Ex-wives and Their Children's Step-Mothers
88Why Bitterness May Not Be What It Seems
The role of stepmother has its own set of challenges, and one of the most daunting of those challenges can arise when there is conflict between ex-wives who seem bitter and new stepmothers. Understanding the possible causes of an ex-wife's apparent bitterness may help stepmothers and their husbands address the problem in a way that makes the lives of all involved more peaceful, pleasant, and productive in terms of the best interests of the children.
Dealing with the problem of a bitter ex-wife can require different approaches, depending on the degree and nature of the apparent bitterness. If the ex-wife is truly bitter and vengeful there are times when dealing with the problem can only be handled through the courts. There can be times when the ex-wife's bitterness may be the result of her misunderstanding the motives or intentions of their children's father and his wife, so sometimes trying to open better lines of communication may help.
There can be times, too, when what appears to be bitterness on the part of the ex-wife (and more importantly, the mother of the children from the first marriage) may actually be something quite different. Sometimes when a second wife (particularly one without children of her own) assumes that an ex-wife is acting out of bitterness and vengefulness the reason for the ex-wife's behavior may actually be much less malevolent than it may seem.
Many second-time-around couples want very much to be a family and include the children of the first marriage. Well-intended second wives want very much to become close to their husband's children as well. Second wives without children of their own may look forward to having stepchildren but may not understand the feelings mothers often have. Second wives with babies/toddlers from the present marriage may be torn between the love they have for their own child and the love they'd like to have for their husband's older children. The stepmother with children of her own from a previous marriage may have difficulty relating to children who are very different from her own. In the home of the married couple both partners usually and rightfully take the role of making the rules, so while stepmothers may be perfectly reasonable in expecting certain rules of the house to be followed, sometimes rules-of-the-house can conflict - in the children's eyes and sometimes in fact - with who has the right to tell children what they can and cannot do in general.
Mothers of children from first marriages are often delighted to be out of the first marriage, and many are delighted that the husband they hoped would find happiness after divorce has remarried. When women hate their first husbands they usually don't care if those husbands remarry; so regardless of the terms on which a first-marriage couple finds itself, bitterness because an ex-husband has a new wife may not be as common as the bitterness that comes if that new wife creates complications in the children's lives or in the relationship between them and their father.
Most normal, good, mothers are, by instinct, protective of their children and the bond between their children and them, as well as the children's bond with their father. It is normal and natural for mothers to expect their ex-husband's second wife to build a nice relationship with children, be a good role model, and define what the role of stepparent should be (and many mothers believe it is a very different role from that of parent). When mothers appear to be demonstrating bitterness it can be because they believe the stepmother is trying to overstep her bounds. Just as mother cats are ready to protect their kittens, mothers are usually inclined to exercise their maternal instincts if they think someone may be trying to overstep bounds, even when that's not what a stepmother intends to do.
Mothers, too, often believe that events such as school plays and parent-teacher meetings should be opportunities for mothers and fathers of the children to show children that Mom and Dad are still the ones who show up, as always. Its a matter of increasing children's sense of stability and showing them that, when it comes to their lives, parents don't need to be married to still act as Mom and Dad when the occasion calls for it.
Sometimes in their enthusiasm to take on a new role as "parent" stepmothers can forget that the role of stepmother and the role of mother are very different. In their well intentioned wish to include their husband's children, stepmothers can at times act as if they forget that one nuclear family cannot be broken up and reorganized to form a new one or additional one. Once a nuclear family is broken up it is no longer the traditional nuclear family. The only thing that can help children feel as if their nuclear family is separated but not broken completely is to show them that in at least a few ways their original nuclear family does, at times, share something like the school play or parents' night.
Mothers often believe that fathers should make sure they spend time alone with just the children, and sometimes fathers, in their wish to rebuild the family they once had with another wife, forget to spend time with just the children. Sometimes stepmothers may, in fact, have very different values when it comes to children, and it would be a rare mother who would not wish to assert her own values her own way without the interference of someone that neither she nor her children chose to have in their lives. Some mothers may actually like the idea of their children's seeing their father in a nice relationship and seeing an example of a good marriage. They may be completely comfortable with their children's having half-siblings too. What can make mothers uncomfortable, though, is having to deal with any issues the children have as a result of (sometimes) their emotional issues not being addressed quite appropriately by a father or stepmother who may not understand what the child is going through. While there are certainly fathers who have an excellent understanding of human nature and their own children, it is not at all uncommon for fathers to have less understanding of their children's emotional needs than their mothers do.
A well intentioned stepmother wrote on a parenting site that she tried to put her heavy stepchild on a strict diet during two-week stays at her home. Her belief was that the child's mother wasn't feeding the child healthy foods and encouraging exercise, so she wanted to "educate" the child during visits. There are times when, maybe, a stepmother may actually be more correct about what would be better for a child, but that isn't the point when it comes to whether or not the child's mother has a right to resent, and seem bitter over, someone who - regardless of whether they're correct or not - has no right to assert her own values or even good nutrition practices over a child who, quite naturally, believes he has one mother and one father only.
Second husbands may marry women who are not at all like the wives they divorced, so the chances of having different values and practices between an ex-wife and a second wife are pretty good. A traditional mother and a New Age stepmother are not going to have common ideas about the children, and no matter what a mother's beliefs are about children she will not want someone with very different beliefs having influence over them. Second wives sometimes began their relationship with their husband before a divorce was final (or even discussed). Ex-wives often believe (correctly or not) that the relationship caused or contributed to the demise of their relationship with their children's father. Even when that isn't the case or when ex-wives don't believe that, there is the issue that many people see anyone who is willing to allow a relationship with a married person to begin at all as 1) lacking character or strength and/or 2) as being willing to be in the position of being "the other woman". Either way, thinking of the second wife this way can make an ex-wife think she is not someone her children should be around.
Finally, unless people are extremely wealthy, living expenses can often create a strain for couples and for divorced individuals regardless of who has custody of children. Ex-husbands can have demands on their finances as a result of the divorce. Ex-wives can often struggle to meet the financial needs of providing for children as well. The fact that neither Dad nor Mom can really afford that new prom gown may not affect Mom's wish to make sure her daughter gets a new gown, like all her friends do, because mothers sometimes have a better understanding of how important some seemingly "frivolous" things can be. As a result, mothers sometimes feel the need to ask for assistance from the father of their child even if they prefer they didn't have to. A father's inability or unwillingness to help pay for something like a prom gown can make a mother feel that her child's father is more willing to deny something their daughter sees as so important, so the mother may exhibit some signs of anger or frustration that look like "bitterness".
While there is no doubt bitter ex-wives exist in this world, much of what appears to be bitterness may often not be that at all; and the way to try to deal with such apparent bitterness may be to try to understand it more. Sometimes understanding the root of a problem can provide a guide when it comes to how to deal with that problem.
Expert Resources
- Divorce Online | Divorce Resources | Legal, Financial & Counseling - Divorce Articles - S
Divorce Online free divorce articles and divorce information on financial, legal, psychological, real-estate, and other aspects of divorce. You can turn to the Professional Referral section of Divorce Online to locate divorce assistance near you. - Help your Teen Adjust to a Stepfamily
Dr. Susan Bartell, author of Stepliving for Teens, gives parents steps to provide their teenager and new blended family with the best possible opportunity for success. - inStepMinistries.com
inStep Ministries: Our vision is to connect every single, divorced and remarried person to a community of faith. - Tips for Divorcing Parents
No guide can guarantee a way to steer kids unscathed through a divorce. Every situation — and every family — is different. But these commonsense guidelines might make the adjustment a bit easier. - Pediatric Advisor 2006.2: Divorce: Helping Children Cope
- http://extension.unh.edu/Family/Parent/SApubs/divorce.pdf
- Children and Divorce: Introducing your Child to your New Partner | FitWatch
It has been a few years and mom and dad are ready to date again. When should the kids be introduced to the new man or woman in your life? Here are some tips - http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZ4KZADH4C&sub_cat=0
- Helping Children Adjust to Divorce
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Mary, thanks for your comment. I don't doubt that once children are accustomed to having their step-mother in their life they some expect her to be at functions. Some, though, would enjoy just that much time with just their two parents.
Your comment makes it clear to me, though, that the piece should have clarified a few things regarding its purpose. Here's what I should have added (and will when I get the chance): All families, like the individuals in them, need to handle things in the way that is right for their particular circumstances, and their particular members. There are step-families that are made when children are preschoolers. There are children who had single parents and didn't have "super ingrained" identities built on coming from the "mother/father" family. Some children have lost a parent and welcome having someone to act as, say, their mother. The article should have clarified that it was aimed at preventing resentment and confusion for children (beyond early preschool years), who come from divorcing/divorced parents; and for whom the upheaval of having their parents' marriage turn their lives upside down is particularly upsetting.
I was not really "very biased", although I will admit to some bias when it comes to the article's intent. The article was based on having been exposed to a large number of people who have been step-children. The article is aimed at reducing unnecessary complicating, confusing, situations for some children (again, those for whom the up-ending of the only world they knew, and for whom being separated from one of their beloved parents, is particularly difficult).
On the matter of school acitvities, school activities come along once in a while. For children who are delighted to have a step-parent there, obviously the person should be there. Children, however, like having time with just one parent. They also like having time with both parents. A divorce eliminates all the other "just my parents" time for those children who still feel the need for that. The occasional school activity offers the opportunity for parents to give that one little bit of "just my parents" time to children who won't otherwise have it. Handled properly, it isn't a matter of "pretending that everyone is still a family". Children understand things when parents talk to them. When parents have solid communication with their child it becomes clear that nobody is pretending. Obviously, if a child wants a step-parent there that's one thing. On the other hand, there are children who secretly wish they could just be with their own two parents just one in a while, and that's another matter. It does not have to be confusing for children.
The "just school-related" setting can help children see that such "just my parents" time only happens when school activities involved, so they can see that this is not a day-to-day lifestyle thing of parents still sort of being together. School actitivies are clearly focus on the child, and having parents be there and just focusing on the child and activity can make it clear that it is "about the child" and not about the parents. Among the many step-kids and about-to-be step-kids I've known, I can think of one recent example of a graduating college student who said it "felt weird" to have the mother's fiance and the father together at the graduation. Obviously, if children are two years old when step-parents show up it wouldn't be the same for them. Having school activities means children are school aged. Kids of that age aren't stupid, and they can understand when parents explain the difference between a school activity and dinner every Wednesday night with just Mom and Dad.
I doubt - if you could interview all (or most) knowledgeable, skilled, counselors in the world, they would find anything wrong with the simple idea that, for those families to whom the article is aimed, having just the parents at school functions is a bad idea. If such a survey did, in fact, turn up beliefs that are contrary to mine on this one issue, then I do differ (and, obnoxious as this may seem, do think they may change their minds if they 1) really understood the context within which the idea has been presented and 2) think it out a little more).
I think, though, that you're incorrect in your statement that the article is "very biased". It is actually quite objective in that it was written by neither a step-parent nor a parent of children who have any step-parents. The aim of the article was to call attention to the needs of children when it comes to trying to make the "new life" that adults have built for them a little less confusing. Readers are, of course, welcome to disagree and/or think the article in junk.
On "You are expected to be a mother.....house." I'm not necessarily in disagreement, although one question may be, "expected by whom?". Even with that question, though, I'm not necessarily disagreeing. One point, though, is that "being a mother" (or "mother at this house") and "being the child's mother" can sometimes mean two different things (particularly for some children more than others); and there can be subtle differences in those meanings. It isn't easy to sort out those subtle differences, and the point of the article is to try - from an objective viewpoint - to help sort out some of those differences.
I think I have presented some ideas that will go against the grain of how many people may do things. Differing ideas are always welcome. If I think clarifying may help in some instances I'll try to clarify. If trying clarify won't help then differing ideas are still welcome.
I do think, though, that "separated families" or "dismantled families" (as they relate to being a child's sense of relationship to parents) have to be thought of as "broken" or treated as "broken". As much as adults involved may wish to eradicate absolutely all remnants of the original family and start a completely new one; when it comes to what parents do with and for their child (in their role as "parent" and ONLY in their role as parent), it is at least worth considering the possibility that a few remnants of "Mom and Dad as a parenting team" or "Mom and Dad as the only parents" may not be such a bad thing.
When people need to adjust to a new life it is often recommended that they "make a clean break", rather than keep going back to, say, the old neighborhood. That's what recommended when the old house was sold and the only choice is to adjust to the new one. Children of divorce, however, must find a way to reconcile the idea that their living situation will change, while their relationship with their parents (and their parents' feelings toward them) will not.
That's a fine line for a child to delineate because children are not mature, and they're in the throws of the divorce. The reality is there is no "going back to the old house". A divorce means "the house is sold". The trouble is that children may have a new situation, but they're supposed to know that their relationship with each parent will always be the same. When it comes to how children see their parents deal with them, as their parents, "making a clean break" is not necessarily something children should be expected to do. While they must make a clean break from their old living situation, the one thing that parents usually try to preserve for their children is that unique relationship of being their parents.
A clean break is what people are advised to do when something has ended. Comment continued.
Comment continued from above.
While children's earlier nuclear family situation has ended their relationship with the parents they've always known is not supposed to. The clean-break rule may not be the one to follow when it comes specifically to this relationship.
