Annie's Mailbox® by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

LW1 - So your kids are in their early 20's now, yes? Why are you pushing this on them, and on your ex-in-laws, and 10 years after the separation? You seem to be the only person who, for some reason, still wants one big happy family with her ex's family. It's a nice ideal but it ain't gunna happen. Your kids will do just fine with their network of family on your side, and their friends. If they haven't learned it already, they will learn this lesson now: not everyone likes you and wants to be your friend. Tough noogies.

LW2 - Don't concern yourself too much with this. People who have met your father before probably stand a bit farther back, and if you talk to someone who doesn't know your dad but will meet him soon, you can say "oh, by the way, my dad spits a lot when he talks; don't say I didn't warn you!"

LW3 - I hear the sound of Annies backpedaling.

LW2: So this guy made it to old age and people are still letting him spit on them? Ewwwww!!!! How can it be that nobody has ever convinced him that this is a social deal breaker? What on earth did he do for a living? I can't imagine letting it happen twice, no matter how apologetic and explanatory his family members are. He must be very sweet indeed.

Yuck. LW2 reminds me of why I pass on the birthday cake, and I love cake, when somebody has blown out the candles. Especially when there's a lot of them and they have to really try to blow them all out. Who wants to eat cake that somebody has spit all over? I'm sure the people that know this guy know to stand back.

Re: LouisaFinnell How did this spitter land a wife? Pickings must have been real slim!

Both families are cleaving to their child's (former) partner, just using different definitions. You have taken the kinder approach, which is all well and good. But you can't change others. Maybe a divorce would help them find closure.

LW1-
By refusing to even be civil, they are indeed taking sides. How sad that they seem to care more about the children being half yours than being half their son's.

"Giving up doesn't seem like the answer"? I'm afraid it's pretty much the only option on the table. You can't force people to love you, you can't force them to be even sensible, you can only lead a horse to water. Do what the Annies said and let it go.

P.S.: "my mother-in-law was here for more than a week"
You EX-mother-in-law. you mean. Is this a Freudian slip? Perhaps you're having difficulty dealing with the end of your marriage, even ten years after the fact. For you own piece of mind, please look into this possibility.

You say you've been separated for ten years, but you don't mention a divorce. If there hasn't been one after all this time, then there should be. It's no like there is any hope of reconciliation. It's time to turn the page at last. Looks to me like you need closure.

Erratum -
For you own PEACE of mind. The dreaded homophones strike again!

LW1 - I think giving up is the answer. You will never change their minds. They have decided that they want nothing to do with their children/grandchildren/niece/nephew. Yes, I think it's rotten but they've made their minds up and you can't change them. The more you harp on this, the more it hurts you and your kids because the reminder keeps coming back. Once you let it go, you will learn to accept it and move on. Your children are right in that you can't fix everything. Listen to them.

LW2 - You've asked him to slow down and he won't. Maybe it's about time someone told him he spits when he talks. I know, not an easy conversation, but I think someone has to tell him.

LW1 could have been a page written from my husband's book. His poor mother, after 35 years of abuse (HORRIBLE emotional abuse - if I went into detail, I'm afraid other posters might get physically ill) towards herself and her children finally gave him the boot. My husband at that time was in his early 20's, and delighted that his father was finally out of the house and they could breathe easy again. But she wanted to push her kids to maintain a relationship with this horrible man, such as calling on his birthday, etc. It would ruin my husband's day when she would do that. I finally had to tell her, "please stop asking him to do something he does not want to do! He put him through hell, and when you ask him to do this, it makes him miserable, as well as me, because I have to deal with it." I'll never forget her face when I said that. It's like it clicked and she finally realized that his behavior towards her children was actually MORE emotionally devastating to the kids, instead of just herself (to this day my husband never understood why she stayed with him so long, and says his brothers would have been MUCH happier and better adjusted had she left when the abuse began. To this day, his 41 year old brother does not have a job and lives on social security, he's so timid). So, LW1, you may not realize that he was a rotten egg not just towards you, but also to the kids, which in my opnion is worse, because the kids didn't ask to have this man in thier lives, and you were the adult. They seem wisened over this, and are probably happy that he's gone. Let it go.

