Talk Cancer

Question:

nope…easy answer in my book…if SO was going to be a permanent fixture, and ex was willing to share information about SO as far as last name…then yes..that’s different. I’d be concerned if the ex’s SO had criminal records, and would want to know what they were…what if it involves child abuse? Lori – thinking ex’s sometimes don’t think… "Geri and sometimes Brian" <gplen…@aol.commotion> wrote in message news:20010918205213.24929.00001299@mb-mr.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Would you allow your ex’s significant other (not married) to attend your > child’s psychiatrist appointments (where confidential information regarding > your child is discussed) if 1) there was a better than likely chance said SO > would not remain in the picture and 2) if you knew nothing about said SO except > his/her first name 3) your ex felt that you didn’t need any other information > about the SO, even though previous SO’s had criminal records (of unknown type). > We have been debating this issue at our house. > Geri > "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." > (George W. Bush)

Response:

>If my ex felt that it was important for his SO to attend (and I presume that >these are the parental briefing appointments, not the child’s actual >appointments

They are the child’s actual appointments.  Brian, BM and I all go.  (I have been given the court ordered right to go to these things and to all information regarding SD, specifically.) >(and, given the restraining orders in >place in your case, I’m assuming that you do not go to these appointments >with BM).

The only restraining order in place now is that BM can’t call Brian at work. The others were all removed. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response:

>I’d be concerned if the ex’s SO had criminal records, and would want to know >what they were…what if it involves child abuse?

That is a huge concern of Brian’s.  I think he would be willing to concede the point if he could just know the guy’s name. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response:

>>(and, given the restraining orders in >>place in your case, I’m assuming that you do not go to these appointments >>with BM). >The only restraining order in place now is that BM can’t call Brian at work.

BTW, there were never any against me, personally, although BM tried it about a year and a half ago.  The judge threw it out. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response:

Geri and sometimes Brian wrote: > Would you allow your ex’s significant other (not married) to attend your > child’s psychiatrist appointments (where confidential information regarding > your child is discussed) if 1) there was a better than likely chance said SO > would not remain in the picture and 2) if you knew nothing about said SO except > his/her first name 3) your ex felt that you didn’t need any other information > about the SO, even though previous SO’s had criminal records (of unknown type). > We have been debating this issue at our house.

I wouldn’t allow it under those circumstances, esp. if SO were just a new face in the picture.  What right does he have to be in on such private conversations regarding SD?  BTW, does SD have an opinion in the matter?  Does she want him to be there or specifically not want him there? Jennifer

Response:

Is it not possible to let the psychiatrist decide? The bottom line question regardless of the duration of his relationship with BM, or his last name or history, is whether or not his presence will be an asset or a detriment.  I don’t think you two will be able to ascertain this, but perhaps the dr. can.  If you’re lucky, maybe he has a stabilizing effect on BM. FWIW – the boys’ former step-father attended IEP meetings and he did have a last name and a criminal record.  While I can’t say that he actually contributed in any substantial way – you cannot discount the stabilizing factor.  BM was less prone to construe things that were said. Merrie Geri and sometimes Brian <gplen…@aol.commotion> wrote in message news:20010918205213.24929.00001299@mb-mr.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Would you allow your ex’s significant other (not married) to attend your > child’s psychiatrist appointments (where confidential information regarding > your child is discussed) if 1) there was a better than likely chance said SO > would not remain in the picture and 2) if you knew nothing about said SO except > his/her first name 3) your ex felt that you didn’t need any other information > about the SO, even though previous SO’s had criminal records (of unknown type). > We have been debating this issue at our house. > Geri > "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." > (George W. Bush)

Response:

>Is it not possible to let the psychiatrist decide?

He doesn’t want to get in the middle of it.  For the record, her psychologist refuses to allow the SO to come to those appointments, as it says it has no therapeutic value. We are afraid of pushing the issue very far with the psychiatrist, because we don’t want to lose him.  On the other hand, the SO has no legal right to be at those appointments, and if the doctor speaks about SD’s treatment in front of him, he is divulging confidential information. >While I can’t say that he actually >contributed in any substantial way – you cannot discount the stabilizing >factor.  BM was less prone to construe things that were said.

*I* don’t have a really strong opinion about it, as the guy seems somewhat pleasant.  OTOH, he was allowed to come to SD’s IEP meeting (which the parents are allowed to bring *anyone* to that is an "advocate" for the child’s family) and he contributed some grossly inaccurate information that we had to go back and correct.  After the meeting, there was heated discussion between all parties about what time SD should be allowed to be picked up from school.  The boyfriend actually took our side on it, but it was not pleasant.  So, there is potential for flare-ups in the doctor’s office, and that would be in front of SD. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response:

> What right does he have to be in on such private conversations >regarding SD?

