Pre-Teen is resentful of how much I work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

PP above. I don't think that having tasks to do over the weekend means a parent can't bond with kids. Frankly the idea that a parent needs to have totally task-free hours in order to bond with a child seems very out of touch to me. Personally, I think kids should absolutely see their working parent doing tasks around the house, and should be participating in those chores themselves as they get older. I have many fond memories of running errands on the weekend with my dad and helping him with chores. Bonding doesn't mean just free time.

Your position only makes sense if you believe that children cannot bond with parents who are doing household work... which raises the question of how they bond with the SAHP who is doing that work during the week. I don't have much of an opinion on long hours or no long hours, as I stated, but I do think the idea that a child can't bond with a parent who is doing household tasks is ridiculous.

I think the point stands: you cannot simultaneously say OP doesn't have a good bond with her kids because of her long hours, and yet claim your WOHP spouse who works equally long hours has a good bond with your own children. It's completely inconsistent.

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

But you're essentially saying that the parent who cuts back is the one responsible for meeting the emotional needs of a preteen. In that sort of set-up, how is the WOHP any different than OP in this situation?

You can't claim that your WOHP husband who works very long hours is a great dad but at the same time say OP is a terrible mom for working the same long hours. I, by the way, don't think we know anywhere near enough to judge OP's fitness as a parent, or that of anybody else in this thread, so I am not saying OP is bad parent or your husband is a bad parent. I am just saying that people are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this thread.

Not at all. The vast majority of PPs have been saying that *at least* one parent needs to either cut back their hours so as to be available to their children, or be a SAHP. Again: in OP's situation, BOTH parents are unavailable. How is that good for their kids?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids want to feel loved, it is that simple. Think about how many wives are posting(yes, it is almost always women posting here) about DH working too much, spending too much with ILS, never being there for them, and a 12 year old is supposed to be all rational and understand that mom can't spend some time with her, when many grown ups feel resentful in the same situation? And yes, 12 year old will be disorganized and forget to pan a week ahead, that is how most teens are. OP, your DD wants you, she wants to spend time with you, and all the rest is just her lashing out in the only way she knows.

Sometimes I think that most people on this board do not remember what it was like to be a child. When I was a tween, feeling loved wasn't my main concern. I knew I was loved, but I didn't much care. I had all sorts of miserable tangled emotions running through me as a result of the hormonal shifts of puberty, and my mom made a very convenient outlet / focus / punching bag for all of my angst. She was a wonderful mother – it did not make a wet of a difference to me. I was in raged – and I knew I could reach at her because she was one of the only people in the world who had to put up with me – and nothing she could've changed would have me be less angry at her.

OP, if you feel like you're not giving your children enough time with you, that is one thing. But I'm not convinced from the small amount of information that you've given us that you are necessarily doing anything so wrong as to account for your child's anger at you. Some of us were just angry kids. On the bright side, for all that I gave my mother hell, I voluntarily spend as much time as possible with her nowadays, because she is awesome.

Your childhood sounds quite different than mine.

I adored my mom, even through my hormonal teens. She's the person who got me through the worst of those times. Why? Because she was available and she was present. I knew I could rely on her and lean on her and she would always be there for me. I knew that she loved me - and yes, that was crucial knowledge to me. I had friends who much preferred to spend time at my house because my mom was there and such a stabilizing influence. To this day she's still my biggest supporter and best friend.

And before anyone chimes in with, "Well, what about your DAD??" - I loved him very much too, but we just didn't have the same closeness that my mom and I had.

I highly doubt the OP's daughter feels that way about OP.

I felt this way about my mom and truly hope my daughter feels that way about me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

I agree with everything except the last part.

Both parents need to cut back a little and raise their kids. Children deserve 2 parents.

They obviously have enough money to take care is the obligation that are not child related... Cooking, cleaning, fixing the car.

If a SAHP does all those thing to free up time for the father.... And the father is "fully engaged"... Then OP and her H could, in theory, hire someone to do all those chores... So they can both be fully engaged.

I personally disagree that H in this situation are fully engaged.... So really they both need to cut back.

