eeyore1981 Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 HMM, funny, but that is what WE are saying and YOU are arguing AGAINST!!! The father should be responsible for his child, imagine that!! Oh, no, no, no, your posts are right here in black and white, no take backs. You are reaming HIS WIFE because she was not taking responsibility for this child's welfare. The reality is, for the wife to agree for her husband to be in his love-child's life, that entails him having continued contact with the woman he screwed around on her with. The OW doesn't have a problem sharing a man, but that doesn't mean the wife doesn't. How exactly do you propose the husband sees his child? Should he go pick it up and bring it back to their house? Should he go pick it up and get a hotel room, therefore making his wife foot half the bill for him to see his love-child? Or maybe he should just go stay at the OW's house every other weekend or so? This may be acceptable for a woman willing to accept left-overs, but most women are not like that. So which one of these scenarios do you think the wife should now have to choke down? Oh, but wait, she could always tell her H to hit the road. What if she didn't want to do that? What if she wanted to try to put this past her and continue on with her marriage? She made it clear in her posts her H did not want a divorce, and she made it clear by having an ultimatum she was trying to avoid a divorce as well. But no matter, H and OW made a baby together, so jump all over the wife because she actually has feelings, too. Any one of these involves the wife sacrificing something because of a baby that is not hers and she had no part in creating. The wife did not make any choices that brought this baby into her life, but there it is anyway. I don't have an issue with this poster feeling the way she does under the circumstances. She has decided to divorce, to free her H to be with his other child, and I support her decision, as I clearly stated in my posts. My issue is with people like you and your double standards. This woman was put into this position by 2 other people, and her choices are to sacrifice herself in the best interest of someone else, or save herself at another's expense. You villified this woman, yet you are doing what you are at another's expense, you are in this position at your choice, and you say what you are doing is perfectly okay.
mybrowneyedgirl Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 I believe in this situation it is the Man who needs to decide how he will proceed. The OW is the mother of this child. she chooses her relationship with her baby. The father needs to also choose what sort of relationship he has with his baby. The BS is not responsible for anything here, shouldnt be expected to welcome this child into her family or anything of the sort. BUT... she has no right to determine the relationship between this man and his child. he should choose what he wants based on whats best for the child, himself and his family. it needs to be what he wants. forcing him to do something else via ultimatum may force him to shut out a child from his life that he really wants. its asking him to do something he may not be able to do. only he knows how he feels. if he ends contact, it must be for himself. not because its demanded of him. The BS has a choice in this situation. she knows the facts, let her husband decide his role in this childs life and then from that she can choose what she wants to do regarding her own children and her marriage. she doesnt have to stay with him. but she does not have the right to force him to choose no contact with his child.
Fallen Angel Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Oh, no, no, no, your posts are right here in black and white, no take backs. You are reaming HIS WIFE because she was not taking responsibility for this child's welfare. I stand by EVERY word I said. And I am done arguing with someone who obviously is incapable of seeing any side other than her own as being vaild. You, despite your obvious protestations to the opposite, do not have all the answers, and your moral compass is no better than mine. You would willingly sacrifice the welfare of a child to find your own happiness, so be it. You live in your world of right and wrong, and I will live in mine. I smile a lot in mine.
eeyore1981 Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 I stand by EVERY word I said. And I am done arguing with someone who obviously is incapable of seeing any side other than her own as being vaild. You, despite your obvious protestations to the opposite, do not have all the answers, and your moral compass is no better than mine. You would willingly sacrifice the welfare of a child to find your own happiness, so be it. You live in your world of right and wrong, and I will live in mine. I smile a lot in mine. I would willingly sacrifice the welfare of a child to find my own happiness? How do you figure that? The children of the mm I am messing around with are mine and his, and he is married to me. He was single when I started a relationship with him, and so was I. Does your married man have children? If so, what are you doing? It's nice you smile a lot in your life, in between the screaming in the tub. I manage to smile a lot in mine, too, and no screaming necessary. Did you even read this thread? The poster is divorcing her husband, so now her children get a part-time dad. Are her children less important than OW's? Maybe to you, but not to the poster. The husband, and yes, the OW, are responsible for a lot of heartache to this poster and her children. This thread is going to get closed because of all this back and forth, so justify away, I'm done in this thread. Maybe I'll visit you in your 'bash the wife' and 'aren't we OW's special, screwing mm' thread.
