Return to the Stepfamily Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Dads kids v Mom kids

Posted by kkny (My Page) on
Tue, Feb 9, 10 at 12:17

Hi, I was asked to start a seperate thread on this. It seems to me that when dad's kids have some problems, many SMs take the position that at 18, they have no right to live with family. But if it mom's kids, in a stepfamily, that dont live by rules, including getting arrested, then mom, SM to dad's kids is incensed. I think kids at 18 are still kids, and support through college, etc. But it should be same for all.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I think as long as the child is working toward a goal in life, the parent's (step or bio) should be supportive. There is a reason the law recognizes an age to where parents can say "LEAVE" because there are some kids that need to be told that. On the other hand, that same law is in place to protect a child's right to be taken care of until that age... an age that the law recognizes that they can get a job, drive a car and become independent. If someone wants to support the child beyond that age, it becomes a personal decision. In MY opinion, it should be based on many factors.. not any having to do with WHOSE child it is.

That is inflammatory to make such a biased statement in the OP and is without basis, and pretty much written in a way to provoke an argument... especially in a room full of SM's.

I can't count how many times I told my son (now 20) that if he isn't going to do what is expected of him (going to school or working) and if he didn't follow the house rules (basically clean up after yourself and not be disruptive.. like playing music loud at night) then he needs to find a new place to live. I have given him deadlines and meant it. He chose to go to school and has been following the rules, but I wouldn't hesitate to make him leave if he doesn't. So, I'm a little offended at the bias of this thread. I support SD going to college if she wants to go, but at the same time she needs to follow our house rules if she is living with us. If she does not want to go to college or work, then she can leave when she's 18 and go live with her mother. That is my opinion whether it is my son or my stepdaughter.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I think and I really base it on life experience of many many people that if at age 18 children do not want to go to school, work and follow basic household expectations then parents did a very poor job. it is entirelly parental fault.

If you do a good job as a parent then you won't have all these severe issues like legal troubles, dropping out, not wanting to go to school or work etc. there might be exceptions to this but most of the time it is all result of poor parenting.

So i think when parents kick out their troubled 18-year-olds it is because they are in denial, don't want to acept guilt and find it easier to blame someone else for their poor parenting skills. i think sweeby said it well that if her son whom she raised since day one turns 18 and all of a sudden refuses to follow basic rules or contribute to society, then she did a very poor job. and i agree!

it is easier to blame kids or even kick them out, than just admit that parents messed up!

as about spouse's children who might be troubled...people don't become troubled all of a sudden, they are raised to be lazy and irresponsible etc, so if one chooses to marry a person with troubled children then they accept a responsibility. there is no obligation to marry people with troubled kids. It easy to avoid.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

kkny,

I have posted here at length about my SS now 30. DH and I have been married for 12 years and were together over 2-3 years before that. So, I've known SS since he was an early teen.

For many years I encouraged and even argued with DH to take SS in because he was facing homelessness, joblessness, etc. I was his advocate with DH! Me, the disliked stepmother. My personal values just couldn't accept a family member sleeping on a park bench.

Your comments about SM's kicking out 18 year old troubled SKs but harboring their own is just so wrong.
You've been on this board a lot longer than I have, you know this doesn't happen just at 18, by the time 18 comes, the SM is burned out with the SK. It took me a lot longer to become burned out with mine but I'm cooked as far as mine are concerned.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I'd generalize it to Bio parents and Step parents, with most Bio parents being more forgiving of their Bio children's faults than of their Step kids' faults. I think there may also be a tendency for fathers (bio or step) to hold male children to higher standards of financial self-sufficiency, and for mothers (bio or step) to hold daughters to higher standards of courtesy and 'niceness'.

Since we're generalizing and all...


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

"it is entirely parental fault"

WOW, what an even MORE outrageous blanket statement to make.

Why does anyone HAVE to be at "fault". Where is the child's responsibility in their own life... if they are successful, then it's because the parents did a good job? if they are a failure, it's because the parents did a bad job? What about all of the successful people that come from ghettos, broken homes, foster care system, etc. and work their OWN way to a better life without anyone's help?

The success or failure of a person isn't determined at any age.. it is at the end of their life when the true measurement of success or failure can be seen. Plenty of college graduates with good jobs, do bad things.. criminal things. Plenty of seemingly upstanding people aren't so upstanding if you really knew everything about them. There are people that make mistakes and choose to turn their lives around and make a success of their lives, even though others may have written them off when they were making poor choices.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

well we can deny the reality but (and of course there are exceptions) if we raise children poorly then it is unfair to demand of them to be fully responsible at 18. What happened before they turned 18?

Most certainly children must have responsibilities and take charge of their own lives, but if we raise them poorly then how fair is it to demand they are responsible adults at 18? How fair is it to demand our children to overcome our poor parenting and raise to the stars despite messed up upbringing? Of course they most likely will be responsible at 18 if we do what needs to be done way before they are 18!

As about college, this is nothing to do with college, not everyone is capable but everybody can do something with proper help like vocational training or work or something.

and yes age is not determining success then why would people kick out 18-year-olds? If a kid is that irresponsible at 18 and parents didn't do their job earlier then why not be good parents now and teach them?, why not try to guide your children now, it is never too late. why such extreme, kicking out children that you (you in general) did not raise the right way?

and why 18? why this specific age?

of course excellent people come from ghetoes, broken homes, orphanages etc and it is very commendable. they excelled despite their upbringing but is it fair to demand from our children to excell despite bad upbringing? how fair is it? sounds selfish to me.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Goes back to nature vs nurture. I don't think it's so easy to define. I see both Ima and FD's side but think it depends on the kid and their processing of their environment and upbringing combined. Not to mention if they inherit any mental illnesses etc.

The most I've ever been able to figure out is that hurt people hurt others. I'm not talking about the generic kind of hurt, but the mortal wound kind of hurt that generally happens in childhood. There are a few studies out that showed adults adopted as children are overrepresented in jails and mental health institutions. It made me wonder did the mortal wound occur from the actual adoption or was their a history of mental illness in the bio family that will never go away despite who raises the child?

Anyway, off topic. KKNY, I've seen it too but I think it may just be that more women post to message boards like these and are more detailed about behaviors. The one thread that was posted recently many people just didn't reply to. A few gave support but they are unusual situations anyway and it's not hard to see why they would give that advice, but I wouldn't say that it was the support of the board or the regular posters. In what I've read before, stepchildren are generally given less support (financial) when living with Mom and Stepdad. Dad is more likely to give financial support after 18. Presumably because men are still the general bread winners and have more control over where the money goes to. Stepchildren in both situations do go to college at less rates that children with intact parents and children living with a single parent without parents remarrying fare better than both the Mom/Stepdad and the Dad/Stepmom scenarios.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

"and why this specific age?"

Um.. because lawmakers say that is the age of majority. It is the age they can marry, join the military, quit school, vote and go to big boy/girl jail.


 o
nivea

"It made me wonder did the mortal wound occur from the actual adoption or was their a history of mental illness in the bio family that will never go away despite who raises the child?"

You know nivea, I wonder (and worry a bit) about this myself since I am probably going to have the task of raising my grandson for the most part, at least until he is 3 or 4. There is a phase that babies go through (trust vs. mistrust) and since babies bond with the mother while still in utero, breaking that bond (either through adoption or having anyone other than the biological mother raise the child) may have lasting effects, I would think. My DIL is mentally ill, so therein lies another problem.

"stepchildren are generally give less support (financial) when living with Mom and Stepdad."

