TOTALLY GEEKED!

Vette · Owl drink to that!

RE: Meeting the ex

Ohfour · Hooker

Ohfour wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
No one has a right to "screen" anyone else's SO, that is ludicrous. So what happens if you don't like them? Absolutely nothing because you (general you) have no control over who your ex dates.
No, but I have control over who spent the night with my kids...

And I also had control over who spent time alone with my kids. We both had "The right of first refusal"...meaning that anytime one of us were not going to be with the kids, we had to tell the other one before we let them be with someone else.

Vette · Owl drink to that!

She has no right to "approve" of me just like he can't "approve" of her SO, and that's the way they like it.

Ohfour · Hooker

VetteGirl wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
No one has a right to "screen" anyone else's SO, that is ludicrous. So what happens if you don't like them? Absolutely nothing because you (general you) have no control over who your ex dates.
No, but I have control over who spent the night with my kids...
Right, well, for the hundredth time, that is not my situation so it doesn't apply in my case.

Unfortunately for the kid...

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Oh yeah. I had every right to screen who my ex was going to have around my kids. If you think differently you are a fool. Sorry, just the way it is.

I don't want certain things around my kids. Especially when they were younger.

Why would a parent NOT want to know?

Vette · Owl drink to that!

They have enough trust that they don't need to be worried about who the other brings around their kids

Vette · Owl drink to that!

Ohfour wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
No one has a right to "screen" anyone else's SO, that is ludicrous. So what happens if you don't like them? Absolutely nothing because you (general you) have no control over who your ex dates.
No, but I have control over who spent the night with my kids...
Right, well, for the hundredth time, that is not my situation so it doesn't apply in my case.
Unfortunately for the kid...

Yeah, unfortunately for all kids whose parents divorce. But that's the world we live in. I didn't sign their divorce papers.

Ohfour · Hooker

All I'm saying is that if you care about who your child spends time with, then that's part of the parenting plan. If not, whatever, but that doesn't mean people won't think they are selfish...

Oughttabeworking · Regular

Ohfour wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
No one has a right to "screen" anyone else's SO, that is ludicrous. So what happens if you don't like them? Absolutely nothing because you (general you) have no control over who your ex dates.
No, but I have control over who spent the night with my kids...
Right, well, for the hundredth time, that is not my situation so it doesn't apply in my case.
Unfortunately for the kid...

I disagree with that sentiment. Not having rigid rules in place doesn't by itself catapult either one of them into "bad parent" territory. I considered having the morality clause (that's what it is called here) put into my divorce decree, but ultimately decided against it. It wasn't because I don't care about my kids or who they spend time with. I doubt that is any parent who opts to exclude that clause does so for lack of concern for the kids. Vette is spot on here.

Also, as far as spending time alone with the kids, who says it is time alone? If the co-parent is there, it is not time alone and any right of first refusal wouldn't come into play. Obviously, in this case, it is irrelevant. Finally, I don't think it is that odd to have not met the other parent. My kids' dad hasn't met Tech yet. I didn't meet his second wife until after they were married, even though I knew about her from talking to the kids as she had moved into his house prior. I really don't think it is that uncommon.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Honeys_Mom wrote:
just Czech wrote:
flan327 wrote:
just Czech wrote:
flan327 wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
I just can't imagine letting my kids spend the night with someone I'd never met. Not quite mother of the year...
Now you're judging her too? Boy you are just full of high horsiness today
Did I accidentally log onto MM3?
flan
Hey, that's what I was thinking! Some of us are targets over there today anyway....
I love that thread!
flan
So do I! There are so many who pine for husker!
Sorry, for the hijack. Carry on.
I'm guilty of not reading all posts. But do tell - just who's pining for Husker?

Oh my gosh, I lost count. There are no men over there anymore, or at least real men. I don't class "metrosexuals" as men. You know, the draft dodger type or just plain wimps.

