Again - the bigger issue is that BioMom it telling her kids that dad and stepmom "would have kids one day and they would be more important to dad and stepmom than they are." Am I the only BioMom that thinks this is mentally abusive and manipulative of the BioMom? Clearly, the children are being harmed if they have to extract promises from dad and stepmom that there will be no more children.

Parents feelings about an adopted child are not the same as about a stepchild, especially when both biological parents are still in the picture.

Tamar,

I don't remember how old the kids in question are, but if they are over 5 or 6 or have ever read Hansel and Gretel or Cinderella, I am sure that they have already considered the possibility (probability in my opinion) that their father and especially their stepmother will care more about the children of the second family.

TOS, I can't believe you are defending the BioMom. She is so obviously harming her children. You can't see that?

"Parents feelings about an adopted child are not the same as about a stepchild, especially when both biological parents are still in the picture."

That's why I said that our relationships would be different - not necessairly "more important," "better or worse" - just different, according to the situation.

I don't like the notion of 'absolute love for the child of biology' and then 'something lesser' for the child that is from other source. Anthropologically speaking, I'm sure there's something in our pre-historic code that justifies it, but I like to think of myself as more evolved than the average cave woman and able to love children differently, but equally - regardless of their source.

Actually, after the antics of the BM this week-end, we're thinking of eventually pursuing a complete termination of her parental rights at some point. She will probably make it quite easy by continuing down the path she's on. So then, I suppose I'll have 2 adopted kids.

Tamar,

Depending on how young the kids are, it might not have been the wisest thing to say, but maybe she thought she was preparing them for the inevitable, and her statement was probably correct. Maybe the kids had expressed the same sentiment and she was just confirming it. Maybe she'd gone through the same thing as a child, or knew someone who had. Who knows?

Although I did not tell my son this, my H did something similar. It is clear to me, and probably to my son, that my exH has replaced his own son with one of his current wife's sons in his affections. My son reminds me of my exH is many ways, mostly, but not all, good ones, and I suspect he reminds my exH of himself as well, including some of the parts of himself as a teenager and young man that he doesn't want to think about or that his own father, who was a major jerk, objected to.

I am really bothered by this statement by the OP:

"So these are my children and I guess I want to be their "#1.""

It seems to me she is fueling the competition between herself and the children's mother with sentiments like this.

No tamar you are not the only one who sees how a BP can abuse a child with words. Its emotional and mental abuse.

Doesn't do anyone any good. The children don't know if they are coming or going. Confusion becomes a way of life for these kids ... they have to hide their feelings and when they do let them out they blow up.

They get a story believe it to be "fact" and run with it ....and either you let it roll off your back and do nothing or you spend valuable time defending yourself against idiotic things.

To Hyles.... so if you got pregnant "by accident" hey it happens ... the children would want you to "make it go away" because you told them you would not to have any more children? How many children are really planned and how many are accidents? My children are 7 years apart... My 3 SC were born in 95, 97, and 98...(planned?)

"Depending on how young the kids are, it might not have been the wisest thing to say, but maybe she thought she was preparing them for the inevitable, and her statement was probably correct."

TOS - do you take this negative attitude with everything? Do you tell your kids their spouses may cheat on them, they may get fired from their jobs and they planet may burst into flames? I mean really, if we are going to "prepare them for the inevitable" then shouldn't we REALLY prepare them? Take away all the security they have because something may go wrong? I mean, I'm "probably correct" in my assumptions, right? So shouldn't their parade just get rained on now??

Come on - people say these kind of things to fuel their own fire and serve their own purpose. They say they are doing it for their kids but it's a bunch of justification to suit selfish needs. Children will form their own opinion of those close to them on their own. They do not need bitter opinions and self serving speculation to help them along.

"Do you tell your kids their spouses may cheat on them, they may get fired from their jobs and they planet may burst into flames?"

