Question for OW from BW

[Dexter Morgan]

Of course it works both ways.. I am absolutely convinced that a lot of MMs do cheat and stay because of the kids.. only for the kids..

 

nah, I believe a majority stay because they don't want to pay child support, don't want to pay for going through a divorce, and don't want half their retirement accounts going to their wives.

[Mini-Me]

Who are Jon and Kate?

 

Jon and Kate are two names that I am SO sick of hearing about, EVERY FRICKEN DAY... and the names are actually 2 of my favorites, in REAL LIFE...

[Fallen Angel]

Personally I think people who stay because of the kids put a large burden on the kids. If the kids knew that mom and dad were staying in an unhappy marriage for their (the kids) sake, how much guilt do you think those kids would feel?

 

I was just wondering how the OW who feel that MM who say they stay for the sake of the kids are such great fathers and good guys, feel about the BW who only stay for the sake of the kids? I would think in the eyes of these OW who feel that way, the BW's are also great mothers and good people.

 

I have never thought that My MMs W was a bad mother or a bad person. From all that I know about her, and how she has mothered her children, I would say she is a great mom. As to if she stays and ignores the A because of their youngest still being at home, I have no clue as to her motivations. I suppose that is entirely plausible. I don't think however, that has any bearing on her skills one way or the other as a parent. Nor do I think MMs choice to stay "for the kids" has any bearing on his skills as a parent. Though, I think if that is the only reason two unhappy people stay together, than they are doing a disservice to their children. I think kids see more, and understand more than we adults often give them credit for. And I think, in general, it is better for a child to see divorced parents doing the best they can to be happy and still properly parent, than two miserable people parenting well, but "faking" their way through life. That is just my opinion though.

[whattodonow12]

In regard to the original post, yes, it goes both ways. I don't believe that staying together for the children is best. I think a lot of times when a MM says this.. it may be true to a certain extent. What is also true is that they don't want to put into a situation where they see less of their children, lose their homes, have to start over.. the complete unknown. Unless you are wealthy, of course, finances are going to also come into play. This also goes both ways.

[NoIDidn't]

Furthermore, the hypocrisy you speak of is also in your rebuttal. If they're staying in the M to maintain a lifestyle, who cares if they see other people? It is irrational. (people lie to themselves to make themselves feel better) And if one side of the M is great without someone having a 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 year affair on the side and one S just wants to maintain a lifestyle-man or woman-who cares? After all, they don't love the OP. It doesn't mean anything. And apparently the S doesn't mean that much to the "lifestyle spouse."

 

I think you assumed something about my post that simply wasn't in there. I didn't mention "who cares if they see other people" or whether or not they love the OP. My only point is that the MP always accuses the Betrayed of staying for the lifestyle, yet when you break down ALL of their reasons for saying that they can't leave the marriage - its all about the lifestyle as well.

 

I may be a hypocrite, but I was only making one point.

[NoIDidn't]

BTW, if you haven't noticed, I'm all about equal opportunity. Once again, it's all a hoot.

 

For example, when a MP realizes the jig is up and they go into hibernation phase, when they tell you they weren't in love with the AP, were they lying to you or the AP? And when they contact the AP to use them after the dust settles, when they should probably find someone new, when they say they love and miss them, are they lying to the AP or were they true to you?

 

These MM/MW are an entertaining bunch.

 

I would think "equal opportunity" refers to more than just the married part of the equation.

 

I am finding it interesting that you keep using the word "you" to me as if I should just fill myself in the implied "betrayed" position. If you are attempting to imply that this is what I went through when I was betrayed, you would be wrong. My story is here if you want to read it. I see no reason to recap in this thread.

 

Personally, I loathe the type of MP that does what you describe above - and feel no pity for the OP that allows the MP back in over and over again knowing that they are going to be thrown under the bus again and again.

 

But this is a thread jack that I don't want to continue with.

 

Apologies, HN.

[NoIDidn't]

nah, I believe a majority stay because they don't want to pay child support, don't want to pay for going through a divorce, and don't want half their retirement accounts going to their wives.