I have to strongly disagree. I agree dad is more likely to give financial support more freely after the child is 18, it is likely tied into his feelings toward his ex... but the percentage of mothers that don't pay support to the dad, when dad has custody, is astronomically higher than the percentage of fathers that don't pay... the difference is that generally more mothers have custody than fathers. And when fathers have custody, they are probably less likely to ask for support and even less likely to get it if they do.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

yes but if you did parenting job poorly, 18 could be way too young. of course by law they could or should do this or that, it is easy to say they are of legal age, if they are messed up kick them out. justifies poor parenting in my opinion. where were the parents for all those 18 years? why not realize your own faults and give them some more time to get on track, why not help them? So because lawmakers say something we should kick kids out even if they are the way they are because we didn't do our job! doesn't make any sense!and plenty of 18-year-olds are still in high school. i think we have to disagree here.


 o
finedreams

lol, I guess those that did poor parenting should coddle the kid until they are 25 or 30, while they wait for them to grow wings and fly.... hahaha

They have made movies... Failure to Launch and Stepbrothers.. your post made me laugh and think about those two movies.


 o
stepbrothers

BTW, I know it's just a movie... but the kids (if that's what you can call 40 year old's living at home with parents) didn't 'grow up' and do anything for themselves until their parents ran away, leaving them on their own to sink or swim.

Sometimes, that's not too far from the truth.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I think if you do your job there will be no need for either cuddling or kicking out your children, won't be such a dilemma. I hope you understand there is a huge difference between 18 year old and 25-30-40 year olds. most 18-year-olds are still in high school or just got out.

if they are messed up at 18 then hey, start parenting and getting them some help so they aren't lazy and useless and 40. That movie was extremely stupid but there is some truth in it: both parents were portrayed as complete morons, so what do you expect from their kids.

18 or 40...there is a difference that at 18 there is still hope...I guess..in some cases


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Ima, 18 is not the magic age in all states. In some, parents may be required to pay CS and college expenses. Not the majority of states, but some pretty populuous ones, so I dont think 18 is magic.

Nivea, I agree it is very sad that COD are less likely to go to college.


 o
18 is awfully young!

Gosh KKNY, I have heard of that happening--that parents kick a kid out when they turn 18--but I don't know anyone who ever did, not in these days when it is harder for kids to get on their feet. I know a whole bunch of stepmoms and none of them would dream of it, with their biokids or steps.

On the other hand, if kids are really acting out, getting in trouble, etc., I've heard it can be a wake-up call to let them see what it's like to be an adult. But I think that would be wrenching and heartbreaking for a parent, biological or not.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

ulrike, I don't know anyone normal in real life who would do that, only some really crazy families who kick kids out in drinking or drug induced rage (I know such families through my work). but i agree no normal people that i know in real life would do that, frankly they would not have any reason. I know many people whose children stayed home going to college, perfectly acceptable, i wouldn't mind DD staying home for college, of course she did not want to, but I'd be happy.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

kkny, of course the age of majority is different in some states... but most recognize 18 as the age where they can vote and do most of those things. If some states require parents to support to 21, so what? That is the age group that the law recognizes people are old enough to have new rights & legal obligations end.... depending on the state, but I was referring to "THE AGE OF MAJORITY".

FD~ Let me get this straight. If a parent does not do their job right, the child is not ready to leave at 18 (or thereabouts)? Or if they do their job right, the child will not have any problems, will be a good student, want to go to college, and be responsible? (or are you only basing that on YOUR one daughter?)

Well, wouldn't it make more sense to say that if a parent does their job right, the child will be prepared to go out into the world when they reach the age of majority? If they are not prepared for the world by that time, then perhaps it is because of bad parenting... I mean, when I went to college, my parents did not help me nor did they support me financially... but I worked & paid for it on my own and was working full time, plus raising 6 children at the time. (and leading a cub scout den one night a week) lol, and I guess it is a miracle that I was able to get where I am today... after all, I was raised by what you might refer to as 'bad parents': a workaholic father and alcoholic mother that divorced when I was 12.. so I am a child of divorce too. (and my stepmom influenced my decision to go back to school, she was in her Master's program and that impressed me) What were the odds that I would want a better life for myself (and my children) and now own two businesses that so far, have survived the worst economy in my lifetime?


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I realize it's been awhile since I was a teen, but I'm not ancient. It wasn't that long ago that some people expected more responsibility out of their 18 year-old kids than they do today.

On my 18th birthday I literally had to pony-up rent to my parents. I came from an intact family. I was told from about the time I was 13 that I was expected to pay my way when I became 18. My sister had to pay rent. My cousins on both sides of my family had to pay rent to their parents. It was a familial expectation and it has trickled down to some of my cousins and their kids. My rent wasn't a huge amount, but it was still about 20% of my net pay. My parents didn't need the money to makes ends meet at all. It wasn't about money as much as it was about teaching me responsibility. If I wanted to go to college, it would have been on me to pay for it. I could have stayed at the house while I attended college, but I was still expected to earn my keep. I don't have kids, but if I did, I would probably do something similar. Under normal conditions, and these times are extraordinary, I would not be happy having my 25-year-old kid living at home. They should be weaned and ready to go.

I only bring this up because it isn't always about disliking or wanting to a SK to move out of the house. People come from different backgrounds and those backgrounds form who we become. I just think that it is wrong to assume that Step's always want to get rid of the step kid just for the sake of getting rid of the kid.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

gerina, I don't know how old you are but I am 40, been on my own since 17 and my parents taught me the same philosophy, to make my own way and take personal responsibility... something I see lacking in many kids today (in general). Just as your parents prepped you from early teens that at 18, there are certain expectations... I did the same with my kids. The rule is that when you turn 18, rent is due. $50 a week to live at home... get a job or go to school & then rent is waived.

In general, my philosophy is that a parent's job to teach a child to be prepared to leave the home, not necessarily at the age 18-21, but they should be preparing to leave during that time. If they are not doing anything toward that goal or if they get into their head that, now they are 'grown up' and don't have to follow the rules in your house and they can do as they please because they are legally adults, then that's the time to show them the door so they can really show you how grown up they are. If they are going to talk the talk, they need to walk the walk.

and as for good parenting or bad parenting.... I call BS.

Good parents sometimes have lousy kids. Bad parents sometimes have wonderful kids. That isn't to say parents have no influence but they are not the only factor in how a kid turns out. Of course, most parents with more than one child know that each child is different and living with the same parents, with the same rules, and the same everything can still result with different outcomes for each kid. There are life experiences, mentors, peers and many other influences that can alter a person's path in life... as a child or as an adult.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Ima, at least where I live, kids can not drink till 21, nor can control money in UTM accounts. So everything is differnt.

I think it is appropriate to help kids get through college.

I think it is easeir for some SMs to get upset with behaivor or progess of step kids than their own kids. On another thread, there was a woman who said her DH was forcing her kids out, possibly out of retaliation for her forcing out his kid, when his kid wouldnt live with rules. Then she admits that her kid had been arrested. I suspect that some people see the hope of light in their own kids, but not in steps. Sad.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I base it on absolutely everyone I know 100%, not my daughter. and there are things that I did not do right either, didn't push her enough in certain areas and for example didn't teach her to clean her room. so when she turned 18 and her room was messy it didn't occur to me to kick her out because I myself didn't do anything about it when she was young. now at 22 her house is relatively neat, at least not a horrid and when she visits she doesn't make a mess, but she is 22, so she needed more time.

my point is i am not a prefect parent either, i always worked too many jobs and did too many things, but it didn't occur to punish my daughter for my own mistakes.

and if she would turn out to be the kind to drop out, not work not go to school or get herself in troubles, or get herself in messed up relationships etc then of course huge part of it meant i screwed up as a parent! but I do not believe in punishing children for what we did wrong, i believe in helping them to succeed. and if you are incapable of getting them on track then there are resources and people who can help. kicking out is an easy way out.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

kkny I never stated that I forced my stepson out for I did everything I could to try and keep him in the home. He was the one who made that decision at age 17 to leave for he didn't like the rules that his father and myself have for everyone in the house. Yes there was a lot of legal trouble that he had gotten into, but that didn't make me care for him any less and I was always there by his side. He is now 21 and still does not have his life together.

As for my daughter yes she made some bad choices at age 16 with a group of friends. I didn't pay her legal fees for she was the one who was busted for shoplifting. I made it quite clear to her that she would pay all of the legal fees for she had a job. Did I bring her up that way, no! She is now 18 a senior in highschool,still holding her job, holding good grades, and has been accepted into a collage in the fall. Did she learn for her stupid costly mistake, Yes!

