Re: X-husband Dilemma
I just re-read and realized that I posted as if you were the OP poster......didn't mean it that way.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
One assumes he has visitation rights. No where is it stated he does have them. He could just be showing up randomly without legal cover as well. There is no evidence or statement to suggest there is any legal agreement. If there is please point it out.
This is also rich coming from a bunch of women whose first reaction was to blame the Pakistani husband because all they knew was he was Pakistani so he should be jealous automatically.
I also find it interesting that you assume I have no real life experiences in the matter. Odd consider my rather vicious response to the notion of a man beating his wife. I thought that would be a dead give away. But then again chickens clucking in a hen house don't know much about the farm.
Also if you look it up on average men who abuse their wives are 30 to 35% more like to abuse their kids.
Oh yeah...that sounds really believable. The ex husband is showing up randomly at the ex wife's house and the current husband hasn't bothered to call the police yet or have him arrested yet. That's funny considering he's concerned for the safety of his home and family, no? Yes, I can see your logic there.
Your personal experiences are your business. And If you did have any experience in the matter at hand, your response would have been more balanced and knowledgable.
ONCE AGAIN, facts are NOT opinion. I realize you're looking for a place to vent but please don't attack people for separating the two concepts. They are not the same.
You're assuming we're supporting an abusive ex-husband who might potentially abuse his daughter. That is WRONG **(please read this again...WRONG*...once more for good measure...WRONG*).
You're living in America - you have choices. You don't like the color of someone's shirt? Awesome. You never have to lay eyes on them again. If the wife was indeed concerned about her daughter's safety, visitation would not be a question, this thread would not be here, your blood pressure would have been fine. But safety/visitation is not the question. Its the mere location of where the exchange will take place...which again is weird to me. If safety is really the issue here, mommy would have made sure he couldn't come near her daughter.
Furthermore, a "protective" husband would want to be present but the current husband wants not only to have nothing to do with the visitation, he is also saying he doesn't know if he can handle this situation at all.
I don't think that's fair to the mother.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Chiming into this thread and from what I've read, and although good points have been made from both sides, my opinion's tipped in the favor of Zafra.
I think a key factor the OP forgot to include in her OP was what she said a couple pages later that the ex-husband was abusive toward her friend. I was wondering why the OP never included that information in the original post to begin with and my opinion was undecided until I read that part later on.
Wow, just wow.
One of my sisters was a divorcee with a newborn. The father was physically abusive and cheated on her, and used her to get his American green card. They divorced and naturally, my sister kept full custody of the child. She has never met the ex-husband since then. Her daughter is almost 17 now and it wasn't until she was around 6-8 that her mother told her the truth about her real father (sister got re-married a few years later). Even up until now, my niece refuses to ever want to speak with or see her real father. My BIL would probably beat the crap out of the ex-husband if the ex ever came around.
I ended up marrying a divorcee as well, but with no child. While I'd still be uneasy about it, if my wife did have a child with her ex and he was abusive, I wouldn't want him anywhere near my home either. The only circumstances I'd allow my step child to see their real father would likely be 1) they have a legal order which gives me no choice (but I'd still keep them away from my home), and/or 2) my step child specifically requested to be acquainted with him even without a legal order (under which circumstances I'd make sure I'm VERY nearby, just not up in their faces).
When Zafra said that when a man hits a woman and that's just the start, that really nailed it. My father said the same thing to me once, that a man who lays a hand on his wife is an act that'll stay in his blood (not meaning passed on, just will get worse). Sometimes when a certain threshhold is crossed, you can't take back what you've done and makes the next time easier. Most serial killers will explain how difficult it was to perform their first murder but progressively became easier and easier until it became normal for them.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Also thought it important to include that just because there's a legality behind allowing a parent to see their child after a divorce, that doesn't mean the legality was a just ruling. I had my jaw broken in high school by someone who hit me with brass knuckles from behind but they only got charged with assault as opposed to aggravated assault. Why? Because it couldn't be proved. No one wanted to step up as a witness. So under the circumstances that the ex was so abusive but there wasn't enough proof to deny him legal rights to see his child, then yes, I'd try my best to give him a tough time as well (assuming my wife and step child are in agreement).
