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.

See as an example the current thread of a mother who believes her children are not being prioritised by their dad because one has a vomiting bug and his wife is about to go into hospital for a C-section so he saw them at the park instead of taking the back to his as normal

You conveniently cut the rest of the issues here - but it is a good example of some of the issues.

Personally think the Mum is being unreasonable in expecting vomiting child to go to the house but you omit that Dad usually sees and feeds the children tea- but this time a couple of hours in the park and back to Mum to feed them and pick up the rest of the time. So yes she has been inconvenienced by something else going on in her Exs house. So yes he has prioritised pregnant partner and risk of illness but has made automatic decision to dump on their mother to allow tht prioritisation. No discussion just done. If he had gone to the park and taken them to a cafe for tea - then no issue.

@Tattler2 I'm not sure why you've highlighted @sassbott - she doesn't live in Ireland!
Also - your post has a pretty condescending towards the Irish so I'd be careful there.

@sassbott

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

No. I know she is high conflict because of her extreme/ unrelenting behaviour

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

nope. I have a life and given He married and procreated with crazy, she’s his problem

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

Nope. The professionals did.

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

yes I do think I am a better parent than her. Her behaviour is causing very real emotional harm to her own children. Do I tell people? Again, no, She’s not my issue and don’t talk about her to anyone. Why would I?

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

nope. Crazy makes herself look like the piece of work she is all by her lonesome

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

nope. My life is far from perfect and I don’t let her impact my day to day one iota

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?

not a chance, I would rather stick pins in my eyes

Love this!!! 😂

[quote Tattler2]@HogDogKetchup
If a man or woman enters into a contractual agreement with a mortgage company to purchase a house, he can subsequently decide that he wants to purchase a second house maybe a vacation home. What he cannot arbitrarily do is decide to alter the amount or due date of the payments on his first home to suit the mortgage lender of his second home.

We all want new and different things at various times. All of those new and different things have to be fitted into our existing lives. If I were to accept a 2nd job, I could not go to the employer of my first job and insist that he let me leave work early because my new employer objects to my showing up obviously tired. I would certainly have to find a solution, but that solution couldn't be found at my first employer's expense.[/quote]
That’s a terrible example. Your mortgage isn’t static for the duration of the term - it’s perfectly possible to change things, especially if you’ve had your mortgage a while your loan to value is good.

Actually it’s a perfect example as your fictional mortgage is much like the co-parenting relationship - changes over time. You realise people move and remortgage all the time?

My apologies to sassbott, I was actually responding to what the actual poster suggested about the Irish in her posting .

As to the modifications in a mortgage loan ,it is possible to make many changes ,but only with the consent and approval of the original lender. The borrower cannot simply modify the terms of his/her first mortgage simply to satisfy the wishes or expectations of the second lender. These conditions generally govern most agreements.

@bogoffmda

See as an example the current thread of a mother who believes her children are not being prioritised by their dad because one has a vomiting bug and his wife is about to go into hospital for a C-section so he saw them at the park instead of taking the back to his as normal

You conveniently cut the rest of the issues here - but it is a good example of some of the issues.

Personally think the Mum is being unreasonable in expecting vomiting child to go to the house but you omit that Dad usually sees and feeds the children tea- but this time a couple of hours in the park and back to Mum to feed them and pick up the rest of the time. So yes she has been inconvenienced by something else going on in her Exs house. So yes he has prioritised pregnant partner and risk of illness but has made automatic decision to dump on their mother to allow tht prioritisation. No discussion just done. If he had gone to the park and taken them to a cafe for tea - then no issue.

I think this is an unfair summary of that thread and tbh I don't see what I've 'conveniently cut' that makes any difference?

The mum didn't even tell the dad that the child was sick until he was already on his way to collect...she left him few options. If she had told him beforehand, like most people would have, maybe they could have agreed he'd have all three kids on another night so he could take them back to his as normal??

While I agree he could have picked them up some dinner, if he was expecting to take them straight back to his maybe he didn't even have his wallet on him? Or maybe he was trying to keep it outside so as to keep the risk low. He knew ex was at home with his other child so it wasn't inconveniencing her beyond doing dinner for the other 2 kids and she said he normally drops them back for bedtime anyway so it's a couple of hours max that he's not had them when he normally would. She could have told him if she didn't have anything in/couldn't afford it, but she didn't and hasn't mentioned that so don't think that's the issue at all. He already has one child which hasn't changed his interaction with her kids, so don't know why she is looking at this in this manner.

