Jane's Posts

Sep 30 1998 12:00 am

I pretty much agree with all the other posts. I'm just going to try to expand on one or two points.

Please realize that the mom is not short on time with B. For instance, this October she will have B 17 out of 31 days in the month.

All right, now I'm confused. I thought you said that BM had SD T/Th nights. Does she have the child on weekends, too?

This has nothing to do with taking B away from her mom (how ludicrous). She does see her daughter frequently and B really wants to do gymnastics especially. The swimming we can cut out and work with her ourselves. She is in first grade this year, and we had told her that when she began 1st grade we would begin her gymnastics lessons.

This was a mistake. It seems frustrating, but if you are co-parenting a child you just can't make commitments like this. You have to explain that you will do everything you can but that you are not in control of all the circumstances.

We think that because of the scheduling agreement, mom should be a little more flexible and understand her daughter's desire to be in gymnastics.

Yes. And maybe SD can convince BM to be more flexible. That's between the two of them. What people have been trying to tell you is that if BM values SD's desire for gymnastics enough, then SHE will decide it is the right thing to do during her time with the child.

We believe that she would do better spending 1/2 hour in an activity than watching Teletubbies...

See this is another one of those inescapable co-parenting problems. We ALL disagree with the other half about some things. Unfortunately, since we didn't have the foresight to bite off their heads after mating, we just have to deal with it. As many have pointed out before me, if we agreed with our exes about everything, we'd still be with them.

If we do not infringe on mom's time at all (Tue, Thu, and e.o. Fri) the kid will be so bored, unhappy, and unsatisfied. Trust me, I respect BM's time with her daughter; as I said before, we get along quite well. And it isn't like mom won't *be* with B when she does these activities... she will be cheering her on as a spectator as most parents do. As it is now, she has B an hour longer than previously agreed upon. I do not believe we are being selfish or unreasonable, and I apologize if I came off that way. thank you for your responses...

No, you're just not getting it. You see that SD needs her relationship with BM. What you don't see is that she also needs her perspective (which is different from yours.) If BM wants to be a cheerleader and spectator during the time she spends with SD, she can choose to do that herself. OTOH, BM can choose to snuggle up and watch Teletubbies with her child. That doesn't mean that SD is not a priority. It means that SM has different priorities than you do. She sees SD's needs differently than you do. You believe that SD will be bored and unhappy without these activities. BM may believe that SD will feel insecure without enough quiet time alone with her mom. Or she may think that SD will be stressed out if she engages in too many activities.

What I am trying to say is that even if you don't agree with BM you have to give her opinion a certain level of respect.

Good Luck

jane

Sep 29 1998 12:00 am

I now feel like I am unable to vent on this newsgroup when I'm having a bad day without having to go into extreme detail to explain myself.

Sheri,

I agree with Vicki. It's fine to vent here. It's good to let people know that you are just blowing off steam and aren't looking for advice. I suspect a lot of people write a message to get everything off their chests then don't even bother to post it.

I think we sometimes post sanitized versions of our situations because that is what we feel comfortable with the whole world seeing. Then, people respond to the Brady Bunch version. Many of us also tend to fill in the gaps from our own experience. Without further info, I might assume your kids' "problems" were with homework, chores, and telling the truth, because that is what I deal with. Obviously, you are concerned about a whole different category of step-parenting problems.

I'm sorry if you feel you were forced to divulge more than you wanted to. I don't think anybody was trying to flame you. It really is hard to understand where a person is coming from without the details. BTW, I was pretty appalled by yours. Good luck.

jane

Sep 28 1998 12:00 am

I need your opinions! My husband is from Chile--very proper, almost father-knows-best. His three children are models of excellent behavior (12, 16, 20). EXCEPT! It is clear when they are here (3 months over christmas) that I am not really wanted, part of the team, etc. I understand and accept that they didn't choose me, papa did, and that they are unsure of me (he was divorced a long time before meeting me). There are also language differences. And I show my feelings, which is quite a shock to them.

The eldest (20) came to live with us for 1 year. He is an incredible human being--very intelligent, very centered. Like any parent, I am half in-love with him. However, he's made it clear he doesn't want to spend any time with me at all, and his father supports him in this. He literally stays in his room all day long--doesn't come out to get food unless I'm not in the kitchen; then he comes to get something, and runs back to his room. He has not developed any friendships since coming here (but Chileans move very slowly w/friends). He comes out only when his father is here. It is not that he's shy--he was being more social with me and having great conversations earlier this summer. He overheard two arguments between his father and me, and since then has shut me out. We had a no smoking policy in the house, and when I was gone on business for three weeks, papa apparently allowed the boy to smoke (a lot) in his room. The smoke seeps into the rest of the house. I'm on meds that make the smell of smoke really nauseating. Niether of them believe me, and when I told the boy I didn't like his smoking in the house, he ignored me. Papa won't support me on this; in fact, he will not speak with any of his kids about any problems between them and me.

His father spends 7pm-10pm with me, when son is at work. About 9:45, papa becomes excited, and when the front door opens, he's out of our room like a shot. The two of them cloister themselves out on the deck. I've tried to join them, but was frozen out--you could have cut the ice in the air with a razor.

I am not sure if (a) I have any right to be hurt (b) anything can be done about it (he leaves for Chile late Nov.) (c) I feel upset with papa or with son. I think that my husband could and should try to act as a bridge between us, speak with his son about cultural difference (women, I'm told, in their country just don't kick up the kind of fuss American gals do), ask for some understanding. He not only refuses, he comes home from work at lunch time every day and takes the son out for lunch. This went on for 2 weeks without either of them telling me. When I found out, I asked my husband if I could come with them sometimes. He gave me a look that said no. I tried to push it, but it became clear I couldn't without a fight. I poured out my heart to him the other day, asking him to please try to facilitate conversation, healing, connection...he hasn't, and continues to isolate the two of us.

I'm extremely hurt (especially because I don't have kids of my own, can't, and I've always wanted them), but I want what's really best for my step-son. I know this visit to the US hasn't been much fun for him--(but that's his fault for not trying!) and I'm concerned he's depressed (he says he isn't, doesn't act like it, except for the hiding from me.) I've tried several times inviting him to go places with me, and am told politely, no thank you. I've tried asking him to do things with me in the house, and he gently refuses.

Can anyone please give me advice?

This is my opinion, for what it's worth.

Step off. The more you push DH and SS, the more they will withdraw. They know you care. They know it tortures you when they exclude you. You cannot make them change this behavior.

So leave. Volunteer after work for the upcoming election. Join a health club. Take country line dance lessons. Sign up for a class at the local community college. Take up genealogy, and spend all your time at the local library. If you're not home, their rude behavior won't hurt you so much. Also, DH may realize that you don't appear and disappear at his convenience.

Or shoot them. ;-)

jane

Sep 27 1998 12:00 am

I feel like crying.

DH phoned his son's mom last night because we hadn't heard from her in a couple of weeks and were about to become very hard to get ahold of (it's moving weekend). She told us that my stepson is about to start a barrage of psych appointments because his occupational therapist thinks he has Pervasive Development Disorder.

My past experience with psychologists and therapists in general has me thinking that this will be the complete end of my stepson's life. I realize that there must be a few good ones out there, but the majority seems to be bent on the idea of twisting weak minds and forcing their theories and ideas on them. And my stepson is not the strongest of children. When he goes to see some idiot shrink and they try to tell him that he "must" have been molested, who's going to be the one to say no? God, I've been through this over and over and all they ever want to do is make you their test case...the subject of their Nobel Prize winning book!

"Pervasive Development Disorder" is just another stupid label for a kid who learns differently...another excuse for why a kid isn't learning in the public school that our tax dollars are providing. I've taught him more in an afternoon than those idiots have in three years of school! HE LEARNS DIFFERENTLY!!! And most of what his problem is, is that he has a mother who refuses to help him grow. The woman cuts his bloody chicken nuggets for him!!! He's eight! They've based this on the fact that "he has trouble with math." He has no trouble with math...it's just that nobody ever taught him on a level he understood. I taught him how to do math concepts in fifteen minutes! And if they fill him full of drugs and somebody else's theories, I'm never going to be able to help him! How am I going to convince him that he *is* smart and he *can* learn if these people are filling him full of excuses for *not* learning???

God, what am I going to do?

Lil. Calm down. Stop crying. Well, at least stop panicking.

You are letting your own stuff get in the way here. You have to separate your own experiences from SS's problem. Stop thinking about the worst possible outcome; it will just make you more upset. All you can do right now is to start figuring out how you can help the boy.

Sure, shrinks can be idiots. Sure there are erroneous recollections of sexual abuse. I am even willing to assume your cousin is one of them. But your knee-jerk reaction to the profession is not going to help SS. You have to work with these people now.

Get back to the library and the Net, and start researching. Find out all you can about PDD. Save all information you find about diagnosis, treatment, pharmacological options, etc. Start reading up on general childhood education and development. Then turn to service providers in SS's area. Find out all you can about different social workers, psychologists, doctors of ed, etc. in the area. Try to find someone who you feel could HELP SS.

I'm busy right now, but I'll do a quick search later and email you what I find.

jane

P.S. Stop blaming BM! If you alienate her now, you won't be able to do anything for the boy.

