DH has affair & baby - did you stay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why?

DH promised that it was mistake and yada yada. But there's a baby. A baby he has to take care of for the next eighteen years...

This happened to me a year ago. DH had a long-term affair that resulted in a baby. He sees her regularly and will continue to do so. I thought about divorcing him but decided against it. I cope by relying on a few clear rules and conclusions about our situation:

- he made a bad mistake and a series of very bad choices. With that said, there is no reason for me to inconvenience myself with the hassle of divorce and split custody, and go through logistical pain on top of emotional pain.

- I have no ill feeling toward the child, it's not her fault at all. Her mother won't allow her to come to our house, but I would welcome that. She is in a very bad situation, undoubtedly. But - this is very important - I take zero responsibility for her pain and suffering. She is in a very bad situation but I didn't put her there. Managing this pain is her parents' job, not mine. The reason her mom won't let her come is that they live in a small apartment and we have a very nice house, and she doesn't want her daughter to see "how her siblings live." Well, that's how they live. Deal with it, or don't, that's not my problem.

- in that vein, I have no ill feeling for the child, but supporting her is not my job. I had DH sign a postnup and waive all claims to my assets. Should he have a change of heart, he will leave our house only with whatever he brought in. My income, my pension, my investments remain with me. Upon my death, these go to a trust that someone else will manage. My money is for my children. I'm the breadwinner in the family.

With all that said, I don't wish this on anyone. This is a terrible, very painful, very humiliating set of circumstances for the wife. It's not easy to deal with at all. I'm trying to make the best out of a very bad situation for the sake of my children and my family unit.

Does he support the child?

[Anonymous]

What I get from this is:

What the H did is possibly forgivable if he makes good money and the W doesn't want to give up her lifestyle.

What the OW did isn't forgive able and anything that happens to her is just, even if it means losing her child to the vengeful W.

The LC isn't a real child like the W's children. The LC doesn't deserve CS, attention, or a relationship with siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think nobody knows what they will do until they are in a situation. I used to say I would leave if my husband cheated and, lo and behold, I am still here even though he had a full-blown year-long affair. I am here because I don't want to split time with the kids and disrupt their lives, and because I still love him and think it's worth at least trying. So, even though I used to think I would be out of a marriage the minute I found about an affair, here I sit.

So, I say I wouldn't be able to stay if there was a baby from the affair, but who knows. The idea of having to see the result of my husband's betrayal all of the time would seem to be overwhelming. Of course it would not be the child's fault and that would make me feel awful too. So, rationally, I think leaving once there is a constant reminder is a completely valid option. But I wouldn't judge anyone either way.

This. I like to think I'd never stay in this situation, but you never know until you're there. I always thought I'd leave if DH cheated. He has a brief affair (a flirtation with one night of making out and one night of sex). I would have thought I would have left, but I'm conflicted. He's crying every day about what a mistake it was and I can't stop thinking about how devastated my kids will be if we divorce. The point being, it's easy to say you'd absolutely leave, but when you have to face it and weigh all factors, it's not so easy.

[Anonymous]

1) snip snip
2) 50% or more custody

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I get from this is:

What the H did is possibly forgivable if he makes good money and the W doesn't want to give up her lifestyle.

What the OW did isn't forgive able and anything that happens to her is just, even if it means losing her child to the vengeful W.

The LC isn't a real child like the W's children. The LC doesn't deserve CS, attention, or a relationship with siblings.

It's hard to understand this unless you're in the middle of it. It's not that what the H did is forgivable, but the calculus comes down to this, assuming he is repentant and wants to stay: he's the only father your children have, and he may be a jerk but he's your jerk. The OW is equally guilty but she's nothing to you so there is no impetus to be charitable toward her. I don't want her child so there's no threat, to her, of losing it. The LC is of course a real child, but again, the calculus comes down to this: money and time is a zero-sum game. The more time and money goes to the LC, the less is left for your children. Whenever your husband diverts time and resources to the other child, you have to fill the gap left with your own children. So when given a choice between someone else's child and your own, you choose and advocate for your own. It's a horrible situation and none of the choices are very pretty, including the choice to leave - if you divorced DH and left, you'd still traumatize your children, lose money, and STILL expose your children to the love-child and possibly OW. It is what it is. A menu of very unattractive choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I get from this is:

What the H did is possibly forgivable if he makes good money and the W doesn't want to give up her lifestyle.

What the OW did isn't forgive able and anything that happens to her is just, even if it means losing her child to the vengeful W.