 

 

Exactly. They are the ones staying for their lifestyle.

[Virgo1982]

I think you assumed something about my post that simply wasn't in there. I didn't mention "who cares if they see other people" or whether or not they love the OP. My only point is that the MP always accuses the Betrayed of staying for the lifestyle, yet when you break down ALL of their reasons for saying that they can't leave the marriage - its all about the lifestyle as well.

 

I may be a hypocrite, but I was only making one point.

 

I understand, but the wrongness of affairs seems to be a theme in your posts, unless I am mistaken... I'm basically saying if an AP and an OW/OM are fine with what they're doing, if a BS is sitting home content with the lifestyle, who cares about infidelity? Furthermore, if a BS is staying in the M for the lifestyle, what reason does he/she have to kick up a fuss? Is it embarassment?

 

I would not like to t/j, but I'm trying to understand how someone with your mindset would make sense of that kind of situation. Perhaps my perception is getting the better of me, but this kind of thinking would make Lizzie correct. If a BS doesn't show interest unless the MM/MW is seeing someone else, would the affair be a defibrillator? This is not about someone who is blindsided or anything of that nature. But what does it say about me if I don't show much interest in my H, until he starts seeing someone else? Yes, that does make the WS selfish and yes, they also want to maintain the lifestyle (see, we agree) but doesn't that also make the BS selfish as well? I think so...

[skylarblue]

Let's say you found out that the BW is really the one who is staying for the kids. Would you think she is a great mother and person? Would you think she was doing the right thing?

 

I’m not a big advocate of “staying for kids” whether H or W. If a M has deteriorated so much that the only reason to stay are children, what kind of environment can that be. It doesn’t sound like it would be a healthy one. I have a friend, a guy, who really did stay for the kids. The M was miserable. She was cheating on him. He wasn’t, but knew she was and didn’t care. He worked all day, everyday because he hated being home. The house was mess; she wouldn’t clean up and he wasn’t going to “fix it for that b*tch”. Still, he said he was the sole bread-winner and wanted his kids to have a mother/father household. After years of this torture, he filed for D. No one ever talked to the kids. Even though they’d seen their parents in a bad M for years, they didn’t expect it. They were use to the family being that way. When he and I started dating so soon after the separation, things were not good. Not just because of the toll of D on the children, but because the kids (wrongly) thought I was the reason for the D. They didn’t know that their mother and father didn’t love each other already and hadn’t for a long time. All they knew was mom was not there and “the girl daddy left their mom for” was (he had primary custody). It was a bad situation made worse simply by “staying for the kids”. IMO, it’s far better to be raised in two happy, healthy one parent households than an unhealthy, miserable two parent one.

[OWoman]

nah, I believe a majority stay because they don't want to pay child support, don't want to pay for going through a divorce, and don't want half their retirement accounts going to their wives.

 

I'm not sure I get this. Aside from the costs of the D, what would this entail that they would not anyway be paying by staying: They'd still be supporting their kids - often paying MORE than if it were the fixed, negotiated and agreed monthly amount - and their W would have access to their retirement funds when they retired, just as they'd have access to hers.

 

OTOH, if they get majority (or even full) custody, the Ws would have to pay them child support, and they'd likely get the house and the W would have to relocate. It's not always the W that gets the kids. In civilised countries, custody is decided in the CHILD'S best interests, not in the best interest of one or other parent.

[bentnotbroken]

I'm not sure I get this. Aside from the costs of the D, what would this entail that they would not anyway be paying by staying: They'd still be supporting their kids - often paying MORE than if it were the fixed, negotiated and agreed monthly amount - and their W would have access to their retirement funds when they retired, just as they'd have access to hers.

 

OTOH, if they get majority (or even full) custody, the Ws would have to pay them child support, and they'd likely get the house and the W would have to relocate. It's not always the W that gets the kids. In civilised countries, custody is decided in the CHILD'S best interests, not in the best interest of one or other parent.

