Anonymous
05/18/2017 16:08
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Your brother isn't a true father to his CHILD and THIS is what you are so concerned about?
Wow.
Wow.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 16:03
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:Op here.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.
If she wants him to quit his job and be more involved, then how can it be about money. She wants him more involved, he throws money at the problem, even having adhoc visits vs. scheduled visits which could give her a break. Sounds to me like she is doing the heavy lifting and she is still being gracious by acknowledging him as the dad. You sound jealous. Do you even have a relationship with your niece?
Anonymous
05/18/2017 16:00
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:Op here.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.
Since you know so much, how was the $4200/mo calculated? Child support is based on the incomes of the parents. There are complicated formulas that determine what support is appropriate for the given situation. If $4200/mo was what a calculator came up with, then that's what a court considered fair. I wonder why you think that your opinion is more important than the opinion of a court.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 15:54
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op here.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.
What's really tacky is not being involved in your child's life and using work travel as an excuse.
She is using "we" because she wants him to *gasp* be more involved in his kid's life. How horrible.
If he quit his job, he would not be able to find a similar paying job in his area.
It's a child he didn't ask for. He obliges with the child support and visits but he can't quit his job without suffering a serious pay cut. That's not fair to him to expect him to adjust his life completley. Maybe if they were married or actually in a relationship but she chose to have the baby after he told her he wasn't ready and didn't want to be a father. Fatherhood should not be a punishment.
He doesn't get to tell her to have an abortion because he's not ready. That's not his decision to make. The point at which he had a decision about whether or not a baby results from sex was when he decided to either USE A CONDOM or put his pants on and leave. He chose to have sex without protection, and as conservatives are so fond of saying, if you don't want the responsibility of raising a child, keep your legs together. Otherwise, take some responsibility for the child you created.
As for the bolded, maybe it's not fair to him, but what's actually not fair is that he fathered a child he didn't want in the first place and is now not involved in her life so that he can travel for work. It's also unfair that that little girl has an aunt who cares more about her brother being inconvenienced by a child that he fathered all on his own than the child that he's ignoring.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 15:51
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op here.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.
What's really tacky is not being involved in your child's life and using work travel as an excuse.
She is using "we" because she wants him to *gasp* be more involved in his kid's life. How horrible.
If he quit his job, he would not be able to find a similar paying job in his area.
It's a child he didn't ask for. He obliges with the child support and visits but he can't quit his job without suffering a serious pay cut. That's not fair to him to expect him to adjust his life completley. Maybe if they were married or actually in a relationship but she chose to have the baby after he told her he wasn't ready and didn't want to be a father. Fatherhood should not be a punishment.
The mom had to adjust her life completely - why shouldn't he? It's amazing to me that you value your brother's $$ over his child.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 15:51
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
It's tacky to have kids out of a one-night stand, but both your brother and the woman are guilty of that. Run your own race.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 15:47
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op here.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.
No, "we" is not tacky. "We" means that he and she contributed gametes to create the child, not that they have an emotional bond that makes them a couple. If he did not want to be a biological father, he could have worn a condom. And FYI, I'm a guy. I made that acknowledgement when I was younger. I wore the condom so that I would not become a father before I was ready to become one. This is his penance for being careless when he was younger. He has to admit that he's the biological father of the child and she gets to refer to them both as the biological parents of the child whether or not they have any emotional or legal attachment.
She's the mother of two children. If she wanted to work, she would have to pay childcare for her children. If her salary prior to quitting was less than or just barely covering childcare (often the case) for two children, then it could have just been practical to quit her job and be a SAH mom to her children.
Well to be fair, only one child is with the OP's brother, and it's not his job to subsidize her other child. Plus, the kids are in school full-time so it's not like she's tethered to the house.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 15:26
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:
If he quit his job, he would not be able to find a similar paying job in his area.
It's a child he didn't ask for. He obliges with the child support and visits but he can't quit his job without suffering a serious pay cut. That's not fair to him to expect him to adjust his life completley. Maybe if they were married or actually in a relationship but she chose to have the baby after he told her he wasn't ready and didn't want to be a father. Fatherhood should not be a punishment.
What are you? 16?
If he didn't want this child, he should have worn a condom. If he was lazy and she got pregnant, it was his own fault. Stop blaming her for something that both of them were responsible for. Why are you giving your brother such a pass that he isn't responsible for her not getting pregnant. He's lucky. If this had happened 40 years ago, he would have had to marry her and take care of her instead of just giving her money to raise HIS child.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 15:26
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:Larlo is my brother. He deals with a lot of drama from her. I personally think it's odd that she regularly blasts him on social media but refers to him as "we" when she wants. This is her second child, different fathers.
Maybe she means "we" as in her and her new partner. Or her and her parents. Or her and the world. "We" doesn't necessarily mean Larlo.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 15:24
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:Op here.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.
No, "we" is not tacky. "We" means that he and she contributed gametes to create the child, not that they have an emotional bond that makes them a couple. If he did not want to be a biological father, he could have worn a condom. And FYI, I'm a guy. I made that acknowledgement when I was younger. I wore the condom so that I would not become a father before I was ready to become one. This is his penance for being careless when he was younger. He has to admit that he's the biological father of the child and she gets to refer to them both as the biological parents of the child whether or not they have any emotional or legal attachment.
She's the mother of two children. If she wanted to work, she would have to pay childcare for her children. If her salary prior to quitting was less than or just barely covering childcare (often the case) for two children, then it could have just been practical to quit her job and be a SAH mom to her children.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 15:09
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op here.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.
What's really tacky is not being involved in your child's life and using work travel as an excuse.
She is using "we" because she wants him to *gasp* be more involved in his kid's life. How horrible.
If he quit his job, he would not be able to find a similar paying job in his area.
It's a child he didn't ask for. He obliges with the child support and visits but he can't quit his job without suffering a serious pay cut. That's not fair to him to expect him to adjust his life completley. Maybe if they were married or actually in a relationship but she chose to have the baby after he told her he wasn't ready and didn't want to be a father. Fatherhood should not be a punishment.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 15:03
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:Op here.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.
What's really tacky is not being involved in your child's life and using work travel as an excuse.
She is using "we" because she wants him to *gasp* be more involved in his kid's life. How horrible.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 15:00
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:Op here.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.
MYOB.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 14:59
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Anonymous wrote:Op here.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.
Consider it a life-long punishment for stupid choices to have unprotected sex. Seriously.
Anonymous
05/18/2017 14:53
Subject: Referring to the father of your child inclusively
Op here.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.
I see "we" as tacky. There was never a "them" to begin with. She's trying to force some semblance of amicability but it's far from the reality.
She quit her job once the child support was established. Both her kids are in school FT and they have split custody. He pays child support and has an ad-hoc schedule for visits due to his work.. She is trying to convince him to quit his job so that he can be around the child more often (he travels extensively for work and spends time between three states.)
What he's doing already isn't enough for her. I think it's a little ridiculous he's paying her an excess of $4200/month plus pays for her health insurance and visiting when he can for an arrangement he didn't ask for. Yet she continues to blast him but play nice when he plays by her rules.