Do you provide all clothes etc for visits to ex or does he have stuff???

[Fluffybubble]

At the moment I provide a bag of clothes for the weekend (including pyjamas), along with toothbrush, toothpaste etc. When ds is returned I also get a bag of dirty washing...

I have always done this (for 3 years now) but a friend, who is also a lone parent, sends her dc in what they are standing up in, and her exh has his own supplies at his house. Her exh returns the dc's original clothes in a bag unwashed, and she does the same with anything he has provided.

At the moment, money is a big issue, with my ex thinking that the maintenance he gives me is over and above what I need to live on (it's not!!). I am concerned that if I suggest that he provides clothes and other essentials for ds's visits (twice every 5 weeks) then he'll think it is me being petty. On the other hand, since he is intending to see him reguarly, shouldn't he have some bits for him???

Thanks!

We have everything here for DSD that she needs. She has enough clothes for a 2 week stay and loads of toys and stuff here too.

bonkerz I hope 'we' give the mother enough money to ensure that she doesn't feel unhappy about the situation whereby you and her ex dh buy so many clothes for DSD/DD.

I hope she has the opportunity to buy the same amount and quality for her at home and the same toys. If not, well you should stop buying so many clothes and give her more money. It's a humiliating position to be in from her viewpoint and very undermining as a parent, especially if money is a contentious issue.

I'd hate a stepmother to have so much for my DD kept at the other house. I'd rather have more money to provide for DD and organise suitcases etc.

K20, I dont understand why your comments towards my postare so horrid. WE pay alot of money every month (ALOT more than we would have to through CSA and thats OUR choice to do that becasue WE know how much it costs to bring up a child!) to DHex for DSDs care. I also look aftre DSD for half of all the school holidays so that DSDmother does not have to pay for childcare AND OUR house is also DSDs home so i dont see why she should not have just as much as the children who live with us. When DSD is not here during the week I still buy her treats the same as i do for DD and DS because DSD is part of my family. She has her own bed and her own clothes and her own toys becasue this is her home too!!! She is not a guest when she comes to us every weekend she lives here and therofre should have things here. DSD has been coming every weekend since she was 18 months old and we have ALWAYS provided for her when she is here, she is 7 now and accepts that this is her life. she lives with mummy mon-fri and daddy fri to sunday.

What we pay to DSD mother does not cover full costs of DSD BUT if you add it together with the facts that we have DSD in our care EVERY WEEKEND and ATLEAST 6 full weeks per year then i think you will see we provide alot more than many parents do for their step children.

And as for your comment about undermining the mother........well im sorry, it may be that way in your life BUT DSD mother appreciates not having to wash clothes and pack every weekend.

k20 can i just say your post was very unfair and you aimed it at me which was not on considering i just answered the OP.

K20, it isn't just the step-mums's that have the stuff for the children, it's their Dads too!

And I don't see it as undermining her mum if we have everything she needs here. It isn't about her mum, it's about dsd. And to us the most important thing is that she is made to feel at home. Lots of us have said it - she's a member of the family, not a visitor who arrives with a suitcase.

If there are things she needs at home that her mum can't afford then we buy those too.

And while you may be willing to pack a suitcase for your child every visit, dsd's mum isn't. And in the early days when (we presume) dd (4 at the time) was sent to pack a bag to go to her Dads she'd arrive with no knickers and no jumpers in winter and present me with a bag of dirty washing. We decided on the spot that it would be easier if we just had stuff for her here, rather than risk another argument with her mum about what to bring or not to bring. So again, that was about dsd and minimising the arguments between her and her mum.

thanks for saying what i wanted too but much better surefermum! I ranted in my post because im insulted TBH by K20s post. Dh is also suitably unimpressed by the post and deeply offended that someone would pass such snap judgement

mums's???? I hope the pedants aren't still awake

K20 - why do you assume the mum would automatically mind, as you would? If it was me I'd be happy my dd could go along to a house where she's already so obviously expected, instead of carting a suitcase like she would to a hotel.

Fair enough, if the other parent was buying Gucci-everything to keep for the child while the mother didn't have enough money to scrape by, there'd be something wrong but that's hardly going to be a common occurence and you didn't bother to ask if that was the case or not, you just passed advice instantly. You can't assume everyone's situation is as acrimonious as you think it will be!

From my own POV I'd say having stuff kept at the other house would be more convienient and more comfortable for the dc but IF it did create monetary problems, that should be dealt with.

K20....

Sorry, but I think it's you who have issues, not Bonkerz.

You sound like the sort of person who, regardless of what's agreed / dcided through the courts, is going to be angry / mad unless YOU have / appear to have more than your EX and his new partner / wife.

