Marriage with kids

[purplejackmama]

How do you handle it when your parenting ideals/styles/techniques differ from your spouse?

 

Has there been a time in your marriage when you struggled to not let the kids come between you? Not sure if that's the best way to word this or not. How did you resolve this struggle?

 

Sigh, I was a much better wife and mother before I was married with kids.

[Ausmumof3]

Definitely.

 

For me I did have to recognise that they were my husbands kids too. Also that if I wanted him to help with parenting I needed to let him do it his way. Sometimes it's frustrating though as I will read tonnes of stuff whereas dh just wants to do it the way his parents did it.

 

Not saying these are your issues at all they were just some of ours.

 

Also it got better when dh started working less hours and was able to spend more time getting to know where the kids were actually at.

[purplejackmama]

That is exactly some of the issues I feel too. DH is quick to do what his parents did, which I'm not convinced was the best solution back almost 40 years ago! ;)

 

Thanks ausmum. This is new unchartered water for me.

[Slache]

I apologize if this is irrelevant.

 

My husband and I are partners, but as a Christian I submit to my husband. He loves me and he *listens* to me, but if we disagree he has the final say. I have found great peace in that. He's less emotional and expects more from them. The fact that he is willing to listen to me though makes all the difference.

[blondeviolin]

We had issues with parenting styles for the first couple of years we were parens. Now, mostly, we see eye to eye. He is more likely to fall back to what his parents did too. And while it wasn't bad parenting, it's not how I want to raise my kids, and not really how he wants to either. So we often discuss ideas, thoughts, motivation, etc. Because I'm home with the kids regularly, he defers to me unless he feels strongly about something. Then we discuss it and come to a conclusion.

 

We've had enough babies and toddlers to know what we're comfortable with at that stage. It's most often older kid related that we do a lot of discussing and evaluating. Mostly I'm the one talking and he's the one nodding...which is probably why it works for me. :lol:

[SparklyUnicorn]

You compromise.  I guess it gets especially difficult when you have a spouse who won't ever compromise. 

[TammyS]

My dh always make sure to stand as a team in front of the kids.  Probably the thing that will get you in the MOST trouble in this house is trying to get between the parents (asking the other when the first already said "no", trying to wedge with "but mom/dad doesn't mind", or whatever).  We make it a point to let the kids know that our marriage comes first.  This isn't done in a nasty way, but we greet each other first, kids second.  We make kids wait for decisions until we have a chance to talk about it (if there's a possibility of disagreement), etc.

 

When we do disagree, we make the kids wait as long as it takes to get a decision.  Sometimes that means one of us will not like the decision, but to the kids we just present it as the decision, and we keep our unhappiness about it to ourselves.

 

Also, we pretty much defer to the "parent on the ground" in most situations (meaning when I discipline while he's at work, the kids know not to complain about it to him, unless they want a second round....when I'm out of town/for the night, I don't tell him what to feed the kids or when to send them to bed, etc).

[Scarlett]

Step parenting is even harder. It causes the only problems between dh and me.

[Lolly]

On child matters, we listent to the opinion of the other and try to come to a compromise. If no compromise can be reached, we go with the parent who feels the strongest about the situation. If we both feel equally strong, we go with my decision. But, in our home, I am doing 90% (or more) of the rearing and dh realizes it. Since I am the one in the trenches, I have final say. He considers me the expert in these matters. Even knowing that I can "win", I do not take advantage of that. I truly listen and consider what he has to say on the matter. Mostly, we go by Dad's rules when you are with him; Mom's rules when you are with her; and whomever has the more strict rule when we are all together.

[maize]

Attending parenting classes together, or reading and discussing parenting books together, helps us get on the same page. Good parenting has to be learned, and there are some excellent resources available.

 

The Power of Positive Parenting is one book I have found helpful.

[Happy]

All during those parenting years...keep the focus on your relationship with your spouse. Do thing together...stay in touch with each other. Have date nights, do projects together, go places and do not talk about the kids.

 

Being a parent is so all consuming, we forget to be a partner, lover, and friend to our spouse. I believe when you keep the marriage strong, the rest of the parenting issues are easier to figure out. Not easy. Easier. :)

[texasmama]

My dh had terrible models for parenting.  Mostly, he has deferred to me.  We co-parented my dd from my first marriage quite successfully.  It has been our other three kids which have been harder.  We have had some huge arguments over parenting in the years we've been married.  My dh was not aware of what was developmentally appropriate for kids, partly due to lack of experience with kids and partly due to his terrible models of parenting.  I have had to learn to compromise because I go all mama bear where the kids are concerned.  I am not always right.  Sometimes he is right.  This has been a process for me to accept.  (Yes, not the best side of me.)

