Return to the Stepfamily Forum

 o
Just an observation...

Posted by pseudo_mom (My Page) on
Fri, Mar 12, 10 at 11:24

Neither situation applies to me ... it might to hubby his oldest has a different BM than the 3 others ... but I don't see it anyway.

How come dad's are blasted when they have more children ...

But when mom's have second families they do not get blasted.

If dad does he gets blasted for not being a good enough dad the first time around ...did he learn from his mistakes and making up for it?

Most of the BM's on here that have gone on to have second families do not have custody of the older children are they trying to make up for their mistakes too?

Exceptions Yabber and LH but alcohol is a determining factor with those 2 BM's.

I am hoping to be a great grandparent and make up for the mistakes I made with my kids. (not that I made any afterall I have perfect children!!)

Just an observation ... I could be totally wrong.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Just an observation...

I think it's because some people on this forum have a complete and obvious bias towards dads. JMO.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Example?

What is it, 86% of the time Moms get custody. So even with a second family rates of abandonment are significantly lower than fathers.

I think non custodial Mothers get a lot more flack from society in general than Fathers. I don't think it's bias, I think it's plain ole facts that Fathers have more issues in stepfamilies but a lot of the time everyone wants to cover up for them and point the finger at another woman, whether it's the biomom or a stepdaughter. It's a lot easier to blame someone else than your own husband. How many Stepfathers do we get posting here about how great their wife is but her 4 year old is a brat? lol. Most of the time it's a spousal issue.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Most of the BM's on here that have gone on to have second families do not have custody of the older children are they trying to make up for their mistakes too?

I dont understand this. What BMs on here? Most of the moms that post here have custody? Are you talking about SMs talking about mothers who dont have custody? Which of those dont get blasted?


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I think I misunderstood. Are you trying to say Dads can go on to have second families and they get blasted for not participating enough in the first family, while if Moms go on to have second families they are not blasted?

If that's the question, I think it's because in general Moms are more dedicated to the children and handle the integration of their "new" kids with their "old" kids while Dads, if they go off and make another family, they spend less time with their "old" kids and cleave to the "new mom" and "new family".

Just a generalization.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I think also there is bias (whether based on society expecting and women more involved in child care, or based on courts bias, I'm not opining), but I think for a mom NOT to have custody, she has real problems. For a dad NOT to have custody doesnt mean he is loser.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"I think also there is bias (whether based on society expecting and women more involved in child care, or based on courts bias, I'm not opining), but I think for a mom NOT to have custody, she has real problems. For a dad NOT to have custody doesnt mean he is loser."

Oh yeah, I think there is a huge bias for a woman to be non-custodial parent than a male. Society just takes it as a given that a male isn't custodial due to whatever....even if he chose to just not be a part of the kids life, whatever. But if a Mom is non custodial due to travel for work or whatever, than she is just a low down terrible person.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I don't anyone who is blasted for having second families, unless it involves completely ignoring your 1st family.

I don't know about BMs whose kids live with dad. i am not sure who you are refering to.

i know your own kids lived with their dad, in the meanwhile your SKs also live with dad. It is somewhat unusual but i am not sure if you were refering to your own situation or someone else's.


 o
thoughts

"I think also there is bias (whether based on society expecting and women more involved in child care, or based on courts bias, I'm not opining), but I think for a mom NOT to have custody, she has real problems. For a dad NOT to have custody doesnt mean he is loser."

I totally agree with this.

I know we've had THIS debate round and round on here, but I do wonder about that 86% of the time, custody goes to mom. That is certainly not the norm where I am. Joint custody is what I see more and more.

ALSO, I wonder if there is a difference in custody situations based on whether the parents were married or not?

A friend of mine recently married a man with a child, and he has an every other week joint custody schedule. Never married to the mother.

I took a scuba course last fall and my instructor (who I knew prior to the course, that's why I went with his dive company) was a 32 yr old guy with the same custody schedule we have with SS with HIS two daughters, ages 6 and 9. Again, never married to the mom.

I do think moms are more likely to get primary custody in divorce situations, just because the kids have likely been living in the same house with mom as primary caregiver all along. So it makes more sense for things to remain status quo.

But let's face it, more and more people are having children out of wedlock today and I think this might account for the increase in dads getting joint custody/equal time.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Where I live, joint legal custody is common, but it doesn not mean primary physical. I dont have many divorced friends, but all have the same as I do, which is joint legal and primary physical. I think every other week is very tough on kids when they get school age, unless the parents live close to each other. Its not only getting them to school, its friends and activities. Honestly, how would you like having to move every week. I think the judges realize this.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"Where I live, joint legal custody is common, but it doesn not mean primary physical."

I realize the difference. And I AM talking about joint physical custody.

You are talking about DIVORCED friends your age, KK, who have primary physical. That is exactly my point. I am saying that I notice in MY age group (which is younger than yours) a trend of dads having joint physical custody.I think this trend is indicative of two things:

1.) more and more people having babies out of wedlock
b.) the changing legal system

MOST of the people MY AGE I know who have children were NOT married to the other parent of their child. Like I said before, I think when parents were married for many years and the children are used to MOM being primary caretaker, then when a divorce happens, often times things just stay status quo for the kids: mom retains primary, dad gets EOW. But in these types of situations, there probably is NOT typically a custody battle. Mom and Dad agree because it's what keeps things the SAME for the kids.

BUT let's take a situation that is growing in frequency: mom and dad meet, date, maybe live together (maybe not) and have a child out of wedlock. They aren't together when baby is born or else break up when child is very young.

In a lot of these situations, I think DAD is actually more likely to fight for joint phys. custody AND get it.

I am not making this up: in MY circles, I know MORE dads with joint custody than not. The majority of these guys are in my age group.

When DH went to court with BM 2 yrs ago, he had had "unoffical 50-50 custody" since SS was 1 yr old. All he wanted was that arrangement on paper. The attorneys told him/us "no problem, judges like involved dads and if a dad wants equal time, he will get it." And BINGO, the GAL offered the standard 5-2-2-5 split.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Hubby has had full legal of his DD20 since she was 4 and has full legal of the 2 boys, mom has full legal custody of SD nothing standard about that.

I have a friend going through something like LA ... her kids are 22+ years apart. Oldest DD (36 mom of 2) and SD (38 mom of 1)are mad/jealous of younger DD (14). The older ones complain all the time to friend and hubby how hard they had it compared to 14yo. They are being bashed by each of their own Bio children about their half-sister....they have even teamed up together against their parents. Yet as teens couldn't stand each other.

Just wondering if it was "standard".


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"Just wondering if it was "standard".

I don't know anyone IRL. I know people with big age difference.

One example DD is 12 and 20 years older than her brothers. No jealousy or resentment on her part. I believe ex is a better father now than he was at 20. But he is a better father to ALL of his kids including DD.

It is normal to be better parents as we get older. But if people are BETTER parents only to their "new" kids then i anticipate problems.


love, I don't know too many people IRL who have children out of wedlock, any generations. It appears to be very uncommon. I only know girls who got pregnant very young accidentally, teenage pregnancy. No one of a legal age.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I know TONS of women who are pregnant, have kids, and are not married, nor do they intend to marry the father of their children. And they are adults, over 25.


 o
Finedreams

"love, I don't know too many people IRL who have children out of wedlock, any generations. It appears to be very uncommon."

Oh FD, it is an epidemic! My dad calls it the "ghetto-ization of society." (He's not being rude or offensive when he says that; he has a Phd and is a very insightful, thoughtful man. He really thinks it is *interesting* because it is SO acceptable and common today for young women to have a baby without being married. He told me it would be a fascinating thesis to delve into what's changed in society that has caused this.)

I know SO MANY people in my age bracket who had children without being married. And I am from an upper middle class, private school, college educated background, and I STILL see it a lot.

I am NOT saying it is the norm by any means, but it is FAR more common than you realize and is certainly not "uncommon."

I think society has changed over the last 20-40 years, in that marriage is no longer pushed when someone gets pregnant. It is easier and more acceptable to have a baby without being married.

GOSH. I am thinking here. My good friend 27, who has her BFA and is working on her Masters, has a 7 yr old DD with her ex-boyfriend.

Another friend has TWO boys (ages 4 & 2) with her ex-boyfriend. She is in grad school.

I have a friend I went to HS with who has a 6 yr old DD with her ex-boyfriend. She graduated with a degree in Psychology, works in real estate and is now married to another guy.

My dad's girlfriend has two children--she did marry the father, but only after the second child was born, and they divorced a year later.

I have another friend from HS who has a 2 year old little boy with her ex boyfriend. She is an attorney.

My good friend's older sister (33ish) (who is also an attorney) has a 5 yr old DD with her ex-boyfriend. Now she is married and has an infant son, as well.

Interestingly enough, I don't really know any TEENAGE girls who got pregnant. The people I know all seemed to be in their early to mid twenties.


 o
same here

I also know tons ... but its weird the people who never married ... seem atleast to me to stay together much longer than those who married.

I know many couples who have been together close to 20 years never married.

I am his 3rd wife lol and he's my first husband only been married for 5 years. I have a 25 yo and an 18 yo.

My SIL has been married 3 times and has one child with a guy she never married!!!

FD ... even though he is good to all .. and you say no jealousy yet.... do you think into the future when the boys are in their teens it might be different ... or is it because they are boys and she's a girl its just different? or you really can't foresee any issues arising?

With my friends they are still "doing" for their older kids ... buying stuff (like living room sets) but they take the 14yo on shopping trips for clothes and mini vacations thats what the older one have issues with ... they never got to do those things etc...


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I didn't mean to say i don't know like any women at all. I know some, just not like friends or family or colleagues.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

The ones I know were not teenage pregnancies either.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"He's not being rude or offensive when he says that; he has a Phd and is a very insightful, thoughtful man. He really thinks it is *interesting* because it is SO acceptable and common today for young women to have a baby without being married. He told me it would be a fascinating thesis to delve into what's changed in society that has caused this.)"

Cause women no longer have to get married or *stay* married to survive and/or support their children on their own. The last 50 years have been radically new for women. Even divorce, women initiate it far more often than men.

I think men haven't always caught up to the "new" rules and women know they can leave. It'll balance out in the coming years, but now it is rough. Men don't always know where the stand concerning women and weren't raised by women according to the new rules. The next generations will start balancing out, I think.

As far as single people, I know quite a lot. I still haven't seen research showing any kind of significant trend with fathers getting custody. Most show that while joint is the trend being pushed, it is still not being asked for by men. I dunno, maybe it's just different in parts of the country.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

The older ones complain all the time to friend and hubby how hard they had it compared to 14yo.

Is she sure they're serious? For a while as teens (and maybe twenties even) my brothers and I used to say stuff like but weeeee never got to do that when weeee were that age(about my 11 years younger little brother). We thought we were being funny. In fact, I thought I was hilarious. Not too long ago, my dad mentioned something about this phase we went through when we used to "complain all the time" that we didn't get the same kinds of things little brother did. He thought we were seriously jealous/upset. (I kinda thought the overly dramatic whiney voice I remember using would have been a dead giveaway, but apparently with teenagers it's not. Imagine that.)


 o
pseudo

"FD ... even though he is good to all .. and you say no jealousy yet.... do you think into the future when the boys are in their teens it might be different ... or is it because they are boys and she's a girl its just different? or you really can't foresee any issues arising?"

Nope, there is no jealousy. I know my DD very very well, it is just not her style. Nothing to do with boys/girls. She has nothing to feel jealous about. We generally are not jealous people. Plus DD is 22 and is an adult, she graduates college this summer, she has her own worries.

I think jealousy exists between children only if it is cultivated by parents-consciously or unconsciously.

Not to say that something can't go wrong, can't guarantee, ex might do something stupid for example, but I have no reasons to anticipate anything.


 o
lovehadley

"Interestingly enough, I don't really know any TEENAGE girls who got pregnant."

I work with teenagers, primarily disadvantaged, plenty are/were/will be pregnant while in high school-15 is the youngest so far.


 o
Quirk

Quirk they are in their late 30's hoping they are not using whiney voices .... they wouldn't do it in front of me I don't think... but I do see their FB posts hahahahah ... but like here you cannot hear infliction and tone. She just feels guilty like she doesn't do enough for any of them....


