success with mediation?

16 years ago

Hey everyone, I'm writing in hopes of getting some good advice regarding mediation. BF and his ex-wife have their first mediation on friday. Right now BF is in the process of trying to re-open his divorce (for a number of reasons) and get a child support reduction and a permanant visitation schedule.

In regards to mediation for visitation and child support, what can BF expect to happen? Does anyone have any words of advice? Does anyone have any success stories?

Also, should he take his preferred visitation schedule and parenting plan?

And random question-in joint custody situations, my understanding is that all educational decisions must be made with both parents, so if BF's ex-wife went and signed up their almost 5 year-old for kindergarten at a charter school without BF's consent, is that contempt of court or a violation of something? She'll be the youngest in her class and in my opinion needs another year of pre-school before kindergarten. I've spoken with several teachers and all of them agree that 9 out of 10 kids with late summer birthdays would've done better if they had been the oldest in their class and not the youngest. Any opinions?

Thanks!!

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (35)

kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I dont think you mean re-open the divorce. I think that is a done deal. Every state allows CS to be revisited, and same with visitiation. Normally there must be a major change in circumstances, or a number of years must have passed. What circumstances are present in BFs situation? If he is earning less, court may say he is "underemployed", which can happen voluntarily and too bad. If it because you two want to start a family, then that is not generally a reason courts will revisit CS.

I dont think school enrollment will constitute a violation. I think the parents should discuss.