fooled once Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 I thought this was the board for the betrayed spouses ~ for them to come and post and get support/advice/counseling per say? Instead, this woman is called names, told she was wrong, etc. This woman married a man. They had 3 children. This 'man' chose to seek something in someone who wasn't his spouse. He chose to go outside his marriage for whatever it was he felt he wasn't getting at home. Instead of working with his wife to resolve issues, to get counseling, to try to fix the commitment they made to each other ~ he goes out and screws another woman. This woman then becomes pregnant and has his child. The betrayed spouse is shocked, heartbroken and had her entire world come crashing down around her. And she is told to suck it up and realize the woman who had her husband's child deserves his/her father in its life. Doesn't the children the married couple deserve their father in their life? Don't they deserve a father who is active, involved and with them? Don't they deserve a role model who is an honest, caring individual? Don't they deserve dad to be at home, helping with homework, teaching his child to throw a ball? But nope, dad was too busy getting HIS needs met elsewhere. Dad was too busy with his OW to focus on his family at home. When confronted by his wife -- either HER or the OW - he supposedly chose her and their family. Of course, he lied to her and continued contact with the OW and the child they made. So the wife tells him they are done; yet he begs and pleads for her to give him another chance. She did and once again he lied. So really --- why is this betrayed spouse getting such flack? As a mother, her job is to protect HER children. She has no allegiance to the OW's child. That child is NOT her business. She doesn't have to accept it. She doesn't have to like it. She doesn't have to support it. I really can't say it was wrong of her to issue the ultimateum to her husband - HER or US. believe it or not, many children grow up without a father. I am not saying that is something that SHOULD happen, but hey, it does. It isn't unheard of. Now, the betrayed spouse has made a decision. She has made the decision to let him go be with his OW and child. That is obviously where he wants to be since he can't seem to be with her and their children. Now HER children will grow up without the father around. Everybody loses here. There are no winners. But this poster has the right to post on THIS board that from what is said is the board for betrayed spouses. I find it interesting that so many OW complain that Betrayed spouses go into the OW board and post; yet here they are, coming to this board and jumping all over this betrayed spouse. Remember that if you want respect on your board, you should give respect on the betrayed spouse board. Kinda hypocritical if you ask me (not that anyone asked ) It goes both ways. OP - I am so sorry that this has happened to you. I am so sorry you have been thrown into this situation that you neither benefited from or ASKED for. I think you have made the best decision for YOU and your kids; because honestly, that should be YOUR main focus - you and your kids. YOU will be the one who will most likely be raising these kids for the majority of the time (and have been since dad has been rather busy with his OW). You need to get YOU emotionally healthy so that you can do right by your kids. Remember also that until someone walks in your shoes, dealing with what YOU have dealt with, their criticism isn't something I would be too concerned about. They haven't been there. Good luck to you!
ufo8mycat Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 The BS has a choice in this situation. she knows the facts, let her husband decide his role in this childs life and then from that she can choose what she wants to do regarding her own children and her marriage. she doesnt have to stay with him. but she does not have the right to force him to choose no contact with his child. In respects I see that the BS has been given an ultimatium. Accept this child in her life OR leave her husband. What if she doesn't want either of these? Is she told too bad so sad? Why is it OK for the BS to be given this sort of ultimatum by her H and OW but it isn't acceptable for a BS to do the same? Her husband did decide the role in his childs life. He chose (I assume) to be a father in financial assistance only. Lots of things influence choices and in being given an ultimatium he set his priorities. His desire to save his existing family may have outweighed his desire to be involved with a second family. I am glad that the OP has decided to move on and do what is best for her. It is a heartbreaking situation only made worse as a whole bunch of bystanders clutch at their pearls and shrieking "won't somebody think of the children". I think the OP did - her children.
Impudent Oyster Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 The BS is not responsible for anything here, shouldnt be expected to welcome this child into her family or anything of the sort. BUT... she has no right to determine the relationship between this man and his child. She can't force him to do anything, nor is she the one determining the relationship, she doesn't have that power. All she can (and did) do was tell him what her conditions for reconciliation were. That's her prerogative. You can't expect her tolerate her husband continuing to see the OW, regardless of the reasons why. I wouldn't tolerate it either. It's his choice of whether he sees his child or not, so stop placing the responsibility on the wife. Poor, poor MM, he went and made a baby with another woman behind his wife's back and now (boo-hoo) he has to choose between his family and his lovechild because guess what, he can't have it all.
