Unfortunately, stepfamilies are subjected to many conditions and situations that can easily create the potential for hate in the relationship. While it is somewhat unrealistic to expect a stepmother to experience the same love for her stepchildren as she does her own children, that does not mean that she hates her stepchildren (Watson 74). There are many factors that contribute to the emotional distress a stepfamily may experience. "Most children would resent their stepmother even if she were an angel sent straight from heaven. They are not in a position, often, to like anybody. Frequently they have been hurt and upset. They are obsessive about their father. They jealously guard the memory of their mother. They may feel insecure and unhappy about their future. A new stepmother is a threat in all kinds of ways" (79).
In addition, the woman of the household, whether she be the mother or stepmother, is frequently responsible for the day to day care of running the house. Because women are raised to be nurturers it is very difficult for them to avoid family problems. According to Elizabeth Carter, co-author of The Invisible Web: Gender Patterns in Family Relationships, "When a stepmother sees the children as unhappy and the husband as ineffectual, she moves in to be helpful. This usually results in a lot of fighting between teen stepdaughters and step-mothers" (Misrach 66). Psychologists explain that all women, biological mothers, stepmothers, and even stepdaughters, are more likely to recognize and express distress whenever a problem occurs. However, in stepfamily situations women seem to be especially sensitive to interpersonal problems
For this reason, the majority of the disciplinary problems in a stepfamilly, causing the stepmother to be set up as the evil stepmother, occur when the biological father fails to take a clear responsibility in the disciplinary procedures regarding his children (Rutter 32). Unfortunately many divorced parents feel guilty and choose to compensate their children by becoming good-time moms and dads who refuse to set limits for their children. They justify this by thinking that their children are already upset and they don't wish to upset them any further. However, this usually results in the stepparent being forced into the primary disciplinarian role and they become the bad guy to their stepchildren (Millar 218). And Pearl Ketover Prilik, author of Stepmothering Another Kind of Love has this to say: "The reality is that these marriages break up because the husband and wife can't - or won't - work through problems dealing with the children. Often the overindulgent father, guilty about the divorce, can't or won't set limits, and the new marriage takes a beating. The father wants to be the kids' best friend and so the stepmother ends up being the disciplinarian" (Misrach 90).
Further research shows that women take their stepfamilies very seriously and personally, linking their parental and family role with their self-value. A large part of a woman's self-esteem depends on her stepfamily relationship going smoothly. Therefore when family situations are negative a stepmother suffers from low self-esteem and feelings of insecurity and guilt. Unfortunately this creates a vicious cycle, as the worse the mother feels about her family role, usually the more "stepmothery" behavior she displays (81). Ultimately, women must learn to be more tolerant of their own human failings and realize that all parents make mistakes and experience challenges, not just stepmothers (Brown 70).
So why are stepmothers made to be the scapegoats, not only in fairy tales but in real life? Possibly in many instances it has to do with negative thoughts or images of the "real mother."
Meanwhile, somewhere in the transition from the biological mother to the stepmother, society has reduced the privileges supporting marriage for wife number 2. Is it fair for the rules to change here? Shouldn't spouses be first to one another, and the children, regardless of whose they are, come after that relationship? If a partner is unable to commit this much to his/her new spouse, possibly that person should refrain from getting remarried. Also, stepchildren should be taught by their biological parent to respect their new stepparent. You cannot force a person to like or love another person but you can demand respect. Many biological parents seem to accept the rude attitude and actions of their children toward their new spouse without question.
Not surprisingly, stepmothers appear to take the brunt of blame for turmoil in a stepfamily living arrangement. However, if stepmothers are so evil, how is it that 80% of the children placed under these women develop into fine adults without behavior problems (Rutter 33)? Much of the available research on this topic seems to indicate that stepmothers should supply all the needs of the children and home, yet have no voice in the discipline of the involved children. Isn't this an insult to women? As an adult partner in a marital relationship, shouldn't women be allowed a decision in how behavior will be judged or rewarded in their home? And while it is probably a good idea for the biological parent to assume the major role in discipline, what if that parent chooses to disregard or ignore the inappropriate behavior of his children? Is it reasonable to expect the stepparent to avoid discipline measures also? Under this situation who is in control of the household? Definitely not the parents. "Conflicts are inevitable and should be expected. But biological parents risk turning their new spouses into the stereotypical evil stepparents when they don't support their spouse's rules and decisions. Without that support, experts say, stepparents have little, if any, influence over their stepchildren" (Whetstone 106).