 

My husband and I were much happier and had less conflict before kids.  I suspect we would have had a funner and easier marriage with only my dd and if we did not have our own children.  However, we have a deeper bond and more long-lasting meaning in our marriage (and as individuals) due to our children.  Things between us regarding parenting have gotten much easier as the children have grown older.

 

Is this a step-parenting situation, OP?

[KungFuPanda]

I apologize if this is irrelevant.

 

My husband and I are partners, but as a Christian I submit to my husband. He loves me and he *listens* to me, but if we disagree he has the final say. I have found great peace in that. He's less emotional and expects more from them. The fact that he is willing to listen to me though makes all the difference.

Yes, but if "the final say" means her kids are getting hit then she can't really go that route.

 

I find that if you pick very few and very important hills to die on, then the rest comes down to stylistic differences. The kids won't be confused. It's not hard to adjust to differing expectations from different people as long as those expectations don't clash so much that it's impossible for the kid to get it right.

[Anne in CA]

Unfortunately my dh had parents who did not parent. His step mother was his main parent and she was not loving, she was busy having six other kids. So dh had ideas about how he wanted to raise children based on his childhood ideas of how he would parent. He let the oldest do everything she wanted (very permissive parenting) and we fought about giving her any boundaries at all. He never even wanted her to eat a veggie if she didn't want to. Our second child he wanted to give all the discipline to that the first one didn't get because that didn't work out. We fought about that. The last one goes much much better, because he really did learn along the way. But he would not learn with being reasoned with, we argued and he had to see the damage done to the oldest to learn that boundaries are not criminal. 

 

My answer is that you do have to take a hard stand on what is right for your kids, but you had better know it is right, if you are willing to fight about it.

[merry gardens]

Parenting styles don't have to be the same. It took me a while to learn that lesson. Children can recognize that mom and dad are different people with different approaches. Respect each other's approach to parenting.

 

You say your husband wishes to follow the approach his parents took. If you question his parents' and his approach too much, it might appear to him that you don't really like him. He's the product of his parents, and while you may not like everything his parents did, you liked it enough to marry their son and make a baby (babies?) with him. Just because you don't think it's the "best" approach doesn't mean that he can't use it. His parents used it and their child appears to have turned out okay.  

 

Be careful not to undermine your husband. In giving him the respect and help to be the kind of dad that he wants to be, you can ask him for--and you are more likely to get from him--the respect and help you need to be the kind of mother that you want to be.

 

Dads are important--but they are not mothers. Don't expect your child's father to act like your child's mother.  He's not you. And you are not him (or his mother). Respect each other, and teach your children respect.

[zoobie]

Discussing things not in the heat of the moment helps.

 

Ask why he wants to use X method. If the only answer is "because my parents did" and yours is based in child development, well, who has the better reasoning? The method may have worked for him in the environment he was in 40 years ago, but your children are different creatures. The environment is different. And you and he are not the same people as his parents.

[lllll]

nm

[pehp]

I do think it's a challenge to parent together when you were raised differently! The answer, I think, rests in reasonable compromise, lots of discussion (during calm moments) and grace.  My husband's parenting background was more punitive, rewards-based, competitive, and harsh than mine, which was highly relational, understanding, grace-based.  Of course I prefer the way I was raised, but I do see positives to his background as well, and so  we try to blend the two as cohesively as we can.  

 

Of course it depends on the exact issues.  Issues of abusiveness, neglect, shaming would all be grounds, in my home, for seeking outside help via a family therapist.  

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Ksva, you are not alone. I minimize my dh's parenting too. Yes, my marriage is stressed. It is what it is.

[PeacefulChaos]

How do you handle it when your parenting ideals/styles/techniques differ from your spouse?

 

Has there been a time in your marriage when you struggled to not let the kids come between you? Not sure if that's the best way to word this or not. How did you resolve this struggle?

 

Sigh, I was a much better wife and mother before I was married with kids.

Luckily, any disagreements we have had have been minor - overall, DH and I approach parenting very similarly.  