Impudent Oyster Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 You, despite your obvious protestations to the opposite, do not have all the answers, and your moral compass is no better than mine. You would willingly sacrifice the welfare of a child to find your own happiness, so be it. You live in your world of right and wrong, and I will live in mine. I smile a lot in mine. What are you talking about? Bit melodramatic aren't you? The only person who compromised the welfare of a child are the people who bred recklessly. How dare you.
Samantha0905 Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Next someone will suggest the wife of a MM whose OW has a baby send over a casserole with him when he visits his second family just to give the new mommy a break. Talk about melodramatic. She can't force him to do anything, nor is she the one determining the relationship, she doesn't have that power. All she can (and did) do was tell him what her conditions for reconciliation were. That's her prerogative. You can't expect her tolerate her husband continuing to see the OW, regardless of the reasons why. I wouldn't tolerate it either. It's his choice of whether he sees his child or not, so stop placing the responsibility on the wife. Poor, poor MM, he went and made a baby with another woman behind his wife's back and now (boo-hoo) he has to choose between his family and his lovechild because guess what, he can't have it all. Wow, angry much? It is her prerogative. It takes a strong person to put the needs of an innocent child in front of their own. You make the focus him. Or her. Or YOU. The focus should be on the children. All of them. What are you talking about? Bit melodramatic aren't you? The only person who compromised the welfare of a child are the people who bred recklessly. How dare you. How dare you. Impudent indeed. Please. Stop all the selfishness. You point your finger at him for cheating because of your own anger in your own situation. She points her finger and says choose me and my children -- NOT that child with the other woman. Blah, blah, blah. She's made her choice. I feel badly for the children in this situation. If she wanted to work it out with her husband, she would have. I'm sure something could have been worked out where he could see his child without too much interaction with the other woman. Perhaps they BOTH could have gone to pick the child up at visitation times. Obviously, she can't forgive him and I don't fault her for that. The real point is she thought he still wants the OW. Perhaps he does. Who knows? Something is leading her to take the steps she is taking and to think what she thinks. The choose me and our children or choose that other child stance is wrong. Period. If she chooses, as she has, to move on -- that's an entirely different thing and her prerogative. You know what's interesting? Aren't the three children and the other child step-siblings? Perhaps one day they may want to meet and form a relationship. Unless some adult poisons their mind as to otherwise. Maybe something good will come from it all in the end.
Impudent Oyster Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 The focus should be on the children. All of them. Why should the OW's child be the wife's focus? Explain that to me. It shouldn't, it's not her child and therefore not her responsibility The choose me and our children or choose that other child stance is wrong. Period. If she chooses, as she has, to move on -- that's an entirely different thing and her prerogative. You know what's interesting? Aren't the three children and the other child step-siblings? Perhaps one day they may want to meet and form a relationship. Unless some adult poisons their mind as to otherwise. Maybe something good will come from it all in the end. Who says it's wrong, you? That is your opinion and only your opinion, obviously plenty of people disagree. What is selfish is a man impregnating a woman who is not his wife and that woman choosing to have a child by a married man. The epitome of selfish. As far as the whole romantic step-sibling concept, that's a lot of baloney. The "father" is a sperm donor, just getting someone pregnant does not a father make, nor does it make his children anyone's step siblings. If you're interested there is an entire website devoted to just this topic, I am not a member of that site but a friend is. Most BS's whose husbands father a child out of marriage don't reconcile, but if they do, the majority of those people insist on no-contact with the OC (other child) as a condition of reconciliation with their spouse. If you don't like it, tough. It's not your life or your children's lives who are affected nor is it your business or mine, but to go around condemning a woman for placing her conditions on a devastating situation that she had no part in creating is just flat out WRONG. I have no dog in this fight other than I find it disgusting that anyone would condemn a woman for putting her children first after being betrayed in the worst way possible. Her husband and another woman have a child and she is supposed to be some kind of saint by sacrificing herself and her children for that child's well-being? My heart goes out to any man or woman who has this kind of pain inflicted on them. How dare you judge her. How about condemning the parents of this "innocent child" for bringing it into such a situation? How about that? Why is no one placing responsibility where it belongs? If that child suffers because it has no father, the person responsible is the mother, who knowingly slept with a married man and knowingly chose to raise a child by a married man. THAT is who is responsible for this childs welfare and no one else, PERIOD.
