When he brought DD home yesterday afternoon, he
felt the need to share something that he knew was
'out of bounds'. He even said so ... to which I responded
"then don't say it" but then he proceeded to say it anyway.
He also reached around her (she was in my arms) and
gave us both a hug when he left. Then he called last night
while she and I were eating supper to ask me "You do
still care about me, don't you". I told him that "I look at
a little face so much like yours 24/7, of course I care". I
know that was probably the wrong thing to do, right?
But how should I have answered? I can't lie; I suppose
I could have not answered at all, but he'd have just turned
whiney and childish (pure manipulation through guilt).

I don't think he's going to be able to do this. So I'd like
to ask you what you think ... again.

I hate to push him out of her life, but this can't go on.
I'd like to approach his wife about being the third-party
for visitation, but am not sure that's the right thing
either.

She wanted to talk to me after he first told her about
DD. I believe that he has since convinced her that it's
not necessary. I don't know if it is or if it isn't ... I feel
like that's her call. I think that if she and I were to talk
at all that she'd eventually ask about our (his and mine)
relationship. Honestly, I don't have a problem talking
to her about it, but that wouldn't be good for them
(note I said them ... it probably would be good for
her to see how much he lies - but is it my place to
tell her?).

What do you think? ... push him out and risk him forcing
the issue with the court, or try to work out the third-party
visitation ... or maybe there's something that I'm not
thinking of and one of you can.

Paula

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40c47f59_1@newsfeed.slurp.net... When he brought DD home yesterday afternoon, he felt the need to share something that he knew was 'out of bounds'. He even said so ... to which I responded "then don't say it" but then he proceeded to say it anyway. He also reached around her (she was in my arms) and gave us both a hug when he left. Then he called last night while she and I were eating supper to ask me "You do still care about me, don't you". I told him that "I look at a little face so much like yours 24/7, of course I care". I know that was probably the wrong thing to do, right? But how should I have answered? I can't lie; I suppose I could have not answered at all, but he'd have just turned whiney and childish (pure manipulation through guilt). I don't think he's going to be able to do this. So I'd like to ask you what you think ... again.

He can't do anything to you without your permission. If he tries to hug
you, move away and say no. If he turns whiney on the phone, or attempts
to talk about anything not relating 100% to parenting issues, tell him
it's not acceptable for him to say such things and hang up the phone. You
might want to get something official in writing about the child support
and visitation through a court so that there is a legal document to refer
to.
I hate to push him out of her life, but this can't go on. I'd like to approach his wife about being the third-party for visitation, but am not sure that's the right thing either. She wanted to talk to me after he first told her about DD. I believe that he has since convinced her that it's not necessary. I don't know if it is or if it isn't ... I feel like that's her call. I think that if she and I were to talk at all that she'd eventually ask about our (his and mine) relationship. Honestly, I don't have a problem talking to her about it, but that wouldn't be good for them (note I said them ... it probably would be good for her to see how much he lies - but is it my place to tell her?). What do you think? ... push him out and risk him forcing the issue with the court, or try to work out the third-party visitation ... or maybe there's something that I'm not thinking of and one of you can. Paula

Or get much more assertive and keep things as they are now. He'll either
back down and deal with you on your own terms, or he'll fade away
completely. Either way, problem solved.

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40c47f59_1@newsfeed.slurp.net... When he brought DD home yesterday afternoon, he felt the need to share something that he knew was 'out of bounds'. He even said so ... to which I responded "then don't say it" but then he proceeded to say it anyway.


He is scum. Absolute scum.

And should be treated like such.

Get mean. Call his wife - tell her what he said. Make his homelife *hell*.
He'll stop.

That's my advice.

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> writes:
When he brought DD home yesterday afternoon, he felt the need to share something that he knew was 'out of bounds'. He even said so ... to which I responded "then don't say it" but then he proceeded to say it anyway. He also reached around her (she was in my arms) and gave us both a hug when he left. Then he called last night while she and I were eating supper to ask me "You do still care about me, don't you". I told him that "I look at a little face so much like yours 24/7, of course I care". I know that was probably the wrong thing to do, right?

Ugh. How about "Yes, I care about you. But our relationship is over
for the reasons I have already explained to you, and that is the end
of this discussion. Click."
But how should I have answered? I can't lie; I suppose I could have not answered at all, but he'd have just turned whiney and childish (pure manipulation through guilt).

You can hang up the phone if he is talking about anything unrelated to
dealing with DD.
I don't think he's going to be able to do this. So I'd like to ask you what you think ... again. I hate to push him out of her life, but this can't go on. I'd like to approach his wife about being the third-party for visitation, but am not sure that's the right thing either.

I don't think you _can_ push him out of her life (though it might not
be such a bad thing). But you can be much stricter about your
boundaries.
She wanted to talk to me after he first told her about DD. I believe that he has since convinced her that it's not necessary. I don't know if it is or if it isn't ... I feel like that's her call.

Yes. Good idea.

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:CM%wc.13837$4S5.6404@attbi_s52... "Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> writes: I hate to push him out of her life, but this can't go on. I'd like to approach his wife about being the third-party for visitation, but am not sure that's the right thing either. I don't think you _can_ push him out of her life (though it might not be such a bad thing). But you can be much stricter about your boundaries. Yes, ITA. Pushing him out (or even attempting to) can have some pretty serious consequences that I want to make sure are stated. IF I tried to push him out, he could make out a case for Parental Alienation and use it to take custody of her from me should he choose to do so. Other than the fact that I think having a relationship with her father is important to my child (as long as he has her best interests at heart ... which I'm no longer sure that he does - he may just be using her to not let go of me), I don't want to give him any ammo either should he decide to get nasty. She wanted to talk to me after he first told her about DD. I believe that he has since convinced her that it's not necessary. I don't know if it is or if it isn't ... I feel like that's her call. Yes. Good idea. Please clarify ... it's a good idea to talk to her, or it's a good idea to let that be her call?

Good idea to be thinking that it is her call.

In article <40c48ad2_5@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Paula wrote: Pushing him out (or even attempting to) can have some pretty serious consequences that I want to make sure are stated. IF I tried to push him out, he could make out a case for Parental Alienation and use it to take custody of her from me should he choose to do so.

Any lawyer is likely to tell you that it is BS.
Other than the fact that I think having a relationship with her father is important to my child (as long as he has her best interests at heart ... which I'm no longer sure that he does - he may just be using her to not let go of me), I don't want to give him any ammo either should he decide to get nasty.

It is very difficult to take custody away from you, absent egregious
acts on your part (not wanting him to see you is not such an act).

It is all state dependent and I am not a lawyer etc etc, but to base
your decisions on an expectation that it is not impossible for him to
gain custody, is unwise absent someone in the legal profession telling
you so.


i

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CM%wc.13837$4S5.6404@attbi_s52... "Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> writes: I hate to push him out of her life, but this can't go on. I'd like to approach his wife about being the third-party for visitation, but am not sure that's the right thing either. I don't think you _can_ push him out of her life (though it might not be such a bad thing). But you can be much stricter about your boundaries.

Yes, ITA.

Pushing him out (or even attempting to) can have
some pretty serious consequences that I want to make
sure are stated. IF I tried to push him out, he could make
out a case for Parental Alienation and use it to take custody
of her from me should he choose to do so.

Other than the fact that I think having a relationship with
her father is important to my child (as long as he has her
best interests at heart ... which I'm no longer sure that he
does - he may just be using her to not let go of me), I
don't want to give him any ammo either should he decide
to get nasty.
She wanted to talk to me after he first told her about DD. I believe that he has since convinced her that it's not necessary. I don't know if it is or if it isn't ... I feel like that's her call. Yes. Good idea.

Please clarify ... it's a good idea to talk to her, or it's a
good idea to let that be her call?

Paula

"Ignoramus2772" <ignoramus2772@NOSPAM.2772.invalid> wrote in message
news:ca221v$vdf$0@pita.alt.net... In article <40c48ad2_5@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Paula wrote: Pushing him out (or even attempting to) can have some pretty serious consequences that I want to make sure are stated. IF I tried to push him out, he could make out a case for Parental Alienation and use it to take custody of her from me should he choose to do so. Any lawyer is likely to tell you that it is BS. Other than the fact that I think having a relationship with her father is important to my child (as long as he has her best interests at heart ... which I'm no longer sure that he does - he may just be using her to not let go of me), I don't want to give him any ammo either should he decide to get nasty. It is very difficult to take custody away from you, absent egregious acts on your part (not wanting him to see you is not such an act). It is all state dependent and I am not a lawyer etc etc, but to base your decisions on an expectation that it is not impossible for him to gain custody, is unwise absent someone in the legal profession telling you so.

My attorney told me just that ... the court would view my denial
of visitation unfavorably, and would act accordingly. Now he
*didn't* say that they would assign sole custody to him, only that
I would be seen more favorably if I was supportive of and
cooperative with him wrt his spending time with her.

p

In article <40c48cb5$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Paula wrote: "Ignoramus2772" <ignoramus2772@NOSPAM.2772.invalid> wrote in message news:ca221v$vdf$0@pita.alt.net... In article <40c48ad2_5@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Paula wrote: Pushing him out (or even attempting to) can have some pretty serious consequences that I want to make sure are stated. IF I tried to push him out, he could make out a case for Parental Alienation and use it to take custody of her from me should he choose to do so. Any lawyer is likely to tell you that it is BS. Other than the fact that I think having a relationship with her father is important to my child (as long as he has her best interests at heart ... which I'm no longer sure that he does - he may just be using her to not let go of me), I don't want to give him any ammo either should he decide to get nasty. It is very difficult to take custody away from you, absent egregious acts on your part (not wanting him to see you is not such an act). It is all state dependent and I am not a lawyer etc etc, but to base your decisions on an expectation that it is not impossible for him to gain custody, is unwise absent someone in the legal profession telling you so. My attorney told me just that ... the court would view my denial of visitation unfavorably, and would act accordingly. Now he *didn't* say that they would assign sole custody to him, only that I would be seen more favorably if I was supportive of and cooperative with him wrt his spending time with her.

More favorable with respect to what? You would still retain primary
custody and the right to receive child support, right? If by more
favorable you mean that he will be given more visitation time, well,
he probaby still won't have much visitation time and due to him having
a family, he is not likely to get his daughter for long contiguous
periods of time... At least that would be my supposition.

Insisting on no personal contact and using some third party, and him
paying all expenses, for visitation, would not be unreasonable, in my
opinion.

i

Paula <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote:
What do you think? ... push him out and risk him forcing the issue with the court, or try to work out the third-party visitation ... or maybe there's something that I'm not thinking of and one of you can.

Third party visitation. Ask his wife if she will do the transfer. YOu
don't have the legal right to cut him off from his daughter. Only from
you.

"Ignoramus2772" <ignoramus2772@NOSPAM.2772.invalid> wrote in message
news:ca25lf$7i5$0@pita.alt.net... In article <40c48cb5$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Paula wrote: My attorney told me just that ... the court would view my denial of visitation unfavorably, and would act accordingly. Now he *didn't* say that they would assign sole custody to him, only that I would be seen more favorably if I was supportive of and cooperative with him wrt his spending time with her. More favorable with respect to what? You would still retain primary custody and the right to receive child support, right? If by more

More favorable wrt custody ... meaning it would be easier for me to
retain *sole* custody (which is what, at this point in time under these
circumstances, I want).

Until I'm reasonably certain that there is no emotionally abusive
behaviour in his household (caused by quite reasonable reactions
to his deception) and there's an agreement about religious
guidance (his wife is *very* religious ... I, on the other hand, would
describe myself as spiritual but not religious - I digress, this is a
whole 'nother topic), I am unwilling to agree to joint legal custody.
favorable you mean that he will be given more visitation time, well, he probaby still won't have much visitation time and due to him having a family, he is not likely to get his daughter for long contiguous periods of time... At least that would be my supposition.

And you would most likely be correct. The guidelines that the
counselor gave me ("Child Centered Residential Studies") says
that he should have her 4-6 hours, 2 days per week max.

To date, he's had her 2 days in a single week exactly once, and
I don't think he's ever made the 4 hours in a single day mark.
Insisting on no personal contact and using some third party, and him paying all expenses, for visitation, would not be unreasonable, in my opinion.

I'd hoped that it wouldn't come to this ... but I think I'm going to have
to agree with you.

p

In article <40c49db7$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Paula wrote: "Ignoramus2772" <ignoramus2772@NOSPAM.2772.invalid> wrote in message news:ca25lf$7i5$0@pita.alt.net... In article <40c48cb5$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Paula wrote: My attorney told me just that ... the court would view my denial of visitation unfavorably, and would act accordingly. Now he *didn't* say that they would assign sole custody to him, only that I would be seen more favorably if I was supportive of and cooperative with him wrt his spending time with her. More favorable with respect to what? You would still retain primary custody and the right to receive child support, right? If by more More favorable wrt custody ... meaning it would be easier for me to retain *sole* custody (which is what, at this point in time under these circumstances, I want).

Do you think, realistically, that he might seek shared custody via a
legal fight?
Until I'm reasonably certain that there is no emotionally abusive behaviour in his household (caused by quite reasonable reactions to his deception) and there's an agreement about religious guidance (his wife is *very* religious ... I, on the other hand, would describe myself as spiritual but not religious - I digress, this is a whole 'nother topic), I am unwilling to agree to joint legal custody.

It would be wise to want sole custody, absolutely.

He may very well divorce some time later, not even due to your
relationship, and seek more custody or try to make your life difficult
to avoid paying child support, etc.
favorable you mean that he will be given more visitation time, well, he probaby still won't have much visitation time and due to him having a family, he is not likely to get his daughter for long contiguous periods of time... At least that would be my supposition. And you would most likely be correct. The guidelines that the counselor gave me ("Child Centered Residential Studies") says that he should have her 4-6 hours, 2 days per week max. To date, he's had her 2 days in a single week exactly once, and I don't think he's ever made the 4 hours in a single day mark.

Makes it unlikely that he would fight your sole custody, in my
opinion... 1 year and 3 months is an adorable age, so if he does not
want her at this age, he is not likely to want her any more at other
ages.
Insisting on no personal contact and using some third party, and him paying all expenses, for visitation, would not be unreasonable, in my opinion. I'd hoped that it wouldn't come to this ... but I think I'm going to have to agree with you.

It's not the end of the world, so I would not be dramatic about
"having to come to this".

i

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40c47f59_1@newsfeed.slurp.net... What do you think? ... push him out and risk him forcing the issue with the court, or try to work out the third-party visitation ... or maybe there's something that I'm not thinking of and one of you can.

I'd demand that visitation be done through a third party,
and if he refused to agree, make his wife the default
choice (yes, this is intended to be a threat to him).