This is not your child. BF must discuss with X education. I think starting K is a good idea. Child can change schools and repeat K. Many children do that where I live. In any event -- let me repeat -- not your child.
sweeby
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
KK's right -- This is NOT YOUR CHILD, so you have no say in her educational decisions. Do keep out of it. While I get along very well with my son's stepmom now, the first few years were rocky precisely because she inserted herself (or more likely, my Ex inserted her) into my son's educational decisions. She had no business being there -- they weren't even married yet -- and I really resented it. Don't do this to yourself! If the little girl actually turns out to be too young for kindergarten, she can start over in the 'regular (non-charter) school with very little (none?) harm done.
Related Discussions
Interesting Multi-State Reports
Q
Comments (0)
Multistate Research Activity Accomplishments Reported 2006 (State Summaries, supplement) California: Both the 2001 and 2002 peach rootstock trials have been established in California. The VVA-1 rootstock is the most promising item in both these plantings. It is a thrifty looking dwarf tree with generally good fruit size. For the 2002 trial it had the largest fruit size of all the rootstocks, although it did have some root suckers. In the 2001 trial, fruit size was not as good and the trees seemed a little weak. Thus, there is some concern about its long-term vitality. The 2003 Golden Delicious apple rootstock trial has also been planted in California. This planting has a large number of items that so far look promising. They range from extremely dwarfing to quite vigorous rootstocks. Of particular interest is the apparent resistance to fireblight of many of the rootstocks. In the past 2 years, about half the trees on the standard stocks M26 and M9 have died from this disease. Three trees on PiAu 56-83, one on PiAu 51-11 and one on Bud 62-396 have all died. So far, none of the CG or JM series rootstocks have succumbed to this disease. Colorado: Severe spring frost at or near bloom at the two locations with NC-140 plantings affected fruit production data for 2006. Pumiselect, Cadaman, and SLAP peach rootstocks grew best and tended to have the best fruit production at the included locations, although Pumiselect had poor survival. Final growth data was collected for the 1998 western sweet cherry study in 2006, and opportunity was taken to examine phytoparasitic nematode populations associated with the roots of the sweet cherry rootstocks. This preliminary assessment of the nematode taxa and populations found potential relationships between rootstocks and observed nematode taxa and populations. Further studies on these relationships are planned for 2007. Illinois: Two NC.140 experimental trials are planted at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Campus. The oldest trial is the 2002 ÂBuckeye GalaÂ apple on nine rootstocks. Tree size as a function of TCSA showed that Bud-9 Europe and Bud-9 Treco continued to be the smallest, while P.14 is the largest. Yield per tree was adequate with the highest (28.7 Kg) on M.26NAKB and the lowest (12.3 Kg) on B.9Treco. Fruit sizes were largest on M.9nic29 and smallest on Supporter 4. Rootstocks differed in their suckering capacity with Bud-9Erurop producing more than 5 suckers per tree, while M.26NAKB and P.14 did not produce rootsuckers. Fireblight has been a major problem in Illinois in the last three years. The nine rootstocks responded differently to fireblight infection. The most serious tree mortality occurred on M.9 T337 (100), M.26 EMLA (71%), and Supporter 4 (71%). Trees on M.26NAKB suffered 57% loss, trees on M.9 nic29 and M.9 B756 suffered 43% loss, and trees on Bud-9 Treco and Bud-9 Europe suffered only 14% loss. However, trees on P.14 did not suffer any loss to fireblight. Interestingly, Honeycrisp trees on B.9 Treco planted at the same time but not part of the trial were not affected by fireblight. The second and most recent trial was established in the spring of 2006 involves testing the interaction of rootstock genotype and replant disease using ÂMitchell GalaÂ as scion wood grafted on 12 rootstocks. Trees have grown very nicely but it is too early to report any data. Kentucky: All of the NC-140 trials in Kentucky are located at the Research and Education Center in Princeton, KY. One is the 1999 dwarf and semi-dwarf apple plantings. Among the dwarf rootstocks, trees on CG.3041 and CG.4013 have yielded the most fruit, while trees on G.30N have yielded the most fruit among the semi-dwarf trees. Below to normal temperatures throughout the growing season resulted in fair to good color of our Fuji apples. In the 2002 rootstock trial, trees on the M.9 Burg 756 stock have yielded the most fruit over the past three seasons. Trunk cross-sectional area is highest for P.14 followed by M.9 Burg 756 and M.26 NAKBT337. Yield data was taken for the second time from two trials planted in 2003. Trees on PiAu56-83 yielded the most fruit over the past two years, and are the biggest trees in this trial. Trees in the physiology trial were thinned differentially to crop loads of 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14 fruit per square centimeter of trunk cross sectional area. No significant differences were observed among the three rootstocks (G.16, M.9 NAKBT337, and M.26 EMLA)in mortality, cumulative yield, yield in 2006, fruit size (as measured by average weight per fruit), number of flower clusters, number of fruit harvested, crop density, or trunk cross-sectional area. Neither rootstock nor the covariate, crop density, was significant in the analysis of covariance for fruit weight. Maine: Maine has three rootstock plantings. The 2003 NC-140 Golden Delicious rootstock and physiology plantings were maintained according to NC-140 protocol. Trees in the physiology study were not cropped due to insufficient fruit set. A local trial established in 2002 with Honeycrisp on M.26 EMLA and G.16 is being maintained until 2011. Data measurements included trunk circumference, tree height, number of flower clusters and yield. Growth and yield of G.16 trees was generally greater than M.26. Tree survival was similar for both rootstocks. Impacts: Planting superior rootstocks can increase yield and tree survival. Impacts will be measured as changes in the industry and will be documented through grower surveys. Maryland: All current NC-140 peach trials are located on the Eastern Shore of Maryland at the Wye Research and Education Center (WREC) outside of Queenstown. The current trials consist of the 2001 Redtop planting on fourteen different rootstocks, the 2002 Redhaven planting on eight different rootstocks and the 2002 Cresthaven /Lovell physiology study. All trees continue to be maintained using local commercial recommendations for pruning, fertility, pest control and irrigations. All established protocol for data collection have been accomplished and reported to the trial coordinators through the 2006 season. Rootstocks Controller 5 and Controller 9 have exhibited good tolerance to wet soils and some size-controlling attributes. Massachusetts: In the 1998 NC-140 Apple Rootstock Trial in 2006, largest trees with the smallest average fruit size (1999-2006) were on G.16. Cumulative yield per tree (1999-2006) and yield efficiency (1999-2006) were similar for trees on M.9 and M.9 EMLA, but both resulted in less yield per tree and similar yield efficiency than did G.16. In the 1999 NC-140 Dwarf Apple Rootstock Trial (McIntosh), largest trees were on CG.4013 and the smallest were on M.9 NAKBT337, Supporter 1, and Supporter 2. Cumulative yield (2001-06) was greatest from trees on CG.4013, CG.5179, and G.202 and smallest from trees on M.9 NAKBT337, G.16N, and Supporter 1. Cumulative yield efficiency was greatest for trees on Supporter 2 and least for trees on G.16N and M.26 EMLA. Average fruit size (2001-06) was greatest for trees on M.9 NAKBT337 and least for trees on Supporter 2 and Supporter 3. In the 1999 NC-140 Semidwarf Apple Rootstock Trial (McIntosh), largest trees were on G.30N, M.7 EMLA, and Supporter 4 and the smallest were on CG.4814, M.26 EMLA, and CG.7707. Cumulative yield (2001-06) was greatest from trees on G.30N. Cumulative yield efficiency was greatest for trees on CG.4814 and least for those on M.7 EMLA. Average fruit size (2001-06) was unaffected by rootstock. In the 2002 NC-140 Apple Rootstock Trial, the largest trees were on PiAu51-4, and the smallest were on the two B.9 strains. Greatest cumulative (2004-06) yield was harvest from trees on the B.9 strains and M.26 NAKB and the least from those on Supporter 4. The most yield efficient trees were on the B.9 strains. The M.9 strains, B.9 (Treco), and PiAu51-4 resulted in the greatest average (2004-06) fruit size, and M.26 NAKB and Supporter 4 resulted in the smallest. In the 2002, NC-140 Peach Rootstock Trial, trees on Cadaman and Lovell were the largest, and those on VSV-1, Pumiselect, and VVA-1 were the smallest. Greatest cumulative yield (2005-06) and yield efficiency (2005-06) resulted from Cadaman and Lovell and the lowest from Pumiselect and VSV-1. Average fruit size (2005-06) was not affected by rootstock. Pumiselect has experienced the greatest tree loss (50%), followed by Penta (25%), MRS 2/5 (12.5%), and VVA-1 (12.5%). In the 2002 NJ/MA Apple Rootstock Trial (Cameo), trees on G.16 were larger than those on B.9 or M.9 NAKBT337. Trees on G.16 had the greatest cumulative yield (2003-06), and those on B.9 were the most yield efficient. Average fruit size (2003-06) was unaffected by rootstock. Impacts: Approximately 250 acres were planted to dwarfing rootstocks during the last year. All rootstock recommendations are based on the results of this project, and growers rely heavily on those recommendations when selecting the proper scion/rootstock combinations. These rootstocks, will reduce pruning and harvest labor by 50%, increase fruit quality, increase size by 10-20%, and enhance the economic return on this acreage by as much as 50%. Further, smaller trees require 70% less pesticide because of reduced canopy volume. The net effect of the planting in 2006 is to reduce the amount of spray material in total by about 250,000 gallons per year in Massachusetts. The beneficiaries of this yearÂs research are tree-fruit growers and the citizens of the Commonwealth. Michigan: For the ÂMcIntoshÂ apple trials planted in 1999, the G.30 clone appears to be the only semi-dwarfing rootstock performing well in sandy infertile soil of northern Michigan (Traverse City), suggesting commercial promise for this region. CG.5087 warrants further testing due to productivity and vigor. On the better soil of central west Michigan (Clarksville), ÂMcIntoshÂ on the dwarfing CG series 4013, 5202 and 5935 show commercial potential at this time. For the ÂMontmorencyÂ tart cherry trial planted in 1998, no rootstock has performed as well as standard mahaleb seedling for trunk-shaker mechanical harvest. However, for alternative mechanical harvest methods