No legal right. >BTW, does SD have an opinion in the matter?  Does she want him to be >there or specifically not want him there?

She doesn’t have an opinion.  She likes him, but she likes anyone who pays attention to her. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response:

Yup.  Too many chefs.

Response:

>Would you allow your ex’s significant other (not married) to attend your >child’s psychiatrist appointments (where confidential information regarding >your child is discussed) if 1) there was a better than likely chance said SO >would not remain in the picture and 2) if you knew nothing about said SO >except >his/her first name 3) your ex felt that you didn’t need any other information >about the SO, even though previous SO’s had criminal records (of unknown >type). >We have been debating this issue at our house. >Geri

I would if I thought it would be helpful. jane

Response:

Well, with your BM’s history, no.  I can understand  where Sian is coming from, and I agree in that context, but I think they are two different situations. If you know for fact that all BM’s past SO’s have had criminal histories, if BM time after time shows to not  know what way she’s going or coming (you get my drift) then no, at least for now.  Geri, why don’t you do this, instead of saying "no" indefinitely, try to wait it out and get to know the person, and see if he’s in it for the long haul with BM.  We’d all like to work with our ex’s like they were normal, sane human beings thinking rationally, but unfortunately not all of them are so, so I think you are doing the right thing. Heather McEwen "Geri and sometimes Brian" <gplen…@aol.commotion> wrote in message news:20010918205213.24929.00001299@mb-mr.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Would you allow your ex’s significant other (not married) to attend your > child’s psychiatrist appointments (where confidential information regarding > your child is discussed) if 1) there was a better than likely chance said SO > would not remain in the picture and 2) if you knew nothing about said SO except > his/her first name 3) your ex felt that you didn’t need any other information > about the SO, even though previous SO’s had criminal records (of unknown type). > We have been debating this issue at our house. > Geri > "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." > (George W. Bush)

Response:

> Geri, why don’t you do >this, instead of saying "no" indefinitely, try to wait it out and get to >know the person, and see if he’s in it for the long haul with BM.

Well, like I said, I have a more moderate viewpoint on the issue, because we have a bigger iron in the fire at the moment, but Brian says that if he marries her, he will personally file the court request allowing the SO to come to these things.  I think he just wants reassurance that this guy is not some kind of child molester or something like that (hence wanting to know his name) and that he is going to be in the picture for more than a few months.  So, it isn’t like he is totally opposed to the idea.  But, we have a doctor appointment coming up and without those assurances, he is pretty adamant that this guy not be allowed in. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response:

> > What right does he have to be in on such private conversations > >regarding SD? > No legal right.

Is that because they are not married?  I’m curious, what legal rights do step-parents have?  Anyone know?  Do the court papers automatically apply to the spouses of the people named in the court papers? With hope and heart, Kathleen

Response:

>Is that because they are not married?  I’m curious, what legal rights do >step-parents have?

As far as I know, none.  Mine were specified in court orders by a judge, though requeste by my husband.  Actually, AFAIK, BM didn’t fight that. >  Anyone know?  Do the court papers automatically apply to >the spouses of the people named in the court papers?

I don’t think so. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response:

Geri, I knew how I felt right away.  But I wanted to look at the roots of it, to see at what point or for what reason would my NO! become a yes. Geri and sometimes Brian wrote: > Would you allow your ex’s significant other (not married)

Living together?  If living together, influence is greater and increase in possible benefit by SO "getting with the program". > to attend your > child’s psychiatrist appointments (where confidential information regarding > your child is discussed) if 1) there was a better than likely chance said SO > would not remain in the picture

Has BM conferred any other major trust upon SO?  Do they own property in common? Has BM started a couples square dancing class with SO and bought matching outfits for them?  Has she invested elsewhere in him as part of her standing in life? I don’t think I would cooperate with the psych appointments attending of, as being the first area of major trust. > and 2) if you knew nothing about said SO except > his/her first name

Essentially, piss on that.  If SO attends, he is going to be in pretty deep, I don’t think he is entitled, or BM is entitled to have him in that deep while *he* stays cloaked in mystery. > 3) your ex felt that you didn’t need any other information > about the SO, even though previous SO’s had criminal records (of unknown type).

