Jane's Posts

Apr 24 2004 10:23 am

Am i wrong with any of this??

Oh, yeah! Most glaringly with:

So finally after this "last straw" ive convinced her of the need to get things legal. To have everything spelled out by CT state law so everyone knows thier place and acts accordingly.

Going to court isn't going to solve any of the problems you've mentioned. Going to court can do nothing to make BD less annoying or lazy or inflexible.

I consider not going to court one of the smartest moves I ever made in my parenting split. There's no court order for me to violate. My ex and I do whatever we think is right. We disagree from time to time, but we hash it out like married parents do. Not having the option of going into court for contempt keeps us reasonable. It requires us to behave as adults.

From what you've said, that's pretty much what your wife and her ex seem to be doing. If you think the strain of *that* is tough, tell her to do her complaining to her mother and just tell you she needs a foot rub. Because once court orders are involved, the ex will be doing the same annoying things and your wife will have the threat of him dragging her into court hanging her over her head all the time.

Right now, the ex's rights toward his child are tacit, presumed, potential. After your wife "makes things legal," he'll probably have joint legal and physical custody, more visitation than he has now, possibly less CS obligation. Your wife won't just be rolling her eyes as she hammers out pickup details, she'll probably have them written into a court order as her responsibility. If the day ever does come that little Jessica realizes her father is an ass and tells him so, your wife will still be bound to drop her at his door at the appointed time.

Custody trials are immensely time-consuming, stressful, expensive, and invasive. If you think you want one, you're wrong. This can go on for years, cost you tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars, and involve intense investigation of you and your wife's mental and physical health, marital relationship, home, finances, job situations, etc.

jane

May 05 2004 12:02 pm

She told him fine, meet you in one hour, then called me. I told her rather than futzing around, half an hour from home, for another hour or more, she should come home. Then she should call him and have him drop her off at home. Well DW sort of made a fuss about it, but if you dont make a stand hell walk all over her. Our dinner plans were now screwed up (530 to a 630 pickup), and he does it all the time. He is never ever ontime always at least 15-20 late but usually more.

Well BD didnt like that, all a sudden he couldnt garuntee that SD would be home by the newly agreed upon time. He started heeing and hawing about having to come all the way down to drop SD off.

Well im sorry, you decided to stay late and be out of town all day.

Look, you've got to figure out how to stay out of this stuff. They were FINE until you put your 2 cents in. The kids's parents figured out a way to handle the situation. Then you, you, you made it into a drama.

He called waaay late in the day to metnion he was going to be late, then expects us to go out of our way for his choices!

I'm not seeing the "us" here. If your DW had called you to tell you that you were to wait around an hour, I could see your annoyance. You would have been fine with me if you refused that.

Why exactly did your wife call? Did she ask you for advice on handling the situation? Because if she did, you might want to ask her not to; you're coming off as the bad guy. If she just called to say that she'd be late, the correct response was, "Okay, honey, I love you. See you when you get home."

And yes, I am saying that you're supposed to sit by and do nothing while that asshole jerks your wife around and disrupts your evening plans.

Ok i know im really whining again (its what i do best), but i truely think its not too much to ask that he come the extra 10 mins to drop her off at home.

No, it is not too much to ask. It was a perfectly reasonable request. However, he refused that request. He can do that. He can do all kinds of stuff that you don't want him to. He can show up late or not at all; he can argue with DW; he can badmouth you to the kids; he can pay CS when it's convenient for him.

This really is the meat and potatoes of this group, you know. People come frustrated and steaming and hang around for a couple of years until they either let it go or leave their mates. You cannot define the relationship between your mate and her ex. You cannot make them act the way you want them to.

Sure, it's frustrating. Come and vent. But eventually you might want to stop banging your head against that wall too.

jane

May 05 2004 9:41 pm

The problem is that it's the ex-husband who's continuously late, not the wife. So, to leave without her seems unnecessarily aggressive. There's an element of "Your concerns don't concern me; I don't care how hard this might be for you, all I want is not to be bothered."

