"My X has agreed not to have any serious discussions about DD with or in presence of his SO. Its not her business."

Yes, but KKNY, isn't yours a different situation? As I understand it, your DD only sees her father OUTSIDE of his house, at restaurants and such. She does not live with him (and, thus, his SO) part of the time...correct? She is also, what, 16?

My STBSS is 6 years old. He is with us HALF the time. And I spend a lot of time taking care of him when he IS with us. Like it or not, I am a "parental figure" in his life. No, I am not hi mother but I am still someone who needs to be in the loop when it comes to what's going on with him, etc.

Plus, my fiance and I are best friends! We share everything! If you cannot talk about something to your partner, who CAN you talk about it to?

lovehadley,

They could line up one in the normal fashion, one in back of the other, but most 5 or 6 year olds I know would never have had the occasion to line up side by side until they started in organized sports, and the point is that having never done so, they couldn't figure it out from verbal instructions only. Six year olds are not very good at abstract thinking, which is the point of telling this story.

colleen,

Yet this story WAS from a different generation, if a generation is considered 20 years, because the child whose teacher recounted it is close to thirty.

I know that children are forced to work at very young ages in some other areas of the world, but I don't think anyone here would actually think it is a good idea for a six year old to babysit. Little children used to work in the mills, because they could fit in small spaces to untangle the yarn when the loom jammed, and quite a few of them died.

I assume my X and SO are best friends. I was his best friend for a number of years. Yes, legally he can share with you what he wants. Someone here mentioned a grandmother rule, as in SM should be welcome whevere GM would. I think that some discretion is advised.

"Someone here mentioned a grandmother rule, as in SM should be welcome whevere GM would. I think that some discretion is advised."

I think that is really dependent upon the individual circumstances. Yes, in your DD's situation, where she is an older teenager and doesn't spend much time LIVING at her father's house....no, it's probably not appropriate for SM to be involved and know about what's going on in her life.

But a LOT of stepparents, including myself, are VERY involved in raising their stepkids. STBSS is with us 50% of the time--honestly, he spends as much time with ME caring for him as he does his mom. I play MUCH more of an active role in his life than his grandmother does. He has one grandmother (on BM's side) and she sees him WAY less than I do. Grandparents are not usually involved in day-to-day life of their grandchildren, they don't do homework, baths, carpools, etc. If they DO (as in some grandparents that babysit a lot) then I believe they should be pretty informed as to what's going on with the kids.

There is a girl in my DD's ballet (and from her old preschool) whose grandmother has her and her sister almost all the time. Every day after school. It is GRANDMA who takes the girls to ballet--grandma who picked up from preschool--and I've run into GRANDMA at our local pool several times this summer with her granddaughters. I think she is in a position comparable to a very involved stepparent--and I would bet anything that she knows how things are going academically, beviorally, etc. at school and other places.

The bottom line is-if you are responsible for a child much of the time, in a parental role, then you need to be informed and know what's going on.

"no, it's probably not appropriate for SM to be involved and know about what's going on in her life."

And I actually need to clarify---I DO think it is appropriate for your ex's SO to know what's going on in your DD's life---to as much extent as your ex wants to tell her.

Does that make sense?

I don't think she should attend parent-teacher conferences, or speak to your DD about a report card or something--but, really, if your ex wants to talk to her about issues, what is the big deal? It's pretty common for people in a relationship to value the other's opinion.

Are you dating anyone? I assume that if you were, you wouldn't hesitate to say to him--"oh, I'm so proud of DD because...." or "I'm very concerned about DD because ____happened." Right?

First of all, if you are spending as much time with him as his mother is, I think that is WRONG. It is one thing for you to babysit once in awhile, but if, as you have described, he spends little time with his father, he should be living full-time with his mother and visiting his father when the father is actually available.

If it is something that you wouldn't share with a friend, or if it something that you know your child/ex has told you in confidence, then you should keep your mouth shut about it. You should NEVER share information with someone who you know would use it to harm/embarrass the other person.

BTW, did your fiance know what you did to try to get his exW evicted? Did he approve? Did she actually get evicted?

"if it something that you know your child/ex has told you in confidence, then you should keep your mouth shut about it."

I don't disagree completely. I am sure I told my mother things about my period or whatever---stuff that would have embarrassed me if she had told my dad--and honestly, stuff that probably would have made my dad uncomfortable, as well. I think it's okay for certain things to remain between parent/child and one parent to not know. If it's anything SERIOUS, like pregnancy/birth control/school issues or any number of other serious things---then I think it is WRONG for parents to keep things from one another. The child, no matter how old, needs to know that both parents are on the same page.