 

 

OW, that's not always the case in the US. And it is rarely the case in certain regions of the country. It can be messy and take years. I know from personal experience. And yes in some cases the US is about as civilized as a pack of rabid dogs.

[OWoman]

OW, that's not always the case in the US. And it is rarely the case in certain regions of the country. It can be messy and take years. I know from personal experience. And yes in some cases the US is about as civilized as a pack of rabid dogs.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Dexter Morgan]

I'm not sure I get this. Aside from the costs of the D, what would this entail that they would not anyway be paying by staying: They'd still be supporting their kids

 

it was cheaper to support my kids in my home. I pay more in support than they consume. and half the other expenses like mecidal, school, extra curricular, etc.

 

 

often paying MORE than if it were the fixed, negotiated and agreed monthly amount - and their W would have access to their retirement funds when they retired, just as they'd have access to hers.

 

sorry, it doesn't exactly equate that way, trust, me, you wouldn't see it that way if you work to fill it, only for someone to cheat and take half it with her....although I got lucky, my lawyer screwed 'em good.

 

 

OTOH, if they get majority (or even full) custody, the Ws would have to pay them child support, and they'd likely get the house and the W would have to relocate. It's not always the W that gets the kids.

 

the only time the W wouldn't get the kids is if they are felons, drug abusers, mentally unstable, or simply doesn't want full custody.

 

If a both a mother and father are fit parents, and the mother wants to be the custodial parent, the mother WILL get custody. 50/50 custody would make sense no? why wouldn't a mother agree to 50/50 custody?...answer.....child support covers the child's expenses and a little extra left over.

 

and before anyone chimes in about medical bills, school supplies...etc. I pay half that, and ALL the premium for their medical insurance. So no, those don't count. The only costs a custodial parent will bear is clothes and food. Maybe a tiny bit extra for utilities since the custodial parent would be using those anyway, and really nothing for housing because the custodial parent needs a place for themselves anyway.

 

That and the non-custodial parent who is paying support THEN has to go out and get a place and spend just as much to support them, barring food, even when they don't have them full time. I have to buy a whole set of clothes when they are with me because she sends them in crap.

 

 

In civilised countries, custody is decided in the CHILD'S best interests, not in the best interest of one or other parent.

 

it is in the best interest of the child to spend equal time with both parents. So that would make the US uncivilized:o

[Fallen Angel]

 

the only time the W wouldn't get the kids is if they are felons, drug abusers, mentally unstable, or simply doesn't want full custody.

 

That is NOT always the case. When I left my abusive, alcoholic, drug using xH, I of course took my children with me. I moved half way across the country to hide from him because he had threatened to kill me and meant every word of it. The police had told me that they didn't think legal documents would keep me safe and suggested I find myself somewhere safe to be.

 

He filed for divorce/custody in the state I had moved from. I did not have the funds to go back to participate in the hearing or to hire an attorney to fight for me, as I had been supporting my children with no help from him at all for over a year.

 

I could not get free legal help in my former state as I was no longer a resident. I could not get free legal help in my current state as the lawyers are not lisenced to practice in my former state and could not help me.

 

I represented myself by phone for the hearing of temporary custody, and was granted it, but was not awarded child support. I had thought that child support was a given, had no clue that I had to file 3 forms prior to the hearing in order to get it.

 

When the time came for the final hearing for the divorce/custody issues, I was not allowed to participate by phone, and because I was financially unable to attend in person my xH won. It is called a "win by default", simply because I was unable to attend in person, and was not allowed to appear telephonically. The mounds of documentation proving his abuse, alcoholism and drug use that I had sent in as pretrial evidence was not allowed in as I was "not in attendance'.

 

He has legal custody of the children. I have to pay him child support every month. And while he kept all of our maritial property, I was ordered to pay 80 percent of our maritial debt. (Including the ten thousand dollars of credit card debt my xH racked up after we were separated.)

 

But here is the kicker... my xH never wanted the kids. Just wanted a way to force me to come back to him. When he found out that even if he took over the physical raising of the children, I would not come back to him, he disappeared off the map. I still have the children. And I pay child support to the courts.

