Thanks, kids

Wow, thats a crappy reason to get divorced..

YDI for leaving your husband. i would hate you too bitch

What a terrible wife :( So much for a love bond and more for materialism. I doubt she brought it to his attention, if she did then that sucks that he's so stingy. ____________________________________ www.myspace.com/rapid99

YDi; for lying to your kids about who was really giving them their presents...ya damn liarrrrrr.! lmao

@Starchild: It is not materialism. It's called financial support and it's needed in marriage, especially with kids.

i believe OP was referring to the fact that the father has never covered any of the expenses of raising the children. hence "he has literally never bought anything for them." OP - so let your kids live with their dad. not only will he be forced to start paying for them, they'll find out he's not as great as they think he is and come running back to you.

this just seems weird....he has to pay for something right? The house, the car, something, or else where does his money go? drugs and hookers? (if so I would add that to the FML). More info would have been nice, because if he wastes his money and you carry the house, the gifts, everything, that is one thing; but if he pays for the house, etc but never any gifts, then that is a stupid reason to get divorced.

#91, the guy could easily be one of those guys who sits on his butt all day at home while the woman works, and since the kids see him more and all, they favor him without realizing the mom is the one working etc. to support them.

Why do people assume that she meant "never bought anything" as in the materialistic or excessive things? Yes, that would be a crappy reason to want a divorce. However, a little reading comprehension should tell you that if the husband has literally never bought his children anything, he probably doesn't contribute much of anything to the cost of living and the cost of raising the children, which would be a pretty valid reason to divorce if he's not doing anything else like being the primary caretaker. The way this was written, it seems like he hasn't been doing much and she's been covering up for him. But go ahead. Call the woman a bitch, because that makes so much sense.

I agree. You're one hell of a bitch if you think someone not buying someone else presents is enough of a reason for a divorce. Way to be a materialistic bitch.

Today, my wife told my kids that we're getting a divorce. Fortunately, they were on my side. But the reason we're divorcing??? I can't get a job (recession) and buy things for my kids. FML

All these comments are good. It really can go either way...the guy could be a deadbeat asshole with a nice wife who covered for him for too long, or the woman could be a materialistic bitch who doesnt realize that the husband can't get a job or his money goes to other things.

> Why do people assume that she meant "never bought anything" as in the > materialistic or excessive things? Because that's what she said, the dim bint.

@#97 "#91, the guy could easily be one of those guys who sits on his butt all day at home while the woman works, and since the kids see him more and all, they favor him without realizing the mom is the one working etc. to support them." I like how when a woman is a stay at home mom, she's seen as someone who works very hard to take care of her kids, though she doesn't have a job. Which is true. But when a man is a stay at home dad he's seen as a "guy who sits on his butt all day." And judging from the children's reactions, they are very young and need a stay at home parent. So if she's going to work, he's definitely doing a lot at home, and working probably harder than her even if he has no job. So stop being so god damn sexist.

haha, your presents suck so bad that they would rather have nothing

^ this. It'll give you some time off.

Did that with my kids and payed for everything for them. And after she lived with the guy she cheated on me with for about a month she came running back.

Yeah but it's usually the woman who don't work or just spends and runs around.

that is a dumb reason... but anyways, they're young what do you expect? suck it up. they'll change their minds eventually

Uhm, does he perhaps pay any bills, or for food. Isn't having a roof over your head and food to eat a gift?

*****

wow yea he deserves better. Especially at their age when the greatest present is the box the tv came in.

#20 how old are they exactly?

Maybe "literally never bought anything for them" includes food, shelter, clothing and so forth. You know, literally never bought anything for them. The words the OP used? Sound familiar? Not supporting the children / family at all is a far more valid reason for divorce than just never buying them presents.

Ah you beat me down to it, Pauly. It kind of annoys me that most people commenting here keep pointing out the mother as the one at fault. Ah well. Really, who cares about all the BS the rest of the people here are saying? I hope the children go with the mother.. The children won't have it easy if they go with their father apparently.

she very clearly says “one of many”

yeah really, setting a good example for the kids with that one, dick

#3 is absolutely right, based on OP's comments. Someway, somehow, the kids have a different perception of their father... certainly better than the perception of the mother.

if they were my kids I would let them live with him for a year and see how his presents are without mommy getting them and putting the fathers name on them!

Perhaps, but that is what she said, in her one-shot at an FML.

That's what she said!

You are God.

XDDD

i didn't know people could be a "stupid ******* reason". =)

Wow, you really know how to read don't you? Maybe what she means is that the father never does anything for the children. Maybe he doesn't care about them, or take care of them like a father should. Parents should always share the finiacial part of raising kids. So next time think before you respond. Who knows maybe your right and she's talking about extra things that aren't needed. Either way you shouldn't make assumptions.