Children of divorce must learn the difference between making a clean break from their old living situation and old family and making a cleaning break from their parents' remaining the same parents as ever to them. They need to find that difference at a time when they're feeling in upheaval, when the adults around them aren't seeing things objectively, and among major changes in their lives.
If adults know how to find a way to help children have some sense of continuity (at least when it comes to their relationship with their parents) it just may not be a bad thing. It could send children that message that while everything has changed their individual relationships with their parents does not have to.
Changing a child's world is one thing. Introducing two new, different, worlds is one thing. Believing that the only thing to do is eradicate the few remaining remnants of a child's first relationship with his parents is another thing.
The world is full of different views, and they're all welcome here as far as I'm concerned. It's always good to present balance.
This is written with the slant that the biological mother is mature enough and secure enough to genuinely wish her ex-husband well in his life without her, and to not feel jealousy about the stepmother. That is so rare as to be practically non-existent!
Smirking Cat, thanks for the comment. Objective (and even critical) remarks make any hub have more substance.
Agreed that it presumes a reasonable degree of emotional maturity on the part of all involved - but I don't necessarly see that as "slant". There is emotional immaturity in all walks of life, and this article was not intended to address dealing with the unbalanced. It is common for articles that are aimed at a general audience to address the issues of people who don't have extreme emotional issues.
The intent was, in fact, to point out the misunderstandings and misinterpretations that can occur between even mature, well intentioned, people; and to point out the "legitimate" side of each part of the equation.
Your choice to call the children's mother the "biological mother" leads me to wonder if you are thinking of stepmothers who adopt their husband's children because the children's mother has had parental rights terminated or has voluntarily signed away parental rights. Most people choose to use the terms, "mother" and "stepmother" to describe the two different relationships in the more usual situations of marriage/divorce/remarriage. Obviously, if you're talking about those more unusual cases where the mother no longer has parental rights then you're not talking about a mother who is stable and emotionally whole.
I am a child/family therapist, and a step-mother of 5 adult children. One of the children was a teen and lived with me from 17-19 years of age. My husband and I had a baby when the youngest of the first group of kids was 19. It has been a very challenging road. I knew all the catch all srep-parent traps to some degree, but somehow, being decent and treating all my husband's kids with love and respect just garnered me more resentment. Before we were married, and before we had a child the road was much easier. My husband was the parent "in Charge" and didn't want to sit down with the son who lived with us, and have agreements, and house rules stated. His sone was away at boarding school, and so definitley needed some lessons on taking responsibility for himself. As time has gone on, I just foound out he has been telling lies about me, which explains why two of the other kids have turned on me after being very relational, and grateful saying they see how I encourage their father to be more present with them. So most recently we experience a betrayal from my step-son and daughter. My husband held his ground, and is being firm about what they need to do to make amends. I am after 4 years, out of energy for putting attention on my relationship with them, I have experienced so much criticism for every move I make, they even evaluate my mothering of their little brother, who they aren;t even around to see. Is it ok for me just to take a break from it all. While my husband isn't going to let them off the hook, he does of course want a reconcilliation. But the truth is that the straw broke the camels back for me, and I am over it. Alos, they have been mean to my baby, taunting him until he cried and then laughing at hi, I just don;'t want them around him if they cannot clear their resentment. I don't think I can help them with whatever it is they need to clear. I don't want to relate with them for a while at least, and I feel that after years of being so open and available, that thus is healthy. What do you think? I am also concerned for my son, I don't want him to look up to people who are emotionally abusive to him
thanks
AG
I don't think it's my place to have an opinion about your specific situation, so please know that I'm reluctant to even offer any thoughts at all. Since you asked, though, one thing did strike me; and that it that teenagers and young adults can be, in general, difficult people. At 19 someone is kind of old to be taunting littler siblings, but a lot of teenagers will do it. (A lot of immature fathers who think things are funny will taunt a little kid too.) If the 19-year-old is "a little on the young side" (immature) that could be part of it. When they get angry or upset with parents and tell (what seems to parents like) lies, sometimes they aren't intentionally lying. Sometimes they actually believe what they're saying.
A PBS special on the teenager brain (and how the prefrontal cortex is not fully matured until "early to mid twenties") noted how teenagers actually perceive things differently. If a parent says some "innocent" thing a teenager may take it it as meaning something else.
Young people in their early 20's tend to think they know better than parents, and, as you as know, they have opinions about everything. To make it worse, they don't really know why parents do certain things; and they don't ask either. I can't help but wonder if the "evaluating your parenting" thing is their just being their age and having all "the infinite wisdom and expertise" that being that age brings.
I don't know the level of betrayal that occurred (if they physically did anything to your child that's a whole separate matter). If it was a verbal betrayal, though, and based only on the information you offered (again, keeping in mind that this is only an opinion of a "nobody"), I think I'd handle it this way:
First, I'd make it clear to everyone involved that I wasn't going to tolerate people that old taunting my child. I'd also tell everyone involved that I wasn't in the market for anyone's criticism, so criticism had to stop.
I'd probably let everyone know that I wanted to "just start clean from now on", though, and I don't think I'd expect any apologies from anyone.
I would, however, talk to each stepchild, starting with the problem one. I'd ask him if he really believes what he said and why he believes it. From there, I'd try to straighten out any misunderstandings or misconceptions he has. Even if I couldn't reach "being friends" with him, I'd try to set up an "agree to disagree" type of arrangement, and agree for the time-being to stay away from any "hot button" issues "for the sake of the family".
(I went through a rough spot with one of my own sons, and since neither of us wanted to be arguing all the time we agree not to discuss the things that got us arguing. That left us talking only about "neutral" things and not "really communicating" - but it gave us time to relate in a non-hostile way, and over time (once he grew a little more mature) we gradually returned to being able to have normal communication. It just seemed that we couldn't go from fighting to being "all friends" without having that time to be "less than ideal but at least not fighting".)
I'd probably also talk individually with the others and try to straighten out any misunderstandings, set up the same kind of agreement, and generally tell them all that if we all "dial it down some" we could probably come out better in the end.
It would seem to me that if you make the "don't harrass the little one" rule, and the "keep your criticism to yourself" rule, those aren't too much to ask. I'd probably remind them that expecting those two, basic, things isn't asking to much; and I'd probably calmly explain to them how their little brother sees them as adults, and how damaging it can be for a little kid to have adults be mean to him.
I think most people (kids, young adults, adults) want a good family relationship; and I think most will cooperate if requested to refrain from a couple of things just to make the family environment more pleasant for everyone. I know, though, there are emotionally troubled people who aren't interested in such "teamwork", and I suppose if the stepchildren are that troubled then you would be reasonable to limit your time with them.
Again, I'm very uncomfortable offering any opinion on any of this; but then again, I didn't want to leave the question without a response.
There is one other thing I think may be worth mentioning: I've noticed in my own life how young people seem so much younger as I get older. For example, before I had a child of fifteen myself I thought fifteen was "pretty grown up", and I had all kinds of ideas about what should be expected of them. Once my own kids passed that age I realized how young fifteen is. While I once had opinions about what the parents of fifteen year olds should do, I started to understand why those parents didn't do what I had once thought they should.
It's the same with twenty-year-olds. When you're thirty-five or forty twenty seems older than it does when you're fifty. Since you had a baby four years ago I'm assuming there's a good chance you're not fifty yet. I'm not defending any bad actions of step-kids who are as old as yours are, but the older we get, the more we realize how absolutely immature and ridiculous twenty-year-olds or twenty-two-year olds can be. I guess my point is that I can't help but wonder if you're dealing with some of the criticisms and challenges that any parent of kids that age often deals with.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Yes, i have often thought that I am dealing with what alot of parents deal with, except I didn't get the perks of knowing them as babies... My husband and I do joke about it, that although they are so resistant to seeing me as a step mother, I am getting all the bruntthat a parent gets( as is he) of kids that age. I think I will set those two clear "rules" if we are able to get to that point. I think I have held my tongue so as to not be labelled the bitch, which it is inevitable anyway. I have tried many times to clear up any misunderstandings in the past, but the youngest one has not been interested, but then apologizes, I say lets start clean, as you put it, knowing that the misunderstandings will rear their head again but hoping that maybe we can have some healing from strating clean. But the uncleared issues continue to fester. It is difficult not being the parent, because I let my husband lead on this, and although I made suggestions, we went with his way. He also sees now, how his lack of clarity and communication about the changes that happened made things more difficult. I never thought about that I would ever be challenged in this way, never thought about what it would be like to have step kids, was happy about it at first even though I knew it wouldn't all be easy, I figured the most of them are adults. In regard to the relating, agree to disagree comment. We don't argue or fight or anything like that. Except for the unsolicited adviceabout child rearing which I correct, my step son has been very friendly for the last 1 1/2. All the while as it came out lately, that he cannot stand to be around me. Of course he can't, it takes alot of energy to be dishonest,and accept the changes too. I guess that I am saying that for me it takes more energy to have a pretense of what I would consider falseness, I am just not interested in relating this way. I have set the bar for him that if he wants to relate with me , then we need to sit down and have a conversation about the real issues. I don't mention the detals of the incident becasue they are only a reflection of the first few years we had together. I guess the pointto this all as I read over my lenghty discourse, is that I had been able to stay in my heart about all this for so long, really understanding alot of why what was happening was happening, but I am not on my heart now, I am not sure I can be that way again, and that saddens me. It is the curse of the step parent, because you can love them anyway, even if you don't care to anymore.
thanks again
I am going to reread some of what you wrote.
I know how difficult relationships can be. I was very close to someone who took teenage foster girls in after her husband died. She didn't want to be alone in the house, had a decent home to offer, and was feeling very pleased about feeling she could do something good in this world. When different girls would come to stay reality hit.
As you must know, teenagers who have been placed in foster care are either there because they've been neglected or abused, or else because they've gotten "out of control" with the fighting with the parents, acting up, etc. Some of them, more than others, had "good hearts" and tried to do well; but even then, so many of them stole other people's belongings, used drugs, fought with people, etc.
The woman who was the foster mother learned, though, that if she accepted them as they were and gradually tried to introduce more acceptable behavior after she had earned their trust (and friendship), they were more willing to listen to her views and "go with the program".
Of course, some of them continued their questionable behavior when they were out of the house, hid what they were doing, and behaved acceptably and even admirably in the house - but that was better than what they been doing when they were placed in foster care. This woman used to say how as long as they got along well in the home, went to school, didn't fight, and weren't high or drunk all the time she knew that may be all she could hope to accomplish. What often happened as a result of her approach, though, was that many of them would try very hard to get along and do what was right; and most of them thought very highly of her for her "understanding" and kindness.
It wasn't easy for her to just kind of know they lied a good part of the time, and it wasn't easy for her to come around to accept that (for example) if they were on the pill and didn't want to have any babies that was as good as she could hope for (since some of them had quite a wild past). It wasn't easy for her to have to overlook what she never would/could have overlooked in her own children (but, then again, her own children were not troubled, angry, people).
By learning to overlook some things she preferred not to overlook, however, she was able to gradually build that good relationship with girls who had, before then, not had any older person they'd listen to. She grew to really care about each girl, and most of the girls grew very attached to her.
It does take a lot of energy to have a pretense of getting along by always trying to remember what topics to stay away from, but I think it takes more energy to fight. What I've always found is that by starting with that tense mood of not hitting any third-rail topics in conversation, gradually the tension eases and it's more natural to just "tuck away" those touchy subjects.
As I said before, I don't feel I have a right to an opinion at all (and yet I keep giving one :) ), but there is one thing I think about. As a mother of three grown children, one of whom I adopted from infancy, I know one thing: There is no way I could marry someone with grown kids now (or teenagers) and love them (at least not in the first several years, if ever). I would hope we could all like one another, and I'd hope that over time we'd grow to be close (the way any friends or inlaws can become close). I can see how over years and years the people involved could end up loving one another.
I think, though, it's too much to expect to love one's stepchildren (if they're not babies or the littlest of kids); and it just seems to me that "liking" or "caring about" may be the most anyone can expect for a good, long, time. To me, though, that should be good enough for all involved. The love we have for the children we raise from infancy grows out of the fact that we're nurturing them and with them. (For me, it made no difference that I didn't give birth to one of them. It's the same, but he was infant when I got him.)
Most people say that when kids get past that "know all" age of early twenties, when they're just getting used to be adults, they tend to get closer to the parents again. They mature and get past that thing they're in at 20/22 years old. My daughter is close to her father and me, and she's a really decent girl, but she drives us both nuts with worry over some of things she does (and I don't fool myself into believing she isn't hiding a few things that go on either "so I won't worry").
Best wishes. I know it isn't easy. (When my son was 17 or 18, and we were going through our "disagreements" I couldn't imagine it ever ending - but it did.)
I wrote a few days ago and wanted to share your feedback with my husband. How Can I locate it?
Sorry, Andrea. I straightened out the problem.
This is an incredibly biased opinion. While I don't discount all of the information provided, I believe this presents information that generally speaking is not appropriate information. I am sorry but if the ex-wife wants functions together with the husband and the children only, too bad. If the kids spend just as much time with the step mother who helps with home work, and guitar, and skating, the step mother has a right to be at the functions too. This is the reality for many. The nuclear family is split into separate homes. It isn't proper to demonstrate to the children that the presence of the step mother is a problem. This mentality leads to disrespect by the children, and may also cause them confusion if they see the step parent as a parental figure to whom they turn to in times of need.