I honestly think her attitude entirely stems from her own worries about him having further children than anything be actually did wrong on that specific evening, and that is the issue. And I understand why someone in her shoes would be concerned, I genuinely do, but I don't think that makes her right. It's OK to be pissed off but not ok to keep insisting someone else is an arsehole and shit parent for this.

@Tattler2 I am Irish & I wasn't 'suggesting' anything about 'The Irish'!

I was commenting on a legal system which is very different from a nation comprised of individual people.
You should really watch your categorisation.

@Tattler2

My apologies to sassbott, I was actually responding to what the actual poster suggested about the Irish in her posting .

As to the modifications in a mortgage loan ,it is possible to make many changes ,but only with the consent and approval of the original lender. The borrower cannot simply modify the terms of his/her first mortgage simply to satisfy the wishes or expectations of the second lender. These conditions generally govern most agreements.

But this is where I can't see the similarity because even in intact families, finances change along the way. When people have kids they don't say "right let's agree that each month we'll ring-fence £500 to spend on Alfie and that can never change, even if we have more children". It's not like a mortgage or other bill at all.

I can see how it's shit for the person who hasn't made the choice to have further children, but what can you do - you lose the power to control that choice when you split up. Many RPs also have more children and the NRP has to just suck up the fact that the maintenance they pay for their own kids is now likely being used towards all the children in the other household.

Finances after a split are not ideal for either side in most cases. Unless they get something legally drawn up where one parent agrees to commit to X amount every month until CM ends and the other agrees to only ever spend it on things for that specific child then there really is no way to enforce things staying the same forever.

PS. To caveat the above, I don't agree with people voluntary reducing CM unnecessarily following the birth of another child, just because they can.

I am talking about scenarios where it's genuinely no longer tenable to keep up the old amount, due to job loss/change, paycut, illness, etc.

@Tattler2

My apologies to sassbott, I was actually responding to what the actual poster suggested about the Irish in her posting .

As to the modifications in a mortgage loan ,it is possible to make many changes ,but only with the consent and approval of the original lender. The borrower cannot simply modify the terms of his/her first mortgage simply to satisfy the wishes or expectations of the second lender. These conditions generally govern most agreements.

Wrong again, you don’t need to seek your existing lenders approval to remortgage or sell. A mortgage isn’t a cast iron agreement, the more you try and explain your poor analogy the more fitting it becomes with real life, it’s fluid and evolves over time, depending on your circumstance.

Also if you can longer afford your mortgage payments, you can sell your property? You're not locked in to pay that amount for life no matter what.

One thing that's 100% true of ex spouses?
They made a legally binding promise to be together for the rest of their lives.
Things change.
Sometimes there's alot more admin than a remortgage which took me about 2 minuted to complete online.

@HogDogKetchup
A remortgage and a mortgage modification are 2 very different things. A mortgage modification involves the original lender a remortgage or 2nd mortgage does not usually involve the original mortgage lender, but in standing the holder of the 2nd mortgage stands second in line to the first mortgage lender

@Tattler2

@Tattler2 are you suggesting that women should accept being second in line to their partner's ex?

[quote Tattler2]@sassbott
The Irish system may be rigid in how it is applied but do men and women in Ireland not have any feelings or obligations to their children that are not Court mandated? What about moral beliefs and moral imperatives, do they not come in to play?

If I found a man with children living with his parents or roommates because he could not afford a place of his own, what would say to me that this is a man who can afford to or should father yet another child?

If you find an adult male who is both a parent and unable to provide an independent living space for himself and his children, you have found a man who cannot manage full adult responsibilities. He may be a perfectly adequate lover, companion, and friend and those are the attributes that he can bring to your table. If you cannot accept that as his sole contributions to your life, then you should probably move on to look for a different partner. You should not waste time blaming his ex nor resenting him for bringing less time or resources to your table. He and his circumstances are what they are and they are part and parcel of the man with whom you are voluntarily seeking to tie your life.[/quote]
I think this perspective is a bit middle class centric. I didn't discount my DP as a potential partner for not being able to afford a home when I met him, because I met him quite young and couldn't afford that either. We were well matched in terms of financial prospects. Not everyone finds their partner at a point they were both financially well off. Sometimes, people are just not rich.

[quote Tattler2]@HogDogKetchup
A remortgage and a mortgage modification are 2 very different things. A mortgage modification involves the original lender a remortgage or 2nd mortgage does not usually involve the original mortgage lender, but in standing the holder of the 2nd mortgage stands second in line to the first mortgage lender[/quote]
I understand that amending your mortgage with your current lender is different to remortgaging, although that in itself isnt unusual - most people change their product even if they don’t remo at the end of their term and tie themselves into another fixed term to avoid the variable rate:

Buying a second property (going back to the original scenario you set out) does not rank the mortgage on that next property as second to the first. That would be the case if it was a second charge on the same property. Both mortgages on property one and property two are entirely irrelevant to the other, save for meeting affordability criteria.

