my stepkids bio mom complains that I take care of the kids when my husband is at work.

I dont work outside the home, so I dont mind doing the childcare - Actually, I enjoy it very much.

Biomom sends the kids to daycare when its her time with the kids, while she works. She makes a miniscule amount of money, and her husband is very well paid, but he wont let her quit and stay home , because he doesnt want HIS money going to support HER children.

I feel sorry for her. She is jealous that I dont work, and I know she would prefer not to. It makes no sense to me for her to work, but her husband is a greedy person. Its a shame, cuz between her own two kids and her husbands two kids, her a** must be draggin

Kathline, that must be rough for your SK's mom.
It's too bad that it gets brought out as jealousy towards you, but I'm glad you understand how she feels and don't hold it against her!

I just asked this question to my husband now. You know what his response was? He doesn't want to chit chat about this stuff. He doesnt care to. He doesn't want to rehash things and find new insight.
In fact when i first started to post he becoem resentful that i did comeonto this forum. I told him, tough! too bad. i like to express myself and want to find out if others are in teh same boat or others situations that i may learn from as well for future purposes.
But you see, i dont see eye to eye with him on many things when it comes tohis kids. But i wont interfere cause its his kids and if both bioparents want to act like jerks, i can't spend the energy refereeing anymore..( i dont think i spelled that right!)
I dont like that
1. His kids do not have bank accounts
2. That the aunt had to open an RESP for them and not the bioparents.
3. That he doens't phone them unless i bother him too and even then he wont do it for days until its almost time to pick them up.
4. He'll complain about something...as in when they skip a weekend cause they have a school activity or event in their neighbourhood. He'll complain but he wont get off his A** to go see them.
Example, in two weekends, they wont come cause they have somethingfor school and they've entered into a neighbourhood tournements for prizes...so instead of understanding the situation, he gives grief to his daughter. which i gave him SH*T! cause its not fair. If she wants to go to the fair there isnothing stopping him from driving up there and taking them to mcdonalds for an hour or so! I sit there encouraging him but i look like the bad guy.
Yes biomom complains that i do more than him. I agree with her but what am i suppose to do. Say no, daddy will help you and theni find him avoiding them...
I understand why he does it. I understand why biomom is pist off and her character and his are not the best.
I just dont' understand why they put themselves first above their kids. Yes the marriage is first but what i mean is that they dont value their kids. THey dont think of their future.
I guess its my culture. I dont put my son first in front of my relationship. But i will value his education, his future. His needs emotionally and psychologically.
THere are alot of men out there that just let the woman carry the burden for several reason.
1 . Laziness.
2. culture : that the woman will do this work
3. Fear of involvement
4. Maybe they feel emasculated ....not sure on this one.
5. The wife: cause they know we are there to pick up after them.!
How many people on this forum know men who really go out of their way for their kids.? Really go out. Not many. It doesn't mean they dont love them. Its just not in their nature.
Though i do have a cousin who married someone who is wonderful and responsible and shares equal responsibility for their kids. So these men do exist...just very far and few of them.

I think women just take over the parenting like they did with their own. I have heard to many judges tell the step parent to stay out of it, leave it to the bio parent. My husband had a 13 year old daughter and I never told her so much as wash or go to bed. Wasn't my job.

I think a lot of dad's trust the BMs way too much. I know my BF used to think his ex was the best mother in the world. It was the whole "Well she's the mom she must have her child's best interest in mind" idea of thinking. If she made a suggestion, he went along with it. If she asked for money (outside of CS), he gave it. Then he started realizing that her motives weren't in the best interest of his daughter. He started realizing that she was manipulating situations like chess pieces on a board so that she could set up her winning move. Which proved to be a move to New Mexico. But he's given her so much power that his daughter is brain-washed and he is basically powerless unless he wants to spend a bunch of money on an attorney. I really hate to see his pity-parties and try to help him as much as possible, but it seems like he'd rather complain than act. So I and my son have to live with his decisions.

"but in an intact family, it would not be a big deal if dad worked on the weekend. "

Yes, it would. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times my exH worked on the weekend. He told his employer that spending time with his family was his first priority.

