Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I remember that also. The funny thing was that Julian looks just like his dad and plays music better then Sean and Yoko. It's a shame that John focused all his attention on his new son and wife. From what I read, John's first wife did not interfere or fight with him so I'm not quite sure why he dumped his son for his second family. But it has tortured Julian all his life. I think now he is at peace with it and he gets along with Sean but he had it hard were he shouldn't have had to go through that crap.
I got the impression John didn't think much of Cynthia or Julian before Yoko and Sean appeared.
I'm a little disappointed about all the people suggesting kill the cat off or causing it to "disappear." I'm not saying cat comes before child, but the cat hasn't even been proven as the source of the allergy. Surely there is a gray area somewhere between all these polarized positions?
At this point, Tom, I think your current wife has been fair. IF it is proven that the cat is the source of the allergy, it seems you have some reasonable options that now she says she will consider: having you and your daughter visit for 8 hour days somewhere else, etc. Yes, you still have some issues to deal with in your marriage with regards to you or the cat, but I have to question how much of this was brought on by how the issue was presented. You said yourself that when you initially discussed it years before, she was open to other options. I have to wonder if part of the problem is that this was shoved down her throat, that your ex-wife has acted maliciously and without any facts demanding that the pet be removed when there is no evidence to suggest that is the problem. Those sorts of irrational threats typically provoke a similar response. When you didn't jump to defend her and insist on a more reasonable course before you would even consider such a thing, I have to wonder if that didn't frighten her, lead her to dig in her heels more than she otherwise would have.
I think your wife is absolutely in the right to insist that you not even consider getting rid of the cat unless and until it is proven that this is the source of the allergy. At this point it is premature. The allergy could just as easily be to anything in your home and there is no way to determine what that is until testing is done. You've said yourself that 40% of the time, your daughter has no reaction at all when she comes over to your house. 60% of the time she has mild sneezing or wheezing. Obviously this should be evaluated by a doctor, and none of us have seen the girl. But to get rid of the cat at this point would be a gross overreaction without any evidence that it would solve the problem and horribly unfair to your wife, who loves the pet.
It is clear that your ex-wife is being very unreasonable, by the mere fact that she won't even consider getting your daughter tested to determine what her allergens actually are. Additionally, I hope you understand how dangerous this is for your daughter, what a risk you are putting her at by not knowing what situations she needs to avoid. If it turns out to be a certain type of seasonal pollen, you need to know to have her inside on those days when counts are high, to have her shower after going outside. If it's a kind of cleaner, you could know not to use it. I've seen children break out in hives all over their body because they sat down in a field of grass they were allergic to... how will your daughter know to avoid that if this is the case? The list goes on and on. It seems that if your ex-wife truly cared about finding the answer to this problem, rather than just inciting trouble in your new marriage (notice how skillfully she has managed to do so??) then her first action to protect her daughter would be to have the testing done. That she refuses is irresponsible and irrational... leads me to believe that something else is at play (like sticking it to you or your new spouse--not uncommon with a new baby on the way--she's lost the same leverage she once had over you.)
Yes, I realize that money is tight. However, can't you go to court even without a lawyer and simply have it on record that you have asked for testing to be done in order to better care for your daughter? Or if you would prefer to simply wait to see if your ex does anything, perhaps you can... but I worry with a woman demonstrated such irrational behavior, she is simply a ticking time bomb. It sounds like the cat isn't even the real issue, that she's really just trying to get at you in whatever way she can.
I'm confused about one thing and perhaps you can clarify. How is it that when you want to have her allergy tested, you say you cannot because all medical decisions must be made jointly, but her mother has taken her to her own appointments and produced a letter from the doctor on her behalf? Seems like we're not getting the full story here, or you're just making an excuse.
While it's clear there are issues with both you and your second wife with stubbornness and ultimatum-hurling, I agree that if possible, you should try to work through the issues before considering divorce. We are all very focused on the first daughter (as we should be), but divorcing simply produces a second child in a similar position. Also, don't be too quick to assume your daughter will not identify herself as the problem. You'd be amazed at what children can come up with when finding ways to blame themselves, even if they never get the slightest inkling from their parents.
I got the impression John didn't think much of Cynthia or Julian before Yoko and Sean appeared.
True. I think Cynthia was his hs sweetheart and he wanted someone that fit his lifestyle when he meet Yoko. What I can gather is that Cynthia did not travel with the band.
I can see that he didn't want anything to do with Cynthia but it was unexcuseable to ditch Julian like he did. Interestingly, Yoko ditched her husband and daughter at the same time too John did.
I'm a little disappointed about all the people suggesting kill the cat off or causing it to "disappear." I'm not saying cat comes before child, but the cat hasn't even been proven as the source of the allergy. Surely there is a gray area somewhere between all these polarized positions?
