Glad you got to see the show, Yacht. Actually you saw all of Jason's episode. The first half hour was on a Dallas case. I didn't know which would be shown first. A lot of Jason's was recap from the original Crash episode, I wish more had been new stuff. Yes, Jason is very natural and comfortable on camera! He's been taped and interviewed so much since the wreck, that he is very relaxed. My once super shy son really changed after the Fire. No one ever dreamed he would be such a natural "speaker", quite the shock. He's spoken to the NY, TX, and CA legislatures on those damn Crown Vic fire-bombs too. I still get totally moved hearing him, LOL. I still remember in the beginning, the burn doctors telling us that "a person's face is their Identity", and when they are severely disfigured, they lose that. Some people never leave their homes again, some literally can't live with what happened. Most all are depressed and bitter and angry. Jason gave his doctors a new line of thinking, along with new ways of treating such severe burns. They had to constantly experiment with his treatments, so they learned a lot. And wrote it up in medical journals for other burn doctors. I'm so glad for FUTURE burn survivors! hugs, Karen

"You are right, but this is about extras, not CS. If SM feels that on top of CS and regular necessities SD requires (during her 50/50) that BM is expecting Dad (and therefore SM) to pay for extras, I can see her problem." The problem is that not only are there bound to be plenty of costs for "extras" that are going to be incurred in raising children (I mean, if we're considering anything beyond food ---but not necessarily FAVORITE food, just food--- and, like, Hanes 3-pack basic white tees as clothing and the cheapest uglist Walmart notebook and Dixon Ticonderoga #2 pencils as "extras")... but that the definition of "extras" is very debatable... "It would feel like BM considers her husband's money as separate and not to be used for her child, but SM's to be part of Dad's available income. Who would be purchasing the sports equipment if there was no SM, and therefore no item to borrow? Assuming Dad's income was the same, and his CS and custody the same, could he afford this item on his own, or would he ask BM to split the cost? (BM could use some of her CS, or ask her husband to help.)If both parents were still single, how would the item be procured?" I just gathered that there happened to be already in existence in the house an item of the kind that was required, which was not being used by anyone else at the time it was going to be needed. In that case, why SHOULDN'T OP's daughter be able to use it? Is it inconceivable that OP's daughter would loan something to her step-sister in a similar situation? Has that never occured before? I mean, yeah, I suppose that for everyone to be perfectly even and everything to be perfectly fair, there should be two of absolutely everything in the house for each of the girls, no matter how easily worked out a sharing plan may be... just so nobody feels like BM is "getting off scot free" or "taking advantage" of the already-purchased hockey stick (or whatever it is). But why spend the extra money (which Dad would be, since he's presumably already paid for half of his step-daughter's item, we can presume he'd be paying half of this item too) or insist or suggest that someone else (BM) spend extra money when there is a perfectly good item right there, which will not be in use, and which the user of (step-sister) has already agreed to lending? It's not costing step-sister or SP anything to lend it, and if it's damaged it won't cost them anything either b/c Dad & BM would pay for a replacement. The only reason would be to (pardon the pun) "stick it" to the person(s) who would be asked to pay for a second one, in one way or the other. Now, obviously, if the item is lost or damaged, or if OP's daughter will be using such an item more frequently in the future, then it's appropriate to purchase another. But to go around and imply that anything shared in the house that's an "extra" has to be purchased separately even for one-time use is just not very family-like. In intact families, no one would dream of proposing a waste of money (on anyone's part) or excessive consumption (and clutter?) of this sort as a general practice... I guess that's what I find so colossally sad in these blended family situations. That, as much as many SP's regard the situation like the SK's are "spoiled" b/c they have two households, it's just as often that they end up getting shafted b/c everything gets nickel-and-dimed and bickered over to death. And I'm not even really thinking about in the *material* sense, but psychologically... How do you think it feels growing up where every little item or expense you require as a kid is argued over, debated, and you're made to feel like you're such a source of financial burden and your parents arguing all the time and the expenses paid for are all conditional on how well you (or your mom) behave? Like someone's sitting there all "ca-ching! ca-ching!" every time you express a cereal preference that costs an extra 80 cents, or scowl ("deduct a dollar for the "extra"-nice notebook b/c of your attitude! I don't HAVE to do anything for you!")... and you may, perhaps, be in the regular presence of a step-sibling who (b/c his/her parents aren't divorced) doesn't face the same kind of nickel-and-diming, or you feel like you have to run a decathalon of requests and requests-for-requests to DARE to borrow the item of its "rightful" owner, whom it WAS procured for, presumably without much hubub... I CERTAINLY can understand the need to budget to the point of splitting hairs (b/c there's no choice) when funds are tight (but in OP's case it didn't sound like that was necessarily the case)... but when the situation is more comfortable, nickel-and-diming is unnecessary and rather depressing. Not to mention an enormous waste of energy and a veritable minefield packed chock-full of potential explosions at every little teensy turn. (Which, btw, ain't so great for the marriage, either...) Come up with a plan, an agreement, based on reality, decency, common sense, and what you think "family" should mean and general principles of what will/won't be split (or set a dollar amount limit, or an age limit, or limit the extracurricualr activities by quantity). Figure out and decide once and for all on the definitions of "extras" you and spouse agree on and everything should fall into place. If this can't be agreed upon between current spouses, it is not the ex-spouse's fault, and they shouldn't be dragged into the mess. If the CS arrangement is unsatisfactory to both current spouses, seek to have it changed instead of whining/nickel-and-diming/b.s. psychological games. If it's satisfactory to one spouse but not SP, or if expenditures just CANNOT be agreed upon no matter what, then maybe consider splitting finances. But acknowledge that it is the CURRENT SPOUSES who cannot agree on expenditures or come up with a workable plan, so it isn't anyone else's fault or burden to bear if you two can't work it out between yourselves.