that would utilize smaller trees at higher densities, the semi-dwarfing W158 and more dwarfing W72 have higher yield efficiencies than mahaleb. The sweet-tart varieties BalatonÂ and DanubeÂ on the vigorous Hungarian mahaleb seedling rootstocks have been yielding better than on standard mahaleb seedling. For mechanically-harvested processing sweet cherries (e.g., Hedelfingen), standard mahaleb and the Hungarian mahaleb rootstocks (Erdi V, CT.2753, and CT.500) have been much more yield efficient than Mazzard, yet fruit quality (size) has been similar. In genetic studies, an efficient adventitious shoot regeneration protocol has been established for successful and stable Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation of sour cherry and hybrid cherry rootstock genotypes. Studies of high tunnel sweet cherry production on dwarfing rootstocks have demonstrated yields of 4.0 to 5.4 tons/acre of fruit averaging 12.5 g in weight and 97% 10-Row and larger in size, with projected net (gross value Â harvest labor cost) values of $18,650 to $24,500 per acre and reduced needs for chemical pesticide inputs. Minnesota: In the NC140 1999 planting, tree size ranking has not changed significantly. In the dwarf planting, Supporter 1 is the smallest tree and CG.4013 the largest. In the semidwarf planting there are no significant differences among the rootstocks in TCA. Yield for the Cornell-Geneva rootstocks was significantly higher in the dwarf planting than the others under evaluation. Fruit produced on trees grafted onto CG.5202 and CG.4013, on average, produced 28 kg/tree without much of a reduction in fruit size. Fruit produced on trees grafted onto G.30N and CG6210 averaged about 31 kg/tree again without a reduction in fruit size. We established a rootstock trial in the spring of 2003 with a Minnesota breeding selection MN1797, now named SnowSweetÂ (with limited number of trees available for spring 2006 and 2007 planting). Tree growth was excellent during the 2006 growing season even though moisture was limiting during the summer. SnowSweetÂ is a late cultivar for Minnesota with fruit harvested October 12 and has a droopy growth habit. The trend in tree size for Zestar! is for Bud 9 and M.9 trees to be smallest followed by M. 26 and then EMLA. 7. Suckering was evident on almost all EMLA.7 trees. Ranking of tree size after the 2006 growing season is the same as after the 2005 with M.26, Bud. 9 and EMLA 9 being of equal tree size and EMLA 7 being significantly larger. Fruit was harvested August 24th. New Jersey: The two peach plantings were terminated at the end of the 2006 growing season due to virus concerns. The 2001 peach planting (ÂRedhavenÂ cv) had 7 rootstocks with significantly smaller mean trunk crossectional areas than ÂLovellÂ (VVA-1, Jaspi, K146-43, Julior, ÂBaileyÂ, K146-44, and P30-135). Of these 7 smaller rootstocks ÂBaileyÂ had significantly higher cumulative yield efficiency than ÂLovellÂ (0.90 vs. 0.63 kg fruit/cm2 TCA) but, the others were not different from ÂLovellÂ. As of 2006 the 2002 peach planting (ÂCresthavenÂ cv) had four rootstocks with significantly smaller mean trunk cross sectional areas than ÂLovellÂ (VSV-1, VVA-1, Penta, MRS 2/5, and Adesoto 101). Cumulative yield efficiency was not significantly different among rootstocks in the 2002 planting. The 1998 NC140 CG-16 Jonagold Rootstock trial compares CG 16 to the standard M9 EMLA. In 2006 there were no significant differences in yield, yield efficiency, or Trunk Cross Sectional Area. The were no cumulative yield and yield efficiency differences for 2000-2006 between these stocks. This trial will be terminated after this growing season. In the New Jersey/UMASS G16 Cameo NC140 Rootstock Trial, B9 was the smallest stock by TCSA, G16 the largest. B9 was the most yield efficient stock in 2006 and had the largest cumulative yield efficiency (2003-2006). B9 and M9337 had significantly higher average fruit weight over G16 in 2006. 2002-NC-140 Gala Apple Rootstock Trial consists of 11 rootstocks. Tree growth was excellent in 2006. There was no significant difference in average fruit size, yield or yield efficiency between stocks. Rootstocks affected TCSA, cumulative yield and cumulative yield efficiency at the end of the 5th growing season. The largest trees at the end of 2006 were PiAu51-4 and P. 14 and the smallest trees were B.9Europe followed B.9Treco. B.9Europe and B.9 Treco stocks had the highest cumulative yield and efficiency. There were no significant differences in average fruit size. 2003 NC-140 Apple Physiology Trial- This year was our first opportunity to evaluate the effect of crop load and its interaction with rootstock in this planting. Trees had adequate bloom and fruit set to establish nearly the full complement of crop loads requested by the protocol. There was a significant interaction effect of crop load and rootstock on average fruit weight (P=0.0040). Fruit weight decreased linearly with increasing crop load on the G16 and M26 but not on R337 (Fig 1). There was also a significant interaction effect of crop load and rootstock on TCA growth from 2005 to 2006 (P=0.0019). TCA growth decreased linearly with increasing crop load on G16 and R337 but not on M26. 2006 NC140 Apple Replant Trial NJ and MA Cooperating- Twelve rootstocks from the Cornell breeding program including standard stocks were utilized. At the end of the 2006 growing season G.4210 was the smallest stock and G.5935 was the largest. G.4210 had the largest increase in circumference from spring to fall in 2006. B.9 had the smallest increase in circumference. New York: Several apple rootstock trials showed G.41 was the most yield efficient dwarf stock we are evaluating. G.16 was also highly efficient. A field trial conducted jointly by Cornell University and USDA-ARS showed that almost all of the CG rootstocks showed no rootstock death to fire blight when the scion was inoculated. Exceptions were G.11, G.65, G.935, CG.4288 CG.6006 and CG.6210 which each had a low percentage of trees infected. B.9 also had a low level of trees infected in this trial. Low levels of infection were also shown for P.14 P.22, PiAU56-83, Vineland 3 and M7. New rootstocks from Japan (JM series) showed no infections except JM.2. The Vineland series of rootstocks showed no infection except Vineland 3. All of the Malling stocks except M.7 showed a high level of infection as did Ottawa3, and Supporter 4. A pruning study overlaid on the 1998 sweet cherry rootstock trial showed a trend toward larger fruit size from spur extinction pruning or stubbing back pruning even of dwarfing stocks. Nevertheless the dwarfing stocks continued to produce smaller fruit size. Analysis of covariance showed that the difference in fruit size was largely the result of high crop loads with the dwarfing stocks. Peach experiments showed that Controller 5 and Krymsk-1 (VVA-1) survived much better in NY state than any other stocks. These have high potential as improved peach rootstocks for northern growing areas. NY Outreach Activities A grower field day was held in July to highlight high density sweet cherry orchards on several dwarfing rootstocks which stimulated grower interest to expand sweet cherry acreage in NY State. A grower field day was held in Northern NY to highlight high density apple orchards on various dwarfing rootstocks to improve the productivity and profitability of new apple orchards in the Northern production areas of the state. North Carolina: North Carolina has four of the NC-140 cooperative apple plantings. The trials that are currently under investigation in North Carolina are the 1998 gala planting, both the 1999 fuji dwarf and semi-dwarf plantings and the 2006 apple replant trial. Growing conditions in 2006 were ideal with adequate rainfall during the summer and no significant frost/freeze conditions in the spring during bloom. In the 1998 gala planting the trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) of trees on G.16, M.9 EMLA and M.9NAKBT337 were not significantly different, however trees on G.16 were numerically larger and those on M.9NAKBT337 were the smallest . Trees on G.16 had the greatest cumulative yield which was significantly greater than that of trees on M.9EMLA which had the least. In the dwarf fuji planting, trees on CG.4013 had the largest TCSA and trees on M.9 NAKBT337, Supporter1, 2, and 3 had the smallest. Trees on CG.5935 had the greatest cumulative yield and trees on Supporter 1 the lowest. In the semi-dwarf planting, there were no significant differences in TCSA, although trees on CG. 6210 were the largest and those on CG.4814 the smallest. Cumulative yield was greatest for trees on CG.6210 followed by G.30T and CG. 7707 and the lowest yield was for trees on M.7 EMLA and M.26EMLA . Following the tropical storm damage received in 2004, several rootstocks of interest that may have brittle or shallower roots are CG.5179, Supp.4, CG. 7707, G.30N and G.30T. Data from the 2006 apple replant study will not be collected until mid-winter 2007. The information generated in this project is given at grower meetings and orchard tours are held in the plantings to help educate our clientele in the southeast about apple rootstocks. Nova Scotia: Season and Crop: The winter was considered generally mild. The lowest temperature was on February 12 at -19.4oC. The season started very dry and ten days to two weeks earlier than usual. McIntosh full bloom was May 24th which was almost two weeks earlier than usual. Immediately following the bloom period and during bloom for the late varieties, cloudy overcast wet weather moved in and persisted for about two weeks. The lack of sunshine, we believe, increased the efficiency of thinners and confirms earlier work by Ross Byers. Cortland appeared to be especially sensitive, and there were reports of over thinning with Sevin. All this led us to predict a lower crop than usual, however fruit size was larger than normal, and the late varieties preformed well, so there was only a slight reduction in the regionÂs crop. Status of the Current and Previous Trials at Kentville, Nova Scotia and Bouctouche, New Brunswick: The following trials are currently in place at Kentville: the 2006 Replant Study; the 2005 Pyro-Dwarf Pear Rootstock Trial; the 1999 Cornell Geneva dwarf and semi-dwarf rootstock planting; and the 1998 Cornell/Geneva G. 16 and G. 41 mini planting The 2006 replant trial was not planted until very late so growth has been minimal this year. This was planted by David Baldwin under the direction of dr. PrivÃ© who had planed to combine the Bouctouche and Kentville trials. Since that time, he has accepted a acting position in administration and will not be available for the next six months, it is not known how this will impact on the long term plans. In the mean time, C. Embree is continuing to supervise the research. For the 1998 JonaGold trial, the rootstock G.16 is 27% larger than M.9, G.41 is slightly smaller than G.16. In 2006 fruit size was smaller on M.9. The 1984, 1989, and 1992 plantings are still in place, but are being used for other studies. Pennsylvania: Sudden