Tomorrow is March. What's wrong with just ignoring the question for a few days and letting him know your intentions by serving him with the papers?

Oops, not tomorrow but the next day...:)

End of March--the 21st.

Hmmm. Three weeks...I'll defer to others on that. A week wouldn't be such a big deal. Can you just blow it off and see if he asks again?

If I were in your shoes, I would not agree to the post-nup if it would complicate divorce proceedings. I would just file. It's odd to me that he hasn't, but then again my WW didn't file either. She just wanted to make life very difficult for me until I did.

Either way you (like me) don't seem to want to play the game of waiting forever for WS to come out of the fog. I'd ignore whatever he wants and file ASAP.

No she should not mention anything about your intention to file. You can just ignore him about the post nup. I wouldn't respond.

If I remember correctly there was language in the post-nup about you not having any future claims on his writings...I don't think you would anyway since this would be a future event but maybe that is why he is on the post-nup wagon again. Or he's just trying to talk to you about something just for the sake of contact. Whatever his motives, I would not sign anything and I wouldn't waste money paying the lawyer to talk to him either.

Have you found a local attorney yet?

My WH asked for a post-nup just to spin out the process. After two years of back and forth negotiations I signed it and then filed for divorce. I am still waiting for my share of the division of marital assets laid out in the contract we both signed. The document turned out to be useless. He is in contempt of court but that does not seem to bother him. He is even trying to grab my house via the appellate process.

I agree with Axe, file as soon you are permitted to do so if you know you want a divorce. Give him nothing until the divorce is final so that you have as many bargaining chips as you need in case he tries anything on over your child. He knows that is his strongest weapon and no doubt will try to use it at some stage.

Don't mess with Piglet :-)

My lawyer has been trying to stall since January actually.

I hate the idea of a divorce, but I hate being married but not married even more. Yeah, I live 500 miles away. He doesn't seem to have any plans to move or reconcile, so we should definitely file at this point.

I totally get this, I feel the same way. I decided I wasn't going to continue giving the best years of my life to someone who isn't going to even try to have a relationship of extraordinary care.

^ Bingo! It's just a waste of time at this point. We have only been married 5 years and I'd like to have more kids (but who knows if that will happen).

He isn't even pretending to care and I live 500 miles away...so what's the point?

I need to change his weekend Skype call to Saturday. This is something he requested a month ago, but I just sat on it. Now it has become more convenient for me to do it on that day. OK for my IM to pass along?

Anything that's good for you is OK. That's what your IM is for.

It was fine until he asked why and my IM told him. I told her it was fine, but it not give details next time.

My lawyer is proposing that as a compromise to my husband's sweeping non-disparagement language, we put in language that states "one parent won't disparage the other to the child or allow a third party to do so."

What do you guys think? On the one hand, I think this is fine since I don't disparage him to her. On the other, I am afraid he'll use this to say that I am "emotionally damaging" her for telling her the truth.

What is it with waywards and "non-disparagement" clauses? I'd like to see the advice on this, too. My lawyer is proposing removal, but he said they probably won't agree.

This is like a normal thing in parenting agreements--but is limited to only talking about the parent to the child. On the one hand, it's fine. It's in line with MB principles. I don't say anything bad about him to her. HOWEVER, I will not shield her from her reality. She already knows in terms she can understand that he left because he is pursuing a relationship outside of marriage.

My lawyer would never agree to the sweeping non-disparagement clause that says I can't tell anyone anything. That is just dumb. They just want to shield themselves from the truth.

Interesting. We don't have kids, but the clause they've proposed is general and sweeping.

I don't think such a clause is a big deal. After the divorce, you don't want to be talking about your ex anyway so to some degree it helps keep a person from letting him/herself go there...KWIM? There are still ways to talk to a child without disparaging an ex...and it helps children develop critical thinking skills.

I don't have such a clause in my decree but I do have the exclusive right to the moral and religious training of my children. If something like infidelity or lying is discussed, I don't bring up my ex but the kids know he cheated and lied. I'm not going to lie to them either. Consider getting something worded in there about moral guidance. Kids will figure stuff out and don't have to be literally told...hey your're mom/dad is an ^%%$#@ or whatever.

The burden of proof to prove disparaging remarks would be on him too. Unless a parent is putting stuff in writing to the child, calling the other parent names, etc it is difficult to prove. The parent would have to file contempt. The cost of going to court probably outweights the slap on the wrist or warning that the other parent would get. It would have to be an over-the-top situation to enforce this IMO.

Got it BR.

I'll take your advice. I've gotten worked up over these things in the past, but it hasn't been worth it. Your advice has been good.

I think it's something that looks very appealing to a wayward on first sighting - but it's probably of most benefit to the betrayed spouse.

I'm thinking of a friend who never knew about his mother's affair which broke up his parents as babies. He had to listen to his mother constantly berating his father for imagined faults growing up. He was mystified given that his father was in a happy second marriage.

Given that you won't be talking to your H or about your H (and won't even have any idea if he later reforms). Any information you give her about affairs will be factual - and I presume you will also warn her that anyone can fall prey to affairs. You'd also be encouraging her to talk to her dad about any concerns.

I would just ask your lawyer if this will in any way debar you from telling your daughter factual truths.