The original poster (OP) has been divorced for 12 years and shares two children, aged 15 and 17, with her ex-husband. Contact between the OP and her ex is usually kept to necessary communication only, primarily via text message.
Recently, the OP sent a text to her ex regarding a necessary purchase for their oldest child, intending to prevent the ex from purchasing the same item. The situation escalated when the OP insisted that her ex include her fiancé in all future communications, stating the fiancé is part of her decision-making process and that excluding them shows a lack of respect. The ex-husband pushed back, calling the OP childish for her request, leading the OP to question whether she is wrong for refusing to message both parties.
Ex-husband “requesting” I message in a group-text with his fiancé
As renowned relationship expert Dr. John Gottman notes regarding conflict resolution, “The best way to resolve a conflict is not to try to change each other’s minds, but to change the way you talk about the issue.”
The OP is attempting to establish a new boundary around co-parenting communication to reflect her current partnership structure, insisting that her fiancé be included as they make decisions jointly. This is an effort to achieve parity and respect in her present life structure. However, communication protocols between divorced parents should ideally prioritize the children’s welfare and minimize conflict. The OP’s history suggests that including the fiancé transforms logistical texts into a potential two-on-one confrontation, which she understandably wishes to avoid. The ex-husband’s reaction, labeling her request as ‘childish’ and ‘ridiculous,’ indicates resistance to accommodating the OP’s current relationship dynamics within the co-parenting framework.
While the OP has a right to dictate communication terms with her fiancé, imposing this structure on necessary co-parenting exchanges with her ex may be counterproductive, especially when the history shows it invites hostility. A more constructive approach might involve setting up separate communication channels or agreeing on a communication structure that strictly limits discussions to the children’s needs, perhaps excluding the fiancé unless the subject directly involves them, thereby lowering the emotional temperature for all parties involved.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The core conflict lies in the OP’s strong desire to enforce the inclusion of her fiancé in all co-parenting communications, viewing it as a matter of respect and partnership in her current life. This clashes directly with the ex-husband’s persistent refusal and his negative reaction to this boundary, which he perceives as unnecessary complexity or childishness.
Given the history where joint communication has led to combative, two-against-one scenarios, should the OP maintain her demand for her fiancé’s inclusion in all texts, or is she escalating the situation by insisting on this specific communication protocol with her ex-spouse?