Jackie, thanks for the comment. Differing opinions are what make things interesting. :) It was never my intent to create the impression for the children that the step-mother's presence is ever a problem - to the contrary. I certainly don't think encouraging respect for the step-mother or their relationship with her are tied in to letting kids have some time with just their mother, just their father, or sometimes just both. Arrangements about who goes where with whom and when which combination of people will spend time together should not be something people "get emotional" over. My opinion is that all adults should do what is best for the children (which is encouraging postiive relationships with all adults involved but which is also recognizing that it is a rare child who doesn't want/need time with just each parent and/or at least the occasional time with just their own two parents (if the parents can be adult about it).
In a lot of cases the ex-wife would like nothing better than not to spend time with her kids' father, so it isn't about what ex-wives want. In divorce situations the adults (ideally - although it doesn't always happen) should remove themselves from what they, personally, prefer; and do what meets the needs of children.
This hub did not suggest banning step-parents from all events - just giving children the occasional time with just their own, two, parents. School meetings and events are logical opportunities for this, because it gives the parents a "legitimate" and shared reason to be in the same place at the same time (their child) without leading to children to think they'd be together under other circumstances.
This hub approach doesn't have to encourage disrespect at all, and it isn't likely to cause confusion. Children know the difference between their parents and other treasured adults who do things for/with them. Most kids manage to have great relationships with their grandparents, for example, without being confused. Children with married parents love having time alone with one parent. That doesn't take away from their relationship with the other parent. Why would having such "just me with them" time cause any problems with their relationship with a step-parent? "Just me" time with a step-parent can be a nice thing for children too.
The simple respect for the unique relationship between each child and each of his own two parents (assuming those two parents are loving, normal, parents; but sometimes even when they're not) is not something that should be viewed as a threat by step-parents. It's a reality (an unpleasant one for a lot of ex-spouses and their new partners); and it should be possible to acknowledge that reality for the child(ren) without doing damage to any of the adults' new worlds.
Ask anyone you know (who had a normal, loving, relationship with his parents) whether he loved spending time with each parent alone, and whether he absolutely loved some "just me" time with both parents but no siblings; and see how much he enjoyed such time. Ask anyone who felt they didn't get enough of that kind of time with his parents whether he always kind of longed for it.
It is entirely possible that the information in this hub is "not appropriate". It has been offered as a viewpoint that is, while unpopular perhaps, often overlooked by adults dealing with the "step" situation. I would invite anyone to, as I said, ask people to think back to their own childhoods; or else ask people who have grown up with step-parents their thoughts. Ask grown children of divorced parents what they wish they had as they were growing up.
Experts dealing with children of divorce will generally advise adults to aim to remove themselves from their own "issues" with the other parent and do what is best for the children. I, personally, do have bias; but it is in favor of the children. When adults must thrust children into a divorce situation (or when they choose to have children when they're single and then marry later), it wouldn't kill them (and in fact it's what they should do) to put aside their own wants and preferences and - once in a while at least - let children have a little bit of the kind of time they want/need from their own, two, parents. If a parent has a child who they honestly know does not want or need any time with his own parent alone, or with his two parents together on a rare occasion; then, of course, it would be different. The trouble is that children often don't even express their longing to have that kind of time with parents even when they have married parents.
It was never my intent to suggest that step parents should not attend big functions, like graduations or weddings. It's the smaller, less "crucial", events (like parents' day at school, the occasional baseball game) that are good opportunities to let a child have "just me and them" time.
It isn't about which adult has "just as much right" (although some people would agree that there are times when, lots of time with the child or not, a step-parent does not have "just as much right"). It's about what each and every child ought to have a right to - and, yes, I do happen to believe (based on kids I've known; and based on what I know is important to children in general) that each child ought to have a right to have "just me" time with each parent alone, and with both parents together. Unfortunately, children of divorce may have to settle for that occasional parents' day at school or occasional baseball game; and that isn't enough. It is, though, better than nothing.
Acknowledging the reality of the bond between children and their two biological parents (when those parents are normal, loving, parents), and acknowledging children's needs for certain types of affection from, and time with, them is not bias against step-parents; and it isn't saying there aren't some wonderful step-parents and wonderful relationships between kids and step-parents.
The idea that the child needs to spend time with just their parents after a divorce is absurd. It does not acurately reflect the reality of their life - that their parents are divorced, and are not getting back together. Most CODs - and I am one - will tell you that their fondest wish is for mom and dad to be together again. Having seperate outings where it is just the child and parents promotes the idea that they are a seperate, still intact family, and negates the idea that is reality - that there are now two families, each containing a biological parent who loves the child, and that there may be one or two stepparents who also love the child.
I also found this to be extraordinarily geared towards defending the whole negative set of actions that generally cause problems between a divorced couple as no one understanding the poor mother. What, the father is not hurt? The father is not exhibiting behavior that is just him being protective, not wanting other men around his child?
This is merely a whitewash to excuse the bad behavior of women who are divorced as nothing more than normal and natural and something to be excused and allowed.
When a divorce happens, the family is no more. There are two parents, and however many children. EVERYONE needs to find a way to accept the new reality, and this article gives a lot of "reasons" as to why the mother in the scenario should not be expected to accept the new lifestyle.
Parents can be good, committed parents who spend quality time with their kids and still be divorced without perpetuating the myth that they are still a happy family.
This whole article does nothing but handicap all those involved and give a free pass to the mother, no matter how poorly she may choose to behave.
Maggie, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Different ways of thinking are what make the world go around; and it isn't for me know which of us is right. I do, though, stand by what I said (in part, because I do have a different view, but also in part because some points were "extrapolated" from things I didn't say.
First, there is no "whitewashing" intended. The piece was intended to point out that what may appear to some people as "bitter" behavior in some ex-wives may not be. It doesn't attempt to address the genuinely bad behavior of some ex-wives, and it doesn't attempt to address fathers at all. In all relationships in this world there are times when one person's behavior appears to be one thing, when it really is something else; and much of the time a lot of unnecessary understanding and resentment occurs as a result.
As far as fathers not showing protective behavior goes, I didn't address fathers; so I didn't say they don't do that. Many do. Many fathers, however, are not the same as mothers are. Many women, like a lot of female animals in the animal kingdom, do have that extra instinct to protect their children (like a mother cat does). Again, I'm not saying no fathers have that instinct. Some do. Not all do, however, and in SOME cases even those who do MAY not have quite as fierce an instinct as SOME mothers do. Again, though, this piece was not about fathers at all.
In a lot of divorces nobody understands the "poor anybody else". The fact that I chose to address the issue of how easy it can be to misinterpret an ex-wive's motives/feelings is, granted, only one part of "the story"; but I never claimed to be addressing "all the misunderstanding in all of life". :)
I do disagree that a few parent-teacher conferences with both parents present "perpetuates the myth that they are still a happy family". Parents who communicate well with their children are not likely to have their motives misunderstood by children. Children are not stupid. They know the difference between "my two parents behaving like my two parents" and "my two parents must be getting back together because they're being civil at this school function". Parents shouldn't be afraid to spend any "shared" time with children. No relationship is supposed to be that tense and "off limits", and the reality is that parents are the child's parents. Many divorce people are very able to separate their role of shared parenting with the ex-spouse and any former spousal relationship.
Besides, after a couple of such "shared" situations the children would figure out how things work. Many people don't believe that parents must act like enemies in order to drive home the point to the children that their original family is a separated one.
When a divorce happens the marriage is "no more"; but the reality is that both parents remain the parents of any children from that marriage. That original, particular, family unit may be "no more"; but children usually continue to feel the same as always about both parents (unless one or both parents does/do something to change that). I happen to believe that parents can't tell their children, "We can't stay married, but we'll always be the same parents we've always been"; but then turn around and set limits that mean children can't ever be with both parents at the same time (unless, of course, a third party is present).
There are a lot of "realities" in a divorce situation, and one of them is that all adults involved should put aside their own feelings and do what is right for the children. Another one is that it is never a bad thing to try to understand the other people's feelings in the situation. Most parents would tell you, too, that the term, "biological parent", is generally used in cases when a child has been placed for adoption; and that just because an ex-spouse gets married that does not automatically "downgrade" a parent's "title" from "parent" to "biological parent".
I was curious about the "just me time". Does that apply to children of intact familys as well or only COD's? The COD can only have "just me time" with the biological parents? But not a biological parent and a step parent?
If the mother remarries and has more children, does the first COD still have to have the "just me time"? Does the COD always have to be treated differently when new nuclear families are created?
Allie, the intent of my article is to point out that children often appreciate "just me" with their two "own" parents once in a while; in addition to all the other "just me" times they can have with any combination of adults. The "companion" to "just me" (alone) time with parents in various combinations is "just us" time (just the siblings of the original family with parents in various combinations).
While, as above comments show, people have different opinions on matters related to the divorced family/step-family issue, mine is that children benefit from time with all those various combinations of people. I do think it's very important that children have at least some time with their parent and step-parent too. Having one-on-one time with just the step-parent is another thing that children (and step-parents) can enjoy/appreciate/benefit from.
I don't think the children of the divorce should ever be treated "differently". I think that all children should be treated "individually". In the case of a parent who has a first "set" of children and then adds to their family a later relationship, I think all the children need their individual times with parents. I don't think too many people would disagree with me when I say I don't think a parent should EVER divide up her two "sets" of children and say, "Today, I'm just taking 'Set 1' out to lunch." (!!) What a horrible thing that would be. Each individual child, though, does benefit from individual time with one parent, both parents, a parent and a step-parent, both parents and both step-parents (and then on to other-relative combinations); and if parents deal with children on an individual basis, who the "other parent" in any scenario is doesn't really matter.
There's only so much free time to spend with any one child in any week, even if one-on-one time is kept as simple as a trip to the store followed by a stop at for ice cream or as simple as working together on a special project. My intent was not to imply that five nights a week should be spent taking five different children out alone, and that weekend days should be broken up into two-hour segments in order to give as many children as possible that "just me" time. The main thought is that making it a point to give children those different combinations of individual time occasionally, but often enough that it isn't a "rare luxury" (or a secret wish never fulfilled), goes a long way.
In the case of your example of the mother who remarries and has additional children, I think all of her children need that "just me" time. Giving each of them that would mean treating them all the same. In the case of "just me" time with the mother and child's father at something like a parent-teacher's meeting/school function, I think such occasions of getting together with the ex-spouse are rare enough that "later" children would simply see the sense in their old sibling's own father being the one to attend, just as their own father would attend their more routine school events (or some things like Little League games). (Graduations and big events would be different, of course.)
If that mother keeps in mind that none of her children (each as much hers as the any of the others) should be treated differently, but that all should have their individual needs/personalities/situations addressed, then it becomes clear that there are times when any one, individual, child will have something that's "just theirs" going on (good or bad). Am I suggesting that COD always be treated differently? Not in the least. If a parent acknowledges each child's individuality, though, there will always be times when any child (regardless of parents, step-parents, or siblings) will be treated differently in a specific situation.
The later children of that mother have their mother and father to be together and spend time with them (individually and as a group) together. The main thought of this hub is to advocate for the COD, who may get to feel "treated less differently" if - just once in a while - they had a couple of hours here or there with THEIR own two parents. If they never get to have that, ever again, that may be the thing that makes them feel different from other kids (in their own family and elsewhere). Just a little such time can go a long way in letting a child know he will not forever be denied it. This isn't to say, though, that COD (or any other set of siblings) should ever be generally treated differently in day-to-day life.
So what you are saying with your reply is that the parents still need to pretend that they are an intact family because it is best for the children?
I am a COD, and I think your advice is entirely skewed and reeks of an ex wife who is not happy that her ex husband moved on and insisted on having a life with another woman, and dared to include that woman in family gathers. If this is how you feel, I can understand both the ex and his wife wanting to make sure there was nothing there to give you any indication that you were anything other than the mother of his child, and an ex wife.
If this is not your situation, you are to be commended for voicing the view of such a woman.
A healthy woman will not cling to the ideals of a marriage that is no longer. There are other, healthier methods to make sure the best interests of the child are met other than to make the step mom an invisible family member and promote the falsehood that nothing has changed and we are all still a happy family.
What wretched advice to help a blended family.
I have to agree, that this is horrible advice to give to anyone in a step situation.
Putting what a child wants above a marriage is a ridiculous notion.
After a divorce, a child still has both their parents, but those parents are not a solid unit any longer. And, yes, what if there are half siblings that come along? Is Dad supposed to pat them on the head and say "Bye now, I am going to hang out with my other kids and their Mom and leave your Mom here alone."
What does that say to those children about the stability of their family?
What if Dad has custody and Mom has visitation? What if step-mom is mom in her home, and that is where the child spends 95% of the time? If she is raising the child 95% of the time is she supposed to pretend like she really has no say over the child for plays and choir concerts?
What about step-dads? Are they allowed to possibly teach step kids how to ride their bokes, but not allowed to go to a bike race the step child is in... since that should be time his step child spends with his wife and her ex-husband alone?
