What kind of additional access are you referring to?

The BM I deal with is not allowed inside my home...period. I would think 7 is way too young to have a cell phone, my seven year old would loose his head if it weren't attached...

As far as saying goodnight, my DH calls the boys to tell them goodnight on every rare occasion their mother takes visitation, she used to call the boys to tell them goodnight everynight a few years ago, its staved off into a once or twice a week at best thing now. I hate to say it but you have to bite your tongue on that one, there's nothing wrong with just calling to say goodnight to your skids although you may see it as a territorial problem or her being pushy in the long run its more beneficial to the children. If its like the calls at my house its a two minute ordeal anyway and not worth the stress on your part. What other kinds of nagging is she doing?

Wow! You are brand new to GW and this forum. Welcome. Are you familiar with forums of this type??? You will receive some excellent advice and some not so excellent advice. DonÂt let your feathers get ruffled, ignore the bad and take the good. :-)

ItÂs a dance You and your fiance will have to learn to dance together as you make your way through the mine field of blended families. Hopefully, you have a strong relationship and good communication skills. It is not easyÂ

IÂve read that some blended families can co-parent and all get along great! The dad, mom, step-dad, step-mom, we could be talking in excess of 6 adults all co-parenting together! While I have read that this is possible, IÂve never seen it with my own eyes. In my experience, a wide separation is best. That way, there will be less to argue over.

Thanks for the welcome and I will read all advice and comments with a grain of salt. In response to list "other types of nagging". As I stated she is not very involved in their day to day lives, but BM is now complaining about "more time." BM has them every weekend, even though we know they end up at their grandparents or with other members of BM family.NOW BM wants to pickup the kids from school during the week. We wouldn't be so concern if BM wasn't chronic late all the time. BM wants me to be "social" or is it "civil" towards her. I say "hello" and "good-bye". I have chosen to not communicate beyond that because BM isn't the custodial parent and the only conversation I feel is appropriate to have with BM is about the kids. She has had a volatile pass with BF which he shared with me and I just want to have a happy home life. BM bought the cell phones so she can control when and how long she talks with her children and I support that. But the cellphones are turned off during family/dinner time (90 mins). I still am holding my ground on not allowing BM to not call our home but thank you for your advice.

If she isn't the custodial parent she has no business getting them from school on days that are not her visitation.

I went through that too where BM complained to DH that I wasn't 'friendly' enough to her. Quite bluntly you don't have to be, and if you don't want to don't. I've never had anything good come from talking to BM (she's also a non-custodial parent). It would always end up twisted out of proportion.

If she bought them the cell phones for the purpose of communication with her, than I don't see why she has to call your land line other than to annoy you. Just don't answer it or 'block' the # if it really gets under your skin.

I'm going to suggest you reconsider your stance Piggie --
Like it or not, if you marry her Ex, this woman will be part of your life.
And for a long, long time to come.
If you give her reason to -- or perhaps, even if you don't --
she will be able to make your life much, much more difficult.
For that reason, I would really try to be pleasant, polite, friendly, cooperative and easy to get along with.
Even though she's not the custodial parent, she IS the biological parent --
don't try to compete with her because she has a hold on the kids that trumps anything you can do.

My mother, who loved roses, called me her PiggiePig when I was in the garden with her as a little girl smelling her beautiful roses. I am now in the process of attempting to start a rose garden at my new home which is why I joined this web group. Once I set up my journal hopefully you guys will be just as helpful.

Believe me, I do understand that BM is a part of my life just like my child's BF is part of my fiance's life. I just don't understand why all of a sudden, at least that is what it seems like to me, that the BM is making all these demands. I have no desire to take her place in the children lives, I am not trying to compete, I just want peace.

Sweeby  you get along with your exÂs wife and I think that is awesome. However, I do think it is rare. In the beginning of my story, the BM contacted me saying she wanted to be friends and have good communication for the sake of her daughter. Awesome! Eventually, I came to find that as long as everyone agreed with what she said, did, and wanted  we could all be friends. Otherwise, we were being "destructive".

Example. 12 y.o. sd was invited to several slumber parties that year. BM insisted that she alone would take SD to the house on the night of the party, decide on the spot if it was safe enough for her daughter to stay and if it was, she would turn to her daughter and say "go get your things from the car honey". If she didnÂt like the environment for any reason, she would tell the parent that sd could not stay for the night and she would pick her up at 10:00 p.m. SD never knew until that moment on the night of the event if should would be staying or not. I did not agree with this at all. I suggested that bm meet the parents and see the house in advance of the party night and was told that she was far to busy for that. I offered that DH and I could do it. "No" Â it had to be her decision as mom.