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"Cause women no longer have to get married or *stay* married to survive and/or support their children on their own. "

I think that is part of it but there is more to it. What I think is really odd is that people don't take more measures to prevent these unplanned pregnancies.

I mean, let's face it, birth control today is pretty darn effective if you want it to be. THAT is something that just a few generations ago, they didn't have.

VERY few pregnancies are truly "accidental." I am totally including myself in here btw! I was 20 when I got pregnant with DD--not on birth control, having unprotected sex with a summer fling and wasn't really concerned about consequences. My pregnancy wasn't planned but it certainly was not prevented.

There is something--can't put my finger on it--that almost makes it a badge of honor or something. It's not quite like that but I think it is an interesting phenomenon.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

interesting...

I had too attend a lot of weddings in my early 20s, and almost every bride was pregnant, visibly pregnant. I myself got married at 20. I was the only not pregnant bride LOL some couples eventually got divorced, including myself, some stayed. interesting that being pregnant or not did not determine the outcome of the marriage.

heck my own mother was pregnant at their wedding, and my parents are still married. :).


 o
RE: Just an observation...

My DD is now in college. No pregnant friends. No friends who had kids.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"My DD is now in college. No pregnant friends. No friends who had kids."

Isn't your DD a freshman, KKNY? Presumably living in the dorms?

Give it a few years. My experience has been this stuff tends to happen when people are living off-campus or have already graduated from college and are co-habitating with boyfriends/girlfriends.

The majority of people I know who had kids without being married did so in their early to mid 20s. The majority were out of college.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

yes, my DD is a freshman, but her two best friends are sophmores, and plenty others are juniors, and most have older bros or sisters. No unmarried kids having kids that I know about. No one having kids actually. It just isnt common where we live.

Not to say they arent having sex, or cohabiting. But they understand birth control.

And as over the hill as I am, everyone I knew was having sex in college. No babies though.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"My DD is now in college. No pregnant friends. No friends who had kids."

That doesn't surprise me. In my opinion, girls that are in college are more likely to be thinking about future goals & dreams and going to college takes planning, so I would expect girls in college to be more likely to plan their life, including when they want to have children. I also believe they are more likely to be aware of and use birth control. However, if you took a poll, you may be surprised at how many have had abortions compared to girls in the same age group, that don't go to college.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Two interesting concepts:
1. Not planned but not prevented either
2. Not having babies, but having abortions.

Absolutely true. When I was in my college prep exclusive private high school, all the girls who got "in trouble" had hush-hush abortions. The girls who didn't have the resources had the babies. Same thing in college. Those who stayed in our small town had their babies. Those in college aborted theirs so they could continue their goals.

I don't know about it being "understanding birth control". I know quite a few girls and women who were on the pill and used condoms and got pregnant anyway. It's not always ignorance.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Really? I never had an unplanned pregnancy. Neither did my sister. I kinda think I would know if my DD did, and I dont think she has.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

kkny~ Is that scientific proof to support your position? What does that have to do with anything? That would be like me, arguing that more fathers than mothers have custody because there are more fathers in my family & circle of friends that have custody, than mothers... yet, in the general population, statistically overall that is not true. (although i would definitely argue that more fathers are getting custody today than they did just a few years ago... it may be that times are changing)


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I don't know about it being "understanding birth control". I know quite a few girls and women who were on the pill and used condoms and got pregnant anyway. It's not always ignorance.

Yeah. When they quote birth control effectiveness rates, they do so on an annual basis. So, when they quote a method as 99% effective (sounds GREAT, dont it!), that means 1 out of 100 women using it will get pregnant every year. Multiply that times 25 years or so of fertility per woman, rather a lot of women are getting pregnant by accident-- really by accident, actually using birth control properly and everything.

As long as were using anecdotal evidence and all, my mother had 4 (that I know of, ha) unplanned pregnancies. At least two of them were with an IUD, which you cant exactly forget or use wrong. It happens.

Most unplanned pregnancies are probably not due to birth control failure. That just makes sense; if 1 out of 100 women using BC get pregnant, and 7 out of 10 using the cross my fingers and toes method do, even if there are a lot fewer of the fingers and toes women, they probably make up the most of the pregnancies. But as individuals, even with consistent use of birth control, we still have a significant risk of getting accidentally pregnant at some point in our lives.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"I think that is part of it but there is more to it. What I think is really odd is that people don't take more measures to prevent these unplanned pregnancies."

Well, the technology for bc pills for men is available. But manufacturers are hesitant to make it because all studies show men percentages of men that would actually take the pill are so low that there will be no profit for them to even make it.

It's freedom for women. You don't have to take a pill or insert a device that is full of hormones that send your body out of whack and/or cause long term issues. You don't have to have an abortion if you don't want to. You don't have to have a man to raise a child. And you have sexual freedom all to boot. While these all sound "normal" to us, our mothers and grandmothers didn't even have these options for them to decide. They were told by their doctors, their religious leaders and their husbands what, when and how things should be done. We are among the first couple of generations to actually choose everything for ourselves.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

KK, I didn't either. I had one pregnancy. She's 7 now. And I had unprotected sex with her father, my husband at the time, for over 5 years and only had one child. Which happened THE FIRST TIME we had sex. LOL.

Doesn't mean every college-girl has an abortion. Just, IMO, those with the means who get themselves "in trouble" are more likely to have abortions. Those who are not "expected" to "make something of themselves" are more likely to have the baby.

Some of my friends had three + abortions. WOW. Crazy wow. And they insist (although I will never know) they were using BC pills and condoms. And they are college grads, working professional jobs. Married now, and considering kids.

I have one friend whose mother was on BC, did not know she was pregnant until the 7th month. Statistics are fallible.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"BUT let's take a situation that is growing in frequency: mom and dad meet, date, maybe live together (maybe not) and have a child out of wedlock. They aren't together when baby is born or else break up when child is very young.
In a lot of these situations, I think DAD is actually more likely to fight for joint phys. custody AND get it. "

I think there are a lot of both unplanned as well as PLANNED pregnancies out of wedlock these days. I personally know a number of women, in their 30's and early 40's, who took the plunge. No man in sight, biological clock ticking loudly. It's not some outlying phenomenon, lots of women are just moving forward without the ring. It's the MAN who has to really assert himself legally if he wants to be involved, a real role reversal from the deadbeat dad era. These men do sue for joint custody!

I think when the mom has a second set of kids, they are more accepted by the first set, especially if they are still minors, since they are probably spending most of their time with her even if there is joint custody which more the norm these days. If the kids accept the new babies everyone else does too. I know a couple of guys who really fought for joint custody with mothers they never married. Whatever the legal outcomes are, I think the kids still spend more time with mom, feel more included with the new baby or babies, don't feel so threatened as they do with a new baby at dad's house where they basically visit versus live. Even formal court decrees don't change this basic arrangement unless there is a lot of acrimony between the parents.

Then if the dad is the higher earner than the mom, has new kids who look like they are getting more or better, watch the blasts blast off against dear old dad!


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Quirk -- you say "I don't know about it being "understanding birth control". I know quite a few girls and women who were on the pill and used condoms and got pregnant anyway. It's not always ignorance.
Yeah. When they quote birth control effectiveness rates, they do so on an annual basis. So, when they quote a method as 99% effective (sounds GREAT, dont it!), that means 1 out of 100 women using it will get pregnant every year. Multiply that times 25 years or so of fertility per woman, rather a lot of women are getting pregnant by accident-- really by accident, actually using birth control properly and everything. "

This statistic may not mean as many women as you suggest getting pregnant by accident, it could be some people have more than one accidents.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"Then if the dad is the higher earner than the mom, has new kids who look like they are getting more or better, watch the blasts blast off against dear old dad! "

And if one of the first set of kids tries to help their siblings child, watch SM get mad.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"And if one of the first set of kids tries to help their siblings child, watch SM get mad."

kkny, you just don't get it at all. I'm not unhappy that my SD (and yes I assume in your post you are referring to me) helps SS's kids. I don't like that my son doesn't get equal treatment or close to equal treatment. In another thread you said "It's not all about your kid" meaning mine. My problem is that with my skids it's hardly EVER about my kid! It's been explained to me quite a few times that my skids basically see my son, their half-brother as more of a little relative than a brother because they didn't grow up together, he's getting more of the new and improved dad , they see it, don't like it, and so on.

It's processed and packed. Sorry to hijack.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

people have unplanned babies when they don't use birth control or use it improperly. it is pretty simple.

teenagers that i know through work come from very dysfunctional families, hence unplanned pregnancies. or even planned, girls think is the way to keep a guy.

direct correlation.

it is also obvious that people from lower socio=economic levels are more likely to have unplanned pregnancy.

none of DD's friends are pregnant, all are in college.


 o
child out of wedlock

of course if a single woman (who pretty much gave up on finding a partner) decides to have a planned child/or adopt is very different from 18-year-old sleeping around with whoever offers and getting accidentally pregnant.

Those are completely different things.

outcome statistically might sound the same: child out of wedlock but clearly it is not even close.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Wow. the socioeconomic patterings here are astounding to me. I also think it's amazing the these mothers think they know everything that goes on with every one of their daughter's college age friends. LMAO.

It's all the ghetto girls tramping around with whoever offers and getting knocked up,... right ladies?


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Silver, do I claim to know everything re my DDs friens, of course not and I did not claim that. I would certainly know if they had a baby. I said I did not have any unplanned pregnancies nor did my sister. That I do know.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

none of DD's friends have children, she would tell me, it would be big news. If any of my friends have children it would be big news, it is not a secret. Only one of her former high school classmates got married so far. DD told me N_ is getting married.

One of her college friends was considering getting married this summer after graduation, but they might change their mind and wait a bit.

what's the big deal knowing that people are having children? My DD talks to me. i always talked to my mom. it is not like we are estranged. of course I don't know everything about everyone, but she tells me if something major is happening. having children is major IMHO.

silvers i deal constantly with teenage pregnancies,
it is very sad situation, girls hope that guy will be there but he runs away right away, there is no one to help, parents are poor, they themselves have many children from different men, welfare helps but it only perpetuates poverty and misery. it is all very sad.

i don't find it funny or light. One girl had the guts to have an abortion but her own dad called her "baby killer" in drunken/drug induced frenzy and now girl stays with some friends. it is all pretty tragic.

of course socio-economic level determines many outcomes. it is not some big news. that's why it is so important to break the pattern by providing education. education is usually the key. more education one has, less likely she/he will end up with 5 kids on welfare. i don't think it is funny.

of course anyone can get pregnant, but statistically number of unplanned children varies significantly. I don't find it something to laugh about.

i am not talking about grown women who plan having children, I am talking about young girls. sad, not funny.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Oh. My. God. kk, way to nitpick over something completely beside the point, and way to ignore the fact that I GAVE AN EXAMPLE of one of those women (my mother) RIGHT IN THAT SAME POST.

The POINT I was trying to make is that, because the efficacy rates of birth control methods are reported on an annual basis, it can be highly misleading unless you stop and actually think through what that means over a lifetime. If you want to know your ACTUAL risk of failed birth control, you need to know both the failure rate of the method you choose to use, AND the number of years you rely on it.

You guys realize that an estimated 40% of American women have had abortions? You may *think* you don't anyone who's had an abortion, and you may *think* that just because none of your daughter's college friends *are* pregnant that means they *haven't gotten* pregnant, but you are almost certainly wrong. And the more it's frowned upon or unheard of in your social circle, the more likely someone you know well wouldn't tell you if they had.

It's all the ghetto girls tramping around with whoever offers and getting knocked up,... right ladies? Of course it is silver. Never happens to proper young ladies whose mothers have raised them "right".

((and yes, i know it says right in the article that it's a "crude estimation" but that just means it might be 30% or 50%, it doesn't mean there's a chance it's really 4% or something))

Here is a link that might be useful: women who've had abortions


 o
quirk.

of course many women have abortions and unless they share the information, we wouldn't know. we would only know if they actually have a baby.

oh of course quirk anyone can get pregnant and anyone can get STD, no immunity. i don't know what is raising girls "right". no such thing. some people think it means watching their every step, others think parents shouldn't be overbearing. who knows what is "right".

DD was given a lot of freedom so was I. Is it the right way? i don't know. probably not. maybe we were just lucky.

I don't have much concern about DD having unplanned pregnancy for obvious reasons, but she can still get STD or mess up with wrong people. No guarantee.