cold temperatures in early December 2005 killed all but two of the Redhaven/ MRS 2/5 trees in the 2002 peach trial. This suggests that trees on MRS 2/5 may harden off more slowly than is desired. Tree mortality is high for G.41 in the 1998 apple planting. Our preliminary diagnosis for the tree loss is graft union necrosis (ToRSV). G.16 and M.9 have 100% survival in this planting, and trees on these two stocks are very comparable in growth and performance. Further diagnostic study is planned to confirm the preliminary conclusion. Tree mortality is very high for all three Supporter rootstocks in the 1999 dwarf Fuji planting in Biglerville. Fuji trees on Supporter rootstocks at Rock Springs are also growing and performing poorly, while McIntosh trees on Supporter rootstocks have growth and productivity similar the other rootstocks in the trial. The 2006 replant X rootstock planting grew well, although initial tree quality, caliper, and number of feathers were highly variable. Data collection for 2006 is underway for all plantings. Research results will form the basis for making rootstock recommendations to Mid-Atlantic fruit growers. South Carolina: In the 2001 peach trial, ÂRedtopÂ on BH-4, K146-43, and K146-44 rootstocks had 100% survival after 6 years in the orchard. SLAP and SC-17 continued to be the most vigorous rootstocks. No rootstock produced fruit significantly larger than Lovell. SC-17 and Bailey have been the most productive rootstocks over the last 4 years, with cumulative yields ~270 kg/tree. Bailey, Hiawatha, K146-43, VVA-1, and Lovell have the highest cumulative yield efficiencies. Julior, Jaspi, and VVA-1 continue to produce trees with low vigor and fruit yields. There was a 3-day range in bloom date and a 4.5-day range in maturity date. In the 2002 peach trial, ÂRedhavenÂ on Lovell and K146-43 have 100% survival after 5 years in the orchard. Cadaman and Lovell continue to be the most vigorous rootstocks, and Mr.S. 2/5, VSV-1, and VSA-1 continue to be the least vigorous. Fruit of trees on VVA-1, Cadaman, and Lovell were largest, and fruit of trees on Mr.S. 2/5 were smallest. Cadaman and Lovell had the highest fruit yields in 2006, and were the most productive rootstocks over the last 3 years, with cumulative fruit yields >150 kg/tree. Adesoto 101, Mr.S. 2/5, VSV-1, and VVA-1 had the lowest yields. Low-yielding rootstocks ( 20 kg/tree), and highest cumulative yields (> 45 kg/tree). GI 195-20 had the highest yield efficiency in 2006 and highest cumulative yield efficiency. Mahaleb and Mazzard continue to be the least yield efficient rootstocks. In the 1999 Fuji dwarf apple trial, trees on Geneva 16N rootstocks continued to be the most vigorous, and trees on Supporter #3 rootstocks were the least vigorous. Fruit size was largest with Geneva 16N and M.9T337 rootstocks and smallest with Supporter #2 and Supporter #3. There were no significant differences in fruit yield in 2006. CG.179, Supporter #2, and Supporter #3 rootstocks had the highest yield efficiency in 2006 and also over the last 6 years. In the 1999 Fuji semi-dwarf apple trial, M.26 rootstocks continued to be the most vigorous. There were no significant differences in fruit size, total fruit yield, or cumulative fruit yield. Yield efficiencies were highest with CG.814 in 2006. Cumulative yield efficiency was much higher with CG.814 and Supporter #4 than with M.26.
...See More
Bullying, Self Esteem & Hypnosis
Q
Comments (3)
Apple, I have experience with hypnosis, and it does work for bullying, but it's very dependent on the therapist. I went to a hypnotist to recover from my abusive first husband. It worked almost immediately. It helped me to realize and taught my conscious and subconscious mind that I was viewing him as an overbearing parent and myself as a vulnerable child. So, when my daughter became the target for bullies in middle school and high school, I took her to a hypnotist. My original hypnotist was now retired. I believe it would have worked, but the second therapist didn't use the same strategy. Instead she targeted my daughter's nightmares and introduced relaxation techniques. It did help, and the panic attacks stopped. My daughter's self esteem issues and social awkwardness persisted despite hypnosis, changing schools, AND counseling----LOTS of counseling. My daughter is now in college, and she is better, but not back to normal... Never will be, in my opinion. You MUST take action. Girl bullying is subtle but deadly. I witnessed it, and it is shocking to see... my daughter's words never even came close to describing how horribly hurtful it was. The teachers perpetuated it.... Believe me.... Teachers know which kids are popular, and which kids are targets, and they participate, too. What has worked better than everything is involving my daughter in outside activities with completely different kids. My daughter went on a high school study abroad program for spring break with a neighboring high school, and that was great. I sent her for month-long summer high school programs on college campuses, including one in England to get her out of the toxic environment and to help form new peer groups. I sent her to Saturday morning modeling classes, which also helped. I know you are thinking these things are expensive, but bullying can ruin or kill your child, and counseling is expensive, too. Don't tolerate it, and take action. I wish you and your daughter the best.
...See More
Just - WHAT?!
Q
Comments (16)
"...the narcissist sees his children as extensions of his self with no real individual identity or rights....Narcissism also makes people envy the accomplishments of others; the success of others is perceived as stealing the narcissist's "rightful" rewards or possessions....has a sense of entitlement, i.e. unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations...lacks empathy, i.e. is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others" Yep, that shoe fits SD's BM. It also fits my DIL too. It sounds very much like both of them to revert back to being nice when they think it will result in consequences being dropped. I mean, how can you let them throw me in jail when I am out shopping to get your grandson a present. I'm being nice, why can't YOU? That is their way of trying to turn it around on you to make YOU the bad guy for refusing their kindness or reasonable offer. "what? you won't give me a ride to the class & go shopping after? How can you do that to me? I'm just trying to be cooperative, isn't THAT what the class is all about? Isn't it better for our son to get along & do these things?" When all along they know you are going to say no. I don't even think they want you to say yes because when you say no, they look like the injured victim... after all, they were trying to be nice/get along, etc. What's YOUR problem? I raised my kids for many years single handed, without child support, working multiple jobs.. sometimes without a car. When BM moved 3 hours away to be with her BF, the 1st weekend she was to take SD, she asked me to pack some of her clothes because she had boxed all SD's things up & put them in storage & it was too much to go digging through them. So, I packed a bag for her. Then she called to get directions to our house... she had been there several times & knew where it was. I told her to google it. She showed up ten minutes later. Now, I see she was trying to set me up to say no to the clothes or no to the address. She made a big deal of calling DH to tell him how awful I am for telling her to google it... "Why can't Ima just tell me? Is that too much to ask?" She's done that several times over the years. I totally agree that these women cause so much damage to the kids that must be subjected to them. If we knew then what we know now, DH says he would have demanded supervised or no visitation. BM has caused more harm (emotionally) to SD and we are clueless about how to get help for her. We've tried counselors.. SD would lie to the counselors or BM told the last one off & threatened him.
...See More
Quotes 12 - 17 - 17
Q
Comments (2)
I completely understand Beethoven's last quote. Having a bad case of tinnitus, I am hard of hearing, but if it's loud, it's aggravating. I think he heard the notes in his head, not in his ears. Robert Dahl:" Require..., electoral votes be allocated in proportion to the popular votes". Still waiting for that. Or do away of it altogether.
...See More
kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
You also might want to read the thread starting "hindsight"
lafevem
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
My DH just went through this with his ex. I definitely think your DH should arrive with a preferred visitation plan and the language should be very specific. Example: Mom drops child off at 7:00 pm on Friday and Dad drops off at 7:00 pm on Sunday, or whatever works for your situation. Because there have been some issues with my DH's ex, my DH chose to ask that they meet in a neutral location for pick up and drop off. Your DH will have to show a change in circumstances for CS to be reduced. That could be a loss of income through no fault of his, or increased time with the child. We were able to get a reduction because we were able to prove we had the children 12 nights per month and that percentage allows for a reduction in CS. Joint Custody (in our case at least) allows for equal decision making powers but it is hard to get much enforced. My DH wants my SD13 to go to a smaller private school because of some learning issues, but BM refuses. We could go through a lengthy court battle, but the kids and us are all worn out from it all and my DH just doesn't have it him to fight right now. You can ask for a parenting coordinator to be appointed. They are like a neutral third party who can't enforce anything, but they offer good counsel and advice. As far as the Kindergarten issue, I think it is fine to talk to teachers you know and listen to their opinions. You can present those opinions and your thoughts to your DH, but ultimately it is up to him and his ex to decide. In my experience as a teacher, it certainly doesn't hurt for a child to wait a year to start if they have a late birthday, but typically girls are more mature and even a younger girl will seem older compared to most of the boys. And these days alot of kindergartens follow the developmental play theory and it is more of social experience at the beginning of the year and the academics progress as the year goes on. But again, your DH and BM know the child the best and are best qualified to make that decision.
theotherside
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
In addition to the reasons given above, there is a lot to be said for starting kindergarten on time. Someone has to be the youngest in every kindergarten class, and this fad of starting kids later and later can end up totally ridiculous. When we lived in another state, some kids who turned 5 in APRIL were not starting kindergarten the following September. All but one of my kids has a late summer or fall birthday, and all but one of them started school on time.