I also didnÂt agree that it was a bad thing for SD to see her dad for dinner on a school night once a week.

Our friendship didnÂt last very long.

As a BioMom who's been in a similar situation, I'm thinking she may feel you're either over-involved or on the verge of it. Things like picking the kids up from school and going to school activities can be sensitive areas.

When my son's SM started picking him up at school (a 30 minute drive for her to save him a 30 minute bus ride) I wasn't happy about it. She would do lots of other things for my son that I felt shouldn't be done -- things like calling his teacher for him to get the list of spelling words he forgot to bring home. (My stance was that HE should call a friend for the words and be more careful not to forget. After that, he 'forgot' week after week, and she bailed him out every time.) I called Dad about it, and his response was that she was "being a better mother than I was" and that she was just "picking up the slack." Well excuse me -- I don't think there was any "slack" involved! But I did get more involved then, but honestly, more to 'stake out my turf' than because I thought I was underinvolved before. And it caused problems between SM and me that didn't need to be there.

On the phones, I agree with you about not being disturbed during dinner -- BUT, I think you're pushing it a bit too far. Ask her to time her calls so they avoid your family dinner time of ___ to ___, but don't try to restrict them otherwise.

I think this is a perfect example of why we all face problems in blended families. Sweeby, I can totally see your side but I can also see the other side. I canÂt say one is right and the other is wrong  perhaps she would parent her own bio-child the same way (30 min car ride to avoid bus ride and call teacher even though child should be responsible for his own HW)  this may be right for her  even though it may not be right for you. And, if that was dads day  she was not wrong for helping out in the way she thought was "right".

I donÂt think there are any easy answersÂ

I agree with Sweeby's earlier post. This woman is a part of your life because she is a part of your skid's life. You can't really ever have two completely separate homes because you have one common denominator - the kids. For that reason to deny her the home phone number is probably doing you more harm than good - in her eyes and possibly the kid's, too.

I have tried for 7 years to be cooperative and friendly with my SD's mom, but it's like banging my head into a brick wall. I finally realized I did not have to try to encourage or help their relationship by trying to create one big, happy family - all that was required of me was to behave in the way I would want my SD to behave were she in the same difficult situation. I now make that my "motto" - to show my SD how to handle difficulties by staying the high road. I only sink to BM's level when SD is not around and I can throw out all the bad words I want. Most days it works - SD 12 can see the difference in our behaviors.

About the involved mom of the year act, it sounds like this too shall pass. *My* BM goes through phases where she wants to be ultra involved, but then she sees something shiny and away she goes. :-) It's difficult for you, but imagine how difficult it is for the kids - she loves me, she loves me not?!

Back to the phones - I think discussing with BM times that do not interfere with schoolwork/meals/sleeping is appropriate - perhaps calling before bed - 8:15 if bed time is 8:30, could be a "tradition" that is planned around . . . and that way if you need to excuse yourself to go to the store and say all those bad words. :-)

My best to you with your family and your roses.

In most states, each biological parent has the right of first refusal. Therefore, unless the father available to care for them, the mother has first dibs, including picking them up after school.

I would have given my right arm for my exH to have called the children every night. He complained to the counselor that they were not talkative enough, so he stopped calling after the first day. Parents have the right to and should call their children every night.

BM tried to go for that "right of first refusal" Â didnÂt fly here. It is true that some bio-dads want as much visitation as possible to avoid child support and then dumps the kid on grandma. The courts are wise to that and ROFF may apply if they think this is the case. In our situation, DH is a fireman who leaves early (bm fought overnight visits when DH had to leave early) and can be called in at a moments notice. The court saw no reason the child should be yanked away from our home in these cases (when and if the bm chooses of course). They believe my dh to be of sound mind and a responsible parent who is capable of making child care decisions on his time.

The courts where I am respect the parents rights to be with a child. Why should a child have to have child care if there is a parent who wants him at that time? child care is for when parents can not be there.

But it is almost always best for the child to spend as much time as possible with his or her parents.

"Why should a child have to have child care if there is a parent who wants him at that time."