I see the point others have made, about BM being a parent, and needing to allow her the choice to bring who she wants.   I see that as a reasonable thought, in a vacuum.  In Real Life, is she willing for you four, DH, SM BM and SO to meet without SD to discuss anything?  I guess, my opinion rests there.  If SO is to be involved enough to attend psychiatric appointments, BM is asking to put him on the parenting "team", just because she wants him there.  I’d sure be influenced by whether or not he is a member of the team in any other way.  Like some other area with less risk attached. I don’t really buy, bringing whoever the parent wants to a meeting.  I think parents and quasi parents are the only people who belong there.  I wouldn’t support either you or Brian in, bringing a friend you thought would be helpful, if that person were not in quasi parent status.  This is the kid’s psych appointment, not a free circus.  Got some doubts about parental attendance; as in, I’d advocate that some of her appointments are attended by only the kid. Barb – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We have been debating this issue at our house. > Geri > "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." > (George W. Bush)

Response:

>While I can understand Brian’s lack of enthusiasim to include BM’s SO I would >think *if* (and I know that is a big if) the guy does stick around and >becomes >a perminent fixture in his daughter’s life, that excluding him now could >possibly turn him against the two of you in the future. You did say he sided >with the two of you before, so I’d take that as something positive. You never >know maybe if this guy is more involved BM will feel less inclined to bother >the two of you, as she would have another adult in on things that she could >lean on so to speak.

I am inclined to agree with you there.  Brian is more adamant about the issue than I am.  He feels that if BM won’t tell us his name, that they must be hiding something.   Especially since he can have access to all the information about us on our income/expense reports we had to file.  All BM has to do is show him.   Well, like I said, we have another iron to fire that is going to be tricky enough, that I hate  to waste our time and energy on this.  We have a month before the next doctor appoinment, so maybe BM will get some sense or maybe Brian will change his mind. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response:

Geri wrote: >>I suspect it’s not about ‘allow’, since I wouldn’t have control over the >>other parent.  Can Brian actually veto the guy’s presence? >I am not sure.  In areas of treatment, such as will SD take a certain med or >not, even though the doctor suggested it, BM vetoed it (same doc).  He said >that both parents have to agree on her treatment.  So Brian thinks that if >both >parents have to be agreeable to treatment, it should stand to reason that >both >parents should agree on who is in the appointment.

I don’t know if this will help or not but here is another situation that was similar….. When DH’s Aunt was in the hospital for a test, over 20 years ago, there was some family squabiling going on. Aunt C’s daughter was dating a guy hated by her brothers. The day they did the biopsy the brothers didn’t want the guy in the family room when the results were shared with the family. The brothers told the Dr. they didn’t want the guy dating their sister in the room, that he had no right to be given confidential medical information about their mother, etc. What the Dr. told them is that he can NOT stop one of her children from having anyone involved in the meeeting. That the best he could do was arrange two seperate meetings. They opted for one meeting. It was told to us that Aunt C did infact have cancer and the b/f turned out to be of great support to everyone during the last few months of her life.  The court orders about >this >state that both parties should "confer and agree" on SD’s medical care. >Brian >doesn’t agree, and he feels that if the doctor allows this guy he doesn’t >even >know into the appointment, that he is divulging confidential information >about >his daughter.

Based on how the Dr. handled the situation above I would think either of your SD’s parents can include anyone they wish as a spectator. Once a bio-parent gives another permission to sit in on a meeting the Dr is no loner considered to be divulging confidential info against a parents wishes. While I can understand Brian’s lack of enthusiasim to include BM’s SO I would think *if* (and I know that is a big if) the guy does stick around and becomes a perminent fixture in his daughter’s life, that excluding him now could possibly turn him against the two of you in the future. You did say he sided with the two of you before, so I’d take that as something positive. You never know maybe if this guy is more involved BM will feel less inclined to bother the two of you, as she would have another adult in on things that she could lean on so to speak. Indy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Geri >"Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own >destruction." >(George W. Bush)

Response:

how long has SO been in the picture? my first reaction was "NO!"…but the more I thought about it….if BM is going to have this person in your SD’s life, perhaps it is best that a professional speak with him.  It doesn’t sound like my first choice of a parental- type person for a child, but there’s really nothing you can do about who BM chooses to hang out with…. perhaps with the appointments, the SO will learn something.  Hurray that he *wants* to be there.  that’s my final opinion…. let us know how it turns out. — God Bless! Ruth Berry ——— 1 John 4:8  He who does not love does not know God; for God is love. Geri and sometimes Brian <gplen…@aol.commotion> wrote in message news:20010918205213.24929.00001299@mb-mr.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Would you allow your ex’s significant other (not married) to attend your > child’s psychiatrist appointments (where confidential information regarding > your child is discussed) if 1) there was a better than likely chance said SO > would not remain in the picture and 2) if you knew nothing about said SO except > his/her first name 3) your ex felt that you didn’t need any other information > about the SO, even though previous SO’s had criminal records (of unknown type). > We have been debating this issue at our house. > Geri > "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." > (George W. Bush)

Response:

>how long has SO been in the picture?

