christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Hi,
My ex husband recently took me to court to reduce childsupport, remove DOR from our case and for a visitation schedule (although he has not adhered to one in the past). In 2007 saw his children 7 times.
Anyways judge ordered childsupport to stay the same (even though it should be more), DOR to remain (owes 6,000 in arrears) and basically the visitation schedule he implemented.
Now he is threatening to go back for reconsidertation of childsupport and to ask for the kids to live with him in the Summer time (he lives out of state and my kids are 7 & 11) neither one has a comfortable relationship with their father .
He says if this judge does not overturn her decision about childsupport, he is going to take it to appeals court and it will be very expensive for me - He is constantly harrassing me about this - I live in Massachusetts and we just went to court March 14 about this.
What do you think - Any insight would greatly be appreciated!
Diane
|
Buckeye
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/08/05
Posts: 7857
|
|
Tell him to file away and tell him that you will be asking that he pay your attorney fees.
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
Let the kids live with him during the summer..pehaps they will form a stronger bond with him as that is difficult to do living so far away
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
Rebecca5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 11697
Loc: Down home.
|
|
He can only file the modification of child support if there's a significant change of circumstance. Otherwise, he has to wait 3 years under MA law.
My guess would be that he hopes to change the visitation schedule, because MA allows for deviation based on parenting time. I would also guess that if the court order is only a month old, he's SOL.
So....he can file away, and you can ask for your attorney's fees to be paid by him.
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
As far as letting the kids live with him that cannot happen! In 2006 he saw them 3 times and in 2007 saw them 7 times. He has no idea what is going on in their lives, simple things: what they do for extra school activities, who their teachers are, their friends etc. I would never want them to be put in that situation. His current visitation allows him to come once a month and he always backs out which disappoints the kids - Before I agree to any change of custody he would have to step up and act like a Dad.
Thanks
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Oh I forgot to mention we are only a six hour drive apart - So there really is no excuse for him not seeing his children.
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
They are pretty young and the extra time with him would only help foster the relationship. The court my guess will grant it to him.
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
Rebecca5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 11697
Loc: Down home.
|
|
Who said anything about the kids living with him? And...if he had an extended parenting time in the summer, their extra-curriculars wouldn't make any difference. He could sign them up for things in his town. Half of the summer or 6 weeks is pretty standard.
Six hours is a pretty long way for people who have jobs and are without an unlimited source of income. Is he supposed to stay in a hotel and eat out every meal, as well as provide constant entertainment?
Not to make excuses for him, but really....that's kind of a crappy way to think about it. How about you offer him every school 3-day weekend, and offer to meet him halfway?
Your children NEED their father in their life.
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
[quote]
Your children NEED their father in their life. [/quote]
Rebecca, some CP's just do not see it that way, when in fact, a father is every bit as important as a mother. This is just another case of a CP wanting their cake and eating it too.
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
You don't seem to understand that he abandoned all of us in Feb of 2006 - Had no contact with the children until June when he came up and visited for two hours. He has made no effort to be a father and it was HIS choice to move out of state for another woman.
I have offered him all sort of options for taking the children and he is not interested. How could you suggest sending children to live with someone who does not even call them or have a relationship with them.
I realize they need their father and have tried for three years to have him call the children at least once a week to see them at least once a month etc - I have also driven them 3 hours a couple of times as well.
You really do not seem to understand the situation at all. Initially his visits were supervised, his behavior is erratic and my childrens psycologist states that his inconsistent behavior is damaging my kids especially my son.
|
Rebecca5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 11697
Loc: Down home.
|
|
If you want extra information to be considered....include it in the beginning.
At NO point have I recommended that the children go LIVE WITH HIM. In fact, I specifically pointed that out in my LAST post.
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Sorry. This is my first time posting and I am upset about the situation.
Thanks,
|
Cassie23
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/07/05
Posts: 14714
|
|
I do think that the courts would be willing to give him the extra time in the summer, regardless of the past situation... That is standard parenting time for a NCP who lives several hours away.
|
Rebecca5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 11697
Loc: Down home.
|
|
Okay.....look....I have been there, and done that. My ex lived 1000 miles away for years. He didn't call. He didn't show up. He canceled at the last minute 9 out of 10 parenting times. He's STILL their dad. He's STILL the most important man in their lives. I have a fantastic husband, who has been the father figure in our home since my son was 2 - now he's 10. The ex is still their dad.
If your children have a poor relationship with their father, how do you expect it to get any better if they don't see him?? They don't get a chance for it to be any different.
If he's really asking for more time, one of two things will happen: either your children will hate it, and it will get worse....or they will love it and it will get better. Either way, it will not be your fault that their relationship is what it is. Unless you are really afraid that he poses some sort of physical threat, you're doing more harm than good by denying them time together. You prevent any resolution for your children.
Be careful. If they don't learn what he's like for themselves, they will create what they want him to be like.
That being said....I stand by my first post. Unless anything substantial has changed, he doesn't really stand a chance. If he files, ask for attorney's fees.
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Thanks! I do want for him to have a relationship with him and have agreed to long weekends every month as well as a week at Christmas Time, during July and August. Since the visitation schedule was put in place last month, he already cancelled for April and May - All I am saying is that the kids need consistency and if was able to give them that I would have no problem with them having extended visits.
I have never tried to keep them away, as a matter of fact, I have begged him to at least call them etc.
Well thanks for your thoughts - I realize how important a Dad is -
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Just one last thing I wanted to add the only reason he is asking for this is because I refused to drop the DOR from our case and that the judge did not lower the child support - He just now sent me an email stating that - Unbelievable.
|
accesskas
enthusiast
Reged: 08/22/05
Posts: 209
Loc: Missouri
|
|
christine1 i hear ya and it honestly sounds like to me that someone told him that he would pay a little less if he got more visitation time. However i also agree with the posts that they need their father in their life. I think that if he is granted this summer time and pays a little less, he will think he has "won" until he sees how hard it is to take care of kids for an extended period of time. Then he will either step up to the challenge and really get to know his kids and start a real meaningful relationship, or he will send them home and say "nevermind" and then you can go back to court and get the CS upped where it was. I say give him a chance. Sometimes what is meant to harm will turn out good and for the best interest of everyone involved.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30196
|
|
...cause DADDIES only want to see the kids for the MONEY, but MOMMIES are ONLY interested in the welfare of the child.
What a load of SHYT! I am SO sick of hearing that line.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
[quote]...cause DADDIES only want to see the kids for the MONEY, but MOMMIES are ONLY interested in the welfare of the child.
What a load of SHYT! I am SO sick of hearing that line. [/quote]
Because all fathers are that way..didn't you know?
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
You know some of the replies I received made sense to me and I appreciate them but others were plan nasty! So easy to comment on a situation that you know absolutely nothing about isn't it! I will not be posting here anymore all a bunch of experts and critize me while I have been left to take care of these children BY MYSELF for three years with no physical assistance from him........................
In this case I am only interested in my children and NO that I have done nothing wrong - So goodbye and good luck!