Fallen Angel Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 As far as the whole romantic step-sibling concept, that's a lot of baloney. The "father" is a sperm donor, just getting someone pregnant does not a father make, nor does it make his children anyone's step siblings. For once we agree on something, they are NOT STEP SIBLINGS. They are SIBLINGS or Half Siblings, by both legal and medical definition. Definition of SIBLING - n. One of two or more individuals having one or both parents in common; a brother or sister. Main Entry: sib·ling Pronunciation: [FONT=Verdana]'sib-li[ng][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]Function: noun[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]: [/FONT][sIZE=-1]SIB[/sIZE]; also : one of two or more individuals having one common parent Definition of Half-sibling - one of two or more children who have one parent in common (a half-brother or half-sister). Why is no one placing responsibility where it belongs? If that child suffers because it has no father, the person responsible is the mother, who knowingly slept with a married man and knowingly chose to raise a child by a married man. THAT is who is responsible for this childs welfare and no one else, PERIOD. You are making a lot of assumptions here. How do you know what the OW knew or didn't know about MMs maritial status when all of this happened? The OW is not the one here posting, so you have no idea what she KNOWINGLY did or didn't do. And how is it that you are letting daddy dearest off the hook yet again for any responsibility to HIS child? I am sure the tone would be much changed here if he left his W and said that the only obligation he had to his children with the W were financial obligations. Talk about a double standard...
Impudent Oyster Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 For once we agree on something, they are NOT STEP SIBLINGS. They are SIBLINGS or Half Siblings, by both legal and medical definition. Definition of SIBLING - n. One of two or more individuals having one or both parents in common; a brother or sister. Main Entry: sib·ling Pronunciation: [FONT=Verdana]'sib-li[ng][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]Function: noun[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]: [/FONT][sIZE=-1]SIB[/sIZE]; also : one of two or more individuals having one common parent Definition of Half-sibling - one of two or more children who have one parent in common (a half-brother or half-sister). You are making a lot of assumptions here. How do you know what the OW knew or didn't know about MMs maritial status when all of this happened? The OW is not the one here posting, so you have no idea what she KNOWINGLY did or didn't do. And how is it that you are letting daddy dearest off the hook yet again for any responsibility to HIS child? I am sure the tone would be much changed here if he left his W and said that the only obligation he had to his children with the W were financial obligations. Talk about a double standard... I am not letting the father off the hook, but it was not his choice to give birth to that child, that was 100% the choice of the OW. His only obligation to the OC IS financial. You are right, my tone would be very different if we were discussing his legitimate children of the marriage, but we're not. I'd advise you to go to the website for people dealing with this nightmare, perhaps they can educate you.
HarmonyHope Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 If it is being a narcissistic selfish jerk to have compassion and sympathy towards a woman who was blindsided by not only her husband screwing around on her, but a child as a result of that screwing around, then label away. No, but it is incredibly narcisstic to tell this woman it's ok for her to make her husband make a Sophie's Choice with his kids. If she wants to be married to him, then she has to accept all of him, to include his idiosyncracies, the fact that he cheated on her, the fact that he has a child with the OW, and anything else that comes with the territory. She doesn't have to see or interact with the love-child, but IF she wants to stay with him, she MUST accept that the child is part of his life. It'd be like saying, I accept you, but not the cancer you have. You can't have it both ways. And BTW, Pretending the kid doesn't exist isn't going to make the baby disappear from existence. The man cheated on his wife and got another woman pregnant. The other woman had sex with a married man and got pregnant as a result. Stupid choices by both, not just the husband, and I don't think it is up to the betrayed wife to make the right choices because of these two idiots and their stupidity. I think it is up to the husband and his other woman to do the right thing, but that would entail responsibility, so you apparently think it is perfectly okay to dump it all on the duped wife. Why not try putting the responsibility for this child on this child's parents? I would think that is where it belongs. It's up to her to make choices for HERSELF. and if she can't accept what her husband did (cheating - and it's results) then she ought to divorce. Everyone here rants about how the BS needs the info to make an informed choice. She has the info, and now you are all saying she should ignore it because she's been wronged. WTF? Obviously the repsonsibility lies with the AP's, and it is not for the BS to make things better, it is only about her making a choice for herself that works, and that involves looking at the reality of the situation. The reality is he has a child with the OW. The reality is that he is going to have to have contact with the OW for parenting purposes. If she can't accept that reality, move on. And fooled once - the OP's kids are not going to have to live without a father because this woman divorces. That's so melodramatic. Please. It just means he'll have to share like every other divorcee. So if the OP leaves for her own sanity (which I can sympathize with), then he can be in all 4 of his children's lives and everyone can move on from this impossible situation.