Some people are lucky enough to be in a job where they can make those demands. Must be nice. However, not everyone else can tell their employer when they will work. I'm sure changing jobs is an option for some but what do you do when you have 50/50 custody and your kids are with you every other week? Would you tell your boss, 'sorry, I can only work on the weeks my kids are not with me...'

Oh wait, I forget what a saint your ex husband is... what was I thinking? My bad.

"Would you tell your boss, 'sorry, I can only work on the weeks my kids are not with me...'"

Yes, if you are referring to overtime/weekend hours. Why bother having 50/50 custody if the child is going to spend more hours with a stepparent than with you?

My husbands job often required him to work overtime whether he wanted to or not. He would have been fired if he said no.

Just a trend I've noticed here is complaining that BM is "pawning" off the child to grandparents and/or friends or even the father. While it is okay for Dad to do it with SM.

Imamommy, I can see your point but I will say that people are not just lucky, they work for it. My SO has not had it easy and has had to take lower paying jobs so that he could effectively be the parent in SD's life that he wanted to be. As a single and sole active parent of SD I believe that he did the right thing. It definitely did slow his career down, but I think that was a small price to pay.

We have been together since SD was 1 but our relationship was slow and steady. I have the utmost respect for him b/c he has shown me the same. He did not expect me to do anything for SD and it took awhile to get him to understand that it wasn't a burden to me to help out. In the meantime, I was able to build a relationship with SD without the pressures of doing this/that, thrown into dealing with BM and her many problems and feeling resentment for the effort I put forth without a real reward. Over that time SD and I bonded, it became a true loving relationship where I am able to put her needs above my own as a parent would. IMO, I see a lot of stepparents "stepping" in right away without a clear understanding of the situation and insisting on changes that don't necessarily need to be changed. It is almost expected in some relationships that the woman will just take over.

I see a lot of SM's on here that have the frustration, aggravation and resentment that comes from being thrown into a situation without the power or respect that the position they were thrust into would need. It ceases to become about what is best for everyone in the family, it has become a power struggle often directed at the wrong person when IMO it was their husbands/partners role all along to effectively manage the situation. It bothers me to see so many women caught up in these situations when it isn't their responsibility or really even their right.

Gigglemonster
When I'm not happy about BM pawning A__ off on whoever she can leave him with, it's not because I didn't know the situation when I chose to become involved with FDH. It's not because I want her to not have any fun. It's not because I want power over her. It's because I want what's best for A__. It's not good for him to never know where he's sleeping at night. It's not good for him to spend all his time with someone who doesn't care if he does his homework or eats, someone who thinks it's OK for him to get into fights or swear at his teacher (age 8 at the time of that incident).

FDH wants what's best for A__, but until I came along, it wasn't feasible for him to have him as much as he would like. I gradually got to know A__, built a good relationship with him, and gradually became more involved in his life. I offered to take A__ to school and soccer and so on, so that he could be with his dad more. FDH has NEVER ONCE asked me to go out of my way to be involved with A__. He tells me often how much he loves that I have built such a great relationship with A__, but he never pushed it.

Believe it or not, you don't have the market cornered on good men who love their kids. There are many of them around, and I have one too.

"Why bother having 50/50 custody if the child is going to spend more hours with a stepparent than with you?"

Why bother to have custody if you work two jobs and your kids hardly ever see you? Are they home alone, with a babysitter, daycare or in school, they are not with you more than you work, so why bother??? Lots of kids spend more time in school & daycare than with the custodial parent. Should we take the kids away from them all? Or is it okay to leave kids home alone, with a babysitter or daycare or school, than a step mom that may care a great deal for the child?

and giggle, I understand what you mean. I was a single parent for several years and I went to work before my kids got up. I talked to them by phone to make sure they were getting out the door on time and if I needed, I took my break to go check on them. I got home at 6pm and they went to bed at 9. I got three hours a night with them and changing jobs was NOT an option for me. I worked in social services and even if I promoted, it's government hours, not too flexible. It wasn't until I resigned and started my own business that I had enough flexibility to choose my own hours and by that time, my youngest was in high school. They lost medical benefits when I resigned and that was one of the reasons I stayed. They were without medical benefits for three years until I got married to my husband. So, while I agree with working your way into a job where you can choose hours or be more picky, if you have kids and it takes time to get to a place where you can command things, you still have no choice in the interim sometimes. I chose job stability and benefits over flexibility.