Young people are naive. I always insisted DD sees Ob/Gyn annually to check for STD and any abnormalities. She kept arguing she has no way of getting STD since she is in committed relationship and we have no history of breast or any Ob/Gyn cancers. i think it is naive. Young people are naive.

that's what experienced people are for, to teach the kids who don't know much. now if parents themselves don't know anything, then it is much harder to accomplish anything. can't deny that upbringing makes some difference in something!


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Adolescent childbearing is more likely among women with low levels of income and education than among their better-off peers.(of course there are more factors involved but cannot deny this one)

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3325101.html

there are plenty of research on the subject, I am working now, so i don't want to spend much time on posting links, but there is statistics on teenage pregnacy


 o
RE: Just an observation...

OMG, can this group stay on point? Are the children of divorced and remarried men treated better or worse than the children of divorced and remarried women?

I just added the remarriage part to keep the discussion simple, darn it. New babies from the ex men, husbands BFs, whatever, vs new babies from the ex women, wives, GFs whatever.

I think the children of divorced and remarried women are treated A LOT better than those of men in the same situation. Which I think is An answer to the OP's question.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

OK let's stay on topic.

maybe it is because moms usually raise all of their children no matter 1st or 2nd marriage(obviously with exceptions), but men not so much...

I know some men who never ever see their older children. I know plenty of people whose fathers never ever see them or almost never.

I don't know any women who never see their children (expect the ones we hear on TV, abandoning or even killing their own children, criminal drug addicts).

I could see that if dads see their older children once in 5 years, or never yet they are very involved with new kids or even worse their stepkids, it could raise some bitter feelings.

My DD's good friend has a very involved father, who has an
older daughter in her 30s. My DD's friend have never met her because her dad never sees her. Heck my bestfriend's dad used to run across the street if he saw his daughter.

I have never met women who would treat their children this way.

Of course there are women who are on drugs and abandoned their children, just don't know any in person. But plenty of males, productive members of this society, completely ignore their older children.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

FD,

I agree. Thanks for bringing it back to the topic. This is a big one in the stepparent world especially for the step parents vs. the bio parents. Most women do keep their kids close or if they are adults, as close as they can. Men, maybe, maybe not. It all depends on what the kids are doing with their lives to the men, especially teens and adults, to the women the kids will always be their babies. Go ahead and blast me but that's how it is.

I still say that a big part of it is that the kids are closer to their moms than their dads GENERALLY. Dad may be cool but mom is where the rubber hits the road and even the littlest child knows it. As a result, the new babies from mom are accepted more as real sibs vs. 1/2 sib whatevers since the original kids are more than likely not as close to dad after a divorce or break up as they are to mom.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"No unmarried kids having kids that I know about. No one having kids actually. It just isnt common where we live. Not to say they arent having sex, or cohabiting. But they understand birth control."

"You may *think* you don't anyone who's had an abortion, and you may *think* that just because none of your daughter's college friends *are* pregnant that means they *haven't gotten* pregnant, but you are almost certainly wrong. And the more it's frowned upon or unheard of in your social circle, the more likely someone you know well wouldn't tell you if they had."

Exactly. Just because someone gets pregnant doesn't mean they have the baby. They're a lot more inclined to keep it a secret if it's not considered the "norm" in their circles.

Many of my friends mothers thought they "knew" what was going on with their daughters. They got good grades, went to good colleges, brought home the good boys. And quite a few had abortions. Their friends knew but why would I tell my mother? It was not my secret to tell.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"It all depends on what the kids are doing with their lives to the men, especially teens and adults, to the women the kids will always be their babies."

maybe, but that's a shame. If men decide to be absent fathers just because their kids don't behave certain way, then shame on them. I don't buy it when men say their kids don't want to see them or moms keep it way from them. it is an easy way out. No excuse.

I agree that often children are closer to their mothers.

My Dd treats her brothers as full siblings, not 1/2 at all. But if her dad was uninvolved father to her, ignore her yet showered his new babies with attention, she would be hurt and I would not blame her.


 o
nobody knows their secrets, well sure

well, if women have secret abortions, then no one knows about it. It is common sense, isn't it? If you do things in secret, nobody knows about it.

Unfortunately many kids don't feel close to their parents, don't trust them or are afraid, so they take dangerous steps without consulting with their mothers, or without mothers by their side. It is very sad that girls have to lie to their mothers.

When sh&&t hit the fun, my brother and I always went to our mother. Our dad is a fine man, yet in crisis mom is the rock!

I think kids keep it a secret when they are afraid of parents' reaction, not as much society's reaction.

"They're a lot more inclined to keep it a secret if it's not considered the "norm" in their circles".

what kind of society considers teenage pregnancy the "norm"? I'd like to know. Wow, what a scary notion.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

FD, I am not talking about absentee fathers. Absentee to me means uninvolved, not around at all, deadbeat. I mean fathers who for the most part don't live with their children after divorces or certainly don't live with them full time. I think that happens even in a lot of joint custody situations.

I don't really know the dynamics I just think that kids accept babies from mom more readily than babies from dad after a split. If the kids accept the new sibs then everyone else falls in line. When they don't the sparks fly. More often at dad than mom.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Plenty of fathers are not absentees per se, not deadbeat, yet they are not very involved, does not matter if they live together or not. One can be "absentee" even living in the same household. I think that can cause bitter feelings especially if fathers are more involved with young children.

(My ex was more "absentee father" when we were married than when we were divorced).

I think your SKs are not upset how dad behaved after the divorce but rather what kind parent he was when he actually was still married to mom, correct?

My DD22 does not remember much of me and her dad as a couple, we got divorced she was 4. He maintained decent involvement with her, she has no hard feelings about him having more children and I don't have more kids.

If we stayed married, maybe DD would form a different opinion watching our not so good marriage and type A workaholic dad running around like chicken head cut off flying airplanes, sailing boats, skydiving, climbing mountains and everything else to avoid his family.

Maybe it was a blessing in disguise to get divorce early and spare her bitter feelings.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"...silvers i deal constantly with teenage pregnancies,
it is very sad situation... there is no one to help, parents are poor, they themselves have many children from different men...of course socio-economic level determines many outcomes.. more education one has, less likely she/he will end up with 5 kids on welfare..."

That's what I'm saying FD. In those "circles" it is more expected for the girl to just have the baby. And, it appears you think by your experience that it is "normal" for parents with many children from different men for their children to perpetuate the cycle.

In other circles, like the one I was raised in, it was more common for the girls to have abortions. Sure, prior to 18 they told their parents, they had to get permission. After 18... not so much. And even then, their friends did not tell *their* parents because then those parents would look down on the other kids.

My point is, it is hard for me to believe that KK could *know* for a fact that none of her daughter's friends had abortions.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Silver, please go back and show me where I said that I know that none of my Ds friends had an abortion. What I said, for the Nth time, is none of my Ds friends had a BABY.

Lamom, I think that in tradional families where dads have more earning power and moms do more childcare (even if not exclusive), bringing another dad in families has some positives (more $$), brining another mom in - not so much. Also, as long as every child has his/her mom there to look after, all children are more likely to be equally (as opposed to a household where some kids have a mom and some dont). Dad may not be around as much to monitor stuff. Not always true, but just my thoughts.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"My DD is now in college. No pregnant friends. No friends who had kids."

Ok... semantics. You know that she doesn't have any pregnant friends because she didn't tell you she had pregnant friends.

To me, pregnant does not = having a baby. It can also = having an abortion.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Ok, fine, but I still dont think she has pregnant friends. I havent heard any drama like that. I have heard someone parties too much.


 o
RE: Just a thought...

KK, I'm just saying... chances are even if she did you would not know. These days it's easier and more common to get an abortion than when you were a teenager and not so much of a scandal/drama. Girls don't tell everyone. Everyone does not know.

Just cause you don't know, doesn't mean it isn't happening. I had a very open relationship with my mother and told her (what I thought) was quite a bit in high school. Years later I made reference to something "scandalous" that happened and she didn't know what I was talking about. LOL. Guess I wasn't as open as I thought I was.

If you raised your daughter 1/2 as good as you think you did, my guess is that she honors her friends trust over telling mommy everything that goes on in her friends private lives. I know I did. Doesn't mean you aren't close or she doesn't love you. Just means she's becoming her own person. It's healthy.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Silver, it is no harder nor easier to get an abortion today than when I was 16, in the state I live in. Actually there was more advertising when I was a teen (as in "want to be un-pregnant"). More common, probably, but I suspect still vastly different % among different socio-economic groups. btw, latest stat I saw, dont know how reliable was that 40% of women have abortions at some time in their life. Which means 60% do not.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Abortion wasn't legalized in the US until 1973. That was 37 years ago. The "pill" came out in 1960.

I don't know when you were 16, but I do know you are approximately my parents age. Two generations later it is a lot more "normal" and the stigma of getting an abortion has worn down from what it once was. That's all I'm saying. And, abortion #'s have increased.

Using a rough guess of the year you were 16 and the year I was 16 the numbers increased by nearly half:

Year Annual Number of Abortions
1973 744,600
1974 898,600
1975 1,034,200
1976 1,179,300
1977 1,316,700
1978 1,409,600
1979 1,497,700
1980 1,553,900
1981 1,577,300
1982 1,573,900

1983 1,575,000
1984 1,577,200
1985 1,588,600
1986 1,574,000
1987 1,559,100

1988 1,590,800
1989 1,566,900
1990 1,608,600
1991 1,556,500
1992 1,528,900

1993 1,500,000
1994 1,431,000


 o
History

Roe V. Wade required states to allow abortions. At least one state allowed it before that. OK???


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I just got really sick to my stomach all the sudden.

I added up all those numbers and it came out to 31,442,400.

All those unwanted babies....And that was just from 1973 to 1994.

That doesn't even count the last 16 years since morality has really taken a leap down the black hole.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

That's fine KK. I think I made my point that it's a lot more frequent now, and a lot more socially acceptable :)

Ashley, I hear you. That's a lot of pain, confusion, unhappiness and I can't imagine where we'd be if it wasn't allowed legally. Prior to 1973 many women had abortions. But many did not survive, and those who did often could not have babies ever again.

Education is where it's at.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Silver, whether a lot more women had abortions in my state, now v. then, I dont know. I also dont know if so, it is at least partially a function of changing demographis.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

And, it appears you think by your experience that it is "normal" for parents with many children from different men for their children to perpetuate the cycle.

It might not be "normal" but they continue doing so. It is possible they also have an abortion in between.


 o
so what?

I thought the whole question was people having unplanned/unwanted children that they cannot afford to raise. abortion is entirely different issue.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I thought the question was whether kids post divorce or break up are treated differently if they are mom's new kids or dad's new kids by any original kids. LOL.


 o
lamom

I honestly tried to get it back on topic yesterday, but silvers keep bringing those abortions up.LOL

I looked back and I see that people were talking about children born out of wedlock (in relation to a topic of mom/dad)and I said i personally (as friends or family) don't know too many women having kids out of wedlock, all are either married or divorced.

and that's when people started arguing and talking about abortions. I personally have no opinion on abortions. everyone knows that topics of abortion and religions normally go nowhere. especially in public forums.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Agreeed, here is what I said on mom v dad with more kids

Lamom, I think that in tradional families where dads have more earning power and moms do more childcare (even if not exclusive), bringing another dad in families has some positives (more $$), brining another mom in - not so much. Also, as long as every child has his/her mom there to look after, all children are more likely to be equally (as opposed to a household where some kids have a mom and some dont). Dad may not be around as much to monitor stuff. Not always true, but just my thoughts.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

*blush*

Sorry FD, I had my response typed out and got distracted, posted before looking and you had *valiantly* tried to steer it back on course... whoops...

I don't know any people who are divorced and one parent is "deadbeat" or "absentee" in my social circles or my state. All of the parents I know are devoted to their kids and I don't know any who have had multiple children from multiple partners.

But I think, in the past, fatherhood was not recognized/respected as being equal to motherhood, just as women working outside the home was not equal.

Thankfully, equality is becoming more normal.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

On a subject of "absentees".

i am not saying your DH is an absentee or deadbeat but didn't you say he does not see his daughter? and you only met your SD twice in your life yet you were married for several years?

when i say "absentee" i do not mean (and I explained it before) completely gone forever, never pays CS. I mean is not involved on a regular basis, like no phone calls every day/every other day, no emaling few times a week, no regular visitations. Just no involvement. That's what i meant by "absentee". i even said that some men are 'absentees" living in the same household.