(After drafting this, I read Jen/shinypenny's post,
once again she has found a better approach than mine
to reach essentially the same goal.)
--
Tsam

"Ignoramus2772" <ignoramus2772@NOSPAM.2772.invalid> wrote in message
news:ca273a$aod$0@pita.alt.net... In article <40c49db7$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Paula wrote: More favorable wrt custody ... meaning it would be easier for me to retain *sole* custody (which is what, at this point in time under these circumstances, I want). Do you think, realistically, that he might seek shared custody via a legal fight?

Honestly, I don't know. I don't know this man ... only what he's
shown to me. And I doubt that even that is the truth. I believe
that he's been deceiving people for so long that he believes his
own lies at this point. I don't think he knows who he is anymore
(if he ever did).

And because I don't know, I have to be prepared for anything.
Until I'm reasonably certain that there is no emotionally abusive behaviour in his household (caused by quite reasonable reactions to his deception) and there's an agreement about religious guidance (his wife is *very* religious ... I, on the other hand, would describe myself as spiritual but not religious - I digress, this is a whole 'nother topic), I am unwilling to agree to joint legal custody. It would be wise to want sole custody, absolutely. He may very well divorce some time later, not even due to your relationship, and seek more custody or try to make your life difficult to avoid paying child support, etc.

To date, he's had her 2 days in a single week exactly once, and I don't think he's ever made the 4 hours in a single day mark. Makes it unlikely that he would fight your sole custody, in my opinion... 1 year and 3 months is an adorable age, so if he does not want her at this age, he is not likely to want her any more at other ages.

It makes it unlikely that he would be successful ... not necessarily
unlikely that he would try IMO.
I'd hoped that it wouldn't come to this ... but I think I'm going to
have to agree with you. It's not the end of the world, so I would not be dramatic about "having to come to this".

Sorry, wasn't trying to be dramatic. I just think that it would be
best for her if we could all act like adults and not have to be
supervised.

p

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:48:29 -0500, "Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com>
wrote:
But how should I have answered? I can't lie; I supposeI could have not answered at all, but he'd have just turnedwhiney and childish (pure manipulation through guilt).

How about something like, "Fred, I'm not going down this road with you
again." Period. When he gets whiney and childish, say goodbye and
hang up the phone.
I hate to push him out of her life, but this can't go on.I'd like to approach his wife about being the third-partyfor visitation, but am not sure that's the right thingeither.She wanted to talk to me after he first told her aboutDD. I believe that he has since convinced her that it'snot necessary.

Probably because she has no idea how enmeshed you both still are, and
if she were to talk to you, she might find out a bunch of stuff he
doesn't want her knowing. Things like how he still tells you that he
loves you, as he's telling her that he wants to work things out.

Lauri in WA

I like my email spamless

Tsam Nami wrote: "Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40c47f59_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...What do you think? ... push him out and risk him forcingthe issue with the court, or try to work out the third-partyvisitation ... or maybe there's something that I'm notthinking of and one of you can. I'd demand that visitation be done through a third party, and if he refused to agree, make his wife the default choice (yes, this is intended to be a threat to him). (After drafting this, I read Jen/shinypenny's post, once again she has found a better approach than mine to reach essentially the same goal.) -- Tsam

I'm replying under Tsam's post but there's at least one other person
advocating trying to get the wife involved in the transfers and more
involved than she apparently wants to be. Can I ask the reasoning
behind this? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems pretty dismissive
of the wife to suggest this.

Tracey

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40C62EAB.9030501@aol.com... I'm replying under Tsam's post but there's at least one other person advocating trying to get the wife involved in the transfers and more involved than she apparently wants to be. Can I ask the reasoning behind this? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems pretty dismissive of the wife to suggest this.

Of course, I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I'll
explain my reasoning.

A little background: There seem to be 2 schools of thought
regarding the involvement of the father in the child's life.

1) The child's needs trump those of the wife. The child
is innocent and born naturally dependent upon his/her
parents. Therefore it is the 'right thing' for the parent
to place the responsibility of being a parent above the
commitment made to the marriage (i.e. the wife).
I.e. the needs of the innocent, completely dependent
child are placed above the needs of the self-sufficient,
self-sustaining adult.

2) The wife's needs trump those of the child. The husband
made the commitment of marriage. Therefore the 'right
thing' is to place the needs of the wife (and marriage)
above the child's.

(I realize that my descriptions are a little lop-sided ...
I am in school of thought #1 so I am not able to
completely understand and explain shool of thought
#2.)

While I cannot *really* place myself in her shoes since
I have never invested 17+ years of my life in a single
relationship, I believe that given time to recover from
the initial shock, I would rather be the person performing
visitation exchanges. This would eliminate (or at least
vastly reduce) the amount of contact necessary between
the husband and the OW.

This would also allow me to gather my own understanding
of 'why'. Now I am unsure as to how much of the 'why'
lies within the OW. Most if not all of it resides within
the husband, wife, and their relationship. But I do know
that it is quite common to want to confront the OW ...
be it for healthy reasons or unhealthy ones.

Something that should be added to the mix for this
analysis is that about a year ago the wife confronted
the husband with direct questions as to whether there
was a girlfriend or not. She had no direct evidence
and the 'facts' that she thought she had were all
incorrect. He was able to talk his way out of it (I
believe that lawyers call this plausible deniability).
It may be pertinent to consider that along with the
natural emotions of anger, betrayal, and pain, she
may also feel some relief at now knowing.

It was never my intention to 'dismiss' her feelings,
and I can see how *expecting* her to do this
would be dismissive. I'd not consider offering
her a choice as such, because I guarantee it has
not been presented. If she refused then I would
agree that she "apparently" doesn't want to
be involved, until then I don't think anything is
apparent wrt her feelings.

p

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40c719e1$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net... "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:40C62EAB.9030501@aol.com... I'm replying under Tsam's post but there's at least one other person advocating trying to get the wife involved in the transfers and more involved than she apparently wants to be. Can I ask the reasoning behind this? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems pretty dismissive of the wife to suggest this. Of course, I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I'll explain my reasoning. A little background: There seem to be 2 schools of thought regarding the involvement of the father in the child's life. 1) The child's needs trump those of the wife. The child is innocent and born naturally dependent upon his/her parents. Therefore it is the 'right thing' for the parent to place the responsibility of being a parent above the commitment made to the marriage (i.e. the wife). I.e. the needs of the innocent, completely dependent child are placed above the needs of the self-sufficient, self-sustaining adult. 2) The wife's needs trump those of the child. The husband made the commitment of marriage. Therefore the 'right thing' is to place the needs of the wife (and marriage) above the child's. (I realize that my descriptions are a little lop-sided ... I am in school of thought #1 so I am not able to completely understand and explain shool of thought #2.) While I cannot *really* place myself in her shoes since I have never invested 17+ years of my life in a single relationship, I believe that given time to recover from the initial shock, I would rather be the person performing visitation exchanges. This would eliminate (or at least vastly reduce) the amount of contact necessary between the husband and the OW. This would also allow me to gather my own understanding of 'why'. Now I am unsure as to how much of the 'why' lies within the OW. Most if not all of it resides within the husband, wife, and their relationship. But I do know that it is quite common to want to confront the OW ... be it for healthy reasons or unhealthy ones.

I should have also added that because I am of the
first school of thought that I would never ask him
to abandon his child. And I would have no respect
for him (thus would not be able to remain in the
marriage) if he did so.
Something that should be added to the mix for this analysis is that about a year ago the wife confronted the husband with direct questions as to whether there was a girlfriend or not. She had no direct evidence and the 'facts' that she thought she had were all incorrect. He was able to talk his way out of it (I believe that lawyers call this plausible deniability). It may be pertinent to consider that along with the natural emotions of anger, betrayal, and pain, she may also feel some relief at now knowing. It was never my intention to 'dismiss' her feelings, and I can see how *expecting* her to do this would be dismissive. I'd not consider offering her a choice as such, because I guarantee it has not been presented. If she refused then I would agree that she "apparently" doesn't want to be involved, until then I don't think anything is apparent wrt her feelings. p

Paula wrote: "Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40c719e1$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net... "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:40C62EAB.9030501@aol.com... I'm replying under Tsam's post but there's at least one other person advocating trying to get the wife involved in the transfers and more involved than she apparently wants to be. Can I ask the reasoning behind this? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems pretty dismissive of the wife to suggest this. Of course, I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I'll explain my reasoning. A little background: There seem to be 2 schools of thought regarding the involvement of the father in the child's life. 1) The child's needs trump those of the wife. The child is innocent and born naturally dependent upon his/her parents. Therefore it is the 'right thing' for the parent to place the responsibility of being a parent above the commitment made to the marriage (i.e. the wife). I.e. the needs of the innocent, completely dependent child are placed above the needs of the self-sufficient, self-sustaining adult. 2) The wife's needs trump those of the child. The husband made the commitment of marriage. Therefore the 'right thing' is to place the needs of the wife (and marriage) above the child's. (I realize that my descriptions are a little lop-sided ... I am in school of thought #1 so I am not able to completely understand and explain shool of thought #2.) While I cannot *really* place myself in her shoes since I have never invested 17+ years of my life in a single relationship, I believe that given time to recover from the initial shock, I would rather be the person performing visitation exchanges. This would eliminate (or at least vastly reduce) the amount of contact necessary between the husband and the OW. This would also allow me to gather my own understanding of 'why'. Now I am unsure as to how much of the 'why' lies within the OW. Most if not all of it resides within the husband, wife, and their relationship. But I do know that it is quite common to want to confront the OW ... be it for healthy reasons or unhealthy ones. I should have also added that because I am of the first school of thought that I would never ask him to abandon his child. And I would have no respect for him (thus would not be able to remain in the marriage) if he did so.

Even though this is his child, Paula, how is this going to play out later -
I mean, with the triangle here? Is that really going to be better for
your daughter?

(To be quite honest, at this point, I can't see which way is best anymore,
assuming he tries to act like a father to her. I guess part of it even
depends on the part played by his wife (looking at this from your daughter's
point of view).

"Bill in Co." <surly6curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xwHxc.7968$uX2.4930@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Even though this is his child, Paula, how is this going to play out
later - I mean, with the triangle here? Is that really going to be better for your daughter?

You'll have to be more clear in your question, Bill.

As stated before, this could be guided to work just the same
as a couple who has divorced.

Having her father involved in her life is what's best for my
daughter, period. Whether that includes his wife or his oldest
daughter is yet to be seen. His son loves his sister, and loves
to spend time with her. Her uncle is supportive of her and
has called her a blessing. How the rest of the family reacts
is also yet to be seen. If it's negative, they will either deal
with whatever feelings are causing the negativity, or they
will not be involved in her life.

I guess I fail to see how removing her father from her life
benefits her in any way.

p

Paula wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly6curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:xwHxc.7968$uX2.4930@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Even though this is his child, Paula, how is this going to play out
later - I mean, with the triangle here? Is that really going to be better for your daughter? You'll have to be more clear in your question, Bill. As stated before, this could be guided to work just the same as a couple who has divorced. Having her father involved in her life is what's best for my daughter, period. Whether that includes his wife or his oldest daughter is yet to be seen. His son loves his sister, and loves to spend time with her. Her uncle is supportive of her and has called her a blessing. How the rest of the family reacts is also yet to be seen. If it's negative, they will either deal with whatever feelings are causing the negativity, or they will not be involved in her life. I guess I fail to see how removing her father from her life benefits her in any way.

It could IF the wife makes a big row about it, and the daughter ends up in
the middle of it all, and is made to feel really uncomfortable about the
whole situation. Right?

"Bill in Co." <surly6curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:oNKxc.27256$Tn6.7953@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Paula wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly6curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:xwHxc.7968$uX2.4930@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Even though this is his child, Paula, how is this going to play out later - I mean, with the triangle here? Is that really going to be better
for your daughter? You'll have to be more clear in your question, Bill. As stated before, this could be guided to work just the same as a couple who has divorced. Having her father involved in her life is what's best for my daughter, period. Whether that includes his wife or his oldest daughter is yet to be seen. His son loves his sister, and loves to spend time with her. Her uncle is supportive of her and has called her a blessing. How the rest of the family reacts is also yet to be seen. If it's negative, they will either deal with whatever feelings are causing the negativity, or they will not be involved in her life. I guess I fail to see how removing her father from her life benefits her in any way. It could IF the wife makes a big row about it, and the daughter ends up in the middle of it all, and is made to feel really uncomfortable about the whole situation. Right?

Neither her father or myself will allow that to happen. He has
already stated that if she (his wife) cannot handle DD being
around he will spend his time with her doing activities, such as
going to the park or a playground.

DD being made to feel uncomfortable is the emotional abuse
that I mentioned and will be prevented at all cost.

p

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40c719e1$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>...

While I cannot *really* place myself in her shoes since I have never invested 17+ years of my life in a single relationship, I believe that given time to recover from the initial shock, I would rather be the person performing visitation exchanges. This would eliminate (or at least vastly reduce) the amount of contact necessary between the husband and the OW. This would also allow me to gather my own understanding of 'why'. Now I am unsure as to how much of the 'why' lies within the OW. Most if not all of it resides within the husband, wife, and their relationship. But I do know that it is quite common to want to confront the OW ... be it for healthy reasons or unhealthy ones.

And while she's still confronting the "why's" and looking at you for
the "why" clues, she's the last person you should want around your
baby.

Look, I know and you know children are innocent, yaddah yaddah. But
face the facts. Every time she sees your child, she's going to be
reminded:

1) Her husband had an affair;
2) She was a failure at conceiving a child for him.

I like to think of myself as a level-headed person, but if I were in
her shoes, I don't think I could handle it myself. Perhaps the only
way I could handle it would be if he and I split up and I was over the
relationship. Otherwise, the child would just be a constant,
in-my-face reminder. And I love kids and do believe they're innocent.
But I'd have a VERY hard time getting past my emotions and feelings on
this one, and yeah, getting control over them. It's not that I'd be
abusive to the child, but I'm sure I'd come across as cold and distant
and resentful. And it would take me that much longer to get past the
affair and forgive my husband. It would be like a splinter in my toe
that was never removed.
Something that should be added to the mix for this analysis is that about a year ago the wife confronted the husband with direct questions as to whether there was a girlfriend or not. She had no direct evidence and the 'facts' that she thought she had were all incorrect. He was able to talk his way out of it (I believe that lawyers call this plausible deniability). It may be pertinent to consider that along with the natural emotions of anger, betrayal, and pain, she may also feel some relief at now knowing.

Sure, probably some relief. Still doesn't change matters that her
husband LIED and LIED blatantly, even when confronted!!! That only
compounds the hurt, anger, betrayal and pain she must be going
through. As would his now asking her to be loving and open-minded and
welcome his bio-child into her home.
It was never my intention to 'dismiss' her feelings, and I can see how *expecting* her to do this would be dismissive.

And perhaps simply unrealistic.
I'd not consider offering her a choice as such, because I guarantee it has not been presented. If she refused then I would agree that she "apparently" doesn't want to be involved, until then I don't think anything is apparent wrt her feelings.