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Let's see. Dad really wants to pay less child support and to change the schedule to live with the kids in the summer. You really don't want that.
Because he doesn't come to visit once a month as it is, so they can't go instead in the summer. And dad saw them less than that last year, so they can't go now in the summer. And he doesn't have a close relationship with them, so they can't go in the summer. And that he abandoned you and has a new girlfriend, so they can't go in the summer. And he doesn't call once a week so far, so they can't go in the summer. And he cancelled visiting in April and May, so they can't go in the summer. And (unstated) your concern seems to be if they do go in the summer, you might get less money (because your costs go down accordingly).
Regardless of how you've painted him, or how awful he actually is in the real world (and true, he doesn't sound wonderful), you come across as punitive and controlling. "He didn't do things the right way in the past, so I won't allow this new way. And it might cost me money (legally, justifiably -- but still, I want the money!)"
I mean, probably he'll back out of the summer because that seems to be his pattern, right? And so it'll be a non issue. But why OPPOSE this latest chance at establishing a better connection between dad and kids? Because you can and have that power as CP? Because he's not "good" enough? Perhaps this is the one way that might work for him, allows him to avoid you, and the long drive and so on, and cancels your concerns his lack of familiarity with their daily school lives and whatnot. It seems it MIGHT work out better than any other schedule tried so far. To disallow it because he's been a prick in the past seems vengeful, not well intentioned.
I'm not saying it's easy to be the bigger person. I've frequently been a prick. But I do know I should try to be nice, and do what I can to foster a great relationship between kids and BM.
One thing that frustrates posters about boards like this is most everyone tends to have a well-honed story that generates sympathy in real life, which portrays themselves as the good, innocent, victims of an awful ex. But in the harsh light of a message board, that stance is easily questionable and frequently sketchy.
|
Rebecca5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 11697
Loc: Down home.
|
|
Like it or not, people here have a lot of experience, and little patience for BS (though everyone could use a lesson in kindness sometimes). If you want a question answered from every possible perspective - give it a go. If you want everyone to pat you on the head and tell you that your ex is the Big Bad Wolf, try www.allfathersaredisposable.com.
For what it's worth, I had no financial and no physical support from the ex for...well...always. I had a 4 year old, and a toddler with ALL (acute lymphoblastic leukemia)...no family help, and was working (on non-St. Jude weeks) close to 80 hours a week, every week.
It CAN be done. It HAS been done. Now I have a couple of awesome kids who are bright, funny, intelligent and....honestly? Stunning.
I have sympathy for your situation. However, I have little patience for people who don't want to actively problem solve to help the situation. They would rather put up roadblocks to any attempt to change their lives because it's safer, and easier....today. It is NOT easier in the long-run...at least not for the children.
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Not to mention
A distant relationship between kids and NCP is a TERRIBLE reason to oppose a new schedule for more time between them.
A history of failed visitation schedules is a TERRIBLE reason to oppose trying a different schedule, to the NCP's liking.
Potential loss of CS to you proportionate to parenting time is a TERRIBLE reason to oppose more parenting time for a NCP.
Not telling the board your backstory is a TERRIBLE reason to blame the board when judgement is passed without having much "insight."
And adding to your story when initial responses aren't supportive/sympathetic enough is a TERRIBLE way to come across as straightforward and honest. It essentially proves you are fishing for supportive responses, and might just be fabricating what it takes to generate such responses until you hear the answer you want.
Though, that all said, rude lashing outs are unnecessary. Take them as "bravado" inspired by behing behind the wall of anonymity message boards provide. In fact, embrace them for what they're worth because you can really get gut knee-jerk responses from the "id" psyches of some tortured souls and cut through a lot of social phoniness with very little effort here :)
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Hi,
The child support has nothing to do with why I do not want them going with during the summer.
Their psychologist has told me it would be unhealthy for them to be thrown into a situation with someone that they do not know, he said he needed to develop a relationship so that the kids would feel comfortable with him. I agree with his assessment. The kids were also asked if they would want to spend the whole summer with him and they said no. They would like to spend some time, like long weekends etc. After then they would be more comfortable.
I want my children to have a relationship with their dad regardless of what some of you may think............Money has nothing to do with it.
Thanks.
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Well, you DID focus on the reconsideration of CS in your original post a lot, including IT'S TITLE. So, you know, impressions are not formed out of nowhere.
So start with two long weekends in June. See how that goes. Then two full weeks in July, contingent on the two long June weekends not being catastrophes. Then three more weeks in August, again contingent on July not collapsing in failure. Or something like that. There. Six weeks-ish. This summer. Lots of checkpoints. Not just "three months no mom." Problem solve here, Christine :)
Besides, he'll likely back out anyways so you won't have to worry, right?
The point is, you COULD foster their relationship and allow it to happen, not just say you want an improvement but refuse to flex. If there's a new proposal on the table FROM HIM to finally reconnect with the kids, why force him back into the schedule/way that failed everyone already?
What do you get other than control, security, and the perception of being the better parent?
And ask the kids if they want to spend the whole summer in Disneyland. They'll probably say yes. Maybe that's where you should put them, then. IOW, it's not really about the kids' answer, its about a broken relationship that kids have NO idea (or even responsibility) how to repair. It's up to dad to step up to the plate, and you to not block it.
|
sally1234
enthusiast
Reged: 12/07/06
Posts: 237
|
|
I think sometimes people use a cookie cutter for each situation when offering advice - it is hard sometimes to give an opinion if one does not know all the circumstances. Having said that - it sounds like a toxic relationship with their father at best. Summer custody - no way!
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
It appears that your post is about child support last I checked child support is given in the form of money, so the money has a lot to do with it.
You can't expect your children to have a relationship with their father if you don't allow them to be there. My nephew sees his father ONLY in the summer. He's fine. He's been doing this since he was 7 years old. He's well adjusted and doesn't need a psychologist. If your children would like to get to know him more, I think long weekends is a great start. You should do your best to facilitate a relationship between them and their father. It's best for the kids.
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
[quote] Summer custody - no way! [/quote]
You just used a cookie cutter.
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
It will be very helpful in court when you ask for your attorney fees.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
I thought she DID state she'd TRIED getting him to take long weekends and a week on holidays like Christmas and that he wouldn't? So what else is she supposed to do? She's offered, he's refused. So he takes her to court for CS. So she titles her post that because well...that IS what he's taking her to court for. And then he throws in that he wants summers. He won't take long weekends, he won't take week long holidays. He wants all or nothing. HE won't negotiate. He even emails her that the ONLY reason he wants this is because she didn't drop DOR and his CS didn't get reduced.
Or, maybe *I'M* not missing anything.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
I was just wondering if you threw that out or if there really WAS some site like that. So I put it in to see and here's what Google spit back:
Divorce Source: motion to reconsider childsupportIf you want everyone to pat you on the head and tell you that your ex is the Big Bad Wolf, try www.allfathersaredisposable.com. For what it's worth, ...
www.divorcesource.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=393153&Main=392424 - 45k - Cached - Similar pages
In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 1 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.
