Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Was talking about this thread with a friend who said that the exact same thing happened in her family. Her parents had SEVEN kids, and her father became distant. He was having an affair, and the woman got pregnant, and expected to control him. He actually left his wife to be with this woman. Then the lawyers got together to discuss the divorce, and he realized that he would lose "everything". So he scrambled back and begged his wife to take him back. She had kids ages 2-16. She took him back, but only with the condition that he cut off all, ALL, contact with the other woman and the child. Fast forward 35 years, they are happily married.
My friend said that a divorce would have been expensive and acrimonious. Her siblings would not have stood a chance of college at all. The other child did get support until age 18. Yes, "unfair", but in this case, more kids (7) were better off. One child, was worse off.
That's crazy! With 7 kids, that's probably the only way it could have worked out. You can't really leave a marriage with 7 kids.
Maybe. But I have no respect for a person who ask their spouse to cut off another child, no matter how the child came to being. That is some nastiness right there.
There was a lot of nastiness. The nastiest was the father, then the OW, then the mother of the 7 kids who puts her brain into pure survival mode.
Anonymous wrote:Was talking about this thread with a friend who said that the exact same thing happened in her family. Her parents had SEVEN kids, and her father became distant. He was having an affair, and the woman got pregnant, and expected to control him. He actually left his wife to be with this woman. Then the lawyers got together to discuss the divorce, and he realized that he would lose "everything". So he scrambled back and begged his wife to take him back. She had kids ages 2-16. She took him back, but only with the condition that he cut off all, ALL, contact with the other woman and the child. Fast forward 35 years, they are happily married.
My friend said that a divorce would have been expensive and acrimonious. Her siblings would not have stood a chance of college at all. The other child did get support until age 18. Yes, "unfair", but in this case, more kids (7) were better off. One child, was worse off.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Was talking about this thread with a friend who said that the exact same thing happened in her family. Her parents had SEVEN kids, and her father became distant. He was having an affair, and the woman got pregnant, and expected to control him. He actually left his wife to be with this woman. Then the lawyers got together to discuss the divorce, and he realized that he would lose "everything". So he scrambled back and begged his wife to take him back. She had kids ages 2-16. She took him back, but only with the condition that he cut off all, ALL, contact with the other woman and the child. Fast forward 35 years, they are happily married.
My friend said that a divorce would have been expensive and acrimonious. Her siblings would not have stood a chance of college at all. The other child did get support until age 18. Yes, "unfair", but in this case, more kids (7) were better off. One child, was worse off.
That's crazy! With 7 kids, that's probably the only way it could have worked out. You can't really leave a marriage with 7 kids.
Maybe. But I have no respect for a person who ask their spouse to cut off another child, no matter how the child came to being. That is some nastiness right there.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Was talking about this thread with a friend who said that the exact same thing happened in her family. Her parents had SEVEN kids, and her father became distant. He was having an affair, and the woman got pregnant, and expected to control him. He actually left his wife to be with this woman. Then the lawyers got together to discuss the divorce, and he realized that he would lose "everything". So he scrambled back and begged his wife to take him back. She had kids ages 2-16. She took him back, but only with the condition that he cut off all, ALL, contact with the other woman and the child. Fast forward 35 years, they are happily married.
My friend said that a divorce would have been expensive and acrimonious. Her siblings would not have stood a chance of college at all. The other child did get support until age 18. Yes, "unfair", but in this case, more kids (7) were better off. One child, was worse off.
That's crazy! With 7 kids, that's probably the only way it could have worked out. You can't really leave a marriage with 7 kids.
Anonymous wrote:Was talking about this thread with a friend who said that the exact same thing happened in her family. Her parents had SEVEN kids, and her father became distant. He was having an affair, and the woman got pregnant, and expected to control him. He actually left his wife to be with this woman. Then the lawyers got together to discuss the divorce, and he realized that he would lose "everything". So he scrambled back and begged his wife to take him back. She had kids ages 2-16. She took him back, but only with the condition that he cut off all, ALL, contact with the other woman and the child. Fast forward 35 years, they are happily married.
