The reverse and another perspective

[SandyY2K]

I saw this on another forum and a lot of the content sounded so familiar in terms of what SMs say.

Are you quick to assume your stepkid’s mum is High-Conflict, just because she challenges an opinion or decision of your husband’s?

Do you read every email/text between her and your husband? Are you helping him craft every response? Are you responding on his behalf?

Have you put rules in place about how often, or by what means, your husband is allowed to communicate with her?

Do you think you’re a better parent than her? More importantly, do you tell people that?

Do you badmouth her in public? To colleagues? In-laws? In front of the kids?

Is everything her fault? Do you think that your life would be “perfect” if she wasn’t in the picture?

Do you demand to attend all exchanges, school functions, or sporting events if she is going to be there? Even if you know it could cause extreme conflict? But, just because you want your presence known?

Tips to become a Low-Conflict Stepmom

In all decision making, consider her perspective. Your take on a situation is not always right, and sometimes, more heads are better than one.A difference of opinion in parenting does not mean that she is “high-conflict.

@LittleMySister Great comments, couldn't agree more with both!

@LittleMysSister
You a right about the "dynamic" not rigid and fixed. I think that the problem is that the children who have had to make a change and accept a new normal after their parents split are the ones who are expected to once again to be flexible and adjust to what becomes their third or fourth new normal . Each new partner can bring new needs and new expectations to the relationship. Should the children be so elastic that they can and should be the rubber band in mom or dad's new relationships. Who gets to determines when the relationship is so meaningful or potentially long lasting that it warrants requiring yet another new adjustment on the part of the fixed players in this situation?

In the past 6 years, my neighbor has had 3 what he has described as serious relationships. 2 of the 3 very nice ladies moved in and held themselves out to be his fiancee and step mom to his children. The children were expected to adjust to each new relationship. At what point should this man be capable of saying " what I am doing is what I want/intend to do, if you want to be with me ,recognize that this is how I function " ?

Certainly, he is entitled to a personal life and his new partner is entitled to expectations of the relationship, but at what point does it become unreasonable for either of them to expect their entitlement to be purchased or acquired at a cost to the existing parenting relationship?

So she will ask for changes and he will make them, or not. But if he does, it doesn't mean it's choosing his new partner ahead of his kids, or doing something purposely to their detriment. It's just trying to achieve a level of balance for everyone involved.

That is naive - if changes are made at the new partners request and it is invariably to the detriment of the DCs - reduced contact, new rules - it is not a level of balance tor everyone involved - the DCs lost out. It is very difficult to explain to a child that - yes you did see Dad EOW but not it is 1pcm because he needs some time with Lulu, yes they have chosen Wednesday s their date night so he can not see you at the weekend and yes I know that is sports afternoon- so no he will not come and see you play footy, and yes I know we used to do pizza on a friday but we don't do pizza in my new house, yes I know you do not like chilli but now Fridays are chilli night because that is what her DCS like, yes every Friday - if I see you and if you do not eat it all then their is no pudding and you can not come for the rest of the month, yes I know it would be great to take you on holiday but I can not afford to take you 2 and your your step siblings - so this time you lose out - but we lost out in Easter, Xmas, half term, last summer etc etc.

Weak willed DF for not standing up but absolute pressure from new partner.

oh and now the new ultimate pressure they have split - which wins everytime - their joint DC - you see bill and Bob then you do not get to .see Tim

That is naive - if changes are made at the new partners request and it is invariably to the detriment of the DCs - reduced contact, new rules - it is not a level of balance tor everyone involved - the DCs lost out

The changes requested are often financially necessary. The partner's income is required to even put a roof over the SDCs heads, because mens' incomes don't double when their marriages break down. For most families there is only one house, and it goes to the wife, not the girlfriend!

@SpaceshiptoMars
The changes requested are desired but not financially necessary. Few men or women are living on the street or under a bridge regardless of their marital status.

If you have 2 children and supporting them has maxed out your financial resources or time availability, what you need is an additional job not a relationship that makes further demands on your time and resources.

It is not a punishment to experience the very predictable outcomes of the choices that you have made.. If you earn x amount and you restructure your life so that x amount is no longer adequate ,the reasonable solution is not to date or marry as a solution to your financial circumstances; the reasonable solution is to find an additional job to meet your existing obligations.

If a man or woman knowingly and willingly chooses to be with a partner who is already over extended financially because of prior obligations, they should then be prepared to live with the outcomes of those elective choices.

I am always amazed that the new partner spends time complaining about the ex rather than insisting that their partner find a second job. The world is filled with people who work 2 jobs for just such reasons.

In so many circumstances, a man who is barely supporting his existing children will then have yet another child when it is glaringly obvious that he is stretched to meet his already existing obligations.

