Frustrated, embaressed and mad!

[robinb]

Sure someone did - stating that a visitation schedule of two weekends a month could be viewed as abandonment by the ex-wife "sorry, but that's only 4 days out of 30" was the statement. As far as taking personal responsibility, I believe a PP was referring to lying on an application to receive aid - not that the ex-wife should have to scrape together money from a disability check for x-mas.

That poster said that the ex-wife could FEEL that she was abandoned by being a full-time single parent for an autistic child 26/30 days per month. Not that she was actually abandoned by the father. No one is accusing him of doing any less than he is legally obligated to do.

And as for lying on the application ... since she didn't need to lie to qualify for the program, I still don't see this as a "personal responsibility" issue.

 

[kaytieeldr]

You are misreading the tone of my post. I am defending the OP where it seems others think she should not have been in on the process. The word 'nerve' should have been in italics, I am typing from a phone. Hope that clears it up.

OOPS! I've gotta start sleeping better! Got it now! Good job

 

[TeresaBelle]

Yes, we do see names, because if you had help in 08 and 09, you did not qualify except in extreme circumstances such as fire etc.

I am on the board along w the heads of several other heads of civic organizatons in our county. No one knows who we are but one another. We do not let others in the community know we are on the board. Toys are actually picked up at the Sheriffs Dept. The screening process is a big job and takes some time.

As far as the adults living in the house.

Mom is disabled...none of the other adults are and all live on her disability and the childs. He is autistic.

I will not be a part of the final decision. It was turned over to the Sheriff who is the ultimate head of the board along with the truth for the final decision.

When OP says 'Mom is disabled'... I took this to mean the ex's mom?? Not the ex wife?? OP... can you clear that up?

But I still think it is wrong that she lied on the app.!

 

[disneyjunkie]

It seems that some folks have no problem supposing the ex-husband is not living up to his end of the bargain somehow. I don't see that from the OP's posts at all.

Do you think she would post that he wasn't living up to his end of the bargain?

 

[NikitaZee]

That poster said that the ex-wife could FEEL that she was abandoned by being a full-time single parent for an autistic child 26/30 days per month. Not that she was actually abandoned by the father. No one is accusing him of doing any less than he is legally obligated to do.

And as for lying on the application ... since she didn't need to lie to qualify for the program, I still don't see this as a "personal responsibility" issue.

She didn't have to lie, yet she did. And it made someone else look bad in the process. That is how it strikes me as personal responsibility.

Let the kid get his gifts from the charity and make sure DF is doing what he's suppose to be doing. . .maybe next year Mom won't find her self in the situation where she has to feel like she has to ask for outside help to provide a Christmas for her child. JMHO

This strikes me as doubting what the Dad is doing for his son. Of course, this poster said up front that this is a sensitive issue for her, so she has a different perspective than I would. Just my opinion.

 

[SaraJayne]

The community will not know, however, those in the room do, and it was embarrassing for us.

Regardless of whether the Sheriff approves her app, he is going to have a Christmas. We were planning on buying gifts to take to her house and she knew this, in addition to what he gets from us. The only gift we said we would not buy him was a new computer this year and it made her mad.

It isn't about you. Never has been, never will be. It's about that poor little boy.

 

[NikitaZee]

OOPS! I've gotta start sleeping better! Got it now! Good job

 

[SaraJayne]

Do you think she would post that he wasn't living up to his end of the bargain?

Exactly.

 

[kaytieeldr]

It isn't about you. Never has been, never will be. It's about that poor little boy.

I'm not seeing any "poor little boy", under any definition of the word, with the possible exception of the morals with which he's currently being raised on a day-to-day basis.

But you're wrong. This IS about the OP, and more specifically her fiance. By lying on the application which, unbeknownst to the mom/ex-wife, the OP, the boy's dad, and other people who know the two of them saw including the lies about why the son should get gifted from the Empty Stocking program, it is absolutely about the fiance's image in the community - even just among these few people, even if they don't share with anyone. Here he's volunteering time with charities, yet on the other hand he (a) abandoned his first family (false based on past posts), (b) ignores his son (false) and (c) doesn't pay child support (false).

That "poor little boy" appears to be getting everything he wants for Christmas except a computer. For the record, I'm getting everything I want for Christmas except a computer. The difference? ALL I want is a computer. Where's MY sympathy?

 

[SaraJayne]

I'm not seeing any "poor little boy", under any definition of the word, with the possible exception of the morals with which he's currently being raised on a day-to-day basis.

But you're wrong. This IS about the OP, and more specifically her fiance. By lying on the application which, unbeknownst to the mom/ex-wife, the OP, the boy's dad, and other people who know the two of them saw including the lies about why the son should get gifted from the Empty Stocking program, it is absolutely about the fiance's image in the community - even just among these few people, even if they don't share with anyone. Here he's volunteering time with charities, yet on the other hand he (a) abandoned his first family (false based on past posts), (b) ignores his son (false) and (c) doesn't pay child support (false).

Read some of the OP's other posts about this child. She's got all kinds of issues with the son/his mother.

And no, it isn't about her or her boyfriend. I have no sympathy for women that can't handle the fact their partners had a wife/children before them.

 

[robinb]

She didn't have to lie, yet she did. And it made someone else look bad in the process. That is how it strikes me as personal responsibility.

I see that as more "personal integrity" than "personal responsibility".

FWIW, I am very sympathetic on how the OP must have felt when she read what the ex-wife had written. However, I believe that the organization shares in the responsibility for her embarrassment. Many other posters have shared how applicant anonymity is established in their organization before the selection committee meets. As I said in an earlier post, perhaps the organization will choose to implement such procedures to protect the privacy of the applicants and other possible embarrassment for committee members.