BUT we are not talking about that here. We are talking about a school conference discussing STBSS's behavioral issues. I think it is ENTIRELY appropriate for my fiance to relay the conference to me. I repeat--as a caregiver for him, I need to know what is going on. EVERYONE needs to be on the same page with how to handle these issues--even BM admitted that in the conference.

We are talking about STBSS doing counseling WITH his mom and dad, and then after a few sessions, I and BM's boyfriend will attend a few as well.

Like it or not, TOS, we are ALL involved in parenting this little boy. You might not agree with that or think it's right, but that is the reality of the situation. It DOESN'T work for only mom and dad to be in the loop, and for me to be a "babysitter."

Sorry if you don't like that. But it seems to me that the majority of the stepmoms/step-moms to be on this forum ARE in positions similar to mine---where they are playing an active role in raising stepkids. I think you should ask yourself WHY that bothers you so much.

"BTW, did your fiance know what you did to try to get his exW evicted? Did he approve? Did she actually get evicted?"

Of course he knew--he was sitting in the attorney meeting with me when the attorney brought it up. He was the one that found the phone number for me to call.

BM is not his ex-wife, for the record. They were never married.

Well, did she actually get evicted?

I know EXACTLY why it bothers me that you are doing so much of the child care. The PARENTS in this case are supposed to have fifty/fifty physical custody. If the child is not in the care of one parent, he should be in the care of the other, unless for some reason neither is available, such as would be the case if both worked, for example.

I am VERY bothered by the many cases I see where the father supposedly has "custody" but his wife/gf is actually doing the child care. So many times men just want to make themselves feel good by pretending to be a custodial parent while not doing much of the actual child raising.

In many cases, the mother and father WERE on the same page when it came to child raising issues. Then the father gets involved with someone else and all of a sudden he is on HER page, which is often not even in the same book. This doesn't seem to happen as often with mothers, though it does sometimes. In general, either they are more prone to sticking to their guns about child raising philosophy in spite of what their new SO thinks, or their new SO's are less likely to insist on putting in their two cents than are female SO's.

NOBODY who doesn't have a biological or adoptive parental bond with MY child should get to have any say whatsoever in how she/he is raised.

You know, TOS, my husband and his ex have 50/50 physical custody.

His ex works during the day, and puts the kids into after school care, and on summer vacation, into full time daycare.

My husband works during the day, and I do not. The kids come home after school on our days, to me, and I take care of them til their father gets home. In summer vacation, the kids are home with me all day during our time.

I find it sort of silly to insist that mom or dad be the only ones that are ever allowed to watch the kids. Of course, I get input, just as mom's husband also gets input. We have to share our homes with these kids, after all.

I do leave any major problems , or any major decisions concerning his children to my husband. I never contact mom directly. She doesnt like me. I dont like her. I let my husband communicate with her, when its necessary ( which is fairly often)However, my husband DOES discuss children's issues with me, and I would expect no less, since policy involving the kids does affect my life as well.

So yes, I do have a say in how my stepkids should be raised, just as my husband has a say in how my son should be raised. There is no way around that when you share a household.

This past summer, my husband was allowed to work from home, which was fabulous for his relationship with his kids. He did most of the tending to the kids, although I still did the regular household stuff. We are going to do it this way during summer all the time now, because everyone enjoyed it.

Of course, all that being said, I think that Hadley , from the tone of some of her posts, is less worried about having a say in how the child is raised, and more worried about changing the way her husband thinks the child should be raised. Hadley wants it done her way, and its important enough to her that she has thought of leaving her fiance several times over it. Trying to change someone else is a lousy way to start a marriage. It doesnt work and besides, who gives someone the right to try to change someone else anyway?

I would suggest that wanting to leave because you dont like the way a birth parent raises his kids, does not bode well for a stable long term marriage, and that marrying, while being very unhappy with the other persons baggage, is likely to be a mistake. At the very least, this marriage should be postponed.

But thats just my opinion, and certainly not my choice to make, nor my circumstances to live with

"In many cases, the mother and father WERE on the same page when it came to child raising issues. Then the father gets involved with someone else and all of a sudden he is on HER page, which is often not even in the same book."

Well, I can tell you that was NOT the case with my fiance and BM. They have been at odds as long as I can remember. Ironically--the first time I met him, we went on one date, and I heard a TEENY bit of the drama he had been dealing with with his ex, and I didn't go on another date with him for THREE MONTHS. I did NOT want to get involved. I eventually did because I really, really felt a strong connection to him--that's why I finally went on a second date, and the rest is history.

"NOBODY who doesn't have a biological or adoptive parental bond with MY child should get to have any say whatsoever in how she/he is raised."