There a no surprises in this situations. The predictable outcomes occur and then all involved feign surprise and indignance.

@bogoffmda i feel like you have described a very extreme set of circumstances there. I don't think I've ever seen a step mum on this forum suggesting anything like that.

Absolute BS are changes requested usually financially necessary.

"The changes requested are often financially necessary. The partner's income is required to even put a roof over the SDCs heads, because mens' incomes don't double when their marriages break down. "

Changes to contact are NEVER financially necessary in the new family - there are too many posts on here where the new DP wants their new DP to change days, weekends etc and that is not done for finanical reasons but to give them some time alone.

Kyliekoko - you are not looking very hard - requests to drop from EOW and not have friday to sunday and during the week and are they being AIBU appear regularly. Changes in eating arrangements frqunet because every DSC oon this forum ha an appalling diet due to the EXW - this one I get 2 of my DSCs have no food issues, middle one is a PITA on everything - but having been fed by the same mother the same food - I can not really blame her.

Lot of posts on this forum asking if changing to suit the new DP who is the poster - not the DCS, the DF

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough but I don't think I've ever seen anyone requesting that contact goes to once a month from being weekly or that the DSCs eat chili every Friday as your post suggests.

I think sometimes people feel like step mums and step children are automatically in competition with each other but that has not been my experience of it.

Changes to contact are NEVER financially necessary in the new family

Are you sure? Never in any circumstances?

The partner's income is required to even put a roof over the SDCs heads, because mens' incomes don't double when their marriages break down. For most families there is only one house, and it goes to the wife, not the girlfriend!

You’ve sure pulled out all the stereotypes there. Not every wife gets to keep the house - I sure as hell didn’t. My income didn’t double either yet I have spent the last 12 years keeping a roof over our heads without any input from the ex. Ex’s pension is is one piece as well. Pretending it is only men who lose out in divorce is about as disingenuous as it gets.

@Getawaywithit I think that both parties tend to lose out financially in a break up. Two homes cost more to run than one. Unfortunately, unless you are very wealthy, a break up will mean an adjustment in life style. A parent who shares costs with a partner will be able to spend more on their children whether that is a mother or a father.

For most families there is only one house, and it goes to the wife, not the girlfriend!
I think this is an interesting one.
I didn't get the house in divorce - everything was split equally down the middle. I wouldn't have looked for the house but nor would my ex have given it to me as that would have massively impacted his finances.
On the other hand my exdp's ex got the house & this massively affected his finances.

I didn't get or want the house as I work, she got the house as she doesn't work.
I'm not saying either is right or wrong but decisions like this massively impact moving on.
My ex was able to move on financially, as was I, because things were equal. Yes, we both took a financial hit but we both have incomes. Neither exdp nor his exw have been able to move on financially as she refuses to work & so is locked in a cycle of dependency, & he is locked in a cycle of having to provide over & beyond for his dc - to his detriment financially & emotionally as I cannot see any sane woman ever putting up with the amount of money he has to shell out.
These issues will NEVER be resolved until society accepts that BOTH parents have a financial physical responsibility towards their dc. Too many women still assume it's a man's job to pay for every bloody thing & too many men assume it's still a woman's job to do all the grunt work with kids while they get to be fun dad.

If you have 2 children and supporting them has maxed out your financial resources or time availability, what you need is an additional job not a relationship that makes further demands on your time and resources.

Nice idea in theory, @Tattler2, but this is the UK, not the US. Many jobs here explicitly rule out you taking a 2nd job. If you are working and commuting 7am to 7pm already, you might just about fit in a few hours bar work at the weekend - but the pittance extra would not be worth the exhaustion. And if you did 2 jobs, how would you meet your obligation to do EOW or 50/50?

Most young people are up to their eyeballs financially even before a split. These days many young Dads want parental involvement, and the only way they then get their kids overnight is if they have a suitable home. They can't do it from a room in a shared bachelor house. So they look for a woman with her own home, or a career that could fund the rent or mortgage.

Far from taking up their time and resources, these women both work full-time AND do the childcare when Dad is not around.

It is a sad fact of modern life, that 50/50 parenting is almost impossible to achieve without adding in a 3rd or 4th earning partner.

@Magda72 I think women who rely solely on their ex for money are playing a dangerous game. If their ex loses their job or one day simply refuses to pay they are so vulnerable if they don't have their own income. What if their ex keels over from a heart attack? And what about when the children leave and maintenance stops and they have been out of the workplace for 18 years and haven't been contributing to a pension scheme?

Absolutely @KylieKoKo. I actually think that in the case of someone like exdp's exw, for her own sake she should not have gotten the house & such high maintenance as it has totality demotivated her from doing anything for herself. She'll have her house once the maintenance stops, but no income whatsoever & as you say no pension. At that point she will not have worked for nearly 30 years & has done no training so will be totally unemployable.
I genuinely think overly generous divorce settlements don't do women any favours in the long run.