Sep 24 1998 12:00 am

I am the stepmother of two boys. My husband is the non-custodial parent who gets to see his children every other weekend and feels that he does not get to play a very active role in raising his children. My husband is having a very hard time with the fact that his children's stepdad is more involved with his sons than he is ... his ex-wife's new husband lives with them and interacts with them on a daily basis. What even more aggravating is that when a situation requires that the mother and father of the child be present, my husband's ex-wife brings along her husband. For example, the other night was open-school night for parents at my stepson's school. My husband drove up (they live 1 hour away) only to find himself in a room with his ex-wife and her husband. My husband was very upset and to be honest, I have to agree with him. I did not presume to take the trip up to this conference as I did not feel it was my place. It's annoying, to say the least, that this guy needs to be present in every, single situation involving the kids even when their bio dad is there.

I understand all the stuff that is said about how it's good for the children to having as many loving people in their lives as possible. It just seems that their stepdad's motivation is not necessarily so noble -- it's more to "stick it" to my husband or something like that.

Just wanted to vent. Any responses would be welcome. Maddy

Your husband is so lucky to have a caring, involved man to watch over his sons when he can't be there. I'm sorry he feels pushed out of the picture.

Those open house nights at school are really important to teacher-parent relations. It really helps teachers to see who the adults are in a child's life. It really helps parents to see what the children are dealing with at school. Since SD spends school nights with the boys, he needs to know what is going on in their school lives. He really needs to go to these things. Since you spend considerable time with the boys, you should go too.

I think you should encourage DH to see the positive side of SD's involvement. I'm not saying that you shouldn't let him vent. It must be very difficult to feel your place is being usurped. But the kids are benefiting from SD's involvement. Even if SD is grandstanding a little, he is still taking the time and making the effort to be a good parent to the boys.

You and your husband should focus on increasing your own role in the kids' lives. Rather than resenting SD for being there for his kids, your husband should put everything he can into being there for them, too. An hour drive isn't that far. You two should try to make it to every event involving the boys that you can. Join the PTA or the school site council; they only meet once a month. Go to their games, plays, meets, etc. Talk to their teachers outside the scheduled meet-and-greet nights. The more involved your husband is, the less he will feel excluded from his children's lives. The less excluded he feels, the less he will resent SD.

jane

Sep 28 1998 12:00 am

Merrie: I'm not a single parent but I have heard from my single parent friends that one of the harder parts doing it alone is trying to parent by yourself, with no one to bounce ideas or sound things out to. Your husbands ex has decided to parent their child with her current husband, and this leaves your husband outside the loop.

Maddy: Correct and you find this fair? His ex-wife was NEVER a single parent. The divorce between my husband and her did not divorce him from his parental responsibilities. He ALWAYS wanted to have joint custody and share equally in parenting his children. Unfortunately, she did not feel the same way ...

I'm not sure how you can say BM was never a single parent, unless, of course, she remarried the date her divorce became final. Even then, I would consider her a single parent between DH's departure and her remarriage.

I think what Merrie meant was that during the time the children were with BM, they were in a household with one parent present. This can be extremely difficult. It appears that BM has found a mate with whom she can effectively co-parent. Now the children live with two parents all the time: BM/SF or BF/SM. This is good for the children, because it gives them more stability and resources. It is good for BM because she has a helpmate. I assume that BF can also rely on you to help with raising the kids.

Neither you nor SF are taking anything away from the children. You fill a void. Once BM and BD broke up, the choice was between BM and no other parent in the home or BM and a step parent of her choice. SF appears to be actively interested and involved in the children's lives. He didn't set up the custody/visitation schedule. Divorce is sad and ugly. It's painful all around. I just don't see what SF is doing wrong.

jane

Sep 24 1998 12:00 am

[I agree that the same rules of etiquette that apply to the real world should also apply to the internet.]

I have to admit that I've written some pretty nasty messages ... especially when I first started "surfing the net." It was very easy to do with all the so-called anonymity ... until I realized that there are very real human beings behind all the handles.

[snip]

I have a slightly different problem. I don't ever intend to post "nasty" messages. Still, when I look back at some posts (not in this NG necessarily), I sound pretty brutal. I tend to write with a jackhammer.

I just can't get the hang of expressing myself in a conversational forum without the visual and auditory cues. I'm working on it.

My confession of the day is that I hate emoticons. I'm sure they can be very useful for people in my situation. Those little smiles and winks can make it clear that you don't intend to offend the prior poster. They seem so coy, though. Is it really that difficult to tell when a person is being humorous? And shouldn't I be able to express myself clearly without parenthetical explanation? I keep thinking, "If Oscar Wilde were on USENET, would he stick ;-) in after every bit of irony?"

I'm getting to the point here. I agree that netiquette is mostly just general etiquette. Unfortunately, I find myself inadvertently hurting people's feelings here far more often than I do in the flesh. I hate that.

Suggestions?

jane

Sep 28 1998 12:00 am

I don't care for the little smileys either though I frequently use them. Since we are, in a sense, talking to each other in these news groups more than formally writing to each other it is useful, I think, to be able to replace the usual facial and body language clues we all use in conversation with something and the emoticons, if I'm using your word correctly for I hadn't seen it before, seem to work fairly well. Oscar Wilde would have found a better way but then there was only one Oscar. Wouldn't it be lovely if he could participate in this group!

I've decided I just need different emoticons, the elegantly arched eyebrow, a rueful shake of the head, even a sneer of derision. These I would find helpful.

jane

Sep 28 1998 12:00 am

Smileys are not subtle, it's true, but I like them. Misunderstandings are rampant on the net -- without smileys (sorry -- I hate the word emoticon) -- without smileys I fear it would be a wall-to-wall battlezone.

Well, I certainly don't mean to launch a campaign against them. As you say, a wink or smile may sometimes avert outright war. OTOH, they don't seem to keep Peti out of trouble.

That's another thing that I can't quite get used to on USENET, the unexpected outbreak of hostilities and rapid escalation into a full-blown war. It always catches me off guard. The recent "ignoramus" and "gadfly" threads, for example, seemed to come out of nowhere. One minute we were discussing whether there should be an official body to make rules of English grammar; the next everyone seemed to be screaming, "Fuck you."

Where does that come from? I know that sometimes I have to wait before I send off a post and reread it with a cooler head. Some topics get me going. I guess I expect newsgroups to be less explosive than real-time dialogue, because you do have that cooling down period. OTOH, the distance and anonymity in the medium makes a punch in the nose a lot less likely.

It seems odd to me that people sitting in front of a monitor and keyboard can get an adrenaline rush from a comment made by a stranger half the world away. I wonder why it matters enough for us to get angry.

Am I making any sense?

jane

Sep 28 1998 12:00 am

Jane, you don't at all write with pneumatic tools and haven't, from what I can tell, written anything overtly offensive.

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm working on it.

jane

Sep 29 1998 12:00 am

[. . .unexpected outbreak of hostilities and rapid escalation into a full-blown war. . .]

Hmmm. It didn't seem that way to me.

I think that there are other things that matter besides being polite. I can't say much about the "gadfly" thread, because I killed it when I lost interest, which was fairly early on. The thread about the meaning of "inform" didn't strike me as hostile, though. It's true Charles got called an ignoramus, but he's still alive, isn't he? I thought the word was pretty mild, considering the offence. For a lot of people on Usenet (I'm one), giving wrong information in tones of authority is one of the worst crimes you can commit. I'm trying to avoid stirring it up all over again, but I do want to make this point -- that there are matters of principle or fact which are more important than manners. IMO.

Well, judging by the responses to my post, I have stirred it all up again, nonetheless. Enough! (That's another emoticon I could use, a hand raised imperiously.) I'm switching to another example.

Re: officiously delivered misinformation. Recently, a poster in another NG, stated that Einstein had not gone past 6th grade in school. It bugged the hell out of me. When a poster states an opinion, I figure they can just go ahead and spew forth. It really annoys me when an argument is supported with bogus facts, though. If people can't take the time to check their facts, I resent their posting misinformation off the top of their heads.

What I find more interesting is that I did not reply to the Einstein statement. I couldn't write a response that did not include "You idiot! It took me less than two minutes to discover that Einstein went to Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule." I was too annoyed to respond decorously, so I left the poster to further disseminate her drivel. I hate to attack others personally because 1) I really don't have the time or energy for an off-topic pissing match, and 2) I prefer people not to call me an idiot when I make a mistake.

Which brings me to the manners issue. I don't think I agree that there are matters of principle or fact more important than manners. After all, if you didn't want to scream "Idiot" at people, there would be no point in having conventions for getting around it. Obviously, you can disagree without directly insulting a person. People do it to me all the time. I'm always surprised that people don't say, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" when they disagree with me. Maybe there are no Dan Ackroyd fans left on USENET.

Even at that, name calling is just the most understandable trigger for the flash fires that catch me off guard. Any disagreement or confrontation can do it. I see it everywhere. All of a sudden two or more people take off on a tangent. To me there is a difference between threads that evolve into discussions of time, politics, or religion and threads that end up in a personal battle. I agree with Charles that if I feel attacked personally, my gut reaction is to jump right in swinging. But I don't think that swearing or name-calling is what makes me feel attacked.