But the thing is--I have my own daughter, as well, and my fiance and I love one another and want to share our life together and raise our family. How we parent one of the kids DIRECTLY affects the other child. As parents, we HAVE to be on the same page with BOTH kids and that means we BOTH make decisions about rules/values, etc. The same would be true if we have another baby---or if we had NO stepkids, and they were all bios.

I do agree that major decisions regarding STBSS should involve only BM and dad. But when it comes to basic household rules/expectations/ideals, then my fiance and I work together for our house and family and BOTH children. If BM doesn't like that, too bad.

You can say that's how you feel, that stepparents should not be involved---and I respect that opinion. I happen to have a different one. If you ex ever remarries, you might find that you have NO CHOICE but to accept his new wife having a role, however minor, in your kids' lives.

BM balked to the GAL about STBSS being with me after school--and the GAL told her that it doesn't matter. What DAD does on HIS days doesn't matter. He told her that dad could get a full-time nanny on his days, and it wouldn't matter.

I know there is first right of refusal, and BM brought that up, but the GAL was VERY insistent that is very rarely enforced. He pretty much told EACH parent that on THEIR days it is up to them to parent how they see fit, and to provide care for STBSS how they see fit. We have hired a driver for STBSS for two days a week--fiance will still continue to do morning drop-offs because those are more workable for us--the afternoon pickups are not. The GAL agreed to this, as well, because we went through a professional nanny agency, and this person has a background check/driving record on file. Again, BM balked and said she would rather pick him up and take him to her house, and have dad pick him up after work--but the GAL said no.

Now--I do know the GAL took into consideration the fact that we have a wedding coming up. He told BM that he doesn't put as much stock in a boyfriend/girlfriend as he does a wife or soon-to-be-wife. He was very careful to put in his record everything about when and where we are getting married.

So I do believe he views that in a positive light, and that's why he shot BM down on that issue.

Children are entitled to spend time with not only both parents, but also both FAMILIES. My daughter is going to be his stepsister, and at some point, DH and I will have another child. That child will be his half-sibling. We are a family like any other, and he is entitled to spend time being a part of THIS family---this is not exlusive to his dad.

They are still living in the same house.

And yet your DD has no contact with her father. So you dont really understand how it feels when a non-parent steps in to care for your child. And your child doesnt understand.

" * Posted by theotherside (My Page) on
Sat, Jul 26, 08 at 23:05

Hmmm... - why does the word "busybody" spring to mind?"

and

" * Posted by theotherside (My Page) on
Sun, Aug 10, 08 at 14:04

Well, did she actually get evicted?

I know EXACTLY why it bothers me that you are doing so much of the child care. The PARENTS in this case are supposed to have fifty/fifty physical custody. If the child is not in the care of one parent, he should be in the care of the other, unless for some reason neither is available, such as would be the case if both worked, for example.

I am VERY bothered by the many cases I see where the father supposedly has "custody" but his wife/gf is actually doing the child care. So many times men just want to make themselves feel good by pretending to be a custodial parent while not doing much of the actual child raising."

I think you answered your OWN question TOS.... Why should anything anyone else does, bother YOU???? (especially since your own kids don't visit their own dad much if at all)

***********************************************************************************************

" * Posted by kkny (My Page) on
Sun, Aug 10, 08 at 14:51

And yet your DD has no contact with her father. So you dont really understand how it feels when a non-parent steps in to care for your child. And your child doesnt understand."

Neither do you... according to you, your ex's SO has limited contact and hasn't 'stepped in to care for your child."

The point is when Dad and GF fight for more custody, and then Dad doesnt really spend time with child, there is a disconnect. I dont believe TOSs X nor mine fought for more custodial time. If mom wants the time, and Dad cant spend it with the child, she should get it.

She (BM) should also get a job and help support her kids...

Lots of things SHOULD happen.

I dont agree, if Dad can afford mom to stay home, why shouldnt she. But child belongs with one of his parents, as long as they are available.

It's a different situation when the parents were married and dad agrees to support mom after the divorce. In many cases, the parents were not married and dad has no obligation to support his exGF just because she had his child, even if his current wife is SAHW. Some mothers want to use their kids as a meal ticket and the reality is that both parents are responsible for supporting the children. A marriage may create a contract where the spouse is obligated to support the other spouse, but absent a marriage, that obligation DOES NOT EXIST!!! EVER!

"If mom wants the time, and Dad cant spend it with the child, she should get it."

Absolutely. The right of first refusal is a part of many people's parenting plans.

It is interesting that lovehadley cites the GAL as if he were an authority when he happens to be in support of her position, but denigrates him when he is not.