Also, SAHP with a H working tons need to figure out how to either spend less or make money so their H have time to emotionalky support their kids.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

I agree that most SAHPs have fathers that come home early and are with their kids every night.

I also agree that most WOHP have two parents that come home early and both are fully engaged with their kids.

All I am saying is that kids don't need 1 parent they need 2, when possible. It's not a good model to say, well I stay at home so it's okay my H never sees the kids, I can fulfill all their every need.

When people give OP advise to cut back or SAH so their kids have 1 parent I disagree, I think OP and her H need to cut back... kids need 2 parents.

Not sure why that is a controversial statement but it has obviously hit a nerve with some posters and I doubt it is posters who truly believe their H is fully engaged, its parents that realize they have condoned their H being absent for money and believe their being present is enough.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

I agree with everything except the last part.

Both parents need to cut back a little and raise their kids. Children deserve 2 parents.

They obviously have enough money to take care is the obligation that are not child related... Cooking, cleaning, fixing the car.

If a SAHP does all those thing to free up time for the father.... And the father is "fully engaged"... Then OP and her H could, in theory, hire someone to do all those chores... So they can both be fully engaged.

I personally disagree that H in this situation are fully engaged.... So really they both need to cut back.

Also, SAHP with a H working tons need to figure out how to either spend less or make money so their H have time to emotionalky support their kids.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

I agree that most SAHPs have fathers that come home early and are with their kids every night.

I also agree that most WOHP have two parents that come home early and both are fully engaged with their kids.

All I am saying is that kids don't need 1 parent they need 2, when possible. It's not a good model to say, well I stay at home so it's okay my H never sees the kids, I can fulfill all their every need.

When people give OP advise to cut back or SAH so their kids have 1 parent I disagree, I think OP and her H need to cut back... kids need 2 parents.

Not sure why that is a controversial statement but it has obviously hit a nerve with some posters and I doubt it is posters who truly believe their H is fully engaged, its parents that realize they have condoned their H being absent for money and believe their being present is enough.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

[Anonymous]

I adored my mom, even through my hormonal teens. She's the person who got me through the worst of those times. Why? Because she was available and she was present. I knew I could rely on her and lean on her and she would always be there for me. I knew that she loved me - and yes, that was crucial knowledge to me. I had friends who much preferred to spend time at my house because my mom was there and such a stabilizing influence. To this day she's still my biggest supporter and best friend.

And before anyone chimes in with, "Well, what about your DAD??" - I loved him very much too, but we just didn't have the same closeness that my mom and I had

I was not close to my SAHM. Just because she was physically there does not mean she was present. She was busy... cooking, cleaning, watching her soaps, taking care of her mother.

I knew my dad would be home at 5 and he was the one that understood and cared. He never missed my sports and was fun and caring.

I was never that close with my mom, not nearly as close as I was with my dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

I agree with everything except the last part.

Both parents need to cut back a little and raise their kids. Children deserve 2 parents.

They obviously have enough money to take care is the obligation that are not child related... Cooking, cleaning, fixing the car.

If a SAHP does all those thing to free up time for the father.... And the father is "fully engaged"... Then OP and her H could, in theory, hire someone to do all those chores... So they can both be fully engaged.

I personally disagree that H in this situation are fully engaged.... So really they both need to cut back.

Also, SAHP with a H working tons need to figure out how to either spend less or make money so their H have time to emotionalky support their kids.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

I agree that most SAHPs have fathers that come home early and are with their kids every night.

I also agree that most WOHP have two parents that come home early and both are fully engaged with their kids.

All I am saying is that kids don't need 1 parent they need 2, when possible. It's not a good model to say, well I stay at home so it's okay my H never sees the kids, I can fulfill all their every need.

When people give OP advise to cut back or SAH so their kids have 1 parent I disagree, I think OP and her H need to cut back... kids need 2 parents.

Not sure why that is a controversial statement but it has obviously hit a nerve with some posters and I doubt it is posters who truly believe their H is fully engaged, its parents that realize they have condoned their H being absent for money and believe their being present is enough.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

You have some serious reading comprehension issues. I'm one of the posters you claim has said this, and what you're reading into my posts isn't there any more than your posts say you had a ham sandwich for lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

I agree with everything except the last part.