The LC isn't a real child like the W's children. The LC doesn't deserve CS, attention, or a relationship with siblings.

It's hard to understand this unless you're in the middle of it. It's not that what the H did is forgivable, but the calculus comes down to this, assuming he is repentant and wants to stay: he's the only father your children have, and he may be a jerk but he's your jerk. The OW is equally guilty but she's nothing to you so there is no impetus to be charitable toward her. I don't want her child so there's no threat, to her, of losing it. The LC is of course a real child, but again, the calculus comes down to this: money and time is a zero-sum game. The more time and money goes to the LC, the less is left for your children. Whenever your husband diverts time and resources to the other child, you have to fill the gap left with your own children. So when given a choice between someone else's child and your own, you choose and advocate for your own. It's a horrible situation and none of the choices are very pretty, including the choice to leave - if you divorced DH and left, you'd still traumatize your children, lose money, and STILL expose your children to the love-child and possibly OW. It is what it is. A menu of very unattractive choices.

I would want my DH's money to be equally distributed among all the kids because they are siblings. If I felt my kids needed more than the LC, I'd work harder to provide the extra myself. Maybe this is because I love my stepson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I get from this is:

What the H did is possibly forgivable if he makes good money and the W doesn't want to give up her lifestyle.

What the OW did isn't forgive able and anything that happens to her is just, even if it means losing her child to the vengeful W.

The LC isn't a real child like the W's children. The LC doesn't deserve CS, attention, or a relationship with siblings.

It's hard to understand this unless you're in the middle of it. It's not that what the H did is forgivable, but the calculus comes down to this, assuming he is repentant and wants to stay: he's the only father your children have, and he may be a jerk but he's your jerk. The OW is equally guilty but she's nothing to you so there is no impetus to be charitable toward her. I don't want her child so there's no threat, to her, of losing it. The LC is of course a real child, but again, the calculus comes down to this: money and time is a zero-sum game. The more time and money goes to the LC, the less is left for your children. Whenever your husband diverts time and resources to the other child, you have to fill the gap left with your own children. So when given a choice between someone else's child and your own, you choose and advocate for your own. It's a horrible situation and none of the choices are very pretty, including the choice to leave - if you divorced DH and left, you'd still traumatize your children, lose money, and STILL expose your children to the love-child and possibly OW. It is what it is. A menu of very unattractive choices.

Shouldn't your children be exposedto their brother or sister? I'd resent my mom terribly if she deprived me of an opportunity to get to know a half-sibling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I get from this is:

What the H did is possibly forgivable if he makes good money and the W doesn't want to give up her lifestyle.

What the OW did isn't forgive able and anything that happens to her is just, even if it means losing her child to the vengeful W.

The LC isn't a real child like the W's children. The LC doesn't deserve CS, attention, or a relationship with siblings.

It's hard to understand this unless you're in the middle of it. It's not that what the H did is forgivable, but the calculus comes down to this, assuming he is repentant and wants to stay: he's the only father your children have, and he may be a jerk but he's your jerk. The OW is equally guilty but she's nothing to you so there is no impetus to be charitable toward her. I don't want her child so there's no threat, to her, of losing it. The LC is of course a real child, but again, the calculus comes down to this: money and time is a zero-sum game. The more time and money goes to the LC, the less is left for your children. Whenever your husband diverts time and resources to the other child, you have to fill the gap left with your own children. So when given a choice between someone else's child and your own, you choose and advocate for your own. It's a horrible situation and none of the choices are very pretty, including the choice to leave - if you divorced DH and left, you'd still traumatize your children, lose money, and STILL expose your children to the love-child and possibly OW. It is what it is. A menu of very unattractive choices.

Shouldn't your children be exposedto their brother or sister? I'd resent my mom terribly if she deprived me of an opportunity to get to know a half-sibling.

It has to be up to the kids. My kids are in this situation and want nothing to do with the affair child. They are both in counseling and both counselors have said this should be up to them to decide. They may change their minds in the future. You aren't in this situation. My son says that if he met the kid he would just be a constant reminder of his family breaking up.

[Anonymous]

Ug. In an ideal world I'd just say "hey, we're all one family now" and just get on with integrating the child into our lives and tolerating the fact the woman was always there in the background and you know, maybe even over time become friendly with her. If its for the happiness of the kids and a sense of a wider family, it might be worth it.