Now it could be that he is not involved because SD does not want him to, but that's besides the point here. He still is uninvolved.

So you cannot say that everyone you know is involved with their children. Clearly you do know people who are not involved with their children.

It does not matter what circles we are talking about, there are always more or less involved fathers (or not involved at all) in every circle.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Are you talking to me FD?

Because my "absentee" post was partially tongue-in-cheek. I guess you missed the part where I said: "I don't know any people who are divorced and one parent is "deadbeat" or "absentee" in my social circles or my state."

I have had more contact with my SD than "meeting her twice" but that doesn't mean my DH is not involved.


 o
'Absentee dads' and new kids

Absentee to me means not involved and not available. It does not mean divorced, separated and living in another location.

I know too many dads, including DH, who go to great lengths to stay involved with their kids post break up. One who lost his shirt in the divorce, my friend got the house, cars, kids and everything there was to get. Not in the '60's or '70's but in 2008. Still, the dad, couch surfing for a long time, rode his bike to spend time with the kids, take them trick or treating, do homework, swim with them, be with him. Still showing up with groceries of his kids favorite foods(DH ran in to him at the market near what was his home) and at every birthday party. My friend, his ex-wife, the BM in this story finally stopped including him at the Xmas gatherings to draw the line. He had no money, a separate story that led to his divorce, but EVERYONE who knows them knows he is involved with his kids, more than the BM, my friend, to be honest about it. This is my skids central issue with me and mine but I won't hijack.

The jungle drums say that his now GF is pregnant. Those drums don't lie. My friend, his now ex-wife who kick dropped him and stripped him financially is in a panic. Unbelivable. She hoped once his career sprang back, which it is albeit slowly, the $$$ would flow to her and her kids although, really, she doesn't need the money, HE does. Here in CA if a new child comes, the old kids, especially if the BM is financially stable, which my friend is, gets consideration on CS. This is a baby we are talking about, not kids with private school tuitions, orthodontia, clubs, swim/baseball/Karate/Girl Scout/ whatever lessons. When one ex has 3 cars,and one has a bicycle and a bus pass, who is the needy one?

Now, his GF is Pregnant and my friend, BM. is consulting attorneys, loading for bear and brain washing her kids against a baby who isn't even here yet. Gee Whiz.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Slightly off topic, LAMOM, but people who have no money, who are couch surfing, should not have more kids. He has 3 kids and now has more. I am also a little sceptical of stories where dad lost all in divorce.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

kkny,

That dad has two kids with a new one on the way. Your skepticism doesn't change the facts.


 o
Ok, two kids, and now another on the way

Ok, two kids. and as you say, " He had no money, a separate story that led to his divorce" and now another kid. Totally irresponsible in my book.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

lamom,

I'm also in CA and I have to say that if the law allows a parent with no money, who has another child ~despite not having money to support the existing child~ to get out of their obligation, just because the custodial parent has more money... that is inherently WRONG!!! I haven't researched the laws on it recently, though maybe I should... of course, if he is so involved and spending a great deal of time with his kids, THAT would be considered & may be a reason to adjust support. But, if they allow a parent to get out of prior obligations by having a new baby, well I will be in Sacramento with a protest sign...

Sorry, I love to hear that non custodial parents are very involved in their kids' lives.. I think it's great & they should be encouraged, as long as it doesn't interfere with the custodial parent's household, but if they have no money (whether it's because of the economy or if they lost everything in the divorce), they have no business making another mouth to feed. It isn't fair to the children that already exist & have the right to be supported by both parents (even if one has the money to do so alone) and it isn't fair to the new child, who is more likely to grow up with a financially struggling parent... I agree with kkny, that is just irresponsible.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

kkny, immamommy,

Shrug. The dad I'm talking about is in an industry, directly affected by what's happening in the California economy. I won't argue in his defense about this new baby or whether he should be having one, I suspect it's something his new GF is doing to "cement" their relationship. Although he's only driving a 15 speed bike and a bus pass now, it has not always been this way, nor will it stay that way for this particular man. Everyone knows this including his ex-wife, my friend.

But, the new baby is coming, his ex-wife, which I will emphasize again, is my friend, is gearing up to not have the new baby interfere with her kids, the first two and there are already a lot of bad feelings being spread around about the new, not even here, baby.

She is brainwashing her kids to not like a baby who is not even here and it's not right. That is the point of this story on the subject of 2nd time around kids.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Thank you LaMom. "Absentee to me means not involved and not available. It does not mean divorced, separated and living in another location. "

I agree. My DH is involved to the degree that his ex allows him to be. Yes, he could go back to court and fight it. But we just can't see that being better for his DD. I don't think that living 1/2 time with one parent and 1/2 with the other is necessarily best for kids.

And, I agree, someone with two kids probably shouldn't be having another. But I think it's far worse to strip the parent of your kids of EVERYTHING and then blame them for not providing enough for the kids.


 o
silvers.

all right maybe I didn't use the word 'absentee" correctly. I meant not involved or minimally involved.

silvers, sometimes i wonder if there are two people with the same screen name because you say different things in different threads. You did say your DH estranged from his daughter and stopped seeing her, and you have only met her 2-3 times total.

if he does not see her because his wife won't let him (???), it does not change the reality. 50/50 is not the only type of arrangement, many other arrangements, but OK.

In the context of this thread if he would have more babies, it is possible his DD wouldn't be much involved with her siblings because she just is not involved with her dad (and it answers the question of this thread, they probably would not be large part of her life). I am not saying it is right but that could happen. I don't care if he sees his child or not, just making a point.

and it answers the question of this thread.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Gang,

I am not defending my friend's ex-husband or his GF for having another baby and I feel as though I am being baited to do so. This is real life and it happens.

A BM, in this case, a professional woman, my friend, who is financially stable, is making a full out effort to have people be sympathetic to her, turning her children against their dad who shows his love and involvement DESPITE a terrible combination of a bad economy and a bad divorce after already devastating him financially, and I will say that he misstepped his way in to a lot of the financial devastation, (she hired an aggressive attorney, he didn't, she had him sign away certain rights to their property in exchange for access to their kids, astute on her part but still mean, and a lot of other stuff) IS WRONG.

I only shared this as an example of some soon to be 1/2 sibs who are being indoctrinated to dislike a soon to come 1/2 sib and to view this child, the baby of their father, as a threat versus as a part of their family. If nothing else, this is an adult matter and my friend should not be making these kids, 8 and 6, dislike their soon to be baby brother or sister.

It's just plain wrong. The father's responsibility or lack thereof for having the baby doesn't wipe away the BM's deliberate efforts to have this child marginalized and disliked. Especially by the existing two kids who probably would just be excited about a new baby.


 o
lamom

so he has more babies when he clearly cannot help the ones he has (no matter if mom is rich, it is not nothing to do with it). Couch surfing? nice...

it is wrong of mom to brainwash the kids but I can see how she is upset he has more children yet clearly can't help the ones he has.

It is nice he rides bikes with them or visits but parenting is more than that.

And frankly dad is old enough to make more responsible decisions and his children don't need to suffer just because grown man has unprotected sex.

saying that mom should not talk to the kids about it.

I don't see what is the point of your story. It just confirms that unfortunately too many people are irresponsible when it comes to having/supporting children.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Right or wrong, I don't see anything in what you described your friend in doing as deliberate attempts to get her children to dislike the new child. Sounds like financial matters between both the parents. If what Mom is doing is getting the kids to dislike their new sibling, than Dads failure to be financially responsible is also a deliberate effort to get the kids to dislike his new child. You can't have it both ways.

I dunno, I can see my Ex trying to paint this picture for me too lol. I hold him financially responsible for child support and suddenly I'm trying to ruin his new relationship, yeah ok. looney tunes owes child support, it's like any other bill. Most people are going to get irritated if you add on another expense without taking care of prior bills. This isn't anything new and doesn't have to do with having another child. If he got a new car/truck or bought a new house, same thing. It just makes me shake my head that women are just supposed to let men slide on child support, just because women are supposed to be nice and take care of everyone.

Amen, Ima good post.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

" It just makes me shake my head that women are just supposed to let men slide on child support, just because women are supposed to be nice and take care of everyone. "

Bingo nivea.

i guess this story is excellent in the context of this thread.

explains why some dads would get blasted for having more kids, well duhh-because they don't take care of their older kids (either financially or don't spend time or both).


 o
RE: Just an observation...

See, I don't like that it has been split into mom's vs. dads here... it should be "custodial" vs. "non custodial" parents because in some situations (like mine & mom2emall to name a couple), the mom's are not living up to their financial responsibility with their kids and go on to have more kids... of course there will be resentment when the parent (either gender) tells kids they can't afford this or that, but then go buy new cars/house or have more kids that cost money. Kids are not stupid, they see more than we do because I cannot say what BM spends her money on, but SD sure knows if it's on her or not. She sees mom buying cigarettes but saying she can't buy her clothes or pay toward her field trip. She sees mom buying things for the other kids. She knows her mom makes excuses for not coming to her school or activities, but then drags her along to BF's kids' games & activities when she is there. How long does it take for a kid to put it together? I'm sure when she does, we will be accused of turning her against her mother, but the truth is she is doing it to herself. I'm not trying to pick on you lamom, because I know that the ex wife (your friend) may groan and make comments that cause the kids to side with her against their father, and she is only damaging her own children with doing that.. but the father is not doing all he can either. (at least his kids may not see it that way)


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I think that maybe "involved" v "uninvolved/minimally involved" parents is more appropriate here.

Plenty of NCPs are involved parents, moms and dads. Heck there are plenty of CPs who are no good.

Your SD's mom is no good not because she is NCP, she is just not a good parent. If parents are not doing their job with biokids(making lame excuses) yet have more children or take care of other people's kids (like BF's kids or SKs) then of course kids have bitter feelings.

I remember how SD's BM didn't want to pick SD up yet went to the mall with BF's kids. This is hurtful to a child. And now she has more babies. And we read other stories when men do exactly same thing (and of course it is always someone else's fault).

I think that's why people get blasted for having more children.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Ima, I agree with you for the most part. However, Pseudo started this thread on double standards for men/women etc. I do think it is awful how some BM's behave, especially in your sitch, Mom2's, Doodles.

But the thing is, child support is a big social issue for men. Yes, there are some women that abuse the system and they are some women that don't pay at all because the male custodial parent won't go after it. But those are different issues. I don't see anything wrong in discussing the male issues about child support separately than the female issues, after all they are very different and on a much different level.

When people say stuff like Lamom did, I wonder how does this stuff get spread around? How did this start? Back when people divorced in the 60's/70's....well first of all it was rare that any type of child support or alimony was ordered and even rarer still that the man paid. They were just starting to pass state laws for it. There was no agencies to enforce it, you can take him to court but there was no punishments. Ask a woman who divorced back then about what they actually had to go through...there was no big pay out lol. They risked everything to start equalizing the way of life for themselves, not to get the big bucks. Even this day and age, study after study has come out with the bottom line that the male almost always is better financially after divorce. But one or two horror stories get around and it somehow becomes representative of the child support issues as a whole. Mind boggling and even more so that other women just repeat it.

Our society has progressed to using calculations based on incomes, parenting time...very, very intricate and complicated systems to establish a "fair" set of child support. But we still have women owed MILLIONS of dollars in each state ontop of being the low earners of society.

And you know, it's one thing for male groups to repeat this stuff and try to spread it around as the norm....but how do so many women get sucked into this foolish propaganda? In Lamoms example the guy is a "couch surfer" and got his GF pregnant, isn't that their own issue? How in the world did it become the ex wives problem? It just seems to me that not only do women enable men they try to force other women that actually stand up for themselves to enable men.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I think it is unspeakable that CS is reduced if NCP parent has more children with someone else. I don't know if it actually happens but if it does, I think it is a disgrace. I would not expect any CP to be in support of it.

I think people forget what CS is. It is paid by NCP parent because there are his/her children, not because the other parent is poor.

for example imamommy's DH can afford to feed his DD yet mom is ordered to pay CS because she is her daughter too, not because dad has no money.

it does not matter if CP has 3 cars, what is that to do with anything?