Completely ridiculous and not very well thought out.
P.S. I am both a biological mother (three times over) a custodial step-mother AND TTC a child with my husband, so, I see this from all the angles. I would never tell my ex husband he couldn't bring his SO to my children's events anymore than I would sit out for my step daughter's events.
Maggie, I don't happen to be in the situation you describe. My kids have no step-parents and neither their father nor I have to worry about second marriages.
I'm not suggesting anyone pretend anything, and if someone has difficulty grasping the idea that it is possible to do some little thing that may be good for the children without pretending things are anything aren't, it is their difficulty being able to sort out the differences (or at least the implications of what I've said).
As I stated in the original hub, it isn't often a matter of an ex-wife "clinging to the idea of a ideal marriage". Again, it's possible for people to do something they think is good for the children without "clinging" to anything other than the wish to do something that just may be healthy for their children. If someone doesn't agree it's healthy, that's, of course, that person's opinion and he has a right to it. I have no problem with someone's disagreeing with the idea of that particular idea, although I do stand by it.
The "peripheral" comments, however, are just plain incorrect. You assumed I'm an ex-wife with kids who have a step-mother. Wrong. You've assumed that what I meant was people "need to pretend", and that it is not, and never was, what I meant. You assumed that I don't think family gatherings that include all the adults involved aren't positive. Wrong again. That's not what I think at all. You've assumed I suggest making the step mother "invisible" - again, nothing could be farther from what I've said in the hub or in any of the comments that follow it.
There are two main points to the hub. One is that what may look like "bitterness" on the part of some ex-wives may actually have nothing to do with bitterness and may, instead, simply be associated with the mother/child bond that is unique. Or, even if someone acts bitter, there is SOMETIMES a justified reason for anger. The other point is that the parent/child does not change (unless a parent does something to diminish it); and that children have needs with regard to attention from their parents. Acknowledging those needs by occasionally "throwing the child a bone" and letting him have the OCCASIONAL baseball practice or parents' day at school with just his own parents doesn't have to mean more than just giving him that much (maybe every few months) once in a while.
It's a nice thing to do, and it could mean a lot to a lot of children. It shouldn't be seen as a big, giant, horrible, deal that everyone has to feel insecure about and that everyone has to feel threatened by.
There are many parents who would believe that doing such a thing is in the best interest of the children. Other people don't believe that. The world is full of differing opinions; although I am confident that if anyone truly understands my points it is unlikely anyone would find anything seriously wrong with parents doing such a thing. If someone "imagines onto" what I've said things like "pretending the marriage is fine" (even though that's not what I said), then, of course, they will disagree with what I've said.
I do - really - appreciate that people take the time to add their views, though. Having lots of different viewpoints on display is a great way to shed sunlight on an issue like this. :)
MH, someone previously brought up the issue of other children from the second marriage; and I addressed that in my response. No, I certainly don't advocate father's doing what you said in your comment and going to "hang out" with the other children. You make it sound like my hub suggests fathers take off every few nights and live at the other house. Anyone who is objective enough to read the hub without adding exaggerated intent of it will see that's no what I suggest at all.
The comment about whether step-fathers can "teach a child to ride a bike" is another comment that "imagines onto" the hub nothing I ever suggested at all. The hub is not about being "anti-step-parent relationship". It also isn't about whether step-parents have their own version of challenges and incidents of being misunderstood.
The first marriage ends (and most people from first marriages are well aware that those marriages are dead long before the divorce papers are signed). There is a difference, however, between a first marriage being dead (and even the ex-spouses hating one another at heart) and whether or not the relationship between children and their parents is dead along with it. That's the challenge of these situations - helping kids know their parents "are still their parents" and "still feel the same toward them" within the context of a divorce.
If the father has custody and the mother visits the home, then obviously it would be nicer for the children to have a chance to visit with their mother; but if there is supervised visiting, then that's not a "normal" situation and anything I've suggested wouldn't apply. My hub was aimed at "normal, loving" parents - not parents who have supervised visitation for some reason.
Because the hub did not cover every possible scenario there can ever be in life, that doesn't mean that any number of things were not thought out. What is not included in the hub doesn't necessarily indicate "not well thought out". Whether or not a step-parent "is allowed" to teach a child to ride a bike has nothing to do with my point about ex-spouses appearing bitter when they may not be, or about children liking to have their parents to themselves once in a while (and I don't happen to think that giving them that - once in a while - is a bad idea).
Keep in mind (and go back over what I said previously) that I'm not suggesting step-parents miss the big events. I've suggested that a good way of letting children have a little time with their parent is to use the less important events (like the occasional baseball practice or "together" watching of the dance class) as a way to do that. What message it would send with regard to the stabillity of the family just may be this: That parents can divorce but still give their children the occasional time with just them, together, without it being a giant "third rail" kind of thing; and that new families can then be built without making children feel as if their original family structure (or as if the idea that they have one kind of relationship with their two own parents) are dirty words.
I disagree with whoever said the idea of putting what children want ahead of the marriage is ridiculous. There are times (not, of course, on the big issues, like where to live) when what parents do is put what their children want ahead of what they, themselves, want. Good, loving, parents don't see doing that as putting it "ahead of the marriage". They see doing something that may be good for the child as a shared parenting effort; and shared efforts and decisions usually contribute to the good will and friendship of all involved (married or not).
Someone else on here said that all COD wish they could be with both parents. All children love time with both parents. Spending an hour and a half at a baseball practice every few weeks really shouldn't be seen as threat to a second marriage; so if parents show up as a "team" every once in a while, as a way to give the child a nice couple of hours, that's not "putting what the child wants ahead of the marriage". It's considering what any child may just kind of need every once in a while, and deciding that (even if the child can't have both parents together all the time) the occasional hour and a half just may be better than nothing.
Again, and as always, I really do appreciate the differing opinions. I do, however, have to point out when someone disagrees with something that I didn't say or didn't mean. Writing online means being prepared for the "you're an idiot" comments; but the good side of many comments is that do give the writer a chance to further clarify. If, after clarification, someone still disagrees that's what makes things interesting. I just don't want people disagreeing or calling "ridiculous" things that I neither said nor meant.
I wrote a book on step-parenting. I was very passionate about the subject a few years ago. Quite simply, an ex wife who has a problem with the new wife attending functions - has not moved on. My husbands ex-wife still clings to the notion they are a nuclear family, even after seven years. No-body speaks to each other and the child has been harmed greatly by her mothers bitterness. I have tried for the child's sake and wanted harmony but I ended up having to create boundaries. In the end she was told not to telephone my home or come to our front door. Co-parenting with someone with such bitterness is out of the question. The woman I speak of is a professional, highly paid career woman and should know better. Consequently, the father and his child do not see a lot of each other and we are happily living in another town far away from conflict and bitterness.
So - ex wives take a note: If you want the father of your child to be involved in their lives and attend soccer matches I strongly advise you be on your best behaviour and accept the fact he has re-married and do the best you can to get along with the woman who is actually helping you care for your child. If you cannot do this then be prepared for him to walk away from conflict with you. So, to put it bluntly, stop being childish about school functions or ultimately your inability to move on will cause a wedge between your child and his father. And if you truly love your child you will put their happiness above your own hurt and respect the fact your ex-husband has a new wife (I know this may be hard) but in the long run it will be easier as you will have well balanced happy children and hey - maybe you might meet someone lovely too.
Jasmine
It surprises me that there are so many people who seem to have difficulty understanding that there can be such a thing as healthy, well adjusted, moving-on, people (both spouses and any step-parents) who may simple like to do something (every once in a great while) to do something that's just kind of nice (and that just may be helpful) to the children. The world is full of well adjusted, mature, objective-thinking, adults who would not worry that the occasional hour here or there would mean anything other than doing something for the sake of the children.
This hub was not aimed at all the people who can't step outside of their own emotions and insecurities and move on after divorce. It was about those ex-mothers who have more than moved on and who may be seen as "bitter" when they're just not.
Yes, any idea of two parents going to some relatively small-importance school or after school activity (again, not something like graduations or dance recitals) is a childish one. That's because it is what children often wish they could have once in a while. Giving children who may need to have that occasional hour here or there what many wish they could have is not the childish thing. It is the mature thing. Mature, sensible, intelligent, parents would be able to give their child that much without allowing it (or the child's wish for them to be together all the time, which often passes anyway) to turn into anything bigger, anything that should be reason of concern to anyone, or anything even remotely linked to "not moving on".
I have a question about dealing with the bitter ex wife. My new husband's ex, and the mother of his children, causes problems, without fail, every weekend we have them. These problems are as follows:
45 minutes late picking them up, forgetting to send rx meds for the child with ADHD, not informing us one child has been sick and is on rx meds and why, not sending proper clothing in suitcase, no jacket, shoes, enough clean clothes, etc., screaming at my husband when he asks questions about the ADHD child's doctor visits. constantly requesting changes in holiday visitation scheduling (the ADHD child's Dr. says he needs stability and routine), allowing the children (under 10) to watch R rated movies and play R rated video games, asking us to take custody of the children for 2 0r 3 years while she goes back to school for another degree, telling the children this will be happening before confirming it with us, then changing her mind because she still wants to claim the children on her income taxes, the list goes on. HELP!
Can anyone who has experienced these problems offer any advice or help? We're going out of our minds here dealing with this woman. Is mediation an option we should look into? Any suggestions on where to look? Is any of this covered by the courts, do we need to go that route again?
Thanks in advance,
TheStepMother
This isn't very polite, but it doesn't sound like she's necessarily a bitter ex-wife. She just sounds like an irresponsible jerk. :) I don't have experience with any of those things you mention, and I'm guessing other people who do may have offer ideas.
In the meantime, I'm going to take a stab at what I'd do with that kind of situation (just in case nobody else with experience sees your comment in the near future).
Not sending enough clothes, not sending medication, not wanting to make sure the kids' father knows they've been sick (so watch out for certain things), and not understanding that the child's father has a right to want to discuss the child's ADHD, are not the usual behaviors of a "normal" mother. "Normal" mothers with normal maternal instincts are more often "guilty" of sending too many clothes to cover all possible weather events, maybe seeming to make pests of themselves by over-talking or over-writing notes about health problems, and making sure anyone dealing with their child understands something like the child's ADHD as completely as possible (and is willing to try to do what is right for such a child).
I'm not sure an attorney would say the above things are something to go to court over, but I'm wondering if your husband asked his attorney to write a polite letter to the ex-wife (copies to her attorney), pointing out an acceptable level of cooperation, may help. Maybe she's just too stupid to realize, or maybe she's just too irresponsible to know any better.
I'm wondering if getting in writing something like, "These x number of things are creating problems for the children and their father during visits, and we're requesting that you simply do the following, which would be in the best interest of the children:" Then a clear, concise, and polite list of what is being requested could follow. If it works, great. If it doesn't, and if your husband did want to try to make an issue later in court, it could be said that she has been notified in writing with these reasonable requests and, for some reason, has refused to cooperate.
Reminding her in writing that the child's father should be able to ask questions about the child without having screaming (particularly in front of the children) may be something that could go in this "low key, polite, but no-nonsense" letter too. (If your husband can't get an attorney, maybe he could write a polite, reasonable, letter himself - and keep copies in case he needs them later.)
I'm sure someone will see this as "judgmental" of me, but I don't think any "regular" (normal) mother would even consider giving up custody of her children in order to go to school. I suppose I can almost sort of understand that she may have "run that idea" by the children before talking more about it, but having the idea at all makes me wonder about such a mother.
I can see that requests for switching around holiday plans can be inconvenient and aggravating; but I don't necessarily see requesting changes as doing anything that would detract from the child's sense of stability. Stability is something children need all year long; but at that same time, I almost wonder if changing holiday plans would do little more than throw off the child for that day. Holidays have a way of throwing off even "non-ADHD" kids; but, to me, in the scheme of the rest of the issues, I don't think the holiday requests is as "main an issue" as the others.
Isn't there some way everybody could discuss who wants the children at which relatives houses, at their houses, and for what events; and then find some way to sort of work things out? Couldn't such a conversation be approached from the standpoint of, "Look, the kids enjoy such-and-such and such-and-such. Can't we figure a way to be fair to everyone involved - but then just stick with that?" I see the holiday issue as a separate thing from the other, more routine, problems.
One thing your husband may want to consider is making it clear that if she doesn't make some effort to be more responsible and cooperative (for the sake of the children, and only when that's truly the legitimate issue at stake) he will file for custody of the children on the grounds that she appears to be attempting to "infringe on his rights as a parent" (and THAT, I do know, is something the courts frown on). Of course, he and you have to be prepared to really do that if that's going to be the threat.
I suspect there's a chance that a lot of attorneys would say, "We can't get involved with lifestyle choices" with regard to the R entertainment. The US courts and legal system can be very aware of "lifestyle differences" and reluctant to involve themselves in some things.
If the mother is unaware of the sense in rating some things "R", maybe that, too, could be mentioned in a letter as an "extra" thought, separate from the more clear-cut "right" requests for enough clothing and medication.
Something else is that maybe the mother is not capable of being organized enough to make sure the kids have what they need. Another way to work around that would be to keep a few sets of clothing at your house (either ask the mother to send spares that can be left, or pick up a couple of necessities to keep at the house. You could also ask that some medication be sent and kept at your house (and maybe an attorney would be effective at having that kind of request complied with, in view of what the issue is).