The more I think about this, the more I suspect that people's posting style does not necessarily reflect their style of interaction in conversation. My new theory is that people post the way they drive.

I was shocked by that thread, not because of namecalling (of which there was really very little), but because of the suggestion, repeated by more than one poster, that that meaning of "inform" ought to be disallowed on the grounds of obscurity. That shocks me still.

I am bothered by the logical conclusion of this approach: the loss of depth and diversity in our language.

Online communication lets people speak their minds without always having to tiptoe around others' sensibilities. Sometimes the freedom is abused, no question about that. But most people use it pretty reasonably. Don't you get a kick out of hearing people say what they really think? I do.

Yes. I read NG's because they make me laugh and because they make me think. After a while, I find flame wars tedious, though.

I hang out in one or two newsgroups where insulting is an art form. It doesn't happen often, but when it does no punches are pulled. I've been reduced to a moaning wreck, tears running from my eyes, almost unable to breathe for laughing. I keep my mouth shut, you bet! not because I'm afraid of being insulted, but because I know I wouldn't be able to rise to the expected level of insult in return. :-(

Well those groups are like ice hockey. You don't get into the rink unless you're prepared for some rough and tumble.

In some NG's insult is an art form. I enjoy others' performance even though I lack the gift myself. I have a friend who is so mean and so funny that she leaves me in awe. I may be blunt, but I envy her wickedness.

[I guess I expect newsgroups to be less explosive than real-time dialogue, because you do have that cooling down period. OTOH, the distance and anonymity in the medium makes a punch in the nose a lot less likely.]

Yes. So the non-nose-punchers no longer have to be silent out of fear.

[It seems odd to me that people sitting in front of a monitor and keyboard can get an adrenaline rush from a comment made by a stranger half the world away. I wonder why it matters enough for us to get angry.]

It's odd, isn't it? But if we didn't engage enough to respond with an adrenaline rush, I guess we wouldn't bother to do it at all.

Personally, I seem to need a middle level of involvement to participate in a discussion. I don't care enough about time measurement. I care too much about women's "role." Genderless pronouns, evolution of language, and the English as the official language (that one was borderline) are issues I care about that do not make me foam at the mouth.

jane

Sep 30 1998 12:00 am

Pity there isn't a Deja-TV.

Can the panel please consider this question: were the skits on TV and radio wittier at one time or am I suffering from when-I-was-a-lad syndrome?

(I claim this isn't off-topic because a general decline in the level of with might be linked to a widespread decline in verbal facility.)

Actually, sometimes I watch SNL and find the skits as funny as they ever were. Last year they had Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and Saddam Hussein on a conference call. Bill and Monica were trying to convince Saddam to start a war so that they could spend more time together. Then there was the time Bill was trying to sell Paula Jones depo transcripts from a 800 number.

Then there is the show Frazier. Niles, the brother, kills me.

There's other stuff, too. You just have to take it where you find it.

jane

Sep 30 1998 12:00 am

[I'm always surprised that people don't say, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" when they disagree with me. Maybe there are no Dan Ackroyd fans left on USENET.]

I'm one, but the more I thought about your post, the more I think that so many posters are guilty of the Emily Latilla syndrome - you know - "We need more violins on television!"

Because I'm studying (in mid-life of all things!) to be a teacher, I've been asking persons who are responsible for large groups of people (like our bishop, etc.) what children require that they do not currently learn in school. One answer was "discernment." I found it disarming until I picked up C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man." I laughed aloud on the commuter train on reading about Gauis and Titius. A fellow rider (well heeled and purportedly the recipient of *some* education), looked down at the book and said "What's funny about slavery?" Then I wanted to cry.

I realize this is not a charitable thought, but have you ever noticed that some people are just thick as mud? I'm not sure discernment can be taught.

jane

Sep 30 1998 12:00 am

[snip]

[Which brings me to the manners issue. I don't think I agree that there are matters of principle or fact more important than manners. After all, if you didn't want to scream "Idiot" at people, there would be no point in having conventions for getting around it.]

I don't follow. Can you elaborate?

I think we have rules of etiquette to bridge gap between what we want to do and what we want done to or for us. It's like a codification of the Golden Rule. No one wants to write thank-you notes, but everyone wants to be thanked for their gifts. No one wants to get up out a seat, but everyone wants to be offered a seat when they are elderly or pregnant.

I think that sometimes everyone wants to call another a nasty name, but that no one really likes being called names all the time. Of course, there may be mutual consent. A rousing rank fest, dis match, or insult gang bang can be both intellectually stimulating and a great stress reliever.

[more snipping]

[I agree with Charles that if I feel attacked personally, my gut reaction is to jump right in swinging. But I don't think that swearing or name-calling is what makes me feel attacked.]

What does it take -- an AK47? (My instinct is to stick in a smiley there but I'm repressing it out of respect for your feelings. Is that not civilised?)

LOL. Thanks for your restraint.

It's not that it takes MORE to make me feel attacked. It's a shift toward me personally. I can't really think of a good example. I feel attacked when the discussion shifts from an objective topic like genderless pronouns to a subjective topic like whether I am a feminazi. There doesn't have to be any swearing or name calling. All the next poster has to do is start with, "Of course, the radical, lesbian, lunatic fringe always thinks...," and I automatically start thinking, "Of course pompous, narrow-minded, bigoted cretins like you would say that." Even a subtler categorization of me as individual could set me off.

[Personally, I seem to need a middle level of involvement to participate in a discussion.]

I'm just the opposite. I try hard to avoid threads about gender, including allegedly-but-not-really genderless pronouns, because I know I'd soon lose it. But also because I've spent so many words, and so many years, talking about those issues and listening to others and reading the books and talking and talking and talking. I've worn out my words on the subject of gender. Just tell me the jokes, I'll let others do the arguing. Same with anything political. I'm too tired to say it all over again.

I don't think this is opposite. I know exactly what you mean.

jane

Sep 22 1998 12:00 am

I am considering leaving my husband of almost 9 years due to his drinking problem (3 DUI's and continues to drink), his son (who he has custody of) refuses to speak to me, his family just acts like I don't exist, husband is very controlling....obviously a lot of reasons. My question is this -- how can I limit visitation between my husband and our almost 14 month old daughter? I certainly have no objection to him seeing her, but he still drinks. So, if she's visiting and it's time to bring her home, he'll already have two, possibly three or four beers by 6 p.m. on Sunday. He starts drinking around 11 a.m. or noon, and drinks about a beer an hour. Obviously I don't want my daughter getting into the car with him. I could bring her over and pick her up, which would probably be the best solution, but then I'm doing the driving and rearranging my life for him. Has anyone else been in this situation? Does anyone have any suggestions? Our lease here is up in August, so I have some time to plan and think, but was hoping someone else might have been in my shoes and might offer suggestions. Thanks for your help. Cindy

You can do several things. The easiest thing might be to do all the driving after a certain time of day: each of you drive the child to your own home. That way you are always driving in the evening when he has been drinking. If any of the OUI's are recent, a provision against his driving with the child in custody/visitation schedule sounds reasonable. If you believe that S2BX drinks too much to care for the child, raise the issue with the court. They can order alcohol evaluation. One OUI might be taken as an error in judgment, three seems to indicate a problem.

From what you said, though, it sounds like S2BX is keeping his blood alcohol level below the legal limit for driving. Breathalyzers measure the level of alcohol in your blood, not the amount of alcohol you have had drink. I don't know how big he is or what kind of beer he drinks, but his body most likely metabolizes his one beer per hour. Just on the issue of driving, I don't see that you have any more to worry about after 6 beers in 6 hours than you do after 1 beer in 1 hour. His blood alcohol level should be the same. Of course, those three OUI's would bother me a lot.

Good luck.

jane

Sep 22 1998 12:00 am

So how would an employee with a degree help my employer? The term "overqualified" has real meaning.

I consulted my husband on this. He's a happy guy. He works for a general contractor. His boss loves him. He works about 60 hours a week. I'm not really sure what his job title is. He seems to do a lot of carpentry, painting, demolition, plumbing, electrical work, and concrete pouring. He works long hours at hard physical work. Then he comes home happy.

My husband used to be CFO of a small high tech company. He worked about the same amount of time per week. The job was stressful, rather than physically demanding. Back then, he came home tense. So he quit a few years ago and decided to be whatever it is he is now. I imagine he'll pick up his GC license someday soon, but he really has no desire to be a GC.

I asked him tonight whether he ever felt that he had wasted his time getting his accounting degree. He said, "Never. I can talk to the kids about marine biology, history, philosophy, whatever. Maybe I haven't done much with the degree lately, but the knowledge is invaluable." His college education enhances his daily life in myriad intangible ways.

I think my husband's education also benefits his company in several ways. In college he learned how to think problems through, define tasks, set priorities, apply himself to the task at hand, and (perhaps most important) research whatever he did not know. It also gave him a foundation to work from in physics, chemistry, math, business, spanish and other disciplines which impact on his work. In the last couple of decades, all the trades have changed rapidly with technological advances. Brute strength and mechanical skill aren't enough.