Our biggest difference is that I'm a little more laid back (think in terms of letting the kids go a little further, have more freedom) while DH is a little more protective.  It's actually the opposite of most that I can think of - I know a lot of families where the moms are the protective ones. :)  In our circumstance, we've always just gone with whoever is there at the time... if I've got the kids and I think something is fine, they do it.  If DH is home and he doesn't like it, they don't do it.  There have been very few things that he was adamantly against, which we then 'outlawed' in general (though the kids have still occasionally broken the rule at times, which had a literally painful result for them - sneaking into the 'woods' that they aren't supposed to be in, coming out covered in poison ivy!!)  

Also, I grew up going to camp and stuff... DH went one time and had a really bad experience, so he doesn't like the idea of the kids going off somewhere without one of us, at least for quite some time.  Probably as teens it will be more relaxed.  Because of his experience with this, it's not something that I have a problem with, plus it's just not that important to begin with! :)

 

I have to say that I know we've been very lucky.  The only time when I felt like the kids were 'coming between us' wasn't due to any disagreements, but just because I felt like I hadn't seen him sans kids for a long time.  But days like that are easily overcome.

 

I'm sorry that I'm not much help!  I guess the only thing that could potentially be helpful to you is to just adopt whatever works with wherever you are at the moment.  Maybe that's Dad's rules when he's home, and Mom's when he isn't, but that obviously wouldn't work too well if they're vastly different.  :P  Good luck!

[purplejackmama]

Such wise advice. I'm so thankful for your help and suggestions. Many thanks!!

[LucyStoner]

I apologize if this is irrelevant.

 

My husband and I are partners, but as a Christian I submit to my husband. He loves me and he *listens* to me, but if we disagree he has the final say. I have found great peace in that. He's less emotional and expects more from them. The fact that he is willing to listen to me though makes all the difference.

When it comes to a mother protecting her kids, I have a hard time seeing how this works on points of serious disagreement. If your husband was verbally mean or physically abusive to your kids, it is your responsibility to keep them safe. If you exclude difficult points of disagreement, like borderline or flat out abusive treatment of children, from your idea of submission it seems to just be a hypothetical thing.

 

I presume that your husband is not unkind to your kids, but what options do you have if he were to be? People change as they age or undergo a health crisis or become stressed. What means do you have to say NO to unkind or unfair treatment of your kids? Not all men and women who adhere to this marriage model are kind and loving parents. I've seen that play out badly and in some cases tragically for too many Christian women. One of the organizations I've worked with is a Christian DV education group and it was eye opening in the extreme.

 

My husband grew up in a DV home. When there were the slightest signs that he was potentially reliving his dad's way of relating to anger and to me as his partner, I packed up and left. Because under no circumstances would that be how my son saw his parents interact. He ultimately found the help he needed and we have been happily back together for 9 years and another child. Any model for marriage that would preclude that is something that I simply could not abide by. It seems immoral and in dereliction of my primal responsibility to protect my children.

 

Without a clear answer to this concern and, unless the OP is looking for such information, it seems an odd first response to make.

[Catwoman]

When it comes to a mother protecting her kids, I have a hard time seeing how this works on points of serious disagreement. If your husband was verbally mean or physically abusive to your kids, it is your responsibility to keep them safe. If you exclude difficult points of disagreement, like borderline or flat out abusive treatment of children, from your idea of submission it seems to just be a hypothetical thing.

 

I presume that your husband is not unkind to your kids, but what options do you have if he were to be? People change as they age or undergo a health crisis or become stressed. What means do you have to say NO to unkind or unfair treatment of your kids? Not all men and women who adhere to this marriage model are kind and loving parents. I've seen that play out badly and in some cases tragically for too many Christian women. One of the organizations I've worked with is a Christian DV education group and it was eye opening in the extreme.

 

My husband grew up in a DV home. When there were the slightest signs that he was potentially reliving his dad's way of relating to anger and to me as his partner, I packed up and left. Because under no circumstances would that be how my son saw his parents interact. He ultimately found the help he needed and we have been happily back together for 9 years and another child. Any model for marriage that would preclude that is something that I simply could not abide by. It seems immoral and in dereliction of my primal responsibility to protect my children.

 

Without a clear answer to this concern and, unless the OP is looking for such information, it seems an odd first response to make.

I agree with you, and you probably already know where I stand on the whole "wifely submission" thing (hint: :ack2:) but I don't think Slache is exactly a shrinking violet, either, so I'm confident that if her dh was proposing anything that was harmful to her children, she would definitely stand up for the kids.