One of my best friends was my ex-DH's ex. We were polite from the very start because we both had high standards and i can honestly say after about a year we were best friends and stayed that way, long after he was gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I get from this is:

What the H did is possibly forgivable if he makes good money and the W doesn't want to give up her lifestyle.

What the OW did isn't forgive able and anything that happens to her is just, even if it means losing her child to the vengeful W.

The LC isn't a real child like the W's children. The LC doesn't deserve CS, attention, or a relationship with siblings.

It's hard to understand this unless you're in the middle of it. It's not that what the H did is forgivable, but the calculus comes down to this, assuming he is repentant and wants to stay: he's the only father your children have, and he may be a jerk but he's your jerk. The OW is equally guilty but she's nothing to you so there is no impetus to be charitable toward her. I don't want her child so there's no threat, to her, of losing it. The LC is of course a real child, but again, the calculus comes down to this: money and time is a zero-sum game. The more time and money goes to the LC, the less is left for your children. Whenever your husband diverts time and resources to the other child, you have to fill the gap left with your own children. So when given a choice between someone else's child and your own, you choose and advocate for your own. It's a horrible situation and none of the choices are very pretty, including the choice to leave - if you divorced DH and left, you'd still traumatize your children, lose money, and STILL expose your children to the love-child and possibly OW. It is what it is. A menu of very unattractive choices.

I would want my DH's money to be equally distributed among all the kids because they are siblings. If I felt my kids needed more than the LC, I'd work harder to provide the extra myself. Maybe this is because I love my stepson.

This is a PP from upthread dealing with this situation today. With respect, this comparison of yours is completely wrong. A love child is not at all like a stepchild. A stepchild, assuming it's a child of your DH's first marriage, already existed before you married DH. You had an opportunity to weigh all pros and cons, and enter the situation with your eyes opened. His or her needs came before yours, and that was because they were there first.

A love child is forcibly imposed on the wife and children of marriage. The wife didn't have a chance to say yes or no. She didn't invite this, didn't welcome it, didn't ask for it. So no, I don't care for the money to be equally distributed among all the kids, because DH's money is already committed to the family. I feel no compulsion to provide for the love child equally, and I won't. I have nothing against her personally, but expecting me to love her is a bit much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I get from this is:

What the H did is possibly forgivable if he makes good money and the W doesn't want to give up her lifestyle.

What the OW did isn't forgive able and anything that happens to her is just, even if it means losing her child to the vengeful W.

The LC isn't a real child like the W's children. The LC doesn't deserve CS, attention, or a relationship with siblings.

It's hard to understand this unless you're in the middle of it. It's not that what the H did is forgivable, but the calculus comes down to this, assuming he is repentant and wants to stay: he's the only father your children have, and he may be a jerk but he's your jerk. The OW is equally guilty but she's nothing to you so there is no impetus to be charitable toward her. I don't want her child so there's no threat, to her, of losing it. The LC is of course a real child, but again, the calculus comes down to this: money and time is a zero-sum game. The more time and money goes to the LC, the less is left for your children. Whenever your husband diverts time and resources to the other child, you have to fill the gap left with your own children. So when given a choice between someone else's child and your own, you choose and advocate for your own. It's a horrible situation and none of the choices are very pretty, including the choice to leave - if you divorced DH and left, you'd still traumatize your children, lose money, and STILL expose your children to the love-child and possibly OW. It is what it is. A menu of very unattractive choices.

I would want my DH's money to be equally distributed among all the kids because they are siblings. If I felt my kids needed more than the LC, I'd work harder to provide the extra myself. Maybe this is because I love my stepson.

This is a PP from upthread dealing with this situation today. With respect, this comparison of yours is completely wrong. A love child is not at all like a stepchild. A stepchild, assuming it's a child of your DH's first marriage, already existed before you married DH. You had an opportunity to weigh all pros and cons, and enter the situation with your eyes opened. His or her needs came before yours, and that was because they were there first.

A love child is forcibly imposed on the wife and children of marriage. The wife didn't have a chance to say yes or no. She didn't invite this, didn't welcome it, didn't ask for it. So no, I don't care for the money to be equally distributed among all the kids, because DH's money is already committed to the family. I feel no compulsion to provide for the love child equally, and I won't. I have nothing against her personally, but expecting me to love her is a bit much.

Nor did the love child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I get from this is:

What the H did is possibly forgivable if he makes good money and the W doesn't want to give up her lifestyle.

What the OW did isn't forgive able and anything that happens to her is just, even if it means losing her child to the vengeful W.