The most important benefit I see is that my husband's boss can ask him to do absolutely anything. He can shovel shit, negotiate contracts, translate for the laborers, translate for the electricians, haul cement bags, buy new software, appease building inspectors, collect old debts, and everything in between. As long as he gets to play with power tools all day, he's perfectly willing to fill in wherever there is a gap.

I guess I'm saying that a college education can enhance your life in many ways, no matter what your job is.

jane

Sep 22 1998 12:00 am

P1: Isn't there some sort of rhyme that goes "A pint's a pound the world round"? I always thought it meant that a pint of water weighed a pound everywhere in the world.

P2: I believe there is, and it probably does. That doesn't make it TRUE, though. I've also heard "A pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter", which is true under the imperial system (as used in England) but not under what I now understand is known as the "English" system (as used only in North Amrica).

P1: Or was it the price of a pot of beer?

P2: Beer has only become that expensive (here in England, he added quickly lest anyone misunderstand [yawn]) in the last ten years, or so. In the "affluent" South-East of England a pint in a pub will usually cost between UKP1.5 and UKP2 (depending on the brand and strength of the beer and the greed of the publican), prices are usually lower in the north of England. There are still occasional promotions (new pub opening, etc.) at which a pint of beer is offered for UKP0.99.

Funny you mention beer. My only experience with the Imperial system has been with beer. When I was a teen in the U.S. in the 70's, you could get G.I.Q.'s (grand imperial quarts) of beer. It was much cheaper, like getting a large bottle of Coke instead of individual cans.

There was a snob factor involved, though. Recently, I asked my husband to pick up big bottle of a beer I might like at the liquor store. Horrified, he refused, saying that one can only drink GIQ's out of a brown paper bag in an alley. He was absolutely speechless when I dragged him off to see the microbrew collection at the liquor store. At the store near us there are hundreds of beers available in quarts (as opposed to dozens of brands in six-packs). They range in price from about $2US to $14US.

Now that I think of it, those bottles are probably litres now, aren't they? See what happens? Go metric, and beer costs $14 a bottle.

jane

Sep 21 1998 12:00 am

[What to the boys have to say?? They're old enough to have some input.]

They are ambivalent. They don't want to hurt their nan's feelings but they do want time to rest at the weekend (they both do paper rounds Mon- Sat mornings generally having to get up at about 6.00 am in order to be back and get changed into uniform and breakfast and otherwise get ready in time to get to school).

I can't gauge from your post how much your ex-MIL needs the boys' help. If she lives for their visits, or if she's not long for this world, then they should probably try to stick it. Otherwise, they'll feel guilty.

OTOH, I am amazed that your two teenage boys are so generous with their time. No matter how much they love their grandmother, every weekend must be pretty rough on kids their age.

Maybe they could start loosening up the schedule a bit, swapping days or taking the occasional weekend off. If I were your ex-MIL, it would be easier for me if there were a concrete reason for the absence, though. I would be more likely to be hurt if the boys wanted to blow me off just to do nothing. If they were going out of town for the weekend, or had a party at a friend's, or had a project for school, I could accept missing them much better.

This might be a good time to let your sons get some experience with balancing their own needs against others'. Maybe you should let them work out their own schedule with their grandmother. You seem to have instilled a sense of responsibility in them. You say they don't want to hurt her. My guess is that it's easier for them to grouse about the visits with you than it would be to ditch the old lady. They probably appreciate much better than you do both how much she needs them and how much they need more free time.

So why not let them handle the responsibility? If they really believe they need the time, then they won't feel bad about leaving her alone more. OTOH, if they feel that they are just being self-indulgent, it will be much harder for them to tell her they are not coming.

jane

Sep 21 1998 12:00 am

snip discussion of trauma caused by being called "sir" which reminded me of my own horror the first time I was ma'amed (I never shopped in that store again, and I never will)

The only times in my life I've ever used "Sir" seriously are:
1) when working in a service position and addressing male customers;
2) in the army, when addressing officers; and
3) once in a great while, when addressing an older man who has a look in his eye that moves me to acknowledge his years of experience and wisdom.

I'm in the U.S.

I always call men "sir" if I don't know their names. When I stop to ask directions, for example. I guess I mainly call gas station attendants "sir."

I don't think I ever ma'am anyone, though, unless I'm really annoyed.

jane

Sep 18 1998 12:00 am

snip So I'll need to make myself some ruby skates.

I figured that I'd try covering mine in masking tape (freezer tape) so that I don't ruin my skates (not that I'm too worried--they haven't been used for 15 years!), but then I have a variety of different ways to make them "ruby":

1. Spray them with red Halloween hairspray and then over with red gliter spray
2. Spread them with white glue and coat them with glitter
3. Glue seperate sequins on

Anybody got any other ideas? I bought some second hand shoes (ick!), but I'd rather not completely screw up the skates...I don't think my feet are getting any bigger, so they'll last me forever.

I agree with the skate cover idea. You could just buy red sequined material and make some. Elasticize the bottom, or use those little gizmos with two suspender-type clips on either end of a piece of elastic (I have them on the bottom of my ironing board cover. Actually, they may have patterns in the costume section. You could decorate panty hose and slip it over the skates. Personally, I think you should use red hairspray AND glitter AND sequins.

Did I ever tell you that my daughter watched the Wizard of Oz every night for 2 years? She wouldn't go anywhere without ruby slippers. More is better.

Incidentally, how are you going to get the skates into the Sears photo?

jane

Sep 18 1998 12:00 am

I don't know where those involved in this thread are located, exactly, but I'm in San Diego Ca. Ca is supposedly one of the lowest rated states in the nation for schooling. But. I have been reading to, and teaching my daughters how to read, since they were each 2+. Jess is now in 1st grade, after one year of teaching in kindergarten. She was, and remains, enthralled. With the whole process. She's never displayed boredom at school, only excitement at the prospect of another day there. Learning is a joy to her, and it's obvious. First thing she does upon arrival at home is her homework. With diligence and care.

I think it has helped for me to be involved in the school, there a lot, and praising those around her in charge. She has a healthy respect for all involved. I don't focus on whether she's smarter than, less than, or anything. Just at the joy of learning. It's worked so far!

I know many people that wish to denigrate "the system", seemingly to me sometimes, just because. I have only praise and thanks for the school and teachers in my daughter's life so far.

I'm in San Diego, too. I am very happy with the education my daughter is getting. She has the most wonderful teacher in the world. An earlier teacher was mediocre, though. I believe that the school principal is key. When class size was reduced, ours explained that she was responsible or hiring incoming staff.

You're lucky that your girls are coming into the system now. They will benefit from smaller classes. Most kids my daughter's age are still in classes of 36 and always will be. She is in a class with 19 now, and the difference is phenomenal.

jane

Sep 18 1998 12:00 am

[Cites, please.]

This is no flippin courtroom. Let's talk english, eh? I don't care if you're a barrister, or even really edumacated.

And, you really a NOW attorney?

That's English. It has been for over 500 years. If you don't know what the word "cite" means, you can just march over to your dictionary and look it up, young man. I'll make it easy for you: http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm

Leyton said:
My stats? Statistics Canada. ABC News has reported the same stats, so have several other special interest groups and news magazines.

What am I supposed to do, just believe it because he said so? I need to know where to go to find out where he got his information. Although I am sure it has never happened to you, Peter, I find that I am sometimes wrong. I find this true of others, as well. I also find that people tend to hear, see, and remember what supports their position.

I know damned well that no one searched through all the divorce and custody files in all the counties in all the states to tabulate results for Leyton's statistics. Maybe Canadian courts have a different record-keeping system. Maybe Leyton's statistics are right. But they don't mean jack to me coming from Leyton.

And you know, what? I don't believe for one second that you believe everything you read on usenet either. You know you consider the source just as I do. You don't have to be in a courtroom to want proof.

jane

P.S. No, I'm not a NOW attorney. I never said I was any kind of attorney.

Sep 17 1998 12:00 am

I posted here about six months ago. I am still in the same relationship, which has progressed, but we still do not live together. I feel I need some advice from the group again.

Originally I posted complaining about my SO's kids - 9, 11, and 14. Their manners were bad, etc. etc. - all the usual stuff that comes from a culture clash between two very different families. The responses I got were pretty blunt. The gist of most of them was that I should mind my own business and not inflict anything on the kids. I took it to heart, I think.

In the past six months I have come to know the children better, and to like them better. I still avoid criticizing the children or attempting to modify their behavior. I have on occasion told them to stop some behavior that I find intolerable, but that has been infrequent. The kids have reacted rather well to it, partly because it is clear that they have begun to like me and trust me a fair bit.

The potential problem now is that my SO wants me to increase my commitment. She really wants to get married and move in together. She has made it clear that she would expect me to contribute to her children's financial support. I recently did some research at work (I am a lawyer) during which I came across information to the effect that, if I contribute to the children economically, I could be legally bound to do so in the future. That could be so even if my relationship with their mother were to end, and even if I never adopt the children. I could be obliged to support them if I stand "in loco parentis" to them. I do not know the full legal picture here. I may get some advice or do additional research myself.

