Originally Posted by violet_
I bet you'd be pretty mad if your child was in ER and you weren't told.
Violet, I'd be shocked if he called me while still at the ER. Or even before he brought her back here. But then in my case we're talking about a guy who went to the ER, tried to check himself in but was refused as not being a serious threat to himself, called his parents at 3am and told them the hospital was full and I wouldn't let him come home. I woke up the next morning and figured he'd been checked in, and called to find out what room he was in. That was not a good moment.
|Again, I did not marry your ex. Neither did the OP.
I'm glad for both of you. Unfortunately, in the world of NCPs, my ex is a real catch because his disability payor pays regular and he shows up regular. The scene is not a good one, which is why shared custody was all the judicial rage for a while. I believe we started off talking about the unfairness/reality of the likely judicial approach to aricha's dh's ex. I said something about why it was so, and why CPs may not have the NCP on their minds.
You and your dh may go to the school meetings, but my point is that unless your dh is actively, routinely parenting with, not parallel to, his ex, he's not there in the mother's world as a parent. (And there's no need to be belittling about the CP's world, Violet.) By "parenting with" I mean, at a minimum, having real, regular, familylike conversations, weekly or more, about the kids and how they're doing, the little worries and the big events. I don't think this happens very often, esp. when the guy's remarried, in part because it involves a level of intimacy I don't think very many wives would be comfortable with, even if there were no chance of the exes getting back together.
What I hear -- on MDC, btw -- is that frequently the CP will give the NCP a constant feed on the kids early on, hoping to retain that parenting relationship, and that the NCP doesn't much respond, is anxious to be off, etc. Eventually she realizes he doesn't even remember most of what she's said, and doesn't ask for news if she doesn't give it. To all appearances he's just not interested, and he doesn't reciprocate. So eventually she decides, with some bitterness, that it's pointless, says, "Screw it, obviously he doesn't care, I'll do it myself," and fairly quickly the guy vanishes from her mind, as surely as you've mostly forgotten old boyfriends and co-workers. After a while, even when something important and acute happens, he's not going to pop into her mind right away. You can put whatever you want in a decree after that, but if you're telling her to keep the guy in mind when he's not on the parenting scene in that house, you may as well tell her to speak Tagalog to the kids, or tell a plant to grow sideways instead of up. It's just not going to happen. I think the judges recognize this. And unfortunately there's no direct-deposit or garnishing option for major child-related news. I'd sign both of us up for it if there were.
It's a bad situation for the kids, and one of the many reasons I'm not a fan of divorce when there are minor children, except in cases of abuse, addiction, mental illness, that kind of thing. It's next to impossible, from what I've seen, to maintain a warm relationship across households and maintain the density of communication you need for good parenting. Instead what you get, even when the parents mean well and speak nicely about each other to the child, is two separate parenting universes, with maybe the most important things making it over the fence. Maybe. I don't see that this can be good for a child. But on the whole parents won't maintain some "imaginary friend" parent in their minds, so that when something happens they think, "Oh! I'd better tell _____ about this."
All that said, I did say that aricha's husband's ex should've told him where she's moving to. I don't know whether the lawyer's explanation is reasonable or not; I do know that people here sell before they've closed on the next house, and can be up in the air for a few weeks. Usually it means they stay with friends/family or work something out with the new owners. If that's the case, there was no reason for the ex to be secretive about it.
|By the way, the attitude you described is exactly what earned DH's ex her (previous) title of Mother Superior.
Well, if it's out of the same causes, then that's a shame. There's no malice or intent to deprive the NCP here, Violet. If my ex wants to be more actively involved -- as a coparent, not a parallel parent -- he's more than welcome. Given his illness, I'm not sure it's possible for him. I'm know there are other CPs out there, though, who wish the NCP would sign on.