All of us divorced BMs had to deal with CS and custody issues one way or the other. And to tell us that we should not expect CS just because we are professionals and make enough money to do it on our own, I don't think so. Too many men are enabled by women already.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Wow, I should have left the money piece out of my story above. The point was that the ex-husband is having another child and the ex-wife is influencing her kids and others to dislike an unborn child because it is a potential competitor.

I shared as part of the discussion about 2nd family kids from mom vs. dad.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

lamom,

you could not leave money part out because the whole reason his exwife is upset is because he cannot support his children yet has more. so it is about money.

Like I said it is wrong of her to speak poorly of innocent unborn child to her kids (if in fact she does that), but it explains why she is upset. Her priorities are with her own children.

She does not feel like enabling her children's father. Of course it is not his unborn baby's fault, but it sure is his fault.

and the fact he spends time with them is nothing unique. that's what parents are supposed to do. Nothing heroic about it. I don't remember anyone telling me how great I am because I spend time with my child. LOL Isn't it what i am supposed to be doing?


 o
RE: Just an observation...

How is she influencing them? What is she doing?

If my DD's father was couch surfing, it's a guarantee she'd be asking me why is he homeless? And if he was having another child ontop of being homeless, that raises even more questions. Kids are aware and when the other parent puts you in an awkward situation, sometimes the conversation aren't so flattering.

I'd think it was insane if I was your friend. He's buying favorite food for the kids instead of saving money to get himself up off that couch. He's coming over to my house all the time to see the kids cause he doesn't have a place to take them. He's doing the do to get his girlfriend pregnant instead of fixing anyone of his real serious problems. C'mon...the kids probably aren't stupid. And really, what is his girlfriend thinking?


 o
lamom more

"Still, the dad, couch surfing for a long time, rode his bike to spend time with the kids, take them trick or treating, do homework, swim with them, be with him. Still showing up with groceries of his kids favorite foods(DH ran in to him at the market near what was his home) and at every birthday party."

when did people started deserving a medal FATHER OF THE YEAR when they attend their own children's birthday parties, or trick-treat or buy favorite groceries. So he was grocery shopping for them? That's what parents do. And none of that excuses not providing for minor children financially.

I don't see what he does as something that special. They are his kids, right? I WOULD SEE it is as special if these would be someone else's kids.

I wonder if you have very low expectations of fathers if you think this is something to write home about.

I am clearly annoyed with this guy's story.LOL


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Lamom, what about the GF? Did she not know the guy had two kids and he couldnt support himself? Was she sleeping with a guy she knew nothing about, or what? You are so busy critizing the first wife, when she's the only one who didnt have a part in making the new baby. The guy and his GF put this in motion. Shame on them.


 o
couch surfing

hahah well, not being a native speaker I miss stuff on occasion...I never heard this expression and I thought he spends his days on a couch because he does not work LOL it actually means that he sleeps on other people's couches because he has no place to stay? haha wow.

so that's why he disrupts his ex's household and is always there, because he does not have a place? haha so she had to put up with him at her house. well it is nice of her, most exes would not tolerate that. this is not something anyone has to put up with.

nice...

"who go to great lengths to stay involved with their kids post break up." LOL, you can't be serious.

this guy is a loser. it must be frustrating for mom and the kids.

i wonder if he met his GF on that couch he was surfing. hahaha Oh boy.

lamom, I am convinced that you expect very little of men if something like this seems OK to you.


 o
good for her

"Now, his GF is Pregnant and my friend, BM. is consulting attorneys'

good for her


 o
RE: Just an observation...

FD, my SD is 9. She is not estranged from her dad. Her parents have a complicated relationship. Fortunatly, her mother is being a lot more "generous" with the time we can spend with her. We've had her twice this year. Her dad sees her a lot more than I do. Often, especially for the first couple of years, he would go to see her and I would not go, not because he didn't want me to go but because I felt (being a kid of divorce myself) that she should have her dad all to herself.

She and I get along great when we see one another. I have absolutely no part in her "upbringing" except to be a responsible, caring adult in her life.

"In the context of this thread if he would have more babies, it is possible his DD wouldn't be much involved with her siblings because she just is not involved with her dad (and it answers the question of this thread, they probably would not be large part of her life). "

True. She lives in another state. Same as if my dd's bio-dad had other kids. She'd see them a few times a year. But is it essential for a good relationship to live with one another? I didn't live with my dad growing up and we have a good relationship. I had a step-sister with whom I lived and we haven't talked in years.

Family is what you make of it. It doesn't just happen because you live together.

LAMom, I hear you. Plenty of women take advantage. A whole lot more are not... but it does happen. It would be easy, and the norm in the past for the dad to just give up. Some parents make it nearly impossible to be a part of the kids lives after divorce. Some moms (read: custodial parent) get the house and the kids and the "life" and then just expect the other person to pick right back up and keep moving.

It's a shame he's pregnant again. And, it happens. Being a "good dad" doesn't mean providing tons of stuff. It means the child knowing their dad is there for them.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

no, having good relationship is possible not living together. I don't remember ever saying otherwise. everyone
in my family has good relationship with everyone else, immediate and extended, yet we certainly do not live together.

I am glad that situation improved and she did started visiting and he is back in being involved. I clearly remember your statement that he is largely estranged from his daughter, and she NEVER visits. It was probably awhile ago and situation apparently changed for the best. This is good news.

no, being good dad/mom does not mean providing tons of stuff, of course not, who says otherwise. but not providing necessities for minor children, such as food, roof, clothes would be considered a neglect. no matter if one does not work or makes more children.

Parenting is a serious task, way more than just taking kids trick-o-treating. Too many people (and appears both men and women, although seems that men more often) do not treat it as such.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Everyone commenting on my post regarding my friend's husband with the new baby coming, please re-read it. This is a very involved father going beyond trick or treating, to helping with homework, working things out with his kids, disciplining them, doctors appointments and spending as much time as he can which is a lot.

And let me clarify, after the divorce and separation, he was couch surfing, he now has an apartment. He is getting work and hustling for more work. That's why his ex-wife is talking to attorneys, she was expecting to get a lot more money as his income rebounds which it will. Even though she is already very financially stable.

The point of my story was how deeply involved he is staying with his first two kids DESPITE his financial woes which I think are temporary. But the new baby is already resented and the first kids are being trained to dislike it which is sickening to me.

Is having another baby responsible? I think with most of this group, the answer is, if having another baby interferes in ANY way with the first kid (s), MY kid(s), then yes it's irresponsible. KKNY said it above, a new dad can bring in more $$$ so his kid with old mom is OK, a new mom, not so much because some of the dollars will flow the other direction. I'm surprised that there isn't more clucking about how involved will he stay with his kids when the new baby comes. Nope, it's all about the money.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Just because wife number 1 is financially stabile does not mean no CS.

"Is having another baby responsible? I think with most of this group, the answer is, if having another baby interferes in ANY way with the first kid (s), MY kid(s), then yes it's irresponsible" -- OMG THAT IS NOT WHAT ANYONE SAID. If having a second kid means first doesnt get BMW, gets Chevy, not irresponsible. If dad is couch surfing, yes irresponsible. NOW you say he an apartment. I always love it when stories change when posters dont get the reaction they want.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

She didn't visit, for a long time. She was also fairly young when we got together and a child of that age cannot travel long distances and stay for a period of time comfortably. Young children *usually* prefer their mothers, and there were many mitigating factors in my situation. That doesn't mean he didn't see her or their relationship was not good. I think some people on this forum would be pleased that I didn't see her or impose upon their relationship. As children get older it is more possible to develop a relationship with them when parents have issues beyond the children.

Estranged usually has a negative connotation, (indicating a previously harmonious relationship had become hostile) that's why I reacted so strongly to it.

I find it ironic that you think parenting is such a "serious task" yet have lambasted others for their diligence in their child's upbringing. It appears the middle ground, where you sit, is the ideal for which to strive.

I think it cannot be denied that mothers are favored quite often by courts for retaining the lifestyle to which the *family* was accustomed while the fathers often have to recreate a home-life separately. Since many men have difficulties making a house "homey" it is a real disadvantage and makes it easy to say "but he's living in a cheap apartment with shabby furnishings, etc etc" while the mother still has the house, furniture, comfort items to which the kids are familiar.

I can see why men "give up". I don't think it's right, but I think to some degree it's understandable. I could have made my ex's life a living he!!, prevented him from seeing his daughter, etc. I choose not to because I think her relationship with him is her own, and really should have nothing to do with how I feel about him. Many women who *are/feel* wronged by their husbands take it out (emotionally) on their kids, and make the kids their (confidants/friends) against their fathers. My mother did to me. Children form an alliance with their main parent quite easily as a self-protection mechanism. That, and they are easily manipulated.


 o
Why would dad see his kids less

"KKNY said it above, a new dad can bring in more $$$ so his kid with old mom is OK, a new mom, not so much because some of the dollars will flow the other direction. I'm surprised that there isn't more clucking about how involved will he stay with his kids when the new baby comes. Nope, it's all about the money."

I dont see how mom remarrying, and SF coming on scene, should make any difference in how much BD sees his kids. What I did try to say is that SF is more likely to increae fiancial assets of a household than SM. First has nothing to do with second.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

But if mom has more kids .... older kids are still supposed to get the BMW and will get it because mom will consult attorneys to make sure that kid gets a BMW no matter what.

Lamom ... how I see it ... first wives don't care how involved dad is as long as they are bled dry who care about how much time he has invested in his kids ... they will not give up until the wallet is full of cobwebs.

But if dad has custody ... mom should not have to pay support or be inconvienenced by her children, he's got a wife who can do all the mothering things .... but step back when she wants to play mommy of the year. And of course if she goes on to have more children she has another mouth to support she cannot be expected to support her older children.

I was supposed to do all for my SC but not reap any benefits ... I could take them shopping and buy all the clothes needed for the christmas concert but was not allowed to go to the concert ... they are her children and wouldnt want to confuse me for mom.

LA ... stop trying to change their minds ... Dad's lives should be on hold till their older children are financially secure on their own ... doesn't matter how long it takes them to get there 18, 25, 35, or 50 its all on dad to keep them in cash... or how mom poisoned the older kids to think dad is just a bank he is of no use to BM or older kids unless he is holding a fistfull of money when he sees the kids .... dad pays CS so he can rent his kids from mom.

Mom doesn't have to pay support afterall she should be hailed a saint she gave birth to them.

Sad part is if dad drops dead CS disappears and they care more about the CS than they do the dad. Better hope he paid into Soc Sec so BM can have more money. Because thats all that matters is the money.


 o
Estrangement!!!

SS wrote

"Estranged usually has a negative connotation, (indicating a previously harmonious relationship had become hostile) that's why I reacted so strongly to it."

If thats the definition ... then I am estranged from my SD11 who visits us on M and W and EO Tues.

We were very close until her and her mom decided I wasn't good enough for SD any longer .... and now we are familiar strangers or whatever you want to call it .... she comes here to watch TV and talk on the phone with her mom. She and I do not interact at all. When she does interact with the family she starts fights with her brothers talks to her Dad like he is a piece of $h1t .... and does not speak to me ... the new thing is to call dad by his first name and mom's BF "daddy" ... thats going over big time in my home!!!!


 o
RE: Just an observation...

" dad pays CS so he can rent his kids from mom."

Sadly Pseudo, I think in a lot of cases that's exactly the truth.

The irony is that in cases where parents stay together, and, say, the main income earner loses their job, etc. and standards of living go down, the whole family pulls together and kids don't get the BMW.

But when divorce happens, the father is expected to somehow maintain that standard or he is a "bad dad".We pay an outrageous amount of CS for SD, based on DH's earnings 9 years ago. HA HA. He hasn't made that much since. But we still pay, and BM knows he doesn't make that much and she still gets her panties in a twist over how he could be paying more and why doesn't he chip in for their fabulous whatever she wants SD to do. Um... cause we're already paying hundreds over what we would if we went back and got it modified? But my DH pays it because he wants my SD to have a good life. He does not scrimp where she is concerned.

And yes, BM is horrified that DH got remarried. Nevermind that she had a husband practically while the ink was still wet from the divorce and my DH and I didn't even meet until years later.

