which would require a court order that I seem to recall not existing.... Well... my experience has been that the court tends to continue anything and everything that the parents have committed to, court order or no. Not saying other people haven't worked out differently. I'm just concerned that Marie might get the impression that its all as easy as her husband saying "hey, BM, I can't pay this anymore." And let me repeat, that's no excuse for the guy not trying, especially if he and Marie are strapped. But it may be her only realistic solution is to (a) get a job or (b) leave, if she can't handle that he's committed to overcommitting, IYKWIM. >>BM would go nuts on a stick. > > .... > > That's an interesting image. Yeah, I'm a fount of useless imagery. Personally, I thought yesterday's pigs crapping gold twinkies would have gotten more reaction, but to each her own. (-: rebecca > And let me repeat, that's no excuse for the guy not trying, especially if > he and Marie are strapped. But it may be her only realistic solution is > to (a) get a job or (b) leave, if she can't handle that he's committed to > overcommitting, IYKWIM. Yup. I'm a bit surprised that there's nothing in the way of a court order. > Yeah, I'm a fount of useless imagery. Personally, I thought yesterday's > pigs crapping gold twinkies would have gotten more reaction, but to each > her own. (-: One of DH's favorite sayings involved a bear defecating purple bricks. *shrugs* Tho' if you find a pig that craps a gold twinkie, pass me a bar or few. We could use the money. ;) Jess > Tho' if you find a pig that craps a gold twinkie, pass me a bar or few. We > could use the money. ;) Appropos of absolutely nothing, when I was about 6, I ate an entire box of twinkies my mom had bought. I didn't eat another until I was 34, in Hawaii at Pearl Harbor, waiting for my boat. It was all I could find to eat, and I was starving. I was nauseous for hours, my body had totally remember the last time I ate these things. rebecca > Appropos of absolutely nothing, when I was about 6, I ate an entire box of > twinkies my mom had bought. I didn't eat another until I was 34, in > Hawaii at Pearl Harbor, waiting for my boat. It was all I could find to > eat, and I was starving. I was nauseous for hours, my body had totally > remember the last time I ate these things. That makes me queasy just thinking about it. Jess > Well... my experience has been that the court tends to continue anything > and everything that the parents have committed to, court order or no. Not > saying other people haven't worked out differently. I'm just concerned > that Marie might get the impression that its all as easy as her husband > saying "hey, BM, I can't pay this anymore." No, Rebecca, I don't think it is easy nor I want my husband to just get off the hook paying CS, it is his responsibility. I am saying when he is not doing and have no job, to keep it to the necessarily to keep feeding those kids. The only thing that is troubling me, is that when he is not making enough money, the BM should get off her you know what and do her "responsibility" as well before the SM. Nobody tells me I'm wrong here. I didn't/don't mind helping him to FEED his kids, but not to send them to private school and feed mommy and her bf as well. > And let me repeat, that's no excuse for the guy not trying, especially if > he and Marie are strapped. But it may be her only realistic solution is > to (a) get a job or (b) leave, if she can't handle that he's committed to > overcommitting, IYKWIM. You mean "my" only realistic solution or the BM's? I believe you meant mine. To that I tell you, No, it is not my responsibility to send those kids to private school, I'm sorry, and "leave"?? You mean leave my husband because he now doesn't have a job and his X won't accept he lowers the CS?? You lost me. Marie > You mean "my" only realistic solution or the BM's? I believe you meant > mine. To that I tell you, No, it is not my responsibility to send those > kids to private school, I'm sorry, and "leave"?? You mean leave my husband > because he now doesn't have a job and his X won't accept he lowers the > CS?? If you and your husband can't get on the same page about finances (how much he sends for child support, etc), your only two options are going to be either to tolerate it or to leave. What this means is that unless you two can come to some sort of agreement about how much child support he pays, you may very well end up having to live the situation you have now. We're not saying to leave him because he's out of work. What we are saying is that you also have to make a choice on what you're willing to tolerate. Jess > If you and your husband can't get on the same page about finances (how > much he sends for child support, etc), your only two options are going to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jess We are not fighting or arguing, as I said earlier, I'm leaving it up to him