And why should a child's schedule be always in limbo based on when their parent "wants" them? What ever happened to best interest of the child . . . not the parent??

"But it is almost always best for the child to spend as much time as possible with his or her parents."
Sure. Maybe child can meet mom/dad's drug dealer during all this time they are spending together without the courts approval.

If a child's parent uses drugs, they can use them during their scheduled visitation time as well. Presumably a parent who would take a child around a drug dealer should have only supervised visitation.

The OP never said that the child's mother engaged in any illegal activities.

I stand by my statement that maximizing time with parents is best for children in almost all cases.

I disagree about the maximizing of time with a either parent to avoid childcare. I personally have had to take that away from my ex because the hectic schedule was too much for my son. None of us could keep up with what he had going on because he was going back and forth so much. I believe that a child needs a routine and a schedule that they can easily stick to every night especially during the school year. My son is doing so much better at home and at school now that I have put him into a more structured routine. I believe that kids need this and not being bounced back and forth whenever one parent cannot be there.

In what states do custodial parents have the right to "take away" time from the NCP? In my separation agreement, my exH has the right to EOW and one night a week, AND any additional reasonable visitation. Although what is reasonable is open to interpretation, I would have to prove that his requests for additional visitation were unreasonable if that ever became a problem.

If kids are in childcare, they are bounced back and forth. Obviously right of first refusal would probably not be exercised very often by a NCP who lived four hours away, but if they are in the same area, I think it is best for the child to be able to spend time with the other parent if the CP is not available.

What I'm trying to get you to admit, TOS, is that almost all cases is not ALL cases.

I agree with almoststep - as I said earlier, the children should not have to be in limbo while parents decide if they "want" to see them that day. Children need to feel like they have structure and dependability. Your theory does not provide them that.

During the custody hearings with my SD her mom wanted to have her when ever she did not work - and she has a retail job with a schedule that changes weekly. Funny, but both the evaluator and the judge said no - that is not in the best interest of a child. Mom has scheduled visitation with no FROR or additional visitation provision, and THAT was deemed in SD's best interest.

Uh oh TOS. Someone who doesn't fit your mold . . . .

Oh, so if DAd is firefighter on changing schedule, he gets cut slack, but not mom in retail.

I just keep smiling -- all these smug responses from the likely soon to be Xwife # 2.

I want to first thank you all for your responses, but it seem like a lot of you didn't read the first post. In my situation my fiance the BF has custodial custody and the BM has weekend visits. The reason he has custody is that BM was always late taking the Bkids to and from school. I was a witness to this for a year before BF was given custody. During the second year the BM never called to say good night daily or was involved in the Bkids day to day activities and BF asked me to help him which I had no problems doing because I enjoy being around his kids. For the following 9 months BM did not call unless it was to arrange pickup/drop off. Never offered to go to activities at school and yes,never called the Bkids every night to say good night. So once we moved in it became apparent that she was not doing this for the Bkids. She bought the cell phones and can call the Bkids whenever she wants to except during family/dinner time. I don't care about her talking to them every night that is fine. But why does she need our home number when she has already spoken to them on their cellphones? People don't get caught up in thinking I want to take this woman's place in her Bkids life. I have a child of my own and we are hoping to add another member to our family within the next three years. I just dont think she should be able to control the access of our home life when she has an avenue open to her kids already.

My husband was given custody for a multitute of reasons, and until BM completed X amount of counseling she had limited access. A professional, not another mother that knows nothing of our situation, determined that sporatic and unscheduled visitation with her mom would not be beneficial. This would have been the same if she worked 8-5, M-F.
So to answer your question, no. The parent who demonstrates the best ability to care for their child gets "slack."

"I just keep smiling -- all these smug responses from the likely soon to be Xwife # 2."
God KKNY, you just aren't happy unless everyone else is miserable, are you? Are you really that shallow?

No I would just like SMs to stop picking on moms. But I guess that isnt going to happen. And I am happy. But vigilant. That likely makes Dads GF unhappy. And if she complains -- Oh all of my BFs money has to go for this wrotten little kid -- for her new car, braces, etc. Now he has promised to give this nice big house to that wrotten little kid who doesnt respect me. From what I see of complaints on this board, there is a lot of resentment of stepchildren.

Per studies I have seen, men have full custody in 5 to 10% of cases. Which means mom should be able to talk to child, etc.