The former principal of the elementary school some of my kids attended said that research has shown that for kids with learning disabilities it is better to start on time because they get diagnosed and start therapy earlier, on average, than those who wait a year.

One of my kids has a very late fall birthday and is learning disabled. She was going on six when she started kindergarten, and now, years later, she complains about being one of the oldest at least once a week.

I think a lot of the dropout problem is because kids turn 18 before they even start their senior year, and 16 before they even start their sophomore year, so finishing high school seems a long way off.
kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
How long has BF been divorced? What visition does he have now?
helenar
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
My DH has spent a lot of money and gotten nowhere. In meantime, SD will be going to college in 2 years -- so how much of this matters? I worry that a lot of attorneys say they can help you, tell you that you ahve a good chance, and then when judge goes with mom (and I think that the Judges are biased in favor of the mom, no matter what they say), they said, bad luck. Mom will jsut lie, and say I spoke to dad, and then he changed his mind etc. Unless she has a criminal record or uses drugs (and you can prove it), I would not gt hopes up. Jsut my thoughts. Good luck.
theotherside
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I think judges are biased in favor of the one with the best lawyer, or the lawyer they happen to know or like.
annebel
Original Author
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Thanks for the good advice everyone...but I need to say just one thing. One thing about this site that really starts to bug me is certain people who take one sentence of a post and turn it into a totally different animal.
I KNOW this little girl is not my child (duh!) but I'm TOTALLY entitled to have an opinion about her education. And that's all it is...an opinion. And for the record, BF feels the same way. She has partial hearing loss and ADD and in my opinion needs some more one-on-one learning time because she's the type of child that withdraws when her younger brother can recognize colors she can't and her older brother teases her about not being able to spell her name. For those of you who can and have offered sincere advice, THANK YOU very much! For those of you who think I need to mind my own business, please note...I'm not here because I think I'm the authority on stepparenting. I don't need the 'she's not your kid' bull****. BF and I are planning a future together and that includes his kids and me and therefore all of us. And I will have all the opinions I want about them if I think it's going to provide a nurturing and loving environment for them.
Okay, off soapbox. Got a little fired up there...sorry.
And they are trying to re-open the divorce. LOOOONG story, but one of the kids' child support was filed under a different case number and the courts in my state don't like to 'bastardize' children, so BF's attorney is trying to re-open to include all the kids under one case number. Also, she left a tremendous amount of community property out of the decree, which in our state is grounds for re-opening. Right now health and welfare has the child support based on her making 19k a year and him making 70k. In the divorce she was awarded the business they built together and that supported their family for the 8 years they were married. At the time of the divorce, they were running between 10&15k a month of personal expenses through the business (gotta love being self-employed!) and she's living in 450k house and driving a Yukon Denali. 19k my foot! However, by one of the kids being under a different case number and trying to consolidate them she's open to the discovery process again as well as BF, who at the moment is trying to rebuild a construction business and not exactly making 70k. He will one day, but not so much right now.
As it stands, the decree has mom as custodial parent and dad with 'reasonable visitation'. If someone can tell me what 'reasonable visitation' is, then I'll fire the attorney tomorrow. This is why we're (yep, me and BF, that's a WE) doing this. Can you imagine spending the next 16 years trying to figure out what 'reasonable visitation' is???
Anyway, thanks for all the help!! I do appreciate it!
cawfecup
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I think ... reasonable visitation .... is if the parents can communicate to each other ...hey I'll be by on friday about 6ish to pick up sally and drop her off on sunday about 4ish ... Ok great see you then... Hey can I pick up sally and take her to dinner on tues. ? sure I'll have her ready.