ROFL!
--------------------
Char Fox
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Why care whether or not HE's motivated by CS reduction if indeed "money has nothing to do with it?" He has to prove no interest in CS reduction, only THEN we can consider Summers? He has to be out of arrears first? He has to want weekends first? Sheesh.
To be accurate: he's threatening an appeal for "reconsidertation of childsupport and to ask for the kids to live with him in the Summer time"
She now says its not about the money, only the time. You believe her.
Except, of course, she opposed modifying CS so far. Why oppose something that is not an issue to you? How can you oppose modification to CS while claiming you don't care about modifying CS?
So it's all about the time, according to you and the OP. Fine.
They've tried long weekends and Christmas and he wouldn't go for it. What else is she supposed to do? How about try something other than long weekends and Christmas?
Such as the Summer, as he's suggested. (You don't like his financial motivation? Remember, you claim money is not an issue...time to prove it.)
How about trying long weekends DURING the Summer to see how that goes before trying anything else, as I suggested? (it's not like I'm oblivious to the fact that its scary and stressful for all involved.) Just not the same old same stuff he failed at? But you do have to try to work the problem moreso than try to win.
The point is to allow a relationship to form, with consideration for the safety of the kids of course. Not block it because you have the power to do so.
"I already offered (something else). You refused. And we're both motivated by money (but I deny it.) So no Summers for you! The kids don't get time with you except on my terms, which we know from experience don't work. I win. You get the blame."
And the kids lose out on perhaps the first and last time their dad might ever try to step up to the plate for them.
But don't feel bad. You won! You got what you wanted! Dad didn't! And you didn't forego any CS money (though that was never an issue)!
And after they've lost touch with this screwed up guy completely, and it makes them feel sad for the rest of their lives, the kids don't ever need to know that you went to court to prevent some summer time to get to know dad, right before he disappeared from their lives for good. You're the winner, remember?
Maybe that's a little melodramatic. But the point is, you're trying to win, not solve the problem before its too late.
And she's worried about legal fees of an appeal. Avoid/minimize them by solving this out of court. By compromising/trying new things rather than trying to win.
So that's what I see that you might have missed.
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
This who deal is about the CS and has nothing to do with the time with the child
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>Why care whether or not HE's motivated by CS reduction if indeed "money has nothing to do with it?"<<<<<
I'm not sure I saw it claimed that money "had nothing" to do with it. But defending against accusations that it was the "only" thing to do with it.
>>>>>Except, of course, she opposed modifying CS so far. Why oppose something that is not an issue to you? How can you oppose modification to CS while claiming you don't care about modifying CS? <<<<<
Or, she's opposing going back to court right after just coming out of it, for the same issue that was already addressed in court.
>>>>>They've tried long weekends and Christmas and he wouldn't go for it. What else is she supposed to do? How about try something other than long weekends and Christmas? <<<<<
Well if you will send kids, who don't want to go that long, who's counselor has advised against it for that long a period of time, to someone they hardly know because that person has shown that its NOT about the time...since they won't take the time they have and the extra they've been offered, then you go ahead and do that to your kids. Most people wouldn't.
>>>>>How about trying long weekends DURING the Summer to see how that goes before trying anything else, as I suggested?<<<<<
Ummm, what part about he didn't WANT long weekends hasn't occured to you?
>>>>>The point is to allow a relationship to form, with consideration for the safety of the kids of course. Not block it because you have the power to do so.<<<<<
Exactly! So she's not jumping for jooy to pack them off for a whole summer with someone who's PROVEN (counselor and track record) to NOT have consideration for the safety of the kids mental well being at least.
>>>>>And after they've lost touch with this screwed up guy completely, and it makes them feel sad for the rest of their lives, the kids don't ever need to know that you went to court to prevent some summer time to get to know dad, right before he disappeared from their lives for good. You're the winner, remember?<<<<<
Ummm, DAD moved, to be with the new Miss Thang, DAD calls off his own visits, and DAD won't take extra time she offers. Oh, and DAD won't bring up summers or any thing else as an option when they go to court. He instead files to go again right after THIS court session ends.
>>>>>And she's worried about legal fees of an appeal. Avoid/minimize them by solving this out of court. By compromising/trying new things rather than trying to win.<<<<<
I still don't see what she hasn't compromised and tried, but that he won't accept.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
[quote] I'm not sure I saw it claimed that money "had nothing" to do with it. But defending against accusations that it was the "only" thing to do with it. [/quote]
That's a quote from christine1. That's her position that you're defending. You are reading these posts, right?
And the accusations of money being sole motivation were NOT made by me so why are argue me about it? To me it's clearly money+time+control.
Nobody said he was nice or prudent of him to threaten to go back to court. I understand not wanting that. However, not budging puts christine1 on a path to go back to court, because if he follows thru, he appeals. Compromising and changing the parenting plan avoids the appeal, if successful. So she WANTS to go back to court more than compromise out of court, if that is indeed her final choice. Maybe she SHOULD go back to court. But let's not pretend she's really against going back to court while also doing nothing to avoid court.
What makes the weekends and Christmas previously on the schedule okay, but weekends or some weeks in the summer so dangerous? Nothing. Remember she's offered multiple ways for him to take them already. Just, not Summer.
She's apparently trying to make him jump through a "step up and be a good dad" hoop before allowing him to step up and be a good dad in the Summer. Control.
If a difficult NCP brings "Summer" to the table, embrace it and run with it to find some compromise along those lines, that he IS willing to do.
To be non-punitive, she should have taken the stance: "I NEVER want my kids with him because he's so awful and the pysch says it's scary. He wants Summers. I oppose it."
But that's not it, is it? Instead, it is that she wants them together. But if its not the existing, nonworking schedule, it's nothing. Though another idea is on the table. Control.
I'm not saying HE'LL compromise and work up to an extended summertime visit. I'm pointing out that SHE'S refusing to try. Who knows what he'll do but we DO know what she's said. Multiple times already I've pointed out that HE'LL likely back out and it'll be a nonissue. Again, are you reading my posts?
I think by ignoring my off-the-cuff but explicit proposal for "six weeks-ish" and only after successful extended weekends proves that I'm not saying ship them off for "a whole" summer. And that you're not reading/comprehending.
[quote] Ummm, DAD moved, to be with the new Miss Thang, DAD calls off his own visits, and DAD won't take extra time she offers. [/quote] Right, which makes him a jerk. And if she tries to punish him for it, she's a jerk too. Nobody ever said it's easy to be a non-jerk. I know how easy it is to be a jerk.
[quote] I still don't see what she hasn't compromised and tried, but that he won't accept. [/quote]
Please show me what she has done to compromise, and this list of alternatives she's tried. I haven't seen it.
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Of course, she could just put her money where her mouth is, because CS $ is an issue only to him not her.
All he wants is a break on CS because (perhaps) he heard a full summer will get him one.
So offer him the break he desires, contingent on him following the existing parenting plan that you want.
Win/win.
Because, after all, it's not about the money, right?