I'm not sure I have a problem with that. But my problems, my family's problems, have always centered more on "Your concerns are my concerns; I don't care how hard this might be for you, just make things right."

DW has commitments that make planning for switch nights problematic for her. I don't see anything wrong with OP just making plans for switch nights that don't include his DW. In fact, I encourage him to do so.

DH's ex isn't consistently late, but she's consistently other things. I handle it with the equivalent of going to dinner with friends. It makes much easier to be supportive. If I were caught up in the inconvenience, I could not stop my mind from thinking, "this wouldn't happen, if you'd just..." If I plan around it, I don't feel frustrated, and I can say, "I'm sorry, honey; you must be disappointed."

jane

May 06 2004 10:52 am

Okay, I'm getting what is bugging me. I am hearing people saying that OP shouldn't go out and have a good time because DW can't.

That's not what *I'm* saying, and not what others are saying either, I think. My point was that it's wrong to put the wife on the spot when either choice she makes is wrong. They have plans immediately after the drop-off. The drop-off happens late because the biodad is late.

This is the kind of argument that I work to avoid. DH says "but we agreed to do X after the drop-off," and I counter with "No, we had plans to do X at 5:30."

So the husband huffs off to the restaurant alone, leaving the wife alone in a dark parking lot, and then coming home to an empty house, and he gets to eat alone.

Right. Works for me. I'm not sure that was OP's situation. I'm not getting all the posts. But sure. If they planned dinner at 6, and DW can't make it, by all means huff off, catch those reservations, eat lobster.

I'm sorry but the dark parking lot is DW's problem. She's a big girl. She can decide to sit there if she wants. OP isn't *making* either choice wrong. Both choices have pros and cons. Don't blame him for it.

Far better to plan the dinner out for a time that biodad's lateness can't affect it. Or plan ahead; "I'm going out with Bob to watch the game at Bathtub Billy's because the evening will be all up in the air, since we don't know what time Biodad will drop SD off."

That's fine too. It's not far better for everyone than "fine, I'll go without you," but it's definitely a technique that OP and DW should consider employing.

What he shouldn't do is wait until his wife has no good choices (abandon the drop-off and try to control biodad's behavior that way, or disappoint her husband and be there when the child gets dropped off) and then throw down an ultimatum.

I love this part of the argument. IMVE when people set limits for those around them, they are often accused of issuing ultimatums. I agree that OP and DW should hammer this out ahead of time some and nail down whether they're talking about 6 or "after the switch" and who's going to do what if something comes up.

I just don't see it as less of an ultimatum if he says today that next time this happens he's going without her than it is if he says it at the last minute. Sometimes his wife will have no good choices. Whether they address that now or later, he's still got to draw the line somewhere.

Sexist it may be, but if OP were a woman I'd be telling him to schedule pedicures for switch night.

That would be fine. It's having mom stretched between picking up her kid *or* going out with her husband, and forcing her to choose.

But she's just going to be sometimes. Her situation unavoidably involves being stretched and having to make unpleasant choices. We're all agreed on anticipating. But don't put the burden on OP to adjust when something unanticipated comes up.

jane

May 07 2004 9:59 am

By "punishing parent" I was really responding to a couple of suggestions that the OP go ahead out to dinner without his wife when she's held up by her ex's change in drop-off/pick-up times.

Okay, I know there is stuff I'm not seeing.

The suggestion was that he do this to more or less teach her a lesson, and after a couple of times she wouldn't hold up their plans again. I don't think this approach is relationship-friendly.

But when you lay it out like this, I still don't see what the problem is. Of course she won't hold up their plans anymore. She can't. She cannot hold up *his* plans unless he lets her, and I think he needs to see and accept that. Somehow, you've ended up in Don't-Jerk-Me-Around-To-Get-What-You-Want-You-Passive-Aggressive-Assholeville and I'm over in You-Teach-People-How-To-Treat-Youville.