Anyway, I have serious misgivings about this. In my opinion, I presently have no economic obligations to either my SO or her kids. I hesitate to incur such obligations. My own children are young adults who will certainly be calling upon my help from time to time to further their education, buy their first house, etc. My resources are not infinite. Am I being selfish in hesitating to increase my level of commitment to my SO and her kids? Does anyone have any experience with keeping "separate accounts" to limit the step-parent's economic role? It seems to me that might lead to a lot of friction and hard feelings.

I feel guilty about being stingy and mistrustful, but something inside is telling me to be very careful. I love my woman friend, and I like her kids, but - what should I do?

I agree with the conclusion other posters have drawn that you are not ready to make this commitment for a variety of reasons. However, you asked about the financial question, so I'm sticking to that.

Go pick up an MCLE book on family law in your state. Take a survey course in family law for your continuing education credits. Investigate the law of prenups in your state. What are your plans for asset division in case of divorce? Are you in a community property state?

I don't see asset and income segregation as any big deal. You just keep separate accounts and a joint account for household expenses. Always deposit all your income to your separate account. Future wife should always deposit to hers. Do not sign each other's checks. Purchase individual assets from your separate accounts and family assets from the joint account. That kind of thing. Any good family law attorney can help you formulate a plan.

Investigate the subject and see an attorney before you live together. If you and SO can't agree on these issues now, I don't see any point in fighting them out in your home. Surely you both owe the children some level of certainty about your relationship before you cohabit. Go with your gut on this one. It really doesn't matter if you ARE a stingy bastard; you are the person that SO wants to link her life with. If she's not willing to consider and respect your needs now, then the relationship is doomed anyway. OTOH, maybe you will find that money is really no big deal to her, and she will agree to whatever arrangement makes you comfortable.

I know you don't want to lose her. You really have to work this out with her, though.

jane

Sep 16 1998 12:00 am

[snip]

I have an other interesting question: Is there such a thing as holding copyrigths of grammar books?

There are a number of commonly used usage and style guides. They are copyrighted. They do not concur on all points. Neither do dictionaries.

School grammar books are chosen by the schools. Sometimes a state board of education sets guidelines for the curriculum. Publishers submit their packages to conform to the guidelines. The packages included student texts, workbooks, supplementary teacher materials, etc. The state board evaluates these and informs school districts that certain publishers' packages comply with their guidelines. Individual school districts then peruse, test, and otherwise evaluate the different packages. Eventually, one publisher's package is chosen for the district.

Not only are their copyrights on grammar books, there is intense competition in this lucrative market.

jane

Sep 15 1998 12:00 am

Help!

This has nothing directly to do with either step or single parenting. It is a parenting problem, though. I'm just hoping that someone can help. I am pretty confused.

My specific problem involves my daughter (D), her best friend (DBF), and DBF's mother, who is also my friend.

DBF: My friend and her mate broke up in June. Since then, DBF has become incredibly possessive of D. If they spend time with another friend, they always end up fighting. DBF interrupts every (literally) interaction D has with another child. If simple interruption does not work, DBF starts a fight by taunting, insulting, or "accidentally" physically hurting the other child. If D is not around, DBF behaves the same way but with a second or third string friend in D's place. The kids are all 10 or 11.

D: D is intensely loyal to DBF and thick as mud. She ends up angry with all her other friends for being mean to DBF. While I admire her loyalty to DBF, I am appalled by the way she treats her other friends. She just can't go to a friend's house and ditch him or her as soon as DBF arrives. My original solution was to limit D's group gatherings and push individual time with each of her friends. Of course, I also explained that her behavior is rude. I really didn't want to get into explaining that DBF is deliberately manipulating her, because I felt that was a lesson that D should figure out on her own.

My friend, DBF's mother: I can't talk to her anymore. For the last three months, whenever I make plans with another parent for D to spend time alone with his/her child, DBF ends up there too. I explain to my friend ahead of time that D needs individual time with the other friend as their relations have been tense. Invariably, she completely agrees with me and says that DBF can do something else. I get to the friend's house to drop off D and find that DBF is already there. This happens EVERY time. Of course, there is never a problem with DBF going without D.

Then, when the kids come home angry, my friend calls me up to complain about how mean the other child was to D and DBF. Even when we have all been in family groups, my friend does not see that it is OUR children who are being cruel and causing trouble. If I hear "Poor DBF" one more time, I will vomit. I point out that Tommy called DBF "fat" when he was in some pain, as DBF had just hit him in the face with a soccer ball, and that Leah called our daughters "jerks" when they locked her out of her own bedroom for a half hour. She replies that the soccer ball was an accident or that DBF told her that they just closed the door for a minute. For heaven's sake, we were both sitting right there. How can she be so dense?

Yesterday: The good news was that the cast came off my leg. Now I can entertain D's friends individually in our home again. I think I can just say, "I'm sorry, but no" when DBF calls to ask if she can come too. The bad news was that DBF's family is moving in down the street from us. It won't be long before DBF figures out that she can just skip the phone call and show up at our house. If I send her home, my friend will think I am being cruel to her poor daughter.

Please help me figure this out.

Jane

P.S. SIL says that this is all kid stuff that I should ignore. DH says that I am not clear enough up front.

Sep 04 1998 23:54

And sometimes you have to face the fact that you choose poorly in having a child with this person.... Merrie

The jagged little pill that is SO hard to swallow.

jane

Sep 14 1998 12:00 am

OK, but take it to real life:

A couple whose kid plays on my SS's soccer team. 3 kids under the age of 11. She works part-time outside the home, he is the primary wageearner as a handyman, which gives him flexible hours. To all observance, they share childcare duties.

She ends the marriage by having an affair with the coach of our kids' team. He wants to keep the house and the kids. I was better friends with her until this happened, but I think the Dad should get the kids. After all, why should he have to lose everything because his wife strayed? Also, he wants her back, and wouldn't she be more likely to return if she missed the kids?

If it matters, there are no allegations of abuse, cheating, etc., by the husband. (Both husband and wife have talked to a lot of people in our circle about this, so we are fairly up on the details).

Thoughts? SSM

I think you're falling into the trap of thinking about what's fair to the parents rather than what's best for the children.

I don't know your couple, and I have no opinion on who the kids should live with. I just instinctively recoiled when you said that dad "should get the kids." That sentence makes the children sound like prizes. Even if you feel that mom should not have strayed, you have to admit that her failure does not automatically make dad the better residential parent. That's what you have to consider. We parents don't always get what's fair.

I don't know. There could be great reasons for letting the kids reside with mom. Sleeping with the soccer coach does not make you a bad mother, it makes you a bad wife. (And tacky) If she works part-time, she may be more responsible for day-to-day parenting than he. If she is the primary source of nurturing, discipline, support, etc. in the children's life, then maybe the divorce would be less traumatic for them if they remain in the home with her. I have no doubt that it would be less traumatic for dad if he stayed in his house with his kids. But when he had those kids, he agreed to put their needs before his own.

One thing I do know: you can never really know what goes on in other people's marriages. As you said of your BM, if the marriage had been working for her, she wouldn't have left. No one is ever all right or all wrong in a marriage. You've been married long enough to know that none of us can cast the first stone.

I would cut mom some slack. Abuse and cheating aren't the only reasons people decide they can't take it anymore. Maybe he tells her he won't have sex with her because she's too fat. Maybe, like Vicki R., she just felt she was dying inside. Whatever her reasons were, you have to admit that she has stuck it out for quite a while. She didn't just flip her hair and shimmy off at the first sign of trouble. If she decided that her marriage doesn't have a chance, then I have to assume she knows. It's really hard to break up your family and leave a person you have been with for a dozen years.

I'm rambling. My point is that custody has to be based on what is best for the children, not on who was at fault in the divorce.

jane

Sep 14 1998 12:00 am

[I don't know your couple, and I have no opinion on who the kids should live with. I just instinctively recoiled when you said that dad "should get the kids." That sentence makes the children sound like prizes. Even if you feel that mom should not have strayed, you have to admit that her failure does not automatically make dad the better residential parent. That's what you have to consider. We parents don't always get what's fair.]

From what SSM has said, they both shared in child care duties and there were no signs of abuse...which makes both parents equal as good parents. First off, there should be joint custody. However, if this is not possible, being that both parents are equal, then I agree with SSM. "She" messed up. Either dad or mom having the kids will not lessen the best interest of the kids, but dad having the kids will lessen the impact of the one not at fault.

[I don't know. There could be great reasons for letting the kids reside with mom. Sleeping with the soccer coach does not make you a bad mother, it makes you a bad wife. (And tacky) If she works part-time, she may be more responsible for day-to-day parenting than he.]

If she works part-time, then she will undoubtedly expect her ex to finance the remainder of her expenses that the part-time job does not cover. Why punish him further for her mistakes. What "should" happen, is that she will now need to acquire "full"-time work, putting her day-to-day parenting availability on par with his.

[If she is the primary source of nurturing, discipline, support, etc. in the children's life, then maybe the divorce would be less traumatic for them if they remain in the home with her. I have no doubt that it would be less traumatic for dad if he stayed in his house with his kids. But when he had those kids, he agreed to put their needs before his own.]

See above. From what SSM has posted, the best interest of the kids will not diminish with "either" parent. And the guy still wants her to stay....is "she" putting the best interest of the kids first?