Both parents need to cut back a little and raise their kids. Children deserve 2 parents.

They obviously have enough money to take care is the obligation that are not child related... Cooking, cleaning, fixing the car.

If a SAHP does all those thing to free up time for the father.... And the father is "fully engaged"... Then OP and her H could, in theory, hire someone to do all those chores... So they can both be fully engaged.

I personally disagree that H in this situation are fully engaged.... So really they both need to cut back.

Also, SAHP with a H working tons need to figure out how to either spend less or make money so their H have time to emotionalky support their kids.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

I agree that most SAHPs have fathers that come home early and are with their kids every night.

I also agree that most WOHP have two parents that come home early and both are fully engaged with their kids.

All I am saying is that kids don't need 1 parent they need 2, when possible. It's not a good model to say, well I stay at home so it's okay my H never sees the kids, I can fulfill all their every need.

When people give OP advise to cut back or SAH so their kids have 1 parent I disagree, I think OP and her H need to cut back... kids need 2 parents.

Not sure why that is a controversial statement but it has obviously hit a nerve with some posters and I doubt it is posters who truly believe their H is fully engaged, its parents that realize they have condoned their H being absent for money and believe their being present is enough.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

This poster might be shocked to discover that there are plenty of families with a SAHP / "big" earner set up in which both parents are really extremely involved and present in the children's lives.

Some people simply think that if you have one thing (money, for example) it must come at some horrible cost. The fact is, there are people in this world who are rich, or beautiful, or brilliant, and are also lovely individuals, happily married, wonderful parents, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

I agree with everything except the last part.

Both parents need to cut back a little and raise their kids. Children deserve 2 parents.

They obviously have enough money to take care is the obligation that are not child related... Cooking, cleaning, fixing the car.

If a SAHP does all those thing to free up time for the father.... And the father is "fully engaged"... Then OP and her H could, in theory, hire someone to do all those chores... So they can both be fully engaged.

I personally disagree that H in this situation are fully engaged.... So really they both need to cut back.

Also, SAHP with a H working tons need to figure out how to either spend less or make money so their H have time to emotionalky support their kids.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

I agree that most SAHPs have fathers that come home early and are with their kids every night.

I also agree that most WOHP have two parents that come home early and both are fully engaged with their kids.

All I am saying is that kids don't need 1 parent they need 2, when possible. It's not a good model to say, well I stay at home so it's okay my H never sees the kids, I can fulfill all their every need.

When people give OP advise to cut back or SAH so their kids have 1 parent I disagree, I think OP and her H need to cut back... kids need 2 parents.

Not sure why that is a controversial statement but it has obviously hit a nerve with some posters and I doubt it is posters who truly believe their H is fully engaged, its parents that realize they have condoned their H being absent for money and believe their being present is enough.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

This poster might be shocked to discover that there are plenty of families with a SAHP / "big" earner set up in which both parents are really extremely involved and present in the children's lives.

Some people simply think that if you have one thing (money, for example) it must come at some horrible cost. The fact is, there are people in this world who are rich, or beautiful, or brilliant, and are also lovely individuals, happily married, wonderful parents, etc.

No I am not shocked. Most of the families I know SAH/WOH/WAH earn a lot of money and are home with their kids.

What I don't think is a good model is having 1 parent at home and 1 parent that is absent. How is that hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

^^ Which is to say, I would describe my H as working long hours and being a big earner, and I SAH, but he is not working until 12-1 am on weekdays!!!! He is present with the family in the evenings and on weekends, and he can do so because he spends ALL work hours focused solely on work (when there aren't school events, which he has never missed) because I handle everything else.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, what's hard to understand is that you think that 1 parent is absent when there is a big earner?

I think OPs situation sucks. We all assume she's a big earner because she's a lawyer and she's working until 1 am, but, as I just said above, my DH is a lawyer and doesn't work until 1 am!! We would not be okay with that lifestyle.

The problem is that you assume a SAH parent and a big earner has 1 absent parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, what's hard to understand is that you think that 1 parent is absent when there is a big earner?

