Anonymous wrote:Right there with you and yeah can’t say I wouldn’t feel relief if my ex just evaporated or something.

What has helped me though is time and actively trying to change my mindset. I did NOT want to hold on to anger and bitterness because I was the one suffering -not him. So I have tried super hard to focus on enjoying my own life and also on all the things I am grateful for which divorce allowed me to have (like peace). It’s kinda corny but the power of positive thinking does work …neuroplasticity is a thing it turns out. Oh also actively avoiding saying shit about the ex works too in rewiring things. Those pathways just attenuate if you don’t fuel the fire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should never speak negatively about the children’s dad in front of them.

+1

but to objectively say:
Dad left for mistress
Dad stopped paying any bills
Dad is trying to take the bank account that was solely meant for kids expenses

is all objective information. It does more harm to cover up his secrets and lies

No. That is not “objective” and is deeply damaging to children. They do not need to know details. Speak from the “I” — “I can’t afford that” covers a lot.

It is objective, unless you don’t know what that word means. Facts are fine to share with children. How is saying “dad stopped paying the mortgage and moved in with his mistress” not factual?

I didn’t say it wasn’t factual, I said it wasn’t objective. Children don’t need to hear this. “I can’t afford the mortgage any more” is fine. You don’t need to comment on dad’s “mistress.”

They are still objective statements. Objective statements are based in fact and free from opinion. Dad stopped paying the bills = objective and factual. Nothing wrong with what pp suggested.

Of course there is. Kids don’t need you commenting on dad’s relationships/cheating/whatever. If she said “Dad is living with Valerie” or whatever, that is objective. But doesn’t really need your spin on it, because they already know that.

...if Valerie is the mistress it's still objective. No spin needed. If she said "Dad is living with that gold digging whore Valerie" I'd agree with you. But to simply lay out the other facts is fine IMO. Different strokes I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should never speak negatively about the children’s dad in front of them.

+1

but to objectively say:
Dad left for mistress
Dad stopped paying any bills
Dad is trying to take the bank account that was solely meant for kids expenses

is all objective information. It does more harm to cover up his secrets and lies

No. That is not “objective” and is deeply damaging to children. They do not need to know details. Speak from the “I” — “I can’t afford that” covers a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should never speak negatively about the children’s dad in front of them.

+1

but to objectively say:
Dad left for mistress
Dad stopped paying any bills
Dad is trying to take the bank account that was solely meant for kids expenses

is all objective information. It does more harm to cover up his secrets and lies

No. That is not “objective” and is deeply damaging to children. They do not need to know details. Speak from the “I” — “I can’t afford that” covers a lot.

It is objective, unless you don’t know what that word means. Facts are fine to share with children. How is saying “dad stopped paying the mortgage and moved in with his mistress” not factual?

I didn’t say it wasn’t factual, I said it wasn’t objective. Children don’t need to hear this. “I can’t afford the mortgage any more” is fine. You don’t need to comment on dad’s “mistress.”

They are still objective statements. Objective statements are based in fact and free from opinion. Dad stopped paying the bills = objective and factual. Nothing wrong with what pp suggested.

Of course there is. Kids don’t need you commenting on dad’s relationships/cheating/whatever. If she said “Dad is living with Valerie” or whatever, that is objective. But doesn’t really need your spin on it, because they already know that.

...if Valerie is the mistress it's still objective. No spin needed. If she said "Dad is living with that gold digging whore Valerie" I'd agree with you. But to simply lay out the other facts is fine IMO. Different strokes I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should never speak negatively about the children’s dad in front of them.

+1

but to objectively say:
Dad left for mistress
Dad stopped paying any bills
Dad is trying to take the bank account that was solely meant for kids expenses

is all objective information. It does more harm to cover up his secrets and lies

No. That is not “objective” and is deeply damaging to children. They do not need to know details. Speak from the “I” — “I can’t afford that” covers a lot.

It is objective, unless you don’t know what that word means. Facts are fine to share with children. How is saying “dad stopped paying the mortgage and moved in with his mistress” not factual?

I didn’t say it wasn’t factual, I said it wasn’t objective. Children don’t need to hear this. “I can’t afford the mortgage any more” is fine. You don’t need to comment on dad’s “mistress.”

They are still objective statements. Objective statements are based in fact and free from opinion. Dad stopped paying the bills = objective and factual. Nothing wrong with what pp suggested.

Of course there is. Kids don’t need you commenting on dad’s relationships/cheating/whatever. If she said “Dad is living with Valerie” or whatever, that is objective. But doesn’t really need your spin on it, because they already know that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't cover up for him. Tell them you know it's sad and disappointing he did not follow through but don't make excuses.
Making his excuses is buying into the mess.
Keep clear. Acknowledge the kids' feelings but don't make his apologies.