to decide regarding his kids. But you bet I won't be helping. And isn't the BM's responsibility as well to support her own kids if she wants to send them to private school? Marie > We are not fighting or arguing, as I said earlier, I'm leaving it up > to him to decide regarding his kids. But you bet I won't be helping. > And isn't the BM's responsibility as well to support her own kids if > she wants to send them to private school? Absolutely. I'm on the flip side of this right now and I only wish my ex was half as conscientous as your husband is regarding supporting his children. I can certainly understand your frustration. Like Rebecca said though, a judge may very well be loathe to change a support amount, without cause. Even though there is no court order, there is a precedent set by your DH by what he's paid up till now. Since he lost his job, it seems that there is cause. What will matter to the judge is why he lost it as to whether it would be taken into consideration, best of my knowledge on that subject. But also, if the BM isn't working and the kids are school age to start with, it would certainly seem your husband has cause for a possible reduction in payments. I can understand your husband's desire to get the kids through their schooling where they currently are, as I've been sticking to this school district to my financial detriment for some time and yes, it's a choice that is not easily explained to those on the outside, so I can completely sympathize with your husband on that one. But ages of the children would come into play here for me. I've done this because at the time, my oldest only had 2 years left of HS. Now, my DD has only 1 year left and though it gets more difficult every single day, I still look for ways to keep us here. Wish I had something helpful to say ATM. That the BM isn't working, and he is out of work, IIWM, I'd at least make an attempt at reduction. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com > Wish I had something helpful to say ATM. That the BM isn't working, and > he is out of work, IIWM, I'd at least make an attempt at reduction. Thanks Cal., just pray with us to get out of this situation and start all over again... Marie > We are not fighting or arguing, as I said earlier, I'm leaving it up to > him to decide regarding his kids. But you bet I won't be helping. And > isn't the BM's responsibility as well to support her own kids if she wants > to send them to private school? Is it only BM who made the choice what school to send them to? It can be very difficult and stressful for children to change schools, lose touch with friends, lose extracurricular activities. Have you talked to your DH about why he feels so strongly about trying to keep this going? Wendy > Is it only BM who made the choice what school to send them to? No, the kids lived with us before and we chose their school. > It can be very difficult and stressful for children to change schools, > lose touch with friends, lose extracurricular activities. Have you talked > to your DH about why he feels so strongly about trying to keep this going? > > Wendy Definitely, nobody is arguing that this will have an impact on the kids. But, when you are out of work, you have no more money to send your kids to private school, tell me what do you do? you feed your kids or you worry about their extracurricular activities? Marie > Definitely, nobody is arguing that this will have an impact on the kids. > But, when you are out of work, you have no more money to send your kids to > private school, tell me what do you do? you feed your kids or you worry > about their extracurricular activities? Feeding comes first, definitely, but education is very important too. Wendy >> You mean "my" only realistic solution or the BM's? I believe you meant >> mine. To that I tell you, No, it is not my responsibility to send those [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > We're not saying to leave him because he's out of work. What we are saying > is that you also have to make a choice on what you're willing to tolerate. Yeah, what Jess said. And Marie, you aren't in a situation of BM won't accept lower child support. You're in a situation that your husband won't even ASK her. That's a world different. rebecca > Yeah, what Jess said. And Marie, you aren't in a situation of BM won't > accept lower child support. You're in a situation that your husband won't > even ASK her. That's a world different. > > rebecca You're right. The reason he won't even ask her is because she has a history of making things worse. My husband is afraid she'd tell the kids more garbage about their dad abandonning them and now lowering CS. Marie > You're right. The reason he won't even ask her is because she has a > history of making things worse. My husband is afraid she'd tell the kids > more garbage about their dad abandonning them and now lowering CS. Ok, but see, he can't base his actions on what she