Would I ever kick out my stepchildern vs my own children, most cerently not. If they choose to leave on their own then that is their decision, weither it is my childen or stepchildren.



 o
more

everything what you do as a parent effects their future. you want your children to be readers you'll read to them every day and have books at home, you want your children to be good with words you'll narrate to them since the day they are born, you want your children have inquisitive mind you expose them to variety of things and activities, you want your children to have healthy relationships you model by example etc etc

I had a professor (very famous in the field by the way)who said he can look at 2-year-old interacting with his parents and predict where is that 2-year-old be in years to come. everything you do will effect their life choices, and usually everything is there before age 5.

Now of course some people succeed no matter what, but only small percentage. that's why there is vicious cycle of poverty, teenage pregnancies, crime, legal troubles running in the families. it is hard to break the cycle. and I don't think we should make a goal to screw up as much as possible then hope for the best.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

"You know nivea, I wonder (and worry a bit) about this myself since I am probably going to have the task of raising my grandson for the most part, at least until he is 3 or 4. There is a phase that babies go through (trust vs. mistrust) and since babies bond with the mother while still in utero, breaking that bond (either through adoption or having anyone other than the biological mother raise the child) may have lasting effects, I would think. My DIL is mentally ill, so therein lies another problem."

Well the good part about all of this is that you do know. You have that awareness about his family and you will know what to look for. I also think that from reading through adoption information that some of the cause/effect is from the adopted family themselves, some of the the family backgrounds the children come with are completely unfamiliar to the adopted family and they do not know how to handle what arises as it has never occured in their family history. They also studied the rates of children staying within the family with mental illness and it appeared that they had natural coping systems as a family (which includes dysfunction to cope as a family) and therefore children fared better as adults. In essence saying that knowledge is power, which is what you have. It's kind of complicated and I'm not explaining it so well so I will look for some links for you later.

"I have to strongly disagree. I agree dad is more likely to give financial support more freely after the child is 18, it is likely tied into his feelings toward his ex... but the percentage of mothers that don't pay support to the dad, when dad has custody, is astronomically higher than the percentage of fathers that don't pay... the difference is that generally more mothers have custody than fathers. And when fathers have custody, they are probably less likely to ask for support and even less likely to get it if they do."

Sorry, I wasn't so clear. I was talking about after 18 and at the rates children go to college.

-children with intact bio parents
-children with single parents not remarried
-children living with Dad/Stepmom (or Dad is the financier)
-children living with Mom/Stepdad (or Mom is the financier)

I know it is not cut and dry here and probably many variables lead up to this. It could be that the support for college was ordered for Dad to pay etc. But I think it is interesting nontheless. I do think that the Mom/Stepdad scenario does lead to less financial support than the Dad/Stepmom scenario but haven't found any real studies to read about it.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I have noticed that kkny likes to post stuff and just sit back to let the mess unfold, and barely says anything else. I am a little irritated that you seem to be constantly attacking stepmoms. I'm not saying all stepmoms are great and fair and responsible, but neither are all BMs! I am a stepmom myself (all 3 SKs live with myself and DH) and I absolutely love my SKs. I would do anything for them. They are lucky if they even see or hear from BM once a month. As far as living with parents after graduating high school, it is everyone's own personal preference on how they want to make rules for their family, whether or not step children are involved. I have known just as many parents kick out their biological children just because that is the rules they have in their family and in their household. Who is anyone to judge? You may not agree with how everyone conducts their lives but that is why you have your own life to conduct. I am not supportive of anyone allowing anyone, children, step children, cousins, siblings, etc. to free load or enable them to not have the best life they can have by supporting themselves. I would never leave my step children out on the street, but I would expect contribution and evidence of them either going to school or actively trying to find jobs if they continued to live at home. I really want to stress the importance of responsibility and direction so that they can feel successful and confident at any age. The last thing I want is for one of them to turn out like their BM and be 37 living in her mom's spare bedroom, losing jobs every other month, and spending money like it grows on trees.....or allowing somebody to take advantage of them (step children as adults) and free load off of them just because they are successful. So I can understand if somebody wants to post an opinion. That does not mean anyone has to agree with it nor should anyone be insulted for thinking otherwise. We are all mothers, step or bio, and should be supportive of one another because we all know how crazy life can get! This should be our way to relate to others about life when our husbands don't get it!


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

"The last thing I want is for one of them to turn out like their BM and be 37 living in her mom's spare bedroom, losing jobs every other month, and spending money like it grows on trees....."

lol, I thought you were talking about my SD's mom for a moment. But, she's 38.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Nivea said - "In what I've read before, stepchildren are generally given less support (financial) when living with Mom and Stepdad. Dad is more likely to give financial support after 18. Presumably because men are still the general bread winners and have more control over where the money goes to."

I disagree. I think it is the mindset that the CS goes to 'mom'. I've posted before that my X will do ANYTHING to give me less money. He doesn't see CS as supporting his son. He sees it as the 'Ashley Bill'. You know, like the water or electric bill. IMO, once kids turn 18 and the NCP no longer has to pay CS to the mom, NCPs support kids more because the money goes straight to the kid.

Screwed up thinking, IMO, but (at least for my X), it's true.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

interesting point ashley, i don't like to complain too much about my ex because he is much better parent than many others that i am seeing IRL or reading here BUT saying that I do notice that as soon as CP was over and DD was grown he is so much more helpful to her, like he doesn't think twice about money, he paid her expensive college tuition in full and helps her monthly, even though DD works many hours she still struggles well obviously she has to study so she cannot work 24/7.

But when I was CP and DD lived with most of the time i always felt like begging for money and ex avoided paying on time or sometimes paying at all!

one legitimate reason is that he is making very good money now, way more than when DD was little but still...he gets DD expensive gifts, like just bought her IPhone for her birthday, but when DD was with me most of the time i never remember him buying anything extra, anything that was more than bare minimum.

and funny thing i never asked him for what other CPs ask their exes like helping with medical bill or school fee or anything, i always paid for it myself. Ex never even asked if I need any extra compensation for expenses but now he doesn't think twice to send stuff to DD, and she doesn't even ask, she hates asking.

isn't it interesting? like when money goes straight to the kid he is so happy to do it. how messed up!


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

"... It seems to me that when dad's kids have some problems, many SMs take the position that at 18, they have no right to live with family. But if it mom's kids, in a stepfamily, that dont live by rules, including getting arrested, then mom, SM to dad's kids is incensed..."

1. Those sentences are run-on and practically incoherent.
2. I agree that many PARENTS, step or otherwise, think that after 18 a child doesn't have a right to move back in/continue to live with the family. Legally, a parent's responsibility to a child stops when the child reaches adulthood, in the US that age is 18. Why should an adult have the RIGHT to live with their parents? Unless you're Italian, that is...
3. I'd be incensed no matter whose bio children got arrested. Even more so with my bio kid. I'm harder on MY kid than I am on the kid of anyone else.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has been a pseudo-SM prior to having bio kids of my own, then being a legal SM and Bio mom and having to deal with the step-father/mother issues, and having a SM of my own... Kids are hard. It's hard to know if you're doing a good job. It's easy to be over-critical. It's easy to turn a blind eye. And, there is NO NORMAL.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

most 18-year-olds are still at high school, maybe they have no rights to live at home but they can hardly afford to be on their own. even if they just graduated high school it is unrealistic to deny them rights to live at home.

It is hard to know if you are doing good job at that particular moment yet when time comes it is easy to determine if you did OK job in some areas or not. I know for sure what I did well as a parent and where I messed up. I won't have any more children but I know what i would do differently if i would do it again.

I don't understand defensive attitude of some parents not wanting to admit that they made mistakes as parents. Even when their children grow up and clearly make poor choices they still deny their parental responsibility. I don't get it.

well some thing are more normal than others, getting arrested or doing drugs or dropping out of school does not qualify as normal in my books.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Well, finedreams, I wonder how you would explain my brother and me. We had the same set of parents and therefore the same parenting, but at age 47 he is still a total screw up, no assets, poor education and employment, two now ex wives and two children he has little to do with, living with a foreign woman who sees him as an immigration ticket, law breaker and drug taker. I am almost his polar opposite.
So how was the same parenting "successful" in my case and "poor" in my brother's?