My friend said that a divorce would have been expensive and acrimonious. Her siblings would not have stood a chance of college at all. The other child did get support until age 18. Yes, "unfair", but in this case, more kids (7) were better off. One child, was worse off.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm sure your mind resists seeing is that way but if your husband has to pay child support and spend time with the other child, then your children most certainly ARE in competition for time and money as finite resources. They are getting less than they could have, without a real benefit of a sibling. Whatever goes to the other child is taken away from them. That's fact, not spin.
As for the kids being loved and cared for, you can make that same argument for the baby of a single mother. He'd still be loved and cared for, even if the father is absent or almost absent.
I am the child of an acrimonious divorce. It has made me believe that the primary thing that hurts kids is their parents treating each other badly. I have a great relationship with my dad who didn't live in my house growing up. But my relationship with both of them has been damaged by how they've treated each other over the years and how they put me in the middle.
That informs my position of course. But I'm pretty committed to trying to be that person if a situation like this (god forbid) arises.
Are they remarried? Why all the hate after number of years?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm sure your mind resists seeing is that way but if your husband has to pay child support and spend time with the other child, then your children most certainly ARE in competition for time and money as finite resources. They are getting less than they could have, without a real benefit of a sibling. Whatever goes to the other child is taken away from them. That's fact, not spin.
As for the kids being loved and cared for, you can make that same argument for the baby of a single mother. He'd still be loved and cared for, even if the father is absent or almost absent.
I am the child of an acrimonious divorce. It has made me believe that the primary thing that hurts kids is their parents treating each other badly. I have a great relationship with my dad who didn't live in my house growing up. But my relationship with both of them has been damaged by how they've treated each other over the years and how they put me in the middle.
That informs my position of course. But I'm pretty committed to trying to be that person if a situation like this (god forbid) arises.
Anonymous wrote:I'm sure your mind resists seeing is that way but if your husband has to pay child support and spend time with the other child, then your children most certainly ARE in competition for time and money as finite resources. They are getting less than they could have, without a real benefit of a sibling. Whatever goes to the other child is taken away from them. That's fact, not spin.
As for the kids being loved and cared for, you can make that same argument for the baby of a single mother. He'd still be loved and cared for, even if the father is absent or almost absent.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I'm not saying the wife has to love and cherish the OW's kid but personally if I saw an infant in need or being harmed I would step in. I care about infants being placed in shitty situations because they are infants.
I would not teach my kids that it's ok to abandon your kids. I would not teach my kids that it's ok to walk away from someone innocent who needs you. I want my kids to become good people. Good people do the right thing even when it's hard so I'll model that.
You keep framing this as 'above her own kids.' I don't cherish the kids at St Jude more than my own kids but I can still give money to them. Being a good person doesn't have to come at the expense of one, and your husband damaged your kids when he cheated. All the kids are collateral damage. You get to teach them how to handle yourself with grace. Or that's what I would do, clearly not what you would do.
What do you mean, shitty situations? Women all over this town become "single mothers by choice" and people laud this as enlightened. No one says to them it's a shitty situation just because dad is not around.
OF COURSE being a good person has to come at the expense of your kids and family here. Money is finite. Time is finite. Everything going to the other child could have gone to your own. It's a perfect example of a zero sum game unless the child is fully integrated into the family.
I am curious how that conversation with your kids would go. Daddy made a big mistake and got close to some other lady. And now you have a half-brother across town. He doesn't live with us though and never will. His mom is not a very nice person. So Daddy will have to be away a few times a week now. Really?
Anonymous wrote:
I'm not saying the wife has to love and cherish the OW's kid but personally if I saw an infant in need or being harmed I would step in. I care about infants being placed in shitty situations because they are infants.
I would not teach my kids that it's ok to abandon your kids. I would not teach my kids that it's ok to walk away from someone innocent who needs you. I want my kids to become good people. Good people do the right thing even when it's hard so I'll model that.
You keep framing this as 'above her own kids.' I don't cherish the kids at St Jude more than my own kids but I can still give money to them. Being a good person doesn't have to come at the expense of one, and your husband damaged your kids when he cheated. All the kids are collateral damage. You get to teach them how to handle yourself with grace. Or that's what I would do, clearly not what you would do.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:PP, the children of marriage are also innocent and not adults. Why would the wife care about someone else's innocence ahead of her own kids?
yup
+10000