My exH did remarry, and his wife has absolutely no say in how my children are raised.

According to my lawyer, his lawyer told him not to even THINK about trying to get custody. Fifty/fifty would never be an option either, in part because he lives about 45 minutes away, and both he and I know that would be completely unworkable at that distance.

If you want to say no eating in the living room, that is up to you. Presumably that would apply to your daughter's friends as well, and you certainly have no hand in raising them. However, you have no call to have input into decisions such as where the child attends schools, or whether he has to do his homework at a certain time, etc.

ima,

What does expressing my opinion on a message board have to do with your statement that you would interfere in the dealings between a landlord and tenants, all of whom are adults, and whom you don't even know?

Ima, if you giving legal advice that a non-spouse is not entitled to be a stay at home parent, I dont know your authorities. In any event, the reality where I live is that the system is supposed to make certain the child has equivalent life at eather parent.

"Now--I do know the GAL took into consideration the fact that we have a wedding coming up. He told BM that he doesn't put as much stock in a boyfriend/girlfriend as he does a wife or soon-to-be-wife. He was very careful to put in his record everything about when and where we are getting married."

I assume that the GAL has no idea that you've been waffling back and forth on that issue. It seems that your fiance has a vested interest in acting like a "good father," picking up his son at the pool, etc., so as to not run you off.

I'm not giving legal advice. I just think it's common sense. Unless a couple enters into a contract, none exists. A marriage is a contract. Making a baby together isn't a contract to each other, but it does create obligations to the child. That is based on common sense. If you can cite an authority that a non spouse is entitled to be supported because they have a baby together, Please do tell.

and child support may be based on both parties incomes and a low earning CP may get a larger support order from a high earning NCP to create a more equivalent lifestyle, but that doesn't mean the CP can be a stay at home loaf. At least in CA, the law says it's the obligation of BOTH parents to support a child. If CP is wealthy and living off assets or trust fund, then they are contributing to support and can stay home. I don't think that is the 'norm'.

There are several states, however, that specifically exempt women with young children from being attributed an income for support purposes, because taking care of hte kids is considered her job by the courts, while the kids are young ( more common in southern states_

There are also states, like arizona, who deduct the value of imputed daycare off of an imputed income to a woman who stays home, to determine if she has the potential to even make enough to be over the self reserve amount, and thus is not liable for financial support.

States have different rules.

**This doesn't seem to happen as often with mothers, though it does sometimes. In general, either they are more prone to sticking to their guns about child raising philosophy in spite of what their new SO thinks, or their new SO's are less likely to insist on putting in their two cents than are female SO's.**

I couldn't disagree more. SD's mom would waffle on her parenting stance depending on which man she had in her life - everything from where SD slept, what she ate and wore, thumb sucking, manners - you name it. If the flavor of the month said it should be a certain way, that is how it was. SD would get extremely confused as a young child and then very hurt as she got older because she saw mom based everything around what 'her man' wanted. She still refuses to get involved in SD and her step dad's battles, and there are many. She just lets step dad say/do what he wants, and I've been witness to step dad picking a fight with SD like a 6 year old child would.

I think parents make their priorities, and when keeping a man comes before their child you won't see a lot of 'sticking to their guns.'

"It is interesting that lovehadley cites the GAL as if he were an authority when he happens to be in support of her position, but denigrates him when he is not."

My point is simply that on THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE the GAL agrees with us. There are OTHER issues that the GAL seems to agree with BM's point of view--ie, where he should attend school.

Kathline, I am certainly not trying to CHANGE my fiance. I love him dearly. We are BOTH trying to change our approach to how we handle a very stressful situation. It's the same thing as disenaging or detaching with love....if I hope that my fiance can detach from BM, that's not me expecting HIM to fundamentally change.

We are BOTH trying to change our attitudes about this whole thing and I personally feel that's a positive thing.

Also, to clarify--my fiance has ALWAYS had 50-50 custody right from the start when his son was not quite 1 year old. The 50-50 is nothing new.

How did he manage that if he was a single parent? He found a daycare center that was open till seven, and on Saturdays?

ima,

I am sure you are familiar with non-marital contracts, or "palimony." The contracts do not have to be written, and they may be merely implied.

As Kathline pointed out, it is not true in all states that CP of young children are expected to contribute financially to their support. In Massachusetts, the CP is not imputed income if the youngest child is under six, and the cost of daycare is always subtracted from the CP's income when computing the amount of child support.

"How did he manage that if he was a single parent? He found a daycare center that was open till seven, and on Saturdays?"

NO, TOS, he didn't. The 7pm store hour is a new thing--he just opened a second branch of his car dealership which is open until 7.