In fairness to the mother, there's the chance she's assuming that the child's father is happy to be with the children; and would have no problem with her being later than planned to pick up them. To me, if she were having them ready for him to pick them up for visits, that would be more of an issue. I know there may be times when people plan to go somewhere after the children leave; but the other side to that (in my opinion) is that visitation is pretty much too structured an arrangement for any parent, and couples who are able to work together on a less formal arrangement are probably happier.
The above ideas are things I've offered based on the idea that your husband has already tried the "friendly discussion" route to no avail. I suppose, if it were I, I'd start with my own friendly and polite letter (copies secretly to the attorneys involved); trying to explain the problems some of the issues are causing. If that didn't work, I'd then ask an attorney to send one. From there, the attorney could advise about any next steps.
I find this opinion and article to be extremely biased as well. The author seems to place a lot of blame on the stepmother and say that if things don't go well, then tough luck. I am a stepparent, and I do not have children of my own. However, I found many of your comments and suggestions appalling.
When our stepson comes into our home, that is my home. Yes, I do expect him to engage in certain rules. Also, I strongly disagree that the father and mother should attend school events while the stepparent stays home. This confuses the child greatly. It places the idea into the child's head that there may be a possiblility that mom and dad will get back together, even when there is no realistic possibility of that happening. Further, this action belittles the stepparent in the child's eyes and shows that they are not as important in the family unit.
netraine, thanks for the comment. It's through all kinds of comments (not just any that may agree, which on this hub certainly aren't very present) that readers get to read all opinions/sides to any issue.
The hub was not intended to say anything about step-mothers at all. Just as there are wonderful fathers and fathers who are jerks, and wonderful mothers but also mothers who are jerks, there are wonderful step-mothers and step-mothers who may be jerks. Having said that, I really believe that a good part of the time nobody involved is really a "jerk". A good part of the time, it can just be a matter of nobody involved truly understanding the side and feelings of the others. Saying that "all ex-wives or mothers are not bitter and horrible" is not saying that "all step-mothers are" or that "some ex-wives are not". It's simply saying, "These are the legitimate concerns of SOME ex-wives/mothers, and they have nothing to do with bitterness or wanting the husband divorced back".
I disagree that if "Step-Mom, Mary" doesn't show up at one of the "less significant" events (like the occasional Little League practice or routine game, or the Wednesday afternoon dance class) it is says anything about "Mary" at all. As I stated previously, I have not suggested that step-parents not attend the bigger events, like school plays, dance recitals, or All Star games). I don't think that giving children that OCCASIONAL (not "regular") time to have just their own two parents has to send a message that parents may back together. Children often known better, and many are actually happy their unhappy parents have separated. Making sure they don't misread the situation can be as simple as simply letting them know that divorced parents occasionally end up in the same place at the same time (without a spouse), and that doesn't mean they're getting back together. Children who are not raised by parents who "belittle" others don't generally see things as simple and ordinary as "Mary" not happening to always be there as "belittling Mary". Sometimes "belittling" is the soul of the person who feels belittled (not always, of course, but sometimes).
All rules are not alike. I agree that a step-mother certainly has the right to expect the "no shoes on the couch" kind of rules to be followed by all. I don't happen to believe that step-mothers have a right to try to impose something like their distaste for black rock jerseys on a step-child. I do think such things belong to the child's father and mother.
With every respect for the differing opinions of others, when I get e.mails that comments on this particular hub have been made, I have to kind of laugh at the way I "approach with a touch of fear and trepidation". :) Nothing I've ever written has received so many angry comments. :) One day I may write about the challenges of step-mothers or of second-time-married fathers - if I dare :).
The perceived "bitterness" of ex-wives/mothers (whether it is genuinine bitterness or only perceived) is generally an issue when perceived by the ex-husband and his second wife. Saying that sometimes SOME ex-wive's perceived "bitterness" may not really be bitterness at all isn't "blaming step-mothers for when things go wrong". All it's saying is that sometimes the ex-wife/mother's real "issues" (not related bitterness) can often be misunderstood.
In divorce/re-marriage situations people who are mature enough to want/be able to step back and try to understand the very legitimate "issues" of any of the others may not be all that common. Understanding the legitimate "side" of other people's concerns/challenges (no matter which "version" of "other" anyone is) is a good thing (particularly when the aim of adults is to BE adults, step back from themselves a little, and at least TRY to do what will create a more harmonious, understanding, situation (if for nobody else but the children's sake). When things go wrong, or just seem wrong, one of the best ways for adults to make things better or even right is to try to understand one another.
The fact that this hub only addressed SOME ex-wives/mothers (who aren't bitter, the way some think they are) doesn't mean it implies that step-mothers and fathers of the children don't also have their own "legitimate" challenges/concerns. They just weren't the focus of this particular piece of writing.
I agree with Maggie all the way. I am the Ex-wife and Step-mother. And as a mother of two, I am pleased and blessed to have another female who can show my children love. And I have been blessed with two step children whom I dearly love. Even though all four children live with me and my husband, I wish my husbands ex-wife would try to be more thoughtful for their children and deal with her bitterness without hurting the kids. I belive ALL kids need unconditional love, who cares where it comes from. Love is the greatest gift we can share, and reguardless of how she feels I will continue to love her children completely and unconditionally. And feel if she weren't so bitter and jealous she could enjoy the beauty of parenting.
meh2cents, as you may be able to understand if you've read the comments here, it's always with a little trepidation that I return to this hub to see a new comment. :)
The fact that you are NOT a "bitter ex-wife and mother" kind of makes my point exactly; and the original point of this hub was that not all ex-wives and mothers are unreasonable, bitter, trolls who don't care about what's right for the children and/or want the ex-husband back. I never said that there is no such thing as a "bitter ex-wife and mother" (and apparently, your husband's ex-wife is one). I just wanted to make the point that not all ex-wives are bitter, and that sometimes even if they appear to be, it may not be what it appears.
With all due respect to Maggie, though (and, of course, you have your right to agree with her, and I respect that too), she twisted things, misinterpreted things, imagined I meant things I didn't say, and generally kind of missed the whole point of the hub and misinterpreted a whole bunch of things. This isn't a insult to Maggie. I'm guessing she and I just may be people on "two different wavelengths", which is usually the problem when there is such misinterpretation and misunderstanding in communications. (I mean, she even made up a whole scenario about my having some ex-husband who "has moved on" with a new woman! If I were in a situation like that I probably would have mentioned it, in view of the topic.)
I appreciate all comments, though. It's always nice that people take the time.
I agree with you that mothers should appreciate it when their children have a nice step-mother who can be a nice addition to their lives.
Very well written hub. I am getting remarried in a couple of months and am currently dealing with his bitter ex-wife. It is tough to make her see I do not want to replace her and only want the best for her children.
Ashley Joy, thanks for taking the comment. If there were a prize to be given out for "First Comment That Doesn't Seem to Wish There Were A Way to Throw Some Rotten Tomatoes As Well" - Your comment would win that prize. :)
Congratulations on your upcoming marriage. Chances are a lot of matters with the ex-wife may smooth out over time. (Hopefully, anyway..... :) )
It seems I am the only one who sees this -- but personally, Lisa, I think your article was extremely well written and fair! You've made it inordinately clear you were speaking about special school events to which kids of a certain age only wanted their two parents present. Overwhelmingly, the step moms seemed to want to ignore that their step children sometimes just want to have their own parents present. They seemed to insist that the children learn to deal with reality, and expect the children to adapt. You, bless your heart, repeatedly stated the focus should be on the kids who had undergone their parents' divorce, what a child could easily experience as a traumatic event, rather than on what the step moms wanted, or perceived to be the only family.
Like you, I've heard many of the kids of a divorce say they just wanted to have some "me time" with their parents. Those kids weren't denying that one or each of their parents had remarried. They also knew their parents had "moved on" to new relationships. But they, just like parents of intact families, wanted their own parents to see what they had achieved, or what they had become. For example, my nephew, son of my sister and her ex-husband, was pleased as could be to have both his parents attend his Social Studies Fair where he won the first prize. My sister later said she felt as if he was trying to communicate, "See, some good came from each of your genes." I think it's more likely he just enjoyed having each of them to himself for a couple of hours while each of their new spouses did other things with the rest of the kids. Then again, maybe he just wanted to be in a situation in which he wasn't compared to the rest of his siblings because his work had already been compared to the rest of his classmates. In any case, I doubt it caused the spin-off families undue harm.
Stargazer, I have joked (both on here and off) that when I get the e.mail that says a comment has been left on this particular Hub, I approach with "trepidation". :) I know everyone will not like everything anyone ever writes, but the vitriol that has pretty much been all that this Hub has brought has really surprised me. I think your comment may make me cry. :) (not quite - but close) This Hub has been on here quite some time, and while I do respect that others won't always agree with what any of us says, I've never quite understood why this Hub has so often been met with so much misinterpretation/misunderstanding.
It's nice to know that I (along with those grown children of divorced parents) am not the only one who thinks the occasional couple of hours with one's own two parents isn't much for a kid to hope for.
Thank you for your kind words.
Stargazer, I have joked (both on here and off) that when I get the e.mail that says a comment has been left on this particular Hub, I approach with "trepidation". :) I know everyone will not like everything anyone ever writes, but the vitriol that has pretty much been all that this Hub has brought has really surprised me. I think your comment may make me cry. :) (not quite - but close) This Hub has been on here quite some time, and while I do respect that others won't always agree with what any of us says, I've never quite understood why this Hub has so often been met with so much misinterpretation/misunderstanding.
It's nice to know that I (along with those grown children of divorced parents) am not the only one who thinks the occasional couple of hours with one's own two parents isn't much for a kid to hope for.
Thank you for your kind words.
This article does not sound like it is based in very much reality or real experience. It's true that experiences vary, but what is described here sounds really strange and as someone else wrote, pretty much non exsistent. My 12 year old step daughter is hurt if I even hint that I might not be able to make it to her play or school event (sometimes I would rather not attend because her bio mom is so hostile and it just wears me out). Her mother travels all week (against the advice of my step daughters therapist), slaps her in the face when angry, is too tired to spend time with her when she is home from traveling, and bad mouths my husband and I which traumatizes my step daughter emotionally. Her extreme hostility and vindictiveness have nothing to do with concern for my step daughters well being. It is about control, and just being a bitter woman for reasons specific to her own life and having nothing to do with me, my husband or my step daughter. It's also about money. This is a biological mother who uses, abuses and manipulates her daughter to get what she wants for herself, and who bullies, punishes and lashes out at anyone who she feels stands in the way of getting what she wants. Anyway, I too feel that this article is biased and one dimensional. It actually sounds a little bizarre to me.
oftheplains, thanks. I do appreciate anyone taking the time to comment. The point of this Hub is not to address the issues of people who, like your husband's ex-wife, appear to be "mental case/abusers" who slap their child in the face (and whatever else). It is not to say that all ex-wives (or husbands or step-mothers) are absolutely wonderful, well adjusted, people. The aim was to point out that - when the people involved are normal, well adjusted, reasonable, people there are times when some behavior could appear otherwise, simply because it can be misinterpreted or misunderstood.
With regard to the point about your step-daughter wanting you to attend things: The point of this Hub was never to say that step-children don't want their step-parents to attend things. It was to point out that sometimes some children do long for a little "just us" time with their own two parents. Again, the intent was to address well adjusted people (and they are a reality and do exist) who happen to make up the "group" of husband, wife, ex-wife/mother and any children.
Regardless of who the people are or what situation they're in (separate from divorces and second marriages), there are always times when generally well adjusted people can seem unreasonable or otherwise "off" when, in fact, the problem is that others do don't understand their real motives or reasons for seemingly bad behavior. Saying that this type of misunderstanding can occur among well adjusted, reasonable, people is not saying anything - one way or another - about people who are "mental cases" or have personalilty problems.
For every divorce that happens because one partner is "out of their mind" or "horrible", there are other divorces that happen between two normal, well adjusted, people who want to do what's right for the children (and after the anger passes, who want the other to build a happy, new, life). There are also times when two reasonable, well adjusted, divorced people may discover that a second spouse is actually the one who may be a little unreasonable (look at a few of the comments above, and see how many look like they're interested in anything but what they want). Again, this Hub addressed only those times when the people who divorced are generally normal, reasonable, people; but may look less than reasonable because they're misunderstood. It doesn't address second-spouses/step-parents at all, beyond acknowledging that they are the ones who have to deal with what may only look like a "bitter ex-wife/mother".
Because your experience is apparently from the viewpoint of someone who has to deal with a "mental case/child abuser" it may seem bizarre to you to imagine that not everyone in the world, and not all ex-wives/mothers, are like that person. There's nothing at all bizarre about mature, reasonable, people (even when they've gone through a divorce and all the anger and misunderstanding that surrounds it).