Np. Good advice. I’m 10 years divorced and I covered for my ex with my kids for years. High road and all. Then he decides to be more involved up a number of years later and bashed me to the kids

There's a wide middle ground between making excuses for someone and bashing them yourself.

Now how to walk that perfectly when your kids come to you crying because their other parent is bashing YOU to the kids? That...I don't know. My kids are so tired of hearing "I'm sorry. That's an issue between us and you shouldn't have to hear about it." But at least I'm not covering for the jerk.

Sorry PP! Yes high road is hard and tbh I regret it. I should have gotten to certain people before XH did and made up stuff and ruined relationships for me. Pure lies. And now they won’t even talk to me. That being said… I work with a therapist to understand anyone who believes lies like that either 1) has their own issues and 2) is not worth having in my life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should never speak negatively about the children’s dad in front of them.

+1

but to objectively say:
Dad left for mistress
Dad stopped paying any bills
Dad is trying to take the bank account that was solely meant for kids expenses

is all objective information. It does more harm to cover up his secrets and lies

No. That is not “objective” and is deeply damaging to children. They do not need to know details. Speak from the “I” — “I can’t afford that” covers a lot.

It is objective, unless you don’t know what that word means. Facts are fine to share with children. How is saying “dad stopped paying the mortgage and moved in with his mistress” not factual?

I didn’t say it wasn’t factual, I said it wasn’t objective. Children don’t need to hear this. “I can’t afford the mortgage any more” is fine. You don’t need to comment on dad’s “mistress.”

They are still objective statements. Objective statements are based in fact and free from opinion. Dad stopped paying the bills = objective and factual. Nothing wrong with what pp suggested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't cover up for him. Tell them you know it's sad and disappointing he did not follow through but don't make excuses.
Making his excuses is buying into the mess.
Keep clear. Acknowledge the kids' feelings but don't make his apologies.

Np. Good advice. I’m 10 years divorced and I covered for my ex with my kids for years. High road and all. Then he decides to be more involved up a number of years later and bashed me to the kids

There's a wide middle ground between making excuses for someone and bashing them yourself.

Now how to walk that perfectly when your kids come to you crying because their other parent is bashing YOU to the kids? That...I don't know. My kids are so tired of hearing "I'm sorry. That's an issue between us and you shouldn't have to hear about it." But at least I'm not covering for the jerk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know the answer to this. Similar situation but we’re not even to the financial part and are stuck on time. DH wants time with the kids but then never actually rearranges his schedule to make it work and doesn’t show up to events he promises to be at. I have to pick up the emotional mess it creates and it’s really hard not to shred him to pieces in front of the kids, but also hard to make excuses for him. I know the financial stuff will be just plain vile.

I think the hardest part is having to convey to the kids the apologies that their father really should be giving. I frequently find myself in that position and it is not fair but it feels like one of the parents needs to acknowledge how messed up things are.

Schedule a 4 hour mediation session and get through all your issues at once. A good mediator will help find a agreeable middle ground on everything.
We did and it resolved 95% of our parenting plan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should never speak negatively about the children’s dad in front of them.

+1

but to objectively say:
Dad left for mistress
Dad stopped paying any bills
Dad is trying to take the bank account that was solely meant for kids expenses

is all objective information. It does more harm to cover up his secrets and lies

No. That is not “objective” and is deeply damaging to children. They do not need to know details. Speak from the “I” — “I can’t afford that” covers a lot.

It is objective, unless you don’t know what that word means. Facts are fine to share with children. How is saying “dad stopped paying the mortgage and moved in with his mistress” not factual?

I didn’t say it wasn’t factual, I said it wasn’t objective. Children don’t need to hear this. “I can’t afford the mortgage any more” is fine. You don’t need to comment on dad’s “mistress.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should never speak negatively about the children’s dad in front of them.

+1

but to objectively say:
Dad left for mistress
Dad stopped paying any bills
Dad is trying to take the bank account that was solely meant for kids expenses

is all objective information. It does more harm to cover up his secrets and lies

No. That is not “objective” and is deeply damaging to children. They do not need to know details. Speak from the “I” — “I can’t afford that” covers a lot.

It is objective, unless you don’t know what that word means. Facts are fine to share with children. How is saying “dad stopped paying the mortgage and moved in with his mistress” not factual?

I didn’t say it wasn’t factual, I said it wasn’t objective. Children don’t need to hear this. “I can’t afford the mortgage any more” is fine. You don’t need to comment on dad’s “mistress.”