Vette · Owl drink to that!

Who are you to say they don't care about their son?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

What I find strange is I made my mind up that whom ever my ex was involved with, I was going to their best friend.

Why?

Because the chances were pretty high that she would be doing the brunt of the heavy lifting when it came to his time with the kids.

I wanted to have a real relationship with them. Not for any other reason but the kids.

And I made sure to include the GF in plans and things. I wasn't going to be pushed out and wasn't going to push him out.

I still talk to one of his exGF from time to time and the one he married, when I finally met her, she was very nice and she said I was not what she expected.

Of course I was totally blessed that he just completely walked out and my kids were not used as pawns and I didn't have to worry about them being exposed to a parade of sleazy women. (I am totally talking about the women my ex chose only)

Ohfour · Hooker

Time alone meant that my ex could not leave my kids without asking me if I wanted them first. Period. He could hire anyone he wanted to if I refused his time, but that happened only once or twice, and his mother watched the kids.

A live-in is NOT a co-parent. Even a WIFE is not considered a co-parent. Period. If he wasn't with the kids and they weren't in daycare, he had to come to me first. And vice versa.

I just didn't take those chances with my kids. And I didn't have to. It's standard on the co-parenting plan here.

Oughttabeworking · Regular

lilyofcourse wrote:
Oh yeah. I had every right to screen who my ex was going to have around my kids. If you think differently you are a fool. Sorry, just the way it is.

I don't want certain things around my kids. Especially when they were younger.

Why would a parent NOT want to know?

You are way off base here, Lily. Your circumstances may have been different (wasn't your X a junkie?), but by and large, a parent does not get to choose who the other parent has around the kids. As much as they are YOUR kids, they are simultaneously HIS kids. If the kids are not in danger, you (general) don't have a say. No court is going to give one parent unilateral rights to determine who the other parent has around when the parents have joint custody. If it was going to be unilateral, only one parent would have custody. And the fool comment was simply un-called-for.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

VetteGirl wrote:
Who are you to say they don't care about their son?

Because, apparently, they know your BF and his ex better than you...

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Oughttabeworking wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Oh yeah. I had every right to screen who my ex was going to have around my kids. If you think differently you are a fool. Sorry, just the way it is.

I don't want certain things around my kids. Especially when they were younger.

Why would a parent NOT want to know?

You are way off base here, Lily. Your circumstances may have been different (wasn't your X a junkie?), but by and large, a parent does not get to choose who the other parent has around the kids. As much as they are YOUR kids, they are simultaneously HIS kids. If the kids are not in danger, you (general) don't have a say. No court is going to give one parent unilateral rights to determine who the other parent has around when the parents have joint custody. If it was going to be unilateral, only one parent would have custody. And the fool comment was simply un-called-for.

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Oughttabeworking wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Oh yeah. I had every right to screen who my ex was going to have around my kids. If you think differently you are a fool. Sorry, just the way it is.

I don't want certain things around my kids. Especially when they were younger.

Why would a parent NOT want to know?

You are way off base here, Lily. Your circumstances may have been different (wasn't your X a junkie?), but by and large, a parent does not get to choose who the other parent has around the kids. As much as they are YOUR kids, they are simultaneously HIS kids. If the kids are not in danger, you (general) don't have a say. No court is going to give one parent unilateral rights to determine who the other parent has around when the parents have joint custody. If it was going to be unilateral, only one parent would have custody. And the fool comment was simply un-called-for.

No I am not. It's called being a parent.

All those kids hurt or killed in those live in relationships are hurt or killed by the live in. (Not saying Vette is going to hurt or kill the kid. Just saying in general)

why would ANYONE who loves their kid take a chance like that?

Like NJN said, we spend more time finding out about the babysitter than the live in.

Oughttabeworking · Regular

Ohfour wrote:
Time alone meant that my ex could not leave my kids without asking me if I wanted them first. Period. He could hire anyone he wanted to if I refused his time, but that happened only once or twice, and his mother watched the kids.