There is such thing as mothers who hold it all together while fathers go off the deep end, and vice versa. And there is also such thing as mothers who are vengeful, only want the money, want to be the martyr and do everything in their power to make sure the kids are prejudiced against the fathers and so is everyone else.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Silver: Your last 2 paragraphs are so true. This happened to my DH. He left and she got evrything and he still paid for it all. She took out 10 thousand dollars out of his business account to redecorate the kids rooms and buy new furniture a few days after he left. My DH was asking for an extra day. He gets Wednesday after school and was wanting another afternoon. The GAL said in his report that the kids rooms very very beautiful and appeard to more of a home enviroment at the marital home than dads house, therefore he could not recomend another afternoon. He was not asking for an overnight just until 8 so he could have dinner, do homework, dad stuff.

Well needless to say he was very upset. It was his choice to start over, but he lost time with his kids because he did not have the same homey feel in his empty house.

We have now got their rooms done and the house decorated. All of them has said it feels alot more homey. I just think its wrong for a dad that wants to be more involved not to be able to due to his house not being very "homey".


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I have a hard time believing the GAL denied him more time simply because the kids rooms were nicer at moms. Especially in this day. But I could be wrong.

I was speaking more of the moms who will be critical of the dad's living space to their children when they started out with the advantage.

Imo, your DH probably should have been ironing out his visitation rights while they were still married but living separate lives rather than being concerned about whether or not it was ok to have a girlfriend on the side.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

KKNY quoted me "Is having another baby responsible? I think with most of this group, the answer is, if having another baby interferes in ANY way with the first kid (s), MY kid(s), then yes it's irresponsible" -- OMG THAT IS NOT WHAT ANYONE SAID." - KKNY No dear, I'M saying that based on the BM in my SKIDS life, my relatives and friends whose remarried husbands have 2nd families and spending too much time on this board learning how BMs/1st wives/adult skids think.

More kkny, "I dont see how mom remarrying, and SF coming on scene, should make any difference in how much BD sees his kids. What I did try to say is that SF is more likely to increae fiancial assets of a household than SM. " And that sportsfans, is where the rubber hits the BM road. No offense, some BMs road. Some go on, develop their own full lives, careers, incomes etc so a new baby from an ex-husband doesn't rock their world. The smart ones hold them all as brothers and sisters if for no other reason than to NOT get in a fight about money, NOT alienate the dad, NOT turn off the dad's extended family - the kids family (oh yes, so much fall out) and because they put their kids FIRST. Including their kids mental health because it's pretty sick to propagandize to a kid to dislike a baby or other little kid who is family.

I've shared here before that I have friends and relatives who act like the 2nd families of their ex-husbands don't exist unless and until, somehow it rocks the financial boat. I was lucky that my DH looked down the road a bit and that we waited to marry AFTER his youngest, SS now 30, had graduated from high school, after living with him for the high school years and had turned 18. And yes, BM had to renegotiate the CS, surprise, surprise, she didn't send A DIME for four years while SS was with DH going through high school but still scooped up the alimony. BM still effectively turned their heads against my baby, DS now 7. It's sick and it's sad.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Lamom, you say - "Some go on, develop their own full lives, careers, incomes etc so a new baby from an ex-husband doesn't rock their world. The smart ones hold them all as brothers and sisters if for no other reason than to NOT get in a fight about money, NOT alienate the dad, NOT turn off the dad's extended family - the kids family (oh yes, so much fall out) and because they put their kids FIRST. Including their kids mental health because it's pretty sick to propagandize to a kid to dislike a baby or other little kid who is family. "

But here to me is the contradiction. YOU always put your kid first. YOU admit your DH is better to your kid than to his earlier ones. YOU feel free to say you resent when your SGS gets favors. Are you trying to say that your stepchildren should treat their HB, your child, as family, and put him ahead of their nephew? Are you defining family such that half-brothers come before nephew, even if nephew is more needy? Becuae thats what it sounds like to me.

Studies have shown that after divorce most women's standard of living goes down, most mens go up. I guess you people know the less likely ones. Just because mom is successful, doesnt mean no CS.

I see being a smart first wive as getting adequate CS. Any futures kids of my X are not family to me. I dont try to alienate dad, but I am not going to cowtow to any future wife. I get along with his extended family just fine.


 o
What group were you talking about

KKNY quoted me "Is having another baby responsible? I think with MOST OF THIS GROUP, the answer is, if having another baby interferes in ANY way with the first kid (s), MY kid(s), then yes it's irresponsible" -- OMG THAT IS NOT WHAT ANYONE SAID." - KKNY No dear, I'M saying that based on the BM in my SKIDS life, my relatives and friends whose remarried husbands have 2nd families and spending too much time on this board learning how BMs/1st wives/adult skids think


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Wow. Who is more needy? Cancer Kid or Neglect Kid? Shall we vote? KK, I think you've overstepped.

SGS gets "favors" at LAmom's expense. If they just did "favors" for the kid without involving her I think her take on the situation would be different.

"Any future kids of my X are not family to me." I think that's sad. They would be your child's brothers/sisters. One of the nicest things I ever experienced in SM/SD/SB/SS whatever relationships was a childhood friend of mine. She had a baby with a man who had other children with another woman. Neither of the women were with the man anymore, but my friend would drive to that woman's house and pick up her kids so the kids could play together. So the brothers and sisters could form a relationship. The kids, not related to her, would call her "Aunt". The women did not get along, (one was even TOW) but they put aside their issues and made the effort for the children.

What beauty there is in increasing family. What a beautiful gift she gave her child.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Silver, I have not overstepped (that is generally when a person, usually a SM, tries to take over for a SM). I have expressed my opinion, which you do not have to agree with.

In the unlikely event my X were to have more children, they would be half-brothers or sisters.


 o
RE: Per Webster...

"I have not overstepped (that is generally when a person, usually a SM, tries to take over for a SM)." I'm so sorry, you're right. I checked my dictionary and that is the definition of 'overstepped'. My apologies. Perhaps you could look up 'sarcasm' for me too?

With my SD we don't say "oh, you mean your 1/2 sibling" when she talks about her siblings. Why differentiate? Why create borders? This is why I agree with LA when she says "they put their kids FIRST. Including their kids mental health..."


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Why compare tragedies? What exactly is the point?

"If they just did "favors" for the kid without involving her I think her take on the situation would be different." I'd go back and read, this is not how I've read her sitch at all since the begining. There's been a lot of pointing the fingers at grown ups and children caught in the cross hairs of it. The grandchildren at one point didn't deserve gifts due to their parents behavior. Sad situation, all around.

Lamom, it's obvious to me you live in a place and are surrounded by people that completely defy our current national trends. Sadly the women who are owed the most in child support are among the poorest of our nation. I can't imagine in this day and age it's alright cause we're going to hypothetically hope there is a stepdad in the picture to raise the custodial homes income level so poor Dad doesn't actually have to be responsible for his own children and then Mom shouldn't have to hold him responsible. Kooky talk


 o
RE: Just an observation...

KKNY, voice of the 1st wife/BM , "I see being a smart first wife as getting adequate CS. Any futures kids of my X are not family to me. I dont try to alienate dad, but I am not going to cowtow to any future wife." KKNY

And, cowtow is spelled KOWTOW. With a K? From the Chinese...

And there you have it, sportsfans. Send your checks and credit card authorizations to....tee hee, I mean your husbands checks and credit card authorizations....You are right, those new kids aren't family to you but they are family to your DD, ex-husband and any other kids. Like it or not.

And KKNY, what does adequate mean? No BMW for the first kid but a Chevy? How about no car at all because who promised her that? I come from an intact family, my sister got a fully loaded new Mustang when she graduated from college. I got other things including same Mustang, used, 4 years later. My friends and I totally loved that car. That's life for us all. Shoot, I should have asked for a BMW.....if my parents had been divorced my mother might have coached me to do so had my dad's new wife been pregnant with an unwanted half, but they weren't, so they didn't...you get it.


 o
to everyone else, I'm sorry, I'm way off topic

To everyone else, I'm sorry for going so way off topic and taking the posts of one person so personally.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Silver, I assume no one IRL calls anyone Half-brother, etc unless needed for some obscure reason. But I am describing relationship. And particulary if the kids never lived togethor, see their younger half sibling getting treated better than they did, they arent likely to be close.

It is self-serving for a SM to demand that the half-siblings care about her kid. My guess is is more likely to happen where dad was good father to all.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

No, you aren't describing the relationship, because it doesn't exist now, and may not ever. You're describing how you, the mother, would define the relationship of her child and her child's siblings (ahem. I mean lesser 1/2 bloods).

And that's it in a nutshell.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

My SKs made the comment that if DH and I have a kid it will be their step brother or sister and that would embarrass them. DH told them "no, it would be your brother or sister. They they would share the same blood". They just said "Oh okay"
I have a brother that is from my Dads first marriage. He is my brother just lke my other brother. No difference to us if we have different moms. His mom is like an aunt to me. Wierd i know.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Jess you can call people whomever you want. If a person has one and only parent in common with someone they are half brothers.

Whether or not it embarrasses them is entirely different. Your DH can tell them whatever he wants -- I suspect they know the truth.


 o
HUh? silvers

Huh?

I am not sure when i said anything about not supporting diligent parenting. i am in huge support of diligent parenting since i am a very diligent parent. I devoted myself to raising an intelligent and honest person. Hours of reading and playing and teaching my child, and taking my child places and going out of my way making sure she received advanced education etc, teaching values etc. I did a good job as a parent.

I am in no support of controlling overbearing and punishment driven parenting. it only causes children to lie and causes estrangement as they grow older.

I think we have different understanding of diligent parenting. spending quality time and exposing them to great things is diligent parenting in my books. spending time figuring out what type of consequence/punishment to apply in what incident is not type of parenting i support.

I do think we have different understanding of involved/diligent parenting.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"It is self-serving for a SM to demand that the half-siblings care about her kid. My guess is is more likely to happen where dad was good father to all."

I think it is unreasonable to demand love and care from children, it is OK to demand civility. But love and care will be there if everything else falls in place.

DD truly loves her brothers. I am glad it worked out that way. But I have nothing to do with it. i ask how they are doing but other than that, there is nothing I had to do about it. It is funny that BMs or SMs are expected to do something about kids accepting their siblings (dad's side).

So it is BM's fault kids don't accept their siblings? BM has nothing to do with anything. Kids aren't stupid.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Let's put it this way:

"Jess you can call people whomever you want. If a person has one and only parent in common with someone they are half brothers."

"Jess you can call people whomever you want. If a person IS ADOPTED... they are... ADOPTED brothers. "

Sounds kinda like I'm being a jerk, doesn't it? Well, it's true. If you're not related 100% by blood you'd better make sure everyone knows their place.

FD, being diligent is doing the best you can with the skills you have. It is steady, earnest, energetic effort. Diligent parenting is making the effort to be a good parent. Since you have lambasted me for the efforts I have put forth because they don't conform to your opinion of a good parents, we may be at an impasse. You don't support people doing things any way other than the way you did it. You don't look beyond yourself to ask "could there be a better way". I am constantly revising, reshaping my opinions about many things because I do not feel I am the end-all, be-all of a person. I am a person in the process of growing, of being.

And parents do poison their kids against people. I know you may find it hard to believe. Kids aren't stupid. They figure it out sooner or later that Mom or Dad are making little snide comments that go right over their head until one day it CLICKS and they realize why they always felt so uncomfortable. Believe me. My mother drenched me in poison about my dad for years, and I didn't figure it out until last year just how venemous and how much it affected me. See, she masked it well. She'd tell me how much she "loved" my dad when they were married and how she just wants "the best for him". LOL. That may be true, but she sure has a wicked way of showing it. It's a horrible tug-of-war. What do you do when you realize your parents have been lying to you? Especially if you don't know if they realize it themselves? Most people have their heads stuck so far up their own butts they can't even realize how bad their behavior stinks. They're completely oblivious to the truth of their actions.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Quote from Silversword:

"And parents do poison their kids against people. I know you may find it hard to believe. Kids aren't stupid. They figure it out sooner or later that Mom or Dad are making little snide comments that go right over their head until one day it CLICKS and they realize why they always felt so uncomfortable. Believe me. My mother drenched me in poison about my dad for years, and I didn't figure it out until last year just how venemous and how much it affected me. See, she masked it well. She'd tell me how much she "loved" my dad when they were married and how she just wants "the best for him". LOL. That may be true, but she sure has a wicked way of showing it. It's a horrible tug-of-war. What do you do when you realize your parents have been lying to you? Especially if you don't know if they realize it themselves? Most people have their heads stuck so far up their own butts they can't even realize how bad their behavior stinks. They're completely oblivious to the truth of their actions."