Yes. Well, not the planet bursting into flames part. That's pretty unlikely, and there are lots of people (though probably not enough of them) warning about the consequences of global warming.

One of my first thoughts after finding out about my H's affair was that my parents should have told me that men (and probably women, too, but that's kind of irrelevant) can seem to be loving family men for decades and then suddenly turn into something different. I wish I had been prepared. I hope my children ARE prepared to recognize the signs of cheating early on. And I don't see how anyone could argue that you shouldn't be prepared with a Plan B career-wise, because you WILL probably lose your job at some point.

TOS, I am so saddened for your kids to hear you truly are THAT negative of a person. There is a difference between instilling a sense of realism in your kids and basically telling them everything they try will likely blow up in their faces. Do you tell them when they walk out the door for school that there might be an earthquake? When does it end? All situations have a 50% chance of turning out positive. Why must you focus so heavily on the negative what if's? Do you conversely tell your kids that they may have a 50 year marriage, keep the same job forever and be the scientist to single handedly stop global warming? Or do you just teach them to expect the worst from people and situations, somehow thinking you are doing them a favor?

Just because you are bitter you children need not be. They are still children.

I dont think TOS is a negative person, and I dont think all situations have a 50% chance of being positive. That is just not true.

I think everyone should keep resume current, and stay up to date in their field. Things happen.

And as to second marriages causing issues with children, I think from reading this board, it is pretty clear there is a lot of tension. And when Dad has younger children with current wife, I think those kids do come first many times. I know if I were a SM, it would be difficult not to put my own child first.

"All situations have a 50% chance of turning out positive."

As anyone with experience in risk analysis would tell you, that is simply not true.

I'm sorry but I can't help to think about ...

Has anyone seen the movie Along came Polly with Jennifer Aniston and Ben Stiller.... it wasnt the greatest movie ever ... but I think that it makes the perfect point of the difference between making decisions based upon a risk analysis and actually living life to its fullest...

The gist of the movie in the end is that 'risk analysis' or any other form of analysis doesnt make a heap of difference when it comes to matters of human nature and what makes us happy.

I haven't seen the movie, but I certainly hope my children grow up with strong critical thinking and analytical skills, of which the ability to perform high quality risk analysis is a part. Let's say you want to go pick up Along Came Polly at the video store. There is a small, but non-zero risk of having an accident on the way, but you decide the potential reward is worth the risk. Fine. Let's say instead that you are in the midst of a raging snow storm. The accident risk has increased to, say, 25%. Would you want you children to say, 'Oh, let's live life to its fullest and go get the movie?"

Everyone does risk analyses all the time. Sometimes the estimates of risk and the probability of reward are based on logic or experience; other times they are based on misconceptions or myth. Obviously risk analysis based on the former will generally produce more favorable results.

There is a difference between warranted risk analysis and neurotic pessimism. For a child, explaining to them that driving to the movie store in a snow storm is unsafe is warranted. Telling them that their NCP likely won't love them as much if they have other children is not warranted. If you set a situation up for a negative ending, it will likely have one. Perhaps that is the goal though?

My point was not about keeping a job, keeping a marriage or saving the world. The point is to save a little bit of innocence for our kids. They aren't stupid. If NCP really doesn't care as much they will figure it out on their own, and you can be there to support them all the way. But why open that door for them before it has to be? To shove them through it?

If you bring something up, then you can expect people to respond to it.

Depending on how old children are, I think it is better for them to be prepared. I would not want them to go into adulthood or even dating relationships not being able to recognize the signs of cheating.

TOS, it is obvious your ex's cheating hurt you deeply. I am sorry you went through such a devastating event. I did too although it was 20 years ago. I must say, I have not forgiven him for it and for hurting our 4 kids over and over again. The oldest and youngest have cut ties with him. Youngest did try to contact him a couple of weeks ago to (again) make peace, but it turned out lukewarm at best.

I welcome responses; I was only trying to bring them back around to the matter at hand. There is no arguement that it is good to have a back up employment plan!