No I would just like SMs to stop picking on moms. But I guess that isnt going to happen. And I am happy. But vigilant. That likely makes Dads GF unhappy. And if she complains -- Oh all of my BFs money has to go for this wrotten little kid -- for her new car, braces, etc. Now he has promised to give this nice big house to that wrotten little kid who doesnt respect me. From what I see of complaints on this board, there is a lot of resentment of stepchildren.

Per studies I have seen, men have full custody in 5 to 10% of cases. Which means mom should be able to talk to child, etc.

"Oh all of my BFs money has to go for this wrotten little kid -- for her new car, braces, etc. Now he has promised to give this nice big house to that wrotten little kid who doesnt respect me. From what I see of complaints on this board, there is a lot of resentment of stepchildren."

I agree. There does seem to be a lack of understanding that a child is the equivilent of a "preexisting condition." If you marry a man with diabetes it doesn't go away after the wedding. In the same respect children don't either, and to resent the children for receiving what they should is deplorable.

How about this? I am the biggest earner out of mom, dad, step dad and me. I know that as we receive little support from mom it is primrily my money that supports SD. I AM TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT. I could opt to have a seperate account, but I do not. She is my stepchild, and part of my family. I have no resentment of that at all. How does that fit into your stereotypical SM mold?

"Per studies I have seen, men have full custody in 5 to 10% of cases. Which means mom should be able to talk to child, etc."
Huh? What in the world does that mean?

"No I would just like SMs to stop picking on moms."
I *pick* on those whose behavior warrants it. If a person was treating a child badly - mom, dad, g-ma, SM, SD, whoever - I would *pick* regardless of their title.
What I am suggesting, what you can't seem to understand is what I said in my other post. Not all moms are like you KKNY. Some of them deserve to be *picked* on for their actions. Being a bio-mom vs. a stepmom does not give you permission to mistreat your children, and you should be allowed no more lattitue because of you title than any other person. In fact, I think being a bio-mom should hold a person to a higher standard, but that's just me.

Children all over the country (and probably world) wait around for their non-custodial fathers to show up late or not show up at all. It is so common as to be stereotypical, and used as a source of rather twisted humor in movies like "The Santa Clause." Yet fathers' visitation rights are rarely curtailed just because they are unreliable, especially if they generally show up eventually. I think NC mothers are held to a much higher standard by the courts than are NC fathers. Over and over I have read on various legal web sites that "visitation is a NCP's right, not a requirement." It seems that that only applies to NC fathers.

Why is it ok for my kids to have to sit around for hours on Saturday morning, back when my H used to allow them to visit, because he refused to say when he was going to arrive beyond "morning." Why is it ok for him to call 15 minutes before he normally arrives to take them to dinner to say he isn't coming at all, when it takes him an hour to drive here so he obviously knew that he wasn't coming long before that?
If a NC biological mother behaved like that, most likely her visitation would be restricted, but it is ok for a father to do that because I am supposed to consider myself lucky because he shows up at all.

"Why is it ok for my kids to have to sit around for hours on Saturday morning, back when my H used to allow them to visit, because he refused to say when he was going to arrive beyond "morning." Why is it ok for him to call 15 minutes before he normally arrives to take them to dinner to say he isn't coming at all, when it takes him an hour to drive here so he obviously knew that he wasn't coming long before that?"

It's not okay, TOS. Were I you, I would let him know that if he can't respect your children's time and feelings (and yours as well) by setting a time and sticking to it that the kids will not be available past then.

You are likely correct, there is probably more latitude given to fathers than mothers because they have a stereotypical *history* of poor parental behavior and it is almost expected and therefore excused. This may stem from the fact that historically a man's responsibility was to work and financially support the family and mom's responsibility was everything else, so the expectation was not for dads to be that involved. The children were the mom's "job." Unfortunately your ex seems to be stuck in the past, and I feel for your children.
Conversely, I believe more latitude is given to the mother when determining custody arrangements because *historically* kids have "belonged" with the mother.
BUT - this not not apply to all parents. Some fathers drive for hours on a weekly basis for minutes with their child. Some mothers leave their children and go for months without speaking to them. We can not take the stereotypes, percentages and studies and blanket them over all step families, no more than you can give any validity to stereotypes like "all African Americans are good athletes" or "all boys like to play with trucks."