might or might not do, what she might or might not tell the kids. He has to base the actions off of reality, what's concretely sitting in front of him. If she's going to trash him to the kids, she'll trash him for wearing a tie to work or what brand of toilet paper he uses, so it doesn't really matter either way; the kids will be fine. If ya'll are looking at having to live in a homeless shelter (exagerration, yes) because ya'll can't afford a place to live, that's what he has to base his decision off of, not what his ex might or might not do. Does that make sense? Jess them and now lowering CS. > Ok, but see, he can't base his actions on what she might or might not do, > what she might or might not tell the kids. He has to base the actions off [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jess Gosh Jess! those were almost my exact words. The woman did the damage already, she trashed him/us while the kids were living with us, she's not gonna stop now for no matter what. I added that it sounds like an excuse to me. As previously pointed, it is a matter of "honor" for him and I think he's "ashamed" to be looked at now as (even temporarily) "out of work". Marie > Gosh Jess! those were almost my exact words. Oh god. Please tell me you were kinder than I was. ;) >The woman did the damage already, she trashed him/us while the kids were >living with us, she's not gonna stop now for no matter what. Pretty much. > I added that it sounds like an excuse to me. As previously pointed, it is > a matter of "honor" for him and I think he's "ashamed" to be looked at now > as (even temporarily) "out of work". It's very likely, and you're going to have to address that one yourself. My first husband had a very serious complex about not working when he was on disability, and my second husband went neurotic the first few months he was back at school and went from fulltime taking whatever overtime he could get to working parttime. Jess > You're right. The reason he won't even ask her is because she has a > history of making things worse. My husband is afraid she'd tell the kids > more garbage about their dad abandonning them and now lowering CS. Right. But can you see that this thinking is self-limiting? You're back to blaming BM. What's happening is *DH* is allowing her shittiness to hold him hostage to the realities of his life. This.Is.Your.Husband's.Issue. Maybe he's right, and she'll be a shithead. But really, it's not fair to make you hostage _your_ future because he's a spineless dick. (okay, that was just for effect, I'm not really calling your DH bad names...) You Matter Too. If your husband isn't caring for his current relationship enough to keep you guys out of the poorhouse, then he's doing a pisspoor job at managing his life. rebecca > Right. But can you see that this thinking is self-limiting? You're back > to blaming BM. What's happening is *DH* is allowing her shittiness to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > make you hostage _your_ future because he's a spineless dick. (okay, that > was just for effect, I'm not really calling your DH bad names...) LOL > You Matter Too. If your husband isn't caring for his current relationship > enough to keep you guys out of the poorhouse, then he's doing a pisspoor > job at managing his life. > > rebecca Now we're talking. This was my entire issue. I am not denying his kids their rights, but this situation didn't sound good to me. Marie > > Which would require a court order that I seem to recall not existing.... > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > pigs crapping gold twinkies would have gotten more reaction, but to each her > own. (-: "Pigs crapping gold twinkies!" I silently loved it rebecca......every so often I giggle just thinking about it! fox > rebecca > Honor and principle is all well and good, but throwing him and his wife > both into credit card debt and selling their house because he doesn't want [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > foolishness). Education is a necessity, private school is not. Clothing is > a necessity, $50 jeans are not. That is 3 empty bedrooms, Jess, not only 2. And you are right sending your kids to school is a must, sending them to private school is not. I did mean to lower the CS "temporarily" indeed, while things are bad until we go back to normal. I don't believe, once you have kids, that CS can be called voluntary, I see it as a must for both parents to support their kids. Still, I'm leaving it to him to decide on that, his kids/his money. Marie > That is 3 empty bedrooms, Jess, not only 2. Wow. > I don't believe, once you have kids, that CS can be called voluntary, I > see it as a must for both parents to support their kids. Absolutely, never said otherwise. > Still, I'm leaving it to him to decide on that, his kids/his money. His kids, *ya'lls* money. Jess > And you are right sending your kids to school is a must, sending them to > private