Sorry B*ver the clause applies to you just as much as it does DH

Love it when HCBMs add stupid clauses to their agreements to f*ck with their ex and then get bit in the @ss by them in the long run.

Beaver INSISTED that there be clause in the event of work conflicts the other parent gets first right of refusal. This was done because Beaver only worked 15-20 hours a week and wanted to BE SURE that Dh didn't put the kids with someone "she didn't know". That and Beaver "ass"umed that DH would continue in a job like he had while married to her that required him to travel. He travelled because he didn't want to be at home with her.

Now..right after the divorce DH changed to a better job that didn't require he travel but maybe a weekend a year. That was it...clause became moot for him. About 5 years ago, DH switched to positions that he could work from home. Clause is now really moot for DH.

In the meantime, Beaver went from working 15 to 20 to working full time when that oh so sweet $600 per month alimony (or as DH called I f*ck a b*tch money) ran out. Not only that she lost the one job she had that could work from home. You know, they actually require you to do you know work. So now Beaver has to go to work and isn't home all day and DH is at home.

Now....she thinks this clause if ridiculous. Of course it is...since it applies to her and not DH. The clause is now vague and it should apply. Hahahaha...

Ha...and she squwaked about Dh being in comtempt for keeping SD for the whole day and half and that he doesn't care about being in comtempt. Nope..DH doesn't since you assualted SD.

Dh also told Beaver he does not want GWR to transport SD in his car unless she can provide a clean drug test for GWR. (which we know she cannot). Till then DH does not want SD riding in a car with a documented drug user.

Beaver is slapping her beaver tail so hard now it's not even funny. DH could careless...

halo1998's blog
Log in or register to post comments

Comments

This is random, but I don't

This is random, but I don't understand how people think $600 is such a windfall that they can work 15 hours a week.

Any word from CPS?

No word from cps yet..

they will meet with SD and Beaver on Monday. So we will see what happens after that. We don't expect much to happen to be honest.

DH is now excerising his first right in effort to keep SD out of the clutches of GWR and Beaver SR. and Mr. Beaver Sr., who will harp on SD that this is all her fault. As well as there is no one during Beaver's week that can help SD with school work, which is all remote. GWR is uselss..Beaver Sr has alzheimers and doesn't remember her family members anymore and Mr. Beaver Sr just had a heart attack recently and is too busy caring for Beaver Sr. The fact that she has to send an 18 year old and a 14 year old to their grandparents during the day because she can't trust the 18 year old to be home alone says alot.

It was a windfall for her because she was

1. living with her parents and paid no rent

2. She also was getting $1000 in cs

3. Had no bills since DH was living in the marital home and paying the mortage/utilities.

Then she bought a condo that the mortage payment was exactly $600 per month and then had to pay her car loan and those pesky utility bills and when the $600 per month alimony ended...she had to get a real job.

Yeah, it's the no rent,

Yeah, it's the no rent, because even $1600 a month isn't living high off the hog.

Yep it was no rent and free child care

from Beaver Sr. I agree even $1600 a month wasn't much but then again the only job Beaver could get paid about 22k a year, she really was only getting about 1400 per month after taxes and having to "gasp" pay her own insurance.

Sounds familiar. BM was quite

Sounds familiar. BM was quite a stickler on FROR and making her home the default school bus destination, back when she was getting high alimony and her parents paid her rent, so she didn't need to work more than a part-time job.

Now that she's getting very little from DH and has to work full-time, she's not so concerned about FROR. (And of course, it's harder and silly to enforce in small increments with high school kids.)

Oh let me tell you Beaver was all bout the First right

back when the kids were younger. One time DH was on a boy scout camping trip with SS (GWR) and SD was back at the house ( SD was all of about 5 at the time) and Beaver demanded that SD be turned over to her at 11:30 p.m. since DH would be away from her for 4 hours. Did not matter that SD was already in bed and sleeping and that DH and GWR would be home by 7 a.m. that morning. DH got SS and came home. Met Beaver at the door...and told her to go to hell. He then put SD and her sleeping bag in the car and took her back with him to the campout with him and GWR. The boy scout leader was also divorced Dad of 3...he got it and told DH the bring SD with him to all of GWR's boy scout outings/meetings.

After that DH wouldn't ever leave GWR or SD back with me even for a little while because he didn't want to deal with Beaver and he certainly didn't want me to deal with her. He just planned everything so he would be home when GWR and/or SD were here and o they went with him where he was going.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh yes, she is one

Ohhhhhhhhhhh yes, she is one of those. Sounds similar.

Oh yes....she is one of those....

and she may meet malicious compliance here soon.

She was squawking that if DH has work just an hour on the weekend she wants that time. Malicious compliance it is.....see it will take Beaver at least 30 minutes to get to our house. So, DH can let her know when he starts working and by the time she reads the message, stops what she is doing and gets here, he will be done. So..he will have complied and let her know....and she will drive all the way here for nothing.

Now will we do that..probably not...but if she continues to squwak about it..you bet we will.

When DH and BM were married,

When DH and BM were married, DH played a lot of video games...similar to your DH with his travel, these video games were a way to escape from BM. BM insisted upon adding a clause about how "neither parent could expose the children to video games rated MA". Unfortunately for BM, her new SO (who moved in to her home less than 4 months after she filed for divorce and kicked DH out of the hosue) was also a gamer...no sooner had he moved in, then SSs (7 at the time) both got gaming consoles in their room and BM allowed them to play Grand Theft Auto (perhaps one of the most inappropriate games for children, since you can simulate having sex with a prostitute and then kill her to get your money back at one phase of the game). DH raised holy h%ll with BM and pointed to their agreement...she responded that he had no say on what went on in her home. Oh the irony on both levels...BM loves to tell DH "the agreement is clear" and also loves to tell DH what he can and cannot do when SSs are with us...including scheduling events during his time and then demanding he take the children to them or demanding that she be allowed to pick up the children and take them to these events.

All goes back to Rule #1 for HCBM - rules and legal agreements don't apply to her, they only apply to everyone else.

In my case, BM has always tried to get out of whatever portions of the agreement or mediation changes she doesn't agree with by claiming that those clauses are "unfair" or "not in the best interest of the children".