 

I am raising them on my own, putting out from my own pocket for their every need. And I still legally have to pay child support, or face jail time for non-payment. My xH gets to claim them for tax purposes even though he has not paid one dime for them in two years. My xH has even changed his phone number and moved so that his children have no way of communicating with him. He hasn't sent them so much as a birthday card, yet he collects his child support payment from the courthouse monthly.

 

I have to wait for 18 months before I can ask for the case to be reheard in my former state at which time I have to either pay a lawyer to represent me, or travel back for what I have been told may take up to four days of court time. Or I have to wait until it has been over 24 months of total non-contact between xH and the children so that I can file against him for "abandonment" of them.

 

I am just saying, it is not always one way or the other, making such sweeping generalizations is not always accurate.

[Snowflower]

Oh, FA...that completely stinks about you having to pay child support when your ex doesn't want to have anything to do with them.

 

Sometimes the court system is so messed up and makes the most irrational rulings.

 

I hope you will be able to have the child support modified when the time is up (not sure I'm wording this right). Good luck!

[Dexter Morgan]

That is NOT always the case.

 

may not be ALWAYS, there are some surprises out there, but they are few and far between.

 

 

When I left my abusive, alcoholic, drug using xH, I of course took my children with me. I moved half way across the country to hide from him because he had threatened to kill me and meant every word of it. The police had told me that they didn't think legal documents would keep me safe and suggested I find myself somewhere safe to be.

 

He filed for divorce/custody in the state I had moved from. I did not have the funds to go back to participate in the hearing or to hire an attorney to fight for me, as I had been supporting my children with no help from him at all for over a year.

 

I could not get free legal help in my former state as I was no longer a resident. I could not get free legal help in my current state as the lawyers are not lisenced to practice in my former state and could not help me.

 

I represented myself by phone for the hearing of temporary custody, and was granted it, but was not awarded child support. I had thought that child support was a given, had no clue that I had to file 3 forms prior to the hearing in order to get it.

 

When the time came for the final hearing for the divorce/custody issues, I was not allowed to participate by phone, and because I was financially unable to attend in person my xH won. It is called a "win by default",

 

that is a much different scenario than what goes on on a majority of cases.

and what happened to you was a travesty of justice.

 

 

He has legal custody of the children. I have to pay him child support every month.

 

I am raising them on my own

 

 

he has legal custody, you are paying child support....but then say you are "raising them on [your] own" ??

 

I thought he had custody?

 

 

I have to wait for 18 months before I can ask for the case to be reheard in my former state at which time I have to either pay a lawyer to represent me, or travel back for what I have been told may take up to four days of court time. Or I have to wait until it has been over 24 months of total non-contact between xH and the children so that I can file against him for "abandonment" of them.

 

so why not do it?? If you can appear, then you should be able to get custody back. The money you aren't paying in child support will be easily recouped. So do it!! What happened to you shouldn't have happened.

 

divorce/custody laws are effed up.

 

 

I am just saying, it is not always one way or the other, making such sweeping generalizations is not always accurate.

 

again, your case was a weird one that never should have happened. This is not the majority. The majority is if the mother wants custody, she will get it. Father's have no rights. The ONLY thing that went in your X's favor was you weren't able to appear. And that is a loophole to a woman getting custody that isn't exercised in a majority of cases because both parent usually can appear.

[Fallen Angel]

Oh, FA...that completely stinks about you having to pay child support when your ex doesn't want to have anything to do with them.

 

Sometimes the court system is so messed up and makes the most irrational rulings.

 

I hope you will be able to have the child support modified when the time is up (not sure I'm wording this right). Good luck!

 

Thanks, but honestly I don't care, as long as the kids can stay with me, where they are safe and well loved, that is all that matters.. hell, I would offer to pay ten times as much to him to just give up legal custody, so the kids do not live in fear that he will someday just show up and take them away. But his lawyer is no longer responding to my emails. perhaps he is no longer under retainer? Anyway, as long as I pay, he is unlikely to take them physically, so I will keep paying, I only have 12 more years to pay.. lol.

