Despite the original posters overly extensive post, with certain questionable content, the central point is still quite vaild. We as a nation spend more money on grass than on any other crop. That by itself should be reason enough. Read up on the history of lawns and you'll find that they were orginally created as a means of demonstrating wealth (aka, I have this big area and I can afford to do nothing with it except grow grass I can't eat) Regarding the comments of junegem13 and zachslc, you might want to read up on the legal history of this movement. As it turns out, most weed laws (ones based on hight, not on noxious weeds) are unconstitutional. Nonetheless, if you are in a city or subdivision and decide to do a wildflower meadow where there is not an reasonable ordinance, then you should notify your neighbors and the city about why you are doing and the legal preceedants. The EPA has all this information. Regarding property values, that was the original complaint neighbors made against one landowner when she converted her lawn into meadow. When they were unable to demonstrate an actual decrease in property values, the city ordinance was ruled unconstitutional. Afterwards, the neighbors decided if they couldn't beat her that they'd join her and replace their own yards with meadows. Property values in that one neighborhood are now some of the highest in the city (Specific names and places, are available if you want them). Time and time again, lawn alternatives done correctly have shown to raise values, not lower them. In Charlottesville, VA local government is working on an ammendment to exclude native meadows from our weed ordinance. Other cities are doing the same very quicky, especially since the weed ordinance as written by many localites constitutes a legal liability to local governments.

I just started mowing the area as soon as the water disappeared. A native grass won the battle. Mother nature sorted it out. I never planted a thing where the grass is growing. I only have to mow it about three times during the summer. It's full of water from late Fall to early Summer. If I used a string trimmer and cut things higher, I would get more variety of plants that could handle the conditions. You can see the winter water level at the far area of grass and that is also where it drains through a corrugated ADS pipe to a pond below. Mike

Um... okay.

Love - You said "He said fine, he would have to leave work early, didn't want to "inconvenience me" yada yada." and "I asked him what made him say that and he just said "well, I can't leave work early today." WOW. So I guess in his MAN MIND that is his way of acknowleding that I wouldn't do it." The way I see it is this was his way of making you feel guilty for being a SAHM, but unwilling to help him out with his kid. Don't give in!!!! Be strong in that HE needs to do what HE needs to do for HIS kid, and it wouldn't have to be this way if the (in the words of Sweeby) bat-sh*t crazy b*tch hadn't come in your home and punched you. Pseudo said "....I guess my point was if he puts BM before you ... if you had a child with him where would he draw the line ...." This is totally what I have been thinking for a few months now, but could never get the courage up to say anything. Where will he draw the line? Your DD has already been subjected to so much from this woman, and he's not even her father! How much would he put a child of his own through? Example: my friend has a DD with her DH who has 2 DDs with a crazy BM. The DH is a SAHD to the little one (DD with my friend) and would take her with him to pick up the other DDs on his weekend. It became a habit that the BM wouldn't be home at p/u time and wouldn't answer her phone. He would wait around for them to return (afraid that if he left he wouldn't get to see his DDs). One time, the little DD was in the car and carseat for 4 hours while he tried to track them down and waited for them. 4 hours! My friend finally said "You can wait around for 4 hours if you want, but you will not have MY daughter sitting in a carseat for 4 hours while you sit in your car outside their home." Basically, he had no problems putting BM ahead of his new DD. Remember...the squeaky wheel gets the grease. You just have to start squeaking louder than her. Jupiter said "I think that they need to see their ex's as good mothers (even when they clearly are not) maybe to somehow reassure themselves for when they are with her." So, so, so, true. My DH knows BM is a back-stabbing liar. But then he says stuff like "well, BM says it's SD's decision and she asks her all the time if she wants to visit". So why would he believe that one statement when he's caught her in so may lies before? The only thing that makes sense is he NEEDS to believe she's a good mother. Jupiter also said "I too run into arguments where he lets her slide on things that he wouldn't with me..I try to give him the example that if it was anyone else in his life he would have told them to go to h#$% because normally in life you don't do favors for people who don't do for you let alone someone who puts him down as a father..." and Love said "But it just totally goes against DH's overall nature, which is so frustrating." This is the issue. Which personality is the REAL one? I have this same problem with DH and I'm starting to think the way he is with HER is his personality when he's vulnerable and that scares the crap out of me because I guess I rarely ever see him vulnerable. I agree with FD. When I am flexible and accommodating with X, it is usually in the best interest of DS, and I do the work. I rarely (if ever) ask DH to do anything for DS, although he would be willing, because I feel like DS is my sole responsibility since I am the parent.