Just don't plan a dinner date with your spouse at 5:00 sharp and go without her when her ex holds her up. That's setting up hard feelings and adding to frustration all around.

Again, I don't see the problem. Honestly. I do just that *all the time.* It's not just needing to eat regularly; being late is stressful for me. Some things you can juggle, but there's an ocean of activities that begin at a fixed time. If I'm participating in those activities, then I'm going to be there at that fixed time. I show up on time. That's who I am; that's what I do.

Granted, my leaving on time without people has caused some hard feelings over the years. However, if I don't leave on time, and I show up after the beginning of a movie, or when the bride is walking down the aisle, or after everyone has jumped out and yelled "Surprise!" there are even more hard feelings. I'm mad at the other person for making me late, and even worse I'm mad at myself for letting the other person make me late.

We don't want me to be pissed off. We have learned to avoid that. One consequence of my leaving is that people tend to show up on time. Another is that we often go in separate cars. Another is that we're careful to communicate time constraints. Another is that I attend things alone and sometimes I miss them altogether. Ultimately, my need for punctuality is satisfied, though, and - this is the kicker - my getting my need satisfied requires nothing specific from the people who love me. They can show up on time or meet me later or not go - whatever suits their needs.

Oh, and nobody has to be *wrong.* That's big, too.

I think the big problem is that they're trying to go against nature-- nature being the tendency of the ex to be inconsistant about time, habitually late, uncaring about other people's plans. So, come up with something new, that's all.

What I see as the big problem is that OP is stuck on the idea that he has to change BD or DW to get what he needs.

I want to go have mad fun right now...

Yeah, lets.

jane

May 07 2004 11:18 am

Right. Works for me. I'm not sure that was OP's situation. I'm not getting all the posts. But sure. If they planned dinner at 6, and DW can't make it, by all means huff off, catch those reservations, eat lobster.

That only works if his objective was lobster. If his objective was a nice dinner with his wife, then he loses too.

Okay, but look. He's not going to get everything. We're all agreed, I think, that he should make the best of it. I'm fine with the options you've suggested. I am arguing that if you're going to make it his responsibility to make the best of it for himself - and I am - you've got to let him actually do that. If a nice dinner without DW is the best alternative for him then that's what he should do.

But drawing a line and issuing an ultimatum are two very different things. (Or different points on a continuum, how's that?) I can draw a line with DH about his daughter coming to stay with us in two ways. I can be threatening and punitive, or I can be collaborative and creative, and I can get the same outcome either way, in terms of what I will and will not do or accept. Which way is going to make my husband feel valued and motivated to do his part?

You can draw the line in one way: You can leave. That is your only option. Everything else is negotiation. Absolutely, there are more and less effective negotiating techniques. Yeah, collaboration! But the bottom line here, the place you go after deadlock, is divorce, just like trial is in your mediation sessions.

Of course, but even then, there can be guidelines. It's just wrong to make up two stark choices and present them over the cell phone when the wife calls to say that biodad is late. If the accepted coping strategy is "OK, I'll head to the restaurant and call you when I get there and we'll meet there if we can" then everyone knows what to expect. If it's "OK, but I'm going to dinner. I'm not waiting. See you when I see you." that puts unnecessary strain on the relationship.

I'm telling you, Vicki, it takes strain off my relationships. Nothing is required of me - nothing - regarding DH's ex. I am totally and completely rock solid certain that where I choose to accommodate, I do so for my own purposes. As far as I can tell, OP can't even begin to grasp that. He has no clue.

The first one is not a surprise and then the wife can decide that she really needs to address this with her ex, or that this works for her. The second one just makes her wrong, period, and that makes her defensive and angry, and that's not good for anyone.

I think your first marriage is informing your opinion here. I accept that there can be a punitive, demoralizing, demeaning dynamic involved when one person goes without the other. So OP, be warned: Here lies danger. I can't let you slide on the always, everyone, anyone part though, Vicki. My experience, which is forming my opinion here, is to the contrary. I personally don't see that the other person is *not* wrong until I do accept that it's her problem to deal with.