The LC isn't a real child like the W's children. The LC doesn't deserve CS, attention, or a relationship with siblings.

It's hard to understand this unless you're in the middle of it. It's not that what the H did is forgivable, but the calculus comes down to this, assuming he is repentant and wants to stay: he's the only father your children have, and he may be a jerk but he's your jerk. The OW is equally guilty but she's nothing to you so there is no impetus to be charitable toward her. I don't want her child so there's no threat, to her, of losing it. The LC is of course a real child, but again, the calculus comes down to this: money and time is a zero-sum game. The more time and money goes to the LC, the less is left for your children. Whenever your husband diverts time and resources to the other child, you have to fill the gap left with your own children. So when given a choice between someone else's child and your own, you choose and advocate for your own. It's a horrible situation and none of the choices are very pretty, including the choice to leave - if you divorced DH and left, you'd still traumatize your children, lose money, and STILL expose your children to the love-child and possibly OW. It is what it is. A menu of very unattractive choices.

Shouldn't your children be exposedto their brother or sister? I'd resent my mom terribly if she deprived me of an opportunity to get to know a half-sibling.

Again, you don't understand the nature of this situation, and your comment shows it. In your way of thinking, your life would have been unchanged except you now have a half-sibling IN ADDITION to everything else. It doesn't work that way. If that half-sibling was associated with terrible upheaval in your family, loss of time and resources spent on YOU, emotional turmoil for YOU, and a great deal of pain for your mother, I doubt your outlook toward the sibling - innocent as they are in this - would have been the same. It's entirely possible you would have preferred not to know them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I get from this is:

What the H did is possibly forgivable if he makes good money and the W doesn't want to give up her lifestyle.

What the OW did isn't forgive able and anything that happens to her is just, even if it means losing her child to the vengeful W.

The LC isn't a real child like the W's children. The LC doesn't deserve CS, attention, or a relationship with siblings.

It's hard to understand this unless you're in the middle of it. It's not that what the H did is forgivable, but the calculus comes down to this, assuming he is repentant and wants to stay: he's the only father your children have, and he may be a jerk but he's your jerk. The OW is equally guilty but she's nothing to you so there is no impetus to be charitable toward her. I don't want her child so there's no threat, to her, of losing it. The LC is of course a real child, but again, the calculus comes down to this: money and time is a zero-sum game. The more time and money goes to the LC, the less is left for your children. Whenever your husband diverts time and resources to the other child, you have to fill the gap left with your own children. So when given a choice between someone else's child and your own, you choose and advocate for your own. It's a horrible situation and none of the choices are very pretty, including the choice to leave - if you divorced DH and left, you'd still traumatize your children, lose money, and STILL expose your children to the love-child and possibly OW. It is what it is. A menu of very unattractive choices.

I would want my DH's money to be equally distributed among all the kids because they are siblings. If I felt my kids needed more than the LC, I'd work harder to provide the extra myself. Maybe this is because I love my stepson.

This is a PP from upthread dealing with this situation today. With respect, this comparison of yours is completely wrong. A love child is not at all like a stepchild. A stepchild, assuming it's a child of your DH's first marriage, already existed before you married DH. You had an opportunity to weigh all pros and cons, and enter the situation with your eyes opened. His or her needs came before yours, and that was because they were there first.

A love child is forcibly imposed on the wife and children of marriage. The wife didn't have a chance to say yes or no. She didn't invite this, didn't welcome it, didn't ask for it. So no, I don't care for the money to be equally distributed among all the kids, because DH's money is already committed to the family. I feel no compulsion to provide for the love child equally, and I won't. I have nothing against her personally, but expecting me to love her is a bit much.

Nor did the love child.

They didn't, but the misfortunes of children should be managed by their parents. I'm not her parent, therefore expecting me to participate in this is inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

I know two families who handled this situation very well. In both cases, the original couple stayed together and the child was welcomed by the wife/siblings. It can be done!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ug. In an ideal world I'd just say "hey, we're all one family now" and just get on with integrating the child into our lives and tolerating the fact the woman was always there in the background and you know, maybe even over time become friendly with her. If its for the happiness of the kids and a sense of a wider family, it might be worth it.

One of my best friends was my ex-DH's ex. We were polite from the very start because we both had high standards and i can honestly say after about a year we were best friends and stayed that way, long after he was gone.

The relationship between your DH and his ex was presumably over before you came around. I doubt you could have become friends with your DH's mistress, who very much wanted your DH to leave you and your children. This isn't at all the making of a happy family.