That is beyond the pale, and the fact that it's a common, even recognizable ploy is sickening. I suppose that Barbara's reticence about her husband's motives is commendable, but geez, I'd be tempted to level with the child, especially in light of the recent car debacle. Maybe the girl will realize that two plus two equals scumbag, a sad realization but one that seems long overdue.
While that man and his midget continue to do evil and get away with it, I was comforted by a new study, described in today's New York Times, which found that older fathers are more likely to produce offspring who develop bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and autism. What's more, the risk is highest among fathers 55 and older. This should give pause to those start-over dads who are just getting their second wind with fertile second wives. They can't have IT ALL. I can certainly think of one elderly dad who should read it.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
How Low Can He Go?
Add this one to the “And you call yourself a decent parent” listings.
Barbara received a phone call the other day from the HR office of her daughter Megan’s summer employer, a large national discount chain. Megan, a college student, began working as a weekend and summer cashier in high school and over time has graduated to a summer office job. The HR director wanted to check something out with Barbara. HR had received a letter requesting a complete accounting “for Megan’s parents” of all the hours she worked this past summer plus an estimate on the hours and pay she will be offered over the next three years. Before fulfilling this request, the HR director decided to check with Barbara because the letter requested that the information be sent to an address which did not match the home address on Megan’s employment forms.
Barbara was surprised and knew nothing about this. She suggested that HR call Megan directly to see if this was something she needed for school. The HR director said that she preferred if Barbara would call Megan and then for either Megan or Barbara to get back to her to let her know whether or not to release this information. Barbara asked for the address to which this information was to be sent, and learned that the request came from the Law Office of Mendel R_____. Her heart stopped. Barbara and her soon-to-be-ex are locked in very bitter, contested divorce proceedings--especially with regard to child support-- and this request had come from the ex’s attorney.
The HR director said that she had called because she was hesitant to fulfill the request. For many years, she has been in charge of tens of thousands of employees, many of them teenagers, and she felt, in her words, that “this smelled familiar and fishy”. She elaborated: this sort of information is used all the time in divorce cases and is designed to hurt the child by cutting down on parental support. The more the child earns, the harder he or she works, the more he/she stands to lose when these parents bring this evidence to court.
Barbara called Megan and, as always, held back on saying anything bad about Megan’s dad. She asked if Megan was aware that this request was being made, and Megan said her dad had told her he needed her work information so he could save her some money on her taxes. Barbara gently told Megan that the HR people felt it wasn’t a good idea to share this information with anyone. Barbara asked Megan to call and tell HR that no information should be released unless Megan specifically wanted it. Megan agreed that this was a good idea but felt she couldn’t call and ask for this herself. She wanted her mom to do it. When Barbara called HR back, the director said it’s common for kids not to be able to assert this right directly because it feels as if they are being disloyal to their parent even though they are fully aware that the parent is not being honest with them.
I vote for Megan’s dad for scummiest parent since Joel Steinberg.
Barbara received a phone call the other day from the HR office of her daughter Megan’s summer employer, a large national discount chain. Megan, a college student, began working as a weekend and summer cashier in high school and over time has graduated to a summer office job. The HR director wanted to check something out with Barbara. HR had received a letter requesting a complete accounting “for Megan’s parents” of all the hours she worked this past summer plus an estimate on the hours and pay she will be offered over the next three years. Before fulfilling this request, the HR director decided to check with Barbara because the letter requested that the information be sent to an address which did not match the home address on Megan’s employment forms.
Barbara was surprised and knew nothing about this. She suggested that HR call Megan directly to see if this was something she needed for school. The HR director said that she preferred if Barbara would call Megan and then for either Megan or Barbara to get back to her to let her know whether or not to release this information. Barbara asked for the address to which this information was to be sent, and learned that the request came from the Law Office of Mendel R_____. Her heart stopped. Barbara and her soon-to-be-ex are locked in very bitter, contested divorce proceedings--especially with regard to child support-- and this request had come from the ex’s attorney.