Also, since she's the one who thinks a six hour drive is no big deal (but it strangely bothers him) she can do the driving going forward.
Win/win/win.
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>That's a quote from christine1. That's her position that you're defending. You are reading these posts, right?<<<<<
Yes I'm reading them. I don't have the time, or desire, to run through all of them again trying to decide if what you're saying is a quote or your own text, since you leave it quite unclear. You COULD make it more clear as to when you are quoting something, or even when you are making up fantasy conversations like it appeared to be at the end of your last post.
>>>>>And the accusations of money being sole motivation were NOT made by me so why are argue me about it? To me it's clearly money+time+control.<<<<<
And to me it's not.
>>>>>Nobody said he was nice or prudent of him to threaten to go back to court. I understand not wanting that. However, not budging puts christine1 on a path to go back to court, because if he follows thru, he appeals. Compromising and changing the parenting plan avoids the appeal, if successful. So she WANTS to go back to court more than compromise out of court, if that is indeed her final choice. Maybe she SHOULD go back to court. But let's not pretend she's really against going back to court while also doing nothing to avoid court.<<<<<
It's the "not budging" part I keep questioning. Where do you get that she's not budging. What gives you the impression that she's not trying anything else, short of giving him summers, which both the kids and counselor are against and which would NOT be in their best interest?
>>>>>What makes the weekends and Christmas previously on the schedule okay, but weekends or some weeks in the summer so dangerous? Nothing. Remember she's offered multiple ways for him to take them already. Just, not Summer.<<<<<
I saw nowhere where she stated she wouldn't give him weekends or weeks in the summer, just not ALL summer. That is the ONLY thing I saw her state she wouldn't go for. Perhaps you could point out where (and make sure you let me know it is quoted) she stated that she wouldn't give him long weekends or any weeks in the summer?
>>>>>I'm not saying HE'LL compromise and work up to an extended summertime visit. I'm pointing out that SHE'S refusing to try. Who knows what he'll do but we DO know what she's said. Multiple times already I've pointed out that HE'LL likely back out and it'll be a nonissue. Again, are you reading my posts?<<<<<
Quite frankly, I didn't understand perhaps 50% of your last post. I muddled through what I could make of parts of it. It's still the "she's refusing to try" part I can't grasp...not from her posts I've read, and understood much more clearly.
>>>>>I think by ignoring my off-the-cuff but explicit proposal for "six weeks-ish" and only after successful extended weekends proves that I'm not saying ship them off for "a whole" summer. And that you're not reading/comprehending.<<<<<
Perhaps she didn't comprehend you any better than I did? Perhaps its not always everyone else's comprehension levels?
>>>>>[quote] I still don't see what she hasn't compromised and tried, but that he won't accept. [/quote]
Please show me what she has done to compromise, and this list of alternatives she's tried. I haven't seen it. <<<<<
Like I said above, I have neither the time nor desire to re-read through umpteen posts and quote. I DID however read that she's offered him longer weekends and weeks during holidays and he wouldn't take them. And I know you read that too. So there's the alternatives she's tried, there's the compromising. She's offered him what she's not court ordered to give and the only thing he WANTS, or says he wants are full summers.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Hi,
His childsupport is considerable lower than it should be and that is why the judge would not consider reducing it. What I was trying to say is that the CS is a different issue than the visitation - Of Course I need additional money to raise the children - I do work full time but we all know that is not enough.
We just went to court in March, he took me - I have documentation upon documentation of me asking him to establish a regular schedule to see the children as well as asking him to call them at least once a week to touch base with them.
Take this next weekend for example - It is my sons 7 birthday and his father insisted that I cancel the party I had planned for him because he wanted to take the children for the weekend. I cancelled the party and now receive a voice mail from him that he will only be able to take the children on Saturday for a few hours! It is very unfair to the kids and has been how he has been treating them all along.
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone to show "SOME" consistency as far a their children are concerned.
Another example two weeks ago on one of his calls to me yelling and screaming about dropping the DOR I told him I was on the way to the Doctor with our son because he was not feeling well - He continued to call all day long about the DOR but not once asked how my son was, what the Doctor said etc.
I admitt I am not perfect but I promise I have tried very hard and have compromised a lot - I can look in the mirror in the morning and know that I have tried my best to do what is right for my children.
I am not controlling, I love my children and think they deserve to be treated with respect.
I like some of your responses motorboater but don't you think he needs to give a little too?
Thanks
Almost heaven thank you so much for your posts!
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
I'll try to be more careful with quotation marks. If I quote a previous post, AND use them around hypothetical dialog, I can see the challenge. To me, they're not THAT directive or crucial, but I'm not the reader. I thought you KNEW the position you were defending, which was best exemplified by her prior statement. Apparently, not. I also assumed you could tell when I was entering "the conversation would sound like this..." land. But okay.
"And to me it's not." Right, we don't agree on christine's motivation. So you attempted to put words in my mouth that her motivation was solely money. Not sure why...to argue Relayer in your response to me? But proper discussion happens when we respond to what other people actually say (accomplished by first reading their posts); not by mischaracterizing or changing what's been said. I'm trying to do that regarding your post right now, and consistently for christine too.
You know, I agree with you in that christine likely HAS budged in many ways on many subjects with this guy for years. But then again, who knows? But on THIS issue, she essentially said they CANNOT live with dad in the summer, because he hasn't been a good dad yet. But the ways to prove his goodness are being defined by her and not working for dad.
While christine is ALSO saying she's offered him multiple ways for them to be with dad and that she does want that. So lets not now act like they simply can't be with him because she's apparently already offered it.
And blocking it because he's disconnected with their daily life is terrible excuse making. Of course he's disconnected; he's six hours away and they aren't with him yet. This summer, they'd set up new daily life routine and then christine will be disconnected. Does it make christine bad to be disconnected? No. Wouldn't want them kept permananently by dad because of disconnection, now would we? So be fair and quit using disconnection as a reason "they can't live with him." (sorry I didn't look that quote up explicitly but I KNOW christine said something like that earlier...that's a psuedo-quote from an earlier christine1 post.)
I apologize for being confusing. That's not my intention. I am trying to make sense. I acknowlege that comprehension is very much due to how well I express myself.
However, I still don't get after suggesting much LESS than the whole summer, how I would be argued by almostheaven about the "whole" summer. It's simply misrepresenting others to argue with nonexistent positions. Because if you instead deal with the discussion accurately, your position is weakened and your logic is sketchy.
I'm aware that apprently the only thing he said he wants is summer. And that some of us have concluded it's solely to reduce CS obligation. Doesn't change anything.
Instead of simply saying "No" christine might be able to get dad to take these already offered long weekends and the week (formerly for Christmas...it was apparently safe then, so its not more dangerous in summer right?) during the summer. He doesn't need to know their school schedule or much of anything about mom's routines then. He doesn't need to drive 6 hours for a 1 day visit. Couple it with the CS break he wants, remember money doesn't matter, and things really might happen. Things that would be good for the kids and dad, and apparently what christine WANTS.
