A Reddit marriage hit the weirdest speed bump, “We’re divorcing” followed by “Can you call my bank?”
The OP says his wife has asked for a divorce, not a separation, and she wants boundaries. Clear message, clean cut, new chapter, right?
Except she’s overseas for the Army and turns off her U.S. phone plan, so she asks him to handle calls with her bank and car dealership about a loan and lien paperwork. Suddenly, he’s back in the spouse role, doing spouse errands, for someone who just told him to stop being her spouse.
He says he feels uncomfortable, and he declines.
She fires back with guilt-heavy lines about him only helping when it benefits him, and she says she’ll “figure out” her life alone.
And then, in an update that turns the comment section into a bonfire, OP adds heavy context about why this marriage got so broken in the first place.
The original question looks simple. The full story definitely does not.
Now, read the full story:
When couples move toward divorce, the logistics feel deceptively ordinary. Phone calls. Paperwork. Account access. Loan documents. That normal-looking stuff can trap people in abnormal emotional roles.
If one partner says, “We need boundaries,” they are basically asking for a new operating manual. Boundaries do not exist to punish anyone. They exist to stop confusion, reduce conflict, and keep each person responsible for their own life.
The Gottman Institute talks about separation ground rules in a practical way, set boundaries and expectations, define what contact looks like, and avoid unplanned involvement that creates more friction.
In OP’s case, the request was not “Can you relay a message?” The request was “Can you interact with my bank and dealership about my loan paperwork?” That crosses into financial authority. Even in healthy divorces, financial entanglement causes some of the nastiest fights, because money equals safety, power, and control.
Now add deployment and limited phone access. Now add two years of resentment and betrayal and conflict. Now add a child in the middle. You get a situation where almost any request can feel loaded. There is also a broader divorce reality that matters here.
High-conflict separations are a known category. Psychology Today notes that studies vary, but some estimates place high-conflict separations around 20 percent.
High-conflict does not mean “two people who dislike each other.” It means repeated escalation, looping arguments, and constant boundary violations. You can see why commenters reacted so hard once OP shared the backstory.
A boundary is harder to trust when the person setting it previously broke trust in major ways. That does not mean the boundary becomes invalid. It means the delivery and the structure matter more.
So what does “reasonable” look like, in a way that stays AdSense-clean and real-life useful?
First, separate emotional support from practical support. If OP wants a clean break, he can still say, “I hope you get this sorted,” without becoming the person who fixes it.
Second, use a narrow, written boundary. Something like: “I won’t call banks or dealerships for you. If it relates to our child, message me and I’ll respond within 24 hours.” That kind of boundary removes room for guilt-tripping, because it turns the relationship into a predictable system.
Third, shift to tools that do not require him. Banks and dealerships usually offer secure messages, email, online portals, power-of-attorney forms, or international calling options. If she truly cannot call, she can authorize a trusted friend, a family member, or a legal representative.
Fourth, if they share a child, keep contact child-focused.
The American Bar Association has discussed co-parenting counseling as a way to create a more constructive communication path for separated parents. That matters because “Can you call my bank?” can slide into “Can you manage my life?” and then slide into “Why are you abandoning me?” and then slide into a fight the kid eventually feels.
Finally, the accountability piece. OP admitted cheating and physical harm. Those are not footnotes. If OP wants to exit the fixer role, he should also exit the self-justifying role. He can say, plainly, “I harmed you. I accept the divorce. I will co-parent responsibly. I will not manage your finances.” That message avoids revenge energy. It also avoids false closeness.
The core lesson is simple to say, hard to live. Divorce means each person handles their own adult tasks, unless a court order or co-parenting need requires coordination. Clarity feels cold at first. Then it becomes relief.
Check out how the community responded:
Bold boundary crowd showed up like, “Divorce means DIY, bestie.” They basically said her “I’ll figure it out” line is the point, and he should stop answering spouse requests.
Then came the accountability pile-on, the “sir, you cannot do damage and then act shocked” crew. They treated the bank call like a tiny “clean up your mess” tax.
And one commenter basically laughed through the smoke, because the “simple bank call” question got buried under a whole novel of backstory.
This post feels like two conversations stacked on top of each other. Conversation one is clean and relatable. If someone asks for divorce and boundaries, you do not want to keep doing spouse work. That instinct makes sense.
Conversation two is the one that detonated the thread. When you add cheating, verbal abuse, and physical harm, people stop viewing “help” as neutral. They start viewing it as accountability, debt, and repair.
Still, divorce boundaries exist for a reason.
If both people keep leaning on each other for non-child, non-emergency tasks, the separation turns into a blurry half-marriage. That blur breeds more resentment. A healthier path usually looks boring. Child-related communication stays. Financial and personal errands move to the person who owns them, or to legal channels.
So what do you think? Should OP keep a hard boundary on spouse-level favors, even with the history involved? Or does the context make the “simple call” feel like the bare minimum?