school is not. okay, at the risk of getting yelled at for repeating myself. Your husband is the central problem right now. He hasn't _asked_ BM for changes, he's told you he _doesn't want_ changes. Woops, I take it back, maybe you are the central problem. DH and BM appear to be content with the status quo. I know lots of people who would disagree that private school is not a must. That's a value judgement that parents need to make, and apparently, your stepchildren's parents have made it. I say apparently, because it isn't clear to me how BM feels, while your DH has been pretty upfront with you. Do you have children? Do you work? I can't remember. I'm not trying to be nosy, but if you don't work, I'm going to have to ask you why not. rebecca > okay, at the risk of getting yelled at for repeating myself. Your husband > is the central problem right now. He hasn't _asked_ BM for changes, he's > told you he _doesn't want_ changes. Woops, I take it back, maybe you are > the central problem. DH and BM appear to be content with the status quo. WOW! Now I have to look at things from a different perspective. your DH has been pretty upfront with you. > Do you have children? Do you work? I can't remember. I'm not trying to > be nosy, but if you don't work, I'm going to have to ask you why not. > > rebecca I don't have children and yes I work. Marie > I don't have children and yes I work. Okay, good. Now, honestly, if you're really at the end of your rope about this, what you do is work on separating the finances. You pay *half* of your mutually agreed upon, joint expenses. Or you pay some percentage based upon who makes more. He pays the rest. Leftover money gets done whatever the owner of that money wants to do. Wow, that was a terrible sentence, but you know what I mean. I think it is 100% wrong that your DH expect you to shoulder this burden. I suspect it's happening because he's accustomed to thinking of the whole money pot as 'available' for expenses, of which his children are included. He'll probably call you all the names he's afraid BM will call him, if you try to pull out. But you know what, these aren't your children, they aren't your responsibility, and accepting that your partner has preexisting commitments is one thing, agreeing to support him in financially risky and stupid behavior is something else entirely. I guess I don't see this as much different from refusing to shoulder parenting tasks for stepchildren. And clear, defined discussions about who will pay for what is a really good thing in a second family. If you guys both know what's on the table and what each of you is responsible for, you may both feel easier about money. It's always the uncertainty that makes me crazy, anyway. When I know exactly what I'm on the hook for, I'm much happier. But like I said, he seems content. So you may have the burden here, of finding a way to have this conversation productively. A good counselor may be able to help. rebecca > Okay, good. Now, honestly, if you're really at the end of your rope about > this, what you do is work on separating the finances. You pay *half* of > your mutually agreed upon, joint expenses. Or you pay some percentage > based upon who makes more. He pays the rest. Leftover money gets done > whatever the owner of that money wants to do. Wow, that was a terrible > sentence, but you know what I mean. Thanks for the advice. > try to pull out. But you know what, these aren't your children, they > aren't your responsibility, and accepting that your partner has > preexisting commitments is one thing, agreeing to support him in > financially risky and stupid behavior is something else entirely. Very well said. > But like I said, he seems content. So you may have the burden here, of > finding a way to have this conversation productively. A good counselor > may be able to help. > > rebecca Thanks Rebecca > Honor and principle is all well and good, but throwing him and his wife > both into credit card debt and selling their house because he doesn't want [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > foolishness). Education is a necessity, private school is not. Clothing is > a necessity, $50 jeans are not. It's my experience that people wouldn't choose options like these unless there are factors which make these things a priority. Other people won't always see or understand the whys and wherefores. Sometimes we don't even really understand the reasons ourselves. I don't mean the jeans, I'd agree with you there. > Really? I'm not. I was an absolute idiot the first time around and didn't > even contemplate these issues. I didn't mean to imply that it never happens, just that it's not how I work. Wendy > Maybe it's a question of honour and principle for him, Jess? I know quite > a few men who put their children's needs for private school and the like > over their own needs. It is indeed a matter of honor and principle on one hand, but also it is a matter of