I just don't like claims that aren't backed up by corresponding actions. Just don't make the claims in the first place and there is no hypocrisy.
As for the psyche consult, why offer Christmas and extended weekends if pyche was against kids being with dad? If he got TWO psyche consults that said there are benefits to being with his kids, would that trump your psychologist? He could you know.
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Oh, I think he SHOULD be doing massive amounts more than you've reported. He's WAY behind on the giving front.
And, if you're going to negotiate with him, I'm certainly not advocating simply sitting there and giving him whatever he wants. There are a million new plans better for your family than the one I spit out a couple posts ago. The point is to take this opportunity to go back to the table and work with what he's saying to you and what's motivating him RIGHT NOW. This just might be your best shot to improve the lives of your children, even if it scares you.
See, to not allow kids to stay with dad because he's fallen way behind on the dad front is you being punitive. To re-establish a parenting relationship between he and the kids IS much more important, whatever it takes.
To keep them from dad because he let you down in the past is punitive. To keep them from dad because he has a new girlfriend is punitive. To keep them from dad because he abandoned you is punitive. To keep them from dad because he bothers you over the phone at the doctor's office is punitive. To keep them from dad because he doesn't ask about them often enough for your liking is punitive. These are YOUR points I'm repeating. You attempt to cast them as good reasoning, but they are actually justifications for retribution.
To keep them from dad because they don't feel comfortable with him yet is not punitive, but counterproductive and controlling. To keep them from dad because he doesn't know their daily routine is counterproductive and controlling. You know he would (likely) gain comfort with them if they were there. They would (likely) establish a feasible daily routine without you. YOU would lose touch, and be out of the loop though, which is frightening.
To be opposing reducing CS (and coincidentally, a parenting schedule that might reduce CS) is questionable at best. It's actually okay for you to say "it is (in part) about the money" if indeed it is. Doesn't make you look quite so saint-like though. I guarantee I think about how my parenting plan affects my CS. I would never claim "it's not about the money" for me because in part it is. However, I don't strive to look very saint-like if you review my other posts on this board.
But the issue still remains; he's their dad, the relationship between kids and dad is failing, you KNOW that whatever you've tried so far has gotten you to this failed state, and you're digging in your heels to keep it the same, fueling your efforts by telling others how big a jerk he is.
I don't want to oversimplify. Of course it's tricky. Just, from me, I can tell you have your stories well-aligned already and have more than enough people to pat you on the back and tell you how wonderful you're being for the kids. And how you deserve so much better than your ex, and all that. I'm not worried for you on that front :) I'm trying to bring something else to the discussion for you to consider.
And if it helps you consider what I've said, fine: He's a huge jerk and you're an obviously far superior mom. There. That out of the way, now can you see my perspective?
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
Motor-AH likes to aruge for the sake of arguing and loves to twist words into whatever suits her. Almost like a game. You are wasting your time. Her experience in most comments is limited at best.
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>I'll try to be more careful with quotation marks. If I quote a previous post, AND use them around hypothetical dialog, I can see the challenge. To me, they're not THAT directive or crucial, but I'm not the reader. I thought you KNEW the position you were defending, which was best exemplified by her prior statement. Apparently, not. I also assumed you could tell when I was entering "the conversation would sound like this..." land. But okay.<<<<<
It's difficult to sort out a LOT of plain text from quotes and non-quotes. That's why I've taken to using the >>>>><<<<<< to make them stand out. Otherwise quotes get lost in the melee. Some even hit the quote button and get the [quote] code around there's, which also stands out a bit.
>>>>>"And to me it's not." Right, we don't agree on christine's motivation. So you attempted to put words in my mouth that her motivation was solely money. Not sure why...to argue Relayer in your response to me? But proper discussion happens when we respond to what other people actually say (accomplished by first reading their posts); not by mischaracterizing or changing what's been said. I'm trying to do that regarding your post right now, and consistently for christine too. <<<<<
Wasn't putting anything into your mouth. It sounded to me exactly what you were saying. She was stating that the CS had nothing to do with why she didn't want them there for summers and you said that CS was the focus of her post. Right now, your post sound smarmy and smart alec. Is that also putting words in your mouth or am I reading you right this time? As for Relayer, I can argue him person-to-person. I don't need to go through your post to do it. And frankly, I wasn't responding initially to JUST your post, but you were the last one I was reading who was lambasting the OP so I said what I did to everyone who was reading her as trying to not work with him...since I was reading it the opposite way. Proper discussion also happens when you can actually understand what the other person is going on about BTW.
>>>>>You know, I agree with you in that christine likely HAS budged in many ways on many subjects with this guy for years. But then again, who knows? But on THIS issue, she essentially said they CANNOT live with dad in the summer, because he hasn't been a good dad yet. But the ways to prove his goodness are being defined by her and not working for dad.<<<<<
Most parents though would agree with her in this instance. If a man moves off with another woman, doesn't call his kids, doesn't take the visits he HAS been given with them, turns down offers of even extra time, they are NOT being a good dad. And sending kids with him for the ENTIRE summer isn't good for the kids. I do happen to agree with her on that issue.
>>>>>While christine is ALSO saying she's offered him multiple ways for them to be with dad and that she does want that. So lets not now act like they simply can't be with him because she's apparently already offered it.<<<<<
???? Who is acting like they can't be with him? Do you mean all summer, or at all?
>>>>>And blocking it because he's disconnected with their daily life is terrible excuse making. Of course he's disconnected; he's six hours away and they aren't with him yet. This summer, they'd set up new daily life routine and then christine will be disconnected. Does it make christine bad to be disconnected? No. Wouldn't want them kept permananently by dad because of disconnection, now would we? So be fair and quit using disconnection as a reason "they can't live with him." (sorry I didn't look that quote up explicitly but I KNOW christine said something like that earlier...that's a psuedo-quote from an earlier christine1 post.)<<<<<
Who's fault is it that he lives 6 hours away? Who's fault is it that he's disconnected? Do you think he's suddenly changed and if given an entire summer, AGAINST counslor's suggestion and AGAINST the kids' desires, that he's going to suddenly be a good dad and spend that summer with them?
>>>>>I apologize for being confusing. That's not my intention. I am trying to make sense. I acknowlege that comprehension is very much due to how well I express myself.<<<<<
Agreed. It's not that I haven't read what you've stated. But I've often understood less of it than what I did read. Like above, I said you were starting to sound smarmy in the top part. Now the tone's changing. So it could simply be a communication breakdown. It doesn't mean I'm not reading it.
>>>>>However, I still don't get after suggesting much LESS than the whole summer, how I would be argued by almostheaven about the "whole" summer. It's simply misrepresenting others to argue with nonexistent positions. Because if you instead deal with the discussion accurately, your position is weakened and your logic is sketchy.<<<<<
It isn't that you are argued with about the whole summer, its the stance you, and others took, that she wasn't TRYING to compromise with him. I still disagree on that. I think she's tried compromising in various ways and he shoots them all down.