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

"I don't understand defensive attitude of some parents not wanting to admit that they made mistakes as parents."

First, I honestly can't explain why I am bothering to respond, I have a headache... but here I go anyways!

Finedreams, I could be wrong but I believe you have posted that you are an educator? Teacher? If so, then why are you refusing to comprehend what has been said? Seriously! Nobody said parents don't make mistakes, but the truth is... 'mistakes' is a subjective word. YOUR mistakes may not be someone else's mistakes. Let me give you an example: Some parents choose to be a stay at home mom. They want to be there for the kids all the time and other parents that think it's good for the children to develop a stronger work ethic may believe the only way that will happen is if they see the parents working. So, who is making the mistake? The parent that stays home or the parent who works? It depends on YOUR view and reasons. But, I also think it depends on the child... some children need more attention than others... children have their own personality and temperament. (not to mention perception: You can ask my sister to describe an event that we both were at as children and she will remember it completely different than I do... she was never spanked because she would cry instantly the second she thought she would get in trouble for something... yet, she remembers being spanked a lot. My parents did not spank much at all.. I remember maybe two or three spankings in my life, but she has her own perception of it)

Who is to say what is or isn't bad parenting? That is like those who argue what, if anything causes homosexuality, bi sexuality, gender identity issues or addiction. There is a lot to be said for genetics and studies on twins separated at birth and reunited or studied decades later have shown how strongly the role of genetics is. My son met his father when he was 18... never met him before that. The first time they were in a room together, they were both dressed identically.. right down to the shoes. Physically, they looked identical except his father is obviously older. During my son's teen years, he would say and do things that his father said when we were dating... it was surreal. So, I don't understand why you keep insisting that parents be blamed or are at fault or need to take responsibility for 'mistakes'... if parents do what they feel is best for their children, are they good parents? or are they only good parents if they get the results they want?


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

SS - I think everyone understood the comment I made. I do agree with your comment that kids can be hard.

Ima, FD clearly said "some" parents make mistakes. And some do.


 o
mistakes

'mistakes' is a subjective term. Nobody is perfect, and I'm sure many people could go back in time with the knowledge they have attained from experience, and make different choices based on that experience... but I wouldn't necessarily say that it was a 'mistake'; it is a learning experience, either for the parent or the child. We all probably have experiences from our past, where we might say "I wish I could go back and do things differently." But, if you never have the initial learning experience, how would you realize that you might want to go back and change anything?

Some divorced people say their first marriage was a mistake. I believe if divorced people learned from the experience of marrying the wrong person, next time they have more knowledge when looking for a partner so the first marriage was not a mistake.

Now, I can think of a mistake as something you know is wrong or have consequences when you are doing it, but you do anyways...

Of course, that is just my opinion & we are all entitled to have an opinion. Right?


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I think everyone has made choices that didn't turn out as they liked, or in retrospect were "mistakes". I like to say that I wouldn't take any of it back because I like where/who I am now and changing the past would mean changing the present. As Ima said, I wouldn't take back my first marriage, painful as it was, because I wouldn't be the person I am today if I had not gone through that experience.

And, in some circles, dropping out of school and getting arrested is not normal, and in some it is. That's what I meant by there is no normal. Every child is unique, in a unique family, governed by their unique set of circumstances. It's our jobs as responsible adults who have taken the commitment of guiding them to find their strengths and help them realize their goals. Even if it's to be a SAHM/D or a grocery clerk or a nun/priest when the adults all around are high-powered career wo/men who have never waited a table in our lives and are atheist. I think Sweeby said, different people have different comfort zones, different standards for living. Imposing a standard on someone who is not comfortable at that level will lead to discord.

Honestly KK, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. But I get that you think SM's are more inclined to push bio-dad's kids out of the nest than their own.

I moved out the day after high school. I won't lie and say my SM didn't have anything to do with that. But even as my experience was hardly ideal I hesitate to make sweeping generalizations about SM's. My dad just had a tendency of dating high-maintenance women who were childless.

And I stand by my statement that adults age 18 have no right to live with family. It's a privilege. Hopefully the parents and child would have discussed options PRIOR to the child reaching legal adulthood, as in... you live here until you finish high school, then I'll contribute XYZ to your upkeep provided these terms are met for this length of time. An agreement that both can live with. Even in intact families parents may disagree with how long the child may remain in the home. Add cultural/religious to the mix and there are a lot of differences to be had.

If there is no agreement, it is not primarily the fault of the SP. If anything, it's the fault of the BP. The BP and SP should have discussed what will happen and under which circumstances long before the child reaches adulthood so the child is not left resenting either PARENT.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

KKNY - actually, I didn't understand that statement you made, either. I just ignored it and moved on.

Ima, you are so right! There are some things I consider to be endangering a child (taking a 2 year old out in the 4x4 truck and going down a nearly vertical hill), but someone else might not think there's any harm in it (like X who took DS down that hill). I don't consider my first marriage a mistake. I learned so much from it and X and I are better parents to DS.

I do agree with FD...in a way, and I'll give you an example. X's neice and nephew are twins (boy and girl). At 13 the girl was molested by her SF. Custody was given to GP (X's mother & father), and then awarded to the BD (X's brother) who lived with his new wife a couple states away, and had been largely abset from their lives (not paying CS, seeing them MAYBE 1 time a year). SM and the father started a new career as truck drivers. Basically, the kids were left to raise themselves. They left them with money and food, but it was up to them as to how they got back-and-forth from school with no car (mostly by bus). They couldn't work because they had to rely on school transportation.

The consequences were: kids didn't learn to drive until 18 years old; kids had to find a job, but had never had one before and didn't know how to fill out applications, etc...; kids had no car to go to a job; and kids were very lazy, since essentials had been provided to them.

Kids moved back to live with GP after they graduated high school. After many, many months of GP supporting kids, BD tells the GP "Kick them out. They're 18".

18 is not some magical age where all the knowledge of how to get a job, do grocery shopping and laundry, and general support of one's self just pops into a person! They have no life skills!!! They have had no job experience!!! They are essentially still children!

IF YOU'RE GOING TO EXPECT TO LAUNCH YOUR KIDS OUT AT AGE 18, YOU BETTER PREPARE THEM FOR IT, OR DON'T COMPLAIN WHEN THEY COME BACK HOME.


 o
On the other hand...

On the other hand, it is my very humble opinion that there are 2 types of people:

1) Those that succomb to their circumstances and upbringing, and perpetuate the generational curses, and

2) Those that rise above their circumstances and upbringing, and use them as motivation to make a better life for themselves and their children.

Babies are given to us by God as perfect from the day they are born. It is our job, as imperfect parents, to teach them what they need to know to be independent and productive members of society, without screwing them up too much with our own imperfections.

At some point, humans start thinking for themselves and make choices for themselves. They are to be responsible for their own choices. There is a point where they can no longer blame their parents for their mistakes.

Honestly, I think that's where society, in general, is failing. Lack of personal responsibility.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I agree about general mistakes, sometimes people need to experience to know they made a mistake etc. Parents will never be perfect no matter how hard they try.

However, I don't think it's a surprise to many people when natural consequences occur. You treat your kids poorly or let your spouse do it, why are you so surprised when they don't acknowledge you at Fathers Day? lol (lets kick this debate up real good lmao) Of course this is a general "you"

You're on your third marriage in 10 years (to drug addicts and alcoholics,) this latest spouse and you got into a physical alteration and your child doesn't want to live with you...and you're surprised by that?

You don't like your partners child but haven't told them that directly but then wonder why they don't interest you or are very interested in your ideas for them?

Sure people make mistakes but some things I think can be avoided, but that oh so special line is different for everyone it seems.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I sense that some people are defensive about their parenting.

I totally agree with ashley, "It is our job, as imperfect parents, to teach them what they need to know to be independent and productive members of society, without screwing them up too much with our own imperfections.
At some point, humans start thinking for themselves and make choices for themselves."

