• In the Spotlight:
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Another S/O... best for the kid.

Posted by on Jan. 31, 2015 at 4:10 PM
  • 48 Replies
1 mom liked this

In another post there is a future SM pushing herself onto mom . She's LD and decided to tell mom, through dad, that she wants to talk to mom about their roles. Mom said she made it clear it wasn't happening. She's being told it isn't about her, it's about what is best for the kid.

What makes talking to a gf or SM best for another person's kid, especially if the parent doesn't want to do so? In divorce or break ups do parents lose their right to decide what they feel is best for their own child because a nonparent feels they know best? 

How does anyone know that even adding a SP to the kid's life is what is best for the child? It's what is best for the parent, sure, but the kid? No one knows that in the beginning.  

So when do parents get to decide what is best and what their own boundaries are regarding the spouse of their ex? Is it only when the spouse of the ex agrees?

by on Jan. 31, 2015 at 4:10 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
redheadtmk
by on Jan. 31, 2015 at 4:43 PM
1 mom liked this

Adding a SP may or maynot be what is best for the child but if the birth parent is going to get married, the SP is being added either way. Which means the SP will be in the child's life. In the best case scenario the SP will have a caring relationship with the SK. She will likely be cooking for the SK during visitation, doing laundry if need be, or listening to the SKs problems if they choose to share with the SP. All major decisions should be handled between the BPs but the SP is not some robot who does not interact at any point with the kid. They also do get left alone with the SKs at times due to the bp having to work late etc. 

It is in the best interest of the child that bps and sps get along. It gives the kids a sense of security, and shows them that they are important enough for the parents to put emotions aside. As a child of divorce I can tell you there is  nothing more stressful and sucky to a child than having to divide holidays, birthdays, and special events because your parents can not get along. Everyon should be able to be together for graduation etc.

I also think in general mothers and fathers do think differently and handle things differently. So as a bm if you get along with the sm you can share your opinions, feelings etc as a mom and have better results. There was a mom on here in another post who commented about when her dd started her period. She was able to share he feelings about not using tampons with the sm and the sm totally understood and agreed to honor the bm's wishes. If they never talked and handled everything through dad, who knows how that would have played out.

I know which post you are talking about. The original post was all about the mom, how she felt, what she wanted and did not mention anything about what was best for the child. She just adamantly refused to meet the SM or have anything to do with her. If you read further comments she made, she said she is on board with meeting the SM eventually and realizes that she needs to be able to communicate with the SM as her daughter gets older. She just isnt ready to do it yet. There is a difference between refusing to do it entirely and wanting some time to do it on your own terms. The latter is perfectly acceptable. The former is not so much.

happywifey08
by on Jan. 31, 2015 at 4:49 PM

BF for DD1, I have no issue meeting anyone. He is notorious for having bad judgment and going through women the way most people go through toilet paper. I have zero emotional strings left in that situation and would like to know who is around my child. 

If DH and I broke up, the only answer I can give is that it would be better for the children is new SO's stayed in the background. We are both highly emotional and territorial people and since today I am madly in love with him it is hard to seperate that from my answer. DH is much better than me at being logical and thinking things through, so he would probably be ok meeting an SO, but he would definately alpha dog it. I couldn't see us having a good scenario unless it was a mutual break up. 

soonergirl980
by Platinum Member on Jan. 31, 2015 at 4:50 PM
1 mom liked this

There 0 reason that mom needs to communicate with a non-parent. If they want to more power to them, but there is not need for it. I didn't communicate with my sons sm and it worked out just fine for me and my son. She didnt like it but she didn't have to like it that is the way it was. Also I wasn't a "biomom" I never gave my kid up for adoption I was just "mom"

Quoting redheadtmk:

Adding a SP may or maynot be what is best for the child but if the birth parent is going to get married, the SP is being added either way. Which means the SP will be in the child's life. In the best case scenario the SP will have a caring relationship with the SK. She will likely be cooking for the SK during visitation, doing laundry if need be, or listening to the SKs problems if they choose to share with the SP. All major decisions should be handled between the BPs but the SP is not some robot who does not interact at any point with the kid. They also do get left alone with the SKs at times due to the bp having to work late etc. 

It is in the best interest of the child that bps and sps get along. It gives the kids a sense of security, and shows them that they are important enough for the parents to put emotions aside. As a child of divorce I can tell you there is  nothing more stressful and sucky to a child than having to divide holidays, birthdays, and special events because your parents can not get along. Everyon should be able to be together for graduation etc.