LW1 could have been a page written from my husband's book. His poor mother, after 35 years of abuse (HORRIBLE emotional abuse - if I went into detail, I'm afraid other posters might get physically ill) towards herself and her children finally gave him the boot. My husband at that time was in his early 20's, and delighted that his father was finally out of the house and they could breathe easy again. But she wanted to push her kids to maintain a relationship with this horrible man, such as calling on his birthday, etc. It would ruin my husband's day when she would do that. I finally had to tell her, "please stop asking him to do something he does not want to do! He put him through hell, and when you ask him to do this, it makes him miserable, as well as me, because I have to deal with it." I'll never forget her face when I said that. It's like it clicked and she finally realized that his behavior towards her children was actually MORE emotionally devastating to the kids, instead of just herself (to this day my husband never understood why she stayed with him so long, and says his brothers would have been MUCH happier and better adjusted had she left when the abuse began. To this day, his 41 year old brother does not have a job and lives on social security, he's so timid). So, LW1, you may not realize that he was a rotten egg not just towards you, but also to the kids, which in my opnion is worse, because the kids didn't ask to have this man in thier lives, and you were the adult. They seem wisened over this, and are probably happy that he's gone. Let it go.

LW1 could have been a page written from my husband's book. His poor mother, after 35 years of abuse (HORRIBLE emotional abuse - if I went into detail, I'm afraid other posters might get physically ill) towards herself and her children finally gave him the boot. My husband at that time was in his early 20's, and delighted that his father was finally out of the house and they could breathe easy again. But she wanted to push her kids to maintain a relationship with this horrible man, such as calling on his birthday, etc. It would ruin my husband's day when she would do that. I finally had to tell her, "please stop asking him to do something he does not want to do! He put him through hell, and when you ask him to do this, it makes him miserable, as well as me, because I have to deal with it." I'll never forget her face when I said that. It's like it clicked and she finally realized that his behavior towards her children was actually MORE emotionally devastating to the kids, instead of just herself (to this day my husband never understood why she stayed with him so long, and says his brothers would have been MUCH happier and better adjusted had she left when the abuse began. To this day, his 41 year old brother does not have a job and lives on social security, he's so timid). So, LW1, you may not realize that he was a rotten egg not just towards you, but also to the kids, which in my opnion is worse, because the kids didn't ask to have this man in thier lives, and you were the adult. They seem wisened over this, and are probably happy that he's gone. Let it go.

Unfortunately, if the in-laws make accusations against Mom, it's possible that any relationship with the children will include them being subject to hearing those same accusations. The children may want to consider that, as well, when attempting to reconcile.

L1- I'm confused. So, after the divorce, her ex husband never took his kids to visit his family?

LW1: what divorce? She mentions separation, not divorce. It's possible she or they are Catholic or didn't divorce for other reasons, but it seems to me that LW1 was pretty careful to refer only to a separation and to name her husband's relatives as her in-laws, not her ex in-laws, and she also does not refer to her husband as her ex. I think, for whatever reasons in play, that they are still married, legally. If that's the case, gee, I guess it's nice to see people preserving the "sanctity of marriage." Not much sympathy here from me. The kids have had ten years to get used to dad and grandma and whoever not being involved and are likely young adults by now. Mom clearly hasn't moved on and wants to create a world where she attends family reunions where she and her children aren't wanted, for whatever reason. Weird.

Re: Lise Brouillette

She said she seperated from her husband ten years ago, not that she is divorced from him. She also refers to "my husband" and "my in-laws", so it definitely sounds like she is still legally married. After treatment like this, I wonder, "why?".

Re: Lise Brouillette

She said she seperated from her husband ten years ago, not that she is divorced from him. She also refers to "my husband" and "my in-laws", so it definitely sounds like she is still legally married. After treatment like this, I wonder, "why?".