Unfortunatelly for children coming from not so good or incompetent upbringing this point comes a bit later and they need more guidance, so 18 might not appropriate age for them.

we all make mistakes as parents, why deny that our good deeds and mistakes effect our children. I don't see any point to kick out 18-year-old or even 20-year-old who clearly makes poor choices because of his parents.

and i agree with nivea, some mistakes are minor and may not have much effect but some are serious and could be avoided. No need to deny it.


 o
coleenoz

coleenoz you cannot deny major effect that upbringing has on children. there are exceptions of course, but when people have many children and none of them accomplishes anything and grow up irresponsible etc it is hard to deny reality.

it is not necessarily bad or good parenting, just certain mistakes we make, some mistakes are minor some major but saying that no matter what kind of parents we are is ridiculous. It does matter, everything you do with your child matters, but there will be exceptions.

plus sometimes circumstances stand in the way. nothing to do with parenting: economy, war, natural disaster, illness etc. Plus some factors like genetics play role etc but I see no reason denying how we effect our children on a daily basis.

If they are not inclined to neither work nor go to school nor have normal social life then i am convinced it is because we did not prepare them (unless of course they have disabilities but that's a different question).


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

According to FD the magical age is between 21 to 25!!!

"is there any particular reason SD does not work? no jobs? no time? what is her excuse?

if she is 21, she might be close to graduation so she can take a loan, she can take a decent amount last year of college. if you cannot pay, why not tell her to take a loan? did you suggest it to her?"

and

"Why isn't this girl working? she should not be allowed to live rent free. she is clearly sleeping around and having babies with whoever offers. since her mother abandoned her and was abusive, SD is looking for love elsewhere, how sad for her children. and I suspect her father was not as excellent father as you think otherwise both children would not grow up selfish and irresponsible. "

Even though these childrens parents made "mistakes" at ages 21 and 25 they are to be held accountable for their actions according to FD....

So 18 to 21 is do as you wish age ... 21 to 25 start to be held accountable..... so by age 30 they should be able to stand on their own!


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

My DH effectively put his own son, my SS now 30, out at 18. We had not married yet so there was no SM involved. He had pulled SS through high school, SS was supposed to go to community college, chose one far from home instead of a fine one near home where he was invited to live rent-free, never got himself registered, floated around etc etc. Got in to the Army, kicked out and I shared on that in the other thread.

DH resented paying CS like most ex husbands do because they think the mother is spending it on themselves. I don't agree with that but I've never gotten CS or written a CS check. Some ex wives only use it for the kids, some use it to support lifestyles. I've seen both up close with friends and family.

I think it is an offtrack premise "Dad's kids vs. mom's kids." I think it all comes down to personal, family background. My parents made sure I made it through college long after I turned 18. They paid tuition and I always had a room without rent at home. Dh's parents essentially cut him loose at 17. He had to live with an aunt, pay her rent and work his last year of high school. His parents had 9 kids so anyone who could stand on their own two feet was made to do so! He went on to finish college and get an advanced degree completely on his own with no parental help. We are both from intact families, still married parents but with very different backgrounds. DH made it on his own, my parents carried me. DH did the same to his son, SS at 18 or at least tried. Different results, LMAO

I think it's all case by case.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

"...I think it is an offtrack premise "Dad's kids vs. mom's kids." I think it all comes down to personal, family background. "

Well said, LAmom. I think you hit the nail on the head.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

What I find interesting, is the kids themselves are not so eager to be out on their own. I'm 40 & can remember, in high school, that all everyone wanted to do was get the heck OUT of their parent's home.... whether it was going away to college, getting an apartment with roommates, or getting married.. the goal was getting OUT. Nobody wanted to live under their parent's rules... so the option was go get your own place and do as you please.

Today, I see a trend of kids (meaning teens & young adults) that want to stay as long as possible... they want to have the 'adult' freedoms that come with their age, but they want to live at home longer and more parents allow it... why would they want to leave? If 18 is too young, I think they should put an initiative on the ballot and let's vote to make it 23 or 24. Then we don't have to listen to our 18 or 19 year old say "But I'm an adult now! I can stay out all night if I want!"


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I posted this as a response to CANTTELL's post HELP, but it really belongs over here and I think it ties in with IMA's last post:

*You should discuss your financial concerns with your partner. Instead of suggesting that the kid get a job (which I personally think she should do or financial aid), tell your partner that he/she should pick up a second job to pay for these additional expenses. It bet your partner would rather have DD contribute to or cut back on expenses rather than having to take a second job to pay for everything.

As an aside, and not to hijack this thread - What is it about our generation that wants to infantilize our children? I was just talking to a friend about this forum yesterday because of the KKNY Dad v. Mom thread. I am in my very late 40's and as I said in KKNY's post, I was required to pay rent at 18. Additionally, any college would have been my expense. The friend (mid-40's), with whom I spoke to yesterday, is an architect and a graduate of Princeton University. She moved out after high school (late year b-day, she was 17), she worked during high school (we laughed at our minimum wage jobs making $3.35/ hr). She rec'd a scholarship for her under grad studies, the scholarship did not cover all of her expenses and she worked the entire six years she was at school.

I'm not implying that everyone should get an Ivy League education in those terms, but if instead of coddling our children, we gave them some responsibility and raised the bar a bit for them, they will mostly be capable of shining.*


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Princeton, like most of the Ivy League provides full need based aid, and NO merit aid. You either get accepted or you don't, but once your in, they evaluate your need, and cover it (after looking at parents income)

Many other schools do not have as generous aid. I'm sorry, but not every kid gets into an Ivy school.

I dont know about you, but I do not infantilize my child, but I do live in reality world.


 o
kkny

KK-
Gee, I just don't know what to tell you. I do know that I didn't personally attack your parenting style, so no need to get up your hackles.

As for my friend - she told me that she had to buy her own drafting pens, angles, curves and other related items. The balsa wood for the models, she said, was extremely expensive; and I believe she said books. Maybe you can look into the fine print details of what is and isn't paid for under the terms of a scholarship (perhaps there is more than one type of scholarship???) and get back to us. As for her family, she doesn't like to speak of them and I've had to read in between the lines. She has alluded to the fact that it wasn't the most stable environment and kind of crazy.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Gerina, I was not getting up hackles, I just wanted to explain how financial aid works, but feel free to discuss with your child's guidance counselor. Your friends scholarship may not have paid entire way as she may not have been considered "emacipated" under finanical aid standards, and the school may have expected her family to pay some amount. I doubt that the cost of art/model supplies would have resulted in so much work that she took 2 extra years to graduate. But no matter, my point is that it is unrealistic to expect kids to get through college on their own.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

KK-
The reason why it took her six years to complete her education was not due to poverty. My friend got an advanced degree. She worked on campus the final two years of her school career. In addition to the actual educational materials that were required for her classes, she still had to buy shampoo, clothes and other sundries. Her parents were not in the picture.

I don't have a kid and my SK's are no longer in high school. Therefore, I will not be contacting a guidance counselor for you. Out of curiosity I just checked the price of balsa wood and it's not cheap.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Gerina,

I am still missing the point of your friend's saga. Even though I dont see anecdotes as establishing a general principal, first you start with it taking her 6 years, then the equipment saga, then oh, it was a graduate degree. Whatever, I still think most kids do need parental help with college.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Unless it's changed, KK's depiction of financial aid in the Ivy's is right on target. There were small merit scholarships (think $500 per semester), but mainly, financial aid for non-tuition, non-room & board expenses was some variation of the work-study program. The schools made a variety of jobs available to students with financial need, and the students were expected to work a certain number of hours per week to pay for their own books, drafting supplies,beer money, etc.

If the parents are poor enough, it's certainly possible for a very bright, very capable student to pay their own way through college using a combination of scholarships, grants, loans and work study. But if the parents can but won't pay for college, the young person is pretty much out of luck...


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

pseudo, you are incorrect.

there is no magical age, there is only one difference: at 18 people could not possibly be done with college and professional training, they just started it. yet at 21 they are close to graduation.

first year of college nobody gets enough loan for college and needs to use other channels, at 21 most kids are on their last year of college so more undergraduate loan is available.


 o
pseudo-

"So 18 to 21 is do as you wish age ... 21 to 25 start to be held accountable..... so by age 30 they should be able to stand on their own!'