This is so true for us. BM has always done this to the skids and it's incredibly nasty. But yes, she's so good at it, she masks it very very well. And she does tell the skids how much she still 'loves' FDH and how she wants the best for him. Ha! I can't believe you just wrote that!

I think the reason our BM doesn't realise what she's really doing to these kids is because she has a mental disorder. I know she hasn't been diagnosed, but she has all but one symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder. The main issue with BPD is fear of abandonment, and this is so all consuming to the BPD-sufferer that she'll do whatever it takes to try and hold on to people. Even if that means she has to try and poison them against their own dad, so be it. It's very sad, and ironically she pushes people away from her even more by doing this, instead of keeping them close. It's a devastating disorder, it really is.

Oh and I didn't read all other posts, I just started on the bottom :-)


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Adopted children have all the legal status of children born to a couple. Calling a half brother a brother and saying that you are of the same blood is ignoring that the child has another parent. It is writing off that other parent.

And how many people blaming mom for badmouthing are really blaming mom for dad's shortcomings as a parent.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

KKNY, you can't write this off as "legal" or "non-legal". Many half-siblings have the same "legal" parents. Haven't you ever heard of step-parents adopting their spouse's child? Calling your half brother "brother" without insisting on qualifying that relationship with the blood issue is not "writing off" the other parent. It has nothing to do with the parents, and everything to do with the people who actually have the brother-relationship.

I don't know how many people blame the mother for badmouthing and are really blaming her for her ex-husband's shortcomings. I'm sure you have an internal statistic. But, IMO, that doesn't matter. Parents should not badmouth the other parent to their children. No matter whose fault it is. No matter who is wrong. I think a lot of parents blur the line between "my relationship with my ex-husband" and "my child's relationship with their father".

Promises made/broken between two friends should not affect a third friend. Everyone is entitled to their own relationship with each individual in their life.

The problem is, mom badmouthing and dad's shortcomings have absolutely nothing to do with one another. One bad behavior does not excuse the other. Dad may be the WORST parent in the world. Doesn't mean Mom is entitled to badmouth him to the kids. Like it's been said, they aren't stupid. And their relationship with Mom will be a lot better if they are allowed to figure out Dad's shortcomings on their own.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Many half-siblings have been adopted? I certainly dont think most, but in any event, that is a entirely different situation, as one biological parent has given up parental rights. If you want to limit the disucssion to those kids fine. But dont lump in kids whose bioparents are not missing in action.

I said earlier, there is no need IRL in most situations to refer to a half sibling by title. I assume most people just use names. I agree parents should not badmouth X, but that doesnt make a halfsibling a sibling. If my X ever told my DD that she had a new sibling, I would say no, she might have a new half sibling, but that is it. I would regard it as badmouthing me if X ever insisted that a half sibling was my DDs sibling and not half, becuase he would be denying my role.

I never said badmouthing excused bad behaivor, what I said is some people blame their own failures on others.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I think it falls under what you consider "bad-mouthing." There's the truth (and everyone has their own version) and then there's inappropriate conversations imo. Everyone is going to be different. With some of the regular posters sitches on the board I don't see how they can avoid telling parts of the truth to their kids/stepkids.

It's one thing to explain to the child why Mommy doesn't pick her up for visitation anymore, it's completely different to discuss her sexual preferences. I do think it is up to the bio to decide what, if any, needs to be discussed with the child. And do the discussing themselves. Stepparents should not be a part of it (of course they can discuss with their spouse,) unless there is extenuating circumstances and they have formed a real, trusting relationship with the child. (Mom2, JNM) Not because of oversteps (although there is that too) but the relationship between the step and child will suffer if the trust is not there. The old shoot the messenger. And they just look petty.

Bottom line, if you have a pattern of acting irresponsibility someone will have to take responsibility and in a way you can't control. There is a difference in parenting styles, but not always irresponsibility and the distinction needs to be decided by the bio parents.

In Jess's case, the kids have already told her and their father how they would feel about the new sibling. The father can "correct" them about the title but the "oh okay" they gave is likely not an indication of correcting their thoughts about it.


 o
ohhh silvers...sigh...

"You don't support people doing things any way other than the way you did it. You don't look beyond yourself to ask "could there be a better way"."

Are you serious? you do like generalizations, don't you? How do you know I don't support other people's ideas? Of course i do, there are plenty of very good parents and different parenting styles that I am/was learning from. in fact I still do, i belong to parenting organization now! now just when DD was little.

But it does not mean YOUR particular style appeals to me or i have to be considering it at any point in my life.

if i find this particular style unproductive, it does not mean i am not considering bunch of different ideas. i am still learning how to be a parent. It is still a learning process.

Just because people don't accept YOUR parenting ideas does not mean they don't accept ANY ideas. It is just Internet forum, but we all have lives and real people that we consult with and spend time with. hopefully no one uses this forum as an ultimate truth how to raise their children.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"In Jess's case, the kids have already told her and their father how they would feel about the new sibling."
they don't like jess and they already plan on not liking a child.

i think instead of working on a relationship with kids SM keeps rushing into things that make relationship worse.

first move in, then marry, then ciritisize kids all the time, then talk about babies. all in a rush. like out of fear he'll leave if she does not do things fast?

kids clearly are not ready to accept new children, yet who is to blame, BM? i don't think so.


 o
kkny

oh I don't know, kkny, I don't see the point calling them half-siblings.

I would not call DD's brothers half-siblings ever. not to other people, not to my ex, not to DD, not to strangers. people do ask ( for example who is on this picture? etc) i always say these are DD's brothers. I also know (and I witnessed) that DD's brothers refer to DD as their sister. Well the older one does, little one does not say much yet.

I don't need to call them half-brothers, people know they are not my sons.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I said, IRL, I dont see a need to call anyone by title, jusst name. This is what I said - "I said earlier, there is no need IRL in most situations to refer to a half sibling by title. I assume most people just use names. "

But if dad says specifically, this child is your brother, not your half brother, its either insulting to me, or laughable. My X wouldnt do it.

Now if dad says everyone in the house is loved, thats fine.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

kkny, I honestly do not see your point.

my ex does say specifically "this is your brother" and I do not find it offensive. maybe I do not find it offensive because he also refers to DD as "their sister".

By your logic ex's wife should get offended that DD is not called "half-sister"?

i don't see how is it insulting to you. I don't see how is it to do anything with me? It does not effect me a bit.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

If my X said what Jess's Dh said - "My SKs made the comment that if DH and I have a kid it will be their step brother or sister and that would embarrass them. DH told them "no, it would be your brother or sister. They they would share the same blood". They just said "Oh okay"

IMHO, dad should have said, no they would be your half brother or sister. Dad could go on and say but everyone here is loved, etc. But to say what he did ignores that there are different mothers. But it doesnt matter what I think, it matters what kids think. And I think most kids know that if they have a different mother, it is not the same as if they had both parents in common.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I see..in jess' situation dad's wording is off, as well as his and jess' actions.

dad married someone right after he left their mom and they are already talking about new children. these kids are emotionally disturbed due to dad's actions and now he pushes a child on them, they don't like their SM, they even think of their potential sibling as a step-sibling....hinting that new baby would not be their true family.

Like i said kids are not stupid, they know...It is very symptomatic that they refer to a sibling as "step". clearly not very loving terminology, but instead of doing something productive about it, dad and SM push their agenda.

i am just basing it on my experience. We got divorced DD was 4 and my ex got into live-in relationship 6 years later. DD had long time to adjust. DD's older brother is 11 years younger than her. and DD is not emotionally disturbed as jess' Sks are (who would blame them?). DD does not remember me and dad together, and she does not hate SM. So for her they are brothers.

i see now what you meant...kind of dad and SM pushing their own agenda (including wording) disregarding everyone else's feelings. As I think of it dad's wording do sound offensive in a context of their family. when kids asked, he had to address it differently. Once again kids' feelings were ignored as adults push their own selfish agenda.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

--""My SKs made the comment that if DH and I have a kid it will be their step brother or sister and that would embarrass them. DH told them "no, it would be your brother or sister. They they would share the same blood". They just said "Oh okay" --

I'm still trying to make sense out of what Jess said, period. Makes no sense to me that these kids would be 'embarrassed' by the thought of stepbrother/sister but perfectly okay if more babies come along that are brothers/sister (called half are not).

I have a hunch 'we' got the short take of that actual conversation. I don't think things went from embarrassing to 'oh fine then' based in 'same blood' statement.

And, Jess, if you're reading, you went from your safe haven thread of asking for advice to this obvious debate thread, so your situation is fair game on this one. Why when you're still trying to adjust to a few days/nights a month and fighting over church clothes and your views of appropriate vs their views of appropriate your now discussing future children at this point, is beyond me.

No quick talk of 'siblings' and 'blood' is going to spare you the reality of what or how these kids will feel. The kids don't like you at least yet, they have not accepted nor dealt with their father's betrayal and new life yet, just wait till they see dad and you doting over a new baby 24/7. Even if they really want to like and accept the baby as their sibling (babies are innocent, not the baby's fault) no matter if it's called Joey/Sally, HalfB/S, or just B/S, things will never be as simple as 'oh, okay'.

Anyway....not joined in this thread though I've read parts and pieces here and there. Not much I can relate to in this thread. Dh and I never had bio partners from previous relationships that had to be considered, nor have the kids ever had to deal with somebody getting/doing something they themselves did not get/do. So my 2 cents in this thread would be coming from a different circumstance than what other posters in stepfamilies would have had to deal with and/or be comfronted with.

My kids are well aware of actual bloodlines in our family, but it's never been an issue nor something of concern as DH and I are the only two 'parents' they have ever had the kids have always considered each other as brothers/sisters.

I can see why finedreams is okay with her daughter calling her daughter's halfbrothers 'brothers' and I can also understand why KKNY would object to KKNY's daughter demanding to KKNY that any future kids in KKNY's ex's life are to be called and considered full siblings.

Taking finedreams, KKNY, and myself and looking at each of our situations as individual cases rather than the one and only way for every family, it becomes easier to see that there's no right or wrong answer here. But if one looks at Jess's case and she chooses to force another child on her sks (especially too soon) and demand they be called and considered whole siblings, she'll be on here whining 'my stepkids hate my baby' and wondering why and asking for advice to 'make it better'.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I suspect kids are embarrasses at the thought of, as they said, stepkids, because they are teens, and teens can be embarrassed at the tought of their parents having sex. Not certain if step, half or full sibling wouldnt have same result. I think dad should have just said matter of factly, well there are no immediate kids coming, but point of information, they would be your half siblings, not step, and we would love everyone in house. As I have said a number of times, I would expect people to be called by name (or maybe the baby or sweetiepie), not title.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

To clarify to all of you that think we are pushing a baby down my SK's throats. You are simply WRONG.

When we sat them down after dinner to discuss why they think I dont like them. They kept asking why they couldnt be excused. Their minds were wondering, they asked if it was something bad, they asked if someone died, if my old dog was dying, finally the middle one looked at me and asked "are you pregnant"? I asked her if she thought that would be a bad thing.She responded with, she is in the middle. The older one chimed in and said that she would not like having a step brother or sister, that would be imbarrassing. DH corrected her about them being steps. They know who their mother is no need to tell them the baby will have a different mom. All I said is I am glad to get their feelings on the subject. Then we went on with our conversation. So the pushy SM and horrible father that did not say the correct term "half sibling" have not been talking about a baby. Why would I bring another child into a situation that is not good? Come on even being TOW I have more sense than that. Oh I almost forgot it is all BM's fault that kids wont accept the new baby. Half sibling sorry.

And for more information, the kids have asked several times and has implied that we will be having a baby without ever hearing us speak about it. Hmmm, I wonder where they got that?

And how does my situation become fair game because I commented on another thread?


 o
RE: Just an observation...

LOL Jess, get used to it. Not only will your situation be regurgitated ad nauseum but the facts will be so skewed by the time they are re-reported you will not even recognize them yourself.