responsibility which is how it is supposed to be: you have kids, you are responsible for them. If I raised any issues in this regards, it's because, when this "responsible" dad is doing all he can and more to keep paying CS to support his kids' full and I repeat *full* expenses, I don't think it is anywhere near realistic that the SM suffers and cuts down on her needs and expenses so the BM can sit a home and not go fetc any job to help support her own kids. When I said "public school" it's because you owe to starve to FEED your kids, but you don't need to starve to send your kids to private school. I don't see any honor in there anymore nor responsibility, coz, this wife the dad married, also has rights and he's also responsible to show her even a slight amount of responsibility and that she counts for something, and if anyone should suffer as on the second level, it should be the BM who got her law degree and sitting at home collecting CS and living off it along with her bf. (don't yell at me for long paragraphs, i tried to summerrize :) Marie > If I raised any issues in this regards, it's because, when this > "responsible" dad is doing all he can and more to keep paying CS to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > living off it along with her bf. (don't yell at me for long paragraphs, i > tried to summerrize :) I know people who think it's important to have a parent at home. That wouldn't be a priority with me, but perhaps that's a priority for your DH and his ex. Even if he no longer feels that way, perhaps the fact that they made choices based on that makes him feel he owes his kids to try to sustain that too. Were it me, I'd have already talked to my ex about the situation, but then we communicate regularly and in a largely amicable fashion. Wendy > I don't think it is anywhere near realistic that the SM suffers and cuts > down on her needs and expenses so the BM can sit a home and not go fetc > any job to help support her own kids. Okay, let's talk law and reality here. Legally, in California (I live here too) you aren't required to contribute to your stepkid's upkeep. However, your husband is not permitted to claim expenses related to you to reduce his CS. So if you guys live in a great big house, with a great big mortgage, have a lot of joint bills, etc, tough titties for you both. However. The law recognizes his obligation to his preexisting children as primary to his obligation to you. That's just the way it is, okay? Not saying it should/shouldn't be, just saying, the law says that money comes first. And like I said, generally, if a court order comes in play, while BM might be imputed some income, any preexisting arrangements between the parents are going to get rubber stamped unless one parent has a real good lawyer. And all of this is largely irrelevent, because you _don't_ have a court order, your husband apparently _doesn't_ see the finances as a problem, and you keep saying _"his decision, his kids" rebecca > Okay, let's talk law and reality here. Legally, in California (I live > here too) you aren't required to contribute to your stepkid's upkeep. > However, your husband is not permitted to claim expenses related to you to > reduce his CS. So if you guys live in a great big house, with a great big > mortgage, have a lot of joint bills, etc, tough titties for you both. Good to know, though FYI, the big house/mortgage are not for my accomodations nor are any of my expenses. big house was his idea to accomodate his kids when they visit. > However. The law recognizes his obligation to his preexisting children as > primary to his obligation to you. That's just the way it is, okay? Not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > parents are going to get rubber stamped unless one parent has a real good > lawyer. ok > And all of this is largely irrelevent, because you _don't_ have a court > order, your husband apparently _doesn't_ see the finances as a problem, > and you keep saying _"his decision, his kids" > > rebecca you're right, and still "his decision/his kids" :) You think I'd force him not to pay his kids? I wanted to know how everybody else go around such an issue. Marie > One more thing, my husband had a very slow work for over a year now, and > despite that, he kept paying the CS as is even though we are withdrawing > from credit cards at times. Now we have the house on the market and we can't > have the kids come to visit us for the summer anyways. I'm gonna step in here and say that whatever else is going on, this is self-serving BS. Just because you've got your house on the market doesn't mean you get a "get out of parenthood free" card! Parents who are not divorced manage to sell houses with kids under foot. > He wants me to tell > the Mom who doesn't know yet of the financial situation that the kids will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Anyone got into any similar situation or has any advice I'd appreciate