Ex Raf wants his spouse to have access whilst he’s away

[ttmb]

My ex left me and my ds at 4 months having fallen in love with an American in Dubai, he is now 4 yrs old and sees him every other weekend. He goes away for three months soon and wants this arrangement to continue with his wife looking after him but I can’t see that being reasonable?! Why should I let another woman have all that time with my son when I could be catching up on precious lost time. Thoughts?!

The flight risk ones are a bit of an escalation, plus being in the military if he were to go awol he would end up in military prison so I would guess that is extremely unlikely! What does your son want to do? Is it likely that it maintains a link to your ex’s side of the family whilst he is away ie to his parents and relatives as she will arrange visits etc?

This is the first deployment, he’s been insanely lucky in his role.

No, that seems odd. If there were other children who are DS's half siblings then yes or if the father was coming home in the evenings. But to spend the weekend with just his SM seems OTT. The father could argue that if it's his contact time then he can leave the child with a Nanny if he likes and not see the child at all. Unless the DS and SM are very close I would see this as the father as exercising his rights over the welfare of the child.

Your DS has regular contact with his father and step mum. He has a good time with them both and the step mum wants to see him. Additionally this is the father’s contact time and he can make childcare arrangements with family just as you, presumably, leave your DS with his step dad.

You also have an minablement relationship with your ex and unproblematic contact. If you fight this you would be morally in the wrong, legally in the wrong and would upset relations with your ex.

She wouldn't be legally in the wrong!

Ok the step mum has been in this child's life their WHOLE life. He won't remember a time without her; his dad went off with her when he was a baby and they've had contact ever since. So essentially what is being proposed is that for 3 months he will not see someone who has been important in his life ever since he was old enough to remember, because daddy has to go away for work (as for the poster who said he has a choice- no he doesn't , you clearly don't understand the forces and it's not as simple as just get another job- he could be throwing away a good career and pension if he leaves plus you have to give a year's notice...)

I would continue with the routine and stability. Military position I think swings it to continuing with the current arrangements.

As another poster said: It's common in military families for contact arrangements for the child to continue during deployments. It's seen as continuity for the child to maintain his/her relationship with that side of the family and with their other household. This becomes even more important once there are half-siblings on the scene.

Dad is trying to protect the routine, a bit silly unless he expects you to be difficult later. Step mum hasn't got pr and Is not on equal footing, her job is support dad.
I would reduce the contact but not cut it completely, let him go once a month, or more often but not overnight, or a mix. Observe relationship with her before and after visits, it may be harder than she thinks. Sure he can Skype dad from yours.
Also get dc a passport and keep it safe, otherwise dad may beat you to it

It's common in military families for contact arrangements for the child to continue during deployments. It's seen as continuity for the child to maintain his/her relationship with that side of the family and with their other household.

I was brought up as an army child. I worked for the army as a civilian. I was in the army myself. I was married to a soldier. I have never once seen this. The step children stay with their actual parent when the Dad went on deployment and no one ever questioned that. I'm sure it happens if you say so but it's not common.

@RubiksQueen

She has been involved since he was two when she emigrated. Not saying that should change your stance just wanted correct info out there! And yes I totally agree there is no choice for him whilst he is in that role. Though to be devils advocate there is no chance I would continue in a role that could potentially take me from my children for that length of time. And that is said as the ds of a Raf dad with a full understanding of the pros and cons.

So she's a girlfriend your son has known for a maximum of 2 years, on a twice monthly basis. No I wouldn't be handing my son over for contact arrangements with her- I'd offer a few meet ups at most. If they split your son would likely never see her again anyway.

When we talk about dad's family, we mean dc extended family, dads relations. Not his wife, though she is important she may not be permanent. This would be different if it were granny or aunts who he has regular visits with. Everyone sounds quite reasonable, talk to them.

And to be fair you chose to have a child with someone in the forces so knew that long deployments where a possibility. It’s not ideal of course but you both knew it was likely to happen at some point!

My gut instinct would be no - BUT, and it's a big but - I have a relative in the RAF and I know that during contact they would often work a 24 hour shift so their children would be in the care of the step-parent for that time. So I can see his point in that respect, she may have always been involved in caring for him. It is a tricky one.

surely it's about the son maintaining a relationship with his step mum. I'd be delighted that she clearly loves him

Sorry missed the spouse part! Rest of post still stands though. She's not been around for years, or jointly raising him, nor does she have his siblings. Expecting your son to continue to leave his mother and sibling EOW to see this woman is nonsense.

Spouses come and go. My eldest had a wonderful stepdad for 5 years, they both talk of the time fondly. But in most cases it doesn't endure for much longer than the marriage. SPs can be wonderful but in the majority of cases it's not a bond that exists without the parent who is their partner.

OP you say he has a good relationship with his SM and enjoys spending time with her. It’s in his best interests to have a good bond with her too, and how lovely for him to have someone else who loves him. Far, far preferable to a step parent who resents the children and doesn’t want to spend time with them.

Jenny17 How are you getting even more of a no from the update post? Are you picking on the one sentence He comes home saying he’s had a good time even though he after doesn’t want to go ?

No it's from this the OP posted.

I am fearful that if I fight for that extra time now it will cause hostility and that is definitely not the best for ds. So far everything has been negotiated with us alone and wishing to keep it that way

There is zero reason for DS going to stay with SM apart from to appease others. Best place for lad is to be with someone that has parental responsibility and with brother as much as possible.

I wouldn't put it past any DF who requests the same because he doesn't want to pay extra child support for 3 months.

No matter how much it's argued a step parent is secondary to a parent and cannot deprive a parent of time. This is reflected in inheritance laws, what happens when a step parents partner is deceased etc.

OP should be careful what she is inadvertently giving away and get legal advice.

As a parent with a daughter who has a str mother and also my ExH is ex Navy, I would like to chuck in my 2p worth.
Firstly the main thing screaming out at me (and many people seeming to be overlooking) is is that the fact the step mum wants contact is a really positive thing isn’t it surely?

What would it say about her and her feelings for your son if she just wasn’t bothered about seeing him and maintaining any contact? I’d much prefer to know that she is someone in my child’s life who clearly does care beyond just doing her duties for your ex’s benefit. I think it shows she is genuine and does care for her role in your sons life.

Secondly, I’d say that I understand how you feel and agree, maintaining every other weekend whilst he’s away is too much. But in the interests of maintaining a good relationship surely a compromise could be reached in where she saw him for a day out maybe once or twice a month? Unless distance makes a day only a problem, that would seem to me a great solution as you’d get him back at the end of the day.

Hard as it is, and I get she was the other woman so that adds another element, it looks like she’s here to stay and I do think you need to see the positives in this request and find a way you can make it work for both of you. I’d genuinely feel more concerned to be in a situation where this woman wasn’t bothered at all about seeing my child as it would make me question everything about her sincerity in being a stepmum who wants to be part of their life.

I hope this helps.

Jenny17 Oh I see what you are saying. I don't think, however, that anyone is arguing that a step-parent is NOT secondary to a parent? The argument is about the child and their need for continuity and their relationship with the SM to not be interfered with just because of circumstances, it's not about the step-parent insisting on contact because they are just as important as mum. People scoff at how little time EOW is, then really it isn't a lot of time to be considered depriving a Mum of anything (who happens to have EOW too plus all the days in-between).

Twistedswitch, you sound like you don't have a clue of that which you speak.

OP your choice. Think about what's in the best interest of your child rather than trying to settle old scores. A lot of the advice (such as that of Twistedswitch is driven by resentment and ignorance of your ex's legal rights).

Good luck with whatever you choose, though I fear you may allow yourself to be driven by an opportunity to stick it to your ex and his wife. It will only be a pyrrhic victory. The longer term impact might not be so good once you've soured what seems like an amicable arrangement.

(such as that of Twistedswitch is driven by resentment and ignorance of your ex's legal rights).

Not sure why my posts have been singled out when I suggested some contact as a compromise, just not EOW but whatever. But please explain what gives the OP's ex the legal right to send a proxy in his place for contact when he isn't even in the country? Maybe see Collaborate's post upthread.

It's only 'amicable' because the OP isn't willing to rock the boat.

Amicable should ideally be a two way street and it needs to be founded on deep mutual respect and trust.

When a situation develops where one ex spouse asks for an arrangement that is not acceptable and the other former spouse feels nervous about objecting to it because of fear of causing bad feeling, then there is a power imbalance that is fundamental to the relationship instead of the mutual respect and trust.
I am fearful that if I fight for that extra time now it will cause hostility and that is definitely not the best for ds. So far everything has been negotiated with us alone and wishing to keep it that way.

The OP herself has no intention of causing hostility and is not motivated by hostility.

It is the choice of her exH to take umbrage, to respond with hostility, to create a coolness or to react with anger.

It is the choice of the exH to stay in a career where he can be posted for long stretches.

It is not the role of the child's mother to enable the choices of this man regardless of her own feelings or misgivings about the welfare of her child. The role of mollifier of a man who might turn nasty is one that needs to be rejected. 'Amicable' crosses a line into 'fearful' when that role is present.

Sometimes digging in your heels and showing that you are not a pushover is necessary in order to prevent any further unreasonable requests. You have to teach people how to treat you because some people are inclined to keep on pushing to see what they can get away with.

OP, please get legal advice, and be willing to respond with a statement based on legal advice. It is your exH's choice whether this gets nasty. You are not responsible for other adults' reactions to your decisions.

Mathanxiety It's only 'amicable' because the OP isn't willing to rock the boat.

Er, yes? That's kinda what it means. Things are amicable unless someone rocks the boat.

Yes amicable is a two way street. So if one person rocks the boat it can stop being amicable.

The OP's ex has not rocked the boat. He has made a reasonable request that's on the interest of his child. The child knows the stepmother for some years, they get on well and she cares about him.