When the goal is positivity

[Painter]

To everyone else- If Julie's H were here we'd work with him. Yes, there are things he could do differently. No, he is not on top of his game. But the language y'all are talking is the language of war.

Labeling him as controlling.
Blaming him for the situation being escalated.
Getting worked up about the possibility that he is in an affair.

Just want to ask you to reread what I actually wrote. I did not label him as controlling - I said one notion he has, is controlling and unreasonable. It is obvious that children's needs do not consist of a list of specific big ticket items that only need to be purchased a few times. It is their daily needs that need to be met, and her H is acting very irresponsibly towards his family.

He may have feelings towards Julie and towards the idea of a family that make him act that way, but the kids are not to suffer for a grown man's feelings and notions. Sorry, not very sympathetic to his behavior in that respect.

[JksD]

Julie, your sitch is very similar to mine, and your H to my xh.

The finances were always an issue btw us. His mother instilled in him a fear that I was the money grabber. Our D negotiations went through without having to go to court but it was to my disadvantage because by then I was a really broken person and I didn't want to fight any more. So that was why I asked you the question that I did.

Our communication style is very combative as well. It still is and he asks me why we are still fighting months after the D. ( Duh, he spews and I cry but that to him is combative)

However, when I compare your H to my xh, I see signs that your H is not as angry as my xh. He is angry but he doesnt spew. Amidst his anger and his need for self- protection, there seems to be this wish to work things out. And Julie, you came to this board much earlier than I did and you seem like you're figuring things out.

It is not easy to separate the terms and conditions of a D from your efforts to reconcile. For the sake of reconciliation, you will have to.

I can tell you that it was my inability to do so that was a big hindrance in my reconciliation, among other things. He wasn't a saint though and he took advantage of me. But it was my inability to compartmentalise and to let go of the anger that disadvantaged me. Because I was so angry and hurt, I had a few missteps and couldn't see the whole situation clearly.

Julie, at a certain point in time, you need to let go of the fear and anger, or at least compartmemtalise them, so that you can do the best for yourself and kids.

The hurt will always be there. But you have a fighting chance now, and to up your odds, you need to put it away, at least temporarily. Letting go of the hurt doesnt mean that your H is right and is no longer a douche. It's just a break for yourself to stop feeling on edge so much.

[Zues126]

You're right Painter. He has a responsibility to provide for his children, and if he isn't willing to, she can't allow them to suffer because she is afraid of hurting his feelings. Strong boundaries and bold action are needed.

My main point is that it doesn't have to be either doormat or combative. It can be collaborative.

Your H does the same thing my H does - puts the cart before the horse and turns the blame around. *HE* could have supported his children voluntarily... Why should it be on you to give him an ultimatum, threatening legal action? Is he saying he has to be threatened to do the right thing? Sounds like he's venting his anger over being forced to do something he didn't want to do, and making it your fault that he financially deserted his family.

This gives me pause. I'm not sure that taking unilateral legal action, threatening to do so, or dropping ultimatums is a constructive response. If Julie does this, even if she's right to protect her children's needs, she's wrong in how she handles the approach.

Her and her husband are not as far apart as they seem. They both want to be able to provide for themselves, they both want each other to be ok, and they both want the children to be taken care of. Those are the main priorities, and they are mutual. Why not start from there and build on it?

Sure, each of them have different ideas on what that looks like, they each have different fears about how those differences might impact them. All the more reason to deescalate, move slowly, and try to establish communication in which those similarities are recognized, the fears are voiced, validated by both parties, and they work together to find solutions that are ok to both of them. I'm guessing they can't do it alone, so a counselor or mediator is a great idea. I agree this is hard stuff, but this is also a great chance to show that she can manage through this maturely.

I am divorced, and I know firsthand how scary it can be. There was also at one point a severe distrust for XW, she did some things that were deceptive and extremely low trust. I get the conflict between "I want this to work" and "If it doesn't I don't want to be the one that gets screwed". In the end I truly believe there are ways to protect yourself without being confrontational or adversarial.

For me, I got a lawyer, an IC, and a DB coach. I took no action that didn't involve the approval of all three. As a result I never lost any sleep over whether I was too firm or too weak. I followed the lead of experts that had seen this thousands of times. And I made it clear that my priorities were R if possible, good co-parenting relationship if not, all while ensuring that BOTH me and XW would be ok and have a good relationship with our children. As it turns out we didn't R, but we do co-parent alright, and we are both going to be ok. I had many opportunities that I could've escalated things, but I'm glad I didn't.

The last thought of my ramble has to do with recovering from an affair. I was thinking about this earlier. The betrayed party feels tremendously insecure and needy, and as a result can overwhelm the affair-haver with constant questions and demands for reassurance. They FEEL needy, and they WANT reassurance. They think that because the affair that caused their feelings was such an injury to them, their sole job should be to not leave, and their partner should be responsible for proving an endless amount of reassurance whenever they want it. That is not the case. It's not enough for the betrayed to stay. They have to stay AND manage their neediness for reassurance. They can express those needs at appropriate times, and it's fair for the betrayer to know those needs exist and make it a priority. But just because they betrayed doesn't mean it's all on them to make the recovery work.

I bring this up because just because one party is wrong and generates hurt in the other party, doesn't mean they are free of responsibility for working through that hurt and responding maturely. Julie is here, WAH is not. Trust me...if he were here, I'd have a thing or two to tell him about what he's putting Julie through!

Thanks for talking about it Painter. One thing is for sure. She should never let fear interfere with her taking bold action to preserve herself or her family.

[Painter]

Your H does the same thing my H does - puts the cart before the horse and turns the blame around. *HE* could have supported his children voluntarily... Why should it be on you to give him an ultimatum, threatening legal action? Is he saying he has to be threatened to do the right thing? Sounds like he's venting his anger over being forced to do something he didn't want to do, and making it your fault that he financially deserted his family.

This gives me pause. I'm not sure that taking unilateral legal action, threatening to do so, or dropping ultimatums is a constructive response. If Julie does this, even if she's right to protect her children's needs, she's wrong in how she handles the approach.

There's a lot of info in this thread about the interaction between Julie and her H, so just wanted to clarify that my statements above were in response to her posting this:

"I have admitted to him multiple times that I should have told him before taking him to court. I did agree with that. He said that I could have said to him "give me the 17% or I will take you to court" and he would have given in. I admitted that would have worked better. But at the time I felt unable to confront him."

So I think we agree?

[Zues126]

Oh, I see what you're saying. Funny, when I read that I laughed. When her WAH said 'why didn't you give me this ultimatum' I almost commented on it. Had she actually dropped an ultimatum like this it would've gotten very ugly, as this clearly hits his exposed nerves of powerlessness. Just goes to show believe none of what they say.

But now I get what you mean. She shouldn't have to say anything for him to provide for his family. That is true. Just like it is true that things don't always work they way they should, and we should do our best to handle that.

Thanks for explaining P.

[JulieH]

Hi

Injust skimmed through the posts so have to read more thoroughly. Yes giving him an ultimatum would have been ridiculous. I had approached him with child support twice and it led to huge fights. I needed to be more clear with it though. Coach had helped me write a letter asking for it. But I never sent it. At that point I felt it was delayed too long, he told me reconciliation was not possible and I just wanted to move forward with it so I took him to court just so I couldn't delay it anymore.

He doesn't see it as him neglecting kids financial needs. He feels that he paid for camp, shoes, some clothes, and would have given me money spent on them with receipts. He feels that the money court mandates is more then I need to cover their expenses.

This is kind of true, but only because we live with my parents. If I had my own place, CS would not be enough. The major issue is that my parents should not have to be the ones supporting us. (I have been giving them rent, but I am sure they are not going to keep it. It will probably be given to my kids at some point) husband cannot separate this in his mind.

It is weird. I think it's because his mother has always enabled everyone so he expects that type of unconditional support from grandparents. I notice that with comments he has made "let your parents babysit them for once" or getting angry when my parents would not make themselves 100% convenient to his needs.

He was also angry because he paid for a car seat to put in my parents car. They lent their car to my brother for one day because my brother needed a car seat to take baby to doctor. It just so happened that day my car wouldn't start. Husband was furious that the spare car wasn't around. This logic makes no sense to me. (I wonder if it's an only child way of thinking but i get angry because he is angry)

This is why I am constantly writing about our arguments and things he gets mad at and my anger and frusturation. I can't justify or find logic in how he is thinking or his demands. I really try to see his point. I try to explain my point. I see white he sees black.

[Zues126]

When you debate about money and H says you don't need as much because you live at your parents...does he believe you should live with your parents for the next 15 years?

I am asking that literally. What is his vision for the future? Does he understand that you will move out at some point? Or does he think that's a permanent solution?

[JulieH]

He wants me to return to work full time and feels that with that added income I could afford my own apartment. This can be done. But we would be not able to afford an area with a good school district. It would also require additional expense of child care. (He assumes grandparents will babysit free while I work) I Would see the kids a lot less because my job requires some evening hours.

In counseling, he would tell me I should switch jobs and even professions. (I went to school a long time to do what I do. I have a license and a skill set and i enjoy it) because he felt salary was not high enough. My salary is decent, but not for the area we live in. Any other state not in the surrounding area I would be fine. I have absolutely no other skill set, so his demands were unreasonable and frusturating,

my income full time combined with child support would leave me with less then his income full time and my part time income combined. When we had that combination the argument was that we could not afford to live and save, which is why we moved in with my parents for a year.

I am in all honesty, very confused by his budget and I have been for a long time. He has not been transparent with me. I know he earns a decent salary. I know that he has no real debt. I don't know why he has nothing saved. I don't understand why he says we cannot afford a place unless I return to work full time. It does not make sense numerically.

[JulieH]

When he brought all this up it was actually at a time where my return to work full time made absolute no sense logistically before kids went to school full time.

Now, I can pick up extra hours if available and have been doing it. But am not willing to leave my job where I have great benefits despite being only part time. Needing to keep this job makes it hard to pick up hours else where because it interferes with when kids are not at school..

[JulieH]

It is not easy to separate the terms and conditions of a D from your efforts to reconcile. For the sake of reconciliation, you will have to.

i know. The two are such extremes, I don't understand this at all! From what I understand he wants to explore both? It's interesting. When I explained the situation to husband as "just like you don't like the financial aspect of this, I don't like the physical loss of the kids. But that's the downside of divorce. This is the outcome and losses. You lose money I lose kids.m It kind of broke him out of the spewing. He said he didn't like losing time with kids either

I can tell you that it was my inability to do so that was a big hindrance in my reconciliation, among other things. He wasn't a saint though and he took advantage of me. But it was my inability to compartmentalise and to let go of the anger that disadvantaged me. Because I was so angry and hurt, I had a few missteps and couldn't see the whole situation clearly.

i am not familiar with your situation. What happened? Did courts not treat you fairly? Did you agree to things that you wish you did not? I have been very cautious regarding what I say to husband. I have no knowledge of affair though and could totally understand how that emotional aspect would make anyone have missteps. Even without knowledge of affair I run these little soliloquies in my mind that would do justice to a Disney villainess.

Julie, at a certain point in time, you need to let go of the fear and anger, or at least compartmemtalise them, so that you can do the best for yourself and kids.

Thank you This has Definatly been my plight.