Jane's Posts

Aug 26 1998

... After all, if things don't work I lose my stepson anyway, so the relationship with my husband is pretty crucial to that.

My ex's first SO after we split up was a BM's dream. If she had any issues with me personally, she kept them to herself. The ex and I were having a lot of trouble with visitation (because he was being a total jerk), which she just smoothed over. For example, whereas he would call me and say, "Look, something came up, I have to take Lee tomorrow instead of today," she would call and say, "Gee, Jane, I'm really sorry, but something came up, do you think there is any way we could switch tomorrow for today?" Her acknowledgment that she might be inconveniencing me made all the difference in the world.

Besides that, she really loved my kid. She spent a lot more time with her than the ex did, too.

Anyway, she and my ex split up four or five years ago, but she maintains a relationship with my daughter. Since the ex and I are live on opposite coasts now, she gets one to two days visitation three times a year. This comes out of "his" time. It's not a lot, but along with cards, letters, and telephone calls it is sufficient for them to stay close.

It fascinates me that this arrangement is fine with everyone. It may be the only aspect of visitation that causes no tension between the ex and me. He makes all east coast arrangements. I remind my daughter to call her periodically. We all seem to get along fine with her husband and SKs. If there is any tension with the current SO, it never comes through to my daughter or to me. The only hint of it I have ever seen is that the current and former SOs do seem to try to out shop each other while my daughter is back east. Hell, I can live with that.

I'm rambling here. My point is that you don't have to lose the kid.

jane

Aug 25 1998

This isn't a survey, I have just been wondering lately about the availability and use of mediation in divorce and step-family disputes.

When I first read this I thought it said "medication." LOL I was sitting here thinking, "Well, prozac could be helpful if you were depressed, but....."

I was probably thinking about all the BPD stuff that SSM's post brought up. BPD is a good example of what I find problematic with mediation. Where there is a history of domestic violence, intimidation, abuse, or mental illness in the marriage, that carries over into the mediation. The party who is accustomed to submitting to unfair demands will continue to do so. The abusive or irrational party will continue to be so. In situations like that, you need lawyers to advocate, defend and buffer. Mediators can't do those things and remain objective.

In my limited experience, mediation requires that the parties act rationally and want to resolve the conflict. Unfortunately, everyone is crazy during a divorce. Many people do not want to settle their affairs without acrimony, they want to yell, scream, and pummel the STBX into admitting that the divorce is all his or her fault. It's the last best chance to get in your parting shots. Now if the parties have already gotten over that stage, mediation can be wonderful.

Also, I frequently find some sort of mediation helpful in dealing with my ex over visitation. Basically, we get along fine, but we can still push each other's buttons. Once we get going, we polarize. The solution to our disagreement is sitting right there, not very far off from either of our positions. But we need a neutral party to suggest it. Otherwise, it becomes the other person's idea and inherently unreasonable. Is this making sense?

jane

Aug 25 1998

How do you suggest to the CP that you think she should do something about her son's religious education?

Don't do it. Don't even think it. If BM wanted to know what you thought she should do about anything, she would ask. She's being resistant about the journal, the email, and the quizzing already. The very last thing you should do right now is bring up something else you think SHE should do in HER home.

Even if the situation were different, I would still think that you should handle SS's lack of religious education by dragging DH out of bed and going to church as a family. You can familiarize SS with Jesus and christian tradition in YOUR home.

I have to tag two quick answers to your other posts in here:

I agree with what northrwmn said about your SS's situation. I would also try to feel out his step-father on the issue this weekend.

Also, how did his hair get to be bright orange? (not criticizing, my 11 yo's recognition award this year was for most creative hair)

jane

Aug 26 1998

PS...Your hair and mine would look smashing together....I just hennaed it bright red!

Just before Mother's Day the two girls and I dyed our hair. I was a bonding thing, you had to be there. It was supposed to last 4 to 6 weeks. The girls were purple and black, and I was green. They went swimming the next day, and all the color washed out. Guess who's still got sea green strands running through her hair.

jane

Aug 24 1998

[snip prior posts]

Wow. Thanks, I needed that. I'm not at all sure how best to deal with this situation. Every time we talk with the boys' therapist, she gives us good ideas about setting boundaries (which BPDs have trouble with), but somehow our resolve often fades in the face of her agressive postures and anger.

Thanks for letting me vent here. It helps, and keeps some of the pressure off my husband (who *is* a saint).
SSM

Generally, I hate looking up the symptoms of a medical/mental health problem, because once I do, I am always sure I have it. Your posts made me curious, though. I hear about BPD frequently, but I never understood what it was.

The good news is: I definitely don't have it. (For once, I can't even think of anyone I know who has it).

The bad news is: It's sounds like hell. I found a story at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1996/story.htm that just appalled me.

I had no idea that any of this existed. Since you have been dealing with BM for years, you probably already know the symptoms of BPD: a shaky sense of identity; sudden violent outbursts; over sensitivity to real or imagined rejection; brief, turbulent love affairs; frequent periods of intense depression; eating disorders, drug abuse, and other self-destructive tendencies; and an irrational fear of abandonment and an inability to be alone.

