I can tell, even though you don't want to be you still are nice to her and guess what, wonder o wonders.... she repays your "nice-ness" with evil, anger and contempt.
Another thing, push for the 50/50 joint custody, don't let her get out of that, you don't care if she wants less child custody - why would you help her and enable her there.
She has kids, the responsibility of having kids is making time for them. You don't have to be nice and do the "co-parenty" thing, you know better than that.
This is one of the few areas in which I would disagree with Rob and Puppy. SP has questioned the quality of STBX's parenting. While he could force the issue on the quantity of time she is responsible for them, he will have very little to say about the quality of that time, barring physical abuse or outright neglect. While I think having both parents fully engaged in the lives of children is important, I don't see that with STBXMrsSP.
Imagine, if you will, how the resentment will be manifested when the kids get in the way of her "lifestyle." Maybe she'll grow up and become a good parent...or maybe she'll treat them with the same kindness that she has treated SP. That is not a gamble I would make with my children.
Just my $0.02 (minus taxes and adjusted for inflation)
Another thing, push for the 50/50 joint custody, don't let her get out of that, you don't care if she wants less child custody - why would you help her and enable her there.
She has kids, the responsibility of having kids is making time for them. You don't have to be nice and do the "co-parenty" thing, you know better than that.
This is one of the few areas in which I would disagree with Rob and Puppy. SP has questioned the quality of STBX's parenting. While he could force the issue on the quantity of time she is responsible for them, he will have very little to say about the quality of that time, barring physical abuse or outright neglect. While I think having both parents fully engaged in the lives of children is important, I don't see that with STBXMrsSP.
Imagine, if you will, how the resentment will be manifested when the kids get in the way of her "lifestyle." Maybe she'll grow up and become a good parent...or maybe she'll treat them with the same kindness that she has treated SP. That is not a gamble I would make with my children.
Just my $0.02 (minus taxes and adjusted for inflation)
Nut
Ditto.
More than anything, though, I have an observer's horror of custody and/or issues concerning Themselves in general becoming the proxy battleground for leftover resentments from the totality of the relationship.
If that's the only field you'll engage her on, SP, guess where she's likely to direct her fire?
I rarely say this, but thank heaven for lawyers, and may they work quickly.
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
I'm with the Nut. Take the kids 100%. Let her sail into the sunset. You can find a wonderful new partner and raise the kids in a healthy home without any assistance from her.
Yeah, we'll see what the lawyers come up with. But I can't do it your way @robx -- I can't do this to them -- put them in the middle of the adult sparring contest.
F*ck her, she's not worth it. Not if it's the kids who are picking up the tab. Let her have less custody; they'll know which side the bread is buttered on, especially when she starts announcing "isn't it exciting" that Mom's going from Here to There on one of her adventures - again.
And look -- no amount of SP-as-Bada** is going to change anything. She's got me by the short hairs, and she knows it -- let's face it, when your response to "don't you think we owe it to the kids to see about making things better?" is "my happiness is more important than theirs," you're just not going to be impressed by Man-Attitude.
She's got to walk her own path and is by all accounts thrilled with the prospect of doing so -- she's declared to others that though her goal is to sleep with 10 men ("a nice round number") before making any decisions about "getting serious", it's become complicated because she's "more than a little in love" with Signore il Secondo from October ("we had 1 day and 3 glorious nights" -- you can barf now).
Well more power to her. If she were unable to get to SiS because of the kids, she'd merely take it out on them, so what's the point of that?
The way I feel now, other than for the effect it would have on the children -- who were SO HAPPY to see her yesterday it was heartbreaking -- I don't think I'd give a fiddler's fart if I learned that she was dying or even dead.
It's sad, really. I mean, I'm sure I've done my part. Not only did I not "get on board" with the whole Super Ex Great Pal We're Bestest Buds plan from D-Day, I've been a real pr*ck from time-to-time -- as I wrote a few months back, confessions of a failed-DB'er -- but damnation an awful lot of this lies firmly at her feet.
I mean -- you come back from a 15-day whatever-you-call-it and announce you need less time with the children because it's "too difficult" to manage with work? Really? I mean, what the ever-lovin'-f*ck? Let's face it. What you mean is, "It's too difficult to manage my work when I have to travel to meet my True Love and Soulmate if I also have to have these pesky kids hanging around the rest of the time."