He used to pick his son up from daycare around 5:30-5:45.

BM did watch her son on Saturdays because, in the car business, fiance has ALWAYS had to work Saturdays. He would leave early every other Sat and pick him up from her around 3 pm.

Thanks for asking! :)

I don't know about other states, but we recently found out that in THIS state, BOTH parents are expected to contribute to the child's support. Hence, BM is being court-ordered now to pay for half of health insurance, half of school-expenses, and half of extra-curriculars. It hasn't been determined yet HOW this will be enforced, but all this will be addressed at the settlement conference.

lovehadley,

Did I miss your answer to the question of whether the mother actually got evicted?

Yep, you sure did! Buried in one of the sidetracks above:

"They are still living in the same house."

Lovehadley,

I cant figure out all the pieces to this. Dad is paying years of back support to the state for years, but has had 50/50 custody.

BM & my fiance broke up when their son was almost 1.

Did a 50-50 split right from the start, but NEVER went to court.

The arrangement was: my fiance paid all of daycare, all health insurance, all med. expenses, and anything else that came up. Also GAVE BM two cars over the years from his dealership.

Meanwhile, BM never worked, and lived with different boyfriends and with parents for awhile, as well.

BM went to DFS and collected Temporary Assistance. Told DFS she didn't know where the dad was---we have PROOF of this, as our lawyer was able to obtain her temp. assistance paperwork. So basically, BM lied to the state. Told them she wasn't getting help from the dad when, in truth, she was.

State gives her money/food stamps and is now coming after my fiance for a portion of the money/benefits she collected over the years.

At a court date a month ago, the state attorney was there and they set an amount of $500 for my fiance to pay every month--BM will continue to receive $234 (which is what she was receiving in cash benefits from the state) and the rest will go to the state to pay back the balance.

What do you not understand?

What I don't understand is why the he!! dad is having to pay back the state because mom lied. How that makes any sense, as she was receiving monetary help from dad AND only had the child 50% of the time (obviously the state thought she had him all the time as dad was supposedly MIA)is beyond me. I think she should be hit for fraud, personally.

I suspect there are missing pieces here. Like Dad is making a lot more than he lets on. Maybe cash business? Partially? I suspect Dad knows there are weaknesses here.

NO, KKNY, wrong again. My father is a stockbroker and he has personally overseen the finances at my fiance's dealership for the last three years.It is NOT a cash business, ALL income is reported, nothing is under the table.

I think the reason the STATE doesn't seem to care about the fraud is because DAD is here for them to recoup the money. Sadly, according to our attorney and even the GAL, welfare fraud is not uncommon. BM was lying on all the paperwork for years, saying dad's whereabouts were unknown, and that she lived with her parents and paid rent to them. (In reality, she lived with them for a month or two, and with two different boyfriends the rest of the years.)

The state is just so overloaded with cases they simply don't have time to investigate every little thing. And, as our attorney said, $5000-6000 in the grand scheme of things is not that much money.

NOW I will say that my fiance has taken some steps to report the fraud--but if anything comes of it, we will just have to see.

What I do know is my fiance screwed up big time by NOT going to court in the beginning to ascertain his rights, and protect himself, and his relationship with his son. If he had gone to court in the beginning, NONE of this would be happening now.

Welfare fraud is not uncommon. They can recoup an overpayment from a recipient that is still receiving it. Otherwise, they will go after the other parent, who is usually listed as an absent parent. (Or they go after who they think they can collect from)

However, if he has proof he paid her money or had his son half the time, then they can't make him pay double and if they are making him pay (even though he has proof) then he has a terrible lawyer or something is not being said. (of course the laws in every state vary, so what might happen in CA may not apply in other states)

I agree that EVERY parent should, in the beginning, get a DNA test and be legally declared the father if there is no marriage and if support is paid out without a court order, keep meticulous records of EVERY payment. (of course, the courts may decide some things are gifts and not support)

"you certainly have no hand in raising them. However, you have no call to have input into decisions such as where the child attends schools, or whether he has to do his homework at a certain time, etc."

A step parent that lives a parent with 50/50 or custodial step parent DOES have a hand in raising. I have input on whether my SD goes to public or private school, especially since I would be paying for part of it. I may not make the final decision, but I certainly have input. I also decide when my SD does her homework when she is in our home. In fact, when she was having trouble in school, I decided on my own to print out extra worksheets for her to practice in the areas she was having trouble. I worked with her after school and her grades improved. If her mom wants to b!tch about her daughter doing better in school, she can tell it to the Judge. I decide what she eats in our home. I decide if she can go outside and play. I decide if she can have friends over or if she can go to their house. If I am the one that is driving her here and there or watching other kids that she might want to come over, I get to decide if I want to do it. If she wants her mom to decide, her mom can come take her. Her dad can give her permission but unless he is going to leave work to take her, then I get the final say. If he tells her no, then it's no. He gets the final say on that.