Re: X-husband Dilemma
OMG
how fast we lose sight of real issue when we want to win debate.
To all walaity chicks: is abusing mother not abusing child ??????? Why H you have to be so white washed ??
Any ways Zafara wins. Mehnaz most sensible(judge should call her for her input )
Rest are "just supporting their own"
Thread closed !!!
Funny but not all walaiti chicks agree on one thing and disagreements shouldn't mean white washed-ness.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Also thought it important to include that just because there's a legality behind allowing a parent to see their child after a divorce, that doesn't mean the legality was a just ruling. I had my jaw broken in high school by someone who hit me with brass knuckles from behind but they only got charged with assault as opposed to aggravated assault. Why? Because it couldn't be proved. No one wanted to step up as a witness. So under the circumstances that the ex was so abusive but there wasn't enough proof to deny him legal rights to see his child, then yes, I'd try my best to give him a tough time as well (assuming my wife and step child are in agreement).
Right. So what is the conclusion here?
We don't like the ex-husband. He SHOULD not have permission to see his daughter because of his past issues and he might still be in that mindset.
But he still has rights. Maybe not just rights. But they're still there...whether we like them or not.
Every situation is different and that is why people go to court, because otherwise every case would be cut and dry. If it were me and I had even an ounce of suspicion that the ex would be abusive, I'd have him cut off from the child. But she didn't do that. We don't know why...all we know is she didn't She is still allowing him to see his child.
Who is the parent? Who is responsible for making sure her daughter is safe?
If someone is hurting you, they're wrong to hurt you. But if you stand there and take it even though you can walk away...who's really at fault then? I don't understand how **useful **it is to put blame on someone who is obviously a bad person...and then do nothing about it.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Right. So what is the conclusion here?
We don't like the ex-husband. He SHOULD not have permission to see his daughter because of his past issues and he might still be in that mindset.
But he still has rights. Maybe not just rights. But they're still there...whether we like them or not.
Every situation is different and that is why people go to court, because otherwise every case would be cut and dry. If it were me and I had even an ounce of suspicion that the ex would be abusive, I'd have him cut off from the child. But she didn't do that. We don't know why...all we know is she didn't She is still allowing him to see his child.
Who is the parent? Who is responsible for making sure her daughter is safe?
If someone is hurting you, they're wrong to hurt you. But if you stand there and take it even though you can walk away...who's really at fault then? I don't understand how **useful **it is to put blame on someone who is obviously a bad person...and then do nothing about it.
On this note, did KK say if there was a legal custody battle or not? Because if there wasn't, then that changes the perspective here. But regardless, I find you're placing far too much of an emphasis on the legal aspect here. Just because something is legal doesn't by default make it morally right. It's never that black and white. If the husband has a good reason to be worried about the ex (in which from what little info we've been given by the OP, I agree with the husband), then I wouldn't want the ex near my house either. The wife should also take her ex to court if she feels it's a risk letting her child see her father. I agree that a man who abuses his wife is more than likely to also abuse his children, and I also agree that the wife is at fault under this scenario.
Also, your home is a very private and sacred place. No one would want strangers just coming in and out - so then why should we allow people we don't like into our homes? Rather, shouldn't we attempt to conceal our address from people we're unsure of?
None of us know enough to come to a real, solid conclusion here given what little information the OP, KK, has provided us, but under these circumstances where we virtually no details, you give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. In this case, KK's post is accusing the husband of being morally out of line. So in that regard, I find Zafra's posts more relatable (is that even a word?) to my views.
It's not that I disagree with everything you've said, I don't, you've made some good points, but there's still a concise enough line between the two debating sides in this thread that I can choose a side.
Of course, this is just my perspective.