Age is truly an important factor in determining just how much preparing a child currently needs. But can you not agree that there is, or should be, a line between helping a child to see where ANY person may be disconnecting from them VS. telling them THEIR parent WILL disconnect from them? One is teaching the other is preaching, don't you think?

I too am very sorry you were hurt, TOS. But the best way to overcome is to rise above, I've always thought.

Actually, I suspect that the father in this case is using both the mother and the stepmother as scapegoats because HE doesn't want to have any more children. It is perfectly reasonable for him to want to stop at 4 (not that I did), but I think he is using the children's concerns as an excuse. It does not seem that he chose to make any effort to convince his children that he wouldn't love them less.

It is also quite possible that the children expressed their concern to their mother and she was just being honest when she confirmed that it was likely.

After my H left, he did not immediately limit contact with the children to weekly dinners at McD's. With every successive decrease in visitation, he stomped on another little piece of their hearts. I often think it would have been better for them to have been better prepared, for me to have told them that his visitation would decline rapidly over time like it does with most non-custodial fathers. Instead, every decrease came as a surprise to them, as they became more and more cynical. For a brief time, they were spending almost EOW, from Friday - Sunday, with him. Then he announced that he would have to work late on Fridays for awhile, so he would pick them up on Saturday. He never allowed them to come over Fri-Sun again, even when he was unemployed and clearly not working late. Now, except for one child, they are allowed to visit approximately once every two to three YEARS. You really think it would have hurt more for them to have been prepared?? I don't.

TOS: "... visitation would decline rapidly over time like it does with most non-custodial fathers."

Is this true? Where is the research that shows visitation declines rapidly over time for most non-custodial fathers? By "most," do you mean more than 50%? What is the exact percentage?

I hope you are also telling your sons that they shouldn't marry in the first place, because they, too, may experience mid-life crisis and leave their wives for wealthier OW. And your daughters should also not risk marriage, because their husbands may leave them for younger, unemployed girlf friends.

Your ex is an ass. My ex is an ass who left me for a string of other women, and has minimal involvement with his daughters. I didn't teach my daughters that all men are asses. I gently explain to them that this is not their fault, their father, despite his age, is not very mature, and unfortunately that causes him to put himself before others.

Just because our respective asses choose not to spend time with their children, I don't think you can generalize and tell children to expect it. Even when my SSs were young and lived with their BioMom, DH spent EVERY weekend with them, plus long weeks at school breaks and over the summer, despite the fact he commuted out-of-state during the week to work.

"Studies have found that nearly sixty percent of children whose parents had separated had seen their fathers only several times or less in the last year, and thirty percent had not seen them at all in the last year."..."Sadly, only twenty-five percent of children whose parents are divorced see their fathers at least weekly."

pages 25-26 of "Beyond Economic Fatherhood: Encouraging Divorced Fathers to Parent" by Solangel Maldonado in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol 153:nnnn 2005.
http://law.shu.edu/faculty/fulltime_faculty/maldonso/maldonado_fr_reviewed_jan_26doc.pdf

This article appears to be well-researched, with more citations than I think I have ever seen in a single article. I don't agree with all of the authors conclusions, because I fear that shaming or forcing NCP who refuse to spend time with their children to do community service could lead to them perhaps spending more time with the kids, but neglecting or abusing them during that time.

Yes, I have told my children (those who are teens and adults) that one of the few actions I would find unforgivable is if they cheated on their spouses or even girlfriends/boyfriends, and if any of them ever left his or her spouse for an OW/OM, I would never have any contact whatsoever with the OW/OM, but I would continue to have regular contact with their former wife/husband. Forget the "blood is thicker than water," nonsense that people spout when trying to excuse the in-laws welcoming the OW/OM in their child's affair-based marriage.

what if your child had a child with the OM/OW, TOS? Sins of the father??

Great question justnotmartha - can't wait to hear the answer...