Giggle its great your SO or DH whatever he is could take a lower paying job to be with his child ... more power to him ... but if he had a __________ of an ex ... he would still be paying support at his higher income so he would basically be working for nothing so great for him and his child and lucky he doesn't have a ______of ex to drag him back to court everytime she finds out he's got two nickels because she wants her percentage.

TOS stop comparing dad's who spend time with their kids TODAY to what your saint of a hubby was 10+ years ago. Unless he is doing it now as a divorced parent your comments have no relevance.

Ceph ... imagine giving you grief over a soccer form how dare a coach give you a non-related person anything ... oh wait that would include FDH and FDH's father ... A____ is lucky all these non-related people are looking out for him. And STEPPING IN when they do not have to .....

And yes women to "pawn off their kids" my hubby's ex would pick up the kids for her time with them and drop them off with a babysitter ... he had to tell her many many many times if you are picking them up to drop them off with a babysitter leave them home. My SC would flip out on me and hubby because they wanted their mommy after 10 minutes of returning from her home ... we had a babysitter all night and day.

Kathline I get the same complaints... "you have the life I wanted" ... well then you should have chosen family or affairs can't do both.

FD you have said your BF travels alot and his children still want to be taken to the drs if they were under 10 years old guess who would be taking them to the drs... guess you are the lucky one you got a guy with older kids.

Maria ... I would have sent the child home too for beating up a toddler.... but what do we know we are just SM's too stupid for our own good. Many have said to ship my oldest SS to his mom for beating up his siblings I guess its because they are not halfs.

If my hubby had to take the day off to care for any of his 4 children whether it be out sick from school or drs appt he would need to be on state assistance to raise them .... oh wait they have a mom .... oh thats right its not her "day" why she should have to take them to the drs. even though she isn't working. So yes as a SM I get the joy of taking all 3 to the drs. so I can be the bad guy who makes them get shots or have to get in their underwear.

I think as women we try to reason with another woman ... it doesn't work but we think we can fix it whatever it may be..... I know my hubby would rather pay a lawyer a $1000 a day to talk to his ex than actually have to talk to her about anything ...

Conversation last week ... her BF is complaining about early morning calls from EX BF who is also her co-worker, landlord and he just bought her car and gave her another... so she has to have constant contact with the "dude" who just happens to be the guy she left hubby for. She was retelling this story to hubby and saying things like you know how you used to get mad when "dude" called every morning my BF is complaining about it too guess I should get "dude" to call when BF is at work so I won't get caught.....

I think the major difference is the full-time SM vs the part-time SM as a FTSM more responsibility falls on us because we are here and available and want to help our hubbys anyway we can ... from making dinner to picking up "his" kids and everything in between. Doing for the SC makes his life easier and sometimes it makes BM's life easier as a side effect. We know our hubby's appreciate it just once if BM said thanks instead of knifing us in the back it would be a world of difference ...

Psuedo, A voice of reason, ditto, ditto ditto......On all counts....