I also think in general mothers and fathers do think differently and handle things differently. So as a bm if you get along with the sm you can share your opinions, feelings etc as a mom and have better results. There was a mom on here in another post who commented about when her dd started her period. She was able to share he feelings about not using tampons with the sm and the sm totally understood and agreed to honor the bm's wishes. If they never talked and handled everything through dad, who knows how that would have played out.

I know which post you are talking about. The original post was all about the mom, how she felt, what she wanted and did not mention anything about what was best for the child. She just adamantly refused to meet the SM or have anything to do with her. If you read further comments she made, she said she is on board with meeting the SM eventually and realizes that she needs to be able to communicate with the SM as her daughter gets older. She just isnt ready to do it yet. There is a difference between refusing to do it entirely and wanting some time to do it on your own terms. The latter is perfectly acceptable. The former is not so much.


***Briterican***


redheadtmk
by on Jan. 31, 2015 at 4:57 PM
2 moms liked this

Every family is different. There is no blanket statement that every single parent has to talk to the step parent just like there is no blanket statement that there is never any reason what so ever for them to talk. In the particular post that the OP was referencing, the child is 4 months old. She will not have the same issues that a child who is 6 would have with getting a SM. Most families may get along "fine" without the communication but could get along great if there was communication. Anytime everyone in a child's life works together it is better for the child. But some parents settle for fine.

Quoting soonergirl980:

There 0 reason that mom needs to communicate with a non-parent. If they want to more power to them, but there is not need for it. I didn't communicate with my sons sm and it worked out just fine for me and my son. She didnt like it but she didn't have to like it that is the way it was. Also I wasn't a "biomom" I never gave my kid up for adoption I was just "mom"

Quoting redheadtmk:

Adding a SP may or maynot be what is best for the child but if the birth parent is going to get married, the SP is being added either way. Which means the SP will be in the child's life. In the best case scenario the SP will have a caring relationship with the SK. She will likely be cooking for the SK during visitation, doing laundry if need be, or listening to the SKs problems if they choose to share with the SP. All major decisions should be handled between the BPs but the SP is not some robot who does not interact at any point with the kid. They also do get left alone with the SKs at times due to the bp having to work late etc. 

It is in the best interest of the child that bps and sps get along. It gives the kids a sense of security, and shows them that they are important enough for the parents to put emotions aside. As a child of divorce I can tell you there is  nothing more stressful and sucky to a child than having to divide holidays, birthdays, and special events because your parents can not get along. Everyon should be able to be together for graduation etc.

I also think in general mothers and fathers do think differently and handle things differently. So as a bm if you get along with the sm you can share your opinions, feelings etc as a mom and have better results. There was a mom on here in another post who commented about when her dd started her period. She was able to share he feelings about not using tampons with the sm and the sm totally understood and agreed to honor the bm's wishes. If they never talked and handled everything through dad, who knows how that would have played out.

I know which post you are talking about. The original post was all about the mom, how she felt, what she wanted and did not mention anything about what was best for the child. She just adamantly refused to meet the SM or have anything to do with her. If you read further comments she made, she said she is on board with meeting the SM eventually and realizes that she needs to be able to communicate with the SM as her daughter gets older. She just isnt ready to do it yet. There is a difference between refusing to do it entirely and wanting some time to do it on your own terms. The latter is perfectly acceptable. The former is not so much.


packermom4ever
by on Jan. 31, 2015 at 5:04 PM


Quoting redheadtmk:

Every family is different. There is no blanket statement that every single parent has to talk to the step parent just like there is no blanket statement that there is never any reason what so ever for them to talk. In the particular post that the OP was referencing, the child is 4 months old. She will not have the same issues that a child who is 6 would have with getting a SM. Most families may get along "fine" without the communication but could get along great if there was communication. Anytime everyone in a child's life works together it is better for the child. But some parents settle for fine.

I think it is better than fine not to talk to sps. I didn't talk to sm and my ex, in nearly 10.5 years of being with my husband, hasn't talked to him except maybe 2 times and that was because my husband was defending me wrt something my ex had done and it had nothing to do with the kids. 
This is a young kid, you're right. A kid that has two parents that are capable.  
You haven't given a solid reason as to why it is in a kid's best interest for the parents boundaries and wishes to be ignored while the newbs idea of best interest is listened to... 

pusheen-kitty
by Battler on Jan. 31, 2015 at 5:09 PM
Notmally I would agree, but when the oldest skid confided in me about self injury and I told DH, BM told me that I need to tell her what is going on with her kid. That if he confides in me she wants to know.