At this point, Tom, I think your current wife has been fair. IF it is proven that the cat is the source of the allergy, it seems you have some reasonable options that now she says she will consider: having you and your daughter visit for 8 hour days somewhere else, etc. Yes, you still have some issues to deal with in your marriage with regards to you or the cat, but I have to question how much of this was brought on by how the issue was presented. You said yourself that when you initially discussed it years before, she was open to other options. I have to wonder if part of the problem is that this was shoved down her throat, that your ex-wife has acted maliciously and without any facts demanding that the pet be removed when there is no evidence to suggest that is the problem. Those sorts of irrational threats typically provoke a similar response. When you didn't jump to defend her and insist on a more reasonable course before you would even consider such a thing, I have to wonder if that didn't frighten her, lead her to dig in her heels more than she otherwise would have.
I think your wife is absolutely in the right to insist that you not even consider getting rid of the cat unless and until it is proven that this is the source of the allergy. At this point it is premature. The allergy could just as easily be to anything in your home and there is no way to determine what that is until testing is done. You've said yourself that 40% of the time, your daughter has no reaction at all when she comes over to your house. 60% of the time she has mild sneezing or wheezing. Obviously this should be evaluated by a doctor, and none of us have seen the girl. But to get rid of the cat at this point would be a gross overreaction without any evidence that it would solve the problem and horribly unfair to your wife, who loves the pet.
It is clear that your ex-wife is being very unreasonable, by the mere fact that she won't even consider getting your daughter tested to determine what her allergens actually are. Additionally, I hope you understand how dangerous this is for your daughter, what a risk you are putting her at by not knowing what situations she needs to avoid. If it turns out to be a certain type of seasonal pollen, you need to know to have her inside on those days when counts are high, to have her shower after going outside. If it's a kind of cleaner, you could know not to use it. I've seen children break out in hives all over their body because they sat down in a field of grass they were allergic to... how will your daughter know to avoid that if this is the case? The list goes on and on. It seems that if your ex-wife truly cared about finding the answer to this problem, rather than just inciting trouble in your new marriage (notice how skillfully she has managed to do so??) then her first action to protect her daughter would be to have the testing done. That she refuses is irresponsible and irrational... leads me to believe that something else is at play (like sticking it to you or your new spouse--not uncommon with a new baby on the way--she's lost the same leverage she once had over you.)
Yes, I realize that money is tight. However, can't you go to court even without a lawyer and simply have it on record that you have asked for testing to be done in order to better care for your daughter? Or if you would prefer to simply wait to see if your ex does anything, perhaps you can... but I worry with a woman demonstrated such irrational behavior, she is simply a ticking time bomb. It sounds like the cat isn't even the real issue, that she's really just trying to get at you in whatever way she can.
I'm confused about one thing and perhaps you can clarify. How is it that when you want to have her allergy tested, you say you cannot because all medical decisions must be made jointly, but her mother has taken her to her own appointments and produced a letter from the doctor on her behalf? Seems like we're not getting the full story here, or you're just making an excuse.
While it's clear there are issues with both you and your second wife with stubbornness and ultimatum-hurling, I agree that if possible, you should try to work through the issues before considering divorce. We are all very focused on the first daughter (as we should be), but divorcing simply produces a second child in a similar position. Also, don't be too quick to assume your daughter will not identify herself as the problem. You'd be amazed at what children can come up with when finding ways to blame themselves, even if they never get the slightest inkling from their parents.
Wow, I TOTALLY don't agree with this at all about you thinking the current wife is fair and ex is unfair. I think BOTH ladies are unfair and are the same type of woman.
The current wife says the cat comes before him and she doesn't want him to go and see his first daughter on the week-ends or she'll divorce him. UNFAIR
The ex wife accuses Tom that his cat is to blame for their daughter's allergies and won't allow their daughter to have an allergy test. UNFAIR
But to me, the current wife is the most unfair and cruelest about the daughter's situation.
Wow, I TOTALLY don't agree with this at all about you thinking the current wife is fair and ex is unfair. I think BOTH ladies are unfair and are the same type of woman.
The current wife says the cat comes before him and she doesn't want him to go and see his first daughter on the week-ends or she'll divorce him. UNFAIR
The ex wife accuses Tom that his cat is to blame for their daughter's allergies and won't allow their daughter to have an allergy test. UNFAIR
But to me, the current wife is the most unfair and cruelest about the daughter's situation.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Here's my take. The wife was sitting at home minding her own business. The ex-wife (for reasons still undetermined) comes up with these baseless ideas about the cat being to blame and threatens Tom with taking him to court if they don't get rid of the cat. This is a ridiculous reaction, and since they haven't had the daughter allergy tested (and refuse to), there's no way to say it's the cat or not.