Society has raised people with views that the woman is responsible. A woman, doesnt matter who. Thats waht we hav elearned.
To top it off, what are you going to do if your hubby doesn't feed the kids because he is sleeping in?
There are many times, in fact all the mornings for EOW when his kids come to visit i have made them breakfast. i dont ask for thank yous. Do not care for it. Beign a mother is a thankless job even to a stranger i would do this common courtesy. You are in my home, i will serve you coffee and feed you. To do other wise would be rude and selfish. It doesn matter if its your child or a cousin or the stepkids. They need to eat. I'm up and i'm capable of making breakfast for everyone! Besides.....my husbands burns the toast! lol..and not good a making pancakes either!:) or french toast! I'm the breakfast queen in my house. And everyone knows ...and appreciates:)
And yes pseudo mom..i stand by with what i did by sending the kids home that day. You see, at the moms house they have a stepbrother who is violent and are learnign from him. Thank GOD! the grandparents also spoke them. Just found this out yesterday night! They told them to keep their distance from the stepbrother and not to copy him. Heard that they beat one another a tthe grandparents house and both got punished. Biomom got ripped into and now she is not speaking to her own parents. Can you believe that? Her own kids are being bullied by stepchild in her own home and she wont lift a finger and to top it off wont punish them for bad behaviour!
P.s also found out SS got booted out of school for one day last month for hitting another kids int he school yard. Do not know what happen there for details. Either way, the kids behave when they come over. And now SS expresses he deosnt' want to go home. Dont know what is going on.

I have two jobs, yet I spend considerably more time with my children than they do alone or in daycare. I could earn more if I were willing to give up the flexibility of my current jobs, but flexibility is important if you are a parent, and even more so if you are a single parent.

"I know my hubby would rather pay a lawyer a $1000 a day to talk to his ex than actually have to talk to her about anything ..."

If he actually does that, as opposed to wishing he could, that is just plain stupid. Who does that benefit, other than the lawyers? It is required by our separation agreement that we try to work out any disagreements between ourselves before going to court. I thought such a clause was standard in separation agreements in our state.

what do you mean who would take SO's kids to doctors when he is gone? Their mom. Younger SD still sometimes needs to be taken somewhere, and when he is gone mom does it. He is not a widower, he is divorced. Who said he is gone a lot? he was gone in February for a week and then a week in April. Other than that if he is gone, it is a day or two in a neighbor state. It could change though since he got a promotion. But even if he would be gone so much?

My X is gone a lot. But his son has a mother as well.

When my X was gone I took DD places. And when I could not, X took her places.

I don't understand your point. So if both parents are single, nobody takes kids to doctors since their is no stepparent to drive the kids?

FD - I think what Pseudo is trying to say is that sometimes SMs of younger kids help out the dads by doing things that he can't be there to do - whether that's picking the kids up from school because she is SAH or only works until 3, while he work until 5... or taking the kids to a doctor's appointment or dance class when Dad is out of town for work and BM can't do it for some reason. In your case, the kids are all grown, but if your DD was young, her SM could potentially be doing things for her, or if your BF's DDs were young, you could potentially be doing these things for them.

And you've opened a whole new can of worms! "He is not a widower, he is divorced."
So it's OK for SMs to step up for kids whose moms are dead, but not for kids whose parents are split up? What the heck kind of backwards logic is that?
You Negative Nancys were all mad at my dad just last week for starting a relationship shortly after my mom died, but now widowers need help with their kids? Last week, men whose wives died were doomed to be alone, but now they should remarry and their new wives should care for their kids.
Yeesh!

Ceph, I believe you. You and hubby sound like two very caring individuals.

Pseudo, that was precisely the point of my post. All of the factors in any given situation are up to the bio parent to manage. If that means SM babysits so DH can work, then that is what happens! But, otoh if BM has a problem with this and would rather have the child instead of SM, then DH needs to manage that situation. If either bioparent is not comfortable with a SP taking child to Dr's, talking to teachers or acting in a parental way -- than that situation must be dealt with through the bioparents. Whether it means working out boundaries on who does what and who has say in what, it means working together. Not trying to trump each other.

No two families are going to be the same. Even within the same blended family, two different sets of stepchildren are not going to have the same situation. It takes a lot more effort and time to effectively manage their household, money and time then I see a lot of men doing.

My sole point is is that often times these situations that are played out through all of these threads and IRL are situations that SP's shouldn't be managing. Helping and supporting their spouse and SC, a big YES.

Ceph,

If the man is a widower, and remarries (after a suitable period), and his new wife adopts the kids, then I think it is fine for her to act as a parent - because once she adopts the children, she is a parent.

I agree with gigglemonster, that the extent of involvement of a stepparent should be a function of what BOTH biological parents are comfortable with.