[One thing I do know: you can never really know what goes on in other people's marriages. As you said of your BM, if the marriage had been working for her, she wouldn't have left. No one is ever all right or all wrong in a marriage. You've been married long enough to know that none of us can cast the first stone.]

I wouldn't agree so much with this when it comes to an abusive relationship. No matter what an abused person can do, it does not warrant the abuse, and the abuser is "totally" wrong. Though most marriages end due to faults of both, many marriages are simply the fault of one individual who either changed their mind, got bored, became violent, etc. Even should that person getting bored claim that their spouse was inattentive, they should have spoken up. If they did not, they have no one to blame but themselves.

[I would cut mom some slack. Abuse and cheating aren't the only reasons people decide they can't take it anymore. Maybe he tells her he won't have sex with her because she's too fat. Maybe, like Vicki R., she just felt she was dying inside. Whatever her reasons were, you have to admit that she has stuck it out for quite a while. She didn't just flip her hair and shimmy off at the first sign of trouble. If she decided that her marriage doesn't have a chance, then I have to assume she knows. It's really hard to break up your family and leave a person you have been with for a dozen years.]

It is much less traumatic to speak with your spouse beforehand and tell them how you feel before acting out. Your spouse is never a mind reader (unless s/he works for Phsycic Friends) and does not know what you are feeling/thinking. It is up to you to let them know and work on a solution. If all solutions fail, then you at least know you have given it your best. But if you don't even try, you have given it nothing.

[I'm rambling. My point is that custody has to be based on what is best for the children, not on who was at fault in the divorce.]

And when either custody situation is "equal" for the children, we can then base it on fault.

I didn't expect this to be a controversial post. I thought SSM's sympathy for her friend was clouding her judgment a little. That custody should be determined according to what is best for the children is one of those truths I consider to be self-evident.

I don't know where you are coming from, Char. All SSM said was that the couple appeared to share parenting responsibilities. Somehow, you conclude from this that both mom and dad "are good and equal parents." Who died and appointed you Judge Judy? You have no idea what the specifics of this situation are.

I completely disagree with your assertion that "many marriages are simply the fault of one individual...." Human relations don't work that way. We all would like to think that our prior relationships ended through no fault of our own. The truth is that in hindsight every single one of us can think of things (s)he would do differently if we had it to do over again. If you don't, then you are not learning from your mistakes. It is impossible not to make mistakes in marriage - or in any other relationship.

jane

Sep 14 1998 12:00 am

Whenever a couple splits, SOMEbody will NOT get custody.

[Actually, I believe joint legal and physical custody is the norm, at least in the states where I have lived.]

Joint legal, yes, but joint physical is extremely rare from what I've learned in the past year on alt.child-support.

I have an ENTIRELY different experience. Granted, I have very limited knowledge. I have examined custody law in a few states, though. Joint legal and physical is not only a judicial preference, it is the legislated default position. I will look this up later in the week and see how other states deal with it.

And I have still been searching for *anyone* who can show evidence that not having two "real" homes is best for the kids (if the alternative is to have a very involved NCP, but live primarily with one parent).

I agree to the extent that pushing the "two real home" idea deprives the child of the security of having any real home. Some people seem to have a lot less trouble with this than I would, though.

We have joint legal/primary physical, and the decree gives my husband tie-breaker power on legal issues where they disagree. Without this, you'd be relitigating the divorce every week, or at least we would.

And as you undoubtedly know, a joint legal/NCP parent gets a pretty raw deal: they have to transfer income to the other household, they don't get to tuck the kids in most nights, they can be fairly effectively blocked by an uncooperative CP, particularly if the CP decides she needs to move to get on with her life (ducking here).

Hey, I moved here for my daughter's health (partially)!

Basically, if you were prepared to be a CP and find yourself a NCP, it's often a total lose-lose situation.

All of this is done in the name of making sure that the parent with primary responsibility for the kids gets more assets and freedoms to take care of their needs. But even so, it feels like loss.

I'm sorry if I sound like a judgmental bitch, but I get so sick of the whining in alt.c-s that I just want to scream, "GROW UP!" Of course it hurts, feels like a loss, seems unfair, etc. And venting can certainly help you deal with it. But if you weren't mature enough to be the grown up, and put your own feelings aside for the sake of the children, then you never should have had any. (There I feel better.)

That's why I still feel that if both parents are prepared to be the primary caretakers and CPs, the only fair way to determine it may be fault.

Well, I've certainly responded enough to this in other posts. The question is not who is willing to be a primary caregiver, but who is best able. Parents don't get what's fair. Marital fault is left out of the equation because courts have found a) that it is not particularly pertinent to parenting skills and b) that it is impossible to determine from outside the marriage.

Besides, divorcing couples are basket cases. The last thing you want to do is encourage them to point fingers at each other. They have to put all that aside and work together to figure out the best way to move on. BTW, divorce files are public records. If you want to see how ugly things can get, pop down to the court house and read through a few.

The current approach (just give to kids to the Mom unless she is a real basket case) is just so unfair to so many men.

Last time I looked at this, I found that contrary to public perception, in contested custody trials, fathers were far more likely to win than mothers. (Maybe I'll look for stats next week on this one.)

And the kids would often be better off financially, too.

But so many other things are so much more important.

jane

Sep 16 1998 12:00 am

[Okay, I just poked around a little, so don't quote me on this. It seems that half the states order joint legal and physical custody regularly. The other half order it only when the parents agree. I guess the alt.c-s experience comes from the latter half the states.

This info is from: http://www.divorcesource.com/search/custody/nolo.html]

Thanks for the link. Actually, what it says is not inconsistent with my understanding. It says that only two states have preumptive joint legal custody, where it will be ordered unless one parent can provide a compelling case for it not being awarded.

In the other "half" of cases, it is permitted.

My reading of this blurb was that ALL states order joint custody. Half the states only order it when both parents agree.

It does not say in this article that Joint residential custody is the norm. In fact it refers to all of the traditional reasons that the Mom should be granted primary phyisical.

If you don't mind, I'm going to ask the fathers' rights advocates on acs what their data shows.

BTW, do you have joint physical custody? How is it structured, and how does it work out? Perhaps I'm just skeptical becaouse I don't know anyone actually doing it. SSM

I'm so mad at myself. I found a really informative article about this, but I didn't bookmark it. When I tried to email it to you my browser crashed. I should know better.

Anyway, that article was not inconsistent with your experience either. Apparently, joint physical is fairly new and has only been around since the '60's. It is common in the states I have lived in. States do not keep statistics on the specifics of parenting plans. To get statistics, someone has to read through each custody decree and count the results.

Since my ex and I were never married, there is no custody order regarding my BD. We've never had so much trouble resolving our differences that we ever needed to use the courts. DH has joint legal and physical custody of his children, though. In fact, just about everyone I know has joint legal and physical. (Actually, one of my friends has sole legal/physical, but her ex is dangerously psychotic.)

JL&P is no big deal. I really don't get the controversy. Joint physical custody does not mean that the children reside an equal amount of time with both parents. You still hammer out the schedule that works. You each have legal custody all the time and physical custody when you have the kids. It's not very different from custody to one with visitation to the other, except that it recognizes that time spent with both parents is real "parenting" time. I think people get fired up because some places connect child support to the percentage of time that the children spend with each parent. If you leave that out of the equation, joint physical is less troublesome than joint legal.

This is how JL&P with 50/50 coparenting works for my SIL. According to the parenting plan, Husband and Wife agree to live in the same town. H always has the children from Sunday evening to Tuesday evening. W always has children from Tuesday evening to Thursday evening. The Thursday evening through Sunday evening block alternates between H and W. Since JL&P is common there, the school district is comfortable with children alternating between two different bus routes. H and W alternate holidays, and each take the children for two weeks of vacation during the year. H maintains medical and dental insurance, pays half of all activities, and pays W approximately $3K/mo in child support. W pays the other half the children's activities.

This seems to work pretty well for them, even though H and W despise each other. Since they live within 5 miles of each other, the kids don't have a lot of trouble keeping the same friends all the time. There is some friction about activities, consistency of discipline, etc. Recently the teen-age daughter has pushed for additional time at W's, as her best friend lives across the street. The 8 year old, OTOH, sometimes wants to spend extra time with her little sister at H's house.

They work it out. They each take the children when the other is sick. H is usually flexible when my daughter goes to visit them. W took all the kids while SM was in labor watch. They sporadically discuss all of them moving to the southwest once the teen daughter goes to college. They seem to acknowledge that the inconvenience is outweighed by the benefit to the children of having consistent relationships with both parents.

jane

Sep 17 1998 12:00 am

snip details of successful 50/50 co parenting arrangement

So, in a nutshell, it is possible to share physical custody without creating additional insecurities, or so I believe.

Any questions? ;)

Yes. I did not mean to imply that this was not possible. I don't think it is possible for everyone, though. Not all parents are able to put aside their differences as well as you have. Personally, I think I would have killed my ex if we had your arrangement in the beginning.

Now we have thrashed stuff out, and it would probably work much more smoothly. To be perfectly honest, though, none of us want a 50/50 split. My ex, my child, and I all want her to spend the bulk of her time with me and lots of time with him.

jane

Sep 17 1998 12:00 am

....... you did suggest that having two homes would take away from a child's sense of security, their sense of a real home.