 

[Disney Doll]

I see that as more "personal integrity" than "personal responsibility".

FWIW, I am very sympathetic on how the OP must have felt when she read what the ex-wife had written. However, I believe that the organization shares in the responsibility for her embarrassment. Many other posters have shared how applicant anonymity is established in their organization before the selection committee meets. As I said in an earlier post, perhaps the organization will choose to implement such procedures to protect the privacy of the applicants and other possible embarrassment for committee members.

I'm not talking about that... I agree with that aspectof this discussion, that all applications for assistance should be blinded so that only a few select people know who the applicant is.

My focus is more on how everyone seems to think it's OK for this woman to lie on the application, saying that the child's father does not see or support him when in fact the opposite is true. And chances are if she's lying on this application for assistance, she's lying on others....

Apparently I am in the minority in thinking that this is a problem.

 

[klj27]

I'm not talking about that... I agree with that aspectof this discussion, that all applications for assistance should be blinded so that only a few select people know who the applicant is.

My focus is more on how everyone seems to think it's OK for this woman to lie on the application, saying that the child's father does not see or support him when in fact the opposite is true. And chances are if she's lying on this application for assistance, she's lying on others....

Apparently I am in the minority in thinking that this is a problem.

Well, then I must be in the minority too.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I'm not talking about that... I agree with that aspectof this discussion, that all applications for assistance should be blinded so that only a few select people know who the applicant is.

My focus is more on how everyone seems to think it's OK for this woman to lie on the application, saying that the child's father does not see or support him when in fact the opposite is true. And chances are if she's lying on this application for assistance, she's lying on others....

Apparently I am in the minority in thinking that this is a problem.

I don't know that she lied. There is always the other side of the story, which has not been represented in this thread. If she lied, I think that would be a shame - but I don't know that she lied, so why would I judge her for it?

You seem to want to believe the OP across the board. I am just suggesting that this story is almost certainly more complex.

 

[pls5286]

Just to clarify, DSS mom receives disability as well as the child. We don't claim to be best friends and never have but are civil for the sake of the child.

there are many issues w/ here and her parenting which is why df is going for full custody after the holidays. We don't want to completely uproot him unless the choice is not ours during the holidays, but he will be spending all of Thanksgiving with us and most of Christmas break wQ us, going home either late Christmas day or the day after as it's moms birthday. That's how she wanted to do it.

 

[luvsJack]

Everybody is talking like this is an either/or situation. Its not a matter of either the father is taking care of his responsiblities OR the mother needs assistance--it can be AND. KWIM?

If he sees his child when allowed, provides what he can, pays his court orderded child support then he is doing what has been asked of him. The only thing any of us were pointing out is that these things can be done and the mother STILL need assistance.

She lied about the father deserting them. Ok, maybe in her skewed way of looking at the situation he did desert them. Maybed whenever the divorce took place she felt he deserted them--we do not know how she feels about it.

The OP says that he takes care of his child and does everything he should. OK, maybe in HER skewed way of looking at the situation he does but really he only does the bare minimum. We have no way of knowing that either.

The fact is the woman probably qualifies for assistance WITHOUT any lies being told. She qualifies for this as well as government assistance. But maybe she thought things needed to be worse than they are for her to get Christmas presents for her son.

 

[disneyelaine]

OP, I know this does not relate to the thread at hand, but..... How long has he been divorced? How long have you two been dating/living together? Just curious. You know his son's autism behaviors may be directly related to that?

 

[rigs32]

In theory, yes. But in reality, no one would've had any idea that the OP was connected to this particular child.

The OP said "One of the other volunteers asked us if this was her and showed us the app." That indicates that someone other than OP flagged the app as possibly being their DSS. At that points, the contents should not have been shared w/ the OP or her DH.

 

[pls5286]

OP, I know this does not relate to the thread at hand, but..... How long has he been divorced? How long have you two been dating/living together? Just curious. You know his son's autism behaviors may be directly related to that?

we have been living together for almost a year. We don't see behaviors at our house that mom says she sees. Df has been called by mom on numerous occasions to come over and straghten calm him down. I have gotten on the phone a couple of times too. He has said that maybe if he is bad enough he can go live w dad in in counseling.

he plays w toys here and plays outside and with my 2 kids. At his moms he plays videogames all day.

we don't deny he has behavior issues as he goes to a special school for kids with behavior issues but he hits his mom, something he wouldn't dare do w me or dad, he knows better. Or use bad language, when he does, he is sent to his room for a calm down.

 

[hambirg]

Everybody is talking like this is an either/or situation. Its not a matter of either the father is taking care of his responsiblities OR the mother needs assistance--it can be AND. KWIM?

If he sees his child when allowed, provides what he can, pays his court orderded child support then he is doing what has been asked of him. The only thing any of us were pointing out is that these things can be done and the mother STILL need assistance.

She lied about the father deserting them. Ok, maybe in her skewed way of looking at the situation he did desert them. Maybed whenever the divorce took place she felt he deserted them--we do not know how she feels about it.

The OP says that he takes care of his child and does everything he should. OK, maybe in HER skewed way of looking at the situation he does but really he only does the bare minimum. We have no way of knowing that either.

The fact is the woman probably qualifies for assistance WITHOUT any lies being told. She qualifies for this as well as government assistance. But maybe she thought things needed to be worse than they are for her to get Christmas presents for her son.