Furthermore, like many things in life, only the ones that have had the actual experience are truly qualified to define it. Often stepfamilies seem to be being judged by others as to how they relate to each other. In reality, stepfamilies probably have many conflicts similar to an intact or "normal" family. However, intact family disputes are not openly aired and discussed, in comparison to stepfamilies. As Fern Kupfer stated in Parents Magazine: "Being a stepmother is, simply, one of the most difficult things I've ever done. I imagine saying that to my stepdaughters. How would they respond? 'The most difficult thing you've ever done! Were we so terrible?' 'No.' I'd say, 'but you'll understand if you become a stepmother" (Kupfer 162).
Fact: "Stepmothers have the most difficulty building a relationship with stepdaughters. There is generally less affection, less respect, and less acceptance in this relationship than in other stepfamily relationships. The daughter may resent the stepmother's closeness with her father... Attempts by the stepmother to fulfill her role in the stepfamily may be perceived by the stepdaughter as efforts to replace her mother."
"Building Step Relationships." Stepping Stones for Stepfamilies. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1832.pdf
wow. i'm VERY glad you posted this.
it just reaffirms that i'm not evil and corrupt and 'out to get' my stepson. let me be the first to thank you.
i may just copy and paste this into an email and send to all family members that are convinced i'm the reason for all the misery SS says he's experiencing.
Just trying to be a Stepmom without getting Stepped On.
Go right ahead
I'm not the original author. I passed it along too. I think everyone should read it.
~Don't fear the thorns among the Roses, but be greatful for the Roses among the thorns~
Thanks for posting this!!!
I think I will copy and paste too! Glad to hear you started your new job today.....GOOD LUCK!!!
dreamer
fantastic post...i completely agree w the author.
"Given the right reasons and the right two people, marriage is a wonderful way of experiencing your life."
~the late great George Carlin
This just in
my folder of articles I go to for support as needed! Thanks Dreamer! It helps to have an independent study support what we all know about, that people who don't live thru it don't believe.
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin
Seems like the author
has been in my home watching our family evolve. Statements so true and on point. Good article. Thanks for the post.
My new StepMother's Motto:
When life gives you lemons... Make a damn good Margarita.
The excerpts from the
The excerpts from the article Dreamer quoted failed to mention a lot of other facts. To present a balanced view – and gain understanding why bm’s sometimes seem to act so irrationally with regards to their children, it would be necessary to consider other facts. Most are quoted here:
MYTH: -- Stepmothers are acceptable substitutes for children's real mothers. [This is the cherished belief of many re-coupled nonprimary caregiving fathers who seek custody, and also of the custody evaluators who indulge them.]
FACT: "Children raised in families with stepmothers are likely to have less health care, less education and less money spent on their food than children raised by their biological mothers, three studies by a Princeton economist have found. The studies examined the care and resources that parents said they gave to children and did not assess the quality of the relationships or the parents' feelings and motives. But experts said that while the findings did not establish the image of the wicked stepmother as true, they supported the conclusion that, for complex reasons, stepmothers do invest less in children than biological mothers do, with fathers, to a large extent, leaving to women the responsibility for the family's welfare."
"Differences Found in Care With Stepmothers," by Tamar Lewin, Tim Shaffer for The New York Times Susan Sasse, vice president of the International Stepfamily Association, with her husband, Erik, and their children in Chesapeake City, Md. (August 17, 2000) http://www.geocities.com/thesagacontinues2000/stepmoms.html
Also see http://www.geocities.com/wellesley/9204/custody.html; and "What's Normal In a Stepfamily"? by Peter K. Gerlach, MSW. Board member Stepfamily Association of America http://sfhelp.org/04/reality3.htm
Also see: Children living with custodial fathers are less likely to have health insurance than children who live with their mothers. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-224.pdf
FACT: "[C]hildren experiencing multiple transitions, experiencing them later in childhood, and those living in stepfamilies fared poorly in comparison with those living their entire childhood in stable single-parent families or moving into two-parent families with biological or adoptive parents. Other studies show benefits of stable single-parent living arrangements for children's socioemotional adjustment and global wellbeing.