Two months, max.  Maybe less. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response:

>I suspect it’s not about ‘allow’, since I wouldn’t have control over the >other parent.  Can Brian actually veto the guy’s presence?

I am not sure.  In areas of treatment, such as will SD take a certain med or not, even though the doctor suggested it, BM vetoed it (same doc).  He said that both parents have to agree on her treatment.  So Brian thinks that if both parents have to be agreeable to treatment, it should stand to reason that both parents should agree on who is in the appointment.  The court orders about this state that both parties should "confer and agree" on SD’s medical care.  Brian doesn’t agree, and he feels that if the doctor allows this guy he doesn’t even know into the appointment, that he is divulging confidential information about his daughter. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response:

>Has BM conferred any other major trust upon SO?  Do they own property in >common?

No.  In fact, according to BM they each intend to keep their own houses, although BM says she eventually intends to move into his. >Has she invested elsewhere in him as part of her standing in life?

She tells us they are going to get married, but that she isn’t in any hurry. We have heard this before. >Got some doubts about parental attendance; as in, I’d advocate that >some of her appointments are attended by only the kid.

She gets her therapy at her psychologist.  Basically what we do at the psychiatrist’s office is discuss if anything major has happened that month, how she is doing on her medications, etc.  He usually speaks to her a little, but has never told us he wants to speak to her alone.  He is the doc who prescribes the meds, though, so we have to have him. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response:

On 19 Sep 2001 00:52:13 GMT, gplen…@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote: > Would you allow your ex’s significant other (not married) to attend > your child’s psychiatrist appointments (where confidential > information regarding your child is discussed)

I suspect it’s not about ‘allow’, since I wouldn’t have control over the other parent.  Can Brian actually veto the guy’s presence? ‘Happy about it’ is different.

Response:

In a previous article, gplen…@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) said: <Would you allow your ex’s significant other (not married) to attend your <child’s psychiatrist appointments (where confidential information regarding <your child is discussed) if 1) there was a better than likely chance said SO <would not remain in the picture and 2) if you knew nothing about said SO except <his/her first name 3) your ex felt that you didn’t need any other information <about the SO, even though previous SO’s had criminal records (of unknown type). < No.  But when one of my kids needed short-term counseling, the step-parents (not just short-term SOs, but in the picture for the long haul) did not attend.  Parents did attend some sessions, and parents decided what to share with step-parents. It’s important to note that everyone was fine with this and no one felt slighted or left out. Vicki — Family and Divorce Mediation Resources http://xcski.com/~mediator/

Response:

in article 20010918205213.24929.00001…@mb-mr.aol.com, Geri and sometimes Brian at gplen…@aol.commotion wrote on 01/9/18 20:52: > Would you allow your ex’s significant other (not married) to attend your > child’s psychiatrist appointments (where confidential information regarding > your child is discussed) if 1) there was a better than likely chance said SO > would not remain in the picture and 2) if you knew nothing about said SO > except > his/her first name 3) your ex felt that you didn’t need any other information > about the SO, even though previous SO’s had criminal records (of unknown > type).

Okay, let’s play this out point by point while I pretend to be my SO (since my ex and I don’t share any children!). Would I allow my ex’s significant other to attend my child’s psychiatrist appointments? If my ex felt that it was important for his SO to attend (and I presume that these are the parental briefing appointments, not the child’s actual appointments) then I would have to respect his judgement, particularly if we did not have our meetings together (and, given the restraining orders in place in your case, I’m assuming that you do not go to these appointments with BM). My ex is equally my child’s parent and I have to respect his ability to make these decisions if I want to be on any kind of moral ground in demanding that my decisions be respected. Who or what the SO in question might be or might be like is not my concern. I’m not dating them.  And if it is my ex’s appointment, he’s entitled to bring along anyone he damned well chooses.  It’s not something I would ever go to court over. Sian

Response:

Would you allow your ex’s significant other (not married) to attend your child’s psychiatrist appointments (where confidential information regarding your child is discussed) if 1) there was a better than likely chance said SO would not remain in the picture and 2) if you knew nothing about said SO except his/her first name 3) your ex felt that you didn’t need any other information about the SO, even though previous SO’s had criminal records (of unknown type). We have been debating this issue at our house. Geri "Those who make war with the United States have chosen their own destruction." (George W. Bush)

Response: