Which is the Lesser of the 2 Evils??

Which is easier:

A) Have a stepchild full-time, with no help (time-wise or financially) from BM, but deal with all the emotional issues of SD, have the burden of raising & teaching the hard lessons in life, coping with different moods & behaviors, compromising time & schedules, etc.

Have stepchild living with BM full-time and deal with child support & visitation issues.

Frustr8d1's blog
Log in or register to post comments

Comments

I choose option "B" If only

I choose option "B"

If only because I consider the CS we pay to be worth not having to LIVE WITH SS and to have to deal with him all. the. time. OMG.

I honestly don't think my marriage would survive option "A"....

A. I can honestly say it's

A.
I can honestly say it's WAY easier without the added drama of the other parent.

I live with sd15. I would

I live with sd15. I would gladly pay to keep her away from me. She was gone most of the summer and it was great. She is back tonight. I would rather stick a fork in my eyeball than to have to see her face.

I like your answer, whimsey6.

I like your answer, whimsey6. It really is better for a child to handle one difficult issue at a time. Living between 2 household, having 2 moms, 2 dads, 2 different set of rules & standards...that all just causes way too much confusion. I think a child can handle one parent being out of their life completely than to be so conflicted & confused while growing up.

Of course, the courts (and many people here) will say they NEED to have both bioparents in their life. After seeing the extreme negative impact that has on SD9, I totally disagree. Life is not fair. Some kids have a parent die young and have to deal with the loss. Some kids have a nuclear family and never deal with loss and end up having a hard time coping when life throws them a curve ball. The kids of divorced parents are the most confused of the bunch.

Not trying to offend any adults here of divorced parents--Hell, my parents were divorced. I just know it's easier to handle a loss than to handle a fkng roller coaster!

Since I deal with emotional

Since I deal with emotional blackmail, manipulation, schedule changes and mood swings as a NCP.

We paid almost 10k for two kids in CS and will pay I've 8k for one.

I'd say A.

What does EOWE mean? Sorry.

B. B-we've also done both

B-we've also done both options and b is far far better IMO. I too never minded paying cs- I felt like I was paying for my peace of mind.

We actually have option c now- which is not having. Ss at all, no visitation, and no actual " cs" changing hands. Now if only this can last forever.

b b b can I please have b

For my situation, I'd say A.

For my situation, I'd say A. Then they wouldn't be emotionally abused and blackmailed by their BM. They would have lots more appreciation for their father and I without their BM still saying bad things about him (after 11 yrs since divorce) and me. The skids wouldn't feel so torn between BM and DH and I.

It would be better for me and DH, because we could parent as a team. We could jointly make all decisions together. Our marriage would be better, since most of our fights are regarding keeping BM happy so she doesn't take it out on the kids and create more emotional turmoil in their lives.

Basically, I believe that if

Basically, I believe that if both parents are decent, the ideal is 50/50.

However, when there's a parent who's hell-bent on alienating the kids from the other parent and causing drama, then the latter should have the kids Full-time FROM THE START and the PASinator allowed only supervised visits. Harsh? Maybe. But I bet, half of the drama some people on here are experiencing wouldn't have happened if the courts actually recognized PAS as a serious issue and not automatically favour the mother everytime. PASinators should NOT have the kids FT or even 50% of the time. It just turns them into brainwashed monsters. So I believe that when a crazy BM/BD is involved, having a kid FT is better in the long-run.