 

In all seriousness, I have sent several letters out explaining the situation to family law attorneys in my former area. Hopefully I will find one that will work in conjunction with the lawyer I have in my current state and we will get this all straightend out as soon as legally possible.

[Fallen Angel]

Dex,

 

He has legal custody, on paper. But he doesn't really want them, and so never excersized his legal right to take them physically. He left them with me, even though I was legally obligated to allow him access to take them, and did so on several occasions, even going so far as to set up a meeting place for the physical transfer to take place with his lawyer. He never showed up to get them.

[WalkInThePark]

If a couple stay together for the sake of the kids, then will generally work on the M for the sake of them too. The M won't be entirely loveless. There will be happy family times etc. There is often a regaining of intimacy after DDay. I suspect the minds of MM/MW are not as logical or calculating as this thread suggests.

 

A lot of emotion is involved - guilt, family love, fear of the unknown, a need for safety in the face of emotional upheaval, fear of love for the OM/OW (because if the marriage was loveless, then this person originally chose this, they found it safer), an understanding that they married this person because they knew they would be a good parent for their children, fear that divorce will kill their kids' happiness etc.

 

And staying for the lifestyle means more than just a nice house etc. It means the lifestyle of being in a committed relationship with the co-parent of your children.

 

So even if we say MM/MW/BS stays for lifestyle and kids, this doesn't mean it is cold or calculating. It doesn't necessarily mean the kids will suffer.

 

And I think we should credit all parties with the ability to see the complexity of the issues at hand.

 

Instead of slamming people for their stupidity in believing what MM/MW say to APs all the time. I'm staying for the sake of the children = I want to remain in a committed family with my wife and kids. This is better for us all. Even though I love you, I would feel a bigger rat for abandoning my family than I feel for abandoning you.

 

Or as my xMM said to me, 'I would rather everyone in my family were reasonably happy than just me ecstatic'.

 

And I have no doubt that his BS also valued the committed family together thing.

 

Good post. I think it is often not really a black and white situation.

 

My xMM stays with his W because he still has feelings for her, because of their history and definitely also because he wants to avoid disturbance in the life of his kids. On top of that, one of them is seriously disabled and he is afraid to leave the care of that kid alone with his W.

He also says that life with W is OK, she is not abusive, she does not cheat, she does not drink. She is however depressed and very dependent on h, financially as for other things.

He is now trying to change a couple of things in their life (like a move to be closer to work) because he hopes that things between them can still change. He says that he can't leave until he has tried everything. Well, I understand this feeling. I don't know if things will work out for him.

 

I have the impression that men in general are more afraid than women to rock the boat and make big changes in their lives. As long as it is not too bad, they'd rather stay where they are.

[Dexter Morgan]

Dex,

 

He has legal custody, on paper. But he doesn't really want them, and so never excersized his legal right to take them physically. He left them with me, even though I was legally obligated to allow him access to take them, and did so on several occasions, even going so far as to set up a meeting place for the physical transfer to take place with his lawyer. He never showed up to get them.

 

hmmmm...something not right here. Child support is suppose to go for the support of the child. If he NEVER has them, then there is no reason for support and I can't believe a judge would basically say, "you pay child support, I don't care if he is not involved in his children's lives"

 

something not right.

[NoIDidn't]

I understand, but the wrongness of affairs seems to be a theme in your posts, unless I am mistaken... I'm basically saying if an AP and an OW/OM are fine with what they're doing, if a BS is sitting home content with the lifestyle, who cares about infidelity? Furthermore, if a BS is staying in the M for the lifestyle, what reason does he/she have to kick up a fuss? Is it embarassment?

 

I would not like to t/j, but I'm trying to understand how someone with your mindset would make sense of that kind of situation. Perhaps my perception is getting the better of me, but this kind of thinking would make Lizzie correct. If a BS doesn't show interest unless the MM/MW is seeing someone else, would the affair be a defibrillator? This is not about someone who is blindsided or anything of that nature. But what does it say about me if I don't show much interest in my H, until he starts seeing someone else? Yes, that does make the WS selfish and yes, they also want to maintain the lifestyle (see, we agree) but doesn't that also make the BS selfish as well? I think so...