I guess that anything that relates to you guys having custody triggers all her problems with identity, rejection, andinability to be alone. Then, if she's forced to face the fact that she is not the custodial parent (e.g. by your address on the luggage tag), that triggers all the violent rage, depression, and self-destructive behavior. No wonder you're having a hard time dealing with her!

Frankly, SSM, I don't know what the hell you should do. I noticed a lot of people who are involved with BPD sufferers say they feel like they are "walking on eggshells" all the time. There seem to be email support groups out there for people in your situation, though. http://members.aol.com/BPDCentral/cyber_resource.html lists some. I also found these NGs: alt.psychology.personality; alt.support.personality; and sci.psychology.personality. Maybe other people who deal with this can tell you what does and doesn't work for them.

Good Luck.

jane

BTW, I found these web sites useful:

BPD Central http://members.aol.com/BPDCentral/index.html (this site is hawking a book but it has useful info about resources)
http://www.cmhcsys.com/guide/person.htm
http://www.medhelp.org
http://www.nami.org/helpline/borderline.htm
http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.borderline.html
http://www.toddlertime.com/article.htm (i really found this article interesting)

Aug 20 1998

Background: I live with my girlfriend and her 6.5 year old daughter, have done so for 2.5 years.

Last night, we made a deal with the kid, that if she went the grocery and was good, we would get ice cream at the local parlor when she and her mom returned. I did not go with them to the grocery.

When they returned, we packed away the groceries, loaded up, and headed to the parlor. On the way, I asked, "How was the grocery store?" "Stressful!", replied my SO. "Then why are we going to get Ice Cream? Sarah, we're you good?", I retorted. "No", the kid said defiantly. At that point I said that we cannot get ice cream, and we returned to the house.

This morning, I looked on the table, and there sat a small bowl with Ice cream residue. The child received Ice cream from her mother, even though the child was not good???

So, now I look like the mean boyfriend!!!

I am not the child's parent, but it appears that I'm the only one who is going to enforce any rules with the child, but I don't feel that that is my entire duty.

Please Advise.

I do not see this situation as other posters have. I don't see how SO's decision to buy her daughter ice cream later that evening has anything to do with you.

You all agreed that if the child did not behave well at the store, then she would not go to the ice cream parlor on the way home. She didn't, you didn't. No one's authority was undermined.

What happened later is a separate event. Apparently, SO was alone with the child and decided that ice cream was appropriate then. Without further information, this sounds like a perfectly reasonable decision to me. No one agreed that there would be no more ice cream for life. It doesn't sound like the child went to the ice cream parlor at all.

I don't know where you were during all SO's interaction with the child. However, since you were not present, you sound like you are trying to run the household by remote control. Since you discuss only this one incident, I don't see why you doubt SO's judgment. She witnessed/endured the grocery store behavior. Why don't you trust her to decide how long the ice cream embargo should last? In my experience (and I once grounded my children for a month), the immediacy of a consequence is more important in disciplining young children than its duration is.

As you said, you are not this child's parent. So you have to consider the question: Who are you to be making decisions and enforcing rules at all? People on this board can't tell you what your role is. You have to work this out with SO. If you two decide that you will be a parental figure and that you will participate in parenting decisions and discipline, then set the ground rules and hammer out the details as a couple. Take a parenting class together, if possible. OTOH, maybe SO does not want your help or input in parenting her child. Either way, this sounds like a good time to figure out together what everyone's duties, rights, and responsibilities are.

jane

Aug 22 1998

I do not see this situation as other posters have. I don't see how SO's decision to buy her daughter ice cream later that evening has anything to do with you.

I have to disagree with you here. Steve wrote

Last night, we made a deal with the kid, that if she went the grocery and was good, we would get ice cream at the local parlor when she and her mom returned. I did not go with them to the grocery.

It certainly sounds like they made the decision together about the ice cream trip. Even if Steve wasn't at the grocery store, the decision had already been made by both parents.

Secondly, Sarah knew she had misbehaved and she was playing one parent off against the other.

Steve did what he felt was necessary as a parent.(He is one!) Perhaps it would have been better to confront the mother after the fact but then Sarah would have succeeded in her goal.

I still don't see why their decision after the grocery store has anything to do with what happened later that night. A trip to the ice cream parlor as a reward during an outing is not the same as a dish of ice cream at the kitchen table before bed. As I said before, no one agreed that there would be no ice cream for life.

Steve is not a parent. I do not imply that no SO can assume parenting responsibilities. Steve said, "I am not the child's parent,..." I figure he knows.

jane

Aug 20 1998

Once again I will explain what I meant by emotional abuse and our intentions...it seems that things keep getting "read into" what I intially posted.

Don't get defensive. I am not trying to criticize you here. I think people are reading their own situations into yours because they don't have enough hard facts. Since none of us know the players personally, we are at a disadvantage.