(Acock & Demo, 1994), and deleterious effects of multiple transitions (Capaldi & Patterson, 1991; Kurdek, Fine, & Sinclair, 1995), supporting a life-stress perspective."
David H Demo, Martha J Cox (2000) Families With Young Children: A Review of Research in the 1990s Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (4), 876-895.
FACT: "The one most significant factor that neutralizes the advantages of remarrying is the psychological dilemma the child goes through over whom to love. The child seems to be polarized, for example, between loving the woman (the mother) who is now, as it usually happens, hated by the father, and the new woman (the stepmother) whom the father deeply loves. Virginia Rutter describes this conflict as "divided loyalty". She further explains that the child feels torn because their parents are pulling them in opposite directions. The symptoms of this divided royalty are that they brew up bad behavior or depression, a forced psychological path to resolve the conflict between the parents (Rutter). On the other hand children whose parents remain single do not experience this because no new figure (stepparent) is introduced to trigger that psychological trauma."
"Reconstituted families vs Single-Parent Families." http://wl.middlebury.edu/derick/ ; Rutter, Virginia. "Lessons From Stepfamilies". Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, Inc. May-June 1994 Vol27 n3 p30 (10). Oct. 31, 2002.
FACT: "Stepmothers have the most difficulty building a relationship with stepdaughters. There is generally less affection, less respect, and less acceptance in this relationship than in other stepfamily relationships. The daughter may resent the stepmother's closeness with her father... Attempts by the stepmother to fulfill her role in the stepfamily may be perceived by the stepdaughter as efforts to replace her mother."
"Building Step Relationships." Stepping Stones for Stepfamilies. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1832.pdf
MYTH -- "The psychological literature indicates that children’s overall adjustment following divorce does not differ between those living with custodial mothers versus custodial fathers. This finding holds true even with infants and young children." [Leighton E. Stamps, Ph.D. in Age Differences Among Judges Regarding Maternal Preference in Child Custody Decisions, referencing Mark Bornstein, HANDBOOK OF PARENTING (1995) http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr38-4/CR38-4Stamps.pdf]
MYTH -- Mother-absence is no different from father-absence; it's a single-parent family, and "gender" of the parent is irrelevant.
FACT: Gender may be irrelevant, but motherhood isn't. "...children residing without biological mothers fare worse than those without biological fathers, across most outcomes. In addition, only longitudinal measures of mother absence directly influence school outcomes. The time lived away from the biological mother is related to adolescents' grades and school discipline, while the number of mother changes significantly reduces adolescents' college expectations."
"The Longitudinal Effects of Mother and Father Absence on Adolescent School Success." Population Association of America, Minneapolis, MN. (May 1-3, 2003)
FACT: "Using data from four national surveys, Biblarz and Raftery (1999) show that mother-absence is much more detrimental than father-absence to children's educational and occupational attainment. They find that once parents' socioeconomic status is taken into account, children raised by single mothers are much better off than children raised by single fathers or fathers and stepmothers, and are just as likely to succeed as children raised by both birth parents. Biblarz and Raftery conclude that the pattern of effects across family types and over time is consistent with an evolutionary perspective which emphasizes the importance of the birth mother in the provision of children's resources (Trivers 1972). According to this view, children raised by their birth mothers do better than children raised apart from their birth mothers. Furthermore, being raised by a single birth mother is better than being raised by a birth mother and step-father since step-fathers compete with children for mother's time and lower maternal investment."
Case, Anne, I-Fen Lin and Sara McLanahan. Educational Attainment in Blended Families, August 2000.
FACT: "Recent work on the determinants of children's human capital investments suggests that the absence of a child's birth mother puts the child at risk. Those investments that are typically made by a child's mother -- in food, health, and education, for example -- are made at a lower level when the child is raised by a non-birth mother."
Case, Anne, I-Fen Lin and Sara McLanahan. Educational Attainment in Blended Families, August 2000.
MYTH -- Post-divorce, children do just as well emotionally in father-custody as in mother-custody.