A live-in is NOT a co-parent. Even a WIFE is not considered a co-parent. Period. If he wasn't with the kids and they weren't in daycare, he had to come to me first. And vice versa.

I just didn't take those chances with my kids. And I didn't have to. It's standard on the co-parenting plan here.

Ding, ding, ding!! That's it right there. He had to offer the time to you first. But if you couldn't accommodate that time, you didn't get to decide who the kids were with. He did. Because he is their dad. That's the whole point I was trying to make.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Would any of you hand your kid over to a stranger on the street?

No.

Yet you are saying they should sleep under the same roof with one.

Think about that.

You are divorced for a reason. Who broke the vow? Some one is no longer trust worthy in a divorce situation.

Judgement has been called into question by someone.

But let's just send a child home with them and the stranger they are sleeping with.

Ohfour · Hooker

And the POINT that I'm making is that I would NEVER EVER have let my kids go with someone I didn't know. I would have canceled plans, whatever I had to do to make sure that my kids were not with someone I hadn't even MET.

It's called parenting...

Oughttabeworking · Regular

lilyofcourse wrote:

No I am not. It's called being a parent.
All those kids hurt or killed in those live in relationships are hurt or killed by the live in. (Not saying Vette is going to hurt or kill the kid. Just saying in general)
why would ANYONE who loves their kid take a chance like that?
Like NJN said, we spend more time finding out about the babysitter than the live in.

So, a parent who doesn't parent like you did/would isn't a parent? How about all of the kids that are NOT hurt or killed by a live in? How about the ones hurt or killed by the bios? We spend time finding out about the babysitter because we have a choice whether to hire him/her or not. If we don't like the sitter, we fire him/her and hire a new one. We cannot fire the SO of the X. Even if we want to.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Ohfour wrote:
And the POINT that I'm making is that I would NEVER EVER have let my kids go with someone I didn't know. I would have canceled plans, whatever I had to do to make sure that my kids were not with someone I hadn't even MET.

It's called parenting...

Exactly!

Ohfour · Hooker

Oughttabeworking wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

No I am not. It's called being a parent.
All those kids hurt or killed in those live in relationships are hurt or killed by the live in. (Not saying Vette is going to hurt or kill the kid. Just saying in general)
why would ANYONE who loves their kid take a chance like that?
Like NJN said, we spend more time finding out about the babysitter than the live in.
So, a parent who doesn't parent like you did/would isn't a parent? How about all of the kids that are NOT hurt or killed by a live in? How about the ones hurt or killed by the bios? We spend time finding out about the babysitter because we have a choice whether to hire him/her or not. If we don't like the sitter, we fire him/her and hire a new one. We cannot fire the SO of the X. Even if we want to.

So we just let it be? Um no...

I took the necessary precautions with my kids...

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Our state laws changed drastically the first of the year. The courts are now forced to give equal custody to both parents unless abuse has been proved. That means a newborn must spend one week with one parent and the next week with the other parent. If the mother is breast feeding, to bad in the eyes of the court.
This is to force parents to co-parent cooperatively.
I have a very good friend who's grandson is now in a "forced co-parenting" case. Neither parent is allowed any say in how the other parent parents. It is a mess, IMHO.

Oughttabeworking · Regular

lilyofcourse wrote:
Would any of you hand your kid over to a stranger on the street?

No.

Yet you are saying they should sleep under the same roof with one.

Think about that.

You are divorced for a reason. Who broke the vow? Some one is no longer trust worthy in a divorce situation.

Judgement has been called into question by someone.

But let's just send a child home with them and the stranger they are sleeping with.

Unless the court says otherwise, you have no choice. Even if the "stranger they are sleeping with" doesn't spend the night, it doesn't mean he/she will never be around the kids.