Of course you think that TOS. You'd love to have your fingers in what goes on in your ex's house if his SO wanted anything to do with your kids. I can picture you writing out long lists of things that SM isn't allowed to do
"No tucking in at night.
No kissing boo-boos.
No preparing food.
No driving kids anywhere for any reason.
No saying 'I love you.'
No fun activities.
No speaking.
No looking.
On second thought, Ex, why don't you just have your SO move out. I would be comfortable with that level of involvement on her part"

However, in general I agree that both BPs should have some say in what happens with other caregivers.
Which is why I didn't take A__ to soccer on my own until BM gave the thumbs up, and why FDH was upset that A__ spent more time with his GM than with his mom.
I just think TOS has the wrong reasons behind agreeing to that both parents should be entitled to an opinion.

I think that both bio parents agreeing to the extent of sparent involvement is great to a certain extent. But, as with our situation and (I think) the point psuedo was trying to make is that some of us are in the situations where no matter what, BM doesnt want to do it but doesnt want Sm to do it... So, my point is and always will be if you dont want to get off your butt and get it done dont complain when someone else does...

It would be great if BM would just be cool with things but it just isnt going to happen... so we work around it. Bm doesnt like me going to parent teacher conferences... oh well she doesnt bother to show up to them so I always go with DH... on the days she does bother to show I dont say much just sit back and listen and bring up points with DH afterwards... when she is not there I speak freely... we work around it. With football she was all for the kids being in football but then didnt want to contribute finacially, didnt bother to show up to practices or games half the time, didnt bother to volunteer (which was a requirement for the teams) But, then wanted to get upset when I volunteered and when some folks made the mistake of thinking I was the kids mom (which I always corrected but still) If you were there supporting the thing that you were supposedly in favor of this wouldnt happen ...dont be angry with me because you chose not to do it.

Well hubby gave mom choices ...

1) take the kids where they need to yourself

2) I take time off to get them where they need to be and your CS doubles because his income will drop.

3) His wife (me) helps him get the kids where they need to be where ever that may be drs school practice friends ....

Guess what she chose! And its written in the court order a third party designee (me) can substitute for bio-parent. Again I am not authorizing open heart surgery I am saying yes to them getting a flu shot and having nebulizer treatments.

Giggle I totally agree with "But, otoh if BM has a problem with this and would rather have the child instead of SM, then DH needs to manage that situation." But most of the time "some" BM's don't want the kid with them they just want to _______ that SM is doing it instead of Dad.

But I get all the "benefits" of being a SAHSM so I shouldn't complain about doing for my SC because if it wasn't for them I would "have to" work.

Does it really matter who brings the kids where they need to be as long as they get there ... and I agree momof4 "some" BM's do not want to do the dirty work but want all the credit...

If mom and dad could agree on anything having SM stand in and do for both of them would not be a big deal .... certain things are exaggerated because of hurt feelings suck it up if your kids are being taken care of then does it really matter if its not dad directly .... I see it as dad taking care of his kids via me ... he could be paying a nanny/au pair to be taking them everywhere they need to be and no one would say a word.... my SC have a kid in class whose parents send their "personal assistant" to every event at the school they are too "busy with work" ... the kid is 7 ... and spends more time with the assistant than his "happily married parents".

"if you dont want to get off your butt and get it done dont complain when someone else does..."

AMEN!!!!

momof4 and pseudo, there is no disagreement with me concerning your situations. It sounds to me like DH has talked to BM and has handled the situations. My point is not about Dad and Mom solely taking care of the children or to the Drs even when one wants it to be that way, it is about Dad being the one to communicate with Mom on the important issues and being the one in the middle. Not the SP's.

An example -- A couple weeks ago I had a divorced couple in my office because SM was the one talking to DH's lawyer and had DH's lawyer file for sole custody unbeknowst to DH when it was supposed to be just a visitation modification.

Giggle thats not a mom and dad issue thats a dad and his wife issue.... big difference ....