Honestly? I wouldn't blame her for not wanting to be involved. If she
does choose to do so, she's a complete saint. Which makes her husband
even more of a putz and loser for treating her the way he has!

jen

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0406091330.7eb4b9e3@posting.google.c om...
It's not that I'd be abusive to the child, but I'm sure I'd come across as cold and distant and resentful.

That's abuse.

p

Paula wrote: "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0406091330.7eb4b9e3@posting.google.c om... It's not that I'd be abusive to the child, but I'm sure I'd come across as cold and distant and resentful. That's abuse.

That is a stretch, IMO. It would be different if it were the parent
that was cold, distant and resentful. To say that if this woman
were cold, distant and resentful is abusive to the child, when she
isn't that child's parent is a bit of a stretch.

You can't expect your lover's wife to open her heart and her home to
the child of that relationship and automatically feel love and
attachment to your child. That is utterly unrealistic, IMO.

She may very well come to love your daughter, as the woman Rupa
mentioned way back earlier in this thread has come to love her SS.
If she does, you ought to thank your lucky stars.

Cal~

"_calinda_" <calindasinclair@hotmail.com> shared:
Paula wrote: "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0406091330.7eb4b9e3@posting.google.c om... It's not that I'd be abusive to the child, but I'm sure I'd come across as cold and distant and resentful. That's abuse.That is a stretch, IMO. It would be different if it were the parentthat was cold, distant and resentful. To say that if this womanwere cold, distant and resentful is abusive to the child, when sheisn't that child's parent is a bit of a stretch.You can't expect your lover's wife to open her heart and her home tothe child of that relationship and automatically feel love andattachment to your child. That is utterly unrealistic, IMO.

I don't expect her to *automatically* open her heart and her home to
my child. But as the child's step-parent (which is exactly what she
is as long as she remains married to my child's father) it is abusive
to be "cold", "distant", and "resentful".

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40c719e1$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>...

This would also allow me to gather my own understanding of 'why'.

I meant to call this one out. This is what bugs me the most about your
whole line of thinking IRT to having the wife handle visitation. I am
getting the impression that you like this idea for this reason alone:
gives *you* a chance to check out your competition.

Okay, maybe that's harsh. I do understand having your own "why's" and
being extremely curious about her. I also understand that meeting her
can very possibly help you close the door on your heart forever when
it comes to her husband! That may be a very good thing for you.

Whatever your reason for wanting to meet her someday, I think you need
to tread very carefully into not fooling yourself it's "because of
your child."

And yes, I do understand that you want to know who your child is going
to be spending time with. I felt the same exact way when my ex
announced he was re-marrying. I wasn't all that curious about
comparing myself to her (I was long over him) but I *did* want to know
if she was going to be a good influence.

But you know what? You and I both have given up our rights of knowing
who this other person in our children's lives are! We did that when we
made our choice in fathers for our children. We have no choice but to
stand back and trust that these fathers will make good choices,
because they're their kids too. Yep, as parents they even have the
right to make stupid choices, and make mistakes in rearing our kids!

It is my ex's choice who he marries, and who he feels is suitable for
exposing to our kids. I do have rights if I ever come to the suspicion
that my kids are in harm's way as a result of that choice, but that's
just about it. I have no rights to exert who she is and how she
disciplines my kids, feeds my kids, raises my kids when they are under
HER roof.

Likewise, my ex has very little say in who *I* pick to be our kids'
step-dad. He has no right to dictate how my DF disciplines my kids,
feeds my kids, raises my kids when they are under OUR roof. He can try
and express his concerns directly to me, and I can choose to do what I
want with them if I feel they're valid, but that's about it.

Them's the breaks when you live in separate households. Sorry!

At least in my case, I had a fairly good idea about my ex's judgement
in women (ahem, me) and his parenting style and values because we were
married 7 years before we separated. Do you really know his situation?
She could be just like you, or exactly opposite. You assume he's a
good parent, but how often have you seen him in action, and for how
long? Unfortunately, the time to find out was *before* you had this
child. Yeah, I know, that's not helpful at all. But it's the truth and
the reality you're going to have to face up to now.

jen

>But you know what? You and I both have given up our rights of knowingwho this other person in our children's lives are! We did that when wemade our choice in fathers for our children. We have no choice but tostand back and trust that these fathers will make good choices,because they're their kids too. Yep, as parents they even have theright to make stupid choices, and make mistakes in rearing our kids!It is my ex's choice who he marries, and who he feels is suitable forexposing to our kids. I do have rights if I ever come to the suspicionthat my kids are in harm's way as a result of that choice, but that'sjust about it. I have no rights to exert who she is and how shedisciplines my kids, feeds my kids, raises my kids when they are underHER roof.

Yep.

That's why, Paula, it is not a good mindset for you to be describing the wife's
(possibly) cold and/or distant behavior as "abusive". Legally, it wouldn't be.
Try going to court to limit his visitation based on that, and they'd say the
same -- when you have chosen to a baby with a married man, you've chosen having
a resentful wife in the picture too.

Like jen, I'm divorced. Sometimes my ex makes decisions about my kids that I
hate. Really hate. But, ultimately, I have absolutely no control over it at
all. It is just a fact of life I've had to learn to deal with. You, too, will
have to learn to deal.

Better for you to come to terms with the fact that she will possibly -- perhaps
**probably** -- be very cold and resentful initially, and try to find the best
environment for her to start thawing out, with regard to the child.

Sheila

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) shared:I meant to call this one out. This is what bugs me the most about yourwhole line of thinking IRT to having the wife handle visitation. I amgetting the impression that you like this idea for this reason alone:gives *you* a chance to check out your competition.

Wrong impression.
Okay, maybe that's harsh. I do understand having your own "why's" andbeing extremely curious about her. I also understand that meeting hercan very possibly help you close the door on your heart forever whenit comes to her husband! That may be a very good thing for you.Whatever your reason for wanting to meet her someday, I think you needto tread very carefully into not fooling yourself it's "because ofyour child."And yes, I do understand that you want to know who your child is goingto be spending time with. I felt the same exact way when my exannounced he was re-marrying. I wasn't all that curious aboutcomparing myself to her (I was long over him) but I *did* want to knowif she was going to be a good influence.But you know what? You and I both have given up our rights of knowingwho this other person in our children's lives are! We did that when wemade our choice in fathers for our children. We have no choice but tostand back and trust that these fathers will make good choices,because they're their kids too. Yep, as parents they even have theright to make stupid choices, and make mistakes in rearing our kids!It is my ex's choice who he marries, and who he feels is suitable forexposing to our kids. I do have rights if I ever come to the suspicionthat my kids are in harm's way as a result of that choice, but that'sjust about it. I have no rights to exert who she is and how shedisciplines my kids, feeds my kids, raises my kids when they are underHER roof.Likewise, my ex has very little say in who *I* pick to be our kids'step-dad. He has no right to dictate how my DF disciplines my kids,feeds my kids, raises my kids when they are under OUR roof. He can tryand express his concerns directly to me, and I can choose to do what Iwant with them if I feel they're valid, but that's about it.Them's the breaks when you live in separate households. Sorry!At least in my case, I had a fairly good idea about my ex's judgementin women (ahem, me) and his parenting style and values because we weremarried 7 years before we separated. Do you really know his situation?She could be just like you, or exactly opposite. You assume he's agood parent, but how often have you seen him in action, and for howlong? Unfortunately, the time to find out was *before* you had thischild. Yeah, I know, that's not helpful at all. But it's the truth andthe reality you're going to have to face up to now.

I needed to see this, though. All of it is stuff that I *know* but
don't *feel* yet. I'll be re-reading this quite a few times, I'd
guess (a little guidance for those feelings to get where they need to
be).

Thanks

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) shared:
But you know what? You and I both have given up our rights of knowingwho this other person in our children's lives are! We did that when wemade our choice in fathers for our children. We have no choice but tostand back and trust that these fathers will make good choices,because they're their kids too. Yep, as parents they even have theright to make stupid choices, and make mistakes in rearing our kids!It is my ex's choice who he marries, and who he feels is suitable forexposing to our kids. I do have rights if I ever come to the suspicionthat my kids are in harm's way as a result of that choice, but that'sjust about it. I have no rights to exert who she is and how shedisciplines my kids, feeds my kids, raises my kids when they are underHER roof.Yep.That's why, Paula, it is not a good mindset for you to be describing the wife's(possibly) cold and/or distant behavior as "abusive". Legally, it wouldn't be. Try going to court to limit his visitation based on that, and they'd say thesame -- when you have chosen to a baby with a married man, you've chosen havinga resentful wife in the picture too.

I'm going to stand by the fact that I consider the described behaviour
as abusive.

But I'm going to agree that it *most likely* will be something that I
cannot legally do anything about. This woman has been described as a
religious fanatic to me. That combined with the fact that she's in
the middle of a crisis right now doesn't speak well of her stability.
And I agree that it is unreasonable of me to expect to be able to
'evaluate' her as an influence on my child.

But if necessary I will attempt to convey to a judge (the paternity
papers are signed, btw) that there are multiple mitigating factors
that pose a potential risk to my child. I'd be satisfied with a
single-meeting evaluation by a professional for the judge to review
and then make a decision. I may not be successful, but that doesn't
seem to be much to ask as she could pose a threat to the life of my
child (in the absolute, worst-case scenario).
Like jen, I'm divorced. Sometimes my ex makes decisions about my kids that Ihate. Really hate. But, ultimately, I have absolutely no control over it atall. It is just a fact of life I've had to learn to deal with. You, too, willhave to learn to deal.

Yep
Better for you to come to terms with the fact that she will possibly -- perhaps**probably** -- be very cold and resentful initially, and try to find the bestenvironment for her to start thawing out, with regard to the child.

That is my hope (the thawing part).

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

Paula wrote: "_calinda_" shared: Paula wrote: "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0406091330.7eb4b9e3@posting.google.c om...> It's not that I'd be> abusive to the child, but I'm sure I'd come across as cold and> distant and resentful. That's abuse. That is a stretch, IMO. It would be different if it were the
parent that was cold, distant and resentful. To say that if this woman were cold, distant and resentful is abusive to the child, when
she isn't that child's parent is a bit of a stretch. You can't expect your lover's wife to open her heart and her home
to the child of that relationship and automatically feel love and attachment to your child. That is utterly unrealistic, IMO. I don't expect her to *automatically* open her heart and her home
to my child.

Not only can you not expect her to *automatically* do so, you can't
even expect her to EVER do so. She may choose not to deal with your
daughter at *all*.

There are some SM's that choose not to have any relationships with
their Skids in any way. They either make themselves scarce when the
BD has custody of the child, or they have the BD spend time with the
child away from the rest of the family. Or, in a case like this,
she may decide that she is worth more than having a husband who is a
philanderer and walks.
But as the child's step-parent (which is exactly what she is as long as she remains married to my child's father) it is
abusive to be "cold", "distant", and "resentful".

I don't think I'd call "cold & distant" abusive. I can see how
resentment might be, depending on how the person acts on those
feelings.

I could tell you stories about my children's step mother that would
simply boggle your mind.

Personally, I think all in all, my children would have been 1000
times better off with a SM that was cold and distant. Instead they
found themselves stuck with someone that was harsh, angry, critical
and controlling. I think there was also some resentment as well.

If she'd been grown up enough to keep those feelings to herself, it
would've been a much better atmosphere for them.

And in her case, she was the mistress that had the affair with their
father, so truly, the only thing she resented was that she didn't
get their father to herself.

The thing is, we don't get to chose how someone else acts or reacts
in a given situation. You can't count on your lover's wife to
behave in a manner that is best for your daughter.

If she is cold and distant, it wouldn't harm her as it would if it
were you or her father that was cold and distant. There will be
tons of people in this world that will be difficult for her to deal
with.

Your best option is to see how the lover's wife is and go from
there. You will need teach your daughter how to deal with the
situation she's been dealt by the actions of her parents.
Cal~

>>That's why, Paula, it is not a good mindset for you to be describing thewife's(possibly) cold and/or distant behavior as "abusive". Legally, it wouldn'tbe. Try going to court to limit his visitation based on that, and they'd saythesame -- when you have chosen to a baby with a married man, you've chosenhavinga resentful wife in the picture too.I'm going to stand by the fact that I consider the described behaviouras abusive.But I'm going to agree that it *most likely* will be something that Icannot legally do anything about. This woman has been described as areligious fanatic to me. That combined with the fact that she's inthe middle of a crisis right now doesn't speak well of her stability.And I agree that it is unreasonable of me to expect to be able to'evaluate' her as an influence on my child.But if necessary I will attempt to convey to a judge (the paternitypapers are signed, btw) that there are multiple mitigating factorsthat pose a potential risk to my child. I'd be satisfied with asingle-meeting evaluation by a professional for the judge to reviewand then make a decision. I may not be successful, but that doesn'tseem to be much to ask as she could pose a threat to the life of mychild (in the absolute, worst-case scenario).

Well, in that case (posing a threat to the life of the child) a judge would
certainly intervene. An allegation of her being cold, distant and/or resentful
will not rise to that level.

The cold hard fact is, this man is her father. If he wants to have time with
her in his home, he gets to, unless there are DIRE circumstances. The net is
full of stories of children being raised in dual households, and many of them
highlight this problem precisely -- differing tones, differing childrearing
policies, differing belief systems. Overall, the courts are loathed to
intervene or curtail the right of the biological parent to do what he/she
thinks is right in their home.

Like jen, I'm divorced. Sometimes my ex makes decisions about my kids thatIhate. Really hate. But, ultimately, I have absolutely no control over itatall. It is just a fact of life I've had to learn to deal with. You, too,willhave to learn to deal.YepBetter for you to come to terms with the fact that she will possibly --perhaps**probably** -- be very cold and resentful initially, and try to find thebestenvironment for her to start thawing out, with regard to the child.That is my hope (the thawing part).

I would think it would be easier for her to do this if she had as much distance
from you as possible. Maybe I'm projecting here, but if it were me, that's
pretty much the only way I could get past it --- to separate the child from the
mother (in my mind) as much as I could.

(Of course, I have to say, I have a hard time stopping replaying the tapes in
my head, so I probably wouldn't be there right now, if I were her.... I would
have left his butt!)

Sheila--Paula

>Not only can you not expect her to *automatically* do so, you can'teven expect her to EVER do so. She may choose not to deal with yourdaughter at *all*.There are some SM's that choose not to have any relationships withtheir Skids in any way. They either make themselves scarce when theBD has custody of the child, or they have the BD spend time with thechild away from the rest of the family.

Good point, Cal. As you know, I'm actually one of those stepmothers. For
those of you who don't know, I met my DH when my stepdaughters were just
reaching their teen years (yeah, I know... dumb move). The first few years
were pretty bad. We tried to function as a blended family, and ultimately, I
decided I wasn't going to subject myself or my kids to their behavior anymore.
At that point, I "opted out"... my DH took them places, they did things
together, and when they were here, I did other things, and took my kids places.