You may not like that not every child in the world is being raised by only mom and dad, there are lots of kids that live with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, family friends and foster parents. The adults in charge of the child is in charge of making decisions, PERIOD.

Major decisions like surgery... well, if she's laying there with an injury, damn straight I'm going to authorize treatment first & then call her parents. If it were my child, I wouldn't take a few minutes to call someone first, I'd want my child cared for immediately. If it were a planned surgery, then of course the parents can discuss it and decide what to do.

kids lie about their poor grades (or other misfortunes) when they don't want to be grounded, are afraid of punishment, don't want parents to be angry etc. The only solution to it is to not ground and to not punish and do not be angry. DD used to lie (or withholding the truth) about grades at some point, but she quickly realized that there is no point in lying because I don't ground or punish. But if I know about grades in appropriate times, i might give suggestions for improvement. She figured that lying takes you nowhere. So she never lied and it made both of our lives much much easier.

So if you want kids to be truthful, then stop grounding routine, it only teaches kids to lie more. This is just my general experience as a mother and as an educator. I am not refering to anyone's partricular situtation.

about not being married...I think that the mother of the child should not be punished just because kid's father never married her. when i hear this kind of situation i don't have much respct for a guy who does not marry mother of his children. if he does not want to marry, he should not be making babies and, no, I do not want to hear stories how women get pregnant on purpose blah blah, it is an exception, not a rule. and yet so many men do not marry mothers of their children and then claim: well she is not my exwife, just exgirlfriend. so what does it say about him? hhhmmm Just my opinion.

"i don't have much respct for a guy who does not marry mother of his children"

Oh, I completely have to disagree here.

MARRIAGE does NOT fix one mistake. It only compounds a problem. I wholeheartedly agree that people (both women AND men) should not be having unprotected sex if they are not either already married OR in a relationship with someone that they love and WOULD marry.

BUT--that is just not how things always work. I got pregnant quite accidentally when I was 20. We were NOT very committed to one another and the FIRST thing my dad told me when he found out was "whatever you do, don't marry this guy. That will only make things worse."

I did not feel upset or slighted because my DD's father didn't ask me to marry him. He obviously felt the same way, and that's FINE. We would have been divorced a year later.

Yes, we made a "mistake" in getting pregnant, and BOTH of us were at fault, not just him, not just me---it took BOTH of us to create DD. (And I use the word mistake in quotes because OBVIOUSLY I don't feel she is a mistake. She is my heart! BUT--I think you all know what I mean...my pregnancy was not planned, or well-timed)

In an ideal world, no one would have babies outside of marriage and no one would divorce and there would be no stepfamilies. BUT--that's not how life is. People DO get pregnant with people that they don't want to spend the rest of their lives with, and I personally think the SMARTEST thing someone can do is not make a bad situation worse.

Marriage does NOT fix anything.

Ima is right--when you have a child with someone, and you're NOT married, you have a committment and obligation to THE CHILD.

marriage does not fix anything, but then i do not understand why people have children if they are not willing to make commitments. accidents happen of course but not as often as it is been told. don't tell me that every unmarried couple with kids got pregnant accidentally while using birth control...hmmm. i don't think so.

and it might be OK to have kids not being married, but then why do women have to hear such logic: she was not my wife just a girlfriend so i should not be helping her. i find this demeaning for a woman.

once again my (maybe old-fashion) opinion

"then i do not understand why people have children if they are not willing to make commitments. accidents happen of course but not as often as it is been told."

Oh, well, I wasn't using BC when I got Pg with my DD. We are just being STUPID. Maybe I should say that instead of saying accident! LOL.

I never said a man who has fathered a child shouldn't be helping an ex, even if they weren't married. I just don't think it is the father's obligation to SUPPORT her. This was all in response to someone (KKNY or TOS, I think) saying that if a man can afford for a second wife to stay home, then he should be paying for his child's mother to stay home, as well.

I don't think this is true. A man OBVIOUSLY has an obligation AND moral responsibility to pay child support AND contribute to the support of his child---CONTRIBUTE being the key word. Both parents are responsible. If a woman gets ENOUGH money in child support to stay home and not work, then that's great. But I think a LOT of women try to stretch that child support to make it enough to not work, and then the child is the one that winds up suffering because mom doesn't have much money.