So in her mind, that is 1 reason mom would communicate with a non parent.

Quoting soonergirl980:

There 0 reason that mom needs to communicate with a non-parent. If they want to more power to them, but there is not need for it. I didn't communicate with my sons sm and it worked out just fine for me and my son. She didnt like it but she didn't have to like it that is the way it was. Also I wasn't a "biomom" I never gave my kid up for adoption I was just "mom"

Quoting redheadtmk:

Adding a SP may or maynot be what is best for the child but if the birth parent is going to get married, the SP is being added either way. Which means the SP will be in the child's life. In the best case scenario the SP will have a caring relationship with the SK. She will likely be cooking for the SK during visitation, doing laundry if need be, or listening to the SKs problems if they choose to share with the SP. All major decisions should be handled between the BPs but the SP is not some robot who does not interact at any point with the kid. They also do get left alone with the SKs at times due to the bp having to work late etc. 

It is in the best interest of the child that bps and sps get along. It gives the kids a sense of security, and shows them that they are important enough for the parents to put emotions aside. As a child of divorce I can tell you there is  nothing more stressful and sucky to a child than having to divide holidays, birthdays, and special events because your parents can not get along. Everyon should be able to be together for graduation etc.

I also think in general mothers and fathers do think differently and handle things differently. So as a bm if you get along with the sm you can share your opinions, feelings etc as a mom and have better results. There was a mom on here in another post who commented about when her dd started her period. She was able to share he feelings about not using tampons with the sm and the sm totally understood and agreed to honor the bm's wishes. If they never talked and handled everything through dad, who knows how that would have played out.

I know which post you are talking about. The original post was all about the mom, how she felt, what she wanted and did not mention anything about what was best for the child. She just adamantly refused to meet the SM or have anything to do with her. If you read further comments she made, she said she is on board with meeting the SM eventually and realizes that she needs to be able to communicate with the SM as her daughter gets older. She just isnt ready to do it yet. There is a difference between refusing to do it entirely and wanting some time to do it on your own terms. The latter is perfectly acceptable. The former is not so much.

leegirl_jm
by Ruby Member on Jan. 31, 2015 at 5:12 PM

I don't think all parents know or do what is best for their child but I believe in allowing the parents to do what they think is best, as long as it doesn't impact me (SM) in anyway. Therefore when BM called wanting to talk to me when I was just dating DH, I got to decide to not have that conversation.

Pero4
by Bronze Member on Jan. 31, 2015 at 5:23 PM

That is most definitely a blanket statement as well. Children aren't stupid (well, mine wasn't). My DD is able to watch two people shaking hands, and then say to me "Mummy, X doesn't like Y very much, I can tell by the way she smiles/holds her head/looks at her". And she is usually right, despite not knowing the background,

I wasn't particularly fond of SM, and SM wasn't fond of me ... and that was fine. It is fine as long as the child is not expected to share the BP's/SP's views. DD asked me whether I disliked SM, I told her "yes, I do, but that doesn't mean you have to ... I like mushrooms, you hate them ... I don't make you eat them, you don't get to tell me not to cook them for myself".

We had a very clear pecking order in place, whom to ask for what. DD got it, she was barely 7 when she got it.. She learned what a joint parental decision was (both BPs), a single parental decision (one BP) or a decision a SP could make without a BP. We had zilch loyalty conflict once that was sorted and put in place.

In the early years, my DD had absolutely zilch problem declaring her feelings for SM ... she wrote letters to her confessing her love (which I proof-read for her), she stitched all of their names on a tissue box holder (I helped with that as well), for their wedding she created a beautiful vase (my mom helped her with that one ... though it did look a bit like a Moonie wedding because she insisted on glueing the entire pack of entwined wedding rings on it). I had absolutely no problem with that ...

... but, I never wanted contact, and stuck to this. SM was excluded from school by CO anyway, so there were no issues in this respect, but I also didn't feel the need to exchange views with her, or talk to her. It didn't bother me, it did bother her a lot.

We have since met, and actually got along quite well given the circumstances. By the time we met, however, she had been married to my ex for nearly 7 years, and I think she was able to put herself in my shoes much better than she would have been in the early days ... and I, having been with him for 7 years prior to that, was able to understand some of her actions as well.