What may seem reasonable to one may not to another. To me it does not work. It needs to be exact dates and times. Something always comes up and parents end up not communicating for whatever reason.
kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Annabel,

There are a number of issues here.

First as to X obtaining house and business. That is generally part of property setttlement and will not be "redone". Most divorces, even the less amicable ones are settled, and do not go to trial, but regardless, there is a statutory appeal period. That is why I was asking when was your BF divorced. In all liklihood that period has come and gone. In any event, one needs grounds for appeal, and unless your BF was not aware of the children and the property (not that he didnt agree with how court was treating), the divorce and property settlement are done. As to her leaving out community property, if he knew about the property at the time of the divorce he should have brought it up them. I dont think whether property is community is an easy decision, and it may not be community. Agreed different in every state, but I would strongly caution you on getting your hopes on what attorney has said can be done. They get paid by the hour.

Second, in your first post, you ask a question re joint custody. Now, after you have read the divorce decree, it appears that Xwife has sole custody and your BF has "reasonable visitation". As an aside, either he had the world's worst attorney or there are some strange facts, for him to lose house, business, and custoday. Possibly some money for house and business came from her family? In any event, I do commend you for actually looking at the divorce decree. It may be that your BF doesnt communicate well. Given that Xwife has sole custody, I think her choice for school is going to be respected, unless someone can show it is terrible. She may say daughter has special needs, and this school can best address. DD may benefit from special programs, and school has openings this year and may not next year. I know where I live, getting children into special schools is an artform.

As to reasonable visitation, as Cawfe says, this is in the eye of the beholder. My guess, is this is all mediation can handle. CS and custody will go to court. So focus tomorrow on visitation. What is reasonable to one, may not be for another. Yes, he should take a plan. Advise BF to be prepared to be flexible and to remain calm at all times. He should regard the mediation as a process, not a one time event. He can always say he needs to think about it. I would strongly advise him not to say he needs to discuss with you. I dont know if X bears any ill will toward you, but no need to start a fire. I think EOW (every other weekend) plus one night a week is standard for NCP (noncustodial parent), but every state is different. Mom may say that child needs a routine, and EOW doesnt work. Maybe same time every weekend. BF may want to discuss who does pickups. Generally it is split, but if one parent has moved away a significant distance, the one who moved generally bears the additional burden. If I were you, I would not come on pickups at first. Mediation may also bring up questions as to whether overnight girlfriends are allowed when children are there. Some moms push for this, as they dont want a string of girlfriends. If it applies to one parent, it applies to the other.
kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
PS and yes, you may very well be fighting over visitation over the next 16 years. Or even longer. Different issues as children get older.

Little children -- get sick, dont want to be away from home.

Teenagers -- dont want to spend time with any adult, have friends at moms. Also -- get more expensvie, want cars and college.

I think you are vastly underestimating the difficulty of the situation you are getting yourself into, and are unduly optimistic about what can be changed.
theotherside
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
You can have all the opinions you want about her education, but you DON'T have any input into the decision. That is between her biological parents. As I said before, starting school on time is even more important for children with special needs.

"Reasonable visitation" is standard wording. It has never been a problem for my exH and me. He has seen them less and less over the years, but I have never refused him if he asked and the kids did not have other plans, and he has never asked them to give up going to birthday parties, etc.
annebel
Original Author
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Okay, let me back the bus up. First off, I didn't say x-wife has sole custody, I said she is the custodial parent.
Second, BF defaulted on the divorce because he though they had reconciled. He was living back in the family home, going to counseling, and was called by an attorney friend of his a few days before going into default and asked 'what's this civil thing you've got coming up?'
X-wife is a total snake in the grass and had drained the bank accounts by this time and as you've all said, attorney's get paid by the hour and no one wanted to get involved without a retainer. On top of which the poor guy was devastated. He's lost his father suddenly and in front of his kids, his grandmother, his marriage, all in one year and found it a little hard to muster up the strength to fight. This was Oct. 06.
And there was no house in the divorce (my fault, not clear) they rented. Then after the divorce was final she moved out on the landlord, broke a lease agreement and may be taken to court over it. Now she's doing a lease/purchase on a brand new home. And we're not talking about a few pieces of furniture as community property, we're talking a time-share in Maui, her Denali, another vehicle, and numerous other items.
Here's the problem with defaulting. In our state if someone defaults the final decree has to read exactly like the original divorce complaint. So when she up and served him with divorce papers five days after burying his father, they were SOOOOO vauge. Normally everyone gets an attorney and fights about furniture, visitation, etc. for the next six months. But in BF's case he was back in the house a couple of months later and they were 'working on their marriage' or so he thought. This is where all the crap like 'reasonable visitation' comes in. The stupid decree doesn't cover anything.
That's why we're trying to re-open and get some of this stuff straightened out.
As it stands, x-wife and I communicate more than BF and her do. He's fed up with all her crap. But she's sweet as pie to me and has told BF in the past that the kids love me and she's happy about that. I don't believe that it doesn't sting a little to have your kids like the new girlfriend, but it is what it is.
And about the visitation-this EOW thing may be the standard, but I think it's worth about as much as a wet paper sack. In our situation, both mom and dad are capable, loving parents who both are responsible for exactly half the DNA it took to create these kids and both want to be a part of their life. So how does dad get screwed and get EOW? If mom is concerned about routine, then she should understand that EOW doesn't give dad enough time to even start to create one at his house. He's to busy to try and get in all the fun stuff. All the stuff that he misses in the TWO weeks between seeing his kids. Someone smarter than me is going to have to explain to me how if both parents want, and are able to care for the kids they BOTH helped create, why does it seem like every dad gets EOW? Why not 50/50?
But as we all know, the court system has little regard for what's right or fair.