Well, I'm still married, definitely not separated, and my in-laws don't want to have anything to do with me or their grandchildren. These are their son's/brother's children. They're not waiting for some hypothetical divorce to start hating my guts. After several years of that treatment, I wrote them off, and I'm happier for having done it. One lesson I hope my children learn from this unhappy situation is that not it's their job to make the jerks in the world like them. I had to learn it the hard way.

LW1: Let me be blunt here. Your husband is not your husband. I have no idea why you are still married, people stay married long after separation for many many reasons. I stayed married for legal reasons, other people stay married for monetary reasons, still others for religious reasons.

I can relate to what you are trying to do. You want your children to have a relationship with your "husband's" family and indeed himself. You see other people doing it and it looks so easy. But the fact of the matter is, LW, that people that have successfully navigated divorce within their families maintaining healthy relationships have one thing that you do not. Everybody has to have the DESIRE to make it work. Your husband and his family have no desire to keep or develop (at this stage) a relationship with you and your children. If they did, they would be initiating contact. They are NOT. In fact, they are pushing you away.

To continue to push your agenda on these people is incredibly destructive, not only to your self esteem but to your children's self esteem. What are you teaching them? That when people treat you like s#$% that you should keep going back for more abuse. Do you have girl children? Do you want them to be in a marriage like yours? If so, then YAY! Because you are teaching by example that this type of behavior is ok. Do you want your sons to go out there and abandon their wives and young children and not be loving men who participate in their childrens' lives? if so, then again, you are teaching by example.

What I finally came up with, and I hope you do as well, is that for your own self-esteem and to teach your children by example that they are worth more than to be treated like dirt, you MUST get a divorce and cut ties with this family. The best way to do this, especially if you have been supported by this "man" (not much of a man to me, sorry) is to get with a lawyer and work out some kind of support agreement. the fact that you have been separated for so long (if he has continued to support you financially) will help there. If he HASN'T been supporting you, and you don't want any support for yourself, it should be a quick divorce.

If there is a religious reason for you to stay married, i URGE you to discuss the situation frankly with your spiritual advisor. In my case, my minister, who is nationally known for supporting marriage and family issues and who is adamantly against divorce IN MOST INSTANCES, supported ME wholeheartedly in the divorce action and has told me that divorce is actually the moral thing to do. if you are Catholic, they have annulments (I believe legally you still have to go through paperwork with the state though?).

The important thing is, you need to formally end this marriage. Oh, LW! More than you know, I understand this. But the day I walked into the courthouse and filed for divorce was the beginning of the process of forgiveness for me. Really. I had been separated for so long (like you), and had been living a life of treading water. I was very unhappy, felt my life was on hold. What spurred me on to formally file? A few things. One, I own my own company and I didn't want him to be able to claim any of our profits. Under the laws of most US states, he would be entitled to half (community property). Second, my daughter by that time was legally able to define where she would want to live. I had been terrified he would take her out of the country and I'd never see her again (thank you, News Media, for printing all those stories about people taking their kids out of the country. Every one of them made my blood run cold). and finally, probably most importantly, I was READY. I remember having a conversation with my business partner where he asked me point blank, what is more important to you, your self esteem or the $XXXXX that you stand to get if the settlement comes out (key word being IF)? At that point, I let go, and within a week had filled out my divorce papers myself (you can do it yourself, not easy, but there are people at the courthouse who will help) and formally filed for divorce.

It's not an easy process, I understand. There is one song that I used to think a lot about at the beginning of what I am calling the forgiveness process. That song is "we just disagree" by Dave Mason. "So let's leave it alone, cause we can't see eye to eye, there aint no good guy, there aint no bad guy, there's only you and me and we just disagree". When I could sing that song without hate in my heart for my "husband" and realize it's over, I knew I'd be ok.
I hope you are reading this LW, because it's time you cut that cord. God bless and be good to yourself in the process. (and that includes stop having contact with people who treat you like dirt: you live less than a block away? then you need to move).