I have to say that personally I would never call up my ex to help me with anything. I called him one time that I was in a jam and DS was not with me so it was more of something to do with me. He did not help me when I truly felt that I had no one to call at the time or else I would not have called him to begin with. I ended up finding help some other way out of my jam in the end and I will never ask another thing of him to help me out personally again. At the time I was desperate (hence the phone call to him)and I would not have cared if he had brought SM (TOW)with him if that is what he needed to do but he made lame excuses instead so I will never turn to him again. Now it is more of a pride thing. But I have truly only asked one time in eleven years that did not involve just needing help with DS that has usually involved more time for him anyway and I truly thought that once would not have been too much. I also know that SM is/was a very jealous, controlling woman through the years especially when it comes to ex talking to me and I do not know how much of that had influenced the situation. I do not know if now that they are split and he is single that things would be different but I will never find out because I will never ask him again--again, the pride thing. Besides, I am dating a man that is more capable than ex ever was at handling most anything that I would ever need anyway. But even if that were not the case, I would still never call him again. I do not believe that we will ever be true friends. I used to think that we all could be friends but I have come to realize that it is not possible, not in our situation anyway. We did try for a time but things always ended badly. We get along and maintain contact for DS but that is all that it will ever be and I believe that we both realize that and do not try to make more out of it.

If your ex were an alcoholic, would you be tormenting yourself over whether to use the word when talking to your son? Would you worry about poisoning him against his father? No, you'd say, "Son, your father is an alcoholic. Don't get in the car with him when he's been drinking, & if he's in a rage, get away from him." Tell him right now, & use the words. It's a tremendous, tremendous relief to know that the turmoil & dread you feel isn't normal & that it isn't your fault, that there *is* a real, identifiable problem, not just a personality conflict, that you aren't a piece of totally inadequate carp who doesn't deserve to live if you don't reflect glory on another person 24 hours of every day, that credit for your achievements belongs to you & not to your parent, & *that you are not the only one*; it isn't just you. It's nicer if you can tell him when things are calm, but tell him right away regardless of whatever fit his father is throwing. "I haven't gone 'clinical' because that seemed too much like 'poisoning' DS against his father, and that's really not what I want. (Took me a while to be able to say that honestly.)" but this isn't the same as tattling to a child about a husband who betrayed you in some way. It's about arming your son against abuse. I guarantee that anyone who grows up with a narcissistic parent has low self-esteem, & if that person has no knowledge of what narcissism is, he has no way to protect himself against further battering of his emotions & his sense of self. By not telling your son that his father has this massive personality disorder, you are not only failing to protect your son, you are protecting & enabling his father.