The HR director said that she had called because she was hesitant to fulfill the request. For many years, she has been in charge of tens of thousands of employees, many of them teenagers, and she felt, in her words, that “this smelled familiar and fishy”. She elaborated: this sort of information is used all the time in divorce cases and is designed to hurt the child by cutting down on parental support. The more the child earns, the harder he or she works, the more he/she stands to lose when these parents bring this evidence to court.
Barbara called Megan and, as always, held back on saying anything bad about Megan’s dad. She asked if Megan was aware that this request was being made, and Megan said her dad had told her he needed her work information so he could save her some money on her taxes. Barbara gently told Megan that the HR people felt it wasn’t a good idea to share this information with anyone. Barbara asked Megan to call and tell HR that no information should be released unless Megan specifically wanted it. Megan agreed that this was a good idea but felt she couldn’t call and ask for this herself. She wanted her mom to do it. When Barbara called HR back, the director said it’s common for kids not to be able to assert this right directly because it feels as if they are being disloyal to their parent even though they are fully aware that the parent is not being honest with them.
I vote for Megan’s dad for scummiest parent since Joel Steinberg.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Punishing the bad spouse
If there's a tiny silver lining to that horrendous story, it's that the daughter's eyes have opened about her father, and she might support her mother in the divorce litigation and be more understanding of her point of view.
One thing -- judges don't award settlements based on egregious or immoral spousal behavior. A recent etiquette column in the NY Times featured a woman from Manhattan who wrote: "My husband of 27 years and I are divorcing; he left me for a woman young enough to be our daughter. He is bringing her to our beach club, where he gropes and fondles her like an adolescent. It's disgusting and humiliating for our children and me. I asked him to take his tramp elsewhere, but he refused. What should I do?"
Nauseating. The columnist advised that she steer clear of the club until the divorce comes through, reassuring her that because of her husband's creepy behavior, "the club membership, as well as the house and most of the larger bank accounts, will soon be yours anyway."
Unfortunately, that's not true. Judges divide property and award alimony based on financial "fairness" and state law -- equitable distribution in NY, 50/50 split in California, etc. They don't use the settlement as a way to "punish" bad spousal behavior. I learned this from my own divorce lawyer, to my disappointment. I and many other women (and some men, like X's exes) would have done a lot better if judges were more judgmental.
One thing -- judges don't award settlements based on egregious or immoral spousal behavior. A recent etiquette column in the NY Times featured a woman from Manhattan who wrote: "My husband of 27 years and I are divorcing; he left me for a woman young enough to be our daughter. He is bringing her to our beach club, where he gropes and fondles her like an adolescent. It's disgusting and humiliating for our children and me. I asked him to take his tramp elsewhere, but he refused. What should I do?"
Nauseating. The columnist advised that she steer clear of the club until the divorce comes through, reassuring her that because of her husband's creepy behavior, "the club membership, as well as the house and most of the larger bank accounts, will soon be yours anyway."
Unfortunately, that's not true. Judges divide property and award alimony based on financial "fairness" and state law -- equitable distribution in NY, 50/50 split in California, etc. They don't use the settlement as a way to "punish" bad spousal behavior. I learned this from my own divorce lawyer, to my disappointment. I and many other women (and some men, like X's exes) would have done a lot better if judges were more judgmental.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Rude Awakening
The key difference between X and Mitchell is that she makes sure her kids are taken care of. By all of her husbands. And boyfriends. Their dad paid for college, camp and all the extras--S.A.T. tutoring, French Horn lessons etc. The shoe guy bought them each a new BMW and took them to France. X made sure that each of her kids had a private suite in the dream house she built with shoe guy. And she designed her kids’ suites to be so large that she just never had the spare room for shoe guy’s kids by his first marriage to stay overnight.
Shoe guy, like Mitch, abandoned his kids for the siren charms of X. Though we know she’s technically a midget, her impact on families is no small matter. And X is so ingratiating with her husbands’ and boyfriends’ kids that they actually like her. She buys them Miu-Miu handbags and the latest Prada perfume using her Nieman Marcus discount--she works 8 hours a week as a personal shopper.
Mitchell also ingratiates himself with the kids. He supplies X’s daughters with Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics play-off tickets for all their friends. But, he makes no basic provisions for his only child. Where X insisted on palatial rooms for her kids, Mitch only has space for his daughter in his apartment if there’s a night when X can’t be there because she needs to be at home with her children or she has her Kabbalah meeting.