I strongly disagree. 18 to 21 (or more realistically 22) is time to get college education, not do as you wish, but luckily if we raise kids right then their "wish' will be to get education and work to contribute. In my opinion it is unacceptable to raise children so they are not willing to neither work nor go to school. Wrong on every level.


 o
gerina

as about working during college, everyone who is not wealthy works while going to college, what is the big deal. DD works full time as a waitress and has other odd part time jobs that come and go like being a model at Art School and similar stuff, so do her classmates at college. everyone works unless they are wealthy and can afford not to work. i am surprised you are talking about your friend like it is some unique situation.


 o
it explains it

"As for her family, she doesn't like to speak of them and I've had to read in between the lines. She has alluded to the fact that it wasn't the most stable environment and kind of crazy."


 o
Just Throwin it Out There

I'm so sorry, because I know that some of you are going through this college thing right now. But it gets REALLY REALLY REALLY freakin old having nearly every thread end up talking about college expenses.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

LOL ashley I think we have nearly as many conversations about some other boring topics like what kids eat or don't, how BM messes up visitation schedules, who picks up who and when, kids playing video games too much, kids playing sports and who should take them to sports etc There are no rules what we can or can't talk about. i guess everything goes


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

"but luckily if we raise kids right then their "wish' will be to get education and work to contribute"
.... but what is a SP to do ????? we are not allowed to have an opinion as to how the children are raised.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I don't know what SP to do. In every family that I know in real life parents raise their children. It is nice to have involved and helpful stepparents but ultimately parents are the ones responsible. I am sorry you are not allowed to have an opinion on how children are raised. If your opinion is valid, there is nothing wrong in at least listening to it. You should address it with your husband. I think it is between spouses.


 o
Finedreams

FD, you entirely missed my point. You said *as about working during college, everyone who is not wealthy works while going to college, what is the big deal. DD works full time as a waitress and has other odd part time jobs that come and go like being a model at Art School and similar stuff, so do her classmates at college. everyone works unless they are wealthy and can afford not to work. i am surprised you are talking about your friend like it is some unique situation.*

My point was that, like my friend, not everyone receives a silver spoon at birth. IMO many people on this forum are actually appalled if a young adult actually has to work or pitch in with a household chore while going to school. My friend worked her behind off. The experience of putting herself though school instilled a personal confidence in her and gave her more of an education than she would have received if mom and dad did everything for her.

I think it's ridiculous to pay for a kid's education, housing, car, insurance & gas, cell phone bill, etc. and not expect anything in return. Good grades are not enough - sorry. Life is tough, nothing is free, and at 18, 19, 20... those lessons need to be learned too. I'm not saying the kid has to pay with a pound of flesh, but if they live at home they can do a chore or two and they certainly should pay for their own cell phone and gas.


 o
gerina

I think majority of people on this forum have children who are too young to work and few of us have children who work and/or go to school, that's why i was not sure who you are trying to impress with the story. who are these people?
this woman worked herself through school years ago, it is not even recent event.

"I think it's ridiculous to pay for a kid's education, housing, car, insurance & gas, cell phone bill, etc. and not expect anything in return. Good grades are not enough - sorry."

But who is saying otherwise? that's why I am not sure who you are telling it to. If people are wealthy and can afford whatever what do we care? i don't.

"Life is tough, nothing is free, and at 18, 19, 20... those lessons need to be learned too." But that what is everybody else saying that's why i am not sure who was this story for. Frankly I was annoyed by that story. she paid for balza wood, so what. everyone I know has hard life one way or the other, I don't find it impressive. I find it sad that someone has crazy uninvolved parents like your friend did but everything else is just a typical life story about years ago.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

FD - Sorry for annoying you so much. I wasn't trying to impress anyone. I brought it up because (and I would rather not name names and you're smart enough to know who) some people here are aghast and act as though it is a hardship or asking too much for a 21 year-old to work for a few hours per week to pay for their own cell phone bill or whatever while in college.

I was trying to point out that some people actually have to do a lot more than pay for a phone bill or whatever else while in school and it doesn't kill them. Your DD is a perfect example of somebody who wants something badly enough to work for it. It is a great quality and she must have learned it from you. It's certainly none of my business, but in most cases I personally think it's crazy when parents work a second job to provide " the extras" for a kid who is unwilling to get a job or even help out around the house.

You said this: *I strongly disagree. 18 to 21 (or more realistically 22) is time to get college education, not do as you wish, but luckily if we raise kids right then their "wish' will be to get education and work to contribute. In my opinion it is unacceptable to raise children so they are not willing to neither work nor go to school. Wrong on every level.* We're on the same page.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

If you are referring to me, I dont think a student working over summers is a problem. But summers and a few hours a week is not going to pay for college for most kids. My opinion -- college is not a luxury.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

KK-

I don't disagree with you, but try telling a family with multiple kids and limited funds that it isn't a luxury.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Hate ta tell ya kkny, but in the province of quebec, many bioparents boot their kids out by 16. That is the legal age to be out of parents range. Whether they are ready or not.
Doesn't matter whether its a SM or BM. But nice to know you still have a chip on your shoulder about SM. Trying to stir the pot from this angle wont fly.
18 is just the governments legal age to vote, to work, for them to collect taxes at that early age. This is of course doesn't mean the child will be ready at 18 unless you do a darn good job in training them or unless the child was up against the wall. Like i was. I had my own place at 15. Full time job and went ot school full time. And no my sm didn't boot me out, i left cause i didn't like my dad's set of rules. left long before he married and long before i had a stepmom.
My opinion, parents have to get them working young and to be responsible. Not spoon feed them
Get this! You know what my stepdaughter told me last month????
I quote: My mommy has to give me everything i want till i'm 18. This mena, cell phone, unlimited texting etc..etc...
My answer: Your mom doens't have to give you squate!!!! a roof, food and basic clothing. Beyong that, Get a JOB!!!!! Where did you get this sense of entitlement from? Obviously not your mom or your dad?
Her answer: i've never heard of anyone kicking their kid out before 18.
Mine: i have. Cell phones, text messages is a luxury not a need. Its a want and if your mom wants to give it to you , its because she wants to not because she has to. In the end, GET A JOB! Your lucky you dont have to pay any bills, rent, food, electriciy, tv, visa, clothes etc...One day , sit down and calculate how much aperson makes per house vs what they have to dish out as regular expense, then come back to me and we'll talk. REal talk. Not absurd demands from a little girl.
So you see kkny, Doesn't matter whether it be SM or SD or BM or BF...kids these days honestly don't know how to be autonomous. THey expect handouts. I know her mother did't teach her this. I know her dad didn't either.
So where are these kids learning to mooch? Her mother makes her work in the summers, saves her money....and yet she still has this attitude, this idea that parents serve children. WTF?


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I think Sweeby's generalization has merit...


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Nivea -- I agree that it is likely that step families do better for kids than single moms, but being a single mom is a choice than can be avoided. A mom may not be able to avoid her child having a SM.

Organic -- I am glad all turned out well for you, but I still think 16 is really too young to be on your own, and 18 also. BTW, one of my DDs friends go to McGill, and from what he says, most of the kids he know have their family's support (and are over 18).

Gerina, I am sympathetic to not enough money to go around. But I dont think people should have more kids until they have figured out how to take care of the ones they have. And that includes college.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

KK, actually the studies I've seen and just general observation, kids fare better with single moms rather than stepfamilies.

Like, look at how many threads and posters with situations where the BM has a habit of getting involved with undesirable men and "ditching" the kids. I don't think it's representative of all single moms but I think it happens enough that it does become a problem for the children involved and ultimately leads to less rates of children from remarried Moms attending college. There were a couple threads not too far back where Mom remarried (never received CS from the bio father) and then expected her new husband to stop giving support (pay for daughters wedding) to his bio children in order to pay for her childrens college. I think that between child support being hard to receive (if someone really doesn't want to pay it, they won't) and women getting paid less in general, this is bound to happen.


 o
RE: more

Dangit, forgot to add to wrap up my last post. To add on to the above, women of that mind frame where finding a man is top priority (and don't even start, everyone here knows women like that!) of course childrens education are going to take a back seat. As well as their emotional health etc.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Nivea, sorry I misunderstood what you said earlier. I agree with you that all the situations you mention are sad.


 o
off topic but couldn't resist! sorry

"But I dont think people should have more kids until they have figured out how to take care of the ones they have."