No I cannot see a reason why a parent should reduce their contact time due to their finances.

No I cannot see a reason why a parent should reduce their contact time due to their finances.

Your work insists on you doing a different shift pattern? You lose your job, and the only thing going that pays the bills is a long commute or a change of address? Ongoing cancer treatment with associated costs and inability to afford the petrol?

@bogoffmda my exdp spent over 20 years building up a business in the agriculture sector which involved a huge amount of travel & working away from home. His divorce settlement (exw's demands) was based on this.
Post divorce costs in his industry went up & payments went down so as he got older & as his dc got older (& more expensive) he had to take on more & more work to meet his dcs costs & so yes, had to reduce contact at times.
Exdp started manual work straight out of school & knows nothing else bar the sector he's in. To change career & start from scratch in order to see his dc more would have seen the wheels come off everything as NO ONE else was going to financially provide for those kids.
I watched him age in front of me (when I actually got to see him!) through excess work & ridiculously long commutes to do stuff like parent teacher meetings because his non working, living in the same town as the school exw REFUSED to do them.
Contrast that with my exh who was offered a promotion to a town 3 hours away. He turned it down in order to stay close to our dc because he could afford to! When I asked him if he was sure he was ok saying no to it (I was assuring him that if he did move I'd do everything I could to facilitate contact) he said that yes, because I work & he only has to pay minimal maintenance & I pay half of everything major he could afford to say no.
That is a massive difference in situations & goes to show how many men get unfairly slandered for being 'negligent' fathers. Yes, there are some awful dads out there, but there are a huge number of fathers who are financially caught by the balls & HAVE to do/go where the work takes them because if they don't the dc will be at a financial loss.
Not all reduced contact is wanted - sometimes it's very necessary.

One of my brothers had to take a contract in Saudi for a while, because his industry was dead over here. One of those contracts where they don't let you go home until the work is completed, all the i's dotted, all the t's crossed. Didn't get to see his kids for ages, but it kept the roof over their heads.

If the new partners are aware that the new relationships are transactional and that the cost of being with the man is to provide housing for his children and to become his prn childcare provided, when then do they complain when they are treated not as a participant in a transactional relationship rather than a love interest?

That may be among the saddest reasons for tolerating that which makes you unhappy. Hearing this makes me think that many people were better off in arranged marriages that tended to last longer and produce far fewer issues.

If people lose so much after a divorce and have no possibility of repositioning themselves short of becoming a party to one of these transactional situations, why then do so many go on to have her another child or children? Is a child the gift that a man gives to his second wife or second partner in gratitude for helping him to meet his obligations to his older children?

That all sounds so sad and bleak. That should be all of the motivation that any woman needs to strive to be financially independent, self supporting, without having to become a part of such a sad dynamic.

I’m surprised at the level of involvement SM have the the ex. I just leave it all up to DH. His ex doesn’t have my number as she doesn’t need to.

@SpaceshiptoMars
There have always been periods of time or careers that take a parent away for extensive periods of time. No one would suggest that a Career Military man or woman was an indifferent or uncaring parent. During the time period when governments required drafts or mandatory conscription, no one suggested that these men should not marry or father children.

When backed into a corner, men and women have done and will do what is necessary to provide upkeep for their children. Somehow I don't think that marrying or living with a woman falls into finding a solution to your financial woes situation.

It is unfortunate that it is difficult to find a second job in the UK , but it is probably possible Some may not want to invest the time and effort required to make it work. Others manage to do it inspite of the inconvenience involved. I think personal preferences and personal convenience goes out of the window when you have created lives and have an obligation to provide for them.

Yes, there are some awful dads out there, but there are a huge number of fathers who are financially caught by the balls & HAVE to do/go where the work takes them because if they don't the dc will be at a financial loss.Not all reduced contact is wanted - sometimes it's very necessary

Poor men. Same as women, eh? The same women who have to deal with ex’s who are self employed (no maintenance 12 years and counting). I don’t see my children as much as I would like because I have to provide for them - out at 7:30, back home long enough to throw some food at the kids before I start the evening job. During exam season, I am up past 1am marking for several weeks. I work during my holidays at a local summer school. The idea that hard work is the sole domain of the divorced man having to support everyone is not a fair one, is it?

@Getawaywithit
People like you are great role models for all of us. Rather than complaining and blaming , you are taking charge and getting it done.

None of us are promised or guaranteed an easy life, and we all know that today's convenience is often just one accident or event awareness from becoming yesterday's memories. You show your children every single day exactly what it means to be a strong and committed parent.

It's not a competition @Getawaywithit

Some parents of both sexes have to make hard choices and work long hours to support their children.