I still don't feel like I have a clear idea of what "emotional abuse" is going on. When I read your version of other people said, I could go either way. SD could be a real brute. OTOH, Dean could be right: kids can feel that you are abusing them when you tell them to pick up after themselves. Some days I feel that the only interaction I have with my kids is telling them to do something or to stop doing something.

The examples you give just aren't concrete enough. The name-calling, criticizing, "nothing he ever does is right" stuff is just too vague and subjective for me to gauge. It could be, "you'll never amount to anything, you worthless little shit," or "i'm not going to listen to anymore back talk out of your fresh mouth, now go wait in the car." Also, I can't see the child or DH's mother and brother as objective and disinterested witnesses. And I can't tell if there is a pervasive dislike of SF that influences the adults' perception.

Regarding the stereo situation, I have no problem whatsoever imagining a variety of situations in which I would ground my children from using their stereos: bad grades, volume level, inappropriate choice of music, etc. This just sounds like a valid parental choice that a kid might use to manipulate you. Then, I can't help thinking, "Well, if that's the worst he can come up with, things don't sound so bad."

Also, breaking in a new step-parent can be stressful for both children and adults. You don't want to make the situation harder by giving SS the idea that if things aren't automatically perfect, he can just leave.

You say that in general BM takes "excellent care" of SS. That would make me inclined to trust her to deal with this situation. I think you should talk to her directly. If nothing else, she deserves/needs to know that SS is expressing these concerns. Also, you don't want her to hear about it when SS bursts out, "I hate you! I'm leaving. Dad says I can come live with him." Tell her that you are a little worried about some things SS has been saying. Ask her what she thinks the situation is, how she would like you to handle it, and if there is anything you can do to make this all easier for SS. If you approach her with a cooperative, non-accusatory, non-threatening manner, then maybe you can work together as a team.

Good luck.

jane

Aug 20 1998

[snip]

My fiancee and her 3 daughters (ages 3, 12 and 13) recently uprooted from another city and moved down to Atlanta into my house.

[snip]

The situation is this:

Mom really dotes on the youngest daughter who is a sweet girl, but very spoiled. On the other hand, Mom tends to be very abrubt and impatient with the older 2. Both girls are incredibly helpful around the house, polite and very sweet. But lately they've both been crying on my shoulder and making comments like: "Mom always puts us down", "Mom's never affectionate with us", "I wish Mom Knew how much I love her", and "Why does A(the youngest daughter) get all of Mom's attention?"

These are 2 girls approaching some of the most difficult years of a child's life and they feel totally alone. They feel more comfortable talking to Mom's sister, or even me, about important stuff. If I were hearing this in a vacuum, I'd write some of it off to teen angst, but I have observed it in action. Mom, who tends to be affectionate towards me and little daughter, very rarely shows any towards the older 2. Whenever I've delicately tried to bring this up, she says that she worked so much when they were young, that she never got to "watch them grow" like she has with youngest daughter. If this means she doesn't feel close to them, then I'm really concerned. She's very tough on them - and whiole they know she loves them - she seems to have little patience for their problems or issues. They don't feel they can talk to her about anything important. This really concerns me also.

I've been spending alot of time with them (taking them to movies, etc), trying to let them know that I do care about them (and I do, alot) and that I'll always be there for them. It helps, I'm sure - but I really think Mom needs to make an effort to be their friend. Not that I have any direct or indirect experience in this area, but I've got to believe that these girls need their Mother's guidance at this time in their lives - and that if she keeps pushing them away through her impatience, they could make some really bad decisions.

My question is:

How do I approach this? Should I? Mom has acknowledged her desire for the 2 of us to work as a team when it comes to the kids, but am I stepping over the line if I'm questioning her parenting? My main concern is for the kids, but I can be a friend, and even potentially a father (we've tentatively discussed adoption) - but I can't replace what they need from their Mom.

Thanks for listening.

Tough situation. If you read this NG at all, tho, you'll see that you are not so alone. A major step parent problem is dealing with what we perceive to be the bioparents' parenting mistakes and weaknesses.

If I were you, I would go slowly. Keep in mind that SO is going through an extremely stressful period and might be far more irritable than usual. She's trying to adjust to a new house, a new city, (a new job?), and a new person in her living situation. With her history with men, the commitment to you must cause some doubt and anxiety. She probably really doesn't have a lot of time for the older girls' issues.

Don't be too quick to label a 3 yo "spoiled," either. If you have never had one, then you really can't judge. They are not little adults. They need (and demand) a lot of attention.

This isn't very helpful, is it? All I can tell you is what would help me if I were your SO. If I had two preteens that I did not have time for, then I would adore the man who helped me steal some time alone with them. I would love to be able to spend a day getting back in touch with them without worrying about the 3 yo, the house, the job, etc. Even an afternoon would be grand. Actually, time alone with each of them would probably be even better.

Also, if you haven't already, find a sitter for the little one. Sometimes it is hard when you are from out of town.

jane

Aug 19 1998

[on the improper use of 'only']

But when someone says, "The building only has two floors," everyone understands what the person means, and their is no actual ambiguity. So, what would be the point of everyone remembering and employing some rule that you made up?