For example--my STBSS's mom hasn't really worked in 5-6 years. She has had a job here and there, but I don't think any one of them lasted for more than a month. She goes out and drinks, and then is hungover, and calls in sick. She's been fired 3 or 4 times in the time I've known her.

Her own AUNT fired her because she was working as a home health care assistant for her aunt's medical company--GREAT JOB, paying $17/hr--and her aunt had to let her go because she continually wouldn't show for work.

She lost another great job in the medical field( making $15-16/hr, I think) because she lied on her employment app. about having a DWI, and the corporate office found out when they did her background check. Fired.

Then she got PG with her current boyfriend, and now her baby is 8 months and she hasn't even attempted to do anything. And they are STRUGGLING. I mean, utlitiies being shut off, her dad had to step in and start making her car payment, etc.

Her boyfriend lays tile for a living but his income alone is obviously not cutting it.

I personally have NO sympathy for someone who doesn't at least TRY to better themselves. She has been collecting benefits through the state (not for her son, anymore, as her $234/month is now being paid by my fiance) but still for her baby. If someone really needs the subsidies from the state, I think that's FINE--IF they use it appropriately and don't intend to live off the state forever. BM could have the state pay for daycare for her baby, and she could get a job--even a part-time job, 20 hrs a week, would be better than doing nothing.

I'm rambling now...obviously, I feel strongly about this...anyway, my point is, I don't think it is my fiance's obligation to support HER so that she can stay home. He has always fulfilled (and exceeded, IMO) his obligation to his son, and he's done A LOT to help BM, as well.

He paid $150-200 a WEEK (depending on his son's age) for daycare from age 1 until KINDERGARTEN. He did that so BM could WORK and make MONEY and not have to worry about care for their child. He GAVE her two cars--and I am not talking clunkers here, one was a Lexus RX 300 with 70K miles (that's nothing for a Lexus!) and the other was a brand-new Mitsubishi Eclipse.

He paid for a new set of tires on her Lexus when hers were bald--because she didn't have the money and he didn't want their son riding around in a car with bald tires.

Paid for his son's health insurance from the time he was born.

Paid for all birthday parties, for swim lessons from age 2 on, for tumbling lessons at the Y for two years, for all school pictures--basically, every expense that came up, BM would call fiance and say "he needs this" or "i want him to do swim lessons" and fiance would pay for it.

And all this time, BM never really worked to contribute to her own son's care. Instead, she LIED to the state, said she didn't know dad's whereabouts, said she lived with her parents, and paid them rent--and collected benefits.

I think my fiance would have been better off to have gone to court in the beginning--established his rights--had child support set and just paid that. THEN BM would have probably had to split the cost of daycare, split med. expenses, and everything else.

Hindight is 20-20, though...and now I am WAY off topic!

". He has always fulfilled (and exceeded, IMO) his obligation to his son"

That doesn't really sound the way I meant it, either. I don't think a parent can ever exceed an obligation to a child. I just meant that I feel if both parents are supposed to be contributing to a child's suppport, my fiance has done WAY MORE than BM has EVER done.

Finedreams, I guess a good point is that a woman that doesn't want to be 'demeaned' should prevent a pregnancy until the guy marries her. After all, she is the one that goes through pregnancy and childbirth and is likely going to be the one raising the child alone, according to KKNY. She can say 'marry me or we aren't having sex!', but I don't see it happening that way. Getting pregnant and then telling a guy 'now you have to marry me' is unfair and seen as deceitful by most guys. That's when guys feel 'tricked'. Yeah, they might be partially responsible, but it takes two. I've never, not for a moment, felt that any of my ex's had ANY obligation to support me. My kids were entitled to be supported but not ME. I worked and supported myself. (and my daughter's father and I were engaged and he did plan to marry me. Luckily, I learned he was a cheater BEFORE I made the mistake of marrying him)

My husband might have married his ex because he is the kind of guy that tries to do the right thing. But, she got pregnant when the relationship was going south, and besides that, she was (and still is) married to her first husband. he couldn't have married her if he wanted. She's told every guy she gets with that she's divorced and right now, she's planning her wedding to her current boyfriend so who knows if he even knows she's still married. She's been collecting support from her husband for 12 years (after an 11 month marriage) and that's because she has a contract with him called marriage. I don't think she deserves to be supported by my husband.