And here's one better -- a dollar will get you a donut that, when she tells the kids she'll be seeing them less, she'll frame it this way: Because I have to work so much to give your Dad money I won't be able to see you as often. That would be her M.O. these days.
I was thinking about how close I came to talking reconciliation back in September, when she "saw a glimmer of hope for us," and can't help but think that -- odd as it is -- I dodged a real bullet there.
Because this was going to happen again, and I'd be right back where I started. She's lost it; that's all there is to it. Her mind has taken a walk off the map.
Yeah, we'll see what the lawyers come up with. But I can't do it your way @robx -- I can't do this to them -- put them in the middle of the adult sparring contest.
Good for you Daddy.
Originally Posted By: SmileysPerson
And here's one better -- a dollar will get you a donut that, when she tells the kids she'll be seeing them less, she'll frame it this way: Because I have to work so much to give your Dad money I won't be able to see you as often. That would be her M.O. these days.
Over the long haul, actions always speak louder than words. Your kids will figure it out.
They know those 15 day junkets to Europe are not work. The good fairy routine only works for so long. Your daughter has already told you that she knows which side of the bread the butter is on. Daddy is the better Mommy and Daddy.
Hmmmmmmmmm. It seems that someone "got" to her. Someone like her....lawyer (?). Boyfriend? The voices in her head?
By the end of the day I was just so dam downhearted about the whole thing and so full of hate, which I don't want to be, that I practiced what I preach to The Boy-Child. "Don't give me 'I don't know if I can,'" I tell him, "just Decide. Decide and Do. Just say to yourself, 'D and D.'" (Hopefully this mnemonic device won't result in his being a "Dungeonmaster" and living off of Mountain Dew and Cheetos in my basement when he's 33....)
So I Decided and Did.
I 180'd and abandoned all my desire to inflict pain and suffering and to visit a long, lingering, and lonely death-curse upon her with my Crossing Mojo Hand --
well, okay, not all of it
-- and instead sent a polite, carefully worded letter, called her by name, signed my name ("Cordially, SP" - I mean, let's not get carried away!), to discuss an issue related to our son's therapeutic needs. Specifically, that he won't be able to attend group sessions because of the work/babysit/etc. issue.
To which her reply is, "Oh, I can take him since I'm picking him up on Wednesdays."
WTF?????
"You incomparably disrespectful lying b*tch!"
So I wrote a polite, carefully worded letter pointing out that regrettably I must consult with counsel on this matter, as it is the first I have heard (at 1800) that this is her intention. Moreover, it complicates my life immensely, as this is twice that I have taken action on the basis of representations made by her and entered into contractual agreements, only to have her make new representations that undo the arrangements I had made. So I did not let her act "as if" she could just go pick up the kids.
Now why would that happen?
3 possibilities present themselves to me, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive:
1) The lawyer-lady said, "WTF? They present you with a settlement proposal, you want to bargain over the terms to get a better deal, and then you pull this stunt?"
2) She's the World's Greatest Gaslighter, or
3) That she is, in fact, off her rocker. That she's high-functioning bipolar. That her mind has gone walkabout. Who knows? But I'm definitely leaving open the possibility that she is, in fact, a loon.
To which her reply is, "Oh, I can take him since I'm picking him up on Wednesdays."
Told you. Hither. Yon.
Well, you learned something. You learned absolutely not to take her at her word right now, and to apply the 48-hour rule to anything that comes out of her mouth and *then* reconfirm before you change your plans.
Why is there no eye-rolling smilie emoticon??? you'll have to imagine a whole herd of them.
Edited for: attempted clarity
Last edited by Kettricken; 01/13/1004:50 AM.
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
Pod person, if I remember correctly, seems to describe her well.
Keep copies of all the emails and a journal of the actions you took as a result of her emails. Send everything to your lawyer. I hope you have a life insurance policy covering her. The air travel, the musical beds and the erratic behavior could add up to disaster.
I wish I had a clever quote to insert here, but I'm not nearly as erudite as you. What the hell: Salvador Dali once said, "The only difference between an lunatic and me is that I'm not crazy." I got that off of a coffee mug.