Yes, I think it can. I think 50/50 coparenting requires that both parents be mature, selfless, tolerant of their ex's foibles, and respectful of the other coparent's differing point of view. It also helps if the coparents live in the same neighborhood and school district. You need to have one big happy family in two houses.

Kids get so torn apart when their parents are still in the "blaming" stage. If they are alternating between a "your mom is a bitch" house and a "your dad is a bastard" house several times a week, then I think they yearn for neutral ground. Also, I think that the more uniformity the coparents can agree on, the more stability there is for the children. Just as an example, I think it is extremely difficult for children to spend half their school nights in an 8:00 bedtime house and half in a 10:00 bedtime house.

I guess my main objection is to 50/50 coparenting being forced on couples who are not ready. It is so like the story of King Solomon cutting the baby in half: It's fair to the parents, but disastrous for the child. My ex and I both try really hard to do the right thing, and we both love our child to death. But in the beginning every time she went with her dad, he and I had a fight. Even though we kept her out of it directly, she sensed the tension. If we had been switching 3 or 4 times a week, I know that much more of our conflict would have communicated itself to her. And we were really good about not maligning each other to her and not fighting in front of her. So when parents directly involve the kids in their war, I think the less the children see them interact the better.

jane

Sep 14 1998 12:00 am

You might be surprised, but I have no "african-american" friends either. Many black friends, but not one of them is "african-american."

:-)

You might be surprised, but I am not the PC police.

I did, however, feel obliged to stand up for Andy, our high school janitor, who left the basement door ajar when we went out to sneak a smoke.

jane

P.S. I have black friends too.

Sep 14 1998 12:00 am

I was in the hospital today, waiting to get my cast removed. On my way out the door, I grabbed a book to read, "The Documents In the Case," by Dorothy L. Sayers and Robert Eustace. It's a pretty funny book.

On the first page I found this: To me, who have been working over them for the last six or seven months, they seem to point clearly to one and only one conclusion,...

I was surprised. I couldn't figure out if I would say "who have" or "who has."

What would you say?

jane

Sep 14 1998 3:00 am

So you have a choice to make between A and B. Later, C is also offered, and you have three choices. What happened to two choices? It seems that the expressions "a choice" and "two choices" are synonymous. Any thoughts, gals and guys? Jack

[I don't use "choice" this way. To me, you have one "choice." First the choice is between A and B. Then it is among A, B, and C. You appear to be using the word "choice" to refer both to the act of choosing (your first sentence) and to the things you may choose (second sentence).]

But that's the point isn't it; that you can use "choice" both ways? It seems to me that you want to make language work logically, that it should be consistent. But surely it's proven itself to be quite the opposite?

Are you talking to me? You think I want language to work logically? Actually, deep down in my heart, I probably do. I wish the mass were still in Latin, too. I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice consistency for vibrancy, though.

I understand the original point now (I think) but it still seems to be more of a joke about semantics rather than an actual usage concern, because we all know "choice" can be used (quite correctly) as representing the alternatives offered to view and the act of selecting itself.

I could not care less how Jack uses the word "choice." I thought he was posing his question as a conundrum or puzzle. You are not luring me into a discussion on "quite correct" usage.

Does this really cause problems for anyone? It doesn't boggle my noodle, and so our analyses of it seems more of an autopsy. "You have three choices to make" can mean merely that there are three options open to your perusal or that you have a series of cognitive selections to make to achieve some end: but the context of any conversation would make this clear, wouldn't it?

I don't think so. IMVE, "You have three choices to make," is never used in your first sense. Where I live, even if "choice" is used to mean "things one may choose," the sentence would still come out, "You have three choices." You only *make* a choice in the "act of choosing" sense.

jane

Sep 14 1998 12:00 am

But what little imagination those term paper readers often had! They would downgrade you for starting a sentence with "But" or "And" and yet James Joyce and Shakespeare did it all the time. Likewise with ending a sentence with a preposition. Personally, I think all three of these case can spice up writing and often draw attention to a sentence without using some such crudity as underlining a word.

Sentence fragments, too.

In the early years, I think writers need to learn to master the conventions before they flout them. Unfortunately, those who correct term papers often can't tell if the writer is unaware of or rejecting "the rules."

I have great sympathy for the graders of those bone-crushingly boring term papers. Many high school teachers and college and graduate school professors are appalled by the technical quality of the writing they encounter. They believe they would do their students a disservice if they failed to point out "errors." Others believe that grammar is outside their purview. They grade on content, depth of analysis, orderly exposition of argument, etc. I understand both perspectives.

jane

Sep 14 1998 12:00 am

In what cases is it all right to begin a sentence with either and or but?

"And" is a conjunction.

But for the handsome semaritan, Becky might have perished.

My H.S. English teachers always told me this was a no-no, but I've run across the practice so many times by the best of writers, I no longer believe all that those teachers taught. There are times I begin sentences that way because I don't see another simpler way to write and it just sounds right. But I have no hard-and-fast rule. Help?

As my 11 year old daughter would say, "Newsflash!" Your high school English teachers are no longer looking over your shoulder. They are busy drumming "could of" out of other hapless youths. You're on your own now. You also have very good judgment (about style :-)). Enjoy your freedom. By all means punch up your writing with whatever devices work in context. But/and beginnings give your writing a less formal, more immediate flavor.

Example 1: Most lawyers would not begin a sentence with "but" or "and" in a Supreme Court brief, but they very well might in oral argument.

Example 2: I use contractions in Usenet posts, because I consider this a conversational forum. I never use contractions in business letters, because I think they demonstrate a lack of professionalism.

NB: Never become so intoxicated by this heady license that you begin a sentence with "but" or "and" in a letter to your high school English teacher.

jane

Sep 13 1998 12:00 am

I've been learning about the most fascinating relationship!

[snip]

Am I the only one that sees anything wrong with this? Granted, I don't have six of them; but I would never treat my own children any differently than I do my stepson. I might *feel* differently about them, but I just couldn't consciously treat them differently...it wouldn't be fair. And I couldn't see my mother treating them differently, either...she'd never take one somewhere and not the other.

I try to think of other blended families and how they handle things, but this just seems to me like they're laying a lot of groundwork from some pretty unstable adults...particularly with the twins!

Yuck.

You know what this means, don't you, lil? You and your mom are going to have to plan things and clearly invite all six. Then, if they say they'll just bring the "real" child/grandchild, you'll have to say, "Oh, no, we'll just put it off until all six can make it."

Of course you COULD just tell cousin James what a scum bag you think he is and alienate the whole family. This would be my first instinct, but I have rejected it as unhelpful.

jane

Sep 13 1998 12:00 am

I caught this header over at parenting.solutions and thought it would be a nice topic over here, especially considering that it is really easy sometimes to focus on the negatives of single parenting.

I'll start with a little one...cause I can.

Ooh, I have a good one.

My daughter is 11 yo. The other day we were talking about college (I, too, was surprised that the subject comes up so soon). I told her that there were a lot of good schools where her dad lives and that she might want to think of them. She said, "Mommy, I think I want to go to Harvard." My heart swelled with joy that she had such confidence and high goals. Then she said, "Then after that I want to go to beauty school so that I can get my license to do hair and nails."

jane

Sep 13 1998 12:00 am

P1: I just wanted to make a quick point. Unplanned pregnancies do not necessarily mean unwanted children. I did not plan to become a single mother. I agonized over my decision after I became pregnant. But my son was wanted and still is. I think that is the case with most unplanned pregnancies...that the resulting child is wanted. The cases where the child is not wanted is the problem...not just the fact that it was unexpected. The resulting difference from your planned pregnancy and my unplanned pregnancy is negligible.

P2: There will always be an exception to every rule. And I did not mean to imply that all unplanned pregnancies were unwanted children. I was only saying that to me it makes sense to go into such a huge responsibility as parenthood prepared and therefore planned.

Jane stuck her $.02 in:

Sometimes I think this is what pregnancy is all about. Remember how obsessed you were during those nine months? We all changed. I was so preoccupied I couldn't drive! In the back of my mind, I was constantly thinking about the changes in my life, how I would care for the child, whether my ex would be a good father, etc. I am sure that women who have planned their children go through this, too. No matter how much you think about it ahead of time, it's still completely overwhelming when it happens.

jane

Sep 12 1998 12:00 am

Background; I am married to a man with four children from his previous marriage. For the coming week we have the youngest of the four ( Tom ) staying with us because my husband misses him and his x feels that "he will benefit from spending time with his father".

This is all good.

I have no children of my own and I was not instrumental in the break-up of the marriage. My husband works 12hrs per day which means that I will be in charge of said child who is already a very confused little boy.

This is all bad. Your husband absolutely, totally, 100% has to spend at least the first few days of visitation with you. You have to let the child know that you and DH are caring for him as a team.