Ohfour · Hooker

Oughttabeworking wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Would any of you hand your kid over to a stranger on the street?

No.

Yet you are saying they should sleep under the same roof with one.

Think about that.

You are divorced for a reason. Who broke the vow? Some one is no longer trust worthy in a divorce situation.

Judgement has been called into question by someone.

But let's just send a child home with them and the stranger they are sleeping with.

Unless the court says otherwise, you have no choice. Even if the "stranger they are sleeping with" doesn't spend the night, it doesn't mean he/she will never be around the kids.

They can be around, just not alone. I get to decide who spends time alone with my kids...as does their dad.

Oughttabeworking · Regular

Ohfour wrote:
Oughttabeworking wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

No I am not. It's called being a parent.
All those kids hurt or killed in those live in relationships are hurt or killed by the live in. (Not saying Vette is going to hurt or kill the kid. Just saying in general)
why would ANYONE who loves their kid take a chance like that?
Like NJN said, we spend more time finding out about the babysitter than the live in.
So, a parent who doesn't parent like you did/would isn't a parent? How about all of the kids that are NOT hurt or killed by a live in? How about the ones hurt or killed by the bios? We spend time finding out about the babysitter because we have a choice whether to hire him/her or not. If we don't like the sitter, we fire him/her and hire a new one. We cannot fire the SO of the X. Even if we want to.
So we just let it be? Um no...
I took the necessary precautions with my kids...

And since you did, your children were never around anyone that you hadn't pre-screened? Ever? Your X never had friends over (regardless of sex)?

Oughttabeworking · Regular

Ohfour wrote:

They can be around, just not alone. I get to decide who spends time alone with my kids...as does their dad.

Fair enough. But that is a different tone than how this started out. In the case of the PT conference, Vette was not going to be alone with the boy, I believe.

Vette · Owl drink to that!

WTF? How did this go from introductions to me being a child killer? You people are ****ing whacked, get bent.

Oughttabeworking · Regular

VetteGirl wrote:
WTF? How did this go from introductions to me being a child killer? You people are ****ing whacked, get bent.

I don't think it was meant that way, Vette. It was more a debate on what rights one parent has as it pertains to the other parent's parenting time. (Which, I realize, was not the issue to begin with).

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

VetteGirl wrote:
WTF? How did this go from introductions to me being a child killer? You people are ****ing whacked, get bent.

You didn't read what was written.

Not surprised actually.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

VetteGirl wrote:
WTF? How did this go from introductions to me being a child killer? You people are ****ing whacked, get bent.

I think you were left out of that part of the conversation. The thread morphed. wink Which is normal around here.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Oughttabeworking wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Would any of you hand your kid over to a stranger on the street?

No.

Yet you are saying they should sleep under the same roof with one.

Think about that.

You are divorced for a reason. Who broke the vow? Some one is no longer trust worthy in a divorce situation.

Judgement has been called into question by someone.

But let's just send a child home with them and the stranger they are sleeping with.

Unless the court says otherwise, you have no choice. Even if the "stranger they are sleeping with" doesn't spend the night, it doesn't mean he/she will never be around the kids.

See you are missing the point.

Meeting the live in would change that.

Meet them. Talk with them. Get to know them.

That isnt controlling. That is called being an involved parent.

Ya'll seem to be confusing the issues.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
WTF? How did this go from introductions to me being a child killer? You people are ****ing whacked, get bent.
You didn't read what was written.
Not surprised actually.

Like YOU do?

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

No one called Vette a child killer. We said that her BF ex is obviously not too concerned about much of anything...

NAOW · Vette's SS

lilyofcourse wrote:
Oughttabeworking wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Would any of you hand your kid over to a stranger on the street?

No.

Yet you are saying they should sleep under the same roof with one.

Think about that.

You are divorced for a reason. Who broke the vow? Some one is no longer trust worthy in a divorce situation.

Judgement has been called into question by someone.