And do you really think that DH "didn't have a clue what his wife was up to" give me a break he was cowering to his ex because he didn't want the fight! AGAIN.

that is crazy for someone to do. I would never dream of having a lawyer file for something my DH didnt want... I have spoke to lawyers and mediators on my DH behalf but only with guestions and then took the info back to DH... even now and in the past I made it clear... you have to live with the decisions you make so you need to make sure you are the one making them...not me influencing your decisions... especially with the big ones like take BM to court and what not.

pseudo - that is where we probably disagree. Pertaining to this thread "Where are the dads" it is within this issue. It exactly illustrates my point on a more extreme level. Dad has thrust his responsibilites off to SM who does not have the power or authority to make those decisions. This is not uncommon, while that is the first time I've seen a legal situation go that extreme it is still not uncommon to have SP's overly involved (due to Dad ~most~ of the time) and have exasperated many legal situations concerning custody and support, not to mention how it is dealt with on a personal level between the bio parents.

And for that situation, I truly believe that Dad did not know what SM did or the understanding what her involvement right off the bat with BM without SM having a true understanding of the situation did to the parenting relationship between BM and Dad. It dwindled to virtually nonexistent between Dad and BM, and volatile between SM and BM. SM thought in all her glory as the new mom she could file for custody and solve the problems because Dad had given her that power in the household.

I think that sometimes when SMs get really involved in the legal stuff, it's because they don't like to see their DH (who they love and want to protect) get screwed over.
Think of how many people battle with their in-laws because they feel that DH's or DW's parents are too hard on DH/DW? Think of how many people fight with their own parents because the parents don't respect their spouse?
The main source of tension between me and my SM, who I mostly get along great with, has been that we sometimes have differing ideas about what is best for my dad, or think the other isn't treating my dad as well as he deserves.
Maybe it's the same thing with SMs who are really involved with court stuff...

Ceph, in my case, I got involved with the court stuff only to the extent that my husband is protected. When I met him, he had been told for years that if they went to court, the court would give BM custody. He was told this by BM and he has never had kids so he didn't know much about custody laws and would give in to BM to keep the peace. (he also knew a few guys that got the short end in court so he fully believed her when she said she'd get custody). When I heard her the first time threaten to take his daughter away, I was appalled. All I told him was that she was no more a parent to their daughter than he is. He didn't believe the court would give him equal rights though. I showed him the statutes and case law regarding custody laws. He still let it go two more threats and the third time, he admitted that she was going to continue to threaten to take his daughter away unless he spent the money on court to get an order. I think if nobody had ever told him he has rights, he would have continued to give in to BM's demands and feel helpless. It was the easy way out and I think a lot of guys don't like conflict so they give up. I also think money had a part in it because he was struggling under a lot of debt so he didn't want to end up paying a lawyer. They had 50/50 and both had about the same earning capacity so child support should not have been an issue, although BM refused to work so he likely would have been ordered to pay her something. All the same, she didn't complain about child support and she didn't want an order from the court. I think, and I could be wrong, that she liked to have him under her thumb.

So of course now, she says that all the court stuff is my fault and I guess it is in a way. But, if she had been reasonable and not threatened to take him to court to take his daughter away from him every time she didn't get her way, then there would probably not be any court stuff. Of course, it was still a good idea to get his rights established so she couldn't just move their child away on a whim. Seeing how she moved away on a whim last year, DH is very glad he had gotten the order before. It would have been very messy if he had to fight after she moved.

It's good that you got involved in it Ima! I'm glad you want to protect your DH, and make sure he doesn't get screwed over.
My interpretation of your events is that you were involved and supportive, but not over-involved in the court proceedings. You're in important part of SD's life, so in my mind, it is only logical for you to be involved in the court proceedings.

So, to me, your case is an good example of a good person who loves and wants to protect their spouse, but stays within reasonable boundaries with regards to the court proceedings. Giggle's example of the SM who was filing for full custody is a good example of someone who (probably) had the same good intentions, but wildly overstepped.
Even though it's a source of concern for me that FDH has no legal rights with regards to A__, and I get frustrated that BM can be a little odd, Giggle's example is the sort of thing that makes me thankful that BM is actually a pretty reasonable person and that we don't have to deal with the courts!!

