Stepmonster

This is really sad to me and I feel like there are missing pieces in the media frenzy surrounding it. It's sad to me that because one is known in Hollywood they seem more "reputable" to make claims of an unfit mother. (And as a stepmom myself, I find it rather disturbing how many stepmoms claims the moms of their stepchildren are unfit. Really?!? Perhaps it has a little to do with the perception.)

I agree it shouldn't be Superstar Stepmom vs Pornstar Mom. It sounds like both the mom AND the dad have some rough history there that should be looked at. It's too bad that these people claiming to want what's best for this little girl can't see the best thing they can do is try to work together rather than going on national tv.

Yet another example of gender inequality if you ask me! Besides, Sandra Bullock is the golden girl so James becomes innocent by proxy, but you're right, he's as much as a deadbeat as Lindemauder. Although it's nice to see a situation where the stepmother is not being viewed as the evil one!

I'm still not entirely sure what The Bullock is doing with Jesse James though?? Bizzaro.

B x

I just want to comment on one specific point made, re: Sandra Bullock claiming she has chosen not to have children in order to focus on Sunny.

From what I understand, her claim was in response to accusations made by the biological mother that SB isn't able to have children. For childless step-mothers, this is familiar and painful territory and an area that needs to be addressed when discussing post-divorce dynamics. A re-partnership is formed out of a failed relationship, and in some cases the only way a 'spurned' biological parent can reassert legitimacy is by casting the step-mother as a sterile, infertile woman. I endure this constantly from the biological mother of my partner's children, and it is difficult to admit that it has been extremely damaging, embarassing and I am now at the stage where I am a bit worried that it will lead to a self-fulling prophecy.

So, even if SB's comments are an exaggeration, I understand them. What else are you supposed to say when put on the spot like that? If you answer, 'I don't want children,' then it discredits the mother aspect of step-mother. If you say, 'I want children very much, but...', then it provides the biological mother with some very psychologically damaging ammo. But yes, it's a shame that the father's agency in the situation has been ignored.

I did, I thought you were going to give him a pass. My VERY thoughts were "hey, isn't HE a tattooed, thrice married guy who was happy to be married to a PORN star". He married her, she was ok then but now he decides she is an awful role model for his daughter. Maybe she is, I don't know but I do know it's pretty self-serving on his side. He and Sandra Bullock have plenty of money, the ex and HIS child(ren) do not need to live in a seedy part of town. He is obviously being punative.

I'm actually sickened by it becuase I have been there. I have been the mom who is sued for custody by the ex and his new wife. I too had the 'she lives in a bad part of town' stuff thrown at me. Geez, ya think? I was giving MY ALL to pay the mortgage and put food on the table and love my kid. My kid, by the way is now 27, a university grad (went on a partial athletic scholarship) and a sweet, darling man. My ex and the 2nd wife (now long divorced) have both had multiple more kids and plenty of drug and alcohol problems with those kids.

Nuff said about that.

Sandra Bullock should be VERY careful she isn't competing against the mom because it sounds to me like she is.

I'm a stepmom now by the way. My new husband and his ex get along very well. Wish I could have been more like them. It IS better for the kids and you must let her parent the way she wants to - HELP her, don't try and take the kids. It will back-fire for Sandra Bullock, she seems like a decent woman but lots of hell is in store for her if she continues along with this. The kid will turn against her, guaranteed.

I have seen similar mentalities in my private practice. A husband and his new wife thinking they know "best" at the mother's expense (I refuse to say bio mother unless an adoption has taken place...she is the Mother). Whether we like it or not, agree with it or not, there are many who have children where one of the parent is a little bit off, but not enough to take them to court for child abuse or neglect. We do our children a disservice by trying to shield them from the parent we don't find to be adequate enough. This is their parent, for better or for worse, and the focus is more productive when it is centered around the tools we can give to our children for them to best handle the difficult people and situations in our life, including their parents.

If there is obvious child abuse or neglect, the solution is simple. The parent perpetuating abuse or neglect will not only lose their rights to custody, but will be facing a criminal offense as well.

In this case, the mother is fighting for her right to get herself together and be a mother to her child. She should be given that opportunity if she can meet the requirements by the courts to be a fit parent. Children are obviously much more attached to their parents than anyone else that comes into their lives.