LW1 - So your kids are, at the very least in their mid to late teens now and probably older. It is not an issue for them. That's why they're telling you it's not an issue for them. It's an issue for you. You need to figure out why and while you're trying go figure that out remember you've been divorced for 10 years and this has been going on for that long and the world has not ended and to the best of my knowledge your kids seem to be okay. I'm not one to say "Get over it" but I will say to "Give it a fukin rest, already".



LW2 - He's old. He spits when talks. He always has. Why are you worried now? The folks he's spitting on will or already have figured it out. If he's done this all his life and was able to attract a wife, have kids, hold down a job, etc., I'm willing to guess it's not that bad and you're just obsessing over it.



LW3 - That just creeps me out and I can't believe a parent would not react to that and instead writes for advice. The uncle shoul've been asked about.

Re:LW1, lots of good insights on the board today. Why is she still married after a separation of 10 years? Why is she continuing to try to push her children into a relationship with their dad's family when they aren't that worried about it?

Also... she doesn't mention why the separation happened, either. Is this her fault? Did she cheat on her husband, or have a drug, alcohol, or gambling problem? If the marriage blew up and it's more her fault than his, the in-laws may have a lot of good reasons not to want her around. Heck, is he even the bio-dad of these kids? So many possibilities here.

Even so, assuming the very best about the LW, my advice would echo others: get the divorce, give this campaign up, and let your adult or near-adult children make their own minds up about how much of a relationship they want to pursue with their father's side of the family. This is really in their hands now, not yours. Stop stressing about it.

LW2: The family needs someone to take the fall, and at the next gathering, when the spit flies, exclaim "Hey, say it, don't spray it!". And then step back, and dramatically wipe themselves off. He's not going to be interested in changing his behavior if he thinks it's not a big deal or no one ever comments on it. Heck, if you've focused on his speed-talking, maybe he doesn't even realize what the true problem is!

LW3: Yep, sad, creepy story, and there could be more to it. Yuck.

@nanchan
For the Catholic church to grant an anulment, there must be grounds for them to state that the marriage never really existed in the first place. Either it was never consumated (not the case here obviously), or the plaintiff must prove that the other party entered it in bad faith, never meaning to be a spouse in the Christian way. That is more difficult, although feasible.

The reason I know this is because I investigated the possibility myself after I separated from my (now late) ex-husband and was already going through divorce procedures.

Also, an anulment only takes care of the religious aspect of the marriage contract. It is not in lieu of a civil divorce, which must take place for the legal ties to be severed.

lise: not to sound cynical here, but I have friends who Catholic, went through formal legal divorces (mostly to separate assets) and then went through the annulment process so that they were able to marry again in the Catholic Church.

the annulment process in my friends case was basically, even in the words of their own son, paid off. The Church has been granting annulments for CENTURIES based on what they feel is best for them (can anyone say Henry VIII?).

we don't know if the LW is catholic or not, and to get too far into this debate is ridiculous. the point is, she needs to leave the marriage.

Why is no one pointing out the obvious?
This is not a problem with LW1, her kids, or the in laws. This is a problem about her husband. Ex or not. She should be asking him wtf is going on and having him deal with it. If he doesn't, well, that sure says a lot.

Re: nanchan

I'm not sure what your point here is exactly. Of course annulments have been granted for centuries, I never said it was impossible, not even that difficult once the criteria of admissibility are met. Also, the criteria may have been enlarged or defined differently since the time I consulted back in 1975 - that was 37 years ago, that takes us back a bit. Even then, I was told I had a good case, but that even good cases were long and drawn processes (at least back then) and so, because my husband was already hysterical that I was leaving him and troublesome enough, I chose not to add that battle to the court case.

I'm not sure why you mention Henry the VIII, because he never got an annulment or a divorce. That's why the Anglican church exists in the first place, because the Vatican wouldn't give him what he wanted so he could Marry Anne Boleyn and Henry the VIII took matters in his own hands, with Clement VII excommuniating him as a result.

It's a bit of apples and oranges. Divorce ends the marriage according to the state; annulment ends the marriage according to the Catholic Church, and is really only important if someone intends to marry again within the Catholic Church.