 

Again, I was only making one point. I was not and am not interested in why the BW would react to cheating if they are only staying for the kids. I can't really answer your questions, because honestly, they aren't on my mind and weren't something I was considering when I posted in this thread.

 

In most cases of "staying for the kids" the marriage is bad, but no one expects or agrees to be cheated on. The entire point of "staying for the kids" is to give the kids a stable home until they are grown. And a stable home does not include someone cheating to make their emotional ends meet.

 

I don't agree with only staying in a marriage for the kids, though. I have seen many of my friends breakdown in their 20s and 30s after their parents did just that. It ruined them. I am a firm believer in staying married for each other, and if that doesn't happen to get a divorce.

 

I make no apologies for the tenor of my posts being anti-affair. I would not be being true to myself and my beliefs on fidelity to post otherwise.

[NoIDidn't]

Oh, FA, I absolutely HATE what you have endured for your children. I can vouch for you because it is EXACTLY what happened to my stepsister - but in reverse.

 

Her abusive H left HER and took their child with him. He stayed in the same state but two hours away and the police would NOT charge him with kidnapping. He was the only one working, so she couldn't afford to chase him around the state to get her child back. And, worst of all, HIS FAMILY HELPED HIM keep their child away from her.

 

She was forced to pay him support even though she didn't have a job for the longest. AND the state wouldn't give her custody when his lame ass was THROWN IN JAIL a year into this mess. And he was locked up for two years!!!

 

I really feel for you in this situation. But I think there is a legal remedy for you to get your money back from the state considering you have had continuous custody of the kids and don't need to be paying support to him since he's not interested.

 

Geez, I really feel for you.

[Virgo1982]

 

In most cases of "staying for the kids" the marriage is bad, but no one expects or agrees to be cheated on. The entire point of "staying for the kids" is to give the kids a stable home until they are grown. And a stable home does not include someone cheating to make their emotional ends meet.

 

I make no apologies for the tenor of my posts being anti-affair. I would not be being true to myself and my beliefs on fidelity to post otherwise.

 

I don't think you should make apologies, but given your willingness to acknowledge marriages like this, I couldn't understand why you look at all situations of infidelity in the same way. Nor could I understand why you or any other person would be so angry about someone having an affair if both are staying for the lifestyle.

 

You do not believe in infidelity or staying for the children/lifestyle. You do believe in divorce or unhappy/happy faithful marriages.

Got it.

[NoIDidn't]

I don't think you should make apologies, but given your willingness to acknowledge marriages like this, I couldn't understand why you look at all situations of infidelity in the same way. Nor could I understand why you or any other person would be so angry about someone having an affair if both are staying for the lifestyle.

 

You do not believe in infidelity or staying for the children/lifestyle. You do believe in divorce or unhappy/happy faithful marriages.

Got it.

 

I wish I could understand what your problem is. Following me around from thread to thread to comment on my posts? This is getting beyond weird.

 

There are PMs here if you want to speak to me directly. Otherwise, I think you are just being catty and immature.

 

And for the record, and the last time, I was making one point. I don't know why you feel the need to extrapolate more onto my statement. There IS a such thing as making one statement and not speaking to other issues. Your attempt to read between the lines is an exercise in futility.

[Virgo1982]

I wish I could understand what your problem is. Following me around from thread to thread to comment on my posts? This is getting beyond weird.

 

There are PMs here if you want to speak to me directly. Otherwise, I think you are just being catty and immature.

 

And for the record, and the last time, I was making one point. I don't know why you feel the need to extrapolate more onto my statement. There IS a such thing as making one statement and not speaking to other issues. Your attempt to read between the lines is an exercise in futility.

 

I see you are uncomfortable. So, I will let it go. Forcing my views and perception on you is catty and immature-probably obnoxious too. Can't believe I can see that in others, but could never see it in myself. My apologies.