 

My impression was that she was saying that she and her dh discuss things, but if they are at an impasse, she trusts him enough to defer to his decision. I doubt she was even thinking about abuse when she posted, as she doesn't seem like the kind of person who would tolerate anything like that.

[LucyStoner]

I agree with you, and you probably already know where I stand on the whole "wifely submission" thing (hint: :ack2:) but I don't think Slache is exactly a shrinking violet, either, so I'm confident that if her dh was proposing anything that was harmful to her children, she would definitely stand up for the kids.

 

My impression was that she was saying that she and her dh discuss things, but if they are at an impasse, she trusts him enough to defer to his decision. I doubt she was even thinking about abuse when she posted, as she doesn't seem like the kind of person who would tolerate anything like that.

I don't disagree in Slache's case but what I don't see is how this model of marriage adequately empowers women to protect themselves and their children. I don't see why it's the first thing many people suggest. Where is the limit? People who recommend this stuff here always make the husband sound magnanimous and wise and like he always listens to the wife. Well if he ALWAYS listens to the wife is it really a submissive model for marriage? No one ever gives concrete examples of times they have personally deferred to their spouse on something truly contentious or extremely important. We know from basic observation that husbands (and wives) are not always magnanimous or wise or even passably tolerable excuses for human beings. Such advice flat out ignores this reality and paints a very rosy picture of what can in fact be a very scary thing. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Especially with the type of DV and "religious freedom" legislation that is currently bouncing around a few state legislatures. Maybe it seems I take this stuff too seriously but unfortunately it's not without ample reason. If it is ok for someone to say that a submissive model for marriage is the solution (to seemingly every marriage issue) and a positive, moral thing then it is also ok for someone to ask for more specifics and to say that an equalitarian approach to marriage can be a positive, moral thing.

 

Perhaps Slache will answer my question about what recourse a wife has to protect herself and her children when she is expected to submit to her husband? If the husband always goes along with what the wife says, it really seems like this whole model is rather contrived.

[Slache]

When it comes to a mother protecting her kids, I have a hard time seeing how this works on points of serious disagreement. If your husband was verbally mean or physically abusive to your kids, it is your responsibility to keep them safe. If you exclude difficult points of disagreement, like borderline or flat out abusive treatment of children, from your idea of submission it seems to just be a hypothetical thing.

 

I presume that your husband is not unkind to your kids, but what options do you have if he were to be? People change as they age or undergo a health crisis or become stressed. What means do you have to say NO to unkind or unfair treatment of your kids? Not all men and women who adhere to this marriage model are kind and loving parents. I've seen that play out badly and in some cases tragically for too many Christian women. One of the organizations I've worked with is a Christian DV education group and it was eye opening in the extreme.

 

My husband grew up in a DV home. When there were the slightest signs that he was potentially reliving his dad's way of relating to anger and to me as his partner, I packed up and left. Because under no circumstances would that be how my son saw his parents interact. He ultimately found the help he needed and we have been happily back together for 9 years and another child. Any model for marriage that would preclude that is something that I simply could not abide by. It seems immoral and in dereliction of my primal responsibility to protect my children.

 

Without a clear answer to this concern and, unless the OP is looking for such information, it seems an odd first response to make.

I felt it was an appropriate response because I've seen it work well for many families. She asked for different ways on how to handle things, and this is a legitimate method, even if she doesn't come from a belief system that endorses it. Now, about the abuse. In the case of a Christian (and I imagine Muslim) submission to your husband is not about faith in your husband, it's about faith in God. I trust God to take care of me no matter what my husband does, and He tells me to submit to my husband only when my husband is in submission to him. If my husband if beating me, beating my kids, molesting my kids, doing drugs, or having teA with the neighbors giraffe then he is not in submission to God. I can leave the situation.