This is what's going on in my head: I picture myself as OP and you as DW. I love you, and I would love to spend the evening with you. I am disappointed that something has come up with your ex. You are disappointed too. Neither of us wants the evening to be worse. We both want the best possible outcome for ourselves and for each other. I'd like you to be more forceful with your ex, but that doesn't work for you, and I accept that. You would like me to wait and go whenever he shows up, but that doesn't work for me, and you accept that.

That mutual acceptance establishes trust that neither of us is turning our disappointment against the other. Also, I don't need to examine your ex's character or your assertiveness anymore, and you don't have to revisit my temporal inflexibility. Everything just is what it is, and that's what we're dealing with. My decision to go without you is not punishing you anymore than your decision to wait for the ex is punishing me. We're just loving each other and doing the best we can in a world fraught with peril and uncertainty. Now kiss me, and I'll bring you home something to go.

jane

May 08 2004 11:33 am

Then we are in agreement. I am responding to the suggestion that if he went to dinner without her a few times, she'd learn not to be late. It was a "teach her a lesson" kind of thing. You're not talking about teaching a lesson, but I was. And we both agree that that leads to trouble.

Right. Except that I'm still chewing on the lesson teaching. Stay with me a little; Anne has a newborn.

When I read OP's posts, I shake my head about how many lessons he's going to have to learn and how difficult they will be for him to learn. He reminds me of me when I first came. I so very much did not want to learn those things: I didn't want them to be true.

Geri's going to dinner is where everything gets tangled together for me. I don't see it as punitive, I don't think Geri meant it that way, and I don't see it as much of a danger for OP, but I believe that that kind of thing could done with punitive intent.

I know that you have to teach people lessons in all your relationships. It doesn't strike me as patronizing or demeaning because IMVE the person you are teaching is most often yourself. The lessons of leaving without whomever were important ones, but my friends and I really taught ourselves them. Those lessons were necessary to my learning the step-parenting lessons later.

Is this making sense? OP needs to learn to accept some unpleasant truths, like he cannot make Ex show up on time. I could never accept that kind of thing until I had learned that I didn't *need* Ex to show up on time. I think OP is like me; I don't think he's going to grasp that he can't control/change/force them until he sees that they can't control/change/force him.

Which brings me back to punitive intent. That process of taking responsibility for what you do control and letting go of what you don't can be painful and confusing. I personally tend to feel as though the other is punishing me. It hurts; she's doing it deliberately; she's being mean. When I'm the limit setter, I know that my motivation is not to hurt, but when I'm the limit settee, that's not immediately apparent. My decision to go in separate cars is obviously a wise move to avoid beginning the evening with waiting around and anxiety for me. When she decides to avoid beginning the evening with rushing around and anxiety for her by dining out with someone else, I feel rejected.

Okay, so pulling this all back to OP. He has to accept that DW's relationship with the ex is theirs, not his. I don't see him accepting that he can't manage it until he sees that he doesn't have to. Then he won't do things punitively, because he will feel no need to punish. Along the way to that point, though, I don't want him to worry about DW feeling punished too much. My friends, DH, and I have all felt punished and rejected along the way. DW has painful lessons to learn, too.

jane

May 11 2004 12:12 pm

I've always thought that being constantly late is a passive-aggressive power play. Just a subconscious way of saying, "Your time isn't as important as mine," or "Let's see how much you love me."
Anne

Yeah, that's what drives a lot of people nuts. It used to drive me nuts. Then I had a huge fight with one of my friends and I realized that I was crazy to be taking her time management issues personally. You know, if she had been late just with me and always with me maybe that conclusion would have made sense. But she was late for everything. It came up on all her performance evaluations at work. She missed things she really wanted to see. It was a huge problem for her. And I was making it unnecessarily worse by being pissed at her all the time.

So we made A Plan to accommodate my need to be on time and her inability to be on time. Really, we haven't had any problems with it in about 15 years.

jane