Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a woman whose husband did this. She decided she had no reason to give up the financial comforts of her marriage. She had her husband push for 50% custody right off the bat. Judge granted visits right away and then overnights once baby was 3 months. She figured the other woman having to drop off her baby to the home of her ex-lover and his wife of 20 years was pretty delicious retribution. (Apparently other woman sobbed every time for literally years). Kid is 10 now and calls the woman "mom"--they have primary custody now. So I guess there's one example.

I'm sure stories about selling her dignity to keep her standard of living and traumatizing a postpartum mother have made your friend highly admired in your community.

Postpartum mother deserves everything she gets. Lowest form of low.

But yet the cheating husband gets to keep his wife and lifestyle? I don't think postpartum mother deserved that, and thinking of her sobbing as she dropped off her child every week only to eventually have that child call someone else 'mom'? Ouch. Why isn't the cheating husband to blame as well?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a woman whose husband did this. She decided she had no reason to give up the financial comforts of her marriage. She had her husband push for 50% custody right off the bat. Judge granted visits right away and then overnights once baby was 3 months. She figured the other woman having to drop off her baby to the home of her ex-lover and his wife of 20 years was pretty delicious retribution. (Apparently other woman sobbed every time for literally years). Kid is 10 now and calls the woman "mom"--they have primary custody now. So I guess there's one example.

I'm sure stories about selling her dignity to keep her standard of living and traumatizing a postpartum mother have made your friend highly admired in your community.

Traumatizing a post partum mother? Are you fing kidding me? That wh*re didn't seem to think twice about traumatizing the wife! You reap what you sow. - DP

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:I've never been there, so obviously I can't say for sure how I'd respond. But I'd like to think that if I could otherwise forgive the affair, that a child also resulted from it wouldn't be a deal-breaker. The child is completely innocent in the whole situation, and I hope I would find the grace to forgive my husband and welcome the child into my family. After all, that child would be born into a pretty messed situation no matter what I do, but if I could provide an environment where that child could have a positive relationship with his father, where my children could have a positive relationship with their half-sibling that isn't tinged with bitterness over the child being the cause of their parent's divorce, I would like to think I could be a big enough person to do that. Maybe even a big enough person to have a good relationship with the child myself.

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.

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.

Yes. This exactly. I am in an uncomfortable position because my sisters want us all to be close with our half sibling. I unfortunately cannot separate her existence from my issues. I know she is innocent and we are all adults, but even thinking about her dredges up those feelings of disappointment in my father, anger that we often went without because he had to pay child support and a feeling that I would be betraying my Mother if I talk to my half sibling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but your husband is. At the very least, DH's money should be equally distributed among children.

Anonymous wrote:
But children also don't have a say in any full or adopted siblings they have. Should a 1o year old formerly only child be able to tell their parents that they are too traumatized or resentful to meet their newly adopted baby sister?

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.

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 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.

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 wrote:

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.