‘My ex-husband and I have been invited to a wedding - and I'm worried'
My ex-husband and I
divorced
when our two
children
were quite young. The girls have suffered as a result of his missing out on lots in their lives and there is now an opportunity for some reparation.
My god
daughter is getting married and she is connected to both of our families and has invited all of us to her wedding. She has included my ex and his mother and siblings, plus my children and the rest of my family of origin. I was very angry with my ex for a long time, particularly over the disappointment the children suffered at his not making enough effort with them but the girls are particularly excited at his being at this event and I feel I need to make an effort for them.
I have decided to let bygones be bygones and open up to him and his family for the event, even though they have been disdainful and dismissive of me since the divorce. There is a possibility that my ex is more open to co-
parenting
and we've had a few tentative communications. The problem is my family – they are also hurt and angry with my ex and his family for the way he treated me and they say they will not speak to any of them at the wedding. They think I am soft and stupid for giving in to him.
I really just want to focus on my girls and give them a great day but I feel very stuck in the middle and worry that no matter what I do, something will fall apart: either my own family, who are my support system, will be hurt or my kids will lose out on feeling good about having their dad and mum in the same room.
READ MORE
Answer
Your attitude is excellent in that you are planning on meeting the biggest need in this situation – that of your daughters having a good relationship with both parents.
However, it sounds as though you have arrived at this magnanimous place after what must have been a tough time during the separation. Your ex-husband has missed so much of your children's lives and it was a very good thing that your family supported you. However, it often happens that family and friends remain more angry than the partner, and yours are still outraged at the way you have been treated.
However, it is really your decision regarding the event and they should follow your lead and they are more likely to do this if you sound confident and assertive in your belief that being civil to your husband and his family is good for your children. Confidence stems from having faith in your decision and trusting that it is the right thing to do. Speaking openly and often about your stance will not only enhance your own position but will also let your family hear your seriousness and might offer them an opportunity to work out their own difficulties and reservations.
[
Co-parenting: 'We always put our children's needs before our own, so we could see the bigger picture'
Opens in new window
]
Remember that it is not your job to sort out or fix their anger, but it is important that they know you no longer need them as champions of your victimisation. You no longer feel this way and are now a person who is strong and confident and is following a decision that is the best for your children. A suggestion might be to propose to your ex that he send an email or text to your family saying that he is grateful for this opportunity for reconnect, but this depends on your willingness to have this conversation. This message might soften your family's position, but it might also demonstrate an acknowledgment on his part of the schism that took place. If you are genuinely suggesting that he be invited into co-parenting, then it will be important for the two of you to have some challenging conversations and this could be the starting point for future discussions.
[
'I left my husband for another man and our two children are bearing the brunt of his refusal to speak to me'
Opens in new window
]
Your daughters will benefit from having parents who can speak robustly together and so they will not have to protect you from each other, this will be of huge benefit in their lives. Trust that your position is one of largesse, and one of confidence and that you are now in the leadership position, both with your own family and with your ex-husband. This can only improve life for all concerned and well done to you.
To send your question to Trish Murphy, fill in the form below, click
here
or email
tellmeaboutit@irishtimes.com
.form-group {width:100% !important;}
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
US supreme court lifts order that blocked Trump's mass federal lay-offs
The US supreme court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump 's administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based US District Judge Susan Illston's May 22nd order that had blocked large-scale federal lay-offs called 'reductions in force' affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Trump in February announced 'a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy' in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by the administration. Workforce reductions were planned at the US departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human aervices, state, treasury, veterans affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. READ MORE Judge Illston wrote in her ruling that Mr Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration. 'As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorised by Congress,' the judge wrote. The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass lay-offs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programmes. The judge also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out. Judge Illston's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the department of government efficiency (Doge), a key player in the Republican president's drive to slash the federal workforce. Formerly spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk , Doge has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Mr Musk formally ended his government work on May 30th and subsequently had a public falling out with Mr Trump. The San Francisco-based ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30th denied the administration's request to halt the judge's ruling. That court said the administration had not shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury if the judge's order remained in place and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their lawsuit. 'The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the constitution,' the ninth circuit wrote, calling the administration's actions 'an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations'. The ninth circuit court of appeals' ruling prompted the justice department's June 2nd emergency request to the supreme court to halt Judge Illston's order. Controlling the personnel of federal agencies 'lies at the heartland' of the president's executive branch authority, the justice department said in its filing to the supreme court. 'The constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from congress to exercise core article II powers,' the filing said, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential authority. The plaintiffs urged the supreme court to deny the justice department's request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its 'breakneck reorganisation', they wrote, would mean that 'programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorised, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs'. The supreme court in recent months has sided with Mr Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January. It cleared the way for Mr Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants. It also allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the US military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees and twice sided with his department of government efficiency. – Reuters
Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Irish Times
Donald Trump says pharmaceutical tariffs could reach 200 per cent
US president Donald Trump said on Tuesday he is planning to announce tariffs on imported semiconductor and pharmaceuticals, saying the rate for medicines could reach 200 per cent but that he would give drugmakers about one year 'to get their act together'. 'We're going to give people about a year, a year and a half to come in and, after that, they're going to be tariffed,' Trump told reporters, speaking at a meeting of his cabinet at the White House. 'If they have to bring the pharmaceuticals into the country ... they're going to be tariffed at a very, very high rate, like 200 per cent. We'll give them a certain period of time to get their act together,' he said. 'We're going to be announcing pharmaceuticals, chips and various couple of other things - you know, big ones,' Trump told reporters, while announcing a new tariff rate for copper. READ MORE He did not offer specifics on when the other announcements would come. - Reuters
Irish Independent
7 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Heads of State review: John Cena as US president and Idris Elba as British prime minister light up summer actioner
In a different era, Heads of State might have crushed it at the box office; in this one, it premieres on Prime Video. These are the times we live in – but Ilya Naishuller's straight-to-streaming actioner is better than most. Will Derringer (Cena) and Sam Clarke (Elba) have fallen out. Derringer, an ex-Hollywood icon, hasn't yet forgiven Clarke for supporting his opponent. Clarke, a man with a permanent rain cloud over his head, has no time for movie-star presidents. After a photo-op in London goes sideways, the boys' handlers suggest they share a flight together to an all-important Nato summit. Not a bad idea, but when an oily arms dealer (Paddy Considine) shoots Air Force One out of the sky, the lads wind up stranded in Belarus where their only ally is a troublesome MI6 agent (Priyanka Chopra Jonas) with a thing for terrible puns. Silly carry-on, but the stunts are cool, and our ace headliners are enjoying one another's company. A good laugh, not to be skipped over in the Prime queue.