If the meaning were clear with either construction, then the language could move from one to the other without loss of anything but tradition. You have to admit, though, that there is a problem with the two sentences you did not include in your response. I cannot tell from reading them what meaning the writer intends.

Consider, "She only planted petunias in her garden this year." If general usage is to place the "only" wherever the author likes, then this sentence could mean:

- She planted the petunias in her garden, then ignored them.

- Once she planted the petunias, she did nothing else in her garden.

- She spent the entire year planting petunias in her garden.

- She planted nothing but petunias.

- This is the first year she planted petunias.

- She put petunias in the garden, but not the window boxes, this year.

When I read a sentence like this, my mind automatically processes "only" with the word following it. Since this meaning seems unlikely, I try combining "only" with "planted petunias", "in the garden," etc. In many cases, I could figure out the intended meaning of the sentence from the context. However, by the time I do, I'm pissed. I resent the writer for making me do his/her work. If I have to waste much of my time figuring out what writers did not spend their time making clear, then I just won't buy their books, read their columns, use their products, etc.

Even worse, I could easily walk away from the "petunia" sentence thinking that the subject is the most dedicated petunia gardener in the world, when in fact, she spent five minutes sticking a six-pack from Von's in her garden.

jane

Aug 18 1998

My DH's ex is coming to visit at the end of this month. And she's staying with my in-laws.

[snip]

I can deal with her being a part of our lives. I go for months on end...even years on end...being very nice and friendly and even visit sometimes. I just can't deal with her being a part of my in-laws' lives!

[snip]

Why do they have to stay in my in-laws' home and how do I deal with it???
lil

Your wedding story made me laugh.

I hope the vent made you feel better. You'll do fine, you know.

I've been through this situation from all different perspectives. My ex had 16 siblings. Some would not accept me because of their allegiance to his first wife. Some cut me dead when I left him. Some insist on bad-mouthing his SO to me. I went to a wedding where some of the groom's family made it clear that they wished he were marrying my sister. In-laws can be assholes.

It is completely within your power to make this visit tolerable. Force yourself to let go of the "they like her better" thing. They may, but who cares? Lots of people (e.g. DH) like you better. Sure, it would be easier to spend the weekend with those people. Since you are feeling vulnerable, line up a few friends for moral support. Keep someone on call at all times. If necessary, ask your best friend to change her answering machine message to, "You are a wonderful person. You are a wonderful wife. You are a wonderful mother," so that you can get a fix whenever you need it.

Point your mind toward your positive feelings for BM. Sure she can drive you nuts, but you also have sympathy and respect for her. She deserves a break, too. If you throw yourself into making this a nice visit for her, it will be easier for you. Just rise above the stupid things the IL's say and do. Keep in mind that they had a real relationship with this woman that had nothing to do you. Things didn't work out, but they probably want to remember the "glory days" of hope and promise. And keep in mind that things while this may be the ex's day in the sun, the IL's have had their bad days with her, too.

Do whatever you can to make this tolerable. Brainstorm with DH. Explain exactly how you feel. Make sure you have a hair cut and pedicure before they come. There is no reason why you or DH have to spend more than a few hours at your IL's. BIL can visit you at your house too. Can you plan a cookout or dinner at your house one of the days? It might help to be on your own turf. Bond up a storm with the IL's ahead of time. If you work with them preparing for the visit, then maybe you won't feel so left out while she is here.

You know, if it gets to you, you can run back here and vent every half hour or so. You can do this.

Aug 22 1998

[snip]

However, I would like to add that the "past" does need to remember that it *is* a past and his/her place in the scheme of things has changed, however slightly. He/she is technically no longer a member of the family and should not expect to be considered such. It's wonderful if they can maintain a friendly relationship, but not all family members will necessarily see it that way--the new spouse in particular. No matter how open minded a person is (since I pride myself on being extremely open minded), there is bound to be at least a hint of uneasiness.


Right, but there is always some uneasiness. New spouses often would like to magically erase the ex from the face of the earth. Many of us wish that the first marriage had never happened. In the beginning, there is a tendency for the new mate to want to blame all the problems of that earlier marriage on the ex. Once you live with your mate for a while, I think you get a little more insight into what drove the ex nuts in the first place.

By your post, you sound like your feelings were that the new spouse should just accept that you have the position in the family you always had and she and your ex should accept it or stay away.

This wasn't the impression I got, Lil. She still has a position in the family, but it has changed, at least in relation to one member. It's unfortunate if the new spouse feels uncomfortable about established relationships. OTOH, it would be incredibly arrogant of her to think that a long, rewarding friendship would end simply because she didn't like it.

These two women love and miss each other! Some days, Peg's ex-MIL just wants to look into the face that fought, worked, suffered and baked with her. Sometimes she sees something that she just has to share with Peg. Maybe a picture reminds her of one of the kids growing up. Some days a woman in a supermarket says something just the way Peg would, and she realizes that she really needs to hear Peg's insight, wisdom and wit.

Whereas I'm sure your ex's attitude is more that if he wanted to see you all the time and spend all his family events with you, he'd have just stayed married to you. I don't intend for that to sound mean, just giving you a better idea of his point of view.

