I think OP stated that he does not make the payments, correct? If there is equity in the house, an equalization judgment could, and should, have been entered with the decree to secure OP's boyfriend's interest in that equity. Removing BF from the title to the property can invoke the due on sale clause of the mortgage, as well as void their owner's title policy. As long as he is on the loan he should be on the title to protect his interest. Being off title has no effect on the mortgage, or on credit. As long as the ex is making payments and can continue to do so until a refi is possible I think it's a necessary evil. OP, isn't the bigger issue that this is just something to tie your BF to his ex, and you would prefer to have as many of those severed as possible? That because of his hesitance to do so you question his commitment to you?

If you block someone on facebook, it disables them from seeing anything you post & disables you from seeing anything they post. In the privacy settings, you can control who sees your posts, pics & everything else but someone that is not blocked may be able to inadvertently see your post anyway. At least that has happened with me. The safest way to make sure she won't see anything you post is to click on her page, even if it's a private page, it allows the option to block this person. (where it says report/block this person) and after that, let SD deal with her own mother. Don't worry about anything you do upsetting her... your existence will upset her so trying to talk & rationalize with her will only throw fuel on the fire. What she is doing, is destroying her own relationship with her daughter. Eventually, the daughter will have had enough & limit contact or stand up to her & force the mom to step back. It has nothing to do with you.

I hear a lot of whining, blaming, and making excuses why it's everyone else's fault or not doable. "Not everyone can afford daycare - if I'd had to pay after school daycare for a couple of kids at $200 a month each, it wouldn't have been worth working." If you can't afford $200 a month, I venture to say you wasted your time & money on two graduate degrees. I can afford $200 a month (because that's about what it cost me in fuel to go pick up my step daughter after school everyday when she went by her mom's house) I agree that not everyone can afford daycare, but there are also subsidized programs for low income and single parents. When they get to 13+, they can usually be home alone. I'm not sure many 13+ year olds would want to have a babysitter. Isn't part of being a parent, figuring these things out as you go? If it means taking a more flexible job like TOS or working more & hiring help like KKNY, we do what we have to do. When I was a single parent, I couldn't (or chose not to because I had job security there) change jobs so I found a house near where I worked. I could run home on my breaks if I needed to. The school was just down the street if I got a call to pick someone up. When they were able to, they went to after care and when they got too old, they came home and I monitored what was going on by calling or coming home on my lunch and breaks. I could have lived in a nicer house in a nicer neighborhood but further away from work and it would have been harder to be as involved as I was. It's all about choices. "And then what -- even if you pick up the kids after school, they have less flexibiltiy re after school activities, their school friends are 10 miles away." When my stepdaughter was going to school 28 miles away from us, she was in taekwondo with her mom. On my husbands weeks, I would take her. I'd pick her up from school, hang out window shopping or running errands for an hour (sometimes take her to the park or work on her homework while we waited) and take her to her taekwondo class which was near her school & mom's house. She also was in girl scouts and karate where DH and I live. She made friends there too so she had friends by her mom's house and dad's house. I didn't realize that kids were only allowed to make friends in ONE area.... hmmm. Like I said, if you want it to work, you can make it work. IF TOS has two degrees and can earn more, she may be able to afford a babysitter/daycare or she may choose to take a lower paying job that has flexibility. You choose what works for you, just as I chose to live near my job.

"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.