 

I don't disagree in Slache's case but what I don't see is how this model of marriage adequately empowers women to protect themselves and their children. I don't see why it's the first thing many people suggest. Where is the limit? People who recommend this stuff here always make the husband sound magnanimous and wise and like he always listens to the wife. Well if he ALWAYS listens to the wife is it really a submissive model for marriage? No one ever gives concrete examples of times they have personally deferred to their spouse on something truly contentious or extremely important. We know from basic observation that husbands (and wives) are not always magnanimous or wise or even passably tolerable excuses for human beings. Such advice flat out ignores this reality and paints a very rosy picture of what can in fact be a very scary thing. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Especially with the type of DV and "religious freedom" legislation that is currently bouncing around a few state legislatures. Maybe it seems I take this stuff too seriously but unfortunately it's not without ample reason. If it is ok for someone to say that a submissive model for marriage is the solution (to seemingly every marriage issue) and a positive, moral thing then it is also ok for someone to ask for more specifics and to say that an equalitarian approach to marriage can be a positive, moral thing.

 

Perhaps Slache will answer my question about what recourse a wife has to protect herself and her children when she is expected to submit to her husband? If the husband always goes along with what the wife says, it really seems like this whole model is rather contrived.

It is still submission because he's the one that makes the decision. He doesn't have to. Here are some examples of when he's listened to me on the big stuff:

1. Selling the house we could no longer afford when he lost his great job and got a not great job.
2. Moving to Oregon.
3. Homeschooling (though now that he's looked more into it he's totally pro homeschooling).
4. Not getting another friggen dog!

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm jealous that your neighbor has a giraffe.  I love giraffes!

 

 

[Garga]

I'm jealous that your neighbor has a giraffe. I love giraffes!

What? Where? Oh, dang. I missed the giraffe. Who was talking about a giraffe?

[Slache]

What? Where? Oh, dang. I missed the giraffe. Who was talking about a giraffe?

 

I was trying to be lighthearted in the midst of a heavy issue. The neighbors don't *actually* have a giraffe. They have a Shitzu.

[TammyS]

When it comes to a mother protecting her kids, I have a hard time seeing how this works on points of serious disagreement. If your husband was verbally mean or physically abusive to your kids, it is your responsibility to keep them safe. If you exclude difficult points of disagreement, like borderline or flat out abusive treatment of children, from your idea of submission it seems to just be a hypothetical thing.

 

I presume that your husband is not unkind to your kids, but what options do you have if he were to be? People change as they age or undergo a health crisis or become stressed. What means do you have to say NO to unkind or unfair treatment of your kids? Not all men and women who adhere to this marriage model are kind and loving parents. I've seen that play out badly and in some cases tragically for too many Christian women. One of the organizations I've worked with is a Christian DV education group and it was eye opening in the extreme.

 

My husband grew up in a DV home. When there were the slightest signs that he was potentially reliving his dad's way of relating to anger and to me as his partner, I packed up and left. Because under no circumstances would that be how my son saw his parents interact. He ultimately found the help he needed and we have been happily back together for 9 years and another child. Any model for marriage that would preclude that is something that I simply could not abide by. It seems immoral and in dereliction of my primal responsibility to protect my children.

 

Without a clear answer to this concern and, unless the OP is looking for such information, it seems an odd first response to make.

 

Did I miss something?  The OP doesn't speak of DV or unkindness to the kids, does she?  Does one naturally jump to "we disagree on parenting" = "DV"?

[UmMusa]

 

I felt it was an appropriate response because I've seen it work well for many families. She asked for different ways on how to handle things, and this is a legitimate method, even if she doesn't come from a belief system that endorses it. Now, about the abuse. In the case of a Christian (and I imagine Muslim) submission to your husband is not about faith in your husband, it's about faith in God. I trust God to take care of me no matter what my husband does, and He tells me to submit to my husband only when my husband is in submission to him. If my husband if beating me, beating my kids, molesting my kids, doing drugs, or having teA with the neighbors giraffe then he is not in submission to God. I can leave the situation.

 

Right on.  I agree with the bolded part.  I am free to leave my husband and any abusive marriage lickety-split.  I have God given rights that no man/husband can take away.  I think the 'defer to the husband' part works in a healthy marriage that has good communication and mutual trust and respect.  People tend to jump to the conclusion that it means you're getting abused, but that's hardly the reality.  But we do use religious convictions as parameters for what's ok and not ok, so I'm not going to stick around if DH starts doing things that are outside of those.  If my husband breaks from that religious bond then I don't feel bound to him either.

 

OP, differing parenting styles stinks.  it's happened often, but like some said previously, if it's small enough stuff, then it kind of depends on who is with the kids.  If it's a bigger deal, then it might be worth talking about it and finding an agreeable solution. Hope it gets better... there are so many big decisions to make with kids!