The analogy is, I think, pretty irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make - both the point (which tbh I’ve missed now) and the analogy seem pretty floored.

As a “second wife” are you suggesting my DH and I should consult the last before making financial decisions? Not least once you’ve discharged a mortgage (or wife) your obligations to them end.

@Magda72 very fair point and well made. To be clear I am talking about laws in England only. Where revisiting spousal maintenance is becoming more mainstream. Especially when the ex-spouse receiving maintenance enters a co-habitting relationship. It has been a known ‘grey’ loop hole for people receiving maintenance to simply not remarry but cohabit long term. Nowadays? That is can be enough to prompt a revisitation to the spousal maintenance and there is increasing pressure in family law for co-habiting relationships to be treated the same as a remarriage.

It is also in the power of the courts in those situations to demand full financial disclosure of where the spousal maintenance is being spent. And by full I mean properly intrusive, hand over every bank statement level of intrusive.

Personally I welcome all of these moves and can see a glimmer that the UK courts are becoming more progressive. And ordering drops / wind down maintenance orders, thereby encouraging the maintenance receiving parent back into paid work outside of the home.

@Tattler2 there are many people, even pre divorce (especially in London for example) where owning a home is not an option. There are also plenty of friends I know where divorce has pushed one or the other from a family home they owned into rented accommodation. Often times if children are in certain schools etc, a move is not ideal. But the pot that could previously own one home is unlikely to stretch to two if the parents seek to stay in the same area. Which is probably the best thing to minimise upheaval to the children.

That blunt reality is why so many people stay in unhappy marriages. Separately, they won’t have much at all.

Based on all the above, would I find someone unattractive as a partner if they didn’t own a home? No.

@Getawaywithit, I don’t know much about your circumstances. And as I said in my post - there is one clear caveat - that is if a child has special needs/ is disabled / needs extra care. As you have outlined in your personal circumstances.

I think we can all agree here that caring / managing a disabled child is an area where not working/ working part time is totally understandable.

As to the rest? Juggling inset days? Children being sick? Nanny resigning? The list is endless. I get it. I did that, for years. Just like a multitude of other parents. Now I have teens life has become a lot easier. But I still worked throughout. Full time. If anything post divorce I worked even harder to try and ensure some form of financial security for me and my kids.

I could imagine a world where my financial security was reliant on my ex spouse. I don’t think I would be able to sleep at night.

@sassbott
Home ownership is rapidly becoming out of reach for many particularly young people. There are also circumstances when an individual is better off renting than purchasing.

I also understand a manor woman moving back into the family home for a brief period while they are saving up for independent rental or purchase.

I do not understand a man or woman who after a brief adjustment period is unable to pay for and provide a home for his or her children.

If you are actively reproducing , you should be adequately providing. I would not have negative thoughts about a partner who was renting vs owning. I would not have a negative thought about a man or woman with no children living with parents or roommates.

I think when you choose to have children there are adult responsibilities that are inherent in that decision, and one of those responsibilities involves providing a home for your children.

If I were romantically involved with some one who could not on their own provide a home for their child, I do not think that I would see living together as the solution to their current living situation, and given the very many women who complain after the fact about doing this, I think that the anecdotal evidence suggests that this is rarely a successful solution long term.

I do not understand a man or woman who after a brief adjustment period is unable to pay for and provide a home for his or her children.

Rental is now more expensive than the mortgage payment would be for the same property. If the marriage breaks down early, shortly after a property purchase and with young children, the parents could be at full stretch financially. Possibly with extra short term debt to be paid off too. The now NRP may be choosing to pay more than the legal requirement, to avoid the family home being sold at a loss, disruption for the kids etc.

Tattler you seem to have very limited understanding that people’s experience might not match your own…

I very strongly believe that people reap what they sow.

Be it the rp who opt to not work or as little as possible and lives off maintenance and the house she got to stay in. The time will come when that goes and they are left to fend for themselves.

Or the nrp who always justifies that his kids from a first marriage should adjust to his new life no matter what is thrown at them who believes his kids will always love him and then finds himself faced with his teenagers not caring to see him any longer and gradually opting him out of their lives.

Everyone should focus on their own actions and the potential future impact on those they love/care for rather than putting all their energy and attention on how the other got it all wrong and doing all the damage.