But, under your theory, since HE'S the custodial parent, does that mean that SHE should support him if he decided to quit his job and stay home to raise his daughter? According to TOS, that should be okay since I shouldn't be the one taking care of her, he should. So, maybe mom should go get a job and support my husband. I like that plan!!!!!

it is not about pressuring anyone to marry. i just disagree that if the guy did not marry a woman he has the rights to say: oh she was not my wife, just a girlfiend. well duh. you didn't marry her so she was not a wife. common sense. if she would be married at least he would not be able to say: I don't have to help her, she was never my wife.

guys feel tricked? what guys? guys who do the right thing do not feel tricked, and if they are afraid to be tricked then maybe they should keep you know what you know where. and stories about accidental pregnancies not an excuse either.

I don't know who needs to support who but not being married to parents of your children isn't any kind of good excuse for anything in my opinion. general comment about people not taking responsibility. in fact I think children would prefer their parents were legally married even if it didn't work in a long run. there is never a guarantee. but it does not mean we should avoid responsibility for our children.

again my opinion. that's what I believe.

FD, did your exH support (spousal support) you while you were raising your DD? Or did he send 'child support'? Could you have lived on what he sent or did you have to work? Could you have afforded to be a stay at home mom?

If he at one time had a legal obligation to support you (through marriage) and after divorcing you, he didn't continue to support you so you can stay home, then why on earth would a guy that never married you have an obligation to support you so you can stay home and not work?

I agree with "maybe they should keep you know what you know where." but what responsibility does the girl have? Nobody said anything about avoiding responsibility for our children, the father should be held responsible to support his child. Not many people can (or should) completely live on the child support. The intent is for both parents to work and contribute toward the child. In some cases, a stay at home parent may be able to live off the child support and spousal support if it's enough, but they should not live off just the child support. Spousal support can only be ordered if you were once spouses. If they were never married, there can be no spousal support, therefore it would only be child support and it's intended to support the child, not the child and his/her parent.

*****I'm not an attorney so this is not legal advice, just my opinion based on my understanding from a business law course on contracts:*****

As for 'palimony', that is a little more complicated that an 'implied contract'. There is usually some sort of agreement, such as one works while the other goes to school and then when they graduate, they reverse and the other goes to school. When a GF works while her BF goes to med school on the promise that once he's a doctor, he'll marry her or put her through school and then he gets done and dumps her, then she relied on his promise and that is a verbal contract.

FD, I have not read ANYTHING in this thread that says a father should not have to support his child because he and mom were not married.

This whole sidetrack got started because somebody said that if dad's wife can stay home, then BM should be able to stay home, as well.

And that's how the debate started....about how dads are obligated to HELP support their children, and not to support their exes, as well.

Truth be told, marriage is no guarantee that a woman will be able to stay home after a divorce. I would venture to guess that the majority of women do end up having to work when their marriage ends.

Like Ima said, if a woman gets and can live off of spousal support, that's one thing...but, unless the BABY DADDY (forgive me, I just couldn't resist using that term!) is Eminem or something, most women are just not going to be able to make it on child support alone! LOL.

Child support is meant to be a PORTION of the financial support the child is entitled to from BOTH PARENTS.

imamommy, When we decided to have a child we decided it would be great if I could stay home maybe working part time jobs until DD is a little older to attend preschool. X was put in a child care right after his birth and he was strongly against doing it to his child. I agreed. We got divorced while DD was still little but it did not mean he had to take his word back or we had to change our plans in regards to DD. I stayed home for some time after divorce. Yes it was enough for me to stay home at that time. I did not want to stay much longer because DD was not that young anymore and needed to go to preschool and I got my degree and wanted to get back to my career. So i did.

The reason i stayed home is that it was the best for our child at that time. X is no good as a partner but he is devoted to his children. There was no spousal support through courts. In fact there was nothign ever done through courts, just whatever we decided benefited DD.

No i do not think that men have to support their exwives necessarilly unless it is mutual decisions and unless men can afford it. But I do not think that the fact people are not married is any excuse for anything.

yes, of course girls also have responsibilities as guys. they also should keep their you know what in you know where. lol not much different from guys. the only difference is that guys get away with it and find multiple excuses (like not being married). girls end up doing it all alone.

No man can be "tricked" into getting a woman pregnant. If he really doesn't want to get her pregnant, he can practice abstinence or use condoms (that he himself has purchased, if he is worried about the far-fetched possibility of her poking holes in them through the wrapper).

poking holes in condoms? you crack me up. hahaha

Actually I read that scenario in a novel recently - I thought that as a plot device that scenario had a few holes in it as well.

Child support is for the support of the child, period. To help with a portion of food, housing, etc. and clothes, etc. for the CHILD. BM has no business using for anyone but the child. Not for her to stay home, go to parties, vacations, etc. If she gets spousal support, then she can do those things. If no spousal support and she can't make it on her child's support then go to work. The financial arrangements in her X's house (new wife doesn't work for example) are none of her business as long as the child support is paid.