Boy did I screw up

[NYCTeacher]

Misogynist much?

Now I totally understand why your wife divorced you and retains custody of the mutual child.

You say Misogynist like its a bad thing!

I was never married to my childs mother...her retaining custody,well, court is this week and several professionals have advised the judge otherwise, i'm pretty charming in real life. No guarantees of course, but with all my evidence and me being me, it should be a walk in the park.

 

[ecmst12]

Please leave this forum. There is no place for your attitude here.

 

[LdiJ]

Completely disagree. DH and I do this. Because neither of us NEED unfettered access to each others' paychecks. Because we should be able to spend some of our money on ourselves without the other seeing every transaction. Because we should be able to buy gifts for each other and have it be a surprise. Because it's easy for us to put the bill money in a separate account at the beginning of the month so we know that's taken care of and the rest of our paychecks are available. We can both see when something gets paid so there's no question of "did you forget to pay the mortgage this month". And there's never an issue of one person buying something for themselves and leaving the other unable to pay for gas or lunch. It does NOT mean that we might as well be roommates or that our relationship is any less loving or trusting than a couple that uses one account. But it does avoid a lot of sources of fights about money.

My parents did that and it worked great, but it worked great because they were both responsible about money. In this thread the OP admits that he is not at all responsible about money.

 

[ecmst12]

If he puts the bill money in a separate account at the beginning of the month then he can be as irresponsible as he wants with the rest of it. But if I were his wife, there would be no second (or third, really) chance to mess up our finances. There would be no ultimatums or conditions. There would just be a divorce. I would never have let it get to the point where this could happen, of course, but this situation is so far past the point of no return of trust it's not even funny.

 

[NYCTeacher]

My parents did that and it worked great, but it worked great because they were both responsible about money. In this thread the OP admits that he is not at all responsible about money.

But that's the beauty of it! It cuts him completely out of the finances and bills, by giving the wife the only access to that account(beyond his deposits to it) while still allowing them their own money. He doesn't have to be responsible with money since she will now be taking over that aspect from the joint account.

Three accounts is really the only sensible decision to make in this case.

 

[Ladyback1]

You say Misogynist like its a bad thing!

I was never married to my childs mother...her retaining custody,well, court is this week and several professionals have advised the judge otherwise, i'm pretty charming in real life. No guarantees of course, but with all my evidence and me being me, it should be a walk in the park.

Charming for people like you equates to manipulative. I've dealt with people like you, the most recent being my ex-husband. And he is bipolar, narcissistic and while not officially diagnosed, I would hazard a guess a sociopath. You have no business raising a child. I'm not sure you should even raise a pet rock....

 

[Proserpina]

Charming for people like you equates to manipulative. I've dealt with people like you, the most recent being my ex-husband. And he is bipolar, narcissistic and while not officially diagnosed, I would hazard a guess a sociopath. You have no business raising a child. I'm not sure you should even raise a pet rock....

(Given that this thread has already gone down the gutter...)

Remember what they said about Ted Bundy?

Yeah. He was charming, too.

 

[single317dad]

You say Misogynist like its a bad thing!

It is. Go away. If I'd remembered who you were, I never would have replied to your other comment.

 

[single317dad]

Completely disagree. DH and I do this. Because neither of us NEED unfettered access to each others' paychecks. Because we should be able to spend some of our money on ourselves without the other seeing every transaction. Because we should be able to buy gifts for each other and have it be a surprise. Because it's easy for us to put the bill money in a separate account at the beginning of the month so we know that's taken care of and the rest of our paychecks are available. We can both see when something gets paid so there's no question of "did you forget to pay the mortgage this month". And there's never an issue of one person buying something for themselves and leaving the other unable to pay for gas or lunch. It does NOT mean that we might as well be roommates or that our relationship is any less loving or trusting than a couple that uses one account. But it does avoid a lot of sources of fights about money.

I didn't intend to imply that all couples who do this are in their relationship "endgame", only that it's many times used in that scenario. Re-reading my comment, I can easily see how it could be taken that way.

 

[NYCTeacher]

You guys have atleast three very active members that are VERY anti-dad, they are blatantly obvious about it too!....You need me here as a counter weight.

I'm not going anywhere

 

[Ohiogal]

You guys have atleast three very active members that are VERY anti-dad, they are blatantly obvious about it too!....You need me here as a counter weight.

I'm not going anywhere

Should we guess who is very anti-dad in your words? Oh please. Tell us. Tell us. I am waiting.

 

[stealth2]

You guys have atleast three very active members that are VERY anti-dad, they are blatantly obvious about it too!....You need me here as a counter weight.

I'm not going anywhere

Actually, we're all just anti-stupid people. Like you.

 

[NYCTeacher]

Look at the "Compelled to let child go?" thread in the custody forum. Here's a hint, the Correct answer, both legally AND morally was YES!

The anti's came out in force to say...things like 'this is hard' or 'well, maybe'....There was nothing hard about that question, unless you are bias against fathers.

 

[Ohiogal]

Look at the "Compelled to let child go?" thread in the custody forum. Here's a hint, the Correct answer, both legally AND morally was YES!

The anti's came out in force to say...things like 'this is hard' or 'well, maybe'....There was nothing hard about that question, unless you are bias against fathers.

Wrong. The correct answer was NOT yes -- not 100% unequivocably yes. You are wrong. There are many things that LEGALLY impact such a question that were not mentioned. Maybe is actually the correct answer. It has nothing to do about bias against fathers.

 

[NYCTeacher]

Wrong. The correct answer was NOT yes -- not 100% unequivocably yes. You are wrong. There are many things that LEGALLY impact such a question that were not mentioned. Maybe is actually the correct answer. It has nothing to do about bias against fathers.

Given the context, the correct answer was Yes, if she said he was a danger to the child, it would have been no(and file for a restraining order), if she said she was a junky it would have been absolutely Yes(and let him keep the child)....

But with the information she gave, freshly divorced, nothing else....The correct answer was Yes....I thought you were one of the ones that gave a correct answer Ohiogal