FACT: "[A]dolescents living in a father-custody household feel more hopeless than adolescents living in a mother-custody family. There is no difference in the effect of sex of the custodial parent between girls and boys. The same-sex hypothesis stating that children are better off living with the parent of the same sex is not supported by these data... [A]dolescents in a father-family perceive less appreciation than adolescents in a mother-family [but this factor] does not seem to have any consequences for the relation between the sex of the custodial parent and well-being...The ...question still needing an answer is why, then, adolescents in father-families suffer more from hopelessness than adolescents in mother-families."
Mieke Van Houtte PhD and An Jacobs, 2004, JOURNAL OF DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE, Volume: 41 Issue: 3, "Consequences of the Sex of the Custodial Parent on Three Indicators of Adolescent's Well-Being:: Evidence from Belgian " 143 - 163
Fact: Remarried custodial fathers are no more involved with their children than they were when married to the children's mothers; while somewhat more involved when still single, when married, they revert back into a pattern of letting the mother-figure in the household rear the children. "Repartnered resident fathers are located in the multidimensional space about halfway between unpartnered resident fathers and resident fathers who are married to resident mothers, indicating that repartnering may pull resident fathers back toward the parenting patterns seen in biological two-parent families."
Daniel N. Hawkins, Paul R. Amato, Valarie King (2006) Parent-Adolescent Involvement: The Relative Influence of Parent Gender and Residence Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (1), 125–136.
Myth -- Post-divorce, children do just as well emotionally in father-custody as in mother-custody.
Fact: Remarried custodial fathers are no more involved with their children than they were when married to the children's mothers; while somewhat more involved when still single, when married, they revert back into a pattern of letting the mother-figure in the household rear the children. "Repartnered resident fathers are located in the multidimensional space about halfway between unpartnered resident fathers and resident fathers who are married to resident mothers, indicating that repartnering may pull resident fathers back toward the parenting patterns seen in biological two-parent families."
Daniel N. Hawkins, Paul R. Amato, Valarie King (2006) Parent-Adolescent Involvement: The Relative Influence of Parent Gender and Residence Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (1), 125–136.
Fact: Notwithstanding widespread media disinformation conflating children in mother and father custody as generally suffering detriment that was attributed to their custodial parent's relocation, the actual numbers from Sanford Braver's study of college freshman from divorced families indicated that the most well-adjusted and satisfied children were those in the custody of their mothers whose fathers moved away. Children in the custody of their fathers scored significantly lower on personal and emotional well adjustment than children who remained in the custody of their mothers, had significantly more hostility, and ranked lowest of all groups in general life satisfaction.
See: BRAVER'S ACTUAL FINDINGS, Critique of " RELOCATION OF CHILDREN AFTER DIVORCE AND CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS: NEW EVIDENCE AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS", http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/braver.html
Thus, while it may not prove true in all cases, studies show that in the vast majority of cases kids tend to become better adjusted, secure adults by living with their bm’s. It also tends to be why – all other things being equal -- judges tend to give custody of kids to the BM.
Let me start by saying no offense intended.
However, most of this sounds like a load of crap designed by Pseudo Scientists to justify their own importance and existence.
Of course since I started with "Let me start by saying no offese intended", feel free to start with "Rags - Then screw you in advance.". I am fine with that.
Keep in mind that the value of an expert is only as good as the verifiable contribution that person can make to a real situation. I believe that if we break the word "expert" in to to its component parts "Ex" and "Spurt" we can derive the relative importance of the work of many of these "experts" to a child's life.
Ex = Past tense, has been, or no longer relevant. Spurt = Uncontrolled dribble.
(FYI: This sentence and the paragraph above are intended to be a smart-ass statement)
As an engineer I deal with data every day. Data for data's sake means nothing and without context and without focus on solving a specific problem data is worthless. I have made a pretty successful career out of cleaning up the messes that experts leave when they ply their "brilliance" and then go on to turn someone else's life in to sheer hell.
Parents do the same thing. Real parents spend a lot of time cleaning up the messes that are left by the influence of part timer "experts" in our kids lives. Teachers, coaches, counselors, judges, NCP's and sometimes even CPs, social scientists, etc ...... all who do the best they can to apply their expertise in order to "improve" the lives of children. Many do a great job but others just cause more problems than they solve.
I find that many who choose to make their careers in what can only at best be described as pseudo science "professions" can make connections in situations where non exist.
Each blended family and broken family situation has its own distinct caveats, influences, situations and facts. If these elements are not considered then any statistician can fit the data wherever it best supports the premise that is trying to be proven.