Half of me thinks that Peg's ex is acting like a spoiled brat. The other half thinks that his new spouse is deliberately making this difficult for him. Losing people you love is terribly painful, and there is plenty of it in divorce. People make it a lot worse by encouraging their friends and family to "choose" between them.

I have little tolerance for selfish people who make situations difficult for others by saying, "I won't come if (s)he comes." How juvenile! To me, the correct response is always, "I'm sorry. We'll miss you." Adults need to have limits set too, you know. I have never been to a family function (mine or anyone else's) where there was not some tension. What makes anyone think that they should be exempt? You just deal with it.

The ex-MIL can't knuckle under to her son and his wife's attempted tyranny for two reasons. First, Peg became her daughter over the years. She can't cut Peg off just because Peg and her son don't get along anymore. She owes her support to Peg as much as she does to her bioson. Second, Peg became her friend. They worked hard to hammer out a relationship and were rewarded with one that nurtures them both. She owes this friendship to herself, whether her son likes it or not.

[Peg, excuse me if I am reading too much or too little into your relationship. I've got the bit between my teeth.]

Now I'm not suggesting that I think my in-laws do not have the right to invite her to stay as a friend....snip ...and she certainly had no malicious intent in accepting their invitation.

[snip]

Lil, I think you, and some of the other posters, are victims of the converse of the "choose me" problem. It is clear to me* that your MIL decided that she would accept no replacement of her son's ex. If he had walked in with Pamela Anderson, she would have been too slutty. Princess Di would have been too snotty. Mother Teresa would have been too old. You could have walked into that house on water, and you wouldn't have been good enough. The problem is not that she loves the ex. The problem is that she has never given you a chance.

*I have to admit that it surprises even me that I am so confident that I know what is motivating people who live thousands of miles away, and whom I have never met.

I simply don't think I can be faulted for wanting to explain my feelings to her afterward, so that measures could be taken in the future to make these visits more comfortable for everyone.

This sounds like a reasonable plan to me. See how this one goes. You may find you don't care half as much as you thought you would. She may tell you that staying in the same house with her kids and their GPs was more rewarding than anyone expected, and that she can't wait to do it again. Maybe they will drive each other nuts and decide on their own that a little more distance would be in order. Hell, maybe you'll decide to let them stay in your house.

BTW, regarding your earlier post: don't inhale. You'll be really embarrassed if anyone sees you standing out on the patio coughing your guts out.

jane

Aug 16 1998

I have read in several state publications that the main interest in assessing Child Support, or deciding increases, is to ensure that the standard of living for this child remains the same as it was before the marriage...okay....

I don't think this exactly right. This is my understanding of it: the children's standard of living is not supposed to be harmed by the divorce. If you stayed married, your children's standard of living would improve with your increase in income. Lots of times people have kids while they are still in school or entry level jobs. By having sex or signing adoption papers, you commit yourself to providing for your children to the best of your ability.

Our society wants children to be raised in stable families. Divorce is permissible, but not encouraged. The court's major concern is that the children you already have do not suffer because of the divorce. When people go on to subsequent marriages, the original children are not supposed to be harmed by that choice, either. You are not supposed to have more children if you can't keep your commitment to the ones you already have.

jane

Aug 18 1998

Now, if me and the ex are divorced, which we are now, it was her decision to divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
Wildman

Good God, Wildman, why wouldn't you??? I just don't understand this way of thinking. Most parents work their asses off so they *can* provide for thier children. You work your ass off and resent having to share it with them.
lil

I will admit, we hated that the fruits of my husband's labor were being enjoyed by his lazy, cruel ex-wife. But as long as his sons were living in her house, it was the only way he could provide for them in the way he wanted to.

Oh, well. I have even read people here say that they would be satisfied having their kids live in welfare projects if that's all their CP Mom can afford, before they would send her a penny!
SSM

What kills me is the idea of using the poverty level as a guideline. I just can't imagine a parent thinking that his/her responsibility to the people they brought into the world was discharged as long as they weren't in dire poverty. In the U.S. the poverty level is pretty damned low.

jane

Aug 19 1998

[poverty level as a guideline]

Where would you put it?

Children deserve to be supported to the best of their parents' ability. They do not need their every whim indulged.

Would you have the child in poverty, the NCP in poverty, or make it so that they have an equal standard of living?

If it were a choice between the two, obviously the adult would have to make the greater sacrifice. The parent is responsible for bringing the child into the world.

How do you bring up the childs SoL without bringing up the CP's SoL?

To some extent, the CP's SOL will increase with the child's.

How is CS payment NOT a form of involuntary servitude?

Obviously it was a voluntary choice at one point. Otherwise, there would be no child. This is the consequence of your decision to have sex. Your feelings for the other parent, blood alcohol level at the time of conception, desire to abort the fetus, etc., don't alter the initial commitment.

I have a basic bias for the person who does the producing. If you destroy their incentive to produce the goods, they quit and everyone suffers. Non-producers, even children, do not ALWAYS come before the producers in any society with thought out moral values.