And kkny, I'm absolutely positive that I'm underestimating the difficulty of the situation I'm getting myself into. I'm also absolutely positive I'm being unduly optimistic about what can be changed. That's the kind of person I am. I absolutely believe that with hard work and determination and the ability to hand the hard stuff up to God and trust Him to make you or me or BF into the person we need to be to get through these situations, that something right will come. It may not be what we want, because what we want and what is right aren't always the same, but something right will come.
I'll also add here the same comment I made on the 'hindsight' thread...if you were to ask a bunch of women who married men without children if they'd do it all over again, you'd probably get as many no's and maybe's as there were on the 'hindsight' thread. Marriage isn't easy.
Also, kkny, I find it strange that you said that BF shouldn't say he needs to talk it over with me in mediation. I think you're headed in the right direction, but I've read a gazillion posts on here about how ticked off the stepmom is because dad won't communicate with her about changed visitation, someone needs to be picked up early, dad won't enforce the rules, dad doesn't want to be the bad guy, ALL these posts that come back to a lack of communication. A lack of someone saying 'I refuse to be the only one that follows the rules. You need to participate when your kids are here'. etc.. I wouldn't tell him to bring me up in mediation, but if he came home and said 'okay, here's what I agreed to' without any prior conversation about what the ultimate goal with visitation is, or worse came home and sprung it on me, I would beat him with a 2x4! I'm at this party, too!!
thanks everyone!
kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I wasnt saying he shouldnt consult you, just that he should say he has to consider. There is no need for him to share with mediatior and X that he is consulting you. this is not lying. This is just tactfully limiting information to what is needed. He can say, I will think about, and get back to you by say, next Friday.
annebel
Original Author
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Okay, forget I even asked about the school thing. I'm not trying to pick out a school for her, I'm not trying to butt in, I'm not saying she couldn't thrive in the classroom. I have an opinion and I had a question. X-wife should've talked to BF before she enrolled THEIR daughter. That's all I'm saying. Maybe we could focus on that aspect of the situation instead of telling me not to be a Nosey Parker.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're all here with questions, right? We occasionaly need a place to vent, right? A little advice from time to time? Let's respect why we're here and quit telling people what rights we do and do not have. Maybe do a little more lifting up and a little less putting down. We're all here for the same reasons.
sweeby
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
You sound very angry -- Sometimes the best advice isn't what you want to hear. That doesn't mean it's ill-intentioned.

Annebel, the reason I advised you to 'stay out of' the little girl's educational placement was because that issue became a huge bone of contention between me and my Ex's girlfriend. I really, really resented her 'over-involvement' when, as the mother, I felt I knew best. My son also has learning differences that I had lived with 24/7 for 10 years at that time. I had taken him to specialists and had worked with him for hours on the areas where he was struggling. She'd known him for 2 years every other weekend and hadn't seen any problems. See why I thought I knew best? Undoubtedly, this little girl's BioMom also feels she knows best, and if you appear to consider your opinion of 'equal' weight, you are just asking for trouble. Your opinion will 'earn' it's place if you're around long enough -- My son's stepmother's opinion now does carry equal weight with me. But she's earned that respect over time.

You say that right now you and she have a very good relationship -- Believe me -- You want to keep it that way. BioMom can make your life miserable if she wants to -- Don't make her want to.

As far as visitation goes, my suggestion would be to get a calendar and go through it day by day for the entire year. Work out something that is not just 'fair', but also stable for the child. Remember that it it what's best for the child that is your objective -- not what's 'fairest' for the parents. In other words, 50/50 might be too unstable for a little girl who's also adjusting to school, trying to build friendships, joining activities and sports. Figure out holidays, birthdays, vacations, pick-up and drop-off times, babysitting policies, how to handle changes in schedules. The more you nail down in print in the custody agreement, the more enforceable it is and the less room for argument there is.
lafevem
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
My DH's agreement had the "reasonable visitation" wording to, and it was a nightmare. That is why we had very firm wording put into this last agreement. BM had no problem with us having them every weekend, every Wed. night (we go to church on that night also), and any other time really. Except when DH did not do something she wanted him to do, or if CS was late (came directly out of his paycheck so nothing he can do about that). Then, all of a sudden he couldn't see his kids until the money came in. We had nothing to enforce so that is why we have specific times now. IF ANYTHING ELSE, GET VERY SPECIFIC. And, I completely agree with you, I don't understand why Dads are treated like second class citizens. It is a sad thing.
theotherside
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
How long have you known the little girl? You mentioned your boyfriend was served with divorce papers in October of last year, if I understood correctly. When was the divorce final? It seems to me that it is way too soon for him to date, much less be talking about a permanent relationship.
kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
TOS,

At the risk of getting flamed, I beleive some dads and SMS fight for more visitation, then joint custody, then sole custody in a battle to reduce CS. Yes, some dads just want to see kids, but some want to reduce CS and for some it is just a power play.
tamar_422
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
kkny - Do you think BioMoms ever want custody just for the CS? What about my SS's BioMom? I think she blames her son for her decision to move back to Chicago from DC to "save" him from our horrible home of rules, expectations and consequences. It has cost her, since she stopped receiving CS since his hospitalization back in March, she's no longer getting her post-remarriage maintenance since we are paying 100% of son's residential treatment, and she's still on the hook for her townhouse lease in Chicago when she moved back to DC to be with her husband. She stupidly told me that they could really use the money when she was trying to convince me son would be better off in DC, without exposure to his partying peers. What do you think will happen if son goes to live with her? He graduates from high school in June 2008. Do you really think she and her husband will want son to stay when there's no more child support?
kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I think dads trying to get custody to reduce CS happens a lot more often.
theotherside
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
kkny,

I think you are probably right. Before I started reading here, I thought the primary reason fathers fought for custody was the power play aspect.

I think a lot of NC fathers have no idea how much it costs to raise a child, and would quickly find after gaining custody that they are spending far more on the child than they did on child support.
kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
TOS,

I think the cost equation changes when dad remarries or gets togethor with SM. They may figures they have an extrea room.
lafevem
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"I think a lot of NC fathers have no idea how much it costs to raise a child, and would quickly find after gaining custody that they are spending far more on the child than they did on child support."