What does that have to do with it? The child would still be my grandchild, and I would be happy to spend time with him or her - but I would have nothing to do with the OM/OW.

I would hope that my children would not even consider cheating on their spouses and/or deserting their children, having gone through the pain of losing their father themselves. In addition to knowing how I feel about it, they would be ostracized by their other siblings, so even if the fact that it is wrong didn't stop them, I am sure they are aware that they would lose the support of their entire family.

One of my adult children once said that she could not understand how her father could do what he did, because he knew how SHE felt about adultery. Although I am not actually sure that her father did know how strongly she felt about adultery, because it was not a subject that came up on a daily basis until the Monica Lewinsky scandal, it is obvious that she considered her father's behavior a personal affront.

"Beyond Economic Fatherhood: Encouraging Divorced Fathers to Parent" by Solangel Maldonado in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review - My brain hurts too much today to look at law review articles (I'm in the middle of writing a grant for DS5's private school), but I do wonder how this cuts across the socio-economic strata. Of ALL the divorced parents I know, my ex is the only one that is absent, and that probably has more to do with the fact that he lives in another country.

TOS - you really should just advise your children to NEVER get married. What if their partners cheat on them and leave them? What if your future granchildren have to have stepparents? Better to just nip those risks in the bud ...

I would not advise them not to marry, but it is important to watch out for signs of cheating. I am not sure it would have helped in my case, because even in retrospect it is difficult to see signs, but often there are signs.

And I CAN emphasize to them that cheating is wrong. Too many people act like it is no big deal.

Most of the children of divorced parents I know rarely if ever see their father. I realize I am in a lower socio-economic level that you, Tamar, but I live in a solidly middle class area.

TOS, I just wonder how your grandchildren from the OM/OW would feel about you after seeing the way your treat their parent? Would you explain to them that one of their parents was a "cheater" and another a "home wrecker" and therefore you must treat that OM/OW (their parent)like a second class citizen? Don't you think they might begin to question their worth if one of their parents was so worthless?

Cheating is wrong. There is no doubt about it. But you seem to have let it destroy anything positive about you. Such a shame. He already wronged you - why let him ruin you?

justnotmartha,

I wouldn't treat them like a second class citizen; I wouldn't have anything to do with them.

"Don't you think they might begin to question their worth if one of their parents was so worthless?"

No, I don't. The concept that children blame themselves for their parents' shortcomings makes no sense to me. I think it is a bunch of psychobabble. I certainly never blamed myself for my parents' shortcomings, and I don't see my kids doing that either. I can understand blaming yourself for your children's shortcomings (although these are often not your fault either) since you raised them, but not vice versa.

I think it is both incorrect and presumptuous of you to claim that my exH's behavior "destroyed anything positive" about me. I am simply not wishy-washy about adultery.

TOS - sorry but I agree with justnotmartha - I have been reading this forum for about 2 years now - and I have yet to read anything that could be interpreted as helpful or encouraging advice from you.

It is not relevant that you have been reading this forum for 2 years, since I have only been posting for less than one. If you do not find my posts helpful, I am sure you know how to mouse over them. I have been pleased to see a slight increase in the number of stepchildren and biological mothers posting over the last few months, which broadens the perspective of this forum and helps prevent it from becoming nothing more than a mutual admiration society.

You are correct, I usually do just mouse over your comments, however you just stated to justnotmartha that it is incorrect and presumptuous to assume your ex destroyed everything positive about you.

It is obvious to even the occasional reader that you appear to be a very negative and bitter person.

I am realistic, and I am persistent (a characteristic which is essential in my career). Some people use the word "bitter" as an antonym for "wishy-washy" or "passive." I detest people who change their allegiances or their beliefs whenever it is convenient for them. As I said before, feel free to skip over my posts.