[LucyStoner]

Did I miss something? The OP doesn't speak of DV or unkindness to the kids, does she? Does one naturally jump to "we disagree on parenting" = "DV"?

No, I am not assuming that is part and parcel with the OP. I am assuming that the solution suggestion leaves women and children unprotected.

 

There are plenty of things a mother might need to stand her ground on when it comes to her kids when it has nothing to do with DV. Say my son needs speech therapy (true). Dude gets speech therapy and no, I would not defer if my husband thought that speech therapy was a waste of money or time. If a mother would defer that or a similar decision on the basis of her gender, I worry about her and her kids.

[LucyStoner]

I felt it was an appropriate response because I've seen it work well for many families. She asked for different ways on how to handle things, and this is a legitimate method, even if she doesn't come from a belief system that endorses it. Now, about the abuse. In the case of a Christian (and I imagine Muslim) submission to your husband is not about faith in your husband, it's about faith in God. I trust God to take care of me no matter what my husband does, and He tells me to submit to my husband only when my husband is in submission to him. If my husband if beating me, beating my kids, molesting my kids, doing drugs, or having teA with the neighbors giraffe then he is not in submission to God. I can leave the situation.

 

It is still submission because he's the one that makes the decision. He doesn't have to. Here are some examples of when he's listened to me on the big stuff:

• Selling the house we could no longer afford when he lost his great job and got a not great job.
• Moving to Oregon.
• Homeschooling (though now that he's looked more into it he's totally pro homeschooling).
• Not getting another friggen dog!

What if your husband is a authoritatarian parent who isn't abusive in the ways you describe but yells and spanks over minor things you don't agree with? What if he wanted to move every year and the instability was hurting your kids? What about your child's healthcare decisions? Someone could be in submission to God and still be making decisions that are a big problem for their spouse and kids.

 

Look, I firmly believe that you have the right to live as you see fit. I also don't reckon that you would let yourself be harmed. I also firmly believe that the suggestion you offer frequently for most any marriage related question is inequitable and can be very problematic in and of itself, even when the husband is generally a decent dude. It's more complicated than saying "I submit to my husband." When someone is not asking for a religious framework like that, it just seems like an extreme suggestion to offer up given the potential troubles. I'm sure my posts come from a place of overthinking the dynamics and the limitless numbers of what ifs that I see in this scenario. My husband and I had a good long conversation about this last night so if nothing else, thanks for the thoughtful convo topic.

 

ETA-

 

None of the things you list seem like things that would cause large differences of opinion. If you can't afford your house, you can't afford your house and moving is not really a choice. Moving another state without place bound infirm relatives (I presume for a job) is an economic reality. Homeschooling is hypothetical at your kids ages (and if he said they were going to school in a year or two or daycare now, which you have said you are strongly opposed to, would they really go to school or daycare?) and a dog is of the whoever wants the fewest number ultimately decides IMO.

[Slache]

What if your husband is a authoritatarian parent who isn't abusive in the ways you describe but yells and spanks over minor things you don't agree with? What if he wanted to move every year and the instability was hurting your kids? What about your child's healthcare decisions? Someone could be in submission to God and still be making decisions that are a big problem for their spouse and kids.

 

Look, I firmly believe that you have the right to live as you see fit. I also don't reckon that you would let yourself be harmed. I also firmly believe that the suggestion you offer frequently for most any marriage related question is inequitable and can be very problematic in and of itself, even when the husband is generally a decent dude. It's more complicated than saying "I submit to my husband." When someone is not asking for a religious framework like that, it just seems like an extreme suggestion to offer up given the potential troubles. I'm sure my posts come from a place of overthinking the dynamics and the limitless numbers of what ifs that I see in this scenario. My husband and I had a good long conversation about this last night so if nothing else, thanks for the thoughtful convo topic.

 

ETA-

 

None of the things you list seem like things that would cause large differences of opinion. If you can't afford your house, you can't afford your house and moving is not really a choice. Moving another state without place bound infirm relatives (I presume for a job) is an economic reality. Homeschooling is hypothetical at your kids ages (and if he said they were going to school in a year or two or daycare now, which you have said you are strongly opposed to, would they really go to school or daycare?) and a dog is of the whoever wants the fewest number ultimately decides IMO.

I don't feel that my response was an extreme suggestion at all. I was just trying to help. We moved out here without jobs, solely because I was unhappy in Cincinnati, and yes I would have put my kids in school.