IN MY CASE (this is not a generalization, but an example) it took DH's ex 3 restraining orders against her live in boyfriend before the courts believed that her child may be in danger by living there. After the first when we went to the courts they said to "give her a chance, " and the BF moved back in. After the second (which read that BF threatened to kill family with a baseball bat) they said to "give her a chance" and BF moved back in. After the third, when my step daughter was chased by the boyfriend with a base ball bat in hand the courts said "she can not make choices in the best interest of her daughter." Really? How many times did the police need to come to her home in the middle of the night to clue you in?

In my case - and I ask you to consider only my case - do you believe the mother was treated unfairly? That more latitude was given to the father?

I think the boyfriend should have been in jail. This is an example of why it is a bad idea to get married/have a live-in SO when you have children. Too many otherwise reasonable people lose all common sense when there is a man/woman in their lives. I have seen it all to often IRL as well.

No, the child needed to be protected from the boyfriend after the second incident. I think it was reasonable to initially get a restraining order against the boyfriend and assume that he wouldn't be allowed to move back in.

I am bothered by the "we went to the courts" comment - your husband went to the courts - you can not seek custody of his child. It is things like that - SM's viewing themselves as an extension of the father, as if the father doesn't have an independent relationship with the children and with his ex-wife, that is part of the overstepping bounds tendency of many stepmothers.

BTW, I couldn't tell my exH that he had to be there by a certain time or lose visitation - not without taking him back to court. Since he had an expensive lawyer (paid for by TOW) and I had no money, that was not feasible.

"It is things like that - SM's viewing themselves as an extension of the father"

Alot of SM's use the term we because we view our marriage as a partnership and us as a team, not because we're trying to take control.

Martha - been there with the court system, it took three dhs investigations, and countless incidents for the court to say 'oh yeah! there IS a problem here' Its really sad it seems BM's are cut more slack in that area because of the traditional role typecast.

Sieryn,

I have no issue with SM using we term for house, money, trips etc. The issue is with children.

I am not certain the moms are cut more slack.

I agree with TOS, the boyfriend should be in jail. This is why I dont want to date until DD goes to college. She is the most beautiful girl in the world (OK, every mother says this, but in her case it is true) and I would be very nervous with older man in house. TOS, your Cinderella book documents this. I think in todays day and age, at least where I live, it is not that difficult to get an order of protection against the BF on behalf of the daughter. This is different from a custody case. Then if BF violates order it is a criminal matter. Was SD willing to testify? Was she afraid? I think too often people ignore the criminal aspects. This situation does not belong in family court.

"order of protection against the BF on behalf of the daughter."

We had one of those for the boys, she broke it every 'visitation' the boys would come home and say yeah BF was there or they would call and let us know he was there, fun part was he'd be out the window by the time the police or her apartment management or we would show up (we lived 30 min away). Then it became a 'prove it' situation.

Then comes the fun part, do you put your kids in the middle making them testify? We didn't want to put the kids through all that. Luckily, her neighbors had no problem ratting her out in court.

I still say mothers are given more slack in this area, had it been an abusive Dad he would have been cut off at the first incident and non-compliance. BM went through THREE (three!) different 'performance improvement plans' non of which she complied with or even allowed her caseworker into the home to check on the children/living conditions only then did they enact a CHNA. After we were already fed up and back in family court.

If it were to happen again, may I suggest a cell phone with a camera. Frankly I wouldnt know how to use, but all the kids seem to be able to.

Or hire a private investigator. I have heard they aren't all that expensive.

"Alot of SM's use the term we because we view our marriage as a partnership and us as a team"

Your marriage may be a partnership, but the relationships among the father, the mother, and the children are completely separate from that partnership.

Funny you guys say he should be in jail as that's where he had come from before mom moved him in with she and her then 4 year old daughter 2 months after meeting him. I guess there is something about a felon turned hairdresser that is actrive to some women?!?

Part of the problem is that mom would file the order and then drop it 4 days later after they had kissed and made up. Then the next month she'd be back at the police station.

"I am bothered by the "we went to the courts" comment - your husband went to the courts - you can not seek custody of his child."
We did not seek custody - he did - but we did go to the courts. On the simple level I was a witness, but on a deeper level I was support. I supported and assisted where possible with all the evidence compiling and such (my career affords me a talent with legal documents)but more than that I supported on an emotional level. The decision to try for emergency custody was not made spontaneously, and it was something we came to together, as a team. I'm guessing if I hadn't agreed whole heartedly that we had to try he would have done it anyway, but isn't it better to be in agreement?