It may be that LW needs both to feel like she is out of her marriage. But I've never heard of someone getting an annulment without a divorce already in place.

Either way, though, the 10-year-long separation is a bit odd, unless there are some legal complications that make divorce unpalatable to either or both of them.

My parents were married for 25 years before getting a divorce AND an annulment! Since the annulment means the marriage never happened, I like to think that this makes me a bastard, in the official sense. I may even have business cards made up with that as my title. :-)

BACK ON TOPIC!

wkh: I agree with you that this is a battle for the husband to fight, but he obviously won't, which is why I know I concentrated on the LW and what is WITHIN HER POWER to change and how she should move forward, in my opinion.

PS: Lise: I am not Catholic, don't pretend to be, will never be, and have no understanding of the process. However, if you want to continue the debate on annulments, may one suggest you take it to Delphi. You didn't comment on any other part of my post and the point about being Catholic is sort of off topic. take it to another forum, it's not appropriate to bring it up here except to say that even Catholics have alternatives and always have, to bad marriages. How they get there is another topic entirely.

Re: Mike H

LOL - That is one of the questions I asked back when I consulted. I was told that the children were not considered bastards because they were conceived at a time when the larriage was thought to be valid.

Just curious, what do you think will happen to you if you get a drop of someone's projected spit on your face, or eat cake with a tiny/microscopic amount of spittle on it??? I can assure you you won't drop dead, get AIDS, go blind, taste it, or anything like that. It baffles me how people can encounter germs ALL the time - on other peoples' hands, on change, on a keyboard, computer mouse, telephone, cell phone, fridge handle, public restroom door handle, their face, their purse, mosquitoes,... and yet freak out at something more tangible but far less harmful shows up. Send me your uneaten cake and give me your sweet old grandpas to talk to!

wkh - No, the problem IS with LW1. Sure, the EX-in-laws (married or not, they have been separated for 10 years and obviously the EX-in-laws want nothing to do with her) have problems of their own but they aren't the ones writing. LW1 is the one who keeps going back for more abuse, reminding her children that "grandma and grandpa and uncle joe and aunt jane don't like you!" because she can't let them go. I mean, if you leave your door unlocked and people keep going in and stealing your stuff it's their fault for stealing but at some point you have to lock your doors and protect yourself, right?

Re: nanchan

1. It was not off-topic since it was an offshoot of wondering why the LW is still not divorced after all these years, and in fact, you're the one who brought it up.
2. You are not the moderator here, to dictate to people what they're allowed to talk about or not and where the conversations are going.
3. I was being perfectly civil (as I've always been to you), and nothing I said justifies this reaction from you - you're being uncessarily rude and disagreeable.

Re: Lise / nanchan

I like our "off topic" discussions BTL! Makes for interesting reading as long as everyone can be a grownup about it. Nanchan, if you do not care to continue the discussion, may I suggest that you simply not reply? Lise probably won't have a debate with herself.

Zoe, I as a general rule enjoy the off topics as well. And I agree with your point.

I loved your comment about the door being locked by the way.

Zoe, I as a general rule enjoy the off topics as well. And I agree with your point.

I loved your comment about the door being locked by the way.

The spitter. If this is a new thing, something he has not done all his life, willing to bet he got new dentures, could be some slippage, improper fit, he has learned to cross bit, etc.
As people age, and many loose weight, their dentures are the first to show weight loss. Their mouths and cheeks that the teeth were molded and fit around have changed. Become too big for their mouths. Slip/slide. My b-i-l only puts in his teeth for weddings and funerals. Otherwise he don't care. A case of welfare paid for them once upon a time in bad times. He can eat a steak with no teeth. He has a 8 month old grandson. They say they look just alike, esp when eating.
The common phrase when coming across someone like this is GIVE TOWELS WITH YOUR SHOWERS? You also might find gum chews have excessive spittal that sprays. Nothing worse than some who chews dog shit (snoose) and dribbles or sprays and SPITS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LW1 is not divorced, just separated. Many don't get beyond that because of cost for legal work. Is she waiting for him to die so she can become a widow?
Either way, don't force those children to be part of people's lives who want nothing of them. You tear open wounds the kids have worked hard to heal. Let it go. In their minds they have done the grieving process and moved on. Time you do too. When their grandparents die, it will be their decision of their own reactions. Don't force them to do anything.

re: Zoe post #1
The kds are not in their 20s, they're probably high school aged now. They were preteens 10 years ago.