Not all blended families look the same. Some steps take over parental duties.
Others function only as "friends" to the kids, and mates to the biological
parent. And some don't have much of a role at all in the child's life. I've
seen instances of *all* of these situations that I'd call "successful".

Sheila

Paula wrote: whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) shared:But you know what? You and I both have given up our rights of knowingwho this other person in our children's lives are! We did that when wemade our choice in fathers for our children. We have no choice but tostand back and trust that these fathers will make good choices,because they're their kids too. Yep, as parents they even have theright to make stupid choices, and make mistakes in rearing our kids!It is my ex's choice who he marries, and who he feels is suitable forexposing to our kids. I do have rights if I ever come to the suspicionthat my kids are in harm's way as a result of that choice, but that'sjust about it. I have no rights to exert who she is and how shedisciplines my kids, feeds my kids, raises my kids when they are underHER roof.Yep.That's why, Paula, it is not a good mindset for you to be describing the wife's(possibly) cold and/or distant behavior as "abusive". Legally, it wouldn't be.Try going to court to limit his visitation based on that, and they'd say thesame -- when you have chosen to a baby with a married man, you've chosen havinga resentful wife in the picture too. I'm going to stand by the fact that I consider the described behaviour as abusive.

No more abusive, IMO, than a parent who brings a child into this
potential kind of situation in the first place.


You know, I really probably shouldn't post when it comes to these
kinds of situations. It really karks my drawers to hear some of the
things that are said by the OP (Other People) and, almost every time,
I end up dumbfounded at the things that I hear/read and the attitudes
that are expressed.

Tracey

Paula wrote: "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:40C62EAB.9030501@aol.com...I'm replying under Tsam's post but there's at least one other personadvocating trying to get the wife involved in the transfers and moreinvolved than she apparently wants to be. Can I ask the reasoningbehind this? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems pretty dismissiveof the wife to suggest this. Of course, I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I'll explain my reasoning. A little background: There seem to be 2 schools of thought regarding the involvement of the father in the child's life. 1) The child's needs trump those of the wife. The child is innocent and born naturally dependent upon ****his/her parents.***

Then why try and drag the wife into it? She's not the child's
parent and, AFAIC, her only obligation to the child is to not
treat it badly.
Therefore it is the 'right thing' for the parent to place the responsibility of being a parent above the commitment made to the marriage (i.e. the wife).

Nope, don't agree with that. And not just because of the
situation. Don't agree with it in my marriage to the father
of my children. My responsibility as a parent is on the
same level as my commitment to my marriage. One is not
above the other.
I.e. the needs of the innocent, completely dependent child are placed above the needs of the self-sufficient, self-sustaining adult.


2) The wife's needs trump those of the child.

To her, I'm fairly certain her needs trump those of the child.
The husband made the commitment of marriage. Therefore the'right thing' is to place the needs of the wife (and marriage) above the child's.

Well, he (apparently) wasn't placing her needs at the top
before, can you begin to understand why she might ask that
he place them at the top now? If she has. But I don't ne-
cessarily go along with this either. Being a parent to your
child does not trump your spouse's needs. Your spouse's
needs do not trump being a parent to your child.
(I realize that my descriptions are a little lop-sided ...I am in school of thought #1 so I am not able tocompletely understand and explain shool of thought#2.)
While I cannot *really* place myself in her shoes sinceI have never invested 17+ years of my life in a singlerelationship, I believe that given time to recover fromthe initial shock, I would rather be the person performingvisitation exchanges. This would eliminate (or at leastvastly reduce) the amount of contact necessary betweenthe husband and the OW.

One of the things that a person whose spouse has had an
affair is almost required to do if they plan on continuing
to be married to them is to accept that they cannot keep
their spouse from straying again. If they don't, they'll
drive themselves (and their spouse) crazy with their attempts
to manipulate things so that their spouse is never alone
with people who might 'tempt' them.

This would also allow me to gather my own understanding of 'why'. Now I am unsure as to how much of the 'why' lies within the OW. Most if not all of it resides within the husband, wife, and their relationship. But I do know that it is quite common to want to confront the OW ... be it for healthy reasons or unhealthy ones.

It may be common, but the wife has known for quite a few
months about you, right? If she hasn't attempted to contact
you before now, she most likely won't. And attempting to
force contact is wrong, IMO.
Something that should be added to the mix for this analysis is that about a year ago the wife confronted the husband with direct questions as to whether there was a girlfriend or not. She had no direct evidence and the 'facts' that she thought she had were all incorrect. He was able to talk his way out of it (I believe that lawyers call this plausible deniability). It may be pertinent to consider that along with the natural emotions of anger, betrayal, and pain, she may also feel some relief at now knowing.

How is that pertinent? Are you saying she feels better now
that she knows she wasn't crazy a year ago for suspecting
her husband was having an affair?
It was never my intention to 'dismiss' her feelings, and I can see how *expecting* her to do this would be dismissive. I'd not consider offering her a choice as such, because I guarantee it has not been presented. If she refused then I would agree that she "apparently" doesn't want to be involved, until then I don't think anything is apparent wrt her feelings.

It's apparent she doesn't want to contact you or she
would have. It's apparent she doesn't want to be a parent
figure to your child at this time or she would have.

I've been trying to figure out how to word my thoughts
about the whole 'Get the wife to be the third party'
idea. I don't think I have it figured out very well, but
I'll try.

The wife had a relationship with her husband. Her husband
began a relationship with you without her knowledge and
without her consent. The two are separate and distinct
and it seems to me you keep trying to mesh the two rela-
tionships into one big one. They're not.

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> shared:
Paula wrote: "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:40C62EAB.9030501@aol.com...I'm replying under Tsam's post but there's at least one other personadvocating trying to get the wife involved in the transfers and moreinvolved than she apparently wants to be. Can I ask the reasoningbehind this? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems pretty dismissiveof the wife to suggest this. Of course, I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I'll explain my reasoning. A little background: There seem to be 2 schools of thought regarding the involvement of the father in the child's life. 1) The child's needs trump those of the wife. The child is innocent and born naturally dependent upon ****his/her parents.***Then why try and drag the wife into it?

I am not ... why are you?
She's not the child'sparent and, AFAIC, her only obligation to the child is to nottreat it badly.Therefore it is the 'right thing' for the parent to place the responsibility of being a parent above the commitment made to the marriage (i.e. the wife).Nope, don't agree with that. And not just because of thesituation. Don't agree with it in my marriage to the fatherof my children. My responsibility as a parent is on thesame level as my commitment to my marriage. One is notabove the other.

Comparing your marriage and children to this is comparing apples and
oranges! This section, that you've broken down, was intended to
reference a situation where the two responsibilities are contentious
rather than harmonious.
I.e. the needs of the innocent, completely dependent child are placed above the needs of the self-sufficient, self-sustaining adult. 2) The wife's needs trump those of the child.To her, I'm fairly certain her needs trump those of the child.The husband made the commitment of marriage. Therefore the'right thing' is to place the needs of the wife (and marriage) above the child's.Well, he (apparently) wasn't placing her needs at the topbefore, can you begin to understand why she might ask thathe place them at the top now? If she has. But I don't ne-cessarily go along with this either. Being a parent to yourchild does not trump your spouse's needs. Your spouse'sneeds do not trump being a parent to your child.

When the needs are in conflict with one another, one must be
prioritized above the other. There is no other way, the way I see it.
That is the situation to which I was referring; not one in which the
parents are married and live with and raise their children together
.... again apples and oranges.
(I realize that my descriptions are a little lop-sided ...I am in school of thought #1 so I am not able tocompletely understand and explain shool of thought#2.)While I cannot *really* place myself in her shoes sinceI have never invested 17+ years of my life in a singlerelationship, I believe that given time to recover fromthe initial shock, I would rather be the person performingvisitation exchanges. This would eliminate (or at leastvastly reduce) the amount of contact necessary betweenthe husband and the OW.One of the things that a person whose spouse has had anaffair is almost required to do if they plan on continuingto be married to them is to accept that they cannot keeptheir spouse from straying again. If they don't, they'lldrive themselves (and their spouse) crazy with their attemptsto manipulate things so that their spouse is never alonewith people who might 'tempt' them. This would also allow me to gather my own understanding of 'why'. Now I am unsure as to how much of the 'why' lies within the OW. Most if not all of it resides within the husband, wife, and their relationship. But I do know that it is quite common to want to confront the OW ... be it for healthy reasons or unhealthy ones.It may be common, but the wife has known for quite a fewmonths about you, right? If she hasn't attempted to contactyou before now, she most likely won't. And attempting toforce contact is wrong, IMO.

I have *never* suggested forcing contact. Where did you get the idea
that I had?
Something that should be added to the mix for this analysis is that about a year ago the wife confronted the husband with direct questions as to whether there was a girlfriend or not. She had no direct evidence and the 'facts' that she thought she had were all incorrect. He was able to talk his way out of it (I believe that lawyers call this plausible deniability). It may be pertinent to consider that along with the natural emotions of anger, betrayal, and pain, she may also feel some relief at now knowing.How is that pertinent? Are you saying she feels better nowthat she knows she wasn't crazy a year ago for suspectingher husband was having an affair? It was never my intention to 'dismiss' her feelings, and I can see how *expecting* her to do this would be dismissive. I'd not consider offering her a choice as such, because I guarantee it has not been presented. If she refused then I would agree that she "apparently" doesn't want to be involved, until then I don't think anything is apparent wrt her feelings.It's apparent she doesn't want to contact you or shewould have. It's apparent she doesn't want to be a parentfigure to your child at this time or she would have.I've been trying to figure out how to word my thoughtsabout the whole 'Get the wife to be the third party'idea. I don't think I have it figured out very well, butI'll try.The wife had a relationship with her husband. Her husbandbegan a relationship with you without her knowledge andwithout her consent. The two are separate and distinctand it seems to me you keep trying to mesh the two rela-tionships into one big one. They're not.

Tracey, it seems obvious to me that our communication styles don't
mesh well. You keep making assumptions, and I keep trying to correct
you. Could it be that you are carrying in your own 'baggage' and
trying to lay it on me?

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:
No more abusive, IMO, than a parent who brings a child into this potential kind of situation in the first place. You know, I really probably shouldn't post when it comes to these kinds of situations. It really karks my drawers to hear some of the things that are said by the OP (Other People) and, almost every time, I end up dumbfounded at the things that I hear/read and the attitudes that are expressed.

I'm glad you piped up. I was one who thought the W being the transfer
person might be a good idea (if the W wanted to), and your perspective
really woke me up. I was thinking this: I read a long time ago that in
an affair, the H (in this case) and the OW (other woman) have a cozy
secret relationship in which the W is kept on the outside. To fix the
marriage, the H and the W need to have a cozy relationship where the OW
is on the outside. It seemed to me that having the W do the transfer
would accomplish that, by putting her between her H and the OW.

I still think it *might* work. But only if the W saw it that way and
wanted to do it.

Paula wrote: Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> shared:Paula wrote:"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:40C62EAB.9030501@aol.com...>I'm replying under Tsam's post but there's at least one other person>advocating trying to get the wife involved in the transfers and more>involved than she apparently wants to be. Can I ask the reasoning>behind this? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems pretty dismissive>of the wife to suggest this.Of course, I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I'llexplain my reasoning.A little background: There seem to be 2 schools of thoughtregarding the involvement of the father in the child's life.1) The child's needs trump those of the wife. The childis innocent and born naturally dependent upon ****his/herparents.***Then why try and drag the wife into it? I am not ... why are you?

You are. You keep agreeing that a third party exchange (which
I agree is a good idea) with the wife as the third party is a
good idea. I disagree. It's a bad idea *for you to suggest the
wife as the third party*, IMO.

You also keep referencing the wife and how you expect her to
treat your child. None of your business (barring physical abuse).
That's for the husband and the wife to decide, what kind of
relationship/interaction, if any, she will have with the child.
She's not the child'sparent and, AFAIC, her only obligation to the child is to nottreat it badly.Therefore it is the 'right thing' for the parentto place the responsibility of being a parent above thecommitment made to the marriage (i.e. the wife).Nope, don't agree with that. And not just because of thesituation. Don't agree with it in my marriage to the fatherof my children. My responsibility as a parent is on thesame level as my commitment to my marriage. One is notabove the other. Comparing your marriage and children to this is comparing apples and oranges! This section, that you've broken down, was intended to reference a situation where the two responsibilities are contentious rather than harmonious.

I don't agree with the fact that children's needs trump marital
commitments *in any situation*, not my marriage, not your situation.
They are concurrent commitments. And even if I did believe that
they did, there are two other children's needs to consider. So,
to put it bluntly, I don't believe your child's needs trumps every-
one else's needs in your situation.
I.e. the needs of the innocent, completely dependentchild are placed above the needs of the self-sufficient,self-sustaining adult.2) The wife's needs trump those of the child.To her, I'm fairly certain her needs trump those of the child.The husband made the commitment of marriage. Therefore the'right thing' is to place the needs of the wife (and marriage)above the child's.Well, he (apparently) wasn't placing her needs at the topbefore, can you begin to understand why she might ask thathe place them at the top now? If she has. But I don't ne-cessarily go along with this either. Being a parent to yourchild does not trump your spouse's needs. Your spouse'sneeds do not trump being a parent to your child. When the needs are in conflict with one another, one must be prioritized above the other. There is no other way, the way I see it. That is the situation to which I was referring; not one in which the parents are married and live with and raise their children together ... again apples and oranges.

And if those needs conflict, it will be the husband and the wife
who must figure out which needs get filled when.
(I realize that my descriptions are a little lop-sided ...I am in school of thought #1 so I am not able tocompletely understand and explain shool of thought#2.)While I cannot *really* place myself in her shoes sinceI have never invested 17+ years of my life in a singlerelationship, I believe that given time to recover fromthe initial shock, I would rather be the person performingvisitation exchanges. This would eliminate (or at leastvastly reduce) the amount of contact necessary betweenthe husband and the OW.One of the things that a person whose spouse has had anaffair is almost required to do if they plan on continuingto be married to them is to accept that they cannot keeptheir spouse from straying again. If they don't, they'lldrive themselves (and their spouse) crazy with their attemptsto manipulate things so that their spouse is never alonewith people who might 'tempt' them.This would also allow me to gather my own understandingof 'why'. Now I am unsure as to how much of the 'why'lies within the OW. Most if not all of it resides withinthe husband, wife, and their relationship. But I do knowthat it is quite common to want to confront the OW ...be it for healthy reasons or unhealthy ones.It may be common, but the wife has known for quite a fewmonths about you, right? If she hasn't attempted to contactyou before now, she most likely won't. And attempting toforce contact is wrong, IMO. I have *never* suggested forcing contact. Where did you get the idea that I had?

When you keep agreeing that the wife would be a good candidate for
the third party exchange.
Something that should be added to the mix for thisanalysis is that about a year ago the wife confrontedthe husband with direct questions as to whether therewas a girlfriend or not. She had no direct evidenceand the 'facts' that she thought she had were allincorrect. He was able to talk his way out of it (Ibelieve that lawyers call this plausible deniability).It may be pertinent to consider that along with thenatural emotions of anger, betrayal, and pain, shemay also feel some relief at now knowing.How is that pertinent? Are you saying she feels better nowthat she knows she wasn't crazy a year ago for suspectingher husband was having an affair?It was never my intention to 'dismiss' her feelings,and I can see how *expecting* her to do thiswould be dismissive. I'd not consider offeringher a choice as such, because I guarantee it hasnot been presented. If she refused then I wouldagree that she "apparently" doesn't want tobe involved, until then I don't think anything isapparent wrt her feelings.It's apparent she doesn't want to contact you or shewould have. It's apparent she doesn't want to be a parentfigure to your child at this time or she would have.I've been trying to figure out how to word my thoughtsabout the whole 'Get the wife to be the third party'idea. I don't think I have it figured out very well, butI'll try.The wife had a relationship with her husband. Her husbandbegan a relationship with you without her knowledge andwithout her consent. The two are separate and distinctand it seems to me you keep trying to mesh the two rela-tionships into one big one. They're not. Tracey, it seems obvious to me that our communication styles don't mesh well. You keep making assumptions, and I keep trying to correct you. Could it be that you are carrying in your own 'baggage' and trying to lay it on me?

Don't think so. I may be making assumptions, but they're assumptions
based on being in somewhat the same situation as the wife is in
and maybe having a better idea as to what she's going through than
you do. I'm questioning your approach, your (seeming) attitudes,
etc.

Look, I won't argue a bit with your main concern being your daughter.
It's as it should be. You need to keep your daughter safe, you want
to keep your daughter's father in your life and you've apparently
made the decision not to have him in your life other than as the
father of your daughter. All that I don't have a problem with, I'm
not arguing that that is not what you should be doing. What I'm
seeing in posts, though, is a lot of places where, IMO, you're
going over the boundaries and heading into areas that just aren't
yours to be in. The wife is, IMO, so totally out of your area of
control and area of concern that she shouldn't even be a blip on
your radar. The person you deal with is the father of your daughter.
The wife, his kids, his family, his friends, etc., are all *his*
to deal with.

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> shared:Paula wrote: Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> shared:Paula wrote:>"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message>news:40C62EAB.9030501@aol.com...>>>I'm replying under Tsam's post but there's at least one other person>>advocating trying to get the wife involved in the transfers and more>>involved than she apparently wants to be. Can I ask the reasoning>>behind this? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems pretty dismissive>>of the wife to suggest this.>
<...snip...>Then why try and drag the wife into it? I am not ... why are you?You are. You keep agreeing that a third party exchange (whichI agree is a good idea) with the wife as the third party is agood idea. I disagree. It's a bad idea *for you to suggest thewife as the third party*, IMO.You also keep referencing the wife and how you expect her totreat your child. None of your business (barring physical abuse).That's for the husband and the wife to decide, what kind ofrelationship/interaction, if any, she will have with the child.

Sorry, but again I disagree. As sole custodian, *everything* in my
child's life is my business. Now that doesn't mean that I have
control or that I should attempt to exert control. But is it my
business, YES. Until DD is old enough to make decisions for herself
(and even after that, until she is an adult) things that affect her
are my business.

As for the decision as to his wife's involvement, that is their
decision (more accurately, his), and I have no control over it.

<...snip...>I don't agree with the fact that children's needs trump maritalcommitments *in any situation*, not my marriage, not your situation.They are concurrent commitments. And even if I did believe thatthey did, there are two other children's needs to consider. So,to put it bluntly, I don't believe your child's needs trumps every-one else's needs in your situation.

Maybe I should explain my statement a little further. I did not
intend to imply that DD's needs should *always* trump the others.
Only when there is conflict, and only when it is a true need as
compared to a want, should DD's needs automatically be prioritized to
the top.

<...snip...> When the needs are in conflict with one another, one must be prioritized above the other. There is no other way, the way I see it. That is the situation to which I was referring; not one in which the parents are married and live with and raise their children together ... again apples and oranges.And if those needs conflict, it will be the husband and the wifewho must figure out which needs get filled when.

Agreed, but when DD's needs are not being fulfilled, it *is* my
business, and it's my duty as a parent to attempt to work out a
solution/compromise with her father.

<...snip...> I have *never* suggested forcing contact. Where did you get the idea that I had?When you keep agreeing that the wife would be a good candidate forthe third party exchange.

Sorry, this a *huge* leap on your part. Offering a choice is *not*
applying force.

<...snip...> Tracey, it seems obvious to me that our communication styles don't mesh well. You keep making assumptions, and I keep trying to correct you. Could it be that you are carrying in your own 'baggage' and trying to lay it on me?Don't think so. I may be making assumptions, but they're assumptionsbased on being in somewhat the same situation as the wife is inand maybe having a better idea as to what she's going through thanyou do. I'm questioning your approach, your (seeming) attitudes,etc.Look, I won't argue a bit with your main concern being your daughter.It's as it should be. You need to keep your daughter safe, you wantto keep your daughter's father in your life and you've apparentlymade the decision not to have him in your life other than as thefather of your daughter. All that I don't have a problem with, I'mnot arguing that that is not what you should be doing. What I'mseeing in posts, though, is a lot of places where, IMO, you'regoing over the boundaries and heading into areas that just aren'tyours to be in. The wife is, IMO, so totally out of your area ofcontrol and area of concern that she shouldn't even be a blip onyour radar. The person you deal with is the father of your daughter.

Agreed that the person that I deal with is the father of my child, but
the fact is he is in crisis right now as well. If he chooses to
accept input from me and act together to decide how to best parent our
child, that is his choice. Not hers, and most certainly not yours.
The wife, his kids, his family, his friends, etc., are all *his*to deal with.

When did his friends enter the discussion ... another of your
expansion assumptions?

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

"Paula" <luvnmom627@NOBS_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c65fc0dpp190bucifcjc3vi2m2d4e9abd2@4ax.com... whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) shared:But you know what? You and I both have given up our rights of knowingwho this other person in our children's lives are! We did that when wemade our choice in fathers for our children. We have no choice but tostand back and trust that these fathers will make good choices,because they're their kids too. Yep, as parents they even have theright to make stupid choices, and make mistakes in rearing our kids!It is my ex's choice who he marries, and who he feels is suitable forexposing to our kids. I do have rights if I ever come to the suspicionthat my kids are in harm's way as a result of that choice, but that'sjust about it. I have no rights to exert who she is and how shedisciplines my kids, feeds my kids, raises my kids when they are underHER roof.Yep.That's why, Paula, it is not a good mindset for you to be describing the
wife's(possibly) cold and/or distant behavior as "abusive". Legally, it
wouldn't be. Try going to court to limit his visitation based on that, and they'd say
thesame -- when you have chosen to a baby with a married man, you've chosen
havinga resentful wife in the picture too. I'm going to stand by the fact that I consider the described behaviour as abusive.


Let me ask you this for me to try and understand. What would you DO about
it?
But I'm going to agree that it *most likely* will be something that I cannot legally do anything about. This woman has been described as a religious fanatic to me. That combined with the fact that she's in the middle of a crisis right now doesn't speak well of her stability.


How's THAT for the pot calling the kettle black? Do you like to have your
stability questioned based on the mistakes of your past?
And I agree that it is unreasonable of me to expect to be able to 'evaluate' her as an influence on my child. But if necessary I will attempt to convey to a judge (the paternity papers are signed, btw) that there are multiple mitigating factors that pose a potential risk to my child. I'd be satisfied with a single-meeting evaluation by a professional for the judge to review and then make a decision. I may not be successful, but that doesn't seem to be much to ask as she could pose a threat to the life of my child (in the absolute, worst-case scenario).


I am confused. I thought you wanted her to be an intermediary. Now you want
nothing to do with her. On what do you base her posing a threat to the life
of your child?
Like jen, I'm divorced. Sometimes my ex makes decisions about my kids
that Ihate. Really hate. But, ultimately, I have absolutely no control over
it atall. It is just a fact of life I've had to learn to deal with. You,
too, willhave to learn to deal. YepBetter for you to come to terms with the fact that she will possibly --
perhaps**probably** -- be very cold and resentful initially, and try to find the
bestenvironment for her to start thawing out, with regard to the child. That is my hope (the thawing part). -- Paula "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40C7F880.4000404@aol.com... Paula wrote: "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:40C62EAB.9030501@aol.com...I'm replying under Tsam's post but there's at least one other personadvocating trying to get the wife involved in the transfers and moreinvolved than she apparently wants to be. Can I ask the reasoningbehind this? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems pretty dismissiveof the wife to suggest this. Of course, I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I'll explain my reasoning. A little background: There seem to be 2 schools of thought regarding the involvement of the father in the child's life. 1) The child's needs trump those of the wife. The child is innocent and born naturally dependent upon ****his/her parents.*** Then why try and drag the wife into it? She's not the child's parent and, AFAIC, her only obligation to the child is to not treat it badly.Therefore it is the 'right thing' for the parent to place the responsibility of being a parent above the commitment made to the marriage (i.e. the wife). Nope, don't agree with that. And not just because of the situation. Don't agree with it in my marriage to the father of my children. My responsibility as a parent is on the same level as my commitment to my marriage. One is not above the other. I.e. the needs of the innocent, completely dependent child are placed above the needs of the self-sufficient, self-sustaining adult. 2) The wife's needs trump those of the child. To her, I'm fairly certain her needs trump those of the child.


This is the part where it crystalizes for me what a supreme jackass this guy
is. He put so many people into a situation where there is no way for him to
meet his obligation one actually has to start thinking whose needs trump
whose. What a godawful situation. If it were me, I would not want such a
jackass within a city block of my child. I know that is not one of Paula's
choices. I have gotten hammered before for not thinking that parental
involvement in of supreme importance to a child. I think there are some
cases in which no parent would be better than a relationship with a
completely disfuctional one. This may be one of those cases.

OK, whew. Done venting.


<SNIP>
The wife had a relationship with her husband. Her husband began a relationship with you without her knowledge and without her consent. The two are separate and distinct and it seems to me you keep trying to mesh the two rela- tionships into one big one. They're not. Tracey

I think there is an element of "magical thinking" here. Paula, could you be
trying to frame your relationship on examples in your life of parents living
separately after divorce? Then, a step-mother would not have the same issues
as the wife in this case. And this arrangement, I suppose, could be
workable.

S

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message
news:b7SdnelGrYVoJ1Td4p2dnA@telcove.net... "Paula" <luvnmom627@NOBS_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c65fc0dpp190bucifcjc3vi2m2d4e9abd2@4ax.com... whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) shared:
<...snip...>That's why, Paula, it is not a good mindset for you to be describing
thewife's(possibly) cold and/or distant behavior as "abusive". Legally, itwouldn't be. Try going to court to limit his visitation based on that, and they'd
say thesame -- when you have chosen to a baby with a married man, you've
chosen havinga resentful wife in the picture too. I'm going to stand by the fact that I consider the described behaviour as abusive. Let me ask you this for me to try and understand. What would you DO about it?

Distant: nothing

Cold & Resentful: I *can't* do anything, but I would prefer that her father
would choose to not subject DD to that, IOW spend time with DD away
from his wife until such a time that she (his wife) is able to work through
the underlying emotions.
But I'm going to agree that it *most likely* will be something that I cannot legally do anything about. This woman has been described as a religious fanatic to me. That combined with the fact that she's in the middle of a crisis right now doesn't speak well of her stability. How's THAT for the pot calling the kettle black? Do you like to have your stability questioned based on the mistakes of your past?

Excuse me! The things mentioned that bring her stability into
question are current, not past. And I didn't question her
stability based on any 'mistakes', only on the current situation
and her *current* behaviour.
And I agree that it is unreasonable of me to expect to be able to 'evaluate' her as an influence on my child. But if necessary I will attempt to convey to a judge (the paternity papers are signed, btw) that there are multiple mitigating factors that pose a potential risk to my child. I'd be satisfied with a single-meeting evaluation by a professional for the judge to review and then make a decision. I may not be successful, but that doesn't seem to be much to ask as she could pose a threat to the life of my child (in the absolute, worst-case scenario). I am confused. I thought you wanted her to be an intermediary. Now you
want nothing to do with her. On what do you base her posing a threat to the
life of your child?

I think she's the best choice as an intermediary IF she's willing to
undertake the task.

My statements that she could pose a potential risk to the life
of my child are based in the supposition that she could (and
very well may, at this point in time) view my child as the
problem ... and it's possible that in a moment of irrationality
could 'eliminate' the problem (i.e. my child).

I admit that this is unlikely ... but it is not impossible. And
because it is not impossible, I don't believe that a simple
evaluation as to her current state-of-mind wrt my child
is too much to request if she is to be involved in my child's
care when DD spends time with her father.

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> writes:

Just as a reality check here:

You've never met this man's wife, correct?

So the negative characterizations you assign to her are courtesy of
your friend, who has demonstrated himself to be a liar, correct?

I know that doesn't mean he is lying about this, but it should at
least give you pause.

From the story so far, as a parent I'd have much larger reservations
about allowing _him_ to spend time with my child (although since it is
his child you may have no choice) than some random stranger.


Not that any of this really has anything to do with anything.

Paula wrote: You also keep referencing the wife and how you expect her to treat your child. None of your business (barring physical abuse). That's for the husband and the wife to decide, what kind of relationship/interaction, if any, she will have with the child. Sorry, but again I disagree. As sole custodian, *everything* in
my child's life is my business.

Wow, you sound like me four years ago. You will quickly learn that
as much as you *want* it to be your business, it isn't. Simple as
that and the sooner you get to 'that place' where you can live with
it, the better off you will be.
Now that doesn't mean that I have control or that I should attempt to exert control. But is it my business, YES. Until DD is old enough to make decisions for
herself (and even after that, until she is an adult) things that affect
her are my business.

Her interactions with her SM are simply not your business, period.
As long as she's not smacking that kid around and talking poorly of
her or you, your daughter's relationship with her SM is between the
father, the SM and the child.

You do not get to insert yourself into their life vicariously
through your daughter. You just don't.
As for the decision as to his wife's involvement, that is their decision (more accurately, his), and I have no control over it.

Correct.

<snip>
And if those needs conflict, it will be the husband and the wife who must figure out which needs get filled when. Agreed, but when DD's needs are not being fulfilled, it *is* my business, and it's my duty as a parent to attempt to work out a solution/compromise with her father.

What needs are you talking about? Food, water, clothing, shelter?
Sure, you have every right to talk about that with the father.

The relationship your daughter has with the SM, unless there is
*real* abuse (not the cold-distant behavior you've described as
abuse), but legal abuse from the SM, you have to stay out of it. If
the father has issues with how his wife treats his child, then the
onus is on him.