If I had written a Hub, "Why a pain in your chest doesn't necessarily mean a heart attack"; and then mentioned how indigestion, respiratory infection, or muscle pulls can cause pains the chest, nobody would accuse me of being "biased". If I further clarified (either in the article or comments), "This doesn't mean your chest pain is not a heart attack either, so please see a doctor if you have chest pain," the article on all the other things that can cause chest pains would essentially be "it's own article, addressing it's own subject". Would it be "one dimensional"? Sure, but that's the point of writing about one aspect of something. My aim was not to write an "encyclopedia of all bad things that happen after divorce/remarriage". It was to point out that not all "bitterness" is always what it may appear to be.
If I write an article, "25 pretty pink flowers", I'm not going to include all the ugly pink flowers there may be in the world because my article is not about the ugly pink flowers.
It surprises me that so many of the second wives/step-mothers above are resistant to considering the idea that the children's mother may be being misunderstood; or that someone like you, who obviously is dealing with the "mental case/abuser" mother, would think she represents all first wives and mothers. It seems to me that the bias and one dimensional approach is coming at me in the form of comments. :)
Mary: Looking at the looooong response from Lisa you touched a nerve. And as a family therapist (and step mother) I agree with you...bio parents who continue to attend games, family functions, etc., together are only prolonging a child's fantasy of the two reuniting. It is a poor choice, and often the impetus is the guilt on the parent's part and an attempt to compensate for what they think the child is missing out on because of their breakup. But this is putting THEIR needs first. The child needs to move on and see the reality of the situation. Encouraging the child's fantasy and hopes of a reunion is unhealthy. And by the way....what message do you think it is sending the child by not having the step-parents attend? Just my two cents.
christicsw, your first comment kind of makes me smile because if anyone were to read most things I write anywhere they were see that I lean toward the "verbal" as far as numbers of words go. It means nothing than that I write and type quickly and find words come easily. Since I'm not a step-mother, and since my own children aren't in a situation to have a step-mother, there are no nerves to touch.
Some step-kids (grown ones) I've talked with have said they never had any fantasy that parents would get back together. In fact, they were glad their unhappy parents "finally" divorced. I think, too, that kids are capable of understanding the truth if parents present it properly and make it clear that the occasional time that includes only the child and his own two parents does not mean anyone is getting back together. Again, the suggestion here was not to exclude step-parents from the important things - only to give children that occasional, say, baseball game with only his own two parents attending. I can't help but wonder if, in fact, children who have parents "put that one need first" (again, just occasionally and certainly not as part of the usual routine) maybe there would be fewer fantasies about parents' getting back together. After all, when someone is allowed a brief visit to a "past world" he may well be less likely to mourn over its complete and permanent destruction.
I don't believe the simple "putting the kids' needs first" just enough to throw them that bone once in a while sends any message other than that they can trust their parents to show (and not just say) that they both still love the child(ren) as they always have; and that they are both still his/their parents. When children can trust their parents to understand that their simple need for the occasional reminder that the world they knew has not become completely eradicated to the point where they can't even have an occasional "visit" to it, they may be more likely to trust what parents say when they also point out that such "visits" don't mean a return to the old way of life.
Parents who choose to do this would be making a choice, based on what they believed was their child. Whether or not any guilt factored is would depend on the parents and the situation.
I don't think it's appropriate to "imagine onto" a situation either children's fantasies or parents' guilt, because no two situations or people are alike. Again, the recommendation was not that parents keep attending things as they always did in the past, but only to go to the occasional "less important" thing (school parents meeting, baseball practice or game, etc.) at the same time.
It's always interesting to me when people refer to parents as "bio parents". Most people refer to the adults involved in a second-marriage situation as "parents and step-parent(s)". Whenever someone uses "bio parents" it seems to imply that they do not recognize that in most cases (where a step-child was not adopted as an infant, for example; or when a parent has died) the step-parent relationship (while, ideally, a wonderful one) is not equal to children's relationship with their own parents (even when their own parents have "issues" of one sort or another).
I don't understand why it seems so many readers are incapable of sorting out what has been suggested here and what hasn't. The simple act of occasionally going to some not-so-important event without the step-parent doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. With regard to "putting the child's needs first" - why not, when it's a need that is so simple and so easily filled with the rare or occasional parents-only event. Nobody suggests parents put the child's needs first and stay together or don't marry again. What has been suggested here is a small thing and doesn't have to be a big thing. I notice that it seems to be all step-mothers who have had difficulty with ideas presented. I'd venture to say that that's where nerves are being hit and buttons being pushed on this Hub.
When parents have common sense and communicate honestly and effectively with children, they know how to make sure no wrong messages are sent. Most kids are delighted to have some time with just one parent by themselves, and delighted to have some time with just their two parents and nobody else. That doesn't exclude all other times with other combinations of parents/step-parents, and it is not the suggestion here that step-parents not attend important events. My own personal belief is that if a step-parent misses a Wednesday afternoon baseball and only Mom and Dad happen to be there, it isn't going to send any message beyond "Susie is busy today" and, of course, that once in a while Mom and Dad can be at the same activity (without the step-parent) without it being Earth-shattering.
Is she a doctor? She can't be... All step-parents should know this. She stated she does not have an ex and her husband does not have an ex. They do not have a family where step-children are involved. Clearly, she has no idea. When my stepson comes to my home he looks at me as a mother figure. I shower him, put him to bed, teach him to clean up his mess, etc... This is what is typically a role of the mother. If anybody here has a brain in their head, I would not read her advice. You have to live it, to understand it. She also has no idea what it is like to live with a bitter ex-wife. Try going to court for visitation for your son, for no reason at all. Foolishness, that's what the words she types on this page are. Pure foolishness.
Mandi, you have a right to your opinion, and I'm happy to post your comments. This article is not intended to be advice. It is, as I have explained repeatedly above, intended to point out that (while there are, I'm sure, ex-wives who are bitter and horrible and every bit as evil as anyone thinks they are) that not all ex-wives' difficult behavior comes from what the fathers of their children and second wives believe it does.
If the difficult ex-wife you have to deal with is just bitter and "evil" then this article does not apply to her or you. I don't understand why people continue to take the over-simplified view that this Hub states that no ex-wife could possibly be bitter and rotten. It doesn't. It states that not all are.
I haven't shared much in terms of my personal background/experience because this is in the Internet, and I have reasons to want to maintain some privacy for myself and others. I'm not a family therapist and don't pretend to be. I've shared that I have three grown kids, and that there has never been a step situation for them. Sometimes, though, it is from the standpoint of not being all mired in the emotions of a challenging situation that a person can remain more objective.
As I've said repeatedly, this Hub is not about ex-wives who ARE bitter and nasty just because they're jerks, and it's not about ex-husbands and second wives. It's about the fact that there are SOME ex-wives who may appear bitter when, in fact, the root of their unpleasant behavior comes from something other than pure nastiness.
I don't happen to agree with a whole lot of the absolutely criminal treatment with which courts (including their "expert" GAL's and other so-called "professionals") often disregard the non-custodial parent and the relationship he (sometimes she) has with his children. That's another issue for another time.
I'm the first to tell anyone, "Don't just take my word for it," and I give credit to readers for considering what has been presented here and thinking for themselves. At the same time, anyone who has not misinterpreted the message of this Hub; and anyone who is willing to at least consider the possibility that there are some seemingly bitter ex-wives may actually have "legitimate" reasons for "getting her back up"; isn't going to like what has been presented here very much. Whether or not it's foolishness is up to readers to decide, and I'm appreciative of having the chance to post the reactions of so many second wives so that readers can evaluate those as well.
Wow, Lisa, you've really taken a lot of stick for your article!! I came across it as I "searched" for articles on stepmothers/stepchildren relationships as I do find it a very complex and interesting subject. I am a stepmother to 2 adult stepchildren albeit a long distance one. I met their father 17 years ago when he had been divorced for 3 years and we now have 3 children of our own. I would generally describe my relationship with my stepchildren as full of underlying resentment. We no longer live in the same country as them but in the first few years of our relationship we did and it was totally fraught. We believe that my husband's ex-wife poisoned the children with her bitterness, and we know that she shared a lot of information/opinions with them which should not have been shared with children. After all these years, I have now told my husband that I can no longer be expected to make an effort towards his 2 children as I feel they are now adults and as much as I believe things were not easy for them as children as they lived with a lot of tension, I feel that I still come under undeserved criticism from them and that they treat me with a certain hostility. I personally have never attended parents' evenings at their school or school events, which my husband and his ex-wife did although not as any kind of show of "togetherness" but rather that they both had a personal interest in their children. I never felt it my place to do so and I don't believe the children would have wanted or expected my presence. Anyway, I would just like to share that I also finished reading your article believing that you must belong to the "ex-wife" camp so it's interesting to read that that's not the case. I do believe that your article does assume emotional maturity on the part of all adults involved as another poster states. However, I always enjoy reading any article on this subject. Oh, why does it all have to be so complicated.....
AnnaSa, thanks for sharing your own difficult experience. It's refreshing to read a comment written by someone who seems completely reasonable. :) (As you noticed, a lot of the comments here aren't all that "objective". :) ).
You're right that the article does assume emotional maturity, and I know that emotional maturity isn't necessarily something people always have. What has always amazed me about misunderstandings (among any people in all kinds of situations, not necessarily just the divorce/re-marriage situation) is how easy it is for even emotionally mature people to misinterpret someone else's motives, or else to misjudge how a situation (particularly with children) should be handled. You're right. It's complicated.
I'm not someone who thinks "all ex-wives/mothers - good; all step-mothers - bad". :) I know a lot of step-parents step into really difficult situations and get a lot of "junk" that nobody should have to take. This Hub wasn't about them, though. It did assume a certain amount of emotional maturity simply because when people aren't emotionally mature and act like "evil lunatics" that's a matter for the family therapist or psychiatrist - not me.
Again, as you say, it's all complicated. Hopefully, your grown step-children may one day actually come to realize some of the realities in their own situation.
Again, thanks for contributing your reasonable remarks to this Hub which has obviously pushed a lot of buttons in a lot of people less cool-headed than you are. :)
Lisa HW, I enjoyed reading this well-balanced treatment of a difficult subject. I've never been in any of the situations you described, but I know lots of people who have been.
The problem, as I see it, stems from the fact that mating and child rearing are separate functions, even though there is historically a causal relation between mating and having children.
People are confused because they expect the parent's mate to play the role of co-parent. If this happens, it undercuts the other parent.
Aya, thank you for the non-hostile comment. :) As you may have noticed, this Hub has become one on which I approach comments with "fear and trepidation". :) It's a good thing rotten tomatoes can't be thrown over the Internet. My keyboard would be loaded with them. :)
It would be humorous if the matter weren't such a serious one.
Really, the problem is divorce.
Once a marriage fails, you are forced into a government system and we all know how government can really do much right.
Everyone spends all the time and money on the wedding but the real cost and time is when the marriage fails. Marraige is taken too lightly and children are brought into this world without a lot of thought about taking care of them.
opinion duck, thanks for contributing. I agree that divorce presents a new set of problems, and I think the court system commits what amounts to crimes against parents and children with their lack of respect for the roles and importance of both parents in the well-being of children.
I can't say I agree that in most divorces it's a matter of marriage being taken too lightly. Young people getting married usually take their marriage very seriously, but the trouble is there can be facets to their personalities that won't be revealed unless/until certain types/degrees of serious stresses/circumstances occur. Differences in the ways people handle things can cause couples to grow distant. Something else that happens is one person is absolutely miserable, and the other person can't keep a marriage whole by him/herself.
I am a mother of four children, two from my first marriage and two from my second marriage. I have joint custody with my ex-husband and it hasn't been easy. His new wife has tried to take over the mothering portion of the relationship when we have sports practices, parent/teacher conferences and such. It has gotten to the point that when she sees me with one of my children, she grabs them from me, and 'takes over' (pulling them away from me, ordering them around, taking them to their coach and introducing them as their 'mother', etc.) I was a little hesitant at first about all of us attending these events together, but agreed. I thought that I would give it a chance. After seeing how she 'takes over' when the kids are with me, I have had to change my opinion. I feel that when a step-mother is as controlling as she is, then they should be left out of the equation. When the mother is attending an event, the 'controlling' step-mother should step back and let the mother be just that, a mother. If that can't be done, then the step-mother shouldn't be able to attend if she can't respect the mothers wishes. It causes too much conflict and in most cases, the two 'mothers' will fight in front of the children to take ownership of the situation. I understand that being a step parent can be hard, but so can being the parent and trying to make the best choices for their kids health and safety. When the child is around their mother, then it should be assumed that she has responsiblity for them until they leave her side and is back in their father and step-mothers care. My husband is a step-father, and has seen what I have been through with their step-mother and agrees that if he were in the situation where he was going to be at the same place with their father, he would step back and their father take over, because in the end, that's their father, and he's not trying to replace him.
So, with all of this said, I would like to say that while sometimes going to family events with 'all' of the family may work for some people, it DEFINITELY does not work for others...I agree with Lisa in saying that the children having JUST their mother and father with them at some occasions is healthier for them, no tension from the 'other' parent, and everyone in the end is going to these occasions for the kids and not to spite the other parent, or keep an eye on them....if there's a trust issue in the relationship and you can't trust your husband to go with his ex-wife to a ballgame, then there are more underlying issues that need to be addressed.
autumn, thanks for contributing your own experience. Your remarks immediately brought to my mind a similar situations with my own kids and my (own) mother. My mother was wonderful and had a super-close relationship with my kids. She'd often remember, if the kids asked her something, to say, "Ask your mother"; but sometimes, just because they had such a good relationship (and I was very happy about that and certainly didn't have a shred of envy), it was just kind of natural that someone who had such a close relationship with them didn't think to "step back".