For most people I know, providing for their children is their major incentive for producing goods.

The "moral values" of this society do not support equation of the value of a child's life with his/her ability to produce goods. If you need an economic analysis, consider CS capital investment. Your children will be a part of our society for the rest of their lives. You brought them here. You make sure they grow up to be an asset to that society. Otherwise, the rest of us will all pay later for their lack of education, health care, nutrition, counseling, etc. as children.

How would you compare your moral stand WRT Child support with existing government laws regarding late term abortions?

I don't see the connection.

It's a hypothetical question, because morally speaking, the laws in the U.S. are a hodge podge of conflicting moral stands that seem to have arosed because of special interest. There's no guiding principle behind any of it.

I believe the guiding principle in this area is "the best interests of the child."

How is your statement not a self serving "pay me more" argument?

Nothing in my post could possibly have given you that impression. I said nothing about paying or being paid any CS. I have no problems with CS.

I get tired of these endless, bitter post about lack of child support and the CP's poverty.

I am pretty sick of these alt.child-support cross posts myself. I am so sick of people whining about accepting their financial responsibility to their children. I can't believe adults spend so much time trying to punish their exes through their children. I pity the children who have petty, vindictive, selfish, money grubbing parents and step-parents.

I have worked very hard to get a BS Physics and even harder to get a BSEE.

I certainly hope the BSEE is in Electrical Engineering not Elementary Education. There is no English word "arosed." I believe you meant "arisen."

I supported myself all the way. I am the CP and I don't get a DIME in child support from anybody. My ex get's the child support for my step daughter from her 1st ex. (I have custody of my step).

So get a lawyer. Send your step back to her BPs. Don't blame it on me.

If you can't support your kids on your own, explain the moral justification you used in bringing them into this world.

I pretty much feel the same way. If you are not willing to support your children, explain the moral justification YOU used when bringing them into this world. Besides, who said I had any children that I wasn't supporting on my own?

jane

Aug 16 1998

I just bought a tri-tip roast because I thought someone here said they were good to barbecue. When I got home, my husband pointed out that it would take forever to cook. It weighs about 15 lbs.

I have to make a confession. When we opened the bag, there were 5 3 lb roasts packed together. I never saw a tri-tip roast before. I still feel a little silly.

DH pretty much followed notlikely's suggestion. Sort of. We didn't have whiskey, so he soaked the roast in brandy and the steaks in beer. I guess they came out great. I don't eat beef (confession #2) so I have to rely on our guests' reactions. The roast looked like a perfect medium rare to me.

Thanks for all your suggestions. We still have 3 tri-tips to experiment with.

jane

Aug 15 1998

I need tips on smoking a turkey. I have a homemade pit, similar in design to an Oklahoma Joe. How long? What Temperature? Marinades? Mops? Rubs? Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

I did this at Thanksgiving with a handful of fresh herbs in the cavity. I hated it.

jane

Aug 12 1998

[finding things in step-son's room, including step-mom's lingerie]

We were never really quite sure what he was doing with the lingerie items -- I left that issue to dh to handle. He had a whole collection of silky things in his room, God knows where he got the rest of them.

Actually, I thought the lingerie thing was pretty funny in a "yucckkkk" kind of way. My SS having a secret lingerie cache wouldn't bother me. I would figure he was using it for masturbation or cross-dressing or some other adolescent sexual experimentation. Finding MY lingerie in his room would make me wonder if he were fantasizing about me. The idea is so ludicrous that I can't help laughing.

Anyway, since there was a bunch of it, only one piece of which was yours, I'd assume it was an accident.

jane

Aug 13 1998

No, no, more than one piece, and believe me it was no accident (I probably didn't make that clear before, sorry, I'm more than a little stressed!) He admitted to taking 2 of the 3 things -- totally lied about the 3rd 9as if I don't know my own clothing!)

Forgive me for laughing. This has to make you shudder. It's just the absurdity of it: of all the hassles you expect to deal with as a step-parent, noise, discipline, marital tension, financial pressure, etc., the last thing I would have considered was my step-SON stealing my underwear. (SD has filched more than one bra.)

I'm still holding out hope that he considered this generic women's lingerie, not yours. Maybe he just picked it up because yours was the most accessible for a teenage boy. I can't deal with the alternative.

jane

Aug 12 1998

Sorry, just one more thing. My opinion is that the house is our property and we have every right to know what is going on under our roof as we will ultimately be responsible for consequences. I feel that gives me the right to use whatever means available to me to find out what SS is up to, where he goes, who he talks to, and where his money goes. He is not of legal age and therefore, he falls under our jurisdiction. Maybe that seems severe to some, but I am firm on this issue.

I don't see how you can expect them to respect your privacy if you don't respect theirs.

jane

Aug 13 1998

I don't see how you can expect them to respect your privacy if you don't respect theirs.