<snip>
Look, I won't argue a bit with your main concern being your
daughter. It's as it should be. You need to keep your daughter safe, you
want to keep your daughter's father in your life and you've apparently made the decision not to have him in your life other than as the father of your daughter. All that I don't have a problem with,
I'm not arguing that that is not what you should be doing. What I'm seeing in posts, though, is a lot of places where, IMO, you're going over the boundaries and heading into areas that just aren't yours to be in.

I agree.
The wife is, IMO, so totally out of your area of control and area of concern that she shouldn't even be a blip on your radar. The person you deal with is the father of your
daughter. Agreed that the person that I deal with is the father of my child,
but the fact is he is in crisis right now as well. If he chooses to accept input from me and act together to decide how to best parent
our child, that is his choice. Not hers, and most certainly not
yours.

If he decided that she does have the right to decide how to parent
his daughter while in his care, You don't get a say in the matter.
Seriously, once she is in his custody, he can assign care and
control of that child to anyone he sees fit.

If he hires a nanny for her to be raised, sends her off to his
mother's or whatever.

He is the one that decides how much input he wants from his wife.
She is the one that decides how much input she wants to put into the
life of your child. You don't get a say in the matter either way.

The wife, his kids, his family, his friends, etc., are all *his* to deal with. When did his friends enter the discussion ... another of your expansion assumptions?

Not sure why you're sniping at Tracey here, but I can tell you she
is probably one of the most level headed people I've ever seen and
she brings a lot of experience to the table as well as some of the
most well thought out posts. You might try to take a step back a
minute and not look at it from the defensive stance I see you in
right now.

I can tell you that I felt so many of the feelings that you're
feeling right now, though I was closer to the wife in this
situation, and there are no new children involved.

I was *furious* that he took the children *we* had together and
brought them to share a home with his mistress and allowed her to
try and influence them in ways I felt were not in their best
interests.

When I had children with him all the years before, we never agreed
to let someone else raise our children or have such influence over
them, why the hell should I allow that now, someone who I felt had
the morals of a snake, no less?

I had to accept that because he is their father, when he has
custody, He gets to choose how to raise them and with whom and I
have NO say in her relationship with my children.

And it Made.My.Blood.Boil.

So, I can completely relate to the feelings I'm fairly sure you are
feeling.

I wrote more- lots more, detailing some of my children's dealings
with their SM. It was ugly and I cut it from my reply. Suffice it
to say that there are worse things in life than having Cold &
Distant as the descriptors for your child's SM. Not optimal,
perhaps but things certainly could be worse.

Cal~

Paula wrote: I don't believe that a simple evaluation as to her current state-of-mind wrt my child is too much to request if she is to be involved in my child's care when DD spends time with her father.

Oh Wow... good luck on that one. I doubt there will be a judge in
this country that would require one of these, unless she is willing,
or has exhibited outright blatant abusive behavior.

We don't get to choose who the other parent brings into the child's
live when they are in custody of that parent. Can you imagine all
the clogged up court rooms, if every parent who wanted a say in this
matter was able to bring that to court?

Damn, would I have loved to have done that! My kids SM wouldn't be
allowed within 100 yards of them, if I could have had her stability
questioned. If that is all it took, was to say 'she might harm
them'... I could've saved them!

Sorry, unless she agrees or he coerces her to agree, you're most
likely SOL on that one.
Cal~

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message
news:ELydnYhoDqJPIVTdRVn-sQ@telcove.net... This is the part where it crystalizes for me what a supreme jackass this
guy is. He put so many people into a situation where there is no way for him
to meet his obligation one actually has to start thinking whose needs trump whose. What a godawful situation. If it were me, I would not want such a jackass within a city block of my child. I know that is not one of Paula's choices.

And not one that I would make even if it were.
I have gotten hammered before for not thinking that parental involvement in of supreme importance to a child. I think there are some cases in which no parent would be better than a relationship with a completely disfuctional one. This may be one of those cases.

I talked to my counselor yesterday about this very thing. We
started talking about the people who had advocated adoption.
The fact is that giving her up for adoption (aside from attachment
issues) would only compound the problem because DD would
then have to, later in her life, figure out the 'why' of the decision
to give her up. The same consideration applies to removing
her father from her life.

The fact is he's not a dysfunctional parent. He's a bit dysfunctional
as a person. He's made some bad choices and is currently
compounding the effects of those bad choices by resisting making
a true, solid choice now. He knows that any choice he makes,
someone he cares about is going to get hurt. He can't see, right
now, that by not making a choice, he's hurting us all.

Ya know what, I think we all are a bit dysfunctional. It's not
normal to be normal ... if that makes any sense to you.

After talking about codependence here, I went and did a little
research. I found something that I had never considered ... that
maybe the beginning of my own 'dysfunction' lies with my
siblings rather than my parents. The fact is I don't remember
a time when I didn't place making other people happy above
my own wants and needs. I don't remember ever being able to
fully express my wants and needs. I don't remember ever not
seeking approval outside myself. That fact means that when
my father emotionally abandoned me at around 10, the 'hole'
had already been created, and the abandonment only made
it deeper.

There is a 7 1/2 year difference between me and my oldest sister,
and a 6 year difference between me and my middle sister. I asked
my mother yesterday if they shunned me when I was very little, if
they didn't allow me to play with them. She said that they did.
She went on to tell me that she didn't feel like she was there for
us like she should have been and that she didn't feel like she'd
been a very good Mom. I told her that I didn't agree, but we
didn't talk for very long about it.

I called her back this morning just to tell her that "People
aren't perfect, everyone makes mistakes, and I think" she "
is a great Mom." If not for her, I, most likely, would have
ended up so screwed up that I would not be fit to raise my
child as some members of this group have implied (or even
stated). But the fact is she was and is a good mother, and so
am I.

My counselor told me yesterday that he believes that DD
will have an "amazing counselor" in me when she's older
and talking to me about the situations that life brings. He
said this because I don't judge, I don't lay blame, I just
deal with whatever is there to be dealt with.

DD's father is much the same. She has two wonderful
parents. Yes, we are both a bit dysfunctional in certain
respects, but she's much better off with *both* of us
in her life.
I think there is an element of "magical thinking" here. Paula, could you
be trying to frame your relationship on examples in your life of parents
living separately after divorce? Then, a step-mother would not have the same
issues as the wife in this case. And this arrangement, I suppose, could be workable.

I agree that this situation does not *exactly* fit that example,
but I don't see any others to use as a guide. There are more
issues here ... but the vast majority of the day-to-day issues
are the same. I don't consider this "magical thinking".

--
Paula

"We're scuplted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
and as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstruction - Indigo Girls

"_calinda_" <calindasinclair@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2itvjgFrbu4lU1@uni-berlin.de... Paula wrote: Her interactions with her SM are simply not your business, period. As long as she's not smacking that kid around and talking poorly of her or you, your daughter's relationship with her SM is between the father, the SM and the child.

Ah, but this is exactly where some of my concerns lie. That she
talks poorly of her in her presence or to the other children which
then gets passed on to DD.
You do not get to insert yourself into their life vicariously through your daughter. You just don't.

Not what I am trying to do at all. There is the potential for
*a lot* of emotional abuse in this situation, and I feel the need
to keep a close tab on it. Will I be able to, maybe not. Will
I continue over the long-term to try, depends on how things go.
This woman is in a lot of pain right now. Pain that she may
well blame my child for ... the potential for (intentional and
unintentional) abuse is high. Watching for it and attempting to
prevent it are part of my duties as a parent.

<...snip...> The relationship your daughter has with the SM, unless there is *real* abuse (not the cold-distant behavior you've described as abuse), but legal abuse from the SM, you have to stay out of it. If the father has issues with how his wife treats his child, then the onus is on him.

Cold, distant behaviour is what created my own problems ... it
is abuse. Maybe not by a legal definition, but still abuse.

And yes this lies on him.

<...snip...> If he decided that she does have the right to decide how to parent his daughter while in his care, You don't get a say in the matter. Seriously, once she is in his custody, he can assign care and control of that child to anyone he sees fit. If he hires a nanny for her to be raised, sends her off to his mother's or whatever. He is the one that decides how much input he wants from his wife. She is the one that decides how much input she wants to put into the life of your child. You don't get a say in the matter either way.

I agree with all of this. I didn't say that I get to say how much
she is involved. If he is able to save his marriage, I would hope
that DD would be accepted into *all* of their lives. If that cannot
happen for whatever reason, I'd hope that he's smart enough to
realize that he needs to separate DD's life with him from his wife's
because it is an unhealthy circumstance for both of them.

<...snip...> Not sure why you're sniping at Tracey here, but I can tell you she is probably one of the most level headed people I've ever seen and she brings a lot of experience to the table as well as some of the most well thought out posts. You might try to take a step back a minute and not look at it from the defensive stance I see you in right now.

I'll admit that I am defensive wrt to Tracey right now. She
has said a lot of things that are true. But she's also made many
assumptions about what I'm thinking and feeling that were not.
If there is a question about what I'm thinking or feeling ask,
do not assume. Yes, it pisses me off, and yes, I get defensive
about it.

<...snip...> to say that there are worse things in life than having Cold & Distant as the descriptors for your child's SM. Not optimal, perhaps but things certainly could be worse.

ITA

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
and as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstruction - Indigo Girls

"_calinda_" <calindasinclair@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2iu038Fqh10mU1@uni-berlin.de... Paula wrote: I don't believe that a simple evaluation as to her current state-of-mind wrt my child is too much to request if she is to be involved in my child's care when DD spends time with her father. Oh Wow... good luck on that one. I doubt there will be a judge in this country that would require one of these, unless she is willing, or has exhibited outright blatant abusive behavior. We don't get to choose who the other parent brings into the child's live when they are in custody of that parent. Can you imagine all the clogged up court rooms, if every parent who wanted a say in this matter was able to bring that to court? Damn, would I have loved to have done that! My kids SM wouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of them, if I could have had her stability questioned. If that is all it took, was to say 'she might harm them'... I could've saved them! Sorry, unless she agrees or he coerces her to agree, you're most likely SOL on that one.

Probably, but I would hope that a judge could look at the
circumstances, a child borne of an affair with the wife dealing
with the emotions of the betrayal and the guilt of not being able
to conceive a child of their own, and see that the potential for
abuse is *extremely* high.

I agree that it probably won't happen, but that doesn't
mean that I won't try if it really comes down to it.

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
and as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstruction - Indigo Girls

Paula wrote: "_calinda_" <calindasinclair@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Damn, would I have loved to have done that! My kids SM wouldn't
be allowed within 100 yards of them, if I could have had her
stability questioned. If that is all it took, was to say 'she might harm them'... I could've saved them! Sorry, unless she agrees or he coerces her to agree, you're most likely SOL on that one. Probably, but I would hope that a judge could look at the circumstances, a child borne of an affair with the wife dealing with the emotions of the betrayal and the guilt of not being able to conceive a child of their own, and see that the potential for abuse is *extremely* high. I agree that it probably won't happen, but that doesn't mean that I won't try if it really comes down to it.

If you manage that, I'd be shocked. My children's SM was the affair
partner. She has done the best she could to eradicate his children
from her life and his.

The fact is, a judge isn't interested in what *might possibly*
happen. They want to know what has happened. And she has been what
I would term mentally and verbally abusive as well as having issued
out right threats of physical harm (in writing, no less!). Hasn't
made a difference because mental & verbal abuse are very difficult
to prove and her threats were not carried out and somewhat veiled.

Have you ever seen the movie "Majority Report"? Where they arrest
people before they do a crime to prevent it? We don't live in that
kind of society. Until and unless she does something harmful, there
is little to nothing you can do.

As of right now, you have no evidence to support your fears, only an
assumption on your part given what the father has said to you about
her. It's probably a pretty safe bet that you need to take that
with giant sized grain of salt.
Cal~

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40c9cd39_4@newsfeed.slurp.net... "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message news:ELydnYhoDqJPIVTdRVn-sQ@telcove.net... This is the part where it crystalizes for me what a supreme jackass this guy is. He put so many people into a situation where there is no way for him to meet his obligation one actually has to start thinking whose needs trump whose. What a godawful situation. If it were me, I would not want such a jackass within a city block of my child. I know that is not one of
Paula's choices. And not one that I would make even if it were.I have gotten hammered before for not thinking that parental involvement in of supreme importance to a child. I think there are some cases in which no parent would be better than a relationship with a completely disfuctional one. This may be one of those cases. I talked to my counselor yesterday about this very thing. We started talking about the people who had advocated adoption.

Not you, the father. The thing that, for me, differentiates you from the
father is that from our limited viewpoint you are trying to do what is right
for your daughter and he is still a jerk in fantasy land trying to have his
cake and eat it too.
The fact is that giving her up for adoption (aside from attachment issues) would only compound the problem because DD would then have to, later in her life, figure out the 'why' of the decision to give her up. The same consideration applies to removing her father from her life. The fact is he's not a dysfunctional parent. He's a bit dysfunctional as a person.


I cannot pidgeonhole that way. Parenting is modelling. One cannot be a good
parent and be a dysfunctional person. One can pretend really well when the
kids are small. And it looks pretty good. But parenting is about being a
good person.

He's made some bad choices and is currently compounding the effects of those bad choices by resisting making a true, solid choice now. He knows that any choice he makes, someone he cares about is going to get hurt. He can't see, right now, that by not making a choice, he's hurting us all. Ya know what, I think we all are a bit dysfunctional. It's not normal to be normal ... if that makes any sense to you.

Yup. I am the first to admit I am nuts. It makes it easier on me when I beat
someone to the punch.

<SNIP>

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message
news:rsKdnVDAkuDqdFTdRVn-hQ@telcove.net... "Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40c9cd39_4@newsfeed.slurp.net... I talked to my counselor yesterday about this very thing. We started talking about the people who had advocated adoption. Not you, the father. The thing that, for me, differentiates you from the father is that from our limited viewpoint you are trying to do what is
right for your daughter and he is still a jerk in fantasy land trying to have
his cake and eat it too.

Yep, and I provided that viewpoint for a purpose, to allow you
(collective) to help me to see where I wasn't being honest with
myself.

The picture that I provided is neither complete nor clear.

IMO, he has at least done some of the 'right thing' here because
he hasn't not abandoned his child, and he confessed her
existence to his wife.

Also in my session yesterday, we talked about the fact that I
have, all along, been sending mixed signals to this man ... touch
me, don't touch me; love me, don't love me. I am at least partially
to blame for his inability to let go. I've spent the last two years
unable to ask for what I want from him because it wouldn't be the
'right thing' to do ... but I still conveyed that want to him.

