Parent-Teacher Interviews
My SS's Mom thinks I am good enough to watch the kids while Dad is out of town, but when it comes to Parent-Teacher interviews, I am banned because I am not their mother. She wants Dad to go with her, because they are the parents... which I really to get to some extent. Dad doesn't want to make waves, but until she blasted him about him and I going on our own today he is now singing a different tune. It is a bitter pill to swallow. I do so much for their children and I am constantly told by Dad that this is my family too and they are mine too (of course I know they are not), but being a second rate citizen really stinks sometimes.
Weigh in please - do you go to your skids interviews? What is your presence/role at their schools?
- Lemin's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Same issue here. My DH
Same issue here. My DH encourages me to go anyway. I go to open houses nd group events at school but skip the parent teacher stuff because the tension between me and his ex would distract.
I wouldn't go. Your "job" is
I wouldn't go. Your "job" is to support your DH, imo. I'd skip the conferences, especially if it causes an issue. Your DH can relay the info.
We schedule a seperate one DH
We schedule a seperate one DH and I go as a couple and BM goes solo, her DH never goes.......but we are the custodial home.
She cannot banish you if dh
She cannot banish you if dh gives his consent. Not her call....period. Have DH contact principal and make it clear he gives consent for you to participate (he may need to put in writing). Now you may not be able to make decisions but you can participate.
I don't go to my skids
I don't go to my skids conferences and I don't want to. I want nothing to do with it, nothing to do with their schooling. I don't want the responsibility. I don't go to SD9s ball games or anything. I can't stand BM and I don't want to see her face or hear her voice. I have two bios to take care of and DH isn't involved in their lives, so I don't see why I should take the extra responsibility of two more kids.
Thank you everyone for the
Thank you everyone for the comments - it gave me a lot to think about.
To clarify a couple of things, the kids do reside with us 50% w/shared custody.
SO did invite me to go, wanted me to go... but backed down when BM got testy. I think this has more to do with jealousy than anything else. Her SO didn't go, and I don't think that was her choice and she didn't want to look the fool as a single parent going when my SO wanted to go with me... she actually had no problem with them not going together until he mentioned I was coming.
The babysitting thing, I actually did say no. As timing would have it, I had another thing to do that night, but even still I would have gladly watched the boys. Right now we have a great relationship (SS3 & SS5) and I cherish my time with them... even if it is for her benefit. It also means I get to see them.
I have to say I am generally pretty lucky at the support I get from SO. In his defense he wanted me there and we share the same views on this. We very much co-parent in our home and I am very close to his children - make no mistake... I know they are not mine and I am not trying to take anything from this woman. Regarding BM, I try my best to be polite and put my best foot forward. For lack of better words, she treats me like shit. Although she treats me better now than she did when I first met the boys 2 years ago. She ignores me most of the time, generally doesn't respond when I say hello... which I always do - even if it is just to save face. In the beginning (according to her), I was not allowed to attend sports games because I am not family,(although I did anyways)... or answer the phone when she called our house,(although I did anyways)... now she doesn't make too much of a fuss... but this just got under her skin because I believe it made her feel insecure.
The result. I am being the bigger person and resisting additional drama by not going. Next year SO will go without her, but just not tell her that I am going. We both agreed that this probably just poured fuel on something that didn't need to be mentioned. It isn't ideal, but it is what it is.