>>>>>I'm aware that apprently the only thing he said he wants is summer. And that some of us have concluded it's solely to reduce CS obligation. Doesn't change anything.
Instead of simply saying "No" christine might be able to get dad to take these already offered long weekends and the week (formerly for Christmas...it was apparently safe then, so its not more dangerous in summer right?) during the summer. He doesn't need to know their school schedule or much of anything about mom's routines then. He doesn't need to drive 6 hours for a 1 day visit. Couple it with the CS break he wants, remember money doesn't matter, and things really might happen. Things that would be good for the kids and dad, and apparently what christine WANTS.<<<<<
The difference in summer is that he wants it ALL. That's a LOT more than a week or two at a time. And it is NOT healthy for the kids when he hasn't been around all this time.
>>>>>I just don't like claims that aren't backed up by corresponding actions. Just don't make the claims in the first place and there is no hypocrisy.
As for the psyche consult, why offer Christmas and extended weekends if pyche was against kids being with dad? If he got TWO psyche consults that said there are benefits to being with his kids, would that trump your psychologist? He could you know. <<<<<
I do believe its clear that they are against the kids being with dad for MONTHS rather than WEEKS. And I agree with that stance.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
It speaketh! Out of your drug induced haze long enough to form a coherent sentence today?
--------------------
Char Fox
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Hi,
First of all the Psychologist is not saying they should never be with their father - He is saying that their father has to build a relationship with them, so that they are comfortable with him. Hence the long weekends etc. If he were to develop a regular schedule and stick to it, it would benefit the children.
In 2006 he saw his children 3 times
In 2007 he saw his children 6 times
In 2008 he saw his children on two occassions for 2 hours each, even though he was in the area for the whole weekend.
I really don't know what to say - Motorboat, I am not looking for a pat on the shoulder, I am looking to do what is best for my children. I don't believe you are the one who held my son while he cried himself to sleep for the first year or when he had temper tantrums (hence the psychologist) - He is very angry at his dad and justifiably so. Basically their father abandoned them! I am over what he did to me because I realize now it is the best thing that ever happened to me. However, my children do not deserve that treatment.
I am not the vengeful ex wife believe me. I believe things happen for a reason and I also have God in my life. Whom I ask all the time to assist me.
Have a nice day all.
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
[quote] It sounded to me exactly what you were saying. [/quote] I don't know how many other motivations I can honestly bring to the discussion (fear, control, punitiveness, shorter periods of time) without you noticing.
"Smarmy" as in unctious, ingratiating, excessively flattering? Nope. Do you know the definitions of the words you use?
"Smart alec" kind of. I do get sarcastic with people who mischaracterize others intentionally, toss pejoratives without knowing meaning, and pass responsibility for their own reading off on writers. But really, I'm aware that the more straightforward I can be, the better things go, so I'll keep it dry.
[quote] If a man moves off with another woman, doesn't call his kids, doesn't take the visits he HAS been given with them, turns down offers of even extra time, they are NOT being a good dad. [/quote] Agreed. I'm opposing the subsequent leap to "...so therefore no summers!"
[quote] And sending kids with him for the ENTIRE summer isn't good for the kids. [/quote] Maybe, maybe not. Probably you're right, I bet. However all we really have to go on is unavoidably biased/agenda-driven posts from his ex AND a reported pyschologist recommendation. I'm confident that if HE were here, his posts would paint an utterly different pic (and be just as biased/agenda-driven). And I KNOW it's trivial to get a psychologist recommend toward the benefits of the kids being with dad. So, you know, grain of salt.
I suppose if christine was talking about a series of counter proposals to the WHOLE summer that he's already rejected, I'd see your point. To me, it sounds like he's fallen down on the existing schedule, has made one threat/proposal (summers) and that's it. I don't give credit for extensive compromising on christine's part regarding summers if it hasn't happened. Sticking by the existing agreement is NOT a compromise. Compromising last year on something else earns you no points for compromising this year regarding summers.
[quote] It doesn't mean I'm not reading it. [/quote] But you said you weren't bothering to read through it... ?
I do know that 12 weeks is more than 6 which is more than 2. I don't know how else to explain that I'm not arguing for 12 weeks (or necessarily 6 or 2). To paraphrase what I'm saying: "Look at this as an opportunity not a standoff...go back to the table because he seems to be motivated, probably by money, for summertime. Work up to anything more than 0 during the timeframe he supports using the motivation that moves him. Rather than 'winning' by forcing the old schedule that failed. Don't focus on getting yet another 'win' over the 'bad' father (at the expense of the kid/dad relationship)."
[quote] They are against the kids being with dad for MONTHS rather than WEEKS... [/quote] And digging in to keep it as is (which resulted in LESS than WEEKS). Rather, they all SHOULD be finding ways to work towards MONTHS, not WEEKS (or less) with dad. Really. But self-righteousness might prevail over the best interests of the children.
The other common breakdown of reason this represents is he is exactly the same guy that you say would be "good" if he hadn't moved out for the new girlfriend, or if he called more. But really, he's no more awful (or good) for the kids now than ever.
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>First of all the Psychologist is not saying they should never be with their father - He is saying that their father has to build a relationship with them, so that they are comfortable with him.<<<<<
I agree with the psych here. I would not/could not toss a child in with someone they are uncomfortable with for a period as long as a full summer. Even 3 or 4 weeks would be stretching it. A week or two to start with sounds good. And IF he's truly interested in now being a dad, that will show and the kids will grow more comfortable being there and they'll WANT to spend a summer with him, and you'll know he wants them there for all the right reasons as well.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>"Smarmy" as in unctious, ingratiating, excessively flattering? Nope. Do you know the definitions of the words you use?<<<<<
See, now you sound "smarmy" again, and yup, I can use a dictionary. I gradiated 6th grade ya know. Smarmy as in:
1 : revealing or marked by a *****smug***** (greatly so), *****ingratiating***** (precisely), or false earnestness <a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction — New Yorker>
2 : of low sleazy taste or quality
>>>>>"Smart alec" kind of. I do get sarcastic with people who mischaracterize others intentionally, toss pejoratives without knowing meaning, and pass responsibility for their own reading off on writers. But really, I'm aware that the more straightforward I can be, the better things go, so I'll keep it dry.<<<<<
I'm the opposite. I tend to get smart alec with people who claim to know what other people are up to when they don't have a clue. You may BELIEVE any mischaracterization is intentional, but the problem here...you don't know me at all. You may THINK your writing is wonderful. But being as you pick a completely off the wall definition of smarmy, I have to really wonder.
>>>>>I'm opposing the subsequent leap to "...so therefore no summers!"<<<<<
And you think that's good for the kids? Against their therapists trained suggestions and against the kids wishes, you really think its best to dump them for an entire summer into that uncomfortable of a situation with someone who's shown so little care for them? You don't think starting out smaller is best for them? Or is it more concern for this poor downtrodden dad than it is for the innocent children you're showing?
>>>>>But you said you weren't bothering to read through it... ?<<<<<
If there are parts I don't read, they are parts I don't respond to. I don't generally take to book writing.