*Edit - Forgot to mention a few posts ago that when my sister divorced, it wasn't until many years later that she won the legal battle to have her ex stay away from her and her daughter permanently, but even within that time frame, she never allowed him to see her. Granted, in this case, my sister actually stepped up unlike what the wife appears to not have done (just going off what KK said).
Re: X-husband Dilemma
But he still has rights. Maybe not just rights. But they're still there...whether we like them or not.
To your point below...please see above.
Just because something is legal doesn't by default make it morally right. It's never that black and white. Also, your home is a very private and sacred place. No one would want strangers just coming in and out - so then why should we allow people we don't like into our homes? Rather, shouldn't we attempt to conceal our address from people we're unsure of? *I get this but again...if this husband is so concerned about the safety of his family...wouldn't he want to be near the little girl or at least be able to make sure things are okay? * *Edit - Forgot to mention a few posts ago that when my sister divorced, it wasn't until many years later that she won the legal battle to have her ex stay away from her and her daughter permanently, but even within that time frame, she never allowed him to see her. Granted, in this case, my sister actually stepped up unlike what the wife appears to not have done (just going off what KK said).
.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
The daughter when she grows up will naturally be closer to her real father and not the step-father. She will want to see her real father at all of her important occasions in life. .
Not necessarily true. She will most likely feel closer to the man that raised her, hence the 2nd husband. That said, I agree that an effort should be made to let her have contact her her biological dad if he is fit to be with her unsupervised.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
I have a simple question. Since when I am the guy who is responsible for the post? I am pointing out an alternative view point. I am questioning the idea that the abusive husband having the rights to visitation and the logic behind the thought process and I am getting grilled on legal issues. If you have issues regarding the legality of the situation you have the right to ask the OP. You comments should be directed at what I stated not regarding issues I can't possibly answer. Its beyond retarded.
I have a simple question for both Muzna and Reha, do you have any evidence there is a legal document allowing for visitation rights? The child could have been born after the divorce, which would mean visitation is not covered under the divorce specifically if the husband waived his rights in court.
Reha any woman who has been abused faces emotional scaring and fear of the individual who has committed the abuse. There is no methodological manner in which someone should respond. There is no stereotypical right away to deal with the return of someone who abused you. To assume that one person's reaction to an incident can be right or wrong is simple arrogant, ignorant and above all insensitive to the needs and emotional roller coaster the person went through. To assume that someone's reaction is to abuse is something you don't consider balanced is nothing short of uppity desi arrogance where someone knows better than the other.
In this case nobody knows why the woman is reacting the way she does. We don't have enough information and we can't provide a logical explanation of why she is doing what she is doing.
What however we can ascertain from this conversation line so far is that its no longer an issue of the original post. It is specifically focused on my comments and how I am wrong.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
I have a simple question. Since when I am the guy who is responsible for the post? I am pointing out an alternative view point. I am questioning the idea that the abusive husband having the rights to visitation and the logic behind the thought process and I am getting grilled on legal issues. If you have issues regarding the legality of the situation you have the right to ask the OP. You comments should be directed at what I stated not regarding issues I can't possibly answer. Its beyond retarded.
I have a simple question for both Muzna and Reha, do you have any evidence there is a legal document allowing for visitation rights? The child could have been born after the divorce, which would mean visitation is not covered under the divorce specifically if the husband waived his rights in court.
Reha any woman who has been abused faces emotional scaring and fear of the individual who has committed the abuse. There is no methodological manner in which someone should respond. There is no stereotypical right away to deal with the return of someone who abused you. To assume that one person's reaction to an incident can be right or wrong is simple arrogant, ignorant and above all insensitive to the needs and emotional roller coaster the person went through. To assume that someone's reaction is to abuse is something you don't consider balanced is nothing short of uppity desi arrogance where someone knows better than the other.
In this case nobody knows why the woman is reacting the way she does. We don't have enough information and we can't provide a logical explanation of why she is doing what she is doing.
What however we can ascertain from this conversation line so far is that its no longer an issue of the original post. It is specifically focused on my comments and how I am wrong.