Hey kk, would you mind repeating that to SD's mom? She just went on 'maternity leave' and DH got $4 in child support yesterday, probably the last bit of support he'll see for a long while since now she can't work.. she has a baby to take care of after all.

and nivea, I agree those studies are probably somewhat accurate. It goes back to the parent's priorities and if a single parent that wants their child to go to college, but is considering marriage... one of the considerations NEEDS to be the potential spouses attitude toward that goal. My opinion is people do not discuss the right things before they get married... first or subsequent. If they did, many more first marriages could last... if they would choose the right person and discuss the right issues. (that's still not a guarantee a marriage will last, but many of us know people IRL that should have discussed how the children should be raised because now that they are divorced, they can't agree on ANYTHING... but they may have discussed how many kids they wanted.)

Just a thought.... why do we have to take a test to get a driver's license but not a marriage license? Why is there a "license" to get married anyway? They should call it a permit... you just pay the fee and that's it.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

"but being a single mom is a choice than can be avoided"

Totally disagree with this statement.

It wasn't a choice that could have been avoided for me. It's not a choice that can be avoided for widows. It's not a choice for women whose spouses leave without any warning or trying to work it out whatsoever.

It's not choice unless a single woman chooses to have a child as a single woman and they stay that way.

You (KK) are a single mom. Could you have avoided it or did you do everything you could to avoid it & it happened anyway? Just curious. Or maybe I completely misunderstood that statement.

~Cat


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Catlettuce, very sorry for unclear language, I was trying to differentiate between unmarried women who by their own choice have kids and divorcees or widows.

Ima, I agree that anyone of any sex who can not support the kdis they have should not have more. My state used to provide women heading AFDC families (which stands for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, but some joke it should be Aid to Dependent Families with Children) with invitro fertilization if needed. GRRRR.


 o
KKNY-to add on original topic

My cousin is a stepmother. She married the dad when her skids were around 12-13. It's a long story but his kids never lived with them UNTIL...

The then 18 year old son of her husband started having some problems, defiance with his mother and dad, not wanting to work, the usual. My cousin took him in and let him stay with her as a fairly neutral party as his own BM had basically kicked him out and her husband was on the warpath with his own biokid. Fast forward, the kid, now 27 or 28, finished college, works in a great profession and gets along with all of his parents bio and step. But it was the STEPMOM, my cousin, who stepped in and kept him while his parents were almost through with him when he hit 18.

How does that fit with your theories? It all depends on the families, the individuals and their personal value systems.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Lamom,

Of course, everyone is different.

I started this post after a series of posts that had a theme running through them that the SM wanted the kids out when they hit 18, followed by one of a SM who was (IMHO) concerned that her DH would force out her kid at 18.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

kkny,

You are right, lots of parents want their kids out at 18. After going through 3-5 rough teenage years whether the kids are step or bio, you bet they want them out! My intact parents never said it but I'm sure they let out a sigh of relief when I got on the plane to college.

You may have a point that some SM's and probably the SD's may be more determined with their skids but you know after participating on this board why that would be the case. They are not only dismissing the skid but the attendant baggage of the courts, ex-wife, ex-husband, new husband or wife of the first marriages, 2nd or 3rd families etc. Of course, plenty of bio parents can't wait to drop Susie or Johnny off at college as well. Or tell Susie or Johnny "Get a job or get moving!"

And of course, there is always the divide between mothers and fathers on this issue. Fathers, bio or step, do tend to be tougher I think on this kind of thing, especially if the child in question is male. My DH left home at 17 because of pressure from his father. He didn't go far, to his aunt's a mile or so away but he had to pay rent and was still in high school. The aunt made him pay some nominal amount but he had to keep his high school job, finish with decent grades or SHE was going to put him out too! So he did work and keep his grades together. Went on to college and an advanced degree. I think that is the way it works for everyone and that it is not a stepparent vs. bioparent issue so much except for the overlay of all the baggage that goes with stepparenting. Which, I will admit, is a major overlay.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I agree with nivea if women marry men who mistreat their children then of course kids would be 100% better if moms stayed single. now financially kids might be better off if a stepfather is a provider but money is not everything.

on the topic of more kids. I think it is great to have big families, but I don't have much sympathy for women who complain they cannot provide for their kids or their marriages are abusive or dads are deadbeat yet they continue having children. I don't understand statements such as I cannot help my kids with anything because I have too many kids, well they don't have that many.

yeap lamom it depends on value system and priority. if a priority is to keep a man no matter what then of course forget about helping children, their education or like nivea said: their emotional wellbeing. But let's not make it an example of something positive.

Most people (if not all) I personally know in real life do hep their children with education, every one of DD's friends gets parental support through college.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Lol,, kkny , i work at mcgill. The kids that attend mcgill are golden spoon fed. Have bank accounts filled by parents and most do not have a parttime job. Been here for 25 years within the mcgill system and have seen many mnay entitle BRATS go through the turn style. Whether it be biokids, stepkids..you name it.
The small percentage that do attend mcgill work hard at jobs,plus study and go to labs to finish what they study. Its a very small percentage. Mcgill offers barely any night time course, hence why they cater to young student who's family supports them. ITs very difficult to work and study at the same time while trying ot take care of bills. I did it, BUt it almost killed me. I was a zombie by the end of it.
It still doesn't change the fact that in quebec the legal age is 16 and that kids are booted out whether they are ready or not.
Saying that your friend goes to mcgill and parents support them there is basically confirming a point. THe parents who have the money to support these kids can and do it. THis doesn't make the kid less entitled here. Alot of the mcgill students i work with do feel and have this sense of entitlement and are completley immature when it comes to reality and real life. Most do not live on their own, Dont pay their cell phones or their own cars that is financed by daddy and mommy.
But the good thing is , i've seen a change in last 5 years. Parents are pulling their support. Telling their kids to pay for cell phones, cars , gas...telling them to get a job. THANK GOD!


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Organic, I beleive McGill is highly respected. These kids, that you call brats, are keeping your employer in business. For you to call your employer's customers, because in one sense, that is what the students are, brats is, IMHO, highly inaproriate.

Even within the last 5 years, I still see parents supporting their kids in college. My DD and her friends are in college right now. It is expected where I live that parents contribute. Not saying that summer jobs are not the norm, but that will not be sufficient to cover college costs.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

McGill is not highly respected. Its gone downhill for quite sometime.
I know quite a bit of info that i will not disclose on this site. BUt understand this. Mcgill pays to protect its reputation from being tarnished..unfortunately that department cannot hide some of the inappropriate things the institute has done against its own employees.
And no, the students that i call brats are not keeping my employer in business. Its the scientists and labs that keep mcgill from going under. Mcgill takes a heafty percentage from rewards given to them out of the scientists. As well the way mcgill has been organised , its the scientists that have to enlist workers and they pay them out of funds that are not mcgills funds and yet the worker must have Mcgill on their paychecks and pay them a certain percentage for the name and for using their facilities.
No, kkny, mcgill has gone down. It use to be a great place 20 years ago...not anymore.
IMHO, me calling mcgills 'customers' brats is just that. Being honest. These kids feel entitled to alot and dont deserve it. You think their honest? ehheheheheh lol...( ah.....ignorance is bliss)..Sorry kkny. You dont have the full picture and mostly wont. You cannot base you judgement on mcgill from hearsay because a friend of yours has a daughter attending here. I'm speaking from experience.
If you want to turn a blind eye,and ear, its your choice.
Do you know how much Mcgill waste money? Student $$$ is extra cash for mcgill so they can do what they please. Its not their core cash.
We employees hold up mcgill and get treated like garbage. But we keep our jobs, in this economic instability. We need it to pay the bills.
The students faces are changing too. They non brats are building in numbers...working,,, building a new mcgill. I hope it changes in the years to come more. And more of this young adult shed their entitled attitudes.
A few tadbits: mcgill goes through computers liek water...wasted money, they pay large amounts of people in the high levels when they leave...wasted money...furniture? 10,000$ for a talbe they didnt' need.
You dont live here kkny. You dont work where i do. You honestly dont see the things i see. Mcgill can manage themselves soo much better but higher management wont listen. They even have staff members here that are on thier core payroll who do nothing.NOthing!!! a student should do this job and get some cash to put into their education...but no...they have several individuals here who honestly do nothing.......