From what I can discern from all of these Myth/Fact pairings the intent is to prove how important a BM is and certainly can be argued to support the premise that BMs are highly relevant to child development while BF's are primarily irrelevant.
One only needs to listen to the news in any major metro area to see countless data points in evidence that BFs are more important than BMs. Inner city crime seems to be nearly always attributed by our great social scientists to the fact that these kids are raised without fathers and only by their mothers.
Gender roles are different. A child needs both a maternal and paternal example and influence to have the best opportunity to develop in to a viable adult. Some kids do fine in single parent households and some do not. Some kids do fine in initial two parent families and some do not. Some kids do fine in two, three, or four parent blended families and some do not. Without the complete picture from each family situation it is highly unlikely that a viable conclusion can be drawn.
Hmmmmmmm? I personally believe that there is a reason why kids have historically been raised by two parents. Fathers are equally important to Mothers and Mothers are equally critical to child development as Fathers.
One need only look at any metropolitan area evening news to see what happens when one parent is completely missing from child rearing.
Lets put on a pseudo science hat for a moment and review my own SS's situation. He has always had top medical insurance and health care, is doing well in school (but he could do a lot better), he will go on to college, he gets plenty of food, has more than adequate clothing, rides in safe transportation, lives in a safe community, has never perpetrated a crime or delinquent act, etc ..... and he lives full time with his BM. Yep, his educational success, well fed, bright future'd existence, if we keep our pseudoscience expert hats on, is due entirely to being raised by his BM. Now, his Bio-Dad is a moron who has three more out of wedlock children (SS is his oldest out-of-wedlock child), is uneducated, comes from an uneducated family background but makes decent money as a licensed plumber. Yep,yet more evidence to "prove" that being raised by his BM is why my SS is doing well. What our pseudoscience expertise fails to recognize is ....... ME! The father who has been there for him every day since he was 15mos old, loved he and his mother unconditionally, provided for him, showed him the example of what a true father and man does for his family. But as our pseudo scientist expert hat has proven, I am irrelevant just as apparently StepMothers are irrelevant.
Don't get me wrong. His mother is amazing and has done a great job, but she did not do it alone.
The only true way to prove any one of these Myth/Fact premises would be to take a large number of identical twins, separate some of them at birth, some of them at random ages and set up a blind experiment putting some of them in intact families, some in single parent families, some in blended families, some in economically depressed fatherless homes, motherless homes, privileged homes, etc, etc, etc, ........ But, that would be absurd. But, not significantly more absurd than what these "pseudo scientist experts" present as fact or science. It is a load of crap! Fortunately a "real" parent would never let this truly scientific experimentation take place. And neither would our society.
Any adult that will step up and be a parent to a child (father or mother) is relevant IMHO.
I don't know about the rest of you Sparents out there but............. I not only feel relevant, I AM pretty damned relevant.
Just my thoughts of course.
Best regards,
Wow Voice of Reason!
No offense, but you sound like a bitter BM. There is validity in a lot of what you have posted, but the reality for many of us is just not that. A lot of us deal with inept and maladjusted at best BMs/BDs. So, in general it may be in the best interest of the children to be with the BM, but BMs are not perfect either.
I am a BM and a SM. I treat my Skids like my own. I have raised them since the age of 5 when the courts saw fit to remove them because their BM who was making $50K a year and receiving an additional $1k in CS failed to properly provide for them.
That my SD was kicked out of a private school that BM could not afford but insisted that she remain at for the sake of appearances. So, in turn my SD ended up missing 3 weeks of 1st grade because of BMs stupidity.
That my Skids moved a total of 7 times when they lived with BM in the span of 1.5 years and lived like freaking nomads.
That my skids were sleeping on the floor of a roach and ant infested home and they were coming for visits with ant bites all over them.
That my kids lived for 2 months in a hotel beause BM thought that it was cool, when what she should have done was approach DH to say can you look after the kids, I'm in a tough spot.
So according to your research, you are saying
That the loving, stable home that my DH and I provide for the kids is going to scar them.
That we put a lot of time and attention into the kids and their well-being so that they can be successful in life is more than likely not going to happen because they had to live with me.
That my kids actually now have friends that they have known since the age of 5.5 and 7 when they came to live with us, is not a good thing.