I think OPs situation sucks. We all assume she's a big earner because she's a lawyer and she's working until 1 am, but, as I just said above, my DH is a lawyer and doesn't work until 1 am!! We would not be okay with that lifestyle.

The problem is that you assume a SAH parent and a big earner has 1 absent parent.

I do not assume 1 parent is absent. It was stated that 1 parent was absent so she SAH.

Here is the quote...

DH is working all the time.

I stated that.

Allowing this model to continue is terrible for both the future of our sons and daughters.

Men need to raise their kids and stop using work as an excuse.

Then somebody posted...

I think that's easy to say, but sometimes harder to put into practice.

All I was saying was that kids need 2 parents. I did not say every single high earner is a neglectful parent. I did not say all SAH moms have a H that is neglectful.

I said if somebody works all the time (like OP and her H) that BOTH need to adjust their schedule not just one of them.

My advice to OP is that BOTH of them need to be in their kids lives... do you disagree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ Which is to say, I would describe my H as working long hours and being a big earner, and I SAH, but he is not working until 12-1 am on weekdays!!!! He is present with the family in the evenings and on weekends, and he can do so because he spends ALL work hours focused solely on work (when there aren't school events, which he has never missed) because I handle everything else.

Exactly. As the poster who has been repeatedly criticized as having disengaged father for a husband, my husband rarely works as late as OP does. He travels sometimes, but not every month, and even then we schedule skype calls for him with the kids every day, we've even done things like set up the ipad at the table so we all play a board game together and I make the moves DH tells me to, or we buy a second copy of our younger child's favorite book (he can't read yet) so they can read it together over skype. He often isn't home until after bedtimes, but he goes into work after the kids go to school, and they're up early enough that there's time for them to spend undistracted time with their father in the mornings. Does he do mid-week Target runs? Generally no, I handle that, but so what? If there's the need for a weekend Target run with the kids, more likely than not he will handle it because I hate Target on the weekend with the fire of a thousand suns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ Which is to say, I would describe my H as working long hours and being a big earner, and I SAH, but he is not working until 12-1 am on weekdays!!!! He is present with the family in the evenings and on weekends, and he can do so because he spends ALL work hours focused solely on work (when there aren't school events, which he has never missed) because I handle everything else.

Then the statement does not address you. Why do you think it address you. It addresses OP and her H. Why do you think this is about you?

Do you think OP's H does not need to be home with his kids, ever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Which is to say, I would describe my H as working long hours and being a big earner, and I SAH, but he is not working until 12-1 am on weekdays!!!! He is present with the family in the evenings and on weekends, and he can do so because he spends ALL work hours focused solely on work (when there aren't school events, which he has never missed) because I handle everything else.

Exactly. As the poster who has been repeatedly criticized as having disengaged father for a husband, my husband rarely works as late as OP does. He travels sometimes, but not every month, and even then we schedule skype calls for him with the kids every day, we've even done things like set up the ipad at the table so we all play a board game together and I make the moves DH tells me to, or we buy a second copy of our younger child's favorite book (he can't read yet) so they can read it together over skype. He often isn't home until after bedtimes, but he goes into work after the kids go to school, and they're up early enough that there's time for them to spend undistracted time with their father in the mornings. Does he do mid-week Target runs? Generally no, I handle that, but so what? If there's the need for a weekend Target run with the kids, more likely than not he will handle it because I hate Target on the weekend with the fire of a thousand suns.

So then why are you making this about you. This thread is about OP and her H who clearly are not there.

Why is your advise that OP's kids only need her and not her H?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Which is to say, I would describe my H as working long hours and being a big earner, and I SAH, but he is not working until 12-1 am on weekdays!!!! He is present with the family in the evenings and on weekends, and he can do so because he spends ALL work hours focused solely on work (when there aren't school events, which he has never missed) because I handle everything else.

Then the statement does not address you. Why do you think it address you. It addresses OP and her H. Why do you think this is about you?

Do you think OP's H does not need to be home with his kids, ever?

Ok, NP here. Your nitpicking is getting annoying so go away. We all get what the PP was saying. I'm sorry you don't. But, move along now and reread. See if you can make sens of it.