The wife had every right to feel threatened at the idea of giving up her pet for no reason. She had every right to feel betrayed that Tom, instead of responding to his ex rationally with, "We need to get her tested and determine the source of the problem," chose instead to push the issue on HER and start throwing out these wild worst-case scenarios when there was no evidence the cat was the problem to begin with (and when the ex-wife refuses to have simple testing done to determine the problem.)
Anyone would have felt threatened under those circumstances. She only reacted accordingly, defensively, not wanting to make a huge heartbreaking decision of giving up her pet when there was no demonstrated need for it.
When people are threatened (as the OP and his ex were threatening her), they do not react reasonably. They do not react rationally.
There is no way to know how she might have reacted if this had come about reasonably, although OP says when they discussed the issue years earlier, she was amenable to other options. When he bowed to his vindictive ex and threw all the problems on her back without cause or reason, of course she didn't react well. Who would have?
Here's my take. The wife was sitting at home minding her own business. The ex-wife (for reasons still undetermined) comes up with these baseless ideas about the cat being to blame and threatens Tom with taking him to court if they don't get rid of the cat. This is a ridiculous reaction, and since they haven't had the daughter allergy tested (and refuse to), there's no way to say it's the cat or not.
The wife had every right to feel threatened at the idea of giving up her pet for no reason. She had every right to feel betrayed that Tom, instead of responding to his ex rationally with, "We need to get her tested and determine the source of the problem," chose instead to push the issue on HER and start throwing out these wild worst-case scenarios when there was no evidence the cat was the problem to begin with (and when the ex-wife refuses to have simple testing done to determine the problem.)
Anyone would have felt threatened under those circumstances. She only reacted accordingly, defensively, not wanting to make a huge heartbreaking decision of giving up her pet when there was no demonstrated need for it.
When people are threatened (as the OP and his ex were threatening her), they do not react reasonably. They do not react rationally.
There is no way to know how she might have reacted if this had come about reasonably, although OP says when they discussed the issue years earlier, she was amenable to other options. When he bowed to his vindictive ex and threw all the problems on her back without cause or reason, of course she didn't react well. Who would have?
But it's not "baseless" to be concerned about the cat being the source of the allergen making the child wheeze It IS the most likely culprit. Though I agree that testing should be done because it is in the best interests of the child to know for sure AND to convince the new wife.
If she feels "threatened" she needs to just grow up. She's about to be a mom herself, she should have more concern and compassion for her step-daughter. If this were happening to HER child, instead of just her husbands daughter I'm betting she'd be singing a whole different tune.
The sad thing is, she's already said getting rid of the cat is not even an option - she'd rather get rid of her husband! Yeah, that's "love" for you. With a wife like that who needs enemies?
[b][color=SeaGreen]First of all, you don't just have to wait around for your ex-wife to take you to court. There is "legal aid" in most states - attorneys who work for a pittance for people without means.
As a one-time Legal Aid employee, I'd like to clarify a bit, here, in case anybody is considering taking this advice.
Legal Aid does not mean "attorneys who work for a pittance for people without means." It means legal services are provided pro bono
(which is not the same thing as "a pittance", look it up) to various applicants who fall under federal poverty guidelines, income-wise and/or are permanently and totally disabled. It's a poverty law firm. Plain and simple. I don't know the OP's financial situation, but if he's not disabled and his income is over the federal poverty line, he's not eligible. Lots of people who aren't in poverty can't afford lawyers, understood, but that's not who Legal Aid exists for.
They also may handle only very specific types of cases (for instance, most Legal Aid offices are restricted from handling criminal cases). In addition, most Legal Aid offices get far more applicants than they can actually represent, so the priority has to be high. I have seen many applicants who fit the criteria of Legal Aid services be declined representation, not because their cases didn't warrant aid, or because they didn't meet the guideline, but because there were more cases to be handled than there were attorneys and paralegals to handle them. The intakes in a given day at a Legal Aid office represent a staggering pile of paperwork. Not everyone gets served, even if they're eligible. There simply aren't enough attorneys willing to work for peanuts in grant funding to provide free legal services for all who need it.
And, while Legal Aid does often have a Domestic unit, where it is somewhat possible that this potential case might fit, there are MUCH more pressing cases that Legal Aid Domestic units are spending their time and limited resources on, and one that's focused on forcing an allergy test in a messy custody situation is likely to get rejected in favor of things like kids living in crackhouses, being sexually abused, etc.
Anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It IS the most likely culprit. Though I agree that testing should be done because it is in the best interests of the child to know for sure AND to convince the new wife. 
