or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › Oh the drama...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oh the drama... - Page 8

post #141 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama41 View Post
OK, I see a new acronym is in order. It's PRMC.

Please read more carefully.

JSMa, I didn't compare either you or your relationship to a jug of fabric softener. I compared the length of your relationship to the age of the jug. In other words, in the scheme of things, your relationship -- or what you'd described of it -- was very new. So new that a judge would not necessarily take it seriously as a steady thing in a custody hearing. A 3-year steady relationship is something else again.
To be clear (from my recollection), you insinuated that your jug of fabric softener was more significant than the relationship due to its relative age (being that it is older, not as old).

You've got to be able to see how that could be a little insulting...
post #142 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikag View Post
To be clear (from my recollection), you insinuated that your jug of fabric softener was more significant than the relationship due to its relative age (being that it is older, not as old).

You've got to be able to see how that could be a little insulting...
I also found it insulting.
post #143 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama41 View Post
The length of the relationship is an issue because it's unlikely anyone else, including the judge, sees a 6-month relationship as a settled situation yet. My jug of laundry softener is older than that. Come back in a couple of years and the story will likely be different.
Hear ye, one and all! Let us put a rest to the 'Great Fabric Softener Dis'!
I make my living on textual analysis and will tell you that 'fabric softener' in itself is not significant. When I tell my students that I have undergarments older than they are, I am actually making a comment about my thriftiness, the wonder of my washer's gentle cycle, and last but not least, their relative youth (underline). My 'undergarments' are neither here nor there, so to speak.
post #144 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama41 View Post
OK, I see a new acronym is in order. It's PRMC.

Please read more carefully.

JSMa, I didn't compare either you or your relationship to a jug of fabric softener. I compared the length of your relationship to the age of the jug. In other words, in the scheme of things, your relationship -- or what you'd described of it -- was very new. So new that a judge would not necessarily take it seriously as a steady thing in a custody hearing. A 3-year steady relationship is something else again.

Also, no one said that your guy in particular was uninvolved before. I said that the judges know that very often, the guy is uninvolved until a new wife or gf pushes him to be involved.

As for stability, again, the courts tend to look at how the child is doing today. If the child is doing well in the current situation, they're unlikely to mess with it unless they're activists. I am not saying that this is fair to parents or sensible across the board, but that this is the name of the game. And in legal affairs, you just cannot go in trying to play by the rules that you think ought to be -- not if you want to win. There is plenty I did to secure custody that I thought was absolutely stupid and temporarily against the interests of my child. However, it is not my game, they are not my rules, and I didn't want my daughter to grow up trying to take care of a mentally ill man in isolation half the time. I followed the lawyer's advice and it worked.

In other words: Don't shoot the messenger. If you want to change the system, go to the statehouse and expect the fight to consume your life.

angilyn, I've explained how hearing about my parents' and grandmother's experiences with divorce and mental illness helped me. So although I respect your beliefs, there, my experience says otherwise.

As for the second divorced father I was involved with, I lived with him and paid his child support, which is something I won't do again for a man. But no, I had no involvement otherwise with the child. The mother certainly didn't want it, she seemed more than capable, and I saw no reason to insert myself in the situation. I respect your commitment to your dss, btw, and would hope that anyone my xh wound up with would be as responsible, if she chose to be involved with dd. For me, though, that's not a type of commitment I would want to make.
I don't really find your generalizations about "the courts" to be true. In my experience, judges are people with their own way of doing things and each is a individual. One judge usually sides with "50/50," while another tends to not want to change the child's life. Some go with what has been working, others think getting the parents closer to 50/50 is the goal. For most of these issues, there isn't a law that tells them what to do, it is open to the judge's interpretation. After dealing with dh's custody case, I thought I understood the system, too. I've been very surprised on this board to see how much the system varies state-to-state and even between different counties.
post #145 of 148
oops
post #146 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by angilyn View Post
I'm not sure why you are having an issue with people not liking the original comment. To be honest, as a teacher myself, I have a problem with students being compared to undergarments. Both comparisons seem inappropriate to me and your analogy would get me to my superior's office in a minute and a flag on my record.

I think what would be helpful to everyone on this thread, is the realization that the comment was hurtful to some. It is ok that you don't think it is hurtful but others do and therein lies the problem with the original.

I try to operate on the "First, do no harm" level. It serves me well.
Oh Jiminy Cricket, I don't really compare my college-age students to my bloomers. I was simply trying to use humor to diffuse the tension. It was feeling a little 'torch and pitchfork' around here.
post #147 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama41 View Post
OK, I see a new acronym is in order. It's PRMC.

Please read more carefully.

JSMa, I didn't compare either you or your relationship to a jug of fabric softener. I compared the length of your relationship to the age of the jug. In other words, in the scheme of things, your relationship -- or what you'd described of it -- was very new. So new that a judge would not necessarily take it seriously as a steady thing in a custody hearing.

I'll weigh in as some one who thought the original remark was a snipe. I think we're splitting hairs as to whether it was the length of the relationship to the age of the jug, the brand of the fabric softener to the background of the new partner, the color of the jug to the hairstyle of the new partner, etc.

But, I will say that I think JSMa and I and some of the others who found it out of line are reading these posts from a similar filter. We are all the newer partner to some one. DH's ex could make a similar comparison to our relationship, since we have only been together 5 years and they were together for 8. Her implication would be that somehow our relationship is less valid because of that. And I would be offended.
post #148 of 148
oops
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › Oh the drama...