I don't think you're understanding a thing that's being posted here. You have your own stories, conclusions and your own venting session going on right now. This isn't about you...its about the OP. I don't understand this typical desi thing...all about you. And for the record, its NOT arrogance. Its a simple expectation of common sense and maturity. I don't think there's a point in arguing here because it'd be unfair to you.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
^ ditto.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
To your point below...please see above.
.
No one is denying the legal right, if one even exists (which we don't know). Some states give me the right to shoot anyone who tresspasses onto my property. I can do it, but does it make it morally acceptable that I do it anytime someone tresspasses? It's within my legal rights, after all.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
No one is denying the legal right, if one even exists (which we don't know). Some states give me the right to shoot anyone who tresspasses onto my property. I can do it, but does it make it morally acceptable that I do it anytime someone tresspasses? It's within my legal rights, after all.
first and foremost.....the issue here should never have been a moral one.....it was made into a moral discussion by people suggesting that one is a "jealous husband" and the other is a "dead beat dad".
the issue was simply of logistics.
the mother was fine with the visitation and so was the stepfather as long as the pick up/drop off didn't take place near his residence.
this was easily resolved by meeting at a local restaurant, library or some other mutually convenient place.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
And they said, "pakistani women can't run marathon"
Re: X-husband Dilemma
first and foremost.....the issue here should never have been a moral one.....it was made into a moral discussion by people suggesting that one is a "jealous husband" and the other is a "dead beat dad".
the issue was simply of logistics. the mother was fine with the visitation and so was the stepfather as long as the pick up/drop off didn't take place near his residence. this was easily resolved by meeting at a local restaurant, library or some other mutually convenient place.
So you're telling me that 4 pages later, people are still debating on why they think the husband should or shouldn't meet the ex at a more convenient place? You can't discuss logistics when you haven't ascertained all the facts, hence this evolving into a moral discussion. Morality always comes into play even in the court room. You explain the law, the logistics, and your morality behind it to sell the idea and allow others to relate. This is normal.
If the solution was so simple as to just meeting at a more convenient area, then why hasn't the OP intervened? Why are people still concocting stories based around theories?
I'm just trying to understand which argument I'm in because you're all on completely separate wavelengths that I don't even know how any of you are even communicating with one another... lol.....
Re: X-husband Dilemma
I shall reserve any comments until OP comes back with at least 4 more updates/clarifications to the “story”, where “facts” come to light turning all other previous comments on their head 
.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
So you're telling me that 4 pages later, people are still debating on why they think the husband should or shouldn't meet the ex at a more convenient place? You can't discuss logistics when you haven't ascertained all the facts, hence this evolving into a moral discussion. Morality always comes into play even in the court room. You explain the law, the logistics, and your morality behind it to sell the idea and allow others to relate. This is normal.
If the solution was so simple as to just meeting at a more convenient area,** then why hasn't the OP intervened?** Why are people still concocting stories based around theories?
I'm just trying to understand which argument I'm in because you're all on completely separate wavelengths that I don't even know how any of you are even communicating with one another... lol.....
:D
some folks debate for the sake of debate.....
some are frustrated by the "my assumption is more right than yours".." approach
some use the opportunity to vent.....
some just want the thread to run on and on...
and others still use the opportunity to launch thinly-veiled attacks.....
I agree that morality will come into a discussion....and perhaps should.
The problem here is that we are all operating on some assumptions (and the thread has gone off into a tangent of arguing whose assumptions are more likely to be closer to the truth) because the OP has either decided to abandon the discussion or because he/she simply doesn't have access to all the facts and therefore has nothing more to contribute.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
so you’re sticking with your “nadz” theory huh?
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Yup
Like when we find out about the evil MIL who always wanted her jigr ka tukra to marry her sister’s daughter. Or how about when her hasbaand’s khala’s brother in law’s son hatches a plan to break up the shaadi by enrolling in the same college as the mother.
awaiting twists and turns 