I also agree with what was most missing about this story and that is the father! Why do we so often let fathers off the hook and instead focus on the "bad" mother? A blatant form of sexism.

I also fear that Sandra Bullock is offering herself up as some kind of "sacrificial lamb" for the "sake" of the child. Utterly ridiculous and what a way to have a kid feel like they are the center of the universe. This will not equip them well for real life.

Stimulating and provocative post as always Wednesday.

finally - a voice of reason

We're talking about drugs people. DRUGS. Lindemulder has only expressed a desire to get better. Passing ONE drug test does not mean she's better. Recovery is a very long and hard road, process in which many people fail. If she truly wants to get better - fantastic. Then she can get better and have access to her child in a way that is safe for her daughter until she has proven she is fit - i.e. at least a year of sobriety, holding down a steady job, providing a stable home, and staying out of jail. If she can do that - great. No one is saying she shouldn't have access to her child. And should she indeed get better, no one is saying she shouldn't have custody. This is about protecting the child, not the mother. In order to keep this child safe, the bio mom (becuase not everyone who births a child is a MOTHER) needs to prove without a doubt that she is committed to sobriety and a stable life style. And if she really and truly had her child's best interests at heart she would be doing this and not going on GMA and acting the victim.

I am actually very surprised by this post. I find that speaking to media rhetoric and manipulation for shock value and ratings is quite a step back. Neither one of us has or walks in James and Lundemulder's shoes. We do NOT know why he walked away from her while she was pregnant or even the degree to which that is true or not. For all we know, Lundemulder could be coached by her lawyers to use this forum to further her position as the sorryful victim and single mother who is now being targeted by the "tattooed ex porn-lover" ex-husband and celebrity stepmom. Lord knows how often women use the "I'm a single mother" plight to further her own selfish and irresponsible gains. By the way, I believe that a true "single mother" is one that did it alone truly. Without an ex's support on any level. Those women who collect alimony and child support do not fall under this category, because they are NOT doing it alone truly. Further, I'm quite surprised with the comment that James can "easily remedy" Lundemulder's living situation. Since when is it the responsibility of the ex-husband to continue supporting a woman he no longer is married to and/or partnering with outside of the already court-ordered support? We all know that the last thing someone with a drug problem needs is to continue to be enabled on any level. These thought processes reveal the slew of women out there who have children to secure their financial future versus getting there on their own and when that financial security is threatened with divorce and remarriages; the claws come out in full force. Another important point being missed here is the fact of how biased the court system is towards father's rights and perhaps it is this bias that leaves only one position for a father to take in order to secure his rights and that is reveal every dirty detail. Especially, when taken into account, the amount of opportunities a mother gets in court to redeem herself after every countless fall. However, this is never the case for the father. In my own experience, I found it amazing how women feel they have the right to reveal a father's flaws but how hell breaks loose when her secrets are revealed...someone has to pay for that and if the court will not rectify...she will. Hence, the years of parental alienation tactics used on the children to kill their relationship with their father; the other half of themselves. Not sure what was gained or is being gained here

As someone who has had infertility treatment and a child as a result, I find it sad when people past childbearing age or are on the cusp (late 30's, early 40's) are deemed barren. There would be a much higher percentage of "infertile" people out there if we all waited until we were 35 to have kids. I have to laugh at the statement Sandra Bullock made saying that she gave up having a child of her own to devote herself to her stepdaughter and the situation. Sandra Bullock is 45 years old, she has just past childbearing age. She married her husband at age 41. If she had any intention of having children, she would have had them already or she would have tried immediately upon marriage. Maybe she did try on her own and sadly could not get pregnant or keep a pregnancy due to her age, or maybe she did use infertility treatments but that did not work either, so she is playing the card that she is sacrificing for her husband and stepdaughter. Or maybe she does not want children and that was the best thing to say to the press because society looks down upon women who do not want to have children. Who knows. This is a custody battle between two lowlifes but one lowlife has a ton of money to spend on lawyers and positive press because of his very wealthy and famous wife. Money equals power, even in the biased family court system. A child needs both parents, not the parent who has the most money.

Jesse has his nerve! He knew what Janine did for a living before he married her and had a baby with her! NOW it's detrimental?!