Today, I can actually say that I care for her and am worried about her given her circumstances with BF ... that said, however, I wouldn't change the approach I took in the early days, not even with hindsight.

Quoting redheadtmk:

Most families may get along "fine" without the communication but could get along great if there was communication. Anytime everyone in a child's life works together it is better for the child. But some parents settle for fine.

 

 

redheadtmk
by on Jan. 31, 2015 at 5:25 PM
1 mom liked this

Let me clarify. I do not think the meeting should happen when the SM wanted it to happen. I do not think the SM should call the shots. I also do not think the SP needs to be involved in major decisions or that the SP and BP need to talk often or about every situation that arises. 

I do however think it benefits the child if they are able to talk to each other. If they are able to have family celebrations during birthdays and graduation etc with both sides present. Things that are about the child (not holidays). It gives the child a sense of unity which is comforting. even if the BP parents get along, when the SP and BP get along it creates a stronger sense of security, unity, and family for the child. It shows them that everyone in thier life wants what is best for them. That past hurts and emotions are not more important than thier well being. It also means they cannot play parents against each other as easily.


Quoting packermom4ever:

Quoting redheadtmk:

Every family is different. There is no blanket statement that every single parent has to talk to the step parent just like there is no blanket statement that there is never any reason what so ever for them to talk. In the particular post that the OP was referencing, the child is 4 months old. She will not have the same issues that a child who is 6 would have with getting a SM. Most families may get along "fine" without the communication but could get along great if there was communication. Anytime everyone in a child's life works together it is better for the child. But some parents settle for fine.

I think it is better than fine not to talk to sps. I didn't talk to sm and my ex, in nearly 10.5 years of being with my husband, hasn't talked to him except maybe 2 times and that was because my husband was defending me wrt something my ex had done and it had nothing to do with the kids. 
This is a young kid, you're right. A kid that has two parents that are capable.  
You haven't given a solid reason as to why it is in a kid's best interest for the parents boundaries and wishes to be ignored while the newbs idea of best interest is listened to... 


redheadtmk
by on Jan. 31, 2015 at 5:29 PM
1 mom liked this

So basically you are saying the same thing I said. That eventually you met and it worked out well, was benficial, and helped you understand each other. Thank you for proving my point.

Quoting Pero4:

That is most definitely a blanket statement as well. Children aren't stupid (well, mine wasn't). My DD is able to watch two people shaking hands, and then say to me "Mummy, X doesn't like Y very much, I can tell by the way she smiles/holds her head/looks at her". And she is usually right, despite not knowing the background,

I wasn't particularly fond of SM, and SM wasn't fond of me ... and that was fine. It is fine as long as the child is not expected to share the BP's/SP's views. DD asked me whether I disliked SM, I told her "yes, I do, but that doesn't mean you have to ... I like mushrooms, you hate them ... I don't make you eat them, you don't get to tell me not to cook them for myself".

We had a very clear pecking order in place, whom to ask for what. DD got it, she was barely 7 when she got it.. She learned what a joint parental decision was (both BPs), a single parental decision (one BP) or a decision a SP could make without a BP. We had zilch loyalty conflict once that was sorted and put in place.

In the early years, my DD had absolutely zilch problem declaring her feelings for SM ... she wrote letters to her confessing her love (which I proof-read for her), she stitched all of their names on a tissue box holder (I helped with that as well), for their wedding she created a beautiful vase (my mom helped her with that one ... though it did look a bit like a Moonie wedding because she insisted on glueing the entire pack of entwined wedding rings on it). I had absolutely no problem with that ...

... but, I never wanted contact, and stuck to this. SM was excluded from school by CO anyway, so there were no issues in this respect, but I also didn't feel the need to exchange views with her, or talk to her. It didn't bother me, it did bother her a lot.

We have since met, and actually got along quite well given the circumstances. By the time we met, however, she had been married to my ex for nearly 7 years, and I think she was able to put herself in my shoes much better than she would have been in the early days ... and I, having been with him for 7 years prior to that, was able to understand some of her actions as well.

Today, I can actually say that I care for her and am worried about her given her circumstances with BF ... that said, however, I wouldn't change the approach I took in the early days, not even with hindsight.

Quoting redheadtmk:

Most families may get along "fine" without the communication but could get along great if there was communication. Anytime everyone in a child's life works together it is better for the child. But some parents settle for fine.




Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)