Impudent Oyster Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 No, but it is incredibly narcisstic to tell this woman it's ok for her to make her husband make a Sophie's Choice with his kids. So what? She can put up any condition she wants. If she needs for him to have no contact in order to heal and reconcile, then that's what she needs, you can't say that her feelings are wrong, that is how she feels. However, it is up to him to choose. He's the one who made his bed, he can lie in it. There is a reason that almost no marriage can survive an OC. The percentage of women who can deal with their husband's OC being in their lives is miniscule. I couldn't or wouldn't do it, but kudos to those who can.
Fallen Angel Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 I am not letting the father off the hook, but it was not his choice to give birth to that child, that was 100% the choice of the OW. His only obligation to the OC IS financial. You are right, my tone would be very different if we were discussing his legitimate children of the marriage, but we're not. I'd advise you to go to the website for people dealing with this nightmare, perhaps they can educate you. Oh, I forgot someone here suggested that the OW should have put her child up for adoption perhaps she should have considered abortion as well? I mean, if we can dump our emotional obligations to our children perhaps it is okay just to dump the WHOLE child altogether, and that would be the proper moral answer to the problem? UGH. *throws my hands up in disgust* I GIVE UP... tell you what.. you stay on your moral high-ground, and I will stay on mine. Mine has a better view, but that is just MY OPINION!
Impudent Oyster Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Oh, I forgot someone here suggested that the OW should have put her child up for adoption perhaps she should have considered abortion as well? I mean, if we can dump our emotional obligations to our children perhaps it is okay just to dump the WHOLE child altogether, and that would be the proper moral answer to the problem? Those are all valid options. I'm not a pro-lifer. It always amazes me that someone can get on their moral soapbox over abortion but sleeping with a married man is A-Okay.
HarmonyHope Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 However, it is up to him to choose. He's the one who made his bed, he can lie in it. Ah but he did choose. He chose to keep the child in his life behind his W's back so he wouldn't lose any of his children. Now she knows the truth and has to act based on knowing his choice. There is no point continuing to try to bury the existence of the child she never asked for. He has made a choice to be in that child's life. Now she's making a good choice for herself and her kids to leave. Good for her. I know I couldn't deal with it if my H had a love-child. I'd leave too. And I'd do it way before I'd ever ask him to make a Sophie's Choice. But that's me.
Fallen Angel Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Those are all valid options. I'm not a pro-lifer. It always amazes me that someone can get on their moral soapbox over abortion but sleeping with a married man is A-Okay. I am pretty sure you have NEVER seen me say any such thing. In fact I have OFTEN said that I think it is wrong, but as per usual you see what you want to see, and you want to see me as an evil sl*t. So be it. But I am sure that morally it is preferable to kill a child rather than to sleep with a man who has made himself available to me, and persued me relentlessly for well over a year. You are right!! How blind I have been... Murder okay.. sex with a willing and eager partner, not okay.. GOT it NOW, thanks for the clarification.
Impudent Oyster Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 I am pretty sure you have NEVER seen me say any such thing. In fact I have OFTEN said that I think it is wrong, but as per usual you see what you want to see, and you want to see me as an evil sl*t. So be it. But I am sure that morally it is preferable to kill a child rather than to sleep with a man who has made himself available to me, and persued me relentlessly for well over a year. You are right!! How blind I have been... Murder okay.. sex with a willing and eager partner, not okay.. GOT it NOW, thanks for the clarification. Kill a child? Murder? Your opinion. It's legal and IMO, not a child, NOT MURDER. I'm not going to get onto an abortion debate with you.
Impudent Oyster Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Ah but he did choose. He chose to keep the child in his life behind his W's back so he wouldn't lose any of his children. Now she knows the truth and has to act based on knowing his choice. There is no point continuing to try to bury the existence of the child she never asked for. He has made a choice to be in that child's life. Now she's making a good choice for herself and her kids to leave. Good for her. I know I couldn't deal with it if my H had a love-child. I'd leave too. Exactly. I also would have left the moment I found out about his stupidity, but one never really knows until they're in the situation. She made the only choice she could, and I have nothing but sympathy for her because the selfish and irresponsible choices of two people destroyed hers and her children's lives. Nice.