I think the kid is starting to catch on, though. After her beat up jalopy exploded and her dad left her shaken and alone in his apartment to go re-join X's party, his daughter insisted to her mother, “There has got to be some way you can use this in divorce court, Mom, and you’d better find it. It’s just so wrong.”
Shoe guy, like Mitch, abandoned his kids for the siren charms of X. Though we know she’s technically a midget, her impact on families is no small matter. And X is so ingratiating with her husbands’ and boyfriends’ kids that they actually like her. She buys them Miu-Miu handbags and the latest Prada perfume using her Nieman Marcus discount--she works 8 hours a week as a personal shopper.
Mitchell also ingratiates himself with the kids. He supplies X’s daughters with Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics play-off tickets for all their friends. But, he makes no basic provisions for his only child. Where X insisted on palatial rooms for her kids, Mitch only has space for his daughter in his apartment if there’s a night when X can’t be there because she needs to be at home with her children or she has her Kabbalah meeting.
I think the kid is starting to catch on, though. After her beat up jalopy exploded and her dad left her shaken and alone in his apartment to go re-join X's party, his daughter insisted to her mother, “There has got to be some way you can use this in divorce court, Mom, and you’d better find it. It’s just so wrong.”
Back to Basics
Returning to your query, Sue,the bf's response was that Brazilian waxing is great because change is exciting.
And re thongs v.bikinis, he replied,"Well, if you're willing to remove all your hair, why not forego underwear entirely?"
Somehow,I'm not sure this will be helpful in your quandry.
And re thongs v.bikinis, he replied,"Well, if you're willing to remove all your hair, why not forego underwear entirely?"
Somehow,I'm not sure this will be helpful in your quandry.
Scumbag of the Century
That is a sad story. You're right -- he is worse than X because this is HIS child, and she should be HIS priority, not X's. Unfortunately, I have heard similar stories before -- not as dramatic as this one, but yes, of fathers who put their children second to the squeeze du jour. And if anyone is du jour, it is X, who is constantly on the lookout for the next moneyed conquest. Mitch's daughter, on the other hand, will always be there, and will always love him despite his indifference, if not more so because of it.
I'm sure such examples come quickly to mind, L! I recall a guy who left his wife and their adorable four-year-old daughter for a high-school flame whom he ran into and eventually married. This guy made a lot of money writing scripts for major national television shows. The wife he left was a humble school teacher in New York City. Years after their divorce, when the daughter was 16 years old, he informed them that he would not pay for her college education, indignantly claiming that "going to college is not a God-given right." By the way, this man never had to lay out a dime for his daughter's private-school tuition through lower and upper school because the child got a free education at the school where her mother taught. As for college, the girl had to take out loans, with her mother paying for the rest.
But what is the story with Mitch's wife's lawyer? It seems to me that Mitch's 2008 Lexus vs. his dwindling clientele should be explored in a deposition, accompanied by threats of litigation and a forensic accountant. And have the scales come off his daughter's eyes yet, or is she still blindly devoted to dear old Dad? On some level -- whether in the settlement or through his relationship with his only child -- this man must pay. Either that, or I hope X gives him the clap -- an antibiotic-resistant strain!
I'm sure such examples come quickly to mind, L! I recall a guy who left his wife and their adorable four-year-old daughter for a high-school flame whom he ran into and eventually married. This guy made a lot of money writing scripts for major national television shows. The wife he left was a humble school teacher in New York City. Years after their divorce, when the daughter was 16 years old, he informed them that he would not pay for her college education, indignantly claiming that "going to college is not a God-given right." By the way, this man never had to lay out a dime for his daughter's private-school tuition through lower and upper school because the child got a free education at the school where her mother taught. As for college, the girl had to take out loans, with her mother paying for the rest.
But what is the story with Mitch's wife's lawyer? It seems to me that Mitch's 2008 Lexus vs. his dwindling clientele should be explored in a deposition, accompanied by threats of litigation and a forensic accountant. And have the scales come off his daughter's eyes yet, or is she still blindly devoted to dear old Dad? On some level -- whether in the settlement or through his relationship with his only child -- this man must pay. Either that, or I hope X gives him the clap -- an antibiotic-resistant strain!