it. > Marie To be frank, I think you need to also start looking at your own (you and hubby's) actions and seeing them from a kids'-eye view. If I were a kid and my parent, within the course of a few years, got divorced, got remarried, shipped me off to live with a parent who is a known, manipulative liar, and moved thousands of miles away, I would be pissed as hell, mostly at the new step-parent who would appear to be the "cause" of all this disruption. And I would be expressing that anger in all kinds of childish ways...being a child and all. That doesn't mean that kids should get an equal voice in our decisions on whom to marry or where to live. But you also shouldn't be surprised that if you turn their worlds upside down to serve your own interests, that they are not all happy and welcoming and lovey-dovey. > I'm gonna step in here and say that whatever else is going on, this is > self-serving BS. Just because you've got your house on the market doesn't > mean you get a "get out of parenthood free" card! Parents who are not > divorced manage to sell houses with kids under foot. Nobody said to go parenthood free. But please tell me, my house is on the market, the kids bedrooms furnitures are on sale, most of our furnitures is on sale, we can get an offer tomorrow, what do I do, where do I put the kids? Please, be realistic. When parents with kids sell their house, they have arrangements to go to another house accomodating the kids as well, in our case, we are going to live at my parents, so please tell me why my parents should accomodate my husband's kids. > To be frank, I think you need to also start looking at your own (you and > hubby's) actions and seeing them from a kids'-eye view. You might be right or not, in our case, the biomom didn't stop the BS since day 1. Thus she didn't even leave a chance for the kids to express themselves. > If I were a kid and my parent, within the course of a few years, got > divorced, got remarried, shipped me off to live with a parent who is a > known, manipulative liar, and moved thousands of miles away, I would be > pissed as hell, mostly at the new step-parent who would appear to be the > "cause" of all this disruption. And I would be expressing that anger in > all kinds of childish ways...being a child and all. If you were a kid and your parents got a divorce 5 years before your stepmom steps in, you would be out of your mind as a kid too to not see that the stepmom had nothing to do with the divorce. It is not called "shipped the kids to their mother" the kids wanted to be with their mother even when they lived with us. Then, you don't keep kids from their mother coz she is a manipulative liar, the kids lived with us for over 3 years with all the manipulative liar mother influence at its peak, nothing changed. Marie Marie I have read the postings in relation to your original message with interest and sometimes surprise... I really hear what you are saying and it's obvious from people here that reply to you that, regardless of what you are saying (here) it sometimes feels that you will be condemend for all of your thoughts/actions. I am sure that most people in this newsgroup have already been through some of the (if not all) of the issues that you have posted about and therefore seem to become the 'expert'. However as a newcomer to the newsgroup, it feels quite confronting and maybe just a little bit heartless some of the comments that you receive. I realise that the so-called 'experts' in this newsgroup will not sugar-coat issues and/or advice and that is commendable but please remember there are those of us other step-parents who look upon this newsgroup as a forum to express not only opinions but heart felt emotional issues. Sometimes a more friendly approach would be appreciated to those of us who haven't learnt to be experts yet. Marie, I commend your maturity here, and hear where you are coming from. Hang in there. Teresa > > I'm gonna step in here and say that whatever else is going on, this is > > self-serving BS. Just because you've got your house on the market doesn't [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Marie In a previous article, "Teresa & Peter" <peteresa55@bigpond.com.au> said: >I really hear what you are saying and it's obvious from people here that >reply to you that, regardless of what you are saying (here) it sometimes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >feels quite confronting and maybe just a little bit heartless some of the >comments that you receive. Well, two comments here. First, on a practical note, if you label your post with "rant" or indicate in some other way that you're not looking for advice, just to blow off steam, mostly that is respected. (Sometimes not; it depends on what it seems that you're really asking for. Second, you're right about the people here having been through the fire. There's a kind of progression that newbies to ASS-P seem to go through, generally. Not