Re: Steve C
A pre-teen will be, what? 10-11-12? Plus ten years, that's early twenties indeed. 19 at most.

LW1--"My husband and I separated 10 years ago when our children were preteens. He has shown little interest in them and maintains contact only due to my encouragement." The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. My question to you is why, after 10 years of separation, haven't you divorced your so called husband? It's obvious to me that he's moved on and his family has moved on. As hard as it might be for you to accept, your "husband" wants nothing more to do with you. It seems as though your children have accepted this fact; it's time you did too. Instead of trying to insinuate yourself into your FORMER husband's family and his life, my advice is to get yourself to a divorce attorney and do what you should have done years ago. This marriage was over a decade ago.

LW2--I don't know why you're embarrassed, it's your father who sprays it instead of saying it. Since your father has done this his entire life, it's highly doubtful anything you say will change his manner of speaking. You can either humiliate this otherwise sweet old man by pulling out an umbrella every time he speaks, or simply consider this an annoying tick and let it go. There's nothing wrong with warning your friends privately and discreetly that your father tends to spit a bit when he speaks so that they can take appropriate evasive maneuvers when conversing with him.

Re: Steve C

Are you sure you know what a preteen is? Generally it's a term used for kids 11 to 12, maaaybe 10. 10+10 = 20 - so yeah, they are all at least 20. You be needin' a calculator!

Re: Zoe
You be needin' a dictionary. A preteen is "a boy or girl under the age of 13, especially one between the ages of 9 and 12." So, no, it is not someone who is at least 10. It can be anyone who is not a teenager yet. I concede that I haven't used it to mean someone who's almost 13, so they COULD be early 20s, but they are not DEFINITELY early 20s. But you're right, they are most likely legal adults.

Re: Steve C

No, I'm still right... LW1 says her CHILDREN (all of them, at least 2) were preteens. Even if she was describing a 9-year-old as a "preteen" (which is uncommon, but possible, so sure, and I highly doubt she was describing her 6-year-old as a preteen), the youngest possible combo of ages would have been 9 and 10 - so now, 19 and 20. That's if they were the youngest possible age anyone could possibly describe as "preteen". If they were on the older end of the spectrum - 11 and 12 - they would be 21 and 22 now - early 20s! If they were in the middle - 10 and 11 - they would be 20 and 21 now... Early 20s. At least one is early 20s (20 is early 20s) and only the youngest could be 19.

NONE of them could be high school age as you stated and all would be 19 AT LEAST, not 19 AT MOST as you indicated.

Besides, I never said they were "definitely" early 20's so I don't know why you're arguing this. We're talking about a difference of ONE year and my original point still stands. They are old enough to move on with their lives and decide if they care about family that doesn't care about them.

Re: Zoe
That's exactly what I said.

Steve, why are you arguing on such a simple matter? By your definition, " A preteen is "a boy or girl under the age of 13", any infant could qualify as a "pre-teen", and that's not the way the word is being currectly used. It means "about to be a teen", not "anything younger than a teen". For you to be splitting hair like this only makes you look like someone who'll put out any kind of yurunda just to get the last word.

LW1: I'm confused. You love your children so much you want them to have horrible people in their lives? Huh? Are you mental?

Zoe: Why are you arguing about such a simple matter indeed? A preteen is someone who is not yet a teen. No, pre, doesn't mean "about to be". It means "isn't yet". Is a premature baby "about to be" mature? No, it is any baby that isn't mature yet.

LW1>> Ten years and you're not divorced yet??!! Geez!

Re: Steve C

Steve, are you gonna fight for this until the cows come home, just so you get the last word in?

Pot calling the kettle black, Lise?