Is it wrong for me to feel like a live in child minder, don't get me wrong, I want the best for everybody out of the mess that was the divorce but I have misgivings in specific areas:

My child (although I have none) would not behave the way that my step children do,

This is dangerous ground. If you have never had children, chances are you don't really know how they would act. Just as an example, many non-parents feel that tantruming, biting, whining, etc. are willful acts on the child's part. IMHO, these are normal developmental steps. We have to TEACH our children that this is inappropriate behavior. It is a long and sometimes frustrating process. It is not, however, the child's fault.

they have been taught or rather not taught manners, that I as a person find unacceptable, but who am I to change this behaviour even though my husband agrees with me and has seen the deterioration of their general well being since the divorce. How can we demand respect in our home when as soon as they go home it is back to the manipulative "care" of their mother?

Well, the bottom line is they have to have manners in your home. How old is Tom? I get the feeling that he is 4 or 5. If so, you have my deepest sympathy. Kids this age are whiny, demanding, argumentative, rebellious, and stubborn as hell. They have to do EVERYTHING for themselves, even if it takes 20 minutes. When it is your own child, you just tell yourself over and over that they are learning how to assert themselves and express their needs in a strange and confusing world. You patiently and lovingly help them to learn simultaneously self-determination and self-control. Other people's kids at this age are just brats. I don't understand how child-care workers do it. You've got to read parenting books on this age group to get some perspective.

All school-age children have encountered SOMEONE who expects to be treated with courtesy and respect. You just have to identify yourself to the child as one of those people. It's pretty easy if you and DH work out a plan. IME, kids test you pretty early on. Within the first five minutes, he will begin feeling you out through his actions and his speech. You'll know what I mean when it happens.

Don't over-react or let anything slide. Just calmly reinforce his appropriate behavior and point out his inappropriate behavior. If he swears, say, "We don't use that language." If he throws his stuff on the living room floor, say, "You can bring those into the bedroom now, Johnny. I'll show you the way." If he says that he is getting an A in math, say, "That's wonderful." If he brings his plate to the kitchen sink, say, "Thank you." It may be exhausting in the beginning, but it saves immeasurable time later on. Do not fall into the trap of letting things go for a few days until the child "settles in." It is completely unfair to the child. He has to know the lay of the land right from the start.

Things that worry me about this coming week are a million-fold but I'll narrow it down:

1, Taking Tom out in public is like having a lit match in your left hand and a stick of dynamite in your right (unpredictable), wish I had a pink neon sign saying "step-parent - not responsible".

Do not bring Tom anywhere in public until you are certain that he knows what is expected of him. When you first do, you may have to continue the "testing" process. Firmly, consistently, and calmly (I know how much easier this is to say than to do) let him know what behavior is and is not appropriate.

If Tom is quite young, you have to keep in mind that he is not a little adult. He does not have the tools for dealing with the world that we do. Your job is to help him develop skills for dealing with his frustration, exhaustion, excitement, etc. All kids just grab what they want until you teach them that they have to ask. Most kids tantrum when they fall apart. Just bite the bullet, ignore the censorious looks, and ignore him until it's over. It helps if you keep in mind that the kid lost it because you pushed him too far. The worst of it is that you don't know Tom well enough to be able to predict what activity is going to affect him the way four hours in a traffic jam would affect you. You really have to try not to me too critical of yourself or of him (or, incidentally of his mother, who is raising four kids by herself).

2, If Tom decides to wreck furniture and generally be a pain in the arse and I get inches away from wanting to smack him, is shutting him in his room and asking him to stay there until he can behave, a suitable way to deal with the situation considering that really I have no say whatsoever in the upbringing of this child.

No, no, no. From bitter experience, I can assure you that you have to deal with stuff way before the wanting to smack him stage. Brief time outs do seem to help kids get a grip when they are out of control. Sticking him in his room until he learns how to behave could last decades. Of course, you have to put some distance between you if you think you might hurt the child. Sometimes you have to give yourself a time out until YOU get control of yourself again. Don't worry too much if this happens; it gives you perspective for when he kicks you.

My best advice is to change the environment when you feel like things are getting out of control. When they get wild, most parents I know bring their kid to a park to run it off. There are computer programs that distract and entertain kids of any age. When I run thin on patience, I generally cook with the kids. Pretty much anything with eggs or peanut butter works. Don't be afraid of the tv, videos, or even Nintendo; for right now just focus on surviving the week. Also, they make all kinds of washable paints, markers, finger paints, etc. now. I have seen all the kids in my extended family (ages 4 to 15) spend an hour making puppets out of brown paper bags, colored paper, buttons, etc. And they got along! All kids seem to like anything that involves water, music or dirt.

I would appreciate any advice from more experienced step mothers than myself.

Good luck! I hope this helps. You might want to post to alt.support.single-parents to get advice on parenting a child by yourself.

jane

Sep 13 1998 12:00 am

(This is actually 'Mark' and not my wife Helen this time!!). Thanks for the advice given to my wife, some of it is actually quite useful for myself. I've got to admit that in our circumstances it is not ideal for me to be out at work and for Helen to look after Tom (4yo).

I am glad you realize the tough situation you are putting Tom and Helen in. We all do our best with less than perfect circumstances.

[snip]

I've had little contact with the children for about two years now, sometimes not seeing them for six weeks or so, (longer when I was in Bosnia), though usually once a month or more. In my minds eye I see young Tom lacking in a father figure, ( The girls aswell though I was actively being their father in their younger years which I believe to be the most important stage in their development ). From Toms point of view, he had a very loving Father until he was 2yo, and then I'm gone! (Bio-mum got a new fella actually). I think all my children were devastated really though BM does her best to convince them that it's best for them. ( Maybe she's right but there is nothing to be gained by exploring that now as it's allready happened!).

I am digressing again! With the limited contact that I have with the children I have seen a steady decline in their attitudes, manners and ambitions. Apparently all the values and manners which were important to teach the children from my point of view are now scorned upon. ( I don't know why either but that's BM for you).

This is why continued contact with both parents is so important. It's easy to throw out the baby with the bath water. In reality, both parents usually have a great deal to add to the lives of their children.

So, the childrens behaviour does quite often leave a lot to be desired. Helen and I agree on this - most things really.

I think that our problems stem from the fact that neither of us has any experience of step-parenting. Helen looks to me for advice on this but I'm happy for Helen to define her own role and have as little or as much to do with the children as she wants.

It may look this way now. My experience is that once a step begins to define his or her own role, the bio-parent finds all sorts of previously undiscovered opinions about what the step should and should not be doing. I say this as both a bio-mom and a step-mom. Incidentally, Helen really doesn't have the option of spending as little time as she wants with Tom during his visit, does she?

It's simple enough for me, they're my children and I love them, always will and can't change that. I think it's more difficult for Helen, she married me and not the children, I don't expect her to love them but if she does then I don't mind that, anyway you can't really plan for that can you?

I realise that I've put Helen in a terrible position this week (actually she is very, very good with the children - but it really tires her out). Maybe if she relaxes and doesn't worry too much about Tom's manners/misbehaviour it could be fun.

Mark, I can tell you're a nice guy. I don't want to flame you. You're not being fair to your wife. You can't lock her up for 12 hours at a time with an ill-mannered little monster and expect her not to worry about it. Don't even start to think, "Oh, he's not that bad, really." ALL 4 year olds take a lot of patience. Tom will be going through an extremely stressful experience. Not only will he be away from his mom, her SO, and his siblings, for 12 hours a day he will also be separated from the father he knows somewhat and be trapped with a virtual stranger. You're saying that the virtual stranger in question shouldn't worry that his behavior might tax her patience?

You love these children. You are responsible for them. You brought them into the world. You also have experience with 4 year olds. You can't say any of these about Helen. For heaven's sake, the least you can do is help her prepare. Tell her all you know about Tom, parenting, and 4 year olds. Discuss options for discipline and appropriate responses to different behaviors. Brainstorm about things she and Tom can do, places they can go, ways to work off tension, etc. Tell her that you don't want a Christmas present, you want her to spend the money on a full body massage.

With the limited contact that we have I don't think it's possible for us to influence either of the children's behaviour so I try to ignore the bad bits and have fun and show them that I do love them even if I'm not there.

I can't begin to tell you how much I disagree with you. Every single thing you do influences their behavior. If you ignore their bad habits, you reinforce them. What is the point of having Tom come spend time with you if you are going be gone virtually the entire time and not even attempt to impart your values to him while he is there? This may sound cruel, Mark, but they can have fun without you. Ignoring their behavior and bad habits is not showing them that you love them. It is showing them that they are not important enough for you to attempt to teach them how to get along with others and function as adults in a very unaccepting world.

Furthermore, if you don't take Helen's concerns seriously, you will lose your wife. You have asked something completely unreasonable of her. You obviously ignored, overrode, or talked her out of her reservations about this visit. Now you are denying her your support. You are telling her that she should just put her own feelings and beliefs aside and just not worry about how Tom acts around her for 12 straight hours. A lesser woman (me) would hit you over the head with a frying pan. The absolute least you can do for your wife is reassure her that you will back up any of her decisions 100 percent. You might also give her a foot massage.

Hopefully Tom will end the week with some nice memories, even if it is only 3hrs per night that he see's me. Hopefully Helen will end the week not too worn out, not too upset and you never know we may still be madly in love even if there is paint on the carpets and marker pen scribbling all over the walls!!!

Hope I havent offended anybody in my ramblings,

I hope the week goes well for all three of you. Best of luck.

jane

P.S. Please don't be offended if this sounds like an attack. I don't mean it as one.