Ima - when is round two with the judge?
(I've been so swamped lately that I can't recall when your court date was set for)
You'll have to let us know how it goes!

Giggle
I agree with you that problems don't arrise alot of the times untill one of the parents remarry. I don't think it's always because of the DH's new wife though. My girls mom crumbled and slipped into a drug induced haze when J and I started getting serious. She was always a nut and had a long history of battling addiction but she TOTALLY lost the reighns of her life when we became "a couple". She was the one who cheated on him F.Y.I. I don't want anyone here accusing me of being TOW even though she does....ironically enough.

As for that lawyer, he was an IDIOT to let her file for anything. I don't even know whether or not to believe they were telling you the truth because letting a step parent decide the fate of someone elses child LEGALLY is a huge no-no. I work for Florida's Early Learning Coalition which partners with Whole Child and also deals with alot of social work type case loads. I have to tell you that I would of pushed that parent to sue that lawyer. That is blatant breech of confidentiality.

Kathline
I believe that your step child's BM gets so angry about your husband leaving the child with you because she is guilty (and probably jealous)that you get to spend so much time with her child. With the cost of chidcare I don't see how anyone could blame you guys for letting the child stay home with you! If the child is happy, you are happy and Hubby is happy that's all that counts. The man has to work. Mom puts the kid in day care so whats the damn difference?

TOS
I think it is awesome you can work a job that is flexible and allows you to spend alot of time with your kids. Not everyone can do that. I work a state job. I can't pick and choose my hours. The girls dad has to work nights alot. Obviously I am the one bathing, feeding and getting them to bed three nights a week. It is what HAS to be done to keep a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. We do not get help from BM. She can't take care of herself no less her children. If we took her to court for child support...it would be a waste of time. The girls still need care so we work our butts off. That means daddy may not be able to be the one taking care of them every minute. I think alot of blended families are in similiar situations. Would it better to tell the kids they can't see the other parent AT ALL for fear they may be left alone with the step parent??? BAH

Ceph, I agree but at the same time, tell the parent to put on their big boy/girl pants. It is one thing to support and help, but another to try to change the ball game on limited (one sided) knowledge of the situation. It is interference a lot of the times and is unneeded. Again, some women act as if Dad is clueless and spineless and they (the new spouse) has to be the one to "step" in and guide him the right way. While, in all actuality, they may be doing it for what they feel are the right reasons, but go about it the wrong way and push/are pushed into a role that does not welcome them. Then wonder why they get attitude, a deteriorating parenting situation, SC that are starting to act out and don't want to go to Dads....the list goes on and on. The worst part is it affects the kid the MOST.

I do think it is a big problem. With divorce and children born out of wedlock more prevalent, this has become an every day job for some people like me.

Doodleboo, I agree with you as well. It is not always b/c of the new wife, I'm just expressing my views in light of this thread "Where are the dads."

Doodleboo, they were telling the truth. SM was the one communicating with the lawyer on Dads behalf. I don't know what was exactly said between SM and Dad, but apparently Dad was under the impression that they were just filing for visitation modification. They had used this lawyer before and SM had always been the one to communicate with him.

If i was that father I would change lawyers then because the one he has now obviously has his/her head up their @$$. Would you agree?

I definitely agree, doodleboo. Change lawyers and start being the one involved with his child and BM.

Why on earth would a grown man NEED to be "protected." Why can't he protect himself from being screwed over? Presumably these husbands are neither children, nor incompetent. I wouldn't want my H to talk about me in those terms.

theotherside

Most people that don't know about the law or their rights need to have someone that does know in their corner. They usually hire attorney's when they NEED to be "protected". From what I understand, your husband had a good lawyer that protected his interests. Why didn't he represent himself? I wouldn't call someone that NEEDS an attorney to be 'protected' a child or incompetent, I'd say they are wise to not try to handle it themselves if they don't know what they are doing. My knowledge of the law is what convinced my husband to realize that BM was yanking his chain when she said she'd win in court. It convinced him to hire an attorney and he got his rights established. I wouldn't put down anyone that lacks knowledge of the court system because it is very complex and there are many misconceptions about it. And when you have a woman that has already been through one custody case and you have never been in court for anything before, and she tells you that if you go to court against her, you will lose and end up with weekends only and you have a few guy friends that only have weekends after going to court (telling you they got screwed over), and you don't have the money for an attorney, then you might just believe the BS that you're being fed.