Sooo ... I am also at fault for 'trying to have the cake and eat it too'.
The fact is that giving her up for adoption (aside from attachment issues) would only compound the problem because DD would then have to, later in her life, figure out the 'why' of the decision to give her up. The same consideration applies to removing her father from her life. The fact is he's not a dysfunctional parent. He's a bit dysfunctional as a person. I cannot pidgeonhole that way. Parenting is modelling. One cannot be a
good parent and be a dysfunctional person.

Hmm, I think I'd have to disagree with this. As long as a parent isn't
*terribly* dysfunctional and is not stagnant in it, they are able to be
a good parent. It teaches children that everyone has their problems and
to continually strive for personal growth.
One can pretend really well when the kids are small. And it looks pretty good. But parenting is about being a good person. He's made some bad choices and is currently compounding the effects of those bad choices by resisting making a true, solid choice now. He knows that any choice he makes, someone he cares about is going to get hurt. He can't see, right now, that by not making a choice, he's hurting us all. Ya know what, I think we all are a bit dysfunctional. It's not normal to be normal ... if that makes any sense to you. Yup. I am the first to admit I am nuts. It makes it easier on me when I
beat someone to the punch.

Yup

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
and as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstruction - Indigo Girls

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40c9f018_4@newsfeed.slurp.net... he hasn't not abandoned his child, and he confessed her

Damn ... that should say "hasn't abandoned"

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
and as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstruction - Indigo Girls

Paula wrote:
You also keep referencing the wife and how you expect her totreat your child. None of your business (barring physical abuse).That's for the husband and the wife to decide, what kind ofrelationship/interaction, if any, she will have with the child. Sorry, but again I disagree. As sole custodian, *everything* in my child's life is my business. Now that doesn't mean that I have control or that I should attempt to exert control. But is it my business, YES. Until DD is old enough to make decisions for herself (and even after that, until she is an adult) things that affect her are my business.

Fine, it's your business. Under your control? No. Happy?
As for the decision as to his wife's involvement, that is their decision (more accurately, his), and I have no control over it. <...snip...>I don't agree with the fact that children's needs trump maritalcommitments *in any situation*, not my marriage, not your situation.They are concurrent commitments. And even if I did believe thatthey did, there are two other children's needs to consider. So,to put it bluntly, I don't believe your child's needs trumps every-one else's needs in your situation. Maybe I should explain my statement a little further. I did not intend to imply that DD's needs should *always* trump the others. Only when there is conflict, and only when it is a true need as compared to a want, should DD's needs automatically be prioritized to the top.

Still disagree, but you probably knew that. *For you*, DD's needs
might automatically be prioritized to the top. *For her father*,
that's his decision to make since he also must consider his prior
commitiments. And then you get into the part where we each get to
decide what is a need and what is a want and what is a nice thing
to have.
<...snip...>When the needs are in conflict with one another, one must beprioritized above the other. There is no other way, the way I see it.That is the situation to which I was referring; not one in which theparents are married and live with and raise their children together... again apples and oranges.And if those needs conflict, it will be the husband and the wifewho must figure out which needs get filled when. Agreed, but when DD's needs are not being fulfilled, it *is* my business, and it's my duty as a parent to attempt to work out a solution/compromise with her father.


<...snip...>I have *never* suggested forcing contact. Where did you get the ideathat I had?When you keep agreeing that the wife would be a good candidate forthe third party exchange. Sorry, this a *huge* leap on your part. Offering a choice is *not* applying force.

I have been in more of the roles in your situation than you probably
realize. Or maybe even care. As a woman whose husband had an affair,
I think I have a fairly good idea of at least some of the most common
thought processes of a person whose spouse has had an affair. As a
woman who is a stepparent, I think I have a fairly good idea of the
thought processes of a person who must deal with a child in their
life that they did not birth but must be dealt with anyway. And as
a woman who spent the first 7 years of her first child's life as
a single mother dealing with another parent who is not a part of
her life other than as the father of her child, I think I have a
fairly good idea of the thought processes that go along with that
role, too.

Now, the woman whose husband had an affair is telling you that if
you want to have any chance of a working, cordial relationship with
the wife, you're best bet is to leave the wife out of any of this
stuff until/unless she initiates it. While you keep seeing this as
offering options. I'm here to tell you that it is most likely going
to be seen as forcing yourself on this woman. Have you ever been
in a situation where someone you don't know and don't particularly
care to know has tried to strike up a conversation with you and,
even when you either don't participate in the conversation or give
short answers, they continue to talk to you? Even when you're giving
off signals that you're not interested in talking to them? They're
not giving you the option of having a conversation with them. They're
trying to *force* you to. Same same.

Now, the woman who is a stepparent to children that she wasn't in
on the decision to have or not but still must deal with them is
telling you that, again, if you ever want the chance of having a
working, cordial relationship with your child's stepparent then
your best bet is not start going down the 'This is how you will
treat my child' road. And the absolute best way to insure that
you're never going to have a working, cordial relationship with
this woman is to, right from the get-go, request that a judge
order an evaluation of her and her mental state. Other than the
fact that it is highly unlikely it will be ordered, you're going
to be firing the first shot in what will most likely be a lifelong
war.

And the woman who spent 7 years co-parenting with a man who I wasn't
in a relationship with is telling you that, if nothing else, you
must get used to the idea that he has every right to parent his
child in the way he sees fit and that he gets to make the decisions
as to who is with his child when his child is with him, and he gets
to decide for himself what constitutes a want/need and how to prior-
itize those wants/needs within his own life. You are fully within
your rights to present any concerns you have to him, you are fully
within your rights to try and work things out with him in re to
issues with your daughter, but, at the end of the day, you are
just going to have to accept that, if he's an involved parent,
what happens in his house when it concerns his daughter is his to
deal with as he sees fit.
<...snip...>Tracey, it seems obvious to me that our communication styles don'tmesh well. You keep making assumptions, and I keep trying to correctyou. Could it be that you are carrying in your own 'baggage' andtrying to lay it on me?Don't think so. I may be making assumptions, but they're assumptionsbased on being in somewhat the same situation as the wife is inand maybe having a better idea as to what she's going through thanyou do. I'm questioning your approach, your (seeming) attitudes,etc.Look, I won't argue a bit with your main concern being your daughter.It's as it should be. You need to keep your daughter safe, you wantto keep your daughter's father in your life and you've apparentlymade the decision not to have him in your life other than as thefather of your daughter. All that I don't have a problem with, I'mnot arguing that that is not what you should be doing. What I'mseeing in posts, though, is a lot of places where, IMO, you'regoing over the boundaries and heading into areas that just aren'tyours to be in. The wife is, IMO, so totally out of your area ofcontrol and area of concern that she shouldn't even be a blip onyour radar. The person you deal with is the father of your daughter. Agreed that the person that I deal with is the father of my child, but the fact is he is in crisis right now as well. If he chooses to accept input from me and act together to decide how to best parent our child, that is his choice. Not hers, and most certainly not yours.

I'm not sure why the preceding paragraph brought this one out in reply.
I was saying that you deal with the father and leave her out of it
until/unless she wants to be involved. (Although, if she were posting
here, I would strongly suggest that she deal with her husband and not
deal with you at all.)

The wife, his kids, his family, his friends, etc., are all *his*to deal with. When did his friends enter the discussion ... another of your expansion assumptions?

Oh, just going with the flow. You've made quite a few comments about
how you expect your daughter to be treated by his wife, his kids and
his families, just figured it was only a matter of time before you
included all of his friends, too.

Tracey

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40CA067A.8020809@aol.com... Paula wrote:You also keep referencing the wife and how you expect her totreat your child. None of your business (barring physical abuse).That's for the husband and the wife to decide, what kind ofrelationship/interaction, if any, she will have with the child. Sorry, but again I disagree. As sole custodian, *everything* in my child's life is my business. Now that doesn't mean that I have control or that I should attempt to exert control. But is it my business, YES. Until DD is old enough to make decisions for herself (and even after that, until she is an adult) things that affect her are my business. Fine, it's your business. Under your control? No. Happy?

Hey, look, we agree.

<...snip...> Sorry, this a *huge* leap on your part. Offering a choice is *not* applying force. I have been in more of the roles in your situation than you probably realize. Or maybe even care. As a woman whose husband had an affair, I think I have a fairly good idea of at least some of the most common thought processes of a person whose spouse has had an affair. As a woman who is a stepparent, I think I have a fairly good idea of the thought processes of a person who must deal with a child in their life that they did not birth but must be dealt with anyway. And as a woman who spent the first 7 years of her first child's life as a single mother dealing with another parent who is not a part of her life other than as the father of her child, I think I have a fairly good idea of the thought processes that go along with that role, too. Now, the woman whose husband had an affair is telling you that if you want to have any chance of a working, cordial relationship with the wife, you're best bet is to leave the wife out of any of this stuff until/unless she initiates it. While you keep seeing this as offering options. I'm here to tell you that it is most likely going to be seen as forcing yourself on this woman. Have you ever been in a situation where someone you don't know and don't particularly care to know has tried to strike up a conversation with you and, even when you either don't participate in the conversation or give short answers, they continue to talk to you? Even when you're giving off signals that you're not interested in talking to them? They're not giving you the option of having a conversation with them. They're trying to *force* you to. Same same.

Did I *ever* say that I would offer the choice in the form of a
conversation? IF I pursued this (and that is a *very* large if,
indeed), I would do so in the form of a letter. I have no desire
to "force" myself upon this woman by way of an unwelcome
conversation.

Maybe you should gather the facts before making assumptions ...
as stated elsewhere ASK before you assume.
Now, the woman who is a stepparent to children that she wasn't in on the decision to have or not but still must deal with them is telling you that, again, if you ever want the chance of having a working, cordial relationship with your child's stepparent then your best bet is not start going down the 'This is how you will treat my child' road. And the absolute best way to insure that you're never going to have a working, cordial relationship with this woman is to, right from the get-go, request that a judge order an evaluation of her and her mental state. Other than the fact that it is highly unlikely it will be ordered, you're going to be firing the first shot in what will most likely be a lifelong war.

I also *never* said that I want to dictate how this woman treats
my child, only that I have an obligation to my child to be sure
that she is not *mis*treated by this woman.

I, too, am/was a step-parent. My X's youngest daughter and
I are still very close to this day. I fall into the 'friends' type
of relationship that was described. But I also have had to
function in a parental role when she was unwilling to enlist
her father, and her mother was unable (this was only a
few months ago, btw, and I've been divorced for 8 years).

I didn't say that I would pursue bringing the matter before
a judge initially, only that I would if I felt it were necessary.
And the woman who spent 7 years co-parenting with a man who I wasn't in a relationship with is telling you that, if nothing else, you must get used to the idea that he has every right to parent his child in the way he sees fit and that he gets to make the decisions as to who is with his child when his child is with him, and he gets to decide for himself what constitutes a want/need and how to prior- itize those wants/needs within his own life. You are fully within your rights to present any concerns you have to him, you are fully within your rights to try and work things out with him in re to issues with your daughter, but, at the end of the day, you are just going to have to accept that, if he's an involved parent, what happens in his house when it concerns his daughter is his to deal with as he sees fit.

And I really don't believe that I've said otherwise.

<...snip...> When did his friends enter the discussion ... another of your expansion assumptions? Oh, just going with the flow. You've made quite a few comments about how you expect your daughter to be treated by his wife, his kids and his families, just figured it was only a matter of time before you included all of his friends, too.

That's your prerogative ... but it is making it very difficult for me
to *hear* what you are trying to tell me.

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary,
and as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstruction - Indigo Girls

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:02:03 -0500, "Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Probably, but I would hope that a judge could look at thecircumstances, a child borne of an affair with the wife dealingwith the emotions of the betrayal and the guilt of not being ableto conceive a child of their own, and see that the potential forabuse is *extremely* high.

Careful what you wish for. If, by some chance, you can order
psychological testing of her, likely you will undergo the same and you
had the affair and are undergoing erratic emotions as well.

Abusive behavior, statistically, isn't borne of a situation, but of an
abusive person. What you've presented above doesn't sound like a
composite of a woman who abuses children - it sounds like a woman who
loves them and adoped her own.

I wasn't following the thread, so I don't know why you mentioned
proving her as potentially abusive, but I'm thinking you don't want to
force this issue with a court psychologist, based on what you wrote
above, who will likely find as much anger, emotional lability, and a
past of poor choices in you.I agree that it probably won't happen, but that doesn'tmean that I won't try if it really comes down to it.

Think hard. I'd say, speak with your lawyer or a therapist first
about how your own actions and emotions will be interpreted when
"judged" in court in conjunction with his wife's.

I'd also say, don't make an enemy of her. I haven't gotten the
feeling you want to, from your other posts, but I'm thinking this line
of action will cause resentment on her part and, by proxy, his,
because they are (or might be) putting together their marriage. He
may begin to take her side in matters if you behave in opposition to
her. He should, really, as her husband. You don't want this strife
for your daughter.

This post may be way off, as I've been skipping around, but what you
wrote here struck me as something I don't think would turn out well,
in court or with either of them.

Jen

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40C62EAB.9030501@aol.com... Tsam Nami wrote: "Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40c47f59_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...What do you think? ... push him out and risk him forcingthe issue with the court, or try to work out the third-partyvisitation ... or maybe there's something that I'm notthinking of and one of you can. I'd demand that visitation be done through a third party, and if he refused to agree, make his wife the default choice (yes, this is intended to be a threat to him). (After drafting this, I read Jen/shinypenny's post, once again she has found a better approach than mine to reach essentially the same goal.) -- Tsam I'm replying under Tsam's post but there's at least one other person advocating trying to get the wife involved in the transfers and more involved than she apparently wants to be. Can I ask the reasoning behind this? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems pretty dismissive of the wife to suggest this. Tracey

I guess that I was desperate to find something to suggest for Paula
that would keep her from having contact with the cheating man with
whom she was IMO not resolute enough to end their relationship.

I changed my mind after seeing Jen/shinypenny's post.
--
Tsam

"Bill in Co." <surly6curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xwHxc.7968$uX2.4930@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Even though this is his child, Paula, how is this going to play out
later - I mean, with the triangle here? Is that really going to be better for your daughter? (To be quite honest, at this point, I can't see which way is best anymore, assuming he tries to act like a father to her. I guess part of it even depends on the part played by his wife (looking at this from your
daughter's point of view).
Paula's daughter will probably resent not having a more typical family,
but IMO even more damage could be done if there is not some connection
that she can understand to her father. Honesty needs to be presented
in an age-appropriate schedule, but raising a child on a lie about her
father or -- even worse -- burying the truth when you die is far worse.
--
Tsam

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> writes:
"Bill in Co." <surly6curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:xwHxc.7968$uX2.4930@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Even though this is his child, Paula, how is this going to play out later - I mean, with the triangle here? Is that really going to be better for your daughter? (To be quite honest, at this point, I can't see which way is best anymore, assuming he tries to act like a father to her. I guess part of it even depends on the part played by his wife (looking at this from your daughter's point of view). Paula's daughter will probably resent not having a more typical family,

Typical is probably the wrong word. For better or worse, Paula's
daughter is likely to have a typical family. (Mother as custodial
parent plus occasional contact with father.)