I have explained to my kids many times that I, as their parent, am responsible for many of their actions, and that their privacy is not the constitutional right (US-centric, sorry) that mine is.
Vicki

Vicki,

I have been trying to answer you without sounding didactic and judgmental all day. Unfortunately, I broke my leg a few weeks ago, and it really hurts. My daughter has been gone for a week. Also, it is 90 degrees here and muggy. We don't have an air conditioner. Ants invaded my kitchen for the third straight morning. I think the local supermarket manager hides the ant cups so that he can laugh at people with broken legs hobbling through the store and trying to jump up to the top shelf to reach them. What follows is the best I could do for a tactful and moderate response:

I agree that we have to take some responsibility for our children's actions. But we really have no more right to privacy than they do. Legally or morally.

Within a family, our privacy is by consent. Sure, we can put locks on our doors (and I can see that that may be warranted at times), but we are vulnerable the first time we leave the keys out. If the children don't believe that we are entitled to personal privacy as a basic human right, then they will not afford us any. If privacy IS a basic human right, then they are entitled to it, too. Like everything else, they learn how to treat people by how we treat them. If we read their personal papers, they will read ours. If we go through their drawers and rooms, they will do likewise.

This isn't the kind of thing you can just mandate. The kids have to really believe it. Otherwise, they will eavesdrop on your conversations, read any papers you leave lying around, discuss all your private business with their friends, etc. You cannot stop them from doing these things, and for the most part you can't even call them on it. If you can't say, "I would never do that to you," you can't expect them to believe it's wrong.

I *do* respect their privacy, but they know that if I suspect that they're using drugs, for example, all bets are off. It *is* my responsibility to find out and get them help, even against their wills, until they are 18 and move out, and to fulfill that responsibility I will snoop relentlessly *if I think it's justified*. Without grounds, I think that they are entitled to privacy, but they have to continue to earn it with their daily behavior, good grades and association with other good kids.

I don't see how snooping can help you with any of these things. Surely you know what your children's grades are, whether they are doing drugs, and who they hang with. From your posts, I know you do. You talk to them, spend time with them, observe them. Some of us have periods of denial, but a parent in the snooping stage is past the denial stage. Snooping is a cheap shortcut into your children's world that will only alienate them from you.

And another thing (I am really on a roll), I don't believe for a second that when the kids turn 18 and move out of your home, you will automatically be able to change your feelings and actions toward them. You will still worry about their grades, drugs, friends, etc. How would you know how they were doing, if you spent their teens learning about them by snooping? Would they tell you? They just spent their teens learning how to conceal whatever they could from you! The worst part is that the more trouble they were in, the more they needed your help, the less they would share with you, because YOU taught them to hide it.

I value my privacy as much as anyone else. It drives me crazy when the kids take my things. Actually, I hate it when my husband takes my things. I, too, am tempted to retaliate in kind and rifle through their belongings for things I "know" they took. I resist this impulse, because I am convinced that our children learn by our example. Besides, I hate it so much that I couldn't live with myself if I did it to them.

There. Now I am going to take some pain killers and put myself to bed.

jane

Aug 14 1998

[all prior posts snipped]

Not only that, he's going to send the security videos to "America's Funniest Home Videos" and when he wins the prize he won't split it with you.

Sincere sympathy on your discomfort, and seems to me that your husband should recognize that a broken leg *needs* at least a bedroom air conditioner.

DH can be thick as molasses. I got a fan, though. I spoke to my daughter. I am in a better mood.

These ants have given me a whole new perspective on environmental protection. I'm finding them in my office now. What do I do if the get into the computer? I gave up on vaseline and cinnamon days ago. Ant cups and sprays seem to have no effect. If this Terro stuff doesn't work, I'm looking for DDT.

[snip]

The snooping (if it ever happened) could only occur after every parental alarm bell that I have is going off. You're right, I do know my kids. We talk, we go places, I know their friends and I am aware of what's going on in school. So is their dad, and we work together. Snooping is not necessary, and I don't do it. I think I could have been clearer here; the snooping would take place when the kids are lying about their whereabouts, when their grades start dropping, they smell like smoke or booze when they stagger in two hours after curfew and their friends all have pictures hanging in the post office. Then I will have no hesitation about doing whatever I need to do to get information that I can use to help them, even without their cooperation. But my kids are normal kids in most ways; I can generally trust what they say, and if they lie to me, they're innocuous lies that serve the short term goal of avoiding another boring "parent" lecture/discussion. I've never gone through their things, and they know it. They've never given me a reason to do so. I don't expect that they ever will.

[snip]

Ah, Jane, you've misunderstood me, I think. I am asserting the right, as the parent of minor children, to protect them when they need protecting, when their own choices are bad ones. Just as the police are empowered to get a court order to search my house for drugs or weapons or stolen property if they have good cause to believe that I've been doing illegal things, I am empowered by my moral responsibility for their health and well-being to search their property too, when I have cause to believe that they are doing things that they should not be doing. Not on a pre-emptive basis; you're right, kids need privacy too, and if they are not abusing their freedoms and their priviledges they have a right to it.

I've never been a big fan of those who would support the erosion of civil liberties with the justification "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." But, just as an adult's civil liberties can be abrogated when there is sufficient evidence to believe that he is engaging in criminal activities, I will abrogate my children's for the same reasons, although not to punish, but to "rehabilitate."