I didnt have to explain to my DD that her Dad was having affair with presnt GF. She figured out. I think kids can do that. Kids raise the question, well if you couldnt keep one promise (marital vows), why should I expect you to keep others. And why should I respect any marriage to OW, when she wouldnt respect your marriage to my mom.

TOS - you still didn't answer the question. What would you say to your grandchild when they asked why you treated one of their parents like they didn't exist? How would you handle family events? Would the grandchildren not suffer for the sins of the father . . . . or mother?

I think TOS made it clear she treat the GC as a GC. I think that OW/OM has to answer for their behaivor.

I also thought I made it clear. When the hypothetical grandchildren were old enough to ask why I had nothing to do with their mother/father, I would tell them the truth.

My grandchildren would always be welcome in my house. The OW/OM would not be.

The betrayed spouse and her/his children would always be invited to family events. I certainly would not rub the adultery in her/his face by having the OW/OM there as well.

What you have made clear is that this is all about you.
How much would the grandchildren enjoy a family event without their whole family? You would leave out their parent and therefore punish them because of your feelings. How grandmotherly of you.
And how dare you tell something like that to your grandchildren? That's so far from your place to do it's frightening. I can't believe you can justify an attempt to deminish their view of their parent because of your beliefs?

Oh, to be your child must be grand.

I'm so sorry to those reading this. I'm beating my head and yours against a brick wall I realize, and I've let this go on too long. You'll hear no more from me on this. Again, my apologies.

No, this is all about the difference between right and wrong.

Apparently you think the original family should be discarded by the grandparents in favor of the replacement family. You would leave out your real daughter/son-in-law and their children and therefore punish THEM?

I suppose if your grandchildren's parent had been in jail for embezzlement or murder one you would hide that information too?

If the OW/OM believes she or he hasn't done anything wrong by having an affair and marrying her/his affair partner, then why would they want to hide it from the children? And if they knew it was wrong, they why did they do it? Why would they compound the wrong of the affair by marrying the affair partner and having children with him or her?

One of my children told me that the worst thing a parent can do to a child is lie to him or her, and that includes lies by omission. The same thing applies to other adults they trust, including grandparents.

You shouldn't do something that you would be ashamed to have your kids know about.

I try to teach my stepchildren forgiveness. No one is perfect, we all sin in some form or fashion. I will not dispute that some sin seems greater than others (murder, etc.), at least in the eyes of man's law. But I've never felt a higher calling declaring me the judge and jury because I am not perfect either. Yes, I'm viewing this as a Christian, however, you don't have to be a Christian to see that none of us can balance on our pedestals for any extended length of time before falling on our butts. Yup, I try to teach my stepdaughters forgiveness because alot of times they are the ones who extend their hands to help me stand back up, just as I do with them. Love the sinner, hate the sin... Just my opinion.

Just out of curiousity, TOS, how much contact do you think your child will let you have with your grandchildren, given the venom you will be spewing?

First of all, I doubt that any of my children would be cruel and heartless enough to marry an OW/OP, or have an affair for that matter, especially having suffered through the effects of it themselves. Why would you deny your children grandparents, just because YOU did something immoral?

Second, purposely using inaccurate expressions with negative connotations such as "spewing venom" is does not contribute to intelligent discussion.

Third, ignoring wrongdoing is immoral; deceiving your children/grandchildren is immoral. How do you think those deceived children would feel when they discovered as teenagers or adults that their parents' marriage was based on lies and betrayal and the destruction of another family? It is far better to know the truth from the beginning, rather than having your parents on a pedestal of deceit.

Fourth, if one has to weigh the benefits and costs to the original wife and children against those to the second set of children, the first family legally and morally comes first. There is extensive legal precedence for this - in my state, having additional children can not be used as a basis for reducing child support payments, for instance.

It is inconceivable to me that people can advocate welcoming an adulterer into the family. Aside from the immorality, how could anyone be so cruel to the first children and to the real spouse?

lonepiper,

As a Christian on another board once said to me, nothing in the Bible says that you should forgive the unrepentant.