And I also financed my husband's attorney because he was so deep in debt from his relationship with his ex. So, yes I do what I can to help him and protect him in court. He's definitely not a child or incompetent, he can fix anything and manages household chores and paying bills (but I admit he can't cook very well) and if he doesn't know much about the legal system, then why would I think any less of him. At least he's never been arrested, been in jail, been sued or gotten a ticket. (well, he did get his first ticket three months ago when his picture was taken by a red light camera, but he paid the ticket and went to traffic school, he never set foot in a courtroom). I'd say he's a pretty great guy and very competent. And he has a supportive & knowledgeable wife that compliments him. (that's why he adores me)

Then why use the word "protect," not "inform," or "share what I knew about from prior experience," etc.? "Protect" implies a power imbalance with which I would be uncomfortable.

I am not sure how it is relevant that he has never been in jail, etc. My exH has never been in jail either, nor, I am pretty sure, has his current wife. That doesn't have anything to do with his competence or knowledge of the legal system - although I can see how it would if he had been a criminal.

he is divorced that means that children have both parents, children's mother is still alive and sound. if he would be a widower there would be no other parent. it would of course make a big difference. what is there not to understand?

nobody is doomed to be alone, but appropriate respect for children and late spouse as long as other close family members requires some suitable wait time. nobody said people should always stay alone, what was said is that getting involved in few weeks, a month or some other short period of time is rather disrespectful IMO and in my circles.

ladies hopefully your DHs are adults and do not need their wives to protect then from being screwed over legally. you don't think they can themseves take care of the legal issues and need female's protection?

seriously! Now we are discussing protecting our spouses .... I dont really understand the issue here... I mean I "protect" my husband from all kinds of things as he does me. I dont see it as demeaning we are taking care of each other.. maybe it is the word protection but really ...

thank you momof4, that is my point exactly. I didn't think using the word protect would cause such controversy, but then look who started the controversy... nitpicking over the word I used. Really??

and the last I heard, women also hire attorney's. I'm sure there are women that have husbands/boyfriends that help them protect their interests legally. I'm working on a case where an ex husband is going to serve his ex wife papers related to their divorce. The ex wife is now in a relationship with a former District Attorney. I'm pretty sure that her boyfriend is going to guide her if she doesn't already have a lawyer. He may tell her what her rights are and explain the legal process to her if she doesn't already know. Lots of people don't know about the legal system, even when they do have a case.

thank you momof4, that is my point exactly. I didn't think using the word protect would cause such controversy, but then look who started the controversy... nitpicking over the word I used. Really??

and the last I heard, women also hire attorney's. I'm sure there are women that have husbands/boyfriends that help them protect their interests legally. I'm working on a case where an ex husband is going to serve his ex wife papers related to their divorce. The ex wife is now in a relationship with a former District Attorney. I'm pretty sure that her boyfriend is going to guide her if she doesn't already have a lawyer. He may tell her what her rights are and explain the legal process to her if she doesn't already know. Lots of people don't know about the legal system, even when they do have a case.

I think there is a fine line between helping a spouse and getting in the middle or driving a spouse to take a position in CS/custody, etc. I don't think anyone not involved could really know.

LOL Ima, you're off scott-free on this one - this time it's nitpicking over the word I used!

Why on earth would a grown man NEED to be "protected."
Like momof4, I think protecting one another is part of being in a relationship. I don't stand at the door with a shotgun to keep the monsters away, but I want to keep heartache and stress away from FDH as much as I can. I'm not going to sit by and let someone else trashtalk him or try to take advantage of him. If I can prevent something bad from happening to him, I will. On that same note, he will do the same for me.
Maybe if someone is uncomfortable with the term "protect" they could substitute "look out for" or "act in the best interests of"

I think "act in the best interests of" is a far cry from "protect."