Vicki,

I agree with a lot of what you say. BUT, I still don't think that sneaking around snooping on your kids is the way to go. It's taking the easy way out.

In the first place, ALL kids do something that you can use as an excuse for spying on them. I "know" that if I go into the kids' rooms and poke through their stuff, I will find the razors, makeup, dresses, scissors, staplers, and all the other things that I have been looking for for months. I could convince myself that I need something, search their rooms (maybe my paper clips are in the shoe box on the shelf in her closet; maybe my nail file is in her diary), and confront them with anything I find. There is always a pretext you can use.

In the second place, you can tell without snooping. If your kid smiles beatifically then falls asleep in the mashed potatoes he hasn't been eating, think heroin. If he suddenly decides to clean his room, think speed. If he sits in a corner watching the dog, saying, "Oh, wow, man," think pot. If you have lived a sheltered life, there are plenty of books, pamphlets, and web sites that can educate you.

Mainly, I think you have to talk to them. If you say, "Your cousin Tommy was arrested for pot possession," and your child responds, "I think the Bengals are going to to go all the way this year," or, "Well, you drink beer. It's the same thing," then you know it's time for a heart-to-heart.

OTOH, I completely agree that your duty to parent can conflict with your children's right to privacy. If they are having a problem, you may need to go to extraordinary lengths to help them. I just think you should be up-front about it. As a practical matter, you have to expect them to hide whatever they don't want you to find outside the house. And you have to accept that no matter how much you want to, you cannot solve their problems for them.

I think my visceral reaction comes from my own bizarre, "don't ask, don't tell" upbringing. My parents never discussed sex, drugs, drinking, domestic violence, rape, or any other "unpleasant" issue with us. Perhaps coincidentally, at 16 yo I regularly lied, stole, drank, smoked, had sex, cut school, cheated on exams, and did whatever drugs I could find. One day, my parents confronted me with a bag of pot or pills they had found in my closet. I couldn't believe it! These were the same people I stumbled by totally blasted every weekend night. Suddenly, they were acting like it was all a big surprise. So I moved out and supported myself by selling drugs at my high school.

I loved my parents till the day they died, but I think they made some mistakes raising me. What I could have used was attention, guidance and support. If they had not put off dealing with the idea that their child was having problems for so long, maybe they could have helped me with some of them. They didn't have to spy on me to find out; it was right there in front of them.

jane
(the sedentary formicidae annihilator)

Aug 14 1998

In theory I must say that I agree with Jim and Jane about demonstrating respect for step-children's privacy however... I guess, first of all Jim, I don't really understand how removing the door from your SS's room does this. Not that I think it was the wrong thing to do.

My guess is that Jim wanted to demonstrate how unpleasant it is to have one's privacy violated without physically invading his child's room.

I do think that this is a fair and equitable system and would I feel the same if she did likewise to us? You bet!

This sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

jane

Aug 10 1998

White Trash - (alt) A condescending term used by upper and middle-class citizens of the United States

I have almost always heard this phrase used by working-class people.

jane

[Following up]

Sorry, I posted too quickly. I agree that the term "white trash" is used to denigrate and distance. Maybe this has changed, but IME the only people who needed a term to distance themselves from "white trash" were other poor caucasians. By using the term, one states implicitly, "We may be poor, but we know better than to act as they are. We take education, manners, housekeeping, work, and child rearing seriously."

Aug 4 1998

First off, I understand that language is living and growing, and that its pronunciation and grammatical constructs must change with needs of its speakers. That said, you've got to have some sympathy for the original poster here. One day he pronounces a word as it has been pronounced for as long as he knows, and someone with a newer version of the pronunciation tells him that he is wrong.

This sort of thing can instantly make a conservative of you. I still remember the day that someone told me that forte was pronounced "for-tay. I took French for five years; I knew how to pronounce the damned word. I don't care if people want to pronounce often with a 't,' or long-lived with a short 'i'. Hell, I can even take, "between you and I." I just don't want people correcting me without some basis beyond their own usage.

I'll put away the soap box now.

jane

Aug 1 1998

[snip horror story of completely irresponsible 19-year-old college student]

...The students in my classes who work the hardest and do the best are generally the older students with families and full-time jobs. They're in class *every* day, they don't show up with hang-overs, they have their homework done, their questions ready, and they trust me to know what I'm doing in teaching them. The younger students often cut class, show up high or drunk or hung-over, *never* do reading or homework (until the night before the exam, and then they're outraged that I don't come into the study center until midnight to work with them), and challenge my teaching and selection of curricular materials at every turn.
Vicki

Vicki's post made me think. Maybe you should not be subsidizing SD's college at all right now. For some young people, college is just high school without the parents. By the time they realize that they are wasting their opportunity for an education, they have a 2.0 GPA.

Maybe I just came from an unusually immature set, but a lot of us acted as SD did at her age. Virtually all of us dropped out sometime in the second or third year and went back to school later in life. College was an entirely different experience when we chose to go there because we wanted an education.

jane