My DHs ex receives an awful lot of money, and (If you'd bothered to read the whole thread) you'd see that my DSDs mum actually agreed to provide everything the girls need while they are with us. She has more than enough £££££ to do so.

But, get off the (extremely high) horse you are on. This isn't about the money. My DH and I feel that it's far nicer for the girls not to have to be responsible for everything and, after 10 years, I'm pretty sure their mum likes the odd weekend off where she's NOT responsible for every single last bldy thing two kids might need.

My DH and I happen to believe that the kids feelings and welfare come before trying to point score off the ex. And thankfully, my DHs ex feels pretty much the same. Most of the mums and step mums who are in this (difficult) position agree on is that the best outcome is for the child to feel welcome and loved in two households.

Thankfully YOUR view seems to be in the minority!

I send clothes, but they have other stuff there. He does have spare clothes there though too (Pjs, knickers etc)

And, I just want to add (in support of all the mums out there!) I don't think many mums intentionally send their kids without underwear / coats / shoes, it's just not many people are THAT organised that every other friday they religiously pack up their kids life and send it over...

Just as the vast majority of NCPs don't intentionally send the kids back with items lost / damaged... it just happens...

BUT, I do appreciate that (in both cases) it's highly frustrating and that frustration is likely to come out DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF the kids. ON a Friday night, when dad unpacks the bag and on a SUnday when mum does the same........ that's a good recipe for harmonious relationships!!!

Much better that mum has her stuff, Dad has his and leave the kids out of it!

(and, TBH, if a NCP wants to buy 1 Gucci t-shirt rather than 10 Tesco t-shirts, then that's the NCP's right...)

And, here's one for you: K20...

What would your response be if your ex and his new partner decided to do something with your DD that you didn't have the stuff for? (Take skiing as an example) Would you happily skip out and purchase all of the items required to do that, even if you weren't going to take your DD skiing? and then pack the neatly into her suitcase... and then deal with a weeks worth of dirty washing when she got back......

And how would you feel if the shoes you sent with your DD were used to take a large, wet, muddy labrador for a long walk across some nice, wet, muddy fields? And they came back caked in mud for you to try and remedy?

I can't help feeling that your attitude (you'll provide what DD needs and your ex shouldn't buy anything) isn't even so much about the money, it's about controlling what your DD does and doesn't do with her dad....

Ooohh... I am now and it's only 7:20!!!! I... must... go... and... drink... tea....

Think good thoughts......We have our DSDs tonight and my lovely DH is home

I'd loved to have given dsd's mum the benefit of the doubt over what she came to us with YCBS, but sadly it wasn't the case. And we know that things that went home were broken or binned - as the new bf (man dh's x left him for) told us so! He didn't want anything of dh's around him.

We have everything here for DSD, she just comes in what she is standing in plus her cuddly toy. It just seems the sensible thing that she has clothes and toys here too, because although she is only here for 4 days out of 14, it is still her home.

Same with my DDs when they go to their fathers house every other weekend, they go in what they are wearing, sometimes come back in it, somethimes in clothes from their fathers house, which is returned for the next visit.

I know for a fact that DSDs Mum has more disposable income than we do, and DDs father considerably less, so I can see all points of view on this. I think that the only consideration should be making sure the children are happy wherever they are.

This is an interesting thread.

My son is only permitted to see me for four hours a week. After his mother started critising me (via email and a notebook that she sends with him) that he was dirty after spending time with me (mainly eating - he's 16 months old!) I decided that the only way to deal with it was to change him into clothes I brought as soon as I collected him and changed him back when he was handed back over.

It's pathetic, stupid and pointless. But it's the only thing I can do to deal with it.

To be honest though...when I think about my situation and read the posts in this thread it makes me think `Is this how petty it all is?'

Youcannotbeserious is right - it's all about control and showing `the ex' who the boss is. Can anyone put their hand on their heart and say any of this really matters and is worth acrimony...or would it be better to get on and work together in the child's best interests???

what a contentious topic! the main thing here is the welfare, happiness and comfort if the children. they are the ones that go back and forth and have to adjust. think what it would be like if you needed to take everything with you that you needed for work each and every day. wouldnt you be fed up you couldnt have your little homely knick knacks with you, photos of dh/kids etc. favourite mug perhaps, the bisuits you like? doesnt it feel strange when you have to sit at someone elses desk for the day?
kids are people and they are never the cause of a slit. we do not by any means get on with dhs ex but the kids have absolutely no idea. they are members of both families and the things we all do are to make a happy childhood for them and occasionally this also makes it easier/less work for us. i am not a saint but fgs where are children in all this bickering and worrying?

x post lost dad. completely agree i used to have my heart broken when dhs ex turnbed uo at our house and changed the 2 of them into 'her' clothes, like the ones i'd gone out and lovingky chosen werent good enough. this was over 10 years ago now and i would say, relax, lose the urge to control - you will never change your ex through damaging the children. love them and get on with it & it does get easier

cant type obviously. hope you understand what i said.