Monday, September 1, 2008
Scum Bag Scofflaw Dad
Sue, I’d like you to vote after reading this blog entry. Does this guy get the A Hole of the week, the month or the year award?
Madame X’s bf, Mitchell, has one child, a college-age daughter. Though a certified financial planner by trade, he supposedly has no money, having somehow conveniently reduced his client roster from over 120 to 3, just in time for his divorce. Of course, he can’t be expected to pay any alimony or child support with this successful implementation of RAIDS (Recently Acquired Income Deficiency Syndrome). He drives around in a 2008 Lexus SUV. X drives a top of the line Mercedes and each of her kids has a new BMW, purchased for them by her most recent former husband-- who is coincidentally not their father. Mitchell’s soon-to-be-ex drives a Honda. And Mitchell’s only daughter was, until yesterday, driving a rusted-out 1989 jeep with no airbags. When his ex said she didn’t think the jeep was safe, Mitchell’s attorney accused her of trying to dupe poor Mitchell into paying for an unnecessary new vehicle for the daughter.
Well, the daughter packed up her jeep with all of her belongings for college, kissed her mom goodbye and made her way to Mitchell’s apartment as it was his turn to drive with her to school. Halfway there, the jeep began to emit heavy smoke and burst into flames. Luckily she wasn’t in a middle lane on some highway. She immediately pulled over and evacuated. Realizing that everything she needed for her life was in that car, she started to re-enter the jeep to at least salvage her purse,which contained her entire summer's earnings from the two jobs she held down. Bystanders began screaming at her to back off. She did, and the car momentarily exploded. She lost everything. She called Mitchell.He picked her up and brought her back to his apartment. He left her there alone in hysterics with singed eyebrows and a soot-stained face while he returned to X’s house to continue partying there with X and Mitchell’s sister, brother in law and nephew.
Being such a a stand up kind of guy, Mitchell drove his daughter to school the next day, sprang for a new ipod,one pair of jeans, flip flops and a couple of t shirts. He told her that her mother should“fill in” with the rest.
So never mind our thinking X should rot in hell, what’s the verdict on this scum bag?
Madame X’s bf, Mitchell, has one child, a college-age daughter. Though a certified financial planner by trade, he supposedly has no money, having somehow conveniently reduced his client roster from over 120 to 3, just in time for his divorce. Of course, he can’t be expected to pay any alimony or child support with this successful implementation of RAIDS (Recently Acquired Income Deficiency Syndrome). He drives around in a 2008 Lexus SUV. X drives a top of the line Mercedes and each of her kids has a new BMW, purchased for them by her most recent former husband-- who is coincidentally not their father. Mitchell’s soon-to-be-ex drives a Honda. And Mitchell’s only daughter was, until yesterday, driving a rusted-out 1989 jeep with no airbags. When his ex said she didn’t think the jeep was safe, Mitchell’s attorney accused her of trying to dupe poor Mitchell into paying for an unnecessary new vehicle for the daughter.
Well, the daughter packed up her jeep with all of her belongings for college, kissed her mom goodbye and made her way to Mitchell’s apartment as it was his turn to drive with her to school. Halfway there, the jeep began to emit heavy smoke and burst into flames. Luckily she wasn’t in a middle lane on some highway. She immediately pulled over and evacuated. Realizing that everything she needed for her life was in that car, she started to re-enter the jeep to at least salvage her purse,which contained her entire summer's earnings from the two jobs she held down. Bystanders began screaming at her to back off. She did, and the car momentarily exploded. She lost everything. She called Mitchell.He picked her up and brought her back to his apartment. He left her there alone in hysterics with singed eyebrows and a soot-stained face while he returned to X’s house to continue partying there with X and Mitchell’s sister, brother in law and nephew.
Being such a a stand up kind of guy, Mitchell drove his daughter to school the next day, sprang for a new ipod,one pair of jeans, flip flops and a couple of t shirts. He told her that her mother should“fill in” with the rest.
So never mind our thinking X should rot in hell, what’s the verdict on this scum bag?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