This is far from unusual.

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40c9d272$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net... "_calinda_" <calindasinclair@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2itvjgFrbu4lU1@uni-berlin.de...

[snip all]

I'm not trying to respond to specific quotes, but want to echo
Calinda's opinion that this situation can not be made ideal,
due to how it began. Trying to push for more positive attention
to your daughter from her father's wife than she is willing to give
is IMO a mistake. And there is no practical way for you to
explore what she is willing to give. I suggest putting your
efforts and energes elsewhere.

The reasons have been thourougly explored by others.
--
Tsam
(not yet balancing a cool new job with daily ASM lurking,
let alone posting)

x-no-archive: yes

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40ca10cd_2@newsfeed.slurp.net... I, too, am/was a step-parent. My X's youngest daughter and I are still very close to this day. I fall into the 'friends' type of relationship that was described. But I also have had to function in a parental role when she was unwilling to enlist her father, and her mother was unable (this was only a few months ago, btw, and I've been divorced for 8 years).
As a side issue, be prepared for this to blow up in your face.
Her mother will likely see any positive relationship such as
this as a threat to you.

(When I tried to rationalize my emotional affair a few years
ago, my attempts to have my family socialize with this friend
at group picnics etc. were thrown in my face (incorrectly IMO)
by my wife as trying to have her replaced as a parent.)

I believe that you mean no harm, but be very cautious there.
--
Tsam

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> shared:
x-no-archive: yes"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:40ca10cd_2@newsfeed.slurp.net... I, too, am/was a step-parent. My X's youngest daughter and I are still very close to this day. I fall into the 'friends' type of relationship that was described. But I also have had to function in a parental role when she was unwilling to enlist her father, and her mother was unable (this was only a few months ago, btw, and I've been divorced for 8 years).As a side issue, be prepared for this to blow up in your face.Her mother will likely see any positive relationship such asthis as a threat to you.

Her mother and I are friendly as well. We don't speak on a regular
basis, but when DSD was in the middle of the recent crisis, her mother
and I spoke on a regular basis. If fact, I was the one, for a few
days anyway, that was keeping her updated on the situation. It was
also during that time that my X and I were able to have our first
civil conversations in years. I think the three of us were really
able to work as a team to assist and counsel this young woman.

Her mother and I actually used to freak out sales people when we went
shopping together while I was still married to our X. They never knew
quite what to say if it came up that I was married to her X, and yes,
we got along well enough to spend time together (usually with the
girls). She also used to call me when the cat caught a mouse and left
it in the tub for her. She couldn't bring herself to touch it and
neither could the girls, so I was always the one to come over and
dispose of the poor little thing.
(When I tried to rationalize my emotional affair a few yearsago, my attempts to have my family socialize with this friendat group picnics etc. were thrown in my face (incorrectly IMO)by my wife as trying to have her replaced as a parent.)

That is understandable insecurity within her. I have a handful of
friends who I met because we have Xs in common. I think it has to do
with one person's insecurities and the other person's ability to be
non-threatening. I'd like to thing that no one has ever felt that it
is my intention to replace them (and I've actually said it to a few
that needed to hear it). Parents (or anyone else for that matter; we
are all unique in ourselves) can never be replaced ... that's why I
fit into the 'friend' category of step-parenting.

I only want to be accepted as me; I don't want to 'be' someone else
.... that's why I would never try to replace them.

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40c9cd39_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>...

My counselor told me yesterday that he believes that DD will have an "amazing counselor" in me when she's older and talking to me about the situations that life brings. He said this because I don't judge, I don't lay blame, I just deal with whatever is there to be dealt with.

I just wanted to chime in here and say I get the impression you're a
good mother, Paula, and I agree with your counselor. I agree we all
have our dysfunctions. In many ways the process of parenting helps us
rise above them.
DD's father is much the same. She has two wonderful parents. Yes, we are both a bit dysfunctional in certain respects, but she's much better off with *both* of us in her life.

I agree too, however, it may end up being a matter of how much he is
involved, given the circumstances. Your daughter is not going to have
a daily relationship with her father. Weekly, you can hope. But if
circumstances force the relationship to be even less frequent (to
protect her from unpleasantness with the wife), then all is still not
lost. I have a hunch you'll adjust as best you can, and encourage
quality if you can't have quantity.
I think there is an element of "magical thinking" here. Paula, could you be trying to frame your relationship on examples in your life of parents living separately after divorce? Then, a step-mother would not have the same issues as the wife in this case. And this arrangement, I suppose, could be workable. I agree that this situation does not *exactly* fit that example, but I don't see any others to use as a guide. There are more issues here ... but the vast majority of the day-to-day issues are the same. I don't consider this "magical thinking".

Actually, I have been seeing some magical thinking with you, but not
in this way. I see a person who is an idealist, and from time to time
I get the impression you have in your head a picture of this big happy
family with all the adults rising above the stickiness and getting
along for sake of harmony and the kids.

My take is that this sort of magical thinking is, for you, a form of
self-protection, a way of avoiding facing the ohmigosh reality of the
situation you deliberately created by way of your mistakes and
decisions in the past. I think that's normal and understandable, since
there's nothing you can do now but plug away and make the best of the
cards you've dealt yourself and your child.

I also get the sense that you honestly, sincerely, believe in the best
in people. I am like that myself, and I think it's admirable even if
it can be naive at times, and can run you the risk of 1) being
seriously disappointed; 2) making bad decisions based on what you want
to see - not what is the truth at the moment.

I held on to my idealism during my divorce, despite what the GAL and
psychologists were saying about my ex, whom they didn't think would
ever be emotionally stable enough to be a good influence around my
children. I refused to see it, preferring to hope that he was going
through was more like temporary insanity and he'd eventually get over
it. In the meantime, I was wise enough to be practical and take steps
to protect the kids from his temporary insanity, yet I always held on
to my idealistic hopes, and believed in him, and I'm glad I did.

My advice is to be practical right now, keep your eyes open and
protect your child if necessary, but you know what, it's okay to hold
on to your idealistic fantasy that the adults can someday rise above
all this. Why not. It could happen. And sometimes I do think that my
believing in people does have an affect on their behavior. For
example, with my ex, I treat him as if I expect the best, instead of
expecting the worst. And I think he does react to that. Ultimately,
the control is in his hands, but my attitude I do think helps make it
easier for him to do the right thing.

jen

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) shared:
"Paula" <luvnmom627@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40c9cd39_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>... My counselor told me yesterday that he believes that DD will have an "amazing counselor" in me when she's older and talking to me about the situations that life brings. He said this because I don't judge, I don't lay blame, I just deal with whatever is there to be dealt with.I just wanted to chime in here and say I get the impression you're agood mother, Paula, and I agree with your counselor. I agree we allhave our dysfunctions. In many ways the process of parenting helps usrise above them. DD's father is much the same. She has two wonderful parents. Yes, we are both a bit dysfunctional in certain respects, but she's much better off with *both* of us in her life.I agree too, however, it may end up being a matter of how much he isinvolved, given the circumstances. Your daughter is not going to havea daily relationship with her father. Weekly, you can hope. But ifcircumstances force the relationship to be even less frequent (toprotect her from unpleasantness with the wife), then all is still notlost. I have a hunch you'll adjust as best you can, and encouragequality if you can't have quantity. I think there is an element of "magical thinking" here. Paula, could you be trying to frame your relationship on examples in your life of parents living separately after divorce? Then, a step-mother would not have the same issues as the wife in this case. And this arrangement, I suppose, could be workable. I agree that this situation does not *exactly* fit that example, but I don't see any others to use as a guide. There are more issues here ... but the vast majority of the day-to-day issues are the same. I don't consider this "magical thinking".Actually, I have been seeing some magical thinking with you, but notin this way. I see a person who is an idealist, and from time to timeI get the impression you have in your head a picture of this big happyfamily with all the adults rising above the stickiness and gettingalong for sake of harmony and the kids.My take is that this sort of magical thinking is, for you, a form ofself-protection, a way of avoiding facing the ohmigosh reality of thesituation you deliberately created by way of your mistakes anddecisions in the past. I think that's normal and understandable, sincethere's nothing you can do now but plug away and make the best of thecards you've dealt yourself and your child.I also get the sense that you honestly, sincerely, believe in the bestin people. I am like that myself, and I think it's admirable even ifit can be naive at times, and can run you the risk of 1) beingseriously disappointed; 2) making bad decisions based on what you wantto see - not what is the truth at the moment.I held on to my idealism during my divorce, despite what the GAL andpsychologists were saying about my ex, whom they didn't think wouldever be emotionally stable enough to be a good influence around mychildren. I refused to see it, preferring to hope that he was goingthrough was more like temporary insanity and he'd eventually get overit. In the meantime, I was wise enough to be practical and take stepsto protect the kids from his temporary insanity, yet I always held onto my idealistic hopes, and believed in him, and I'm glad I did.My advice is to be practical right now, keep your eyes open andprotect your child if necessary, but you know what, it's okay to holdon to your idealistic fantasy that the adults can someday rise aboveall this. Why not. It could happen. And sometimes I do think that mybelieving in people does have an affect on their behavior. Forexample, with my ex, I treat him as if I expect the best, instead ofexpecting the worst. And I think he does react to that. Ultimately,the control is in his hands, but my attitude I do think helps make iteasier for him to do the right thing.

Wow, are you reading my mind or something :)

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) shared:Actually, I have been seeing some magical thinking with you, but notin this way. I see a person who is an idealist, and from time to timeI get the impression you have in your head a picture of this big happyfamily with all the adults rising above the stickiness and gettingalong for sake of harmony and the kids.My take is that this sort of magical thinking is, for you, a form ofself-protection, a way of avoiding facing the ohmigosh reality of thesituation you deliberately created by way of your mistakes anddecisions in the past. I think that's normal and understandable, sincethere's nothing you can do now but plug away and make the best of thecards you've dealt yourself and your child.I also get the sense that you honestly, sincerely, believe in the bestin people. I am like that myself, and I think it's admirable even ifit can be naive at times, and can run you the risk of 1) beingseriously disappointed; 2) making bad decisions based on what you wantto see - not what is the truth at the moment.
<...snip...>My advice is to be practical right now, keep your eyes open andprotect your child if necessary, but you know what, it's okay to holdon to your idealistic fantasy that the adults can someday rise aboveall this. Why not. It could happen. And sometimes I do think that mybelieving in people does have an affect on their behavior. Forexample, with my ex, I treat him as if I expect the best, instead ofexpecting the worst. And I think he does react to that. Ultimately,the control is in his hands, but my attitude I do think helps make iteasier for him to do the right thing.

I was thinking about this. And I think I do the exact opposite (some
of the time anyway). My 'Prepare for the worst; hope for the best'
attitude may just lead me to *expect* the worst from people. (Hmm,
yet another self-sabotaging behaviour brought to the light of day.)

I think this is probably a direct side-effect of risk #1. I've been
disappointed (rightly or not) too many times. And when I *really*
care, I'm really *invested* in the outcome, I can't bring myself to
believe the best because the consequence of being wrong is just too
much.

I know that I've also been able to expect the best from some people,
and I, too, believe that it can have an effect on people. It's
emotional support, I think, that you believe in them and that they can
do it. That's how it works with kids; why wouldn't it continue to
work in adulthood?

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

Doug Anderson wrote: "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> writes: "Bill in Co." <surly6curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:xwHxc.7968$uX2.4930@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Even though this is his child, Paula, how is this going to play out later - I mean, with the triangle here? Is that really going to be better
for your daughter? (To be quite honest, at this point, I can't see which way is best
anymore, assuming he tries to act like a father to her. I guess part of it even depends on the part played by his wife (looking at this from your
daughter's point of view). Paula's daughter will probably resent not having a more typical family, Typical is probably the wrong word. For better or worse, Paula's daughter is likely to have a typical family. (Mother as custodial parent plus occasional contact with father.) This is far from unusual.

Far from unusual in *todays's* world, you mean. Not as common just a few
decades ago. Like GE: "Progress is our most important product".
/sarcasm off

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:TPEyc.11177$uX2.10873@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... "Bill in Co." <surly6curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:xwHxc.7968$uX2.4930@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Even though this is his child, Paula, how is this going to play out later -I mean, with the triangle here? Is that really going to be better for your daughter? (To be quite honest, at this point, I can't see which way is best
anymore, assuming he tries to act like a father to her. I guess part of it even depends on the part played by his wife (looking at this from your daughter's point of view). Paula's daughter will probably resent not having a more typical family, but IMO even more damage could be done if there is not some connection that she can understand to her father. Honesty needs to be presented in an age-appropriate schedule, but raising a child on a lie about her father or -- even worse -- burying the truth when you die is far worse.

I stand by the word "typical". Most children have known two parents.
During their earliest years, most children have had a two-parent home.
(At that age, children do not look for marriage certificates, so
cohabitation
still provides this level of normalcy.) Most fathers want to participate
in raising their children.

Doug and Bill's comments do not reflect my view of the current world.
(I responded here, to keep the context of my statement in view.)

And I believe that Paula is doing the best for her daughter, given the
situation into which she was born. Both she and her daughter will
benefit more at this time from encouragement than condemnation.
--
Tsam

Tsam Nami wrote: "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:TPEyc.11177$uX2.10873@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net... "Bill in Co." <surly6curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:xwHxc.7968$uX2.4930@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Even though this is his child, Paula, how is this going to play out later -I mean, with the triangle here? Is that really going to be better for your daughter? (To be quite honest, at this point, I can't see which way is best
anymore, assuming he tries to act like a father to her. I guess part of it even depends on the part played by his wife (looking at this from your daughter's point of view). Paula's daughter will probably resent not having a more typical family, but IMO even more damage could be done if there is not some connection that she can understand to her father. Honesty needs to be presented in an age-appropriate schedule, but raising a child on a lie about her father or -- even worse -- burying the truth when you die is far worse. I stand by the word "typical". Most children have known two parents. During their earliest years, most children have had a two-parent home. (At that age, children do not look for marriage certificates, so cohabitation still provides this level of normalcy.) Most fathers want to participate in raising their children.

But you're reaching a bit now, Tsam. I noticed you conveniently rephrased
this as: "have known" two parents, rather than have two parents. And
"during their earliest years..." How early? I think there are a LOT of
breakups before the kids even reach the age of 5! And I can certainly
show you areas where fathers routinely abandon their kids. And ALL of this
has gotten a LOT worse than it was a few decades ago. Hell, the divorce
rate is over 50% today, isn't it? 50%!!

So I think both Doug and I were right. (Case closed).
Doug and Bill's comments do not reflect my view of the current world. (I responded here, to keep the context of my statement in view.) And I believe that Paula is doing the best for her daughter, given the situation into which she was born. Both she and her daughter will benefit more at this time from encouragement than condemnation. -- Tsam