Agreed, LostDad.. It IS petty.

I'm afraid, when I look at K20's post, it appears that there wouldn't be an amount of money on earth that would be 'enough' - If Dad can afford to buy a t-shirt, then he hasn't been 'punished' enough and isn't obviously giving enough to his ex.... This is about control pure and simple.

If you don't mind me asking, why can you only see your son for 4 hours per week? That's not a lot of time for a 16MO....

Youcannotbeserious - the short story is that it is what the court has ordered.

My ex left a year ago without warning whatsoever. She refused completely to discuss our son with me (and when I mean refused' I mean refused and not she wouldn't agree with me'). She allowed me to see him for one hour per week in a supermarket cafe sending her parents to bring him, while she was elsewhere. This went on until I said I would've have liked to take him for a walk in his pushchair and my exFIL called 999 and told the police I was breaking a court order and trying to abduct my son (a lie on both counts).

She alleged on paper (but it hasn't been mentioned in court at any point) that I was physically abusive to my son and committed DV against her. No police, no CAFCASS, no SS involvement on account of it all being made up. I didn't see my son at all for 17 weeks, starting when he was just 4 months old. A special time, lost forever for me.

Her mum brings my son to me in the contact centre I collect him at while my ex hides from me in a waiting room.

Next hearing next month. I'm expecting more lies, more mudslinging and more bias.

My husbands daughter has a wardrobe of her own when she comes to stay, in her own room. Whatever she comes in, we keep and she wears something else back ... whether it shoes, a coat, tights....whatever.

If mum hands her over in something she particularly wants back, she says so.

i.e. She has a party mid week so can those shoes come back with her.

K

Oh, I am sorry about that.... I've never been to a contact centre, but I can imagine that they are horrible places that you quickly come to resent.

Her parents sound complicit in the whole thing, which I'm sure doesn't make things easier.

I'm afraid I can't offer any advice. I'm afraid I do believe that the courts are horrendously biased towards mothers and dads are often seen as nothing other than open chequebooks, but I do wish you the very best.

YCNBS

Oh...I seem to have started something......sorry!!!

This was (initially!) a genuine enquiry to see what others do. I guess the bottom line is that the children MUST come first. As YCBS said, in many cases a split is acromonious, and it is very hard to put aside your own feelings about the situation. However, the dc did not ask to be "piggy in the middle", and I believe that they deserve to feel welcome and at home, whichever parent they are with - end of story.

It is not about who can afford most - a Tesco value top and a trip to the park are as special to a dc as a designer top and an expensive day out. It is (imho!) the adults that have the issues about money and, ultimately, that is often more about control and anger. It is so ...especially since I don't think any of us envisaged this when we looked after our bump and bought our bundle(s) home from hospital... All that we can hope is that our dc feel loved and welcome, wherever they are.

FB -

You are right.... It is the 'grown ups' that have the issues!!

I do agree with you that time / effort is no substitute for money, it's just as an NCP, it's easy to want the time you have together to be 'perfect' and I'd be lying if I said there weren't many occasions when my DH has found himself in Abercrombie and Fitch / Hard Rock Cafe (or some other overpriced store (IMHO!!!)) because the kids have convinced him of some dire need to go there.

A lot of NCPs don't have the luxury of time and therefore it can seem that they are 'chucking money' at the kids, but I really don't think it's done intentionally (most of the time... ) and, to be fair to the NCP, as long as they are meeting the requirements of the CO WRT money for child support / maintenence, then what they do with the rest of it, shouldn't be an issue....

For me, Ska summed it up best: Let it go / relax / lose the urge to control..... Of course, as with most things, the critical step is understanding that you ARE controlling (or trying to control) a situation....

I do appreciate that there are a minority of parents (both mothers and fathers) who absolutely firmly believe that they and they alone can parent the child.

Yep - amen, Fluffybubble.

Seems to me that it's part of the `job description' of being a parent - you do what is best for your children whether you want to or not (which makes me wonder about my ex...she'd probably say she would die for our son, but she isn't prepared to talk to me to support his right to have two loving parents).

When I became a father, I intended to be the best I could, whatever happens. I still intend to be, despite what has happened. And like you say...part of being a good parent is suppressing the (normal) urge to control everything.

He's my son...not my pet or my possession.