>>>>> I don't know how else to explain that I'm not arguing for 12 weeks (or necessarily 6 or 2).<<<<<
Well considering your statement above this, the one that said "I'm opposing the subsequent leap to "...so therefore no summers!""...it appears you ARE arguing for 12 weeks. You say "summers", as in the full summer, not a portion thereof. Then you'll state you're not arguing for that. And you claim I'm "intentionally" mischarcterizing?
>>>>>Look at this as an opportunity not a standoff...go back to the table because he seems to be motivated, probably by money, for summertime. Work up to anything more than 0 during the timeframe he supports using the motivation that moves him. Rather than 'winning' by forcing the old schedule that failed. <<<<<
I'm not opposed to that, and I somehow don't feel like Christine is either. However, I DO believe dad will be opposed to it. From what he's turned down so far and what's been said about his move, the OW, etc., I get the impression that dad isn't going to go for anything LESS than all summer, or a reduction in support.
>>>>>And digging in to keep it as is (which resulted in LESS than WEEKS). Rather, they all SHOULD be finding ways to work towards MONTHS, not WEEKS (or less) with dad. Really. But self-righteousness might prevail over the best interests of the children.<<<<<
Really? Who wanted to keep it like that. Christine offered WEEKS, and stated specifically that she wanted to work up to more.
>>>>>The other common breakdown of reason this represents is he is exactly the same guy that you say would be "good" if he hadn't moved out for the new girlfriend, or if he called more. But really, he's no more awful (or good) for the kids now than ever.<<<<<
I guess you'll have to translate that last paragraph for me. I'm probably intentionally not comprehending it. But as for being good, unless he's abusive to the kids, he'd certainly be a better father being there than taking off and not bothering to try and keep in contact with them. You disagree with that?
--------------------
Char Fox
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
"Smug" as in confident in my correctness? (def 1 Random House. Fits better than def 2: trim; spruce; smooth; sleek.) Guilty as charged. I think I'm correct. So do you. Big deal. When two people disagree, it's pointless for one to accuse the other of smugness; both think they're right.
And sorry, you really don't know what "ingratiating" means. I'm really not trying to be "charming; agreeable; pleasing." Or deliberately meaning to gain favor with my manners. I'm just trying to make sense. But that ain't "ingratiating."
And you know, disagreeing with you makes NOBODY "of low sleazy taste or quality," wherever you got that. (The New Yorker -- really? In what, a cartoon panel?). Neither does disagreeing with me. I don't think you nor christine is sleazy to have said what you have said.
"Off the wall" = the first one that comes up from dictionary.com. (Again, random house unabridged.) Keep trying, but you're striking out on the lexicon battlefront. I'm not making up what words mean; you are.
But enough of dictionary fun time.
You MIGHT have mischaracterized me unintentionally, sure. If so, your stance could/should be: "That was unintentional" and back off. But to defend your characterizations now proves them intentional.
Rather, beter to go with the "I wasn't replying to you, rather the whole thread" excuse which at least makes some sense, even if coupled with your admission that you didn't read the whole thread.
Sure "So therefore no summers" can be interpretted as me switching positions and proposing full summers all of a sudden. That was unintentional. I was thinking "So therefore no time in the summers." I assumed my support of compromise for less than full summers was understood by now.
[quote] you really think its best to dump them for an entire summer into that uncomfortable of a situation with someone who's shown so little care for them? You don't think starting out smaller is best for them? [/quote] No, I don't think that; I think like you and christine here. And I have consistently. And I've tried to correct anything that could (through semantic hair-splitting) be misinterpretted differently.
[quote] Or is it more concern for this poor downtrodden dad than it is for the innocent children you're showing?[/quote] I don't think I've felt or expressed that dad is poor or downtrodden yet at all. The only thing about dad I've said is that he should be doing much more than he has done, that he's way behind, he's likely motivated by money, and that he's likely going to back out anyways. Not exactly identification and sympathy. (Sorry, don't come knocking if you want sympathy for divorced/divorcing adults...that's not my specialty.)
However I do have sympathy for kids. They are distant from dad, and will likely be sad about it "for the rest of their lives" as I've said. And using that distance to continue to keep them apart from dad starts a sort of viscious cycle that spirals into no contact.
[quote] I get the impression that dad isn't going to go for anything LESS than all summer, or a reduction in support.
[/quote] Maybe. Probably right, I bet. But dad's not reading this now is he? The only discussion I'm interested in is with christine about whether SHE wants to go to court to win and refuse to compromise, or compromise. Whether SHE wants to at least broach the topic of working up to partial summers rather than go to court to refuse. Whether SHE wants to offer some CS money to a jerk in the hopes that her kids MIGHT bond during this time and thus lead happier lives, even if it hits her pocketbook now. (She did say that money was not an issue...so I thought that might be a feasible idea. But apparently she cannot affort any CS reduction at all, so be it.)
You know I actually do think christine wants to work up to more. But going to court to NOT do so is simply contrary to that.
Yeah, that last paragraph of mine was pretty half-assed now that I reread it. My point is: He's no worse for the kids now than before he moved and got his new girlfriend. So why was that added to the discussion? To justify no compromise with dad. But it doesn't belong here. The kid/dad relationship shouldn't face punishment for his divorce/girlfriend choice.
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
[quote But it doesn't belong here. The kid/dad relationship shouldn't face punishment for his divorce/girlfriend choice. [/quote]
It usually does though.
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
[quote] First of all the Psychologist is not saying they should never be with their father - He is saying that their father has to build a relationship with them, so that they are comfortable with him. Hence the long weekends etc. If he were to develop a regular schedule and stick to it, it would benefit the children.
[/quote] So what are you doing to accomplish this? Since sticking by the existing plan has resulted in 4 hours. I KNOW you can stick by your guns, look like the better parent, but you (and he) are on a path to killing the relationship. I KNOW it's much more his responsibility than yours. Still, you have a choice between doing nothing new (in fact, going to court to defend this choice)...or change. Why not change?
[quote] I am looking to do what is best for my children [/quote] I believe you.
[quote] I don't believe you are the one who held my son while he cried himself to sleep for the first year or when he had temper tantrums [/quote] I can corroborate that. I wasn't there. So, why bring this up? I'm NOT worried about your parenting at all. Rather, it sounds like a way to supply an example of "goodness" on your part to garner support and justify your actions.
[quote] He is very angry at his dad and justifiably so. Basically their father abandoned them! [/quote] The most direct path to getting over the abandonment would be to go live with dad for a while. I know it's scary; I know you probably need proof of concept before signing up for a full 3-month tour for the kiddos. Still, given the latest info from your ex and your psych's advice, what ARE you doing that improves things rather than fighting to keep things the same?
[quote] However, my children do not deserve that treatment.
[/quote] Assuming you mean abandonment by "that treatment" living with him for a while is the opposite of abandonment. You COULD allow this dragon to be slayed in that manner.