everyone does this, and I'm not pointing at Marie here, but *in general* people show up heaping huge amounts of blame on the biomom and asking how to "make" her stop. (Not always the biomom, but most often.) They come here wanting to hear that they've tried everything, and that the big bad bitch is a terrible horrible person, and that they're saints for having put up with it for as long as they have. We can do that; some support groups specialize in shoulder-patting. But the long-timers here on ASS-P tend to think that that's not going to get the problem solved, and that sympathy that isn't backed up by a little muscle just creates another martyr, and the world has too many of them. So we encourage people to look at their own contributions to the situation, and the contributions of their partners. They can have some effect in those areas. You can't ever "make" someone else change, but you can change the way you react to what people do, tear up the script. And it's totally *amazing* how often the problem isn't a biomom or stepkid problem, it's a marital problem that's been dispaced onto the biomom or the kids. Whew. Long paragraph. People are going to yell at me. Anyway, it's not that we don't sympathize with Marie; it shoulds like she's got a lot to carry. But ultimately it's a **lot** more helpful to her to point out where she's contributing to the problem and suggesting ways that she can change it, than to stroke her hair and say "Oh, poor Marie. How awful it all is for you!" Most of us got our rears kicked in a similar fashion. It works. >I realise that the so-called 'experts' in this newsgroup will not sugar-coat >issues and/or advice and that is commendable but please remember there are >those of us other step-parents who look upon this newsgroup as a forum to >express not only opinions but heart felt emotional issues. Sometimes a more >friendly approach would be appreciated to those of us who haven't learnt to >be experts yet. Label your post "rant" or just say "Right now I don't need advice, I just want some sympathy before I can do anything" and you'll get all you need. Vicki SignatureOf all the stupid things I've done, this is certainly the most recent. - Chris Clarke > In a previous article, "Teresa & Peter" <peteresa55@bigpond.com.au> said: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Whew. Long paragraph. People are going to yell at me. I don't think that what you've written justifies your being yelled at. In the reality of situations such as this one, each person involved in said situation/s look at it differently and sometimes with "blinders" on. I find it somewhat refreshing to hear an outsider's, if you will, point of view or constructive criticism . It can be a real eye opener. > Anyway, it's not that we don't sympathize with Marie; it shoulds like > she's got a lot to carry. But ultimately it's a **lot** more helpful [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Of all the stupid things I've done, this is certainly the most recent. > - Chris Clarke In a previous article, "fox" <lfox4@bellsouth.net> said: >> Whew. Long paragraph. People are going to yell at me. > >I don't think that what you've written justifies your being yelled at. In Heh. Not what I've written, but that I put it all in one long paragraph. Another aspect of ASS-P is that the regulars tend to prize good writing, with appropriate spelling, punctuation, capitalization and all the other stuff that they've been teaching us since second grade. The paragraph was too long, and too dense, and hard to follow. Liberal use of white space is a good thing in this medium. >the reality of situations such as this one, each person involved in said >situation/s look at it differently and sometimes with "blinders" on. I find >it somewhat refreshing to hear an outsider's, if you will, point of view or >constructive criticism . It can be a real eye opener. Thanks. Some people feel put-upon, though, when they're not yet ready to hear it. V SignatureOf all the stupid things I've done, this is certainly the most recent. - Chris Clarke > the reality of situations such as this one, each person involved in said > situation/s look at it differently and sometimes with "blinders" on. I find > it somewhat refreshing to hear an outsider's, if you will, point of view or > constructive criticism . It can be a real eye opener. Also, many people come in here feeling like a victim. We get used to playing that role, and it is tough to get out of. What I have found *for me* is that being a victim - even when I am one - is a dangerous place to be. It's OK to *feel* like a victim for a short while, but when I start acting like one I become full of excuses and unwilling to look at situations any other way. I run out of options and lose all hope. Hopelessness just doesn't look very good on me today. When people in here were honest with me, I was able to see options I never saw before and see that my