In fact, I'm not sure that it wouldn't seem weird to children if someone to whom they're so close every once in a while seemed to "hold back" and "act differently". So, someone like mother didn't feel right suddenly being more stand-off-ish toward the children. I did occasionally feel "pushed to the side"; but when it's the grandmother you just understand why it's happening, and when the visit is over everyone goes home. (If parents live with grandparents it can be a longer-lasting issue, but that wasn't the case with us.)
I'd think that with the mother/father/step-mother situation it could potentially be a little more muddied for the children; because their father has been teamed up with both women, and because they often do have their time with just their father and step-mother in their home (rightfully, of course). As with a grandmother, it's great if they have their great relationship with their step-mother; but then if the mother is present too, the mother is reasonable in not "being thrilled" to feel pushed aside or to be concerned that the situation could undermine her authority or "equal authority" with the children's father. Since it IS (ideally) important the children (at least occasionally, if not often) enjoy time with all three adults in the equation at the same time, most people wouldn't want to end all "group time". Offering that occasional "own-parents-only" time would help balance off the "all-three-together" time and potentially help children (especially young ones) from seeing an altered role for their mother. I'm not suggesting this happens in all situations, by any means; but I would think (and this is only my opinion at this point) there could be the possibility that without care to preserve the role of the mother in the children's eyes, the message could be sent that the mother is only "the one" (for lack of a more appropriate choice of words) when the father and his wife aren't around. I don't necessarily think that three adults at one time sends a "bad message", by itself. I just think (again, nothing more than my opinion) that "balancing off" that "one good message" (of "shared-ness") with another "good message" of "mom and dad and nobody else" is a healthier approach. Young children DO sometimes get a little confused in situations, like when a grandmother takes care of them most of the time, and they start to "see her" as their mother. Teens do pay attention to which adults are more likely to let them get away with stuff, and which adults have the most respected authority.
I can't help but believe (and again, only my opinion and I'm not pretending otherwise) that giving children the occasional reminder that they have two parents, focused on them, and working as a team when it comes to them, and of equal authority and closeness; has to help children see that while marriages sometimes end their relationship with the parents, and the role of their parents, doesn't have to change.
I have been reading this article and the responses and have figured out what the problem is. And Lisa it's just not you, I have seen several counselors and such give advice on divorce situations that have never been a step-child or even a step-parent and I think that is great that you have not had to experience those things. But you do not have the experience in that area to truly know how divorce works on people. What is taught in school for counseling divorced parents is out-dated. If you want a good functioning divorced family and the children to know that they are loved by everyone and that all the parents (including step-parents) can get along and show they are there for them, then all the parents (including step-parents) needs to take the children out together. The two families in the same place, at the same time, socializing together. And don't tell me it's not possible, because I know it is. There is no excuse for a mother or a step-mother not to get along. It's called being good role models for your children, showing them that even if you get divorced, you can still get along with each other.
Gina, thanks for taking the time to contribute (and I do consider it a contribution). I particularly appreciate that your comment is a whole lot more reasonable than a lot of the others. (LOL)
I don't disagree with anything you say. I'm starting to wonder about my wording in the Hub, though, because it does seem that readers keep thinking I'm saying adults should never be with kids at the same time. I'm not. I agree with what you've said. My only assertion is that there should be those occasional times (that are not big events, like graduations) when kids get to just have time with their own two parents. (The occasional baseball practice, the occasional dance class, etc.)
I wholeheartedly agree that there is no excuse for adults not finding a way to set aside their "issues" and get along for the children's sake (as well as, as you say, being a role model of what a sensible, reasonable, adult ought to act like in a sometimes complex situation).
Thanks again for contributing. :)
Lisa,
I am seeing that most every comment on here comes from the step parent and disagrees with you. I am not sure if these step parents have had children of their own or not, but let me just put my comment on here quickly.
My son's father and I divorced and remained friends, until the step mom came along. Obviously, I was not a bitter ex, since I ended th erelationship and we had remained friends. He met another women with no children. She decided to do what I see alot of step parents without children do...try to over step her role, as a mther that is going to out the red flags up and you move into defensive mode. She signed up as team mother for my son's first tee ball games, before anyone was even offered or asked, my ex had to get her to rescind the offer so that other mothers (including myself) could be offered the opportunity. She called the school,signed up before me to do activities, insisted on going to school parenting meetings, did all his school projects that went to the fathers home and basically took over all duties at the fathers house with him (this caused huge problems between all of us, and ofcourse the father was at fault also, but he claims it was just too much of a fight to deal with, she was always jealous)...this all happened UNTIL they had children. Once they had children (two) my son was pushed more and more on the back burner, then the fights were over everything my son did wrong. She went from being overly involved to not having the time for him and accusing his father of loving him more than their children. They ended up divorcing after 10 years and him and my son came home to find all of their things packed and out front.
Funny thing is now he is getting remarried again and she has called me because she does not know how to deal with this other women doing to her what she did to me FOR YEARS. I honestly did not know what to tell her, and kind of thought, what goes around comes around unfortunately.
Alot of times it seems the stepmother feels she needs to prove herself. And alot of times it is the stepmom who has no children that does not understaind what it really feels like to have children and that fierce protective instinct you get as a mother....when you have your own, you do not want someone else to overstep their boundaries. I did not want to reconcile with my ex, I wanted my son to have a good life. It was not his choice to be born in to a relationship that has failed and he should not have to suffer unnecessarily because of it. If anyone should make the sacrifice it should be his parents. And if a stepparent cannot make sacrifices for the child then they should not get married to the person who has the child, unfortunately that is what parenting is, sometimes sacrificing your wants.
I am remarried and my husband NEVER steps on my son's fathers toes. He allows us to talk things through and if there is a conference at the school he encourages us to attend together, thinks it is ridiculous that we would all take off work to sit in the room, just so we can show WE are the ones together, the children know that, they live it every day, the only ones that need to seem to prove it is the step parent to the ex or to the teachers? In the end, we are his parents and make the final decision.
On a final note, as you can see my son's 1st stepmother was not permanent and they do not see each other or communicate at all now, however I am still here and always will be. That is always in the back of every mothers mind when the step parent is trying to relay her beliefs and values onto a child that may not necessarily be in their life forever.
Thanks!
Have Been There, thanks for sharing your own experiences. From what I've heard, your situation is one shared by a whole lot of people.
Lisa Lisa Lisa. Your page is food for fodder, true. But your lack of personal experience, training and work in the field is obvious. Until one works in this field and/or has experience as an actual step-parent and perhaps having step-parents as a kid (or all three), one really does not have the capacity to "get it." Well said Gina.
But I do like your message of parents needing to work together for the sake of the children. Unfortunatley, in my experience in my practice too many parents are either incapable or unwilling to put their child's needs first. Many parents are righteously indignant thinking that what they are doing IS putting the children's needs first when the real dispute is about power, control, money, hurt feelings, etc. that have nothing to do with the kids. The kids suffer terribly which is heartbreaking (and have lifelong effects btw). Of course, I only get the ones who usually have this problem. I am sure there are plenty of divorced/divorcing parents out there who do it the right way and have children that fare far better than the ones in therapy so young.
Lisa Lisa Lisa. Your page is food for fodder, true. But your lack of personal experience, training and work in the field is obvious. Until one works in this field and/or has experience as an actual step-parent and perhaps having step-parents as a kid (or all three), one really does not have the capacity to "get it." Well said Gina.
But I do like your message of parents needing to work together for the sake of the children. Unfortunatley, in my experience in my practice too many parents are either incapable or unwilling to put their child's needs first. Many parents are righteously indignant thinking that what they are doing IS putting the children's needs first when the real dispute is about power, control, money, hurt feelings, etc. that have nothing to do with the kids. The kids suffer terribly which is heartbreaking (and have lifelong effects btw). Of course, I only get the ones who usually have this problem. I am sure there are plenty of divorced/divorcing parents out there who do it the right way and have children that fare far better than the ones in therapy so young.
christyicsw, thanks for contributing.
I don't mind if my not having training in this specific area shows. I've never pretended otherwise. This Hub is based on research and a lot of exposure to people in the divorce/step-child situations. While I have no doubt that there are things I haven't learned in a formal training situation; respectfully, there are often times when I'm not all that impressed by some of the things that ARE taught (often by, and to, people who, themselves, may never have personal experience or what I see as a sufficient understanding of human nature or children). For example, the Legal profession learns that the "way it's done" is a non-custodial parent visits on Wednesday and on the weekend - end of story, in many cases. The Teaching profession often has beliefs, or just incentives, to encourage the medication of kids who may not actually have a condition warranting it. The Medical profession often learns to hand out prescriptions rather than having the time, inclination, or understanding to encourage a patient to help professionals get to to the root of some symptoms and aim to address that, rather than medicate it.
Also, as you mentioned, yourself, professionals in an area like this get most of their real-life experience on people who are looking for someone's help/guidance - not the people who have the maturity, common sense, and drive to work things out on their own.
I'm not "against" different professions, and I don't underestimate or discount the value of training; but training, alone, is not always a guarantee of "knowing better" with regard to all things. Sometimes, being outside of a specific area and only talking to other people outside that area yields something very different from "conventional wisdom". That's neither here nor there, though. The real issue is whether there is any bad information in this Hub.
Here are the messages here:
-that not all ex-wives/mothers are bitter, even if they appear to be acting as if they are.
-that child like to spend time with each parent, alone; that they like to spend time with both parents together; and that they like/benefit from spending special time alone or with others with other special adults.
-that an occasional, not-all-the-important event (like one of many baseball practices or dance lessons, for example) with only the two parents presents is nice for a child.
-that a second marriage shouldn't mean that absolutely all hope of ever having time alone with one parent or both parents "for the rest time".
-that two parents showing up at that baseball practice one afternoon here or there can show a child that parents can be in the same place together and not fight, and that (as they probably told him) they are "still his parents" and "that part won't change".
-that if everyone involved would try to understand the others better there would be less dislike and misunderstanding among the adults - always better for the child.
-that step-mothers can and should be a "special other person" in a child's life, but that the mother/child bond - when it's what it's supposed to be and when the mother is alive - is unique and powerful and will always be very different from any other relationship children have.
-This Hub has never been about people who don't fall within the "normal" range when it comes to level of emotional maturity. It's about people who are mature, caring, and concerned about their children but who may not understand the issues of the other adults in the "equation" as well as they could.
If there is anything anyone wishes to debate about the above points I'd welcome it. If I've overlooked some message in this Hub, or if I'm sending some message I didn't meant to send, I'd be more than willing to discuss/debate/offer "back-up" resources any specific points.
Sometimes people who know their children's other parent is a good, loving, parent choose not to bring in step-parents (at least while the children are young) because they have a good understanding of the types of complications that can occur with blending families. I'm not suggesting that's what everyone should do, or that's right for people in all circumstances; but it could point out that a lot of the most selfless parents' children will never have step-parents at all.
I don't want to sound obnoxious here (because I've suggested everyone who reads here ought to do more than just ask themselves whether any of it makes any sense to them); but sometimes a person's experiences and exposure to people or up-and-close-and-personal familiarity with other people's situations can be the very thing that helps them see things about a situation that make them think, "That's not a situation I'd ever let myself or my kids be in, if I can help it." In other words, the fact that my kids have no step-parents is no accident.
In any case, I do welcome specific, opposing, ideas here; and am more than willing to clarify, expand, or back-up any points in this Hub. Although I haven't detailed my whole background and life in my profile (to maintain my own privacy), I can say that I'm quite capable of "getting it", provided someone state specifically what it is he believes I don't get, explains it, and backs up opposing points with more than a generalization that I'm incapable of "getting it". A generalized "you're-not-capable-of-getting-it" is based on assumptions. A general disagreement with even part of this Hub isn't legitimate if it is doesn't come with specific points of dispute and explanations as to why the opposing point-of-view is the correct one.
I am a step-mother. A few weeks ago, my husband's ex made it a point to tell me that she was the one who left the marriage. Now, what does that have to do with the children? When I asked her just that question, of course she had no answer. There comes a point when the biological mother needs to realize that the situation is not about her feelings. It is about the children. If a step-mother can see this, why can't the mother? Frankly, I really don't care that hurts her feelings because another woman is part of her children's lives. She should have thought about that when she left the marriage.
JLR, thanks for commenting. I don't think too many people would ever disagree that the children's feelings are what need to come first.
I'm not defending someone I don't know, and obviously I have no idea why your husband's ex-wife mentioned that; but my immediate thought was that maybe she just wanted you to know she has no "designs" on your husband. :) When there's a new marriage that takes place it's potentially awkward for any of the people involved, and there's always the chance one person may say something that someone else's doesn't quite understand. If, by any chance, she was trying, in her own awkward way, to let you know she didn't plan to be a problem for you, she probably couldn't find words to answer your question that didn't sound all wrong. Again, I'm not defending what I don't know was innocent - but there is that chance (at least based on only what you included here).
By the way (I hope you can sense my light humor here, although what I'm adding is true), many mothers who have not placed their children out for adoption prefer not to be called, "biological mothers". :) Mothers usually consider themselves "mothers".