[quote] I am not the vengeful ex wife believe me. [/quote] I believe you, to a point. You do seem well-meaning and you've done much more than your share to date. And, you seem kind and sweet. Still, sweet, well-meaning, giving, supportive parents (either gender) sometimes can abuse the power their goodness affords them. And not even realize it; after all, people continually pat you on the back AND spit invectives at your ex as long as things stay the same. How could that be wrong, when it feels so right?
|
momtoall
journeyman
Reged: 06/11/07
Posts: 88
|
|
My DH and I live 4 1/2 hours away from his children, now just daughter as son lives with us but for the last 10 years we would meet 1/2 way on Friday and 1/2 way on Sunday. So we would drive just over 2 hours to pick up his kids. And it was at least 100 every weekend we had them just for transportation and meals as pick up was at 6 and drop off at 5:30 and we ended up feeding kids both ways. But we were there every scheduled visitation! No matter the weather, health, job or what we managed to be there. We met once every 4 weekends! So that meant some months we'd go two times! But we were there to maintain a relationship with those kids! We'd call every sunday night and if no one was home we left a message and called the next night. When they got a computer we got [censored] messenger to instant message with them! There is no reason distance should keep a father from being a father....IF HE WANTS TO BE A FATHER!
The only problem we had was getting bio mom to adhere to visitation schedule if holdiday's happened to force back to back weekends. We'd end up giving up a weekend to please her but then when it came time for makeup weekends when she'd need to trade for any reason sometimes we'd be stuck with back to backs and so we could easily drop 300 - 350 in costs just to get them here and home again....but we did it all the while shelling out over 800 a month to mom in CS. It was tight but we did it cause they were his kids and nothing was going to get in the way of visits! It's all in priorities!
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>So do you. Big deal. When two people disagree, it's pointless for one to accuse the other of smugness; both think they're right.<<<<<
The smugness had nothing to do with the disagreeing but with the tone of the post. You can disagree with people without trying to act superior.
>>>>>And sorry, you really don't know what "ingratiating" means. I'm really not trying to be "charming; agreeable; pleasing." Or deliberately meaning to gain favor with my manners. I'm just trying to make sense. But that ain't "ingratiating."<<<<<
Sorry to you, but I absolutely DO know what ingratiating means. If all you want to do is claim I'm stupid and you're smart, go for it. It'll get you nowhere in the conversation and simply degrade it further as its started doing already. Continue being "smarmy" AND "ingratiating"...does it gain you something?
>>>>>And you know, disagreeing with you makes NOBODY "of low sleazy taste or quality," wherever you got that.<<<<<
I got that from Websters...as if you didn't realize. That's why it was in definition form, cut and pasted.
>>>>>"Off the wall" = the first one that comes up from dictionary.com. (Again, random house unabridged.) Keep trying, but you're striking out on the lexicon battlefront. I'm not making up what words mean; you are.<<<<<
Sorry, I prefer Websters. I don't make words up, I look them up. I just use a more widely known dictionary.
>>>>>You MIGHT have mischaracterized me unintentionally, sure. If so, your stance could/should be: "That was unintentional" and back off. But to defend your characterizations now proves them intentional. <<<<<
No YOU claimed it was intentional. I specifically stated that it wasn't and so you use THAT as your basis to further state its intentional. At this point, you're pretty well wanting nothing BUT an argument, so any further reading of your assinine shyt is pointless and I won't continue. Have fun in your little corner of the I-know-it-all world.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Okay I will not try to act superior.
What do you think ingratiating means?
And, though this is likely going to sound superior (but I really think its not), it is a little dictionary secret that "Webster's" is used by a variety of dictionary publishers; it is by no means a "widely known dictionary" rather a noncopyrighted nonprotected moniker used to fool buyers/readers into thinking they have a more definitive dictionary because they've heard of "Webster's". However, you might mean Merriam-Webster, where it originated.
I didn't say christine was solely about money, though. You brought that up. You said you were defending her against my accusations that it was only about money. But I never made them. So why defend your statement, when your other excuse (you weren't talking to me) makes more sense?
And I think you have a smug tone in your last paragraph.
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
No my last paragraph was basically saying I'm done. Its not smug, but irritated. I came in to say that some people were being harsh in making judgment calls that they didn't think the OP was trying to compromise, that it was all about money that she was fighting full summers...that it sounded to ME as if she HAD been compromising over and over again.
You've turned it into some kind of battle ground of dictionary definitions, who's smarter than who, and every other twist imaginable to draw it further and further away. And I don't have time for it.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
I hope you do continue to respond, or PM, because I'm interested in where you're coming from or what I can do to improve my writing to effectively communicate. I've both altered my use of quotation marks and made a concerted effort to change tone to get better at this...thanks to feedback from you.
From you I a number of "smug" items, interspersed with pleas to not be treated smugly. Eg "Ummm, what part about he didn't WANT long weekends hasn't occured to you?" "Have fun in your little corner of the I-know-it-all world." Also derogatory criticisms such as "sleazy" or "assinine shyt." It's not so bad, it's just that you're asking for kid-glove treatment while not giving it. You are here opposing harshness and judgement calls, but that's what you're doing too.
Not to mention, justifying denying kids living with dad with some iffy reasoning. Dad doesn't sound like a picnic, admittedly. But for whatever reason, he's now saying he wants more time with the kids. Opposition justified in part because he left his wife, got a girlfriend, lives hours away, doesn't know school schedules, and doesn't phone often enough, and doesn't ask the right questions when he does phone. None of that hurts kids when with him in the summer!
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Motorboat,
It does hurt the kids to be thrown into a situation with a person they hardly know for the whole summer - If he interacted with them on a regular basis like phone calls, visits, it would be a different story.
For the record he no longer wants them for the summer - Admitted it was a ploy to get me to drop the DOR and erase his arrears (which I did not). The only person he is thinking about and has been for a very long time is his kids! His priorities should be his children above all else.
I know I cannot make him into the father I think he should be but something would be better than nothing@
Christine
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Well, that's too bad for the kiddos (but not unexpected, right?)
Again, I do distinguish between a little time (in fact, specifically exactly the time amount you've already offered) to see how it goes vs throwing them elsewhere for the whole summer.
But sure, I'm all for improved phone calls and visits too. I'd work the phone call front, the visitation front, the CS front, the three day weekend front, the holiday week front, the summer fron, and any others that might resonate with this guy.
|
christine1
addict
Reged: 04/21/08
Posts: 439
Loc: Ma
|
|
Oops I meant to say the only person he has been thinking about is himself not his kids! Wishful thinking I guess.
Thanks,
Christine
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>It's not so bad, it's just that you're asking for kid-glove treatment while not giving it.<<<<<
No, I made it plain and clear that I was done with trying to discuss something you obviously weren't willing to discuss without the sidelining, such as...
>>>>>Not to mention, justifying denying kids living with dad with some iffy reasoning.<<<<<
Not even CLOSE to ANYTHING I have said. So to claim that it is means you're just spinning to cause an argument and not interested in the discussion. That is why I'm no longer even bothering with it.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