The funny thing is I know several men in the same situation as my DH. They are paying significant CS, plus they still have to buy all the clothes, take them to doctor's appointments and pay co-pays and prescriptions, buy school supplies, pay for field trips, take them for hair cuts, immunizations, etc. because BM uses the CS to get her nails and feet done weekly and goes to BINGO twice a week. Then, when the kids need things, she calls my DH and tells him how she has no money and if he loved his kids he would take care of this stuff. So, we figure out how to get the things the kids need even though my husband is now self-employed and was recently diagnosed with a heart condition. TOS and KKNY....You need to look carefully at some in the camp that you so veheently defend...alot of them only want custody so they can COLLECT CS.
lafevem
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I meant to type vehemently lol
kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Before states starting enforcing CS, most children of divorce went with mom. So now that states are enforcing CS, dad gets involved. Draw your own conclusions.

And, CS is meant for a lot of things, including share of rent, food, etc. There are extras, as you call, them on top of that.
tamar_422
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
kkny - I am sure you believe that every dad that wants custody of their children only wants them to reduce CS (and probably so that stepmom can stay at home and eat bon-bons all day). Not because they love their children and want their children with them.

TOS - "power play aspect"? Your generalization makes all dads sound like scheming manipulators.

Look, I don't doubt that there are some dads and stepmoms who do weigh the cost of child support against custody. But there are moms who do it, too. For example, the BioMom in my situation. When DH and his ex divorced, he could not have been the custodial parent - the boys were young and he traveled extensively for work. When the boys got a little older, and DH remarried, the younger son CHOSE to spend a lot of time at our house, pretty much half the month. DH did not go to court to ask for a reduction in CS, and, in fact, wasn't going to reduce child support payments when oldest son turned 18 and graduated from high school. DH was willing to pay the same amount. The only reason he ended up not having to was because BioMom remarried, moved away and left the boys with us. Which I think she was happy to do because she didn't have to pay us CS, and she was still getting her maintenance check from DH. kkny - you didn't answer my question. Do you think BioMoms ever want custody just for the CS?

I know other posters have asked TOS and kkny why they are on this board. They are not stepmoms, they don't seem to have very good relationships with their exes or SM/GF, and they're not asking for advice or support. They mostly bait, bash and slam the stepmoms who are here trying to make things better for their own blended famliies. Does it give you some sort of perverse pleasure?
lafevem
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
In my situation, the girls are with their mom 4 days a week and with us 3 days per week. During the school year, they eat breakfast and lunch at school because their BM is defrauding the government and has them on free/reduced lunch. So, she feeds them a grand total of 4 meals per week (dinner). We have them on the weekend and Friday evening so we feed them 7 meals a day plus snacks. Guess what? Noone helps us pay for food, clothes, or "extras", as you call them. When they stay at our house 3 nights a week, noone pays us for their "fair share" of rent, utilities, water, cable, etc. That whole notion cracks me up...since when are children responsible for paying a share of that? Here is my thing....my DH has been perfectly fine with having his daughters full time since the day of his divorce, but his EX kicked him out and moved a new guy in the next day. But, because her new DH is a bum and can't keep her in the lifestyle she is accustomed, my DH is expected to do it. In my opinion, if BM kicks out the DH and because of HER choice, the children are not maintained in the appropriate lifestyle, they should be allowed to go live with the father who can maintain their lifestyle. Why is it my DH's responsibility to support her and her new husband? I feel differently about it in cases where the man leaves for whatever reason, but if BM kicks out BF, then too bad for her. Again, my SK's have a home here(bigger than the one they have with her..because I chose to complete college and contribute to our income), so it is not a question of keeping them in their lifestyle. THey can live here at any time. It is about keeping BM in HER lifestyle, and I am sorry but there is no equity in that.

The fact of the matter is the courts are trying to figure out a way to make blanket laws to apply to every divorce case. The courts have not figured out how to apply circumstances equitably, and I don't know that they ever will. Some BM's deserve more CS because they were abandoned, and DH doesn't see the child or help financially at all. But, other BM's don't deserve as much because of their own actions, the fact DH has the children a good deal of the time, or additional funds DH provides for the children. There has to be a better answer, but I stay convinced that alot of reasons BF become enstranged from their children is their utter frustration in dealing with unfair court systems, and a child support system that unfairly penalizes many fathers.
kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
No tamar, I said many, not all, Dads want custody to cut down on Cs. And dads, who typically have more money, may have nicer homes, with pools etc. I am not saying all. Just many. And if dad remarries and mom does not, his household will likely have more money.
annebel
Original Author
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"I know other posters have asked TOS and kkny why they are on this board. They are not stepmoms, they don't seem to have very good relationships with their exes or SM/GF, and they're not asking for advice or support. They mostly bait, bash and slam the stepmoms who are here trying to make things better for their own blended famliies. Does it give you some sort of perverse pleasure?"

AMEN TO THAT! Thank you, tamar, for very eloquently stating exactly what I was thinking. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm here for ideas, support, and advice. If I wanted to hear 'NOT YOUR CHILD' I'd go somewhere else.

TOS and kkny, you don't actually GET what people are asking about. You take the one piece of a pie that irks you or gets under your skin and twist it into a melicious or negative intent. I'd like to take a big bucket of graciousness and thoughfulness and dump it right on top of the both of you. Not every stepmom or soon to be stepmom is out to get the BM.

TOS-in regards to your question about how long BF has been divorced and your comment about it being too soon for him to be dating, let alone talking marriage...maybe you should scroll back up to the top and read my original post. It doesn't ask if it's too soon for BF to date or if we should be talking marriage. And in my opinion our relationship (so long as it's stable and loving, and rest assured that it is) doesn't have anything to do with what I asked in my post.
theotherside
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
The length of your relationship has a lot to do with how well you know his daughter.
kkny
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I dont think every SM is "out to get" the mom. I do think some would rather mom just didnt exist. I think some are oblivious to mom's relationship with child, moms right to CS, etc. In your case, the mom does have a relationship.

So how did mediation go?
annebel
Original Author
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
TOS-I didn't ask about my relationship with his daughter.

KKNY-as BF says, a lot of dad's wish the biomom didn't exist. Not so much me. Just as many dad's are jaded in divorce as mom's. And we'll talk about mom's right to CS when she ACCURATELY discloses her income and BF's to the court.

Mediation rocked. BF is sick of biomom calling the shots and flat out quit putting up with her bull****. This one may actually swing in favor of the dad for once. Thanks for asking.
lafevem
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Annebel...I am glad mediation went well for you. Your DH deserves to stand up for his rights. I am not sure what state you are in, but at least in Florida, when they are assessing Child Support, they do not take into account a new spouse/boyfriend's income even if they live together. Just and FYI. My income is not considered in DH's payments and my DH's income isn't figured in mine.

success with mediation?

Comments (35)

Related Discussions

annebelOriginal Author

annebelOriginal Author

annebelOriginal Author

annebelOriginal Author

annebelOriginal Author

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

annebel
Original Author

annebel
Original Author

annebel
Original Author

annebel
Original Author

annebel
Original Author