" It is expected where I live that parents contribute" You hit the mark!!!
Its expected!!!! The sense of their entitlement.
BREAK that cycle! Summer jobs are not sufficient, they can apply for grants and pay back after they graduates. Thats the norm.
The times are changing...at least in my province.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

So, just so I understand. Are you one of the world renounded scientests McGill is known for?

That's right, I don't work there. But where I work, we dont post on a board anything negative about the employer, employees or customors. I suspect almost anything could find negative things to say about their employer. The name McGill is respected in the business world, where I work.

I see a lot of bitterness toward kids whose parents for college.

You say kids have a sense of entitlement that there parents will pay for college. I don't see that. Where I live, even if my daughter took the maximize loan, it wouldnt come close to paying. Grants -- what grants for undergraduates that are not need based?


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I have to agree with KK, just because people have the money and can afford things it does not make them spoiled brats. i know plenty of rich people and they are no different from anyone else. it is rather simplistic thinking: rich means selfish and spoiled. I sense some jealousy in such thinking.

I also do not think that if parents pay for college, kids have sense of entitlement. sense of entitlement has nothing to do with money. plenty of people think they are entitled for welfare for example.

everyone I know is contributing to their children education one way or the other. nothing unusual or unique about that.


 o
to add

to add: to get maximum loan one has to have either no parents or parents living below poverty level. if you make any kind of money, your children only qualify for tiny loan and it is because parents are expected to contribute, frankly if you can but refuse to help why do you even have children?

My nephew applied and got 2000 for his first year. Obviously in the US it cannot pay tuition. If my brother would refuse to help my nephew would not be able to afford going to school at all. My SO's DD only qualified for few thousands a year because of how much her dad makes. And I am not talking about wealthy people, just people making OK money. To get decent loan or grant one has to be very poor.

I thought McGill is rather well established school that hard to get in, surprised to hear otherwise.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Ah yes, ingnorance is bliss.
Get off your mighty highhorse kkny.
You obviously dont like when someone sticks it to you.
Mcgill is well established. Its not hard to get into. There is also a skew in the admittance level. The main reason being, they accept more students worldwide because they pay triple the tuition fee.
Lets not forget this university is a business. They must make money to survive. And as Concordia and Mcgill and all unvisersity alike. They all have their politics good and bad
Heck i didn't say all the students were snots. Just a portion...which is now changing. :0)
Its not only loans but bursary's. My cousin applied for many and got alot. and worked her butt off in business.
Like i said before Mcgill caters to selected population for its own personal business. Its been quite successful. But its obvious you people havent' been looking into the newspapers in the last year to see what has been exposes. THe money handouts when people leave...hiring....
etc..
I am free to speak about the good and the bad. Mcgill is a good university with its bad as well. Its not a squeeky clean place..and i'm sur eother institutes have their issues.
Nope..jealousy...love the way you twist things....i'm sure your ex husband had his hands full with you ;)
As for scientists at mcgill, many have retired and have not looked back.
ANd i never said rich = spoiled...
I clearly said any parent who spoon feeds their children at every turn makes them entitled brats.
Dotn twist my words ladies.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Of course you have the right to say what you want, as does everyone on this board. I just do not think it appropriate to badmouth an employer. That to me is disrespectful. If you feel what an employer is doing is so distasteful, dont work there.

And I disagree with you, I see nothing wrong with parents paying for college. As FD said, at least in the US, it is much more difficult to obtainm scholarships and subsidized loans if students under age 25 have parents with even a fair amount of income. Doesnt matter if students say they are emancipated.

I don't see you "sticking in to me" -- you have your opinion and I have mine.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

McGill is not hard to get in? GPA average has to be A/A-/B+, those are hard requirements, SAT individual scores have to be in 600s. I agree it is not the highest requirements for SAT, not Ivy League but still hot that easy. How could you say it is not hard to get in?

Of course international students pay more in any university they attend, they even pay more out of state, I don't see how it speaks poorly of any school.

I don't know what type of job you do at McGill, but I doubt it is anything academical, you don't seem to know admission requirements.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

I'm high ranked in mcgill. I know very well what i am talking about.
ANd Canadian education is not the same as American. Its not hard to get an A/A-/B+ as you put it. THe grading system is Completely different. There are schools in the states that are of the highest order. They are amazing. But not all students attend some of the best schools.

And i really hate to give you more light on this subject but many Mcgill applicants with A- have been rejected due to quota and other admission issues.
Its a business ladies. Remember.
I say its not hard to get in because i see alot of smart students. Alot , many who apply to mcgill have these high marks. Trust me, i know.
The only thing wrong with parents paying for college and university is if the child expects it kkny.
Dont twist my words ladies. I dont think its wrong for parents to help their children BUT they have to work partime, they have to not expect it because they are the chidl and that is my parent. And i would help my child in university as long as they have a part time job and they're grades are high.
I've seen a few cases not only in concordia but in mcgill and two other institutes where the poor parents pay and the kid goofs, while having his cell phone and car paid for by said parents. Its RIDICULOUS!
Parents in this society must draw the line and how they raise their kids now adays. These kids will the futur and this entitlement must be changed.
Now we have gone off topic and we can discuss schools and politics all we like.
In the end, after being part of this forum for almost 10 years, ladies you are beating the same horse from a different angle.
Kkny you still have your chip on your shoulder against SM
Obviously me being one will get your knickers in a fancy.
Lets not forget i was also a stepchild. I know both fences.
As for tone, i'm not the one who 's bitter and jealous in my situ.
good day ladies.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

kids don't goof because parents pay their tuition. all DD's friends have their tuition paid by parents, none of them is goofing off. everyone does well in school. if children don't value education (weren't raised to value it) OR are not mature enough to handle it, then they would not do well. But in those cases it is not wise to send them to college the first year after high school. about work, DD works because she cannot afford not to work, but her best friend attends Harvard working on double major, he has neither time nor energy to work, it is way more school work than DD has to do.

you sound unrealistic.

A average is not hard to achieve? do your kids have A average?

DD has 2200 out 2400 SAT score (READING 800/writing 750/math 650) yet she never ever had A/A- average. how is it easy to achieve? It is very difficult! she would not get to plenty of schools due to her GPA not being high enough.

of course those who apply for McGill have high marks! otherwise they would not even apply knowing they won't get in! You see a lot of smart kids, well duh. Not smart kids are not going there. i can't believe your posts, you contradict yourself i every line.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

Organic, there are no need for personal attacks against me. I do not have my knickers in a fancy.

There is no way most middle class kids from the states can put himself through a school like McGill. The aid just isnt there. In the US, parents are expected to help. Otherwise the kid will end up at local CC or local public U. Not saying that is the end of the world, just saying.

As to McGill admitting some students because it is business (I would have said, it has to assure its continuation, not that it is a business), then as I said, I do not think you should be trashing the "full-pay" students who keep it, your employer, in business.

What I don't understand is I seem to recall you have railed in the past about stepchildren not showing respect, but you apparently think you owe your employer no respect. A stepchild has no choice of stepparent, you have choice of employer.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

OK, I asked my colleague today, who is Canadian, (I have 2 Canadian colleagues) and she told me that no it is not easy to achieve A/A- average at all. it is as hard as in any other country. And Canadian system does not make it any different. A is A. and it is not easy to get to McGill at all.


 o
RE: Dads kids v Mom kids

*insert dead horse*


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Stepfamily Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here