But let's just send a child home with them and the stranger they are sleeping with.

Unless the court says otherwise, you have no choice. Even if the "stranger they are sleeping with" doesn't spend the night, it doesn't mean he/she will never be around the kids.
See you are missing the point.
Meeting the live in would change that.
Meet them. Talk with them. Get to know them.
That isnt controlling. That is called being an involved parent.
Ya'll seem to be confusing the issues.

And what if you don't like them?

Not a darn thing you can do about it. I guess you could try and take the ex back to court, but without a good reason I doubt a judge would forbid the ex from bringing his friends around the kids.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

They would probably forbid overnights and co-habitation. Its pretty normal.

NAOW · Vette's SS

You still wouldn't have any control who was around your kids. Just who stayed the night while they were there. The person you don't like could still be there from 7am to bedtime.

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

My ex and I never put that in our decree. We honestly didn't think of it. We both trusted each other enough to not bring skeezey people around our DD.

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

NAOW wrote:
You still wouldn't have any control who was around your kids. Just who stayed the night while they were there. The person you don't like could still be there from 7am to bedtime.

Exactly. All kinds of shenanigans can happen during the day.

Vette · Owl drink to that!

Southern_Belle wrote:
My ex and I never put that in our decree. We honestly didn't think of it. We both trusted each other enough to not bring skeezey people around our DD.

Then you clearly don't care if your child gets killed I guess.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
WTF? How did this go from introductions to me being a child killer? You people are ****ing whacked, get bent.
You didn't read what was written.
Not surprised actually.

Like YOU do?
flan

Seriously? Are you just going to follow her around and poke at her?

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

VetteGirl wrote:
Southern_Belle wrote:
My ex and I never put that in our decree. We honestly didn't think of it. We both trusted each other enough to not bring skeezey people around our DD.
Then you clearly don't care if your child gets killed I guess.

Yeah I guess so!

Ohfour · Hooker

It was very important to me who my children spent time alone with. He was not trustworthy. He made bad decisions. I didn't want that to affect my kids more than it already did...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Well, this thread has gone a bit off the rails. I still can't believe the kids mother hasn't requested to meet Vette long before now, but if I was divorced, I'm be damned before I'd be letting my ex tell me who I could spend time with, even if my kids was there.

A paramour clause regarding overnights - definitely. But, general time - no way.

Vette · Owl drink to that!

Ohfour wrote:
It was very important to me who my children spent time alone with. He was not trustworthy. He made bad decisions. I didn't want that to affect my kids more than it already did...

Well YOUR situation is not MY situation

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Here that no cohabitation clause is pretty common. My SIL made sure it was in her divorce decree. Her ex lived with a woman for three years before he married her. She had two girls by someone else that lived there too. So every other weekend she had to leave at a certain time and leave her girls there with him and then come back in the morning. My SIL would even drive by the house and call her son to check and made sure the g/f was gone. My SIL was a real piece of work.

DH didn't have that written in his divorce but when his nasty step father started abusing him the lawyers told us we could easily add it. They said no judge in his right mind would deny that. But they also cautioned us because they said when people do that sometimes the ex spouse will marry them just so they don't have to deal with it. So we didn't add it.

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

I was more concerned with him being mentally abusive to DD like he was with me in private. If other people were around he was totally different.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Lawyerlady wrote:
Well, this thread has gone a bit off the rails. I still can't believe the kids mother hasn't requested to meet Vette long before now, but if I was divorced, I'm be damned before I'd be letting my ex tell me who I could spend time with, even if my kids was there.

A paramour clause regarding overnights - definitely. But, general time - no way.

That's the thing. You can't keep them away unless you can go to court and prove that they are unfit to be around your child. You CAN get the overnights stopped but you can't really tell them who they can take your child around.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

I think if it was me I'd at least ask to meet her in the parking lot first and not in front of the teacher for the first time. It could be so awkward and why have another person be witness to that.