No, but it also says not to pass judgement on others...

"Fourth, if one has to weigh the benefits and costs to the original wife and children against those to the second set of children, the first family legally and morally comes first. There is extensive legal precedence for this - in my state, having additional children can not be used as a basis for reducing child support payments, for instance"

While we are talking about morally and ethically wrong... this is and always will be wrong. The fact that some court upholds that fact does NOT make it morally right. No child should be treated differently or come before another child simply because they are not apart of the "first family" and I am sorry but I take offense to the continual use of the phrase 'real family' That childs family is no less real or important than any family that existed prior to that childs conception.

I am sorry but this is the same selfish mentality that makes blended families so complicated... If grown ups would be grown ups and put aside their own agendas and supposedly superior attitudes and simply do what is best for the children there would be a lot less complications and make for much happier children in the long run.

I think what tos is getting at is that a responsible father should check his budget before he has another family.

No, what is wrong is for man to walk away from responsibilities, or to have additional children when he cant support the ones he has. The second wife is there living with him to stick up for her kids. So the courts have to stick up for kids from first marriage.

And I raise my point from a separate posting - if the women were self-sufficient prior to marriage and had the ability to get decent jobs themselves, there would be much less fighting over the single salary of the sperm donor.

If a man shouldn't have more kids than he can afford, neither should a woman.

TOS: I can already guess what your comments will be. I've seen some of your postings around and would guess that we probably live radically different lives with our values balanced differently. So feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but I'll just agree to disagree with you. I think that you often do make valid points, but you usually seem unwilling to acknowledge other viewpoints as being valid.

I was self supporting before my marriage. And taking many part time or years out of the labor market will be detrminetal to many women finanically. But just becuase I am self-supporting doesnt mean my DD shouldnt receive her fair share.

I know I said I wouldn't get back involved but what I am saying is positive so I'm calling that justification. . . .

"If grown ups would be grown ups and put aside their own agendas and supposedly superior attitudes and simply do what is best for the children there would be a lot less complications and make for much happier children in the long run."

Mom of 4 - you are positively right.

I think part of the problem is that mom #1 is not going to treat children from first same as hers, and same for mom #2. and dad will likely care more about keeping mom #2 happy.

"lonepiper,

As a Christian on another board once said to me, nothing in the Bible says that you should forgive the unrepentant."

Now why would anyone think that?? Jesus' own disciples were unrepentant. Remember Matthew, the unscrupulous tax collector? Think he was repentant before Jesus called him? Jesus came specifically for the lost and the sinners. HE CAME TO THEM before they even thought about repentance. Or how about the adulterous woman? The one the crowd wanted to stone to death?

Theotherside, I bring this up only to dispute what the other Christian on the other board said.

No one, male or female, should go on to have a second family if it means he or she would not be able to support the first family.

I don't understand what being self-sufficient before marriage has to do with being able to support your entire household as a single parent a quarter of a century later, after having been out of the workforce for years. I was self-sufficient before WE had children. WE decided that I would work part-time, and later be a SAHM. I will never be able to achieve the income (in today's money) that I had before I stopped working - not with the gap in work history and, even more importantly, my age.

Funny thing is that when my exH was unemployed, the magistrate told him that he was too old to expect ever to get another job (even my xH looked horrified at that statement) - and then the magistrate told me that supporting our children was primarily MY responsibility. My exH is only a few years older than I am. Apparently women are never too old to work, but men are.

mom_of_four,

I did not actually use the phrase "real family" - I said "real spouse" and "real son/daughter-in-law." An OW/OM is not one of these.

lonepiper,
I am not going to argue Christian theology with you, since the only part of the Bible I ever read was the old testament for high school English Lit (I still don't know why it was considered appropriate for a public school English Lit class, but that's beside the point). However, not one, but two different posters who said they were Christians told me that, and I agree with the statement, whether or not it is an accurate representation of what is stated somewhere in the new testament.