That my kids are healthy and well-fed as they get home cooked meals on a regular basis as opposed to the kids menu at every fast food joint in town is not good for them.
That my kids excel at everything they do because DH and I support them, love them and teach them to take pride in any task that they undertake.
Need I go on. Your post infuriates the hell out of me, for the mere fact that this is a post for step parents to vent. So, if you are looking to bash step parents or how we are not good enough for our skids, then maybe you should seek a BM geared site. Are we perfect, hell no. But do we do the best for our kids and Skids, the best that we know how. Your post would imply that my kids would have had a better life in the despicable conditions in which they lived in. Your arguments are being displayed for the wrong audience. So, while you hide behind not being registered to be a productive member of this community, your critique of us is really not welcomed. We are merely stating our experiences and they just so happen to be more in line with the actual post before you came to play devil's advocate.
We already battle enough negativity just by the sheer step-label we really don't need further bashing from someone who hasn't the faintest clue of what we deal with on a daily basis with our crazy and often deluded BMs. Good riddance.
Step Mother's Motto this week is:
You don't have to LOVE me, you don't even have to LIKE me... But you will RESPECT me.
AMAZING
Sums it all up-where have you been all my life!!! going to have to take a "slow read" about this-
Step Parenting – you might need to step back before you step in something!
I not only feel relevant, I AM pretty damned relevant.
"To Thine Own Self Be True" William Shakesphere
Wish I felt this way. I know I should be relevant-but H has made it clear that I am not. Funny, tho I chose not to remarry until my youngest son was grown, if I had, I would've treasured someone who would do for mine like they would their own.
H doesn't feel that way at all-obviously. Since I've started posting on here, I've come to realize (by writing it all out) how he slams the door in my face so to speak, on any input regarding his daughters. Oh, it's fine for me to cook and clean when they're here-and yes, I'm allowed to join them when he and SD17 decide where we will eat out, but I am not consulted on anything. In fact, the two of them make their plans, their decisions, and he lets me in on it when and if he feels like it. If SD17 needs me to do anything at all, she calls her father, and he calls me and tells me. This is an eyeopener for me tonite...I'm beginging to realize that she treats me the way she does, in part, because she is following her father's example. As I said before, when it came to SD17 and H's plan for this weekend-when I mentioned something about them to her a couple of weeks ago-she looked squarely at me, raised her eyebrows in total surprise and said "He told YOU about our plans"? I mean, she was shocked. She was totally shocked that my husband actually told me his plans for the weekend with her. That one comment pretty much sums up the dynamics my husband has created for our life together.
So, Dreamer, I'm gonna copy and paste the article you posted and email it to H. After I have found a job. Gotta find a job. This is so so wrong.
I am so sorry that you are dealing with the disconnected DH.
Witch,
My SS is an only child in our home. I believe I love him as much as I would a Rags-Bio-Child and I certainly hope I would. My wife is significantly younger than I am (33 to my nearly 45) so my having a later in life child is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Even if we did have another we would fundamentally have two only children due to the significant age difference that would exist between the children (Nearly 17yrs even if my Lovely Bride gave the the news today)
That said, even bio parents with multiple children feel differently about their different children. I know my parents love my brother and I equally but there are differences in the relationships between our parents and I and my bro and our parents. I speak with my parents nearly every day, my brother speaks with them a couple of times per month. I was always of the mind that my family would be an extension of my parents family and be very close with my parents. For years my brother followed the model that my parents used with their family. Mom, Dad, me and my two younger bro's (youngest bro passed away when he was 10mos old 36yrs ago) with the GP's and extended family having a minor peripheral role. Though for my parents that was mostly due to them making their career internationally where my bro and I were raised. As his marriage and family matured my bro and his family grew very close with our parents but it took several years.
I think you should get your career rolling again. That would give you something outside of your marriage and blended family to focus on. I believe it would also give you much more "stroke" when laying out clarity for your DH. And he is in desperate need of clarity in my opinion. He needs clarity that you are his wife and his relationship with you is the foundation of the blended family. You are not the maid for he and his kids and he continues with the mistaken belief that you have no say in how children that spend time in your home are parented then he is in for a rude awakening.
Anyway, my best wishes are with you on this.
Good luck and best regards,
Post new comment