HarmonyHope Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 She made the only choice she could, and I have nothing but sympathy for her because the selfish and irresponsible choices of two people destroyed hers and her children's lives. Nice. OMG the melodrama! Maybe she should drive with herself and the kids off a bridge right now, seeing as how their lives are "destroyed". It sucks, yes, but life will go on, and be a lot more peaceful when she removes herself from the drama by divorcing. No man, no husband, is worth being "destroyed". Dreams were destroyed, yes, and life as she knew it, but cut the melodrama. It wouldn't kill you to give the poor OP some hope along with your sympathy.
Impudent Oyster Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 (edited) OMG the melodrama! Maybe she should drive with herself and the kids off a bridge right now, seeing as how their lives are "destroyed". It sucks, yes, but life will go on, and be a lot more peaceful when she removes herself from the drama by divorcing. No man, no husband, is worth being "destroyed". Dreams were destroyed, yes, and life as she knew it, but cut the melodrama. It wouldn't kill you to give the poor OP some hope along with your sympathy. Yanno what, I know someone who has been down this road, so spare me the lecture on how this is no big deal. Yes, things like this literally destroy families and permanently damage children. But let's not make the AP's feel bad for their mistakes, it's only people's lives that are at stake. And let's not forget the welfare of the children. How are those children going to cope with the fact that their father went out and had a child with another woman while he was married to their mom? Do you have any idea how traumatic that is for a child? Hopefully the OP and her children will get lots of therapy and move on, but it won't be easy and it won't happen overnight. To say nothing of the therapy needed by the OC. There are adults posting on that board still affected by what their parents did in their childhoods, so make no mistake, their lives are altered forever. I pm'd her a link to the support board for people in exactly her situation who know just how devastating an OC is and can help her travel down this long road, but I refuse to sit her and pretend that this is something that she and her children are going to be able to cope with anytime soon. *She can't use PM's yet. http://theotherchild.yuku.com/ Please respect this board, the people who post there are truly suffering and don't need anyone not in their situation adding their 2 cents. I don't post there even though I'm tempted. Leave them alone, I only posted the link because she can't use PM's. Edited December 7, 2009 by Impudent Oyster
howcouldInotknow Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 So basically the kids with his wife are more important because they were born within a marriage? I think to suggest that the only obligation he have to the OC be a financial obligation is just horrible. That kid is his kid just like his wife's kids are his own. One child is no better than another child. This reminds me of Alpha Female's thread in the OM/OW board when everyone accused her of keeping her MM from seeing his daughter. Oh you guys thought she was terrible. But here is this woman wanting to keep him from seeing his kid. I think the OP is doing the right thing by walking away. Having a kid with a married man is the best choice but things happen. Suggesting she give it up for adoption? I wouldn't. If I carry a kid for 9 months I am going to keep it and raise it. There is a kid involved in this situaution and try as you might the situation will never go away even if you forbid him to see them. Honestly their marriage never had a chance with this ultimatum. Just like he loves the OP kids I am sure he loves this one.
Samantha0905 Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 So basically the kids with his wife are more important because they were born within a marriage? I think to suggest that the only obligation he have to the OC be a financial obligation is just horrible. That kid is his kid just like his wife's kids are his own. One child is no better than another child. This reminds me of Alpha Female's thread in the OM/OW board when everyone accused her of keeping her MM from seeing his daughter. Oh you guys thought she was terrible. But here is this woman wanting to keep him from seeing his kid. I think the OP is doing the right thing by walking away. Having a kid with a married man is the best choice but things happen. Suggesting she give it up for adoption? I wouldn't. If I carry a kid for 9 months I am going to keep it and raise it. There is a kid involved in this situaution and try as you might the situation will never go away even if you forbid him to see them. Honestly their marriage never had a chance with this ultimatum. Just like he loves the OP kids I am sure he loves this one. Right. And thanks to those who made the clarification on step-siblings v. half-siblings or whatever. It wasn't the main point. I can certainly see where a marriage would have a hard time overcoming this hurdle. Sad stuff all the way around.
turnstone Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Of course the wife is going to feel her own children are more important than anyone else's. And of course the H has only a financial obligation, if he wants an emotional tie as well, then that's up to him. His choice. Just as its the wife's choice to not allow him in her life if he decides to go that route. Be reasonable people.
Recommended Posts