Stepmoms / Bio Moms Debate

Having a slow day in the office and came across un update on the situation that I thought relates as debate worthy here - but has probably been touched on in some way.  I just think this might be a good example of how a BM may perhaps incorrectly ASSUME SM is the one pulling the reigns.  In this particular case, I think the media is contributing to the appearance that Sandra Bullock is leading this effort merely because she is a bigger name than her DH, so she is the one put in the headlines.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20318091,00.html

Do you think its common for BMs to make a mis-assumption that a custody battle is initiated by SM??  Why?

Why do you think it is not reverse (A BD assumes SD wants to take over his parenting role)??

I think it is a common misconception.  I think moms are very territorial over their children and perhaps by nature a little more insecure or sensitive (for lack of better words) and controlling over their place in their loved ones lives, while men are by nature a little more reserved and secure.  This could also be said in a bf/gf relationship.  IMO Men just dont tend to seem as threatened by other men "taking over" their role in their womans' or thier kids' life.

Oh...and if you have good debatable items to add to this article, please do.

Hasn't Bullock already involved herself into the dispute between these two parents?

That's what was stated in another inet article.  I don't think a blanket assertion that Moms assume a custody battle is instigated by SM is valid.  My ex instigated a custody challenge under his own name and I didn't assume any involvement by the SM--I had no idea whether she was in agreement with his actions or not.

I don't know much about that sitch, but I will respond generally.

If a step-parent wants to be left out of it, then s/he should stay out of it.  S.B. was apparently writing letters to the court.  So she involved HERSELF.  My DH stays out of it, so I would be pissed if Ex tried to drag him into it just to bully me. 

To summarize:  If you wanna be left out of it, STAY out of it.  If you can't stay out of it, don't expect to be left out of it. 

That seems simple enough.

Do you think its common for BMs to make a mis-assumption that a custody battle is initiated by SM??  Why?

I think it depends.  Did dad fight for custody before he remarried?  If not, why was mom good enough to be the CP until he remarried?  Why did he wait until he was remarried to fight for his children or to change custody? 

Now, if he did this before the new wife showed up, mom might be assuming incorrectly, but if dad waits until there is a SM there, she might be on to something... maybe SM isnt' saying "fight, fight, fight" or anything, but she could be encouraging him to try to get custody in other ways.

As for the Sandra Bullock case, I did read a little on it... from what I read she has made claims herself about mom, from her, not from dad.  She seems to have inserted herself a bit into it.  I dont' think it all media hype (although I'm sure apart of it is). 

<<If a step-parent wants to be left out of it, then s/he should stay out of it.  S.B. was apparently writing letters to the court.  So she involved HERSELF.>>

When my DH went to court, he asked various people to write a statement (teachers, neighbors, coaches, etc) on their first hand view on how DSD thrived under his care.  I had one ready for him to use as well if needed, but lawyer preferred to have me give a direct verbal account if it came into the courtroom.  I see S.B’s statement as being no different than this.