My personal situation was dragged through the mud to get here too. It's a problem when every nuance of your life is not detailed from the beginning so that perfect understanding can be had by those who have raised their children and therefore have cornered the market on effective parenting.

For those of us still in the trenches, working things out, figuring out what to do and how to do it, when things can change/ideas change/feelings change from day to day... it can be frustrating.

Example: I know, from my experience as an almost-SM when I was in my late teens/early 20's that a person should not try to change how parents dress their children. I had an almost SD who dressed like a little slut. She was 5. Her mommy put her in "Suri" heels, mascara, lip stick, daisy dukes and crop tops. I was SUPER embarassed to go out with this little girl. It helped that she told everyone "she's not my mommy". LOL. But I only learned that it was *none* of my business after making it my business and getting shut down. Hard. I also learned after attempting to take care of her dental/medical needs that no matter what I did I would be seen as the villin rather than a concerned person in her life. I learned, after getting my fingers slammed in the door numerous times... to start going in a different door.

That door? Her father. I gave all of my "ideas" to him, as non-judgementally as I could, and he in turn passed them on to BM, and together, as the parents, actually implemented my ideas. Like, brushing baby teeth. Who would have thought that was a good idea? Cause, y'know, they fall out anyway!!!!!!!

BTW, this little girl is now a teenager and dresses age-appropriate. And she brushes her teeth. Thank goodness.

My point is, if you want something to change, go through dad. He needs to be the enforcer. And if he doesn't, and if the parenting skills he demonstrates are not to your liking, well, you'll know that it's probably better not to get involved on a parent-to-parent basis. In other words, like me, you will choose not to have kids with this man.

So, I learned the "clothes issue" that you're going through, a while back. I still have a lot of things I'm figuring out though. Not a perfect parent, by any means. But if people think I'm uptight now, they should have seen me when I was just a (almost) SM. I didn't understand at all how kids really are and I was so strict. Poor kid. I look back and wow, did I have high expectations.

It's a learning process. Go into it with the "first, do no harm" mantra and you'll do fine.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"LOL Jess, get used to it. Not only will your situation be regurgitated ad nauseum but the facts will be so skewed by the time they are re-reported you will not even recognize them yourself." Silversword

Ditto. How many parents of any stripe EVER ask existing children for permission to have more children? Parents consider the impact on the existing kids, may or may not discuss it with the kids, but the parents make the call. Just saying...if MY SKIDS has been asked do you think I would have DS7?


 o
RE: Just an observation...

But shouldn't the "OK" (Original Kids) be able to have their original lives continued without interruption? Isn't it their right to still get everything the parents planned when they were born?

I most certaintly would not ask my dd's permission prior to having more children.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

--"And how does my situation become fair game because I commented on another thread?"--

Because you left the advice thread you posted and entered an obvious debate thread. I did my best to keep your advice thread on topic for moving forward and advice with what is going on for you/your Sks on that thread. It's not fair to a OP to call them liars, question their every word as being trusted blah blah. But when you jump yourself to a debate thread and make a simple comment 'oh, okay', I was fair warning you you had entered an area of anything you say in the debate thread can and likely will be debated. That's what a debate thread is.

Then in a debate thread (since Jess had entered it herself and gave a pretty simplistic comment she was 'fair game' to use in my post) I used myself, KKNY, Finedreams and Jess as different examples to show how things might be in four different families. The point was not to 'drag anyone through the mud', nor did I say anywhere that sks/previous kids must be asked permission before having additional kids.

My point in posting at all was to show that in stepfamilies there is no 'right or wrong' answers. No standard 'this is how it has to be' because all stepfamilies are different and all have different circumstances. A generic 'this is the correct way' just does not exist, and I clearly showed four very different stepfamilies with different circumstances and timelines of events to make my point.

Sorry if anyone felt pulled around the mud, that was not my goal at all. I think what annoys me most here (at the forum) is the generic generalizations and the views that run around the lines of 'I have never heard of such a thing, therefore it can't be', or 'not in my circle/backyard so it's true/untrue in all circles/backyards'. KWIM?

Jess, for the record, I hope someday you're able to add on to your family unit, I really do, but I also think you and your husband will sense when the current kids are ready for the event or as ready as they will ever be. Six months into the marriage with a stepdaughter talking about stabbing and doing you in with a blanket, whether she was dead serious or half serious/half kidding is not that time. And even when the time comes, there will always be those little things that set the current kids into unsecure and/or jealous feelings, no matter how hard you try to make everything fair and everybody happy and loved. It never is as simple as 'oh okay'.

And Jess, in my family my ex DIL left for the other man (actually he just came with the packae, she left for his money LOL) but I actually like the new guy. I'd struggle with what ex-DIL did to my son and grandson but I don't dislike the new guy. I wanted to, but the guy is really very nice, cares for and treats my grandson well, and when I have to see him at events I find very little I can not like about him. It's been an adjustment, but now that's it's done and time has passed, the OTM in my family is slowly earning a place in our lives (at least the grandson's) and we are learning to accept him and realize in doing so that's it's in the best interest of my grandson.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

I would hesitate having babies knowing stepchildren want to kill me etc It would be just too dangerous for a new baby.

I do not understand what was the purpose of sitting the whole family down and discussing why they don't like SM. It was clearly embarrassing for them and they would come up with anything just to get out of it. This is a pretty bad idea.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Ditto on both not discussing at a round table session why SM isn't liked and not bringing anyone into the family who is defenseless while people are pretending to want to kill anyone. That was something I wanted to bring up on the other thread and just didn't. I don't think it was funny at all. This is super scary. That girl needs someone to talk to, and quick.

"I think what annoys me most here (at the forum) is the generic generalizations and the views that run around the lines of 'I have never heard of such a thing, therefore it can't be', or 'not in my circle/backyard so it's true/untrue in all circles/backyards'. KWIM? "

In my personal circles this never happens so I'm always shocked to hear it here (removes tongue from cheek).

I KWYM. :) And I agree.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

"When we sat them down after dinner to discuss why they think I dont like them". Read again please.

We did not discuss why they dont like me! The whole conversation was why they think I dont like them. I wanted to know what I have done to make them feel that way what I could do to work on that. I do like them. They are smart, caring, good to little kids, creative, very likable kids. This is what I told them. I wanted them to know that I liked and cared for them no matter if they like me or not. It actually went well. We all had a chance to open up a little about how we felt. My working on the Saturdays is one of their biggest reason they felt I was trying to get away from them.

All three have to be in differnt places this wkend so I am going to have to change my Saturday. They get me all wkend at least one of them.

Like I said before, we are not bringing a baby in a dangerous situation. I would love to have a baby but i know I cant right now. I have discussed with DH the danger for the baby. he of course blows it off. Those are his kids he does not think they are capable of such things. I would not leave my baby with them for a second. Probably ever just beacuse she did make those comments.
The oldest has even said mean things about my 14yr old tiny dog. They were all told not to pick the dog up the first wkend we had them after we got married. (she was holding her while I was in another room and I heard her dad tell her to put the dog down that she has a bad hip and should not be held, so I came in the room and was behind SD, she could not see me, she said well maybe I will should drop her. I told her not to touch my dog again) She knew i was mad, DH had a talk with her. She now pets her gently until my dog gets snippy.

Anyway, they are in counciling. they all go once a month. I am to the point I think we all need counciling. Their mom too. Seperate of course.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

Pseudo-as far as your OP, you said:

"How come dad's are blasted when they have more children ... But when mom's have second families they do not get blasted."

This has been my experience with DH and BM. I think I've talked about this on here before, but I can't remember.

A little background...DH had a son when he met BM. His son was about 6 or 7 when he met BM. She played the loving SM until right after the wedding (pretty evident in pictures I've seen). DH's son was 12 when they got married. BM got pregnant right after they got married. As soon as she got pregnant, she 'turned' on DH's son. She started arguing about his visitations, grilling DH about conversations with the other mom, refusing to spend time with the son when he visited, made plans when DH was supposed to visit his son, and so on. After about a year of the constant harassment by BM, DH quit visitations, after 10+ years. According to DH, BM wanted her and "their" daughter to be his only family. I'm not saying DH is totally blameless here, but I can understand the constant pressure and resistance he was facing (especially with what he's going through now).

Fast-forward a few years. When I met DH, he had been divorced for over 2 years, SD was 7, BM had been remarried for 7 months and was pregnant by her husband. No one questioned any part of it. It was all as if BM had the RIGHT to be pregnant because SF didn't have any kids. As a matter of fact, everyone at ball games and SD's school (except DH) was all excited and doting all over her. No one knew the backstory that BM had left DH and taken SD to move in with the "future" SF and then brought the future SF back to try to kick DH out of their house.

That was 7+ years ago, when I was 23. I was still planning on having more children at that time. I never imagined it would be 7 more years before I would get re-married. Now, I don't know if we will ever have anymore kids. Here are my reasons:
1) DH's son will be 25 this year
2) DH has two grandkids now; an almost 2 year-old and a 3 month-old
3) SD will be 15 this year
4) DS just turned 11
5) SD has moved away and DH's relationship with her seems to be crumbling away
6) DH is just now getting back on regular-speaking terms with his son

Somehow I just don't see how adding a baby to this mix will help anything. As a matter of fact, I feel like BM WANTS us to have a baby because she thinks that if DH and I have a baby together, he will just forget about SD (like she thinks he did with his son) and then she and her husband can have SD all to herself.

I told this to DH once and he said to me "for that to be true, she would have to assume you would act just like she did". I said "BINGO! She's a narcissist! She thinks EVERYONE acts/reacts as she would! That's the very definition of the disorder!"

I think that, while it was okay for her to do the things she's done, that if we were to do the same, she would further poision SD with stuff like "well, he has another family now" and blah, blah, blah. Right now, she doesn't have an excuse (that we know of) for keeping SD away. She keeps her distracted. But if we were to have a baby, I'm sure she would use that to her advantage.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

jess, it is equally wrong to sit down all three children and ask why they think you don't like them.

It shows you know nothing about kids. They don't like you but have hard time saying it, it is much easier for them to pretend to be victims "she does not like us". This is typical of children who feel they cannot say the truth.

It is funny how you reveal more and more facts about the children. So one of them wanted to deliberately hurt your dog. Wow. They cannot hurt you so they thought to hurting a dog...No, I would not bring a baby to this unhealthy environment.

I don't know why you married a man whose children hate your guts, why didn't you give it time and slowly build up a relationship. This was a very stupid choice of you and your DH.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

--"Anyway, they are in counciling. they all go once a month. I am to the point I think we all need counciling. Their mom too. Seperate of course"--

Wonderful, glad to hear the kids are back to counseling and that DH and you are planning to also try theraphy for yourselves. It takes time. You stated on the 3rd of March that DH was trying to talk to BM about sks doing counseling again. So it's just 20 days later and if just once a month, they've likely only gone once. Don't expect huge progress for sometime to come. You said the last time they went the kids refused to continue going as they did not like what counselor was saying and counselor did not agree with the kids at all times. Hopefully BM and DH will keep taking the sks even if it's hard at first.

I think you will perhaps get something out of counseling yourself, both with DH and alone. There's so many issues going on that hopefully he/she (counselor) can help you understand things from the kids viewpoint as to how this all affects them. But remember, just like the kids did, you may find the counselor not agreeing with you on all things, don't give up if the first sessions don't go well, it takes time and you may have to try several pros til you all find the right ones for you all.

Good luck.

Aren't we at 150 and closing this yet?


 o
RE: Just an observation...

thanks justmetoo. Yes they have been once. The kids decided they would rather go back to the same councilor instead of trying someone new. We were glad for that. We are looking for one at the moent. We have several referrals to check out.

FD: As I recall you blasted another poster for being what most of us would call a good parent teaching a child responiblity and accountablility. And you want to call my DH & I stupid. I love my husband and we will make it through whatever comes our way. I am happyto be married to him, there are rough times, but I think thats true with any marriage.
You think we should nerver talk about the bad stuff that bothers us. We should keep it all bottled up right?. I happen to think it was good, it lasted about 10 mins, it was a little serious and a liitle casual. I wanted them to know I cared about them.

You can say we were stupid or whatever else you would like. Your opinions do not matter to me.


 o
RE: Just an observation...

it closes at 151 so Ill post this then something else :)


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


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