In all seriousness, congratulations on your new marriage. Best wishes for a great relationship with your husband's children.
Ok, so seriously, I am a step parent. And this article makes it sound like the step parent has to be the one who has to consider all the feelings of the biological parent. But what if the biological mother has had nothing to do with the child for almost a year. And for the past 3 years, I have been the one who has been there for the child in every situation. But now the biological mom ( I use the term 'mom" loosely) wants to see and have time with the child. Am I supposed to act like I haven't been the mom the whole time while she was out partying. For years I encouraged her to grow up and take a role in her son's life and she never did. She hasn't grown up yet, she is still looking for an excuse not to see him. Why should I cater to her feelings? Maybe she should cater to mine. I feelings and when she tried to belittle all the time and effort I put in as mom while she was out drinking and sleeping around, it makes me a little angry to read article like this that say I should consider her feelings, and mine are irreverent.
justina, thanks for sharing your situation. This Hub is really about "normal, caring" mothers; and the only real point of it is to say that not all ex-wives/mothers are bitter. It isn't about expecting step-mothers to cater to mothers' feelings either. Neither is it to say that all mothers are wonderful. (One of my children is an adopted child, and he wasn't adopted because he had a wonderful and capable birth mother, believe me. My other two children are children I had myself, so I know that the bond I have had with all three has come from nurturing them and being with them - not from having given birth to two of them.)
This Hub, though, is about the normal situation when a mother and father are married, the child is raised by his married parents until they divorce, there is the normal parent/child bond/relationship between both parents and the child, and then the father re-marries.
The mother you mention is not a normal mother. There may be plenty more like her, but even so, that kind of mother is still not the norm. The mother you describe obviously doesn't have the normal maternal instincts to protect her child and to safeguard/encourage her child's relationship with both his own parents (in other words, with her, as well as his father).
As I've mentioned above, this Hub is not about step-mothers at all. It's about ex-wives/mothers. It doesn't imply that step-mothers don't have legitimate issues of their own, or that they should be disregarded. They just don't happen to be the focus of this Hub.
So, having (hopefully) clarified that this Hub doesn't focus on bizarre, bad, mothers like the one you described; I hope you see there's no real reason to be angry. (Maybe I should have used the word, "normal", more often than I did, but I assumed using it meant it would be implied throughout.) :)
By and large, your opinions are just plain ignorant as evident in your "well-this-is-just-my-opinion" and your polyanna "isn't-it-just-swell-that-we-can-all-have-our different-opinions-on-this" angle. Which by the way, is manipulative. You claim to be a professional writer so you should know better. "Why Bitterness May Not Be What It Seems" does not read as a piece written from the perspective of one happily married woman's opinion. You wrote this piece as if you are some kind of expert on the subject. Your words in the original piece are demonstrative and take on an air of experience of some sort. Not once do you say "well, I am no expert, but this is what I think...." It is really misleading and sort of infuriating, which is one explanation for aaaaaall of the commenters observation of what this really is...your biased opinion. And if you admit you have no personal experience in the mental health field, or either being a step-mother or having had one, then why the piece to begin with? My guess is the passion in your insistence in clinging to your myopic views of step-parent/ex-wives and thier families and then irresponsibly generalizing it is some other biased source....like a good friend who is an ex-wife? Pathetic.
What is also irritating is you seem to have no capacity to take what most of the commenters here on your own blog are saying and rethink your stance. The complicated topic of divorce is not one for blind opinion. So instead of defending yourself please do more reading. Or just leave the "opinions" to the real experts: people who work in the field, or have been through this and actually know what they are talking about.
You (and anybody else) are, of course, free to think what is here is "ignorant". Everyone has a right to his/her own opinions.
As far as "this is only my opinion" or "isn't this swell" goes, did I ever say either of those things? No. Did I say I was "just a happily married woman" or "a married woman"? No. Those are things YOU are reading into what it is written here.
I have said I am not a mental-health professional. This piece has been written based on research, interviews, and - yes - my own expertise/experience as a mother of three children, as well as my own experience as the child of two wonderful parents to whom I was equally bonded. Since it was written on HubPages, rather than in, say, a newspaper or magazine, I wrote it with a more casual style than I use when writing something professionally. HubPages is my hobby writing.
I do write in a way that often comes across as authoritative. That's my writing tone and style, especially on subjects that aren't "fluffy". With "fluff" I make it a point to come across more folksy, but not with serious subjects. I don't candy-coat my tone for the purpose of making readers who may like a little more sweetness added in order not to find something objectionable. Besides, look at how often words like "may be" or "some" are used. These are not statements about "everyone". These are statements that reflect things the reader is presumed will ask, herself, about the people in her own situation. It's the same as if I wrote on "what causes cancer" and said something like, "Sometimes smoking" or "contaminants in the environment may causes cancer" (etc.) Do you see, "Well, I'm no expert, but here's my opinion.." in articles you read in newspapers and magazines, by writers?????
As I have stated in above comments, if anyone wants to single out any one idea I have presented here, and debate/question what is wrong with each, isolated, idea; I would be more than happy, willing, and able to present back-up to any point I have made. That's not what people commenting are doing, though. As you notice, they are mostly step-mothers, many of whom call mothers "biological mothers", and many of whom just seem to have some inexplicable difficulty in accepting the one, simple, premise that AT LEAST SOMETIMES when an ex-wife/mother seems bitter there's the chance she isn't being "bitter" about the ex-husband but has legitimate, maternal, instincts toward her children. That still leaves room for any step-mother to keep thinking the ex-wife she's dealing is bitter.
Sometimes the myopic view is held by someone who is in a situation - not by someone who writes about it, as an objective observer.
As far as being open to changing my "stance" goes, first, it isn't just my "stance", alone. Second, tone or no tone, this article isn't intended to take stance - only bring out some of the concerns of mothers and of children. Third, no, I'm not open to changing anything I've said because someone (often someone who comes across to others as pretty unreasonable or bitter, herself) adds a comment here that I'm supposed to just go with.
This Hub was not written on "blind opinion", and, no, I don't have a "good friend" who is an ex-wife.
I'm well aware that I have no need to defend myself or my writing in response to some of the many emotional and unreasonable reactions to a piece of writing that, if someone "gets it", isn't about some big, controversial, new, ideas.
Still, here's the thing: If someone attacks what I say, insults me, or implies that any ideas offered here are not sound; they aren't going to get away with it and then just say, "don't bother defending yourself". All attackers would very much like the object of their attack not to defend himself, wouldn't they... So, now there's your comment (which I didn't even have to approve here if I didn't want to have objecting opinions on here), and my response to it. Readers can decide which of us is more reasonable.
By the way, you still have not taken me up on my earlier offer to address any specific points that you believe are objectionable or incorrect. I, personally, don't really feel like spending a lot more time on this one Hub; but I made the offer two weeks ago, and today's comment is all you offered.
What i just read made me think in one part i understand that the real mother would be upset about a new woman in the kids lives she should also get use to it because the step mom isnt going anywhere.All she is doing is amking it harder for the kids to not like the new step mom. I am going to be a step mom as im engaged to a wonderful man who has 3 children-
a 6 year old boy, 4 year old girl and a 18 month old girl. His ex wife is still in the picture but doesnt like me. I spend time with the children alot as we get this 4 days a week and she gets them three. She doesnt understand hy the kids keep saying well we did this at dads and tristas. and sometimes they call my mommy Trista is that wrong?? I don't see it is because i am around the children and love them. There father does not have a problem with it. Does anyone ahve any suggestions on how to deal with his ex?? and what kind of activites i can do with the kids so i can bond with them more??
Trista, what a pleasure to get a comment from someone reasonable. LOL I agree that it isn't about whether the ex-wife likes the new wife or not (provided the new wife isn't someone who does obviously socially unacceptable things, like be drunk when the children are around). I don't think the ex-wife should try to make things harder for the new wife, and I think if a mother really wants what's healthiest for her kids she won't. There's one situation that I can see as an exception (if I think back to when my kids were little and imagine them having a step-mother). Any time children are spending time at someone else's house there's the chance there will be differences of what kids should do. I had inlaws who, in my opinion, were careless with young children. I didn't want to leave my kids there because I didn't want them, for example, in canoes (three kids to one adult); and I didn't want them out in the rural, mosquito-ridden yard without shirts or mosquito repellent. That meant that I wouldn't take up the inlaws on invitations to have the kids visit, and it meant even when I was there with the kids there were occasional "debates" and assertions (on my part) that I didn't care who did what, I didn't want whatever going on when it came to my kids. That wasn't about inlaws (who I liked, and who I wanted my kids to have a nice relationship with) or a step-mother or whoever else. It was about someone else thinking they had a right to second-guess what I did, as my kids' mother; and even, if given the chance, doing things behind my back. To me, every mother and father have a right to decide how things will be done with their kids. If the mother and father don't agree they need to find a way to reach some agreement/compromise. To me, as a mother, where I would think a step-parent had every "right" to make rules would be related only to behavior that goes in his/her home. Who does or doesn't put their feet on the couch, who puts their dishes in the dishwasher, etc. - those are things everyone has a right to "establish" in his/her own home. As a mother, what I wouldn't want is for someone else to decide that even if I don't want my kids watching violent movies, for example, they'll be allowed to do it in someone else's home. I only bring my "mother's perspective" as a way to share how it feels to be a mother and what kind of things are likely to bother most mothers. Speaking only as a mother, I think a lot of other mothers (and fathers) would agree with me when I say I wouldn't care if it were "another woman" (step-mother), inlaws, my children's aunts or grandparents, teachers, or anyone else when it comes to the fact that I don't want anyone else "stepping on my toes" as my own kids' mother. That's not saying I did't want people telling them how to behave when they're at their house or school; but when it came to "parenting basics" I wasn't about to share with anyone but their father. Had there been a step-mother, I would have wanted them to have a special relationship with her (as they did with their grandparents and aunts and uncles); and I would have done what I could to promote that. The irony (and difficulty) is that, as you mentioned, second wives "aren't going anywhere" (hopefully) and ex-wives need to accept that; there's no normal, good, mother in the world who is willing to "go away" when it comes to her own children either.
As far as bonding with the children goes, I'm an adoptive mother to one of my children. Bonding happens when we have nice time together with a child, and when we're someone they can trust and someone who cares for them. It takes time to bond, but bonding happens whenever children have a special adult they like being with and who treats them with respect. Talking together and having things to laugh about are what children often value most. Most little kids don't care so much what activity they're doing with an adult. They just like being with an adult they like to be with.
With regard to what children "should" call step-parents, here's a link to a pretty good discussion:
http://www.step-parenting.com/osCommerce/catalog/n
Here's a link to a somewhat less "objective" discussion:
http://www.thepsychoexwife.com/step-parenting-call
The link I included mentions that it may be easier for toddlers to start calling a stepmother, "mom" (and I didn't read it closely enough to figure out if they mean when the mother has died or not). My input here is only my own opinion (nothing else), but I'd be a little a more concerned with letting the baby call someone anything that has "mom" in it than I would the older kids. The older kids know who their mother is. Here's what I base my comment on with regard to a toddler:
When my brother was two my mother was hospitalized for seven months (Tuberculosis). My sister was twelve, and I was six. Our maternal aunt came to the house and watched us each day as our father worked. We visited our mother each week, standing outside the hospital and with her talking out her first-floor window. We talked to her on the phone each day. My brother was four or five when he would talk about how he had "three mothers". He'd say, "I had one mother, and she went away. Then I got another mother. Now I have you for my mother." My brother was, by no means, a "slow" little kid; and our mother was about as good, loving, and bonded as any mother could ever be. Still, my little brother had been confused. Nobody called my aunt anything but "Ruthie", although she did bring her own daughter to the house each day, and she called her mother, "Mum". My point is that younger children can sometimes get a little confused. I have no opinion (and no right to one) with regard to what your step-children call you; but I just thought I'd tell that story because it's a good example of a young child becoming confused.
With my adopted son, even though he was placed as an infant it took three years to have the adoption finalized. Because I wasn't sure I'd really be able to adopt him, he learned to call me by a shorted version of my first name. Once the adoption was finalized it didn't take long before he switched to calling me "Mummy". Nobody could be more bonded than he and I have been from the start. My point is that it doesn't take the "label", "Mommy", to build a bond. Again, I'm only sharing these personal experiences because they came to mind when thinking about what children call people.
Maybe a reader will see your comment and offer a better response. The only reason I'm responding is, to be honest, this Hub doesn't get comments more than every few weeks; so I didn't want to leave your comment without any response.
Congratulations, and best wishes, on your new, ready-made, family.
The Lighter Side of Divorce
- Ex-Spouse Novelty Items
Even the bitterest divorced folks need to have a chuckle.
Mary says:
2 years ago
This is very biased. This person has obviously not been in the situation of stepmother and really has no idea. You are expected to be a mother when the kids are at your house. The kids also do expect that you will be at their functions. Most counselors on this issue will say that to have just the mom and dad at functions and at parent teacher meetings etc is in fact causing the children to have a misconception of the situation. Once the nuclear family is broken it is not helpful to "pretend" that everyone is still a family. This type of thinking is very harmful and confusing for the children