victimhood was truly a choice. They gave me hope. They walked through the fire with me. I didn't always like it, but I needed people who could tell it as they saw it. That doesn't mean I took every bit of advice, but I became open to new ideas. If I want pats on the back and someone to get mad at the ex for me, I can tell anyone in RL what's been going on. If I want some solutions, I have to get them from people who can put the BS aside. That is what *support* means to me. It means that someone (preferably lovingly and gently) tells me the truth. My best friend in the whole wide world won't tell me the truth, she will say "What a butthead! Just let me come and tell him how it is! Give me that phone number!" People here told me "It's out of your circle of control." You must take what you can use and leave the rest. With hope and heart, Kathleen PS. I think I got you beat on long paragraphs, Vicki > Marie > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reply to you that, regardless of what you are saying (here) it sometimes > feels that you will be condemend for all of your thoughts/actions. Teresa I want to thank you for your post. I appreciate your feelings and all, but on the other hand, I come here appreciating the good respond and objective answers I get especially from the "regular". I know they have great exprecience of their own or hearing things from each other here. I had been reading their posts for almost 5 years now, I don't necessarily participate all the times, but most of them are honest with their replies even though it might sound harsh. As Vicki and Kathleen replied, I also think it is good to have someone pat on your shoulders sometimes but that won't solve your problem. You need someone who can think for you about your problem excluding the emotions, and get you thinking in the right direction and that it is not just about you and people around you are not responsible for making life better for you, you need to contribute too. Again, thanks Teresa for your feelings, I know excatly what you mean, and maybe someone new would have wanted more "support" in a way that could sound more "friendly". And actually I'm so thankful for all who replied to me without patting on my shoulder, because I know this is the way to start solving your problem not just having useless superficial support. Marie > And actually I'm so thankful for all who replied to me without patting on > my shoulder, because I know this is the way to start solving your problem > not just having useless superficial support. Well, that's reassuring, I don't think anyone meant to hurt your feelings. And if it helps, Marie, it really *sucks* to feel like you have no control over the fundamental parts of your life, it hurts like hell when you and the man you love have trouble getting on the same page about stuff, and accepting strange children into your home and trying to treat them like family when you have so many issues you're uncertain about is a really really hard thing. Really. I think stepparents who try at all deserve medals. It's so much harder than you ever think it's going to be. And when your husband's a dick about it - and let's face it, if you aren't a stepparent, you have no idea how freaking hard it really is - it's just so much more lonely. Rebecca > Well, that's reassuring, I don't think anyone meant to hurt your feelings. > And if it helps, Marie, it really *sucks* to feel like you have no control [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > family when you have so many issues you're uncertain about is a really > really hard thing. Thanks Rebecca. Until lately until i'm calling them 'strangers'. When I came to this family, I could've left it to the nanny to continue doing her job, I chose to make them feel at home and for all of us to feel as a family. > Really. I think stepparents who try at all deserve medals. It's so much > harder than you ever think it's going to be. And when your husband's a > dick about it - and let's face it, if you aren't a stepparent, you have no > idea how freaking hard it really is - it's just so much more lonely. > > Rebecca It is extremely hard in the perfect conditions. If Stepparents only knew what they are getting themselves into... only if. Sometimes I wish I had kids at all, and most of the time I wish I had kids from another marriage so things will be balanced and everybody would understand what the other person is going through for real. Marie > It is extremely hard in the perfect conditions. If Stepparents only knew > what they are getting themselves into... only if. > Sometimes I wish I had kids at all, and most of the time I wish I had kids > from another marriage so things will be balanced and everybody would > understand what the